Apollo BBS Archive

Apollo BBS Archive - May 1, 1990

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 6403
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 20:15:19

"Gee, this is progress huh?"
 
No, actually, Rod says it's called e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n...
Where things are supposed to progress into better beings et al...
 

Message: 6404
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 21:08:51

  I repeat, I did not make any statement to the effect that Christianity is
not in vogue. I said that it is no longer in vogue to invent new gods. I do
include the surviving gods along with those no longer worshipped as probably
having been invented to explain the otherwise unexplainable. This in no way
substantiates your misquote. Maybe there is some confusion as to what it
means for something to be in vogue. In the sense that I used it, it is
synonymous with 'fashionable'. I think you would agree that creating new
gods is out of fashion, but Christianity is still very widely accepted.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 6405
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Look Ann
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 22:22:40

        So I come down on you...  Anytime I defend myself agaist Rod or
anyone... you are ALWAYS on my back.   I do not even mention the word Bible
and you post a message that "I" am unfair and "I" am quoting from a book
over two thousand years old.... And when I point out I am quoting form
science books....  you tell me I am suppose to know what you mean, and you
do not think it is fair...????  Well if you don't like being 'come down
hard' on, then maybe you should not get involved.  What you call 'fair' is
for me to give up and agree with everyone, with what ever they say!

        Re: "What happened to the 'fair' sysop Cliff?  The one who believed
in free speech on this BBS??"   I see you also think I should just take care
of the hardware and not stand up for my views.  What you call "free Speech"
is for me to let the atheists like Rod take over the board with no opposing
view points.  You don't get upset when they post vulgar posts, only if I
fight back.  The only one who is not allowed free speech on here is Me..
Right Ann?

        Are you the one who sent me that obscene letter under an alias,
telling me to keep my views to myself?  I'm pretty sure it was from and
agnostic or athiest because of the content of hate.  
        
        Where has your 'freedom of speech' been turned off?  You accused me,
so now tell me what I did?  Are any of your posts ZAPped?  NO!  Rod's?  No!
Roger's?  No!  (I know, SysOps should just run hardware...  humph!)

Message: 6406
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: winged reptiles
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 22:54:04

        Pterodactyl, a flying reptile having wings of skin streched along
the body between the hind limb and a very long digit of the forelimb.
A reptile that flys, but not to be confused with the warm blooded
vertebrates (Aves) with wings and feathers.

        Ann, you are talking about two different species that are not
related to each other.  But believe what you want, I just don't care
anymore.

                                        clif-

Message: 6407
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Dean H.
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 01:15:56

My question to you then becomes that of the statement you have made
in your last rebuttal.
"I continue to stand by my appraisal of theism as requiring the ascendency
of faith over reason.."
Do you beleive that once someone has made the connection between himself
and found God that it remains true?
Do you beleive that reason was not a large, if not a majority part of making
the decision to make the leap of faith before hand?
I suspect; (A) You're not sure..and (B) You believe that it requires
the shut-down of reason to continue theism.
In (B), you would be following in suit with non theist
reasoning...precisely why, I contend, they remain in the dark about God.
You see... one isn't born into theism..and this would be the only qualifier
to be a theist...is that at one point or another, you must be a non theist.
There is no evidence to support lack of intelligence on either side...
sucess or failure to be or not to be a theist...much of this bantering is
spent by those unable to engage in thoughtfull discussion.
Why anyone would think so is a personal failure on their part, not mine or
of any other theist.
I had to reason through all of the claims from both ends. It was my ability
to be willing to sample either side without bias that pulled me through.
To find absolute truth, one cannot pretend to search for it.
        -Mike

Message: 6408
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: e-v-o-l-
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 08:04:30

It is a misconception that evolution means that things are supposed to
progress into better beings et al... Evolution states that for any given
environment, the organisms best adapted to that environment survive to pass
their genes on to the next generation. That when the environment changes as
with an ice age or any other cataclysm, those organisms with the appropriate
survival mechanisms will only survice. You and I are here most likely
because our ancestors 600 million years ago had fur all over their bodies,
while the dinosaurs perished in the cataclysm brought on by an asteroid 
impacting the earth.

