Apollo BBS Archive - November 1988

Apollo BBS Archive - November 30, 1988

$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 4827
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Westfall
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:11:23

What a geek.

Message: 4828
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:11:53

If you want to put up a vote on whether I should leave, I have no objection.
Of course, I will also not leave, regardless of the outcome of the vote.

Message: 4829
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:16:21

Typical Editorial type.

Message: 4830
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:17:34

Ahh quit snivelling and smile!
I'll even let you ride the Mexican Voodo skateboard you gave me.
 
                -Mike

Message: 4831
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Fire'arms
Subject: HEY !!!
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:21:59

What the HAY!
Let the gun-slamming plaquard protestors snort fumes ! 
I know there's anti-gun people around, but I don't let them worry
me...nor should anyone else. Guns and the use of them frighten the
heck out of some people..others it just makes them feel insecure...
so they complain in the only way they can. Freedom of speech.
I say that if someone is against guns, then fine. They could even
legally protest on the street out in front of my door.
They can even run when I bring out big bertha and pop a few of them
BULLseye signs they're carrying too.
Freedom of expression! 
 
        -Mike
(In jestofcourse)

Message: 4832
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Fire'arms
Subject: Shootout
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 00:05:35

  I got my film back today. I had a double set made, in case anybody (Sandy)
wanted to relive their triumph in living color. Let me know if you want them
and I can mail them to you or whatever.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 4833
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: CLiff/Sig
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 00:17:41

  In my opinion you don't need to create another sig for shooters. I haven't
seen any serious anti-gun sentiments displayed here, and even if there were
that should hardly be a reason to segregate firearms related messages as if
we were ashamed of them.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 4834
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last...
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 01:32:36

        The GUN SIG would not have been to protect the Pro-Gunners, but to
keep the weak at heart from having to worry.  In short, I do not wish to
offend Mr Westfall or Apro Poet...etc.  Some just find Gun Talk offensive!

        Hmmmm I bet Sandy will love to get her hands on them pictures.  
You understand it has been rough living with her since Dean dubbed her
"Pin Queen"....  I have to ask Her-Majesty permission for everything I wish
to do.  Grrrrrrr   

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 4835
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 06:28:49

For you to either leave OR be a silent user would be Apollo's loss.
You want a vote? There's mine. God bless.

Message: 4836
Author: $ Jeannie Innajug
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Darryl
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 07:18:36

Awwwwwwww..........Poor Darryl............

I have a little boy who used to run into the room, and shout something
awfull (or at least as awfull as his little 5 year old mind could conceive)
just for the shock value.  Not being a modern, enlightened parent, I washed
his mouth out with soap and sent him to bed without further ceremony.

He got the attention he was obviously craving, but not the appreciation he
thought he wanted, so he would sulk for a few days.  Luckily for both of us,
he outgrew the need to try to shock "old Mom" and now when he gets to
feeling unappreciated and sulky, we both chant in unison the old rhyme,
"No body loves me,
 Everybody hates me,
Guess I'll go eat worms....."
   and have a good laugh.  Because he knows down deep that I do love him,
and he's grown up enough to understand that all he's really asking for is
attention.

Now, why does your situation remind me so much of his?   Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

See Y'aa..............

Jeannie

Message: 4837
Author: $ Peter Petrisko
Category: Question?
Subject: DARYL POEM
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 08:06:10

This is not a poem SIG?
 
How do I access the SIG for poetry, in that case?

Message: 4838
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl the vote
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 08:34:52


                    --------->  ABSOLUTELY (A)

Message: 4839
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Peter
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:38:00

        The [ART] SIG.....

Message: 4840
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Fire'arms
Subject: Offensive
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 14:41:04

  Its quite easy to hit [S]kip.
   See You Later,
     Dean H.

Message: 4841
Author: $ Chris Neal
Category: Fire'arms
Subject: Guns
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 16:51:44

Those who find guns offensive, are you also offended by Police men?
 
----------=============*******>CHRIS<*******=============------114/18.8

*P.S.  Daryl --  Post and post and post, BUT DON"T LEAVE!  If you leave, who
will keep the MUS SIG running

Message: 4842
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last few
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 17:01:58

        See Daryl, they still love you!

