Apollo BBS Archive

Apollo BBS Archive - May 18, 1990

Message: 65765
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 05:35:03

 To say that I am in agreement with your humanistic views is to
misunderstand my posting completely, Roger.
 I happen to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of Almighty God,
although I do not believe that that particular belief is a prerequisite for
salvation. The ONLY precondition for salvation is a personal belief in Jesus
Christ as Saviour and Lord of one's life. Our salvation is by God's grace
alone, not by the book He gave us as a guide to Him.

Message: 65766
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Humanism
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 05:40:07

 Respect for others, love for one another, tolerance, all those are fine
sounding words, and honorable attitudes to be sure. Secular humanism becomes
a dangerous religion when it places those attributes above our love for God,
and our position with Him. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy
neighbor as thyself." God is first, the central figure of the universe.
Humanism places man in that position. "Thou shalt have no other gods before
me." Humanism makes man the god-figure. That is dangerous.

Message: 65767
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger/faith
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 05:42:50

 I have shown you Roger, but your limited mind cannot accept my "proof".
"Faith IS the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not
seen."
 My faith IS my "proof". I don't really need to prove anything to you in
terms that you may find acceptable. My faith is a personal thing between God
and me.

Message: 65768
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: 65741/Middleton
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 05:46:51

 MY! How loving, compassionate and Christian that message was!
 Vent, Michael, vent!

Message: 65769
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 06:45:33

Re:  "If you don't you sure don't like anyone who doesn't believe that it
is."

That's not true.

Re:  "Do you think I am a Christian?"

It's hard for me to tell.

Re:  "Do you think it is possible to become a Christian if you don't think
the Bible is the Word of God?"

I wouldn't say it is impossible.

But it is very possible to be a Christian even if you think the Bible has
some errors.  The criteria for being a Christian is believing in Jesus
Christ.  It doesn't matter what church you go to, or even if you go to
church.  It doesn't depend on your politics, your friends, etc.  It depends
on what you do with Jesus.

Message: 65770
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/Precondition
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:23:41

Yes, and even the faith to believe comes from God. There is not one iota of
salvation that we can credit ourselves with. Good thing, too.

Message: 65771
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/65769
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:28:59

Or, what Christ does with us. I feel that a person cannot be called to faith
without hearing the Word of God, for it's author is the Holy Spirit, and
through the hearing/reading of the Bible that the Holy Spirit can do His
work in the heart and mind of an individual. So, I feel that anyone who
completely debunks the Bible has severely impaired their means of receiving
faith.

Message: 65772
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: daryl/agnostic
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:36:19

I am an agnostic Christian.

I have explained this at least three times.

Message: 65773
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/65735
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:38:21

Sigh. I thought so. No hope. I was hoping someone could provide at least
a shred of evidence.        

Message: 65774
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Responses
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:39:42

And by their works we shall know you. So far I have seen nothing that
indicates that you are a member of the body of Christ.

Message: 65775
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/Cross
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:40:58

Better read I Corinthians, for Paul disagrees with you.

Message: 65776
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: Paul's danger
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 07:44:00

What is the danger and to whom is it dangerous ?                   

Message: 65778
Author: Hans Glans
Category: Religion
Subject: Christians
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 08:13:22

I ran into a man yesterday, that tried to inform me, that I was going to
hell. He said it in a nice way, and was apologetic. Still, I was somewhat
offended. He said his father had died yesterday, but he was not concerned,
he knew his father was saved. I would not be all smiley the day after my dad
died, in fact, I wasn't. My dad died 4 years ago. This fellow was basically
telling me that MY dad went to hell, and his didn't.  Great. 

Message: 65779
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Cliff
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 08:50:35

"I'm gonna lie down, shorts down, ready fore(sic) them to use a grease-less 
shaft on me on this topic..."
Gee, that sure sounds squeaky clean to me!  So, Cliff, were do you draw your
lines on obsenity?  I would also like to see Rod's post now that I see what
garbage is being allowed on the Public Board.  