Message: 6409
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 11:11:02

Calm down Cliffy dear. See my post on the BB telling you to say what you
want. I DON'T think you should ever censer yourself.
No - I did not send you an alias obscene letter. Not my style and I am not
an agnostic or an athiest. 
If I seem to just defend Rod it is because no one seems to take him
seriously. He does make good and valid points (whether I agree with him or
not) but right away, they accuse him of bashing. Yes, he has at times, will
admit that, but at other's, he does not. If people came down on me like they
do him at times, I too would stoop to insults, bashing, etc. etc. Don't we
all in our ways? -=*) ANN (*=-
 
P.S. Do you forget the times I have defended you? Agreed with you?

Message: 6410
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Mike C.
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 15:01:45

  Yes, I am contending that it requires a PARTIAL shutdown of reason to
remain a theist. That should have been quite clear from the beginning. It
does not always require a shutdown of reason to become a theist, because the
indoctrination from an early age leads one to think that it is a reasonable
course because so many others say so. In an individual who has already
developed critical judgement as a habit of mind, it requires a leap of faith
which can not be explained by logic to become a theist. This is readily
admitted by theists all the time. I am surprised that you take such
exception to it when all I am doing is noting that theists are easier
to get along with if this fact is taken into account, and that they are the
better for the pains they take to  prevent that suspension of reason
from affecting other areas of thought.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 6411
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: gods
Date: 05/02/90  Time: 01:53:13

I'd bet that early cavemen during the ice age had to make up a *god in order
to keep from losing it. People invent weird imaginary things all the time to
help them cope.    *(a god or two)  Note: see end of this buffer.

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 65193
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod Williams
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 19:58:20

Your analogy between a God who "Would set stuff up so in a way that
he would have foreknowledge of many who would fail must be..."
 
Well, that's a narrow minded and very limited view I'd say...considering
you still don't want the answer.
What hey? I guess if I use a filter for my coffee grounds I'd be
guilty of the same eh?
Well, I KNOW that a vast majority of the coffee will be wasted...then
again..I dont wanna choke and puke on all of the rest of the garbage
either....he hh heh heh
Simply put; The painful knowledge that a sizable number of people will
remain separated from God is the price from allowing free will.
The freedom to choose to be with him or not.
Sorry you deny that, but that's the facts, Jack.
You can't force someone to love you.

Message: 65194
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean H.
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 20:09:24

I'm glad you clarified your position.
From your original post, I get the impression that removing the vast
majority of any non-logical thought processies was your ideal of
perfection. 
The purely analytical can never achieve perfection...just in the same
way the purely emotional cannot either. It is the balance or lack
of balance between the two which allow us to continue when the other
faculty requires support. Needless to say, there are benefits of having
the ability to completely balance the amount of analytical and emotional
content..although no one has been cited as doing so.
My analogy, contrary to Zaks emotional charge, remain valid for your
initial message...in that you mentioned removing belief and faith systems
from a majority of life desicions need to be removed completely. That
is like saying if someone DOESN't follow this ideal of yours..that they
cannot function. You did not clarify and this led me to believe that
unless someone follows your strict conformity of thought processing that
they are incapable of leading "productive" lives.
You made a arbitrary rule of thought...much like rascism makes arbitrary
rules of what is human and what is not.
We must all strike our own methods which allow us to deal effectively
with life and its events. The manner, method and means of which make us
each and every one, a unique individual...
Generalizing rules of thought only helps to muddy the real process.
        -Mike

Message: 65195
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike C.
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 21:40:03

  I disagree, of course. Noting that someone has chosen to abandon logic for
important decisions bears no comparison to condemning someone because of a
condition of birth. The quality which is being judged, guidance by reason,
is a real and important aspect of life. To attach this same fitness for
judgement to a completely different set{of circumstances, such as skin
color, does not follow. You are saying that if I dare to say that anything
is wrong with belief in the unknowable then I must say that something is
wrong with possessing ethnic traits other than my own. You have established
that I am willing to pass judgement, as every thinking person must do in
their own mind, but you have not, and can not, establish that I pass
judgement on other grounds than I have specified.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65196
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon Little
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 23:47:47