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 4843
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Fire'arms
Subject: #4834
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:32:57

Did I say that I find gun-talk offensive?  You may be
succumbing to another of JT's delusions.  On the contrary,
social interaction among gun enthusiasts can be very 
revealing.  It's even amusing when you consider the
psycho-sexual symbolism involved.  ;-)
     Apro Poet

Message: 4844
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Last....
Subject: Symbolism
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:56:48

  Don't you just love people who draw conclusions about things based on
their own sexual problems?
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 4845
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sex and Guns
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:32:04

        Now that's a good combo........put out baby or I'll blow you away.

Creative Corner Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 1957
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:30:29

FUnny, "That kind of war sucks" is exactly what I thought you might say.
I beleive you had no idea "What kind of war" it really was at that time.
In this day and age we all can look back at history and see that it indeed
sucked. At the time though, I doub't there were too many people who actually
knew what was going on.
Amazing that we have lawyers to not only protect us from others, but they
seem preoccupied with not finding the truth, but finding your wallet.
Everytime someone fears conviction for some crime they committed, they
hide behind lawyers. I'm not saying this was your intent Rod, just
that you brought up the Lawyer deal here.
Take for example some accidents involving close family and myself with
another party. At the time of the one accident, the two occupants professed
that they were very sorry and would take the blame no matter what anyone
said because they KNEW they were at fault. Well, even though we all make
mistakes and can cause an accident even if we're the best driver around,
these people after talking with their Lawyer refused to accept
responsibility. And responsibility is so lacking in these United States
that we must hire LAWYERS to escape it. 
What a great system.
                        -Mike

Creative Corner Bulletin Board command:EC

You chose Chit-Chat

Subject:War

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:        I did not want to go to a war.  Wars should be fought using a 
 2:computer and modem.  That's it.
 3:        Oh, and a monitor would be nice, too.
 4:end

Edit command:S

Saving message...
The message is 1958

The outer COSmos Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 2385
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
Subject: hmmm
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:35:15

Definitely an '80's joke there Daryl. Ulch.
 

Message: 2386
Author: $ Chris Neal
Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
Subject: Another joke
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 16:53:05

What do Panyhose and Dukakis have in common?
.
.
They both irritate the 'BUSH'!
 
Hehheeeee

Message: 2387
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer !
Subject: last
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:35:16

        The first time I heard that joke was 1955.  Got anything newer?

Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 55800
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 20:48:04

As far as I know, there is no such suit.

Message: 55801
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:00:58

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
This means, Congress shall make no law establishing religion.  I don't
understand how you think otherwise.  In any case, your argument that the
Constitution bars the government from "promoting" religious belief is
ridiculous.  I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended for the
establishment clause and the religious freedom clause to work at
cross-purposes.  Both clauses were intended to preserve freedom of religion.
Yet the contemporary liberal interpretation of the establishment clause is
actually an assault on freedom of religion.  For example, the "Act for
Better Childcare" (ABC) bill, introduced in the last Congress by Sen.
Christopher Dodd and Rep. Dale Kildee, would have set up a system of
government subsidies for day-care centers.  But, because they read the
establishment clause as a bar against the government doing anything to
"promote" religion, they excluded any day-care centers that includued
religious training as part of their program from eligibility from government
subsidies.  So, in the name of preventing government from "promoting"
religion, this bill would have denied a government benefit to people
because of the way they practice their religion.

Now, I am sure you and I are in agreement on the merits of subsidized
day-care.  The Dodd-Kildee bill would have been a bad idea whether or not it
contained this provision.  But the fact that it discriminates against
religious parents makes it that much worse -- and is contrary to the spirit,
at least, of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.  The purpose
of the religion clauses in the First Amendment was to prevent the government
from coercing people into worshiping in a particular way.  I agree, based on
this principle, that organized prayer in public schools is unconstitutional
(though a moment of silence for prayer or contemplation is an excellent
compromise). I see no First Amendment problem, though, with subsidizing
secular activities of religious institutions, with religious displays on
public property, or with the motto "In God We Trust" appearing on U.S.
currency.  For that matter, I have no problem with Congress and the military
having chaplains, with government employees getting Sunday and Christmas
off, or with the government entering wars, even though all of these things
arguably "promote" religion.