Message: 65780
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on MLK
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 10:02:22

In the paper this morning was a spread about Mecham - he's trying to get it
on the ballot so the people can vote on a MLK day instead of our politicians
forcing it upon us. According to the article, even one of the advocates of a
MLK holiday, Mr. Arnie Zaler, said "that if Mecham collects enough
signatures, voters will narrowly approve a King holiday. I think it will be
close, it will be tough, but in the end we will win!" Narrowly approve! If
that is the case, even coming out of the mouth of an advocate, why in the
hell haven't we been able to vote on it already? Why did our govenor just go
ahead and sign that paper without the people's consent? A Vote if there was
any doubt at all that they didn't want a King day??? Once again our
politicians have proved they could give a hoot in hell about the people of
this state! I do not think Mecham is or was an angel and certainly didn't
like some of the things he did and said - but in the light of everything, I
feel he was at least trying to do what the people wanted over all. Some of
us may not have liked it, but at least we would of had some say so. He
certainly wasn't a forked tongued politician that we've become use to - he
was at least honest and that was refreshing. I think he still has an
enormous backing of the people in this state or else he wouldn't still be in
there fighting. I also think the people of this state DOES NOT WANT A MLK
DAY either!!! I personally don't care one way or the other, but I don't like
how they are going about it! I believe in the will of the people - our
politicians don't! Rose Mofford! What a joke! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65781
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Public Apology
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 10:51:03

I have removed the messages with the offending material.
I'm truly sorry if anyone was offeneded by the last couple
sentences I wrote.
 
Sincerely,
          Me.

Message: 65782
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hans Glans
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 10:55:03

Would he be telling the truth to tell you that you are well on your
way to heaven?
 
Which do you preferr, lies or truth?

Message: 65783
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Question?
Subject: Mike / 65741
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 11:01:18

If Jesus, as you say, did not teach that by discarding our old selfish
hearts and accepting him into our lives as our saviour, die on the
cross for our sins and teach us that through him we can be redeemed
and new in Gods eyes..... 
 
Just what do you think, in *YOUR* religion, did he teach ?
 
Whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting
life.
 
I don't read about a party anywhere.

Message: 65784
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Answer!
Subject: Carter's Apology
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 11:10:08

Apology accepted, Mike.  Please try not to let it happen again.

Message: 65785
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Politics
Subject:  Mecham
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 12:19:10

He may tell the truth but then he forgets about it.  I heard on KFYI this
morning of TWO times that he was recorded saying something and then denied
it.
He asked if this guy who was interviewing him was a jew.  The guy said "No,
I'm Catholic" and when that quote was put into his book, Mecham denied ever
saying it and demanded that the interviewer produce the tape.  He did. 
Mecham had no comment after the tape was played, or none that I know of.
As for MLK, he may have slept around, I don't know about the communitist
theory, but that is not why people want to honor him.  He was a strong
catylist for change and the civil rights laws being upheld.  Minorities
of all race, color and sex should thank him for doing so.  Now, whether that
means he deserves a holiday, I don't know.  But let's look at some of the
other people with holidays.
Columbus.  Gee, what a guy.  He discovered America, by accident, while
looking for India.  He also was a big part of the reason the Native American
Indians were enslaved.
Lincoln and Washington.  Washington slept around and owned slaves.
Lincoln also was pro-slavery.
Isn't it interesting that these men being honored with a holiday have all
had something to do with enslavement?  Oh, except St. Patrick but no one
gets the day off for him.
But you're right.  It deserves to be put to a vote.  But it looks pretty bad
when almost every other state already has a MLK day.  

Message: 65786
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Religion
Subject: bob/mormon
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 13:18:53

Actually, the names found in the book of Mormon would not be recorded
because these are the lost tribes of Israel transplanted to America. I think
that your doubting attitude shows that the Holy Spirit is not working in
your heart as it is in mine, and that you ought to get down on your knees
and pray to Almighty God for faith.       

Message: 65787
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Commandments
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 18:36:06

     As I explained, forcing religious doctrines upon people who 
are not of that religion is what I find repugnant. Those 
Commandments which do not translate into a prohibition of fraud 
or coercion may be fine for those who have chosen to live 
according to religious doctrine, but they are not universally 
applicable to a free society. If it specifics you must have, 
the sixth, eighth, and ninth Commandments address fraud and 
coercion, and the rest do not. The validity of the rest depend on 
individual circumstances such as religious belief and other 
factors.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65788
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 18:37:00

   You say, 'By becoming a Christian a person does not volunteer 
"to be judged by biblical standards."' And, 'We as Christians 
follow God's commands because we WANT to, out of loving obedience 
to Him, not because we HAVE to, out of fear of a merciless 
judge.'
   The distinction between 'volunteering' and 'following commands 
because you want to' is negligible. The real point is that 
Christians act as if rules which arise from their own beliefs 
should apply to others as well.
   You seem to have gone over from discussing the validity of 
those rules to making vague, backhanded accusations couched in 
terms of forgiveness. Is there a reason for this, or is it just a 
lack of better arguments?
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65789
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob T.
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 18:37:26