        Unfortunately there is someone who feels intimidated, but I am not
SURE I know who, even though I do have my ideas as to who it is.  Some times
I wish I was not the SysOp so I could really get involved... But I do have
the awareness you speak of, and it does bother me that someone might feel
intimidated to the point they won't post their view.  That hurts, believe it
or not.
        Yes, I would miss it if I had to keep quiet, so I need to find a
middle ground where everyone will be happy.

                                clif-

Message: 65197
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
Subject: Apollo, the Movie
Date: 04/30/90  Time: 23:58:50

        I was hoping someone would suggest a time and date.  Is a week day
night better for you, or a week end night?   The movie is not all that
long...  We could get together as a group (Mike, Gordon, Bob)? or one by one
when ever it was easy for you to make it?

        Bob?
                Gordon?
                                Mike?
        Or get together with Dean Hathaway if that is closer for you.

                                        clif-

Message: 65198
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 00:45:57

Better it be held on a weekend ..either day or night of that two day
period, than to hold it when I cannot attend..namely the nights of
the work week.

Message: 65199
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean H.
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 00:57:26

I too disagree, of course.
It is not the act of actual rascism that makes rascism what it is, but
rather the circumstances under which it can be nutured.
The utilization of a natural thought process, either by choice of a logical
or emotional standpoint is not the issue. The issue is the condemnation
of anything that could be possibly different from your own.
You stated that clearly in your post and have yet to deny it.
More specifically, you cited that without following your ideal method of
thinking that one could not lead a productive life...
Perhaps your own limitations here got the better of you and without
careful consideration, you condemned anyone who doesn't follow this specific
guideline to lead an inferior lifestyle..
My analogy was to illustrate how this model of thought process is completely
without merit except, perhaps, for your own self analysis.
Discrimination doesn't need be the color of skin, eating habits or other
visible features...it can be discrimination for thoughts..the way
of thinking..for ideas...and, as we have seen potently,
faiths, beliefs and idioms.
Your judgemental concept parallels that of rascism in that anything that
does not fit your ideal must be inferior.
 
See you later
        Mike C.

Message: 65200
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger's "sources"
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 06:06:45

 Why read books about "the Book" when "The Book" is all you really need?
 Men have been trying to explain God's WOrd, the Bible, for generations,
usually explaining away those parts they either failed to understand or with
which they disagreed, to the end that virtually every book written about the
Bible is little more than just another opinion, few of which agree on much.
 Through all this, however, the Bible lives, and remains intact. Attacked
from many sides, battered, torn, burned, spat upon, denigrated, defiled and
demeaned, it stands unchanged and unchangeable, a never failing guide to
living according to God's perfect will, a never failing answer to all of
life's problems, a never failing set of principles which, when applied
according to the Word, always produce as claimed.
 Jump on the wagon, Roger, along with all the humanists, gnostics and
self-proclaimed know-it-alls down through the ages. Rape God's Holy Word as
you wish. It will survive your assaults as it has all the others. You,
however, may not stand at the judgement seat quite as unsullied one of these
days for your efforts.

Message: 65201
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Religion
Subject: Religion
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 06:43:16

I don't mind telling you all that the discussion of religion on this BBS
leaves me feeling unhappy.  Christians have a very special belief that in
most cases has made a significant and lasting impact on our lives, a belief
we hold near and dear to our hearts, a belief that has given us joy and
happiness.  We sometimes try to share this joy and happiness with others who
have not experienced it.  In so many cases though, we are accused of
"jamming our faith down the unbelievers throat."  When our belief is
attacked and ridiculed, most believers will try to defend their position. 
Sometimes we are goaded into saying things we regret.  We are told our faith
makes the unbelievers want to puke and other condescending comments the
unbelievers no doubt think are very clever and cute.  To the believer these
remarks cut and hurt though we usually don't admit it.  When someone says my
God whom I love and worship is a Hitler, it pains.  From my view point I see
the unbelievers attacking the faith of the believers.  I see the believers
trying to defend their belief.  I don't not see believers attacking the
unbelief of the unbelievers.  For the most part that is what transpires here
on Apollo.