Message: 55803
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: An interesting case
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:09:44

Insight magazine, December 5, 1988, reports:

     Requiring a person convicted of drunk driving to go to Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings does not violate constitutional rights to freedom of
religion, a Maryland District Court has ruled.
     Last year the court ordered John E. Norfolk of Queen Annes County to
complete a county alcoholism program and attend AA meetings twice a week as
part of his 18-month probation for drunk driving.  Norfolk, an avowed
atheist, went to six Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and then stopped, saying
that the group emphasized religion in its treatment and that being forced to
attend violated his constitutional rights.
     The program's 12 steps of recovery state that "a power greater than
ourselves could restore us to sanity" and that participants "made a decision
to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood
him."
     In rejecting the constitutional argument, District Judge John T. Clark
III cited a distinction between a religious group and one dealing with
"spiritual well-being."  Norfolk plans to appeal.

Message: 55805
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:12:28

If you're having trouble reading my messages, perhaps a change in majors
is needed.
Your assertion that Atheism does not imply hedonism, humanism or
anything else holds no value in truth. The very definitions of the "other"
rely upon Godless convictions. Wether or not you agree with this is not
to say that the majority of Atheists donot follow this pattern. 
Dodging involvement with any one group connected with such ideals tends
to show nothing of interest. What I am interested in is what would you
consider proof of the existence of God? It's all too easy to sluff
off the world around you as being a galactic mistake, I'd like to hear
just WHAT would convince you there is a creator.
Perhaps nothing would, because like most asserted Atheists, shown proof
they get curiously defensive, overbearingly angry and storm off in a
maelstorm of lawsuits and anti-Christian slogans.

Message: 55806
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Insight Lawsuit
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:54:45

How very curious. 
That would indeed be one of the "fine-line" cases. I know little about
the case, AA or the prescribed method in which they help people to get
off the bottle. Taking it at face value, I would question the intent
of the lawsuit a little further. If indeed the method of "cure" in the
"AA" meetings is based upon seeking spiritual guidance, the attendee
is still, however strongly religious it may be, not forced to particpate
beyond being there at roll call.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
In this case, I would applaud the Judges ruling not on the basis of my
personal convictions, but based on the assumption that Mr Norfolk
and his lawsuit are a result of loathing the meetings.....which were
forced upon him for the DWI. This in itself could forseeably remain
in his mind the next time he picks up the keys to drive away while
under the influence.
 
                        -Mike

Message: 55807
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Question?
Subject: Rod
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 23:05:52

You're hoping the ACLU is victorious.
How will a victory change your life ?
Is this another needle in the side of Christians or some valuable
item in your log books?
How much do you care that "In God We Trust" is printed on our money?
You stated before that you believe young kids could not discern the
difference between a historical event or saying and that of an
advertisement. Did you say this because you're worried young children
might find God, or did you say this because you want to control what
they see and read in their life? 
Or perhaps some other reason? 
My intuition tells me that you would revel and be delighted to see
all the works and words of God totally obliterated from the face of the
Earth forever. That way future generations would have no idea of
God's existence.
Well, even if all the bibles, churches and Christians were removed,
people would still find something to worship...some will find God
while others will find "Bobra" or whatever.
I beleive you want censorship of Christianity so badly that this small,
tiny message on our money bugs the living hell out of you and this is
why you wait so eagerly to hear the results..if indeed there is a suit.
 
Just my intuition...
                                -Mike

Message: 55808
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: J.L.
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 23:18:19

I must have made a mistake.  I thought those were your statistics.  
And that is not the first or last contradiction I've made.

Message: 55809
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Movies/religion
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:11:04

    Not just Christians, but just about anyone depicted in a movie is a
little loopy, simply because ordinary people are dull.
 
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *

Message: 55810
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Religion
Subject: Slogans
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:25:46

    I don't object to religious displays on public property, as long as any
and all religions are allowed displays.  So, if a Christian group is allowed
to put a Nativity scene in a public park, a Satanist group should be allowed
to put up an upside-down cross and a pentagram.  Same goes for the currency.
I think a compromise of "In God Almost All Of Us Trust" would be okay.
 
     Something I find amusing is that both sides of this argument keep
insisting that it's a very minor thing ("it's so unimprotant, why do you
want to change it?" "it's so unimportant, why do you want to keep it?"), but
both sides are very adamant about their positions.
     As for the slogan being an affirmation of the influence of religion on
our country, I find the dollar bill a strange place to be printing history
texts, and I am unimpressed with teaching via simple slogans in any case.
 