   When forcing obedience in others it helps the one doing the 
forcing to claim that it is done out of love rather than hate, 
but the effect upon the ones being forced is about the same. 
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65790
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff L.
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 18:38:19

   You are certainly entitled to your opinion of what I say as 
'bologne'. I argue in favor of individual rights wherever 
possible, and as much as it surprises me, there are people who 
think that is all wrong. Everyone pays the minimum of lip service 
to individual rights, as you did in saying, 'The rights of an 
individual are just fine, but what about.....'. There is always 
an easier way out than respecting the rights of the individual, 
and everyone seems to want to take it. 
   Yes, it would be easier to turn national defense (lets change 
it back to the War Department in the name of honesty!) completely 
over to the military. Sure they could have won in Vietnam if no 
civilian input had been allowed. There is a larger question of 
what kind of nation this would be under those circumstances, just 
as there is a larger question of what kind of nation we get by 
using child abuse as an excuse to make war on our own people.
   Rather than deal with that child abuse for the crime that it 
is, we blame the drug the mother used, and wage a perfectly 
corrupt and unwinnable war against the right of the individual to
voluntarily buy, sell, or use drugs WITHOUT abusing a child.

   How do you get the mommy not to abuse drugs? Obviously not by 
making them illegal, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. 
Each person who becomes dependent must reach their own decision 
to become free of that dependence, and the incentive that will 
work may vary from one person to the next. For me, it was a 
desire to see myself develop into a healthier, better looking, 
more socially acceptable, and more self-fulfilled person than I 
could be on alcohol. 
  The programs which help a person kick a destructive habit by 
submitting to a 'higher power' as you put it, often work well in 
the short term. But by breaking the person's self-image down to 
make this 'higher power' an essential leap of faith, and 
basically substituting that 'higher power' for the force in life 
that dependency had been, they set them up for an even worse fall 
when the going gets tough and the sheen wears off their new 
'higher power' drug. The high success rate credited to these 
programs ignores the fact that their clients go back into the 
gutter afterward at almost the same rate, and often in even worse 
shape.

   Don't kick yourself for being selfish. Rational self interest, 
which differs from plain selfishness only in that it is a little 
more thoughtful of consequences and future interests, is the 
incentive for practically all that is worthwhile.
   You ask if I could leave my wife. No, and I can't imagine any 
circumstances in which I would want to. We vowed to be as one and 
never keep any secrets from each other back when we decided to 
marry. That, and a continuing love affair between us, has kept us 
as close as ever for over fifteen years. Maybe that approach 
wouldn't work for everyone, but I can't imagine doing it any 
other way myself.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65793
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann/MLK day
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 19:22:24

The recent wrong was to "correct the mistake" which the legislature made
last year by substituting MLK day for Columbus day.  With the new law, BOTH
will exist, which should make most Italian-Americans very happy. 
Unfortunately, the Native Americans are now upset because they don't like
the results of Columbus's visits...

Message: 65794
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: MLK Day
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 20:24:26

  I think it should be a referendum on the ballot:

RESOLVED:  we should give all public employees a paid day off in honor of
the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, and raise taxes appropriately to pay
the expenses incurred thereby.
 
[ ]  Aye
[ ]  Nay        (Choose one)
 
                                 =(O,O)=  Hoot!

Message: 65795
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/James White
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 20:29:42

I had a chat recently with him on Zepher (a friend convinced me to log on). 
It was tedious and unproductive.  I also found his rebuttals murky,
inadequate, and uncompelling, even when they were intelligible.

Message: 65796
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: In search of
Subject: Roger/DNA testing
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 20:50:00

I don't have the article in front of me.  I recall that its main thrust was
the difference between DNA testing in a diagnostic setting and its
application to forensic work.  Apparently, it isn't all that reliable when
the stringent standards and methods of DNA analysis are relaxed, as they are
when forensic labs use proprietary rather than standard, peer-reviewed
techniques, and when samples are subject to the sort of contamination that
naturally occurs at a crime scene, and with forensic samples which, due to
their quantity and unknown source, cannot verified by the ordinary
safeguards which can require a sufficient amount of unadulterated blood,
semen, etc., which are necessary to eliminate various possible errors.
There appear to be two main companies which perform DNA lab testing, and
their bias has become evident.  An expert witness from one company testified
in a case that there was a one in one-hundred-million chance that the match
in question was false positive.  Other, less biased and perhaps more
rigorous testing was performed by experts from Harvard and MIT, and
examining the same data, they determined that the chance was one in
twenty-four.  The case was unusual in that it is exceptional for defendants
, many of whom have court appointed lawyers, to be able to manage research
and testing in their defense; in this case, the time and expense was
donated.
There was, for at least twenty-five years, a technique known as the parafin
(sp?) test which supposedly detected the presence of nitrates, (as in
gunpowder) on the hands of suspects in shooting crimes.  It was not until
the 1960s, after countless convictions based on this test had occured,
...that the unreliability of this test, and in particular its susceptibility
to false positives, was discovered and proven.  It seems that all kinds of
substances, from tobacco to tobacco ash to urine to colored nail polish can
produce a positive reaction.  Oh well.
 