Message: 65202
Author: Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hans
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:22:57

In my opinion, you are OVERemphasizing sex. If you are going to
deintellectualize a relationship to the point that it becomes just two
animals who can't control their urges, then no wonder there are so many
divorces! I view sexual relations between a committed couple as very
necessary and very important for the relationship. However, I do not believe
that any other factor of the relationship should be placed in subordination
to those sexual relations.
 
Although I do not speak for anyone but myself (and probably most of the
Christians on the board)...YES, God is an important part of our marriage.
Our allegiance is to God first, and then to each other. Of course you are
not going to understand this, and are probably going to start making snide
comments, but you know what? I don't care. At least I am being consistent
with what I believe, and I would think I'd get at least a little respect for
that. And you know what? We have not had a REAL argument since we've been
married? Of course, we have our little squabbles and differences of opinion,
but no voices are raised, and we are generally over them in less than 20
minutes. And yes, we are sexually compatible, but we are also emotionally
and intellectually equal.
 
I don't agree that people should have sex outside of marriage just to make
sure they are compatible. Anyone can have sex. Dogs can have sex. It takes
two responsible, loving, caring individuals to wait until marriage. If it
works out on all other levels, then there is a good chance that the sexual
relationship should come quite easy and quite healthy. If one partner has a
problem sexually, they can always see a counsellor. Perhaps one of them was
abused during their childhood, and that affects their sexual ability. Now,
if that person meets up with another and they get to know each other long
enough that they feel they should have sex, and the one party finds out
about the other's sexual dysfunction, person A is probably going to say "Oh,
great. What do I need to hang around THIS loser for? (He/she) can't even do
it!" and the relationship will probably take a big skyrocket downwards. Now,
I'm can't say this is going to occur with a lot of people, but it happens
more times than not. The person with the sexual problem is dumped (probably
yet AGAIN), and the feeling of self-worth drops down another peg. They most
likely feel that is something that is their fault, when in all actuality, it
could have been, like I said, a past sexual abuse, or perhaps a medical
dysfunction requiring treatment. But with such a heavy emphasis on sexual
performance, this person is most likely going to get dumped on romantically
for the rest of his/her life.
 
As for the other matters (personal quirks), most of those will likely come
out in a period of extended dating and/or engagament. A person can easily
put on their best for the first two or three months, but after that, if they
have little idiosyncracies, they will probably start to seep back into their
lifestyle. And if they do, and they affect the other half of the prospective
couple, they should be able to work out a mutual agreement over what should
be done. If not, then this could mean potential trouble in the future.

Your response re: Women's Singles Ad shows that "me-first" attitude that a
lot of modern couples take (both sides) when going into a relationship. This
is a sad by-product of our society, where every man on television is either
handsome and worshipped, or nerdy and demeaned. Style has taken over
substance. Looks and money and sexual ability take precedence over
personality, intellect, sincerity and compassion. Before I got married, I
met many women that the general male public would consider "less than
physically acceptable." I got to know them and in a lot of cases found a
much more beautiful person than most of these cover-girl cuties that are
beautiful and therefore manipulative because of it. (Notice I said "most" -
I have met some women whose inner beauty was just as wonderful as their
outward appearance.)
 
Anyone who puts limitations on the people they meet/date, their
relationships are going to, as a result, be limited. Maybe not physically,
but SOMETHING is going to be compromised.

Message: 65205
Author: Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Creator
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:49:19

Many "good" people are NOT unable to. They don't WANT to. There is a big
difference there.

Message: 65206
Author: Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:51:56

So, I take it you have done quite a bit of hopping around from religion to
religion? That could explain your confusion.