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *

Message: 55811
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Religion
Subject: A-L-A-N
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:59:21

        A compromise would be used maybe if both sides were equal in size.
Again, we are a Christian Nation founded by a majority of Christian founding
fathers using Christian values and Common Law.  Since we Christians are a
MAJORITY....we rule. (why pussy foot around the tulips).  It is because of
our great Constitution that atheisis and other religions are allowed to
exist openly.  Now you wish to flaunt your un-beliefs in our faces and want
us to pretend there is No GOD!  You remind me of an old Twilight Zone TV
program where Books, the Bible and believing in GOD were against the law of
the Government.  This seems to be the direction athiests are trying to take
this country... a little bit at a time.... ever so slowly.
        The "In God We Trust" does not even say what God...  Lucky for you
it does not say "In a Christian God We Trust" or you would really freak out!

        The only other thing I can think of, is that you people must really
FEAR God and you get upset when you see his name.

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 55812
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 55803/court case
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:38:30

That sounds like a terrible decision.  AA is unquestionably religious.  The
decision is all the worse since there exist secular alternatives to AA
(called "Secular Sobriety Groups").
   I have heard of other cases in which judges have actually ruled that
convicted criminals have to attend church.

Message: 55813
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 55801/Taranto
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:44:57

You misquote the first amendment.  It says "respecting an establishment of
religion," not "respecting the establishment of religion."
It seems to me that "respecting an establishment" is broader than
"establishing".

Message: 55814
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 55805/Carter
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:52:48

Perhaps a change in majors would be necessary to be able to read your
messages, but I'm not interested in becoming a special ed teacher.
   I don't think that the majority of atheists are hedonists.  The majority
may well be humanists, but I don't find that particularly objectionable,
since I've taken the time to find out what humanism really is rather than
believing fundamentalist propaganda which misrepresents it as "self
worship."  (Humanism is relatively selfless.)
   What would I consider *proof* of the existence of God?  Nothing short of
a knock-down argument.  However, I don't demand *proof*, only substantial
evidence.  This could be any number of things:  1. A strong a priori
argument or set of not-so-strong a priori arguments which together
constituted strong evidence.  2. Empirical observations best explained by
postulating the existence of God.  3. Revelation from God (direct, not
hearsay).
   In fact, however, the existing a priori arguments all taken together
constitute strong evidence *against* the existence of God.  Empirical
observations have made the postulation of God superfluous.  And I have
received no revelatory messages.

Message: 55815
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: AA Sentence
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 14:45:24

  If I was forced to attend AA meetings and listen to religious dogma I
would probably make the most of it by questioning their reasons why I should
believe until they threw me out.
  See You Later,
    Dean H.

Message: 55816
Author: $ Apro Poet
Category: Politics
Subject: Chomsky
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 18:19:08

  It is commonly remarked that indigenous factors have played
a role in driving the enemies of the Fifth Freedom into the
hands of the Russians.  That is true, but not pertinent here.
The point is that for quite understandable reasons, US policy
has regularly labored to reinforce precisely these tendencies
and to block alternatives.  Nevertheless, tactical 
considerations may on occasion dictate a different course, as
when Nixon and Kissinger finally recognized that the 
Sino-Soviet bloc was unresurrectible and decided, rationally,
to exploit the conflict and to accept Chinese overtures,
hoping ultimately to draw China into the US-dominated sphere
and convert it to what we call a more "open" society - one 
open to US economic penetration and political control.
  In an important study of the Guatemalan intervention,
Richard Immerman argues that top US planners and corporate
representatives closely linked to government (or running it)
really believed that Guatemala's moderate reforms constituted
*prima facie* evidence for "the penetration of Central 
America by a frankly Russian-dominated Communist group" 
(Adolf Berle, on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations,
to the State Department), thus justifying US intervention in
defense of freedom.  He may well be right, but the point is
of little significance except for the (rather boring) study 
of the psychology of leaders and ideologues.  It is a rare
individual who consciously believes that what he or she does
is genuinely evil; as noted earlier, it is easy enough to 
come to believe whatever is convenient.  There is no reason
to doubt the sincerity of Japanese fascists who explained 
that they were creating an "earthly paradise" as they swept
across China 50 years ago, not for crass economic motives -
Japan was, after all, spending more than it could hope to
gain in protecting the "true nationalists" under its wing
from bandits such as Chiang Kai-shek - but to bring the
benefits of civilization to benighted and oppressed people
who had been victimized by Western imperialism.  Similarly,
Hitler doubtless sincerely wanted peace - on his terms - and
the integrity and vitality of the German nation, as he
proclaimed, and Soviet leaders yearn for stability and
economic development in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.  We
should have no difficulty in understanding their self-image
and picture of the world, if we can look honestly at 
ourselves.  Not only state planners, but the educated classes
generally, are given to sincere belief in the most 
astonishing (and self-serving) fantasies, a fact of little
relevance to the study of policy formation.  In the case of
official enemies or precursors in imperial aggression we
readily understand that true interests are disguised in
propaganda, perhaps even disguised to those who propound it.
Only in studying the record of our own state is such 
elementary rationality proscribed.