Message: 65798
Author: Scott Windsor
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: R
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 21:21:08

"It take two to tango..."
Well, yes, but the mathmatics doesn't have to add up!  I knew a guy, (my old
roommate), who used to bring home a different girl every night!  Now, he is
only one, but the girls are several!  See how the math gets all jumbled?
 
+---------------< Scott >-------------+
!            CP/M WORLD SYSOP         !
!        OPen door # 1 on Trinity     !
!  (Type OP;1 at Main System Prompt)  !
!            (602) 938-6866           !
!                                     !
!  We support CP/M, TRS-80, Tandy 100 !
!     Tandy 200, C-128 and MORE!      !
!     (Plus LOTS of MS-DOS stuff      !
!            on TRINITY)              !
+----------< CHECK US OUT! >----------+

Message: 65799
Author: Scott Windsor
Category: Religion
Subject: Jesus never died?
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 21:37:16

Jesus never died?  Hmmm, if He gave up his human "package" if you will, but
never ceased to live, then who went to Hell in our place?  Jesus died, went
to Hell and the third day He rose again from the dead!
 
Scott

Message: 65800
Author: Scott Windsor
Category: Religion
Subject: Humanism/Roger
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 21:57:33

The danger with humanism is that it replaces God with Man.  The humanist is
man centered in everything he does, the Christian is supposed to be, (and I
know we all fail at times), centered on God, others then self.  The humanist
believes he can occomplish all things apart from God, when it comes time for
salvation, I think they will fall a little short, as you can't do that
without God!
 
Scott

Message: 65801
Author: Scott Windsor
Category: Religion
Subject: Proof of Faith
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 21:59:17

Roger,
Faith is the belief in things not seen, how can Paul "show" you anything? 
If you are given the Faith to see, you wouldn't even need to ask the
question.
 
Scott

Message: 65802
Author: Jeff Lochansky
Category: Drug Talk
Subject: re. Dean Hathaway
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 22:40:31

I am happy for you and your wife that you have been happly married for 15
years, trully. I just wish I could have had the same happiness. Believe me
it wasn't possible, I'm monagomous, I couldn't share. As to the crime of
child abuse, how do we solve it? Obviosly we can punosh her (the woman doing
drugs) till she bore the child, and most of the time it is to late for the
child then. My ExWife isn't being pinished for her abuse!!! I documented her
substace abuse in court when I tried to obtain custody of my (almost) son.
The judge could not have cared less. When I took back my petition for
custody because the DNA testing the judge ordered showed me not to be the
father, the judge took no further action concerning the constant drug abuse.
The judge was also aware of the fact that she was pregnant again. Right now
the reason i
I fight drugs is for the sake of children, because I have seen what they do
to them.I wish there were an easy solution to it all. Speaking of drug
programs, the "program" I was referring to is not sponsered by any
organisation other then A.A.. N.A. works on the same principles as A.A..
It is governed by !!!!!!EX ABUSERS!!!!!!!!! for abusers. Their success rate
is astonishing. If you know anything about A.A. you know how it works.
In my last post I have asked you for posible solutions, you havend given me
any yet, why?, dont you have any.

Well I'll be waiting for your response
SEE YA =================MAD MAX==================

Message: 65803
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 23:11:43

Re:  "He certainly wasn't a forked tongued politician that we've become use
to - he was at least honest and that was refreshing."

Yea, when he thinks someone is "damn stupid", he tells them right to their
face.

:-)  (-:  :-)  (-:  :-)  :-)  (-:  :-)  (-:  :-)  (-:  :-)  (-:

Message: 65804
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Melissa
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 23:14:16

Re:  "I heard on KFYI this morning of TWO times that he was recorded saying
something and then denied it."