Message: 65207
Author: Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: $HIELDS - ARGH!
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:53:31

I forgot what being non-$tatus was like. This is really going to hamper the
continued flow of responses to those I need to reply to. If for some reason
I don't seem to respond to a certain post, please try again. Or maybe we
could continue a particular discussion in mail?

Message: 65208
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: the book
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:58:19

That's funny. unchanged and unchagngeable. Ho, Ho, Ho. 

Message: 65209
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: religion
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:59:07

I think there is entirely too much whining on the board.

Message: 65210
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Westfall
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 08:39:55

        Hopping around from religion to religion?   Not hardly!  Where did
you dig that thought from?   I have been a Christian for quite a few years,
a lot longer then you have been alive.

                        clif-

Message: 65211
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: The SYSOP Speaks
Subject: WELCOME
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 08:57:20

        Let's welcome Apollo's newest member, John Cummings (a real person)
to Apollo.  

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

Message: 65212
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon on women
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 10:48:16

I agree with Melissa's post #65186 100%! Also, In my opinion, I won't buy
Playgirl simply because they will not show what I want to see! If we cannot
see a male erection, then it is not even close to comparable magazines such
as Hustler & Playboy - which shows just about EVERYTHING! I've often
wondered what kind of camera they use for those 'IN DEPTH' pix. 
                          -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65213
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on ground
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 10:54:05

Why do you feel that you must hold a middle ground? I'd like you to cut
loose like everyone else does around here. Why not? I see no real enemies
made by all of us expressing ourselves. Your freedom should be the same as
ours. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65214
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on marriage
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 11:01:09

I cannot say that I would consider marrying someone with out first having a
sexual relationship - but I will say, it'd certainly be a far better world
if most people believed the way you do about it. I'd say your wife is one
lucky gal there Daryl. It is very refreshing in this seemingly jaded world
we live in. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65215
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John Cummings
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 11:03:01

Welcome to Apollo John. It's nice to know your a real person too! Ha.
You will find this is a very different BBS. Unique to say the least.
                           -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65216
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Procreation
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 12:12:07


Procreation             V.S.            Recreation
 
Is it a sin             or              sensual
Is it for babies        or              your babe
Is it good for God      or              good for you
 
and they say

"Shame, not there!"                     "Ooh yes, there!"
"Push him away!"                        "Pump it in!"
"Our heavenly Father..."                "Oh my GOD..."

:From the booklet _The Uncomplete Collection of Mychele_, copyright 1989
Inspired after watching the Pope live in Sun Devil stadium.

Message: 65217
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: melissa/pope
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 12:37:32

Funny, I didn't get the same inspiration when  I watched to Pope live in
Sun Devil stadium. What part of the ceremony inspired you ? Was it the part
where the guy stood next to the Pope with the funny look on his face ?

Message: 65218
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike C.
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 15:15:57

  Sorry Mike, I didn't say that any other kind of thinking than my own was
wrong. I said that accepting things on faith instead of thinking was a bad
way to make important decisions. I can see that you would love to paint me
as some kind of idealogical bigot in order to cast my assessment of theists
as people who have suspended reason in at least one part of their lives in a
bad light. I doubt that you are going to be able to turn the arguement
away from what I have said and on to unrelated matters in order to
further that goal.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 65219
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: last
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 15:59:51

I think you need to re-read your post again. That is NOT what you
said.
Now I may have misunderstood it, but that's a part of life too.
You "take into account" i.e. you assume...that theists have
suspended a large part of their life from logical reasoning.
I don't see where this cannot be asessed as anything but ideological
bigotry.
My goal isn't to put you into a bad light. I thought you might
be able to realize that there are two sides to this theism coin...
I for one am not about to classify anyone in a bad light because they
have not become a theist...nor am I about to attempt to label their
way of thinking as errant. It's the content of the discussion, not the
way it was created.
Anyway, this "argument" as you wish to call it, is pretty much moot.

Message: 65220
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 18:45:27

Re:  "I think there is entirely too much whining on the board."