Message: 55819
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:25:32

All right, I was mistaken.  It should have been "an" rather than "the."  So
what?

Message: 55820
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Post office
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:28:13

Today, The Washington Times carried an article about Heritage Foundation
proposals for reforming the Postal Service, the subject of a chapter in the
forthcoming book "Mandate for Leadership III."  We got a call from a guy at
the Postal Service wanting a copy of the "Mandate III" chapter, and we were
happy to oblige.  Needless to say, the USPS sent over a private messenger to
pick it up.

Message: 55821
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: 55819/Taranto
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 20:24:23

Sorry, my misreading of "establishment" made a significant difference
between the article that preceded it.  Using "the" requires that it be
interpreted correctly, while "a" allows for a reading in which
"establishment" means simply any established thing.  On this reading,
"respecting an establishment of religion" means giving any special
consideration to any existing religion.
   Given the correct reading of "respecting an establishment of religion"
(allowing for the legislation of religious doctrine or church government),
the argument against the motto rests more upon legal precedent than upon any
direct interpretation of the establishment clause.
   So I must admit that any straightforward reading of the establishment
clause would not preclude the use of the currency motto.  If the language
"wall of separation between church and state" were there, however, I think
the story would be different.  Since this language is taken by the courts to
be implied by the first amendment, then I think the argument against the
motto goes through.
   (By the way, even if it is conceded that atheists' freedom of religion is
not infringed by a declaration of belief in God since they have no religion,
that objection does not work against Theraveda Buddhism which is an
atheistic religion.)

Message: 55822
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: JT/ACLU suit
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:46:03

        What basically started the IGWT debate was Jim Lippard mentioning he
was going to file a lawsuit in January against our State for their use of
their seal.  After discussing Prop. 106 for a while, Bob Thornburg mentioned
that he had recently read where the ACLU was starting a lawsuit against the
Government for their IGWT motto on currency.
        Well, Bob, did you really read this and where?
     
                                Rod

Message: 55823
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike Carter
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:46:20

        Okay, so what?

Message: 55824
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: IGWT
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:48:53

        The "In God We Trust", and Prop. 106 debate which started on the
15th of this month is right at 145K in size.  I have it all on one file and
copies can be had for the asking.  (disk to disk transfers free, hard copies
$15.)
                                Rod
P.S.  I ran the whole thing through a spell checker to make it more
readable.  For a break down on who made the most spelling errors please
guess.

WAY Below Normal Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 527
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Tawdry Tales
Subject: Aww shucks
Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:45:42

The lions spat me out when I insulted the one that swallowed me whole
...on my way down I mentioned that it had "Hawley Breath" and immediately
the lion wretched violently, puked me up in a pile of disguting body
parts (half digested), turned around and walked offf growling.
 
Poor James, you realy expect someone to bend over and take your silly
childhood prattle just because they're a Christian?
Fair warning, Christian or no Christian, I am nobody's pincushion.
And Rod, you should talk. If you eased up (along with the rest of you) on
myself and various others on these boards, you might be suprised .
In all areas of life, you will find that YOU actually train people how
you want them to treat you. So when Hawley chokes his chook about my
posts, or Rod grants his blasphemous rantings around, do you really
think that after 5 years on this board I'm going to sit there and
play Church Mom? 
Get a jump on being nice ... you'd be amazed at the results!
 
                        -Mike

Message: 528
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Mike Farter
Subject: Last
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 01:49:42

You were the one berating others in your posts.  So don't give me any of
this "be nice first" crap.

Message: 529
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Annie the ASSp
Subject: Mike
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 08:44:03

But I thought one of the Christian teachings was to 'turn the other cheek'?
Stop me if I'm wrong - but didn't Jesus Himself say that 'outright'? - no
if's and's or but's??? Just curious. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 530
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Annie the ASSp
Subject: last...
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:01:18

        Just how many times must one "Turn the other Cheek"?  

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 531
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Wesson Oil Dean
Subject: last
Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:52:29

        Christians make their own rules, I've noticed.