Hey!  That's not bad for a politician!  Ol' Dennis D. has far exceeded the
number two.

Message: 65805
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 23:15:48

Re:  "Actually, the names found in the book of Mormon would not be recorded
because these are the lost tribes of Israel transplanted to America."

Which "Bob" are you talking to Roger?  I don't remember saying anything
about Mormons.

Message: 65806
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 05/18/90  Time: 23:19:46

Re:  "When forcing obedience in others it helps the one doing the 
forcing to claim that it is done out of love rather than hate, 
but the effect upon the ones being forced is about the same."

Gee, it seems like I remember my Dad (God rest his soul) saying something to
the effect, "this is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you." 
At the time I didn't believe him.  But as I think back now, what I got was
what I needed, and I'm a better person for it.

Message: 65807
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 05:16:30

 Agnostic Christian is a contradiction on terms, Roger. A Christian KNOWS
what (or in whom) he believes. An agnostic doesn't know WHAT he believes. It
should follow, therefore, that one cannot be both an agnostic and a
Christian at once.

Message: 65808
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Religion
Subject: Roger/danger
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 05:22:00

 Secular humanism is dangerous in that, as I have said several times, it
puts man before God, and this is the same desire that drove Satan out of
heaven. It is called pride. The danger is to the individual who so believes,
since it is a belief system based on works righteousness, and works
righteousness never got anybody anywhere in God's economy. Our righteousness
is as filthy rags in His sight. Our only righteosness is in the Lord, Jesus
Christ, and it is only through Him that we have any at all, and that is a
pure gift of grace,nothing we can boast about.

Message: 65809
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Politics
Subject: Ann on Ev
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 05:32:54

 Here's a rough example of what you consider Mecham's "honesty" and
"straight talk".
 When he became governor (on a fluke), the first thing he did was to rescind
an already declared MLK holiday, with the statement that it was illegal for
a governor (Babbit) to declare a holiday. More recently, he has stated,
publicly, that it was the job of the legislature to declare a holiday, which
they had not until that time done. Then, when they finally did what they
were elected to do (make decisions), he found fault with that, and began a
petition drive to put the issus back on the ballot, declaring that it is noe
the prerogative of the people to declare a holiday. The other day, when
confronted by Pat Quaranta, of the Italian American League, with his
bigotry, he lost his cool and pounded the table, declaring 3 or 4 times that
"WE HAVE A KING DAY!", referring to the Sunday MLK day HE had declared when
he was governor, exactly the thing he said originally was illegal for a
governor to do. So there we come full circle, which is exactly the way your
hero chatters. In circles.
 Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that Ev Mecham does or says (not
necessarily the same), is done and said with one motive in mind, and that is
the promotion of Ev Mecham into the limelight of the public eye. He is a
bigot, a liar and a self-serving fool.
 (This is neither a support nor a condemnation of a MLK day for Arizona, but
just a comment on the nature of the little man with the small mind and big
mouth who would be governor, again.)

Message: 65810
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve #65794
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 08:35:42

Now THAT IS THE REAL REASON for a MLK day! Bottom line! All the rest is lip
service. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65811
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bobby - damn stupid!
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 08:42:29

Yeah - he's said things like that - what other politician would have the
nerve - gaul? They are so rigid their almost not human because they must
walk a middle line all of the time. Must? Maybe not. But I will admit I've
seen no other like him. He at the same time makes me admire and hate him!
But will say, I feel he was for and with the people of this state. The way
he goes about it is 'iffy' sometimes! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 65812
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff L.
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 09:25:57

  I explained what was wrong with the solutions you advised and stated that
substance abuse could only be beaten when the abuser became committed to
doing it for their own reasons. I also mentioned that the wildly successful
A.A. and N.A. programs are practically fraudulent when they claim such a
high success rate because so many of their clients revert afterward. I
recap those messages because you say I haven't given you any possible
solutions.
  Before we can agree on possible solutions we need to agree that current
approaches are destructive and doomed to failure. I refer to the war on
drugs here. Solutions based on the individual incentives needed to beat
dependency, and offered in an atmosphere of openness and honesty, sound like
much better alternatives to me.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.

Message: 65813
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/force
Date: 05/19/90  Time: 09:31:08

  You make a fine case for the paternal, all-powerful state by comparing its
relationship to the individual to that between father and child. That is not
a proper relationship between government and citizen in a free society.
Likewise, it is not a proper role for religion to impose upon those who do
not share in their beliefs. It deftly illustrates exactly the attitude
behind such manipulation.
   See You Later,
      Dean H.