Well, quit whining about it!  :-)

Message: 65221
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann on Ground
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:04:42

        I have been told I insulted Jeff Beck, and he has left the system.
I have been told I hurt Rod's feelings when I counter his messages.  I annoy
Zak because I am unable to post the source for everything that I say.  James
Hawley thinks I am always wrong. Ann Oudin thinks I hurt free speech by
posting my views too strongly. Jeff, James H. and Zak think I am an
illiterate.  Roger thinks I am a gun-nut.  Dean H & Rod think my though
process has stalled. And now Westfall thinks I change religion like I do
socks.
        There must be a middle ground here somewhere! ?

Message: 65222
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Religion
Subject: Hans/Pope
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:27:34

  Hey, one man does not speak for a whole religion, and I doubt very much
that the Pope even said what you claim he did.
  The official view of the Roman Catholic Church on contraception is
admittedly more conservative than that of most of the rest of us, but many
Catholics don't go along with it, anyway.  The general opinion of Catholics
on sex has always seemed (to me, at least) pretty much the same as the rest
of us.
  In any case, you're still doing what I accused you of earlier.  *Claiming*
that we have certain beliefs, and then ridiculing them.  Instead, why not
ask us what our beliefs really are (instead of making them up for us), and
then ridiculing what we actually believe?

                    =(u,u)=  Yawn!

Message: 65223
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Melissa/Playgirl
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:41:44

Well, the existence of Playgirl popped into my head when I was writing the
piece, and I thought I'd mention it to prove that women aren't immune to
enjoying the attractions of nude members of the opposite sex!  Of course, I
couldn't seriously argue that the female market for nudie pix is anywhere
near the size of the male market.

Male sexuality seems to be more easily aroused by parts and clues and things
associated with the love object, whereas women's sexuality seems to be more
holistic.  [Ugh, I just reread that, and it wasn't meant to be a pun!  :-) ]
It's usually men who have fetishes of various kinds, some of which must seem
very odd to women.  I'm sure the difference is hard-wired into men's brains.
So I would guess men always will be more stimulated by pictures focusing on
anatomical details.  It's an immutable part of our nature.

I started off under the assumption that it was the men themselves that women
were annoyed at because they like to (and do) look at pictures of naked
women.  You've introduced the subject of the large profit made from
commercial marketing of such pictures.  Now I'm not sure how much it's the
men themselves who are the target of this ire, and how much it's the
commercial profiteers.  Or maybe it makes no difference.  The market
wouldn't exist without the demand, of course, which comes down to men
themselves.  But since we're talking about a communications medium here,
I suppose it can be argued that the content of the medium influences and
encourages its readers.  I have seen publications I would call nasty (those
that encourage thoughts of real violence against women), but they are only a
part of the market.

I'm still having trouble seeing that anger against nude pictures in general
is justified.  I do *understand* how the anger arises; I just don't think
it's justified (or does much good for that matter).  The way I understand
it, women quite naturally hate being put down and kept down based on a
philosophy that says "women are dumb and incompetent, and what they're
really here for is housework and sex".  So they say "OK, we're not dumb and
incompetent, and we will object violently to anyone who says we are."  So
far, so good.  But instead of unbundling those particular falsehoods from
the philosophy and treating them separately, many women seem to want to turn
the entire thing on its head by saying "*and* you're not allowed to discuss
our sexual merits any more!"  So if some guy dares to express the idea that
a particular woman turns him on sexually, a little light seems to go on in
her head and she says to herself "Oh, he thinks of me in a sexual way.  That
MUST mean (as if it were a logical deduction) that he's a male chauvinist
who thinks I'm *only* good for sex, that I'm dumb and stupid and of no
consequence..."  And that doesn't make any sense to me.  I don't understand
how it's "exploitative" to think of women in a sexual way as long as you
treat them fairly in other ways.  I don't see why men can't appreciate women
for their sexual attractions as well as their many other talents.  I guess I
object to simple binary choices, like "either you're a chauvinist pig or
you're asexual".  (Or: "if you're not Republican, you must be a Democrat!")

Message: 65225
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
Subject: Apollo, the Movie
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:54:07

I like weeknights (wee knights????) better on the whole.  I'll be busy this
Thursday night, and also if it's any later than next Tuesday I'll be away
for nearly four weeks.  I guess that doesn't leave a lot of leeway.  Still,
there's no rush...  (Come to think of it, next Monday might be the only
really good day for a while!)

Message: 65226
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Ann
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:58:36

Notice something?  I put in this post, and out of those who participate
regularly here I got a response from 100% of the women.  I only got a
response from...  well, I don't know, but it must be under 10% of the men. 
Since it's a topic of concern, I would have thought women would be angrier 
about the fact that so many men refuse to discuss it.  Actually, refusing to
discuss something is a good way of sabotaging the "negotiation procedure" I
was talking about in the original post.

Message: 65227
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike C.
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:24:40

  I said that a theist must suspend reason in that one area of thought in
order to remain a theist. Whether or not that person allows that to affect a
larger part of their life is up to them. This is all very simple, and it is
readily acknowledged by theists themselves. Noting a simple fact such as
this when dealing with a person is hardly bigotry. Failing to take it into
account is a mistake which can lead to serious problems. This whole
discussion is a very good example of that. You have admitted, as any honest
theist must, that theism is not arrived at by logic. Yet, when I mention
that and point out an obvious consequence of that fact (that this acceptance
of non-reason for guidance by the theist may have affected their judgement
in other areas) it is taken as a heinous personal insult by both you and
Cliff.
  It is much like my admitting that I am overweight and then taking offense
at anyone who suggests that I eat too much. True, I might rightly think it
rude of them to bring it up, but the suggestion remains valid just the same.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65228
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: hurt feelings
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:34:55

Everyone has carte blanche to be as nasty as you want when you send
me messages. I will not have hurt feelings ! I think everyone needs
to stop being so so sensitive and just let loose. If I say something
nasty, I expect the same from anyone else. I don't care if you call me
a liberal, I won't get mad. I don't care if you call me a knee-jerk
agnostic christian basher, I won't get mad. I don't care if you call
me a gun-loving NRAt right-wing neanderthal, I won't get mad. You
can call me a gun-hating ACLU-lover and I won't get mad. You can call
me Jay, you can call me Ray, but you can't call me mad.

Message: 65229
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/Hurt feelings
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:43:24

Re:  Everyone has carte blanche to be as nasty as you want when you send me
messages.

        Well Roger,  I want to talk to you about your deodorant.......
You need to use some!

                                *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=* (-;

Message: 65230
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
Subject: Gordon on Monday
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:50:43

        Week day nights are best for me too...as Weekends are so busy.
However, anytime you wish to see it, give me a call.  There need not be a
formal GT to view this movie.  This goes for anyone else...  Mike? Bob?

                        clif-

Message: 65231
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Religion
Subject: Dean H on overweight
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 22:00:33

        Eating is not the only reason some people become overweight....
However, just how do you suppose I arrived at my theism view?  My parents
are athiests by the way.  I went to PUBLIC schools, and was NEVER forced to
attend church.   Since I don't think on my own, I need help learning how I
arrived at my beliefs.

        As I understand it, Lippard's parents are religious... so why is he
an atheist?

                                clif-  (Humph!)

Message: 65232
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Women
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 22:10:27

        I know better... Women in my mind are not just for Sex and house
work.   How any man can think that is beyond me.  Sandy can do many things
better then I can.  We are a TEAM, and work together.  We are equal, with no
boss... (well, maybe Sandy has the edge here)

                        *=* the 'Housebroke' Apollo SysOp *=*

Message: 65233
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dean H.
Date: 05/01/90  Time: 23:23:45

No, you need to re-read message # 65069.
You did *NOT* say what you claimed in your most recent post.. that
you narrowed it down to the one part of theism...
In message # 65069, you state: "I just take into account that the
theist holds a large part of life apart from inquiry and modification.
Many of them can still function fairly well, if they do a good job of
restricting that uncritical habit of mind to as few areas of thought
as possible."
Now, your dance around the facts in your last post was cute, but no cigar.
This is what was so incensing to begin with. It was like reading a passage
right out of "Apartheid made easy".
I was correct in stating you were assuming and generalizing that
any theist *must* hold inquiry or reasoning apart from life.
In your own words...a large part...in order to function fairly well...et al.
My original point was to correct you that this does not apply to myself
or many other Christian friends or theists that I know of.
In my theism, much of what I learn requires a lot of thought and reasoning
to interpret what the scriptures say. I don't learn on faith and I certainly
don't need to keep reasoning apart from my faith. 
Where you fail to make the connection is not my duty to assist you in
finding it. It becomes my duty when someone so blindly assumes anything
about the way I think or act . Your defensive nature on this shows me
you too can feel the same injust response when someone else assumes you
are something you are not....

Message: 65234
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on Lippard
Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:06:09

Jim told me that he was raised as a Christian fundamentialist but during the
Great Apollo Debates on Religion in 1984/85 he was convinced by the more
logical side.  

Message: 65235
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:07:51

I know that your suggested slogan for t-shirts will sell.  Would you accept
an advance of $12?

I think you earned it.

Message: 65236
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Religion
Subject: Daryl/2768 Bytes
Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:09:50

      I really don't know how to begin this, there are so many ways.

      The majority of people are "joiners" in that they like to "go with
the flow", feel secure and safe and have something "bigger" than themselves
handle the main problems in their lives.

      We live in a fairly gruesome world and it isn't easy here during our
stay.

      You have, what is called, a "god of convenience", meaning that even
if you had been born and raised as an Iranian citizen you would go for the
most promoted deity, Ali.  The vast majority do and it is natural.

I learned a long time ago to be a fighter and to go it alone.  I have in my
charge seven children with another due in a few months.  My father has been
dead for many years and my mother has been dying for quite a few herself. 
I have no brothers and sisters to speak of, no family support.  I left home
to be on my own when I was fifteen and kept it that way.

The god you chose (and I understand you didn't really have a choice in the
matter) should be investigated more carefully.  Any advertised god that
excludes a large percentage of its creation from final reward, or any god
who sets up ridiculous and petty rules should be put aside.

"You can only gain eternal reward if you believe in my son" strikes of a
con job on humanity.  If there were indeed a Satan then I suspect that he
would set rules up like that.  If your deity is all knowing then it must
have know from the very beginning that many of what it created would burn
forever by its very rules.  Is this all-loving, Daryl?  Is it fair?

No, it is not.

Now I want to introduce you to a god I recently met.  His name is Carl. 
He claims that he created all living things as well as the earth, stars and
other heavenly entities.  He wants his creations to be happy.  To him
everything he made, all life, is absolutely equal.  He loves all that he
made.  He did not make mistake one because he couldn't have, he is god. Carl
has a beautiful wife and four lovely children, two boys, two girls. He keeps
trying to tell the majority of people to "chill out" but very few will
listen.  They just go around spouting things like: "My god is better than
your god and I am going to heaven because it says so right here in this
book.

Carl has regular updates on his books, movies, plays, poems, and
paintings.  Most all of his inspired works win awards plus the people who
hear Carl win them also.  Carl is secular and he has a big sense of humor. 
In fact if you capitalize the word "he" when referring to him, he blushes.

There is a special place for all living things in Carl's world because he
made us all.  He is sad though because most people do not listen.  Shhhh.
I think I hear him now........ 

                                        Rod

$tatus Bulletin Board Entered: ER

Message: 6412
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Rebuttal
Subject: Evolution/Mike
Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:38:38

Mike, I never said that "things" are supposed to get better but it would
be nice if they did.  If people would get their heads out of their butt and
start thinking for once in their life that THEY just might be able to make
change.  Instead many people are waiting for their heavenly father to cause
a nuclear war between the bear and eagle or some such bullcrap all in the
name of fulfilling some ambiguous, outdated book.

When people take responsibility for their own actions instead of thinking
their own particular deity had a cause in it then this world will begin to
make some needed progress.

Until then just look for more of the same coming from our Christian
politicians who go to church on Sunday and rape the people on Monday.

      Yours in brotherhood,  Rod