Apollo BBS Archive - September 1989

Apollo BBS Archive - September 11, 1989

Mail from Dean Hathaway
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 21:46:55

Thanks.
   See You Later
      Dean H.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Zap

Mail from Dean Hathaway
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 22:02:56

  Damn,
    I thought I would have all kinds of response from the Christians, or at
least Mike Carter when I said morals don't have to be based on religion.
Either nobody understood what I said or they don't have the guts, or they
think I'm right. What do you think? Mark Adkins argued against this very
strongly the last time I said it.
   See You Later
      Dean H.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
 1:I personally think that your message was like a blinding light to the 
 2:Christians.  It was, well, irrefutable logic.  
 3:
 4:Of course, they may not have understood it.  If they think that Christianity
 5:is logical then they are temporarily blind and something like your message 
 6:may have confused them.  I thought it was perfect.  -Rod
 7:
 8:I will make mention of it.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 5881
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: JT/Canada
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 21:49:55

  I didn't even know they were. Do you know?
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 5882
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Question?
Subject: Ann's Animal House
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 04:11:35

Is John Belushi buried in your SIG?

Message: 5883
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hathaway
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 18:40:28

Do I what?

Message: 5884
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 18:55:31

Yes.

Message: 5885
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Answer!
Subject: last four
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 22:35:46

I thought so.

Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 60871
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: GIF files
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 21:15:59

I've downloaded them and will be trying to display them this week.  GIF is
GIF is GIF (or should be), and there is at least one Mac program which will
display GIF files.  A friend of mine has a few Playmates, Roger Rabbit, and
several other things in GIF format on his Mac.

Message: 60872
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Tommy's/donations
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 21:17:00

If they really were requiring 'donations' in order to deal at a table, my
understanding is that that is a clear violation of the law wrt social
gambling operations... no?

Message: 60873
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pinto
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 22:03:44

   After an exchange of messages on the subject some time ago, I sought
out information on the Ford Pinto and the civil and criminal actions
brought against Ford in regard to its fuel system safety. This is a
chronology of most of the significant events surrounding the affair.

January, 1967
-------------
   The government's National Highway Safety Board (NHSB) begins 
operation. It was known as the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) after 1970.

June 1967
---------
   Ford first began planning an American subcompact car.

   Some early tests indicated that a gas tank mounted above the 
rear axle might be safer than one mounted behind it, so Ford 
experimented with this design.

January 1968
------------
   NHSB institutes the first national automobile safety 
standards.

1969
----
   A report by the Society of Automobile Engineers concluded that 
'fire on rear impact is not a high risk problem'. It was known 
that fatal rear-end crash fires were rare and usually occurred at 
high speeds.

   50,000 people per year died in auto accidents. 100 a year
(0.02 percent) in rear-end collision fires.

January 21, 1969
----------------
   Ford engineers concluded that putting the fuel tank over the 
rear axle of the proposed Pinto was infeasible due to the lack of 
luggage space which would result.

September 11, 1970
------------------
   The first Pinto (1971 model) went on sale.

   Soon afterward, the federal government proposed its first ever 
standard for auto fuel system safety in rear-end collisions. The 
proposed regulations were for no leakage in a 20 m.p.h. crash for 
1972 cars, and 30 m.p.h. for 1973 cars. These standards would 
have been for a car towed backward into a fixed barrier.

   Auto makers in general, including Ford, lobbied against the 
proposals as their smaller cars would probably not meet such 
standards.

October-December 1970
---------------------
   Ford's testing showed that production Pinto's tested at 19.5 
to 21 m.p.h. did tend to leak fuel in rear-end crashes.

November 20, 1970
-----------------
   Ford adopted a self-imposed standard that all its cars would 
not leak fuel in a 20 m.p.h. rear-end collision with a moving 
barrier, starting with the 1973 model. No other manufacturer had 
any such standard at the time. Ford engineers were assigned to 
improve the Pinto's safety in rear-end crashes beyond this in 
anticipation of possible government standards.

1971
----
   Early in the year, Ford tests indicated that steel rails added 
to the sides of the body would absorb impact in a rear-end 
collision and reduce fuel spillage. These rails were added 
starting with the 1973 model year.

January, 1971
-------------
   Experimental tests with rubber bladders in fuel tanks showed 
some promise, but problems with construction, durability, and 
safely getting fuel into and out of the bladder made it  
impractical. Chrysler also experimented with it years later and 
failed. Only the Corvette was produced with one, and not for 
long. Racing cars do use them, but they are expensive and require 
too much maintenance for a consumer vehicle. Yet, when an old 
memo saying that Goodyear estimated it could provide the raw 
bladders for $6 a car was disclosed, it was misrepresented as 
being the sole cost of design and manufacturing changes to make 
the Pinto fire-proof.

February 9, 1971
----------------
   A Ford cost engineering report estimated that the average cost 
involved in designing and manufacturing future models with 
over-the-axle fuel tanks might be about $9.95. This did not 
pertain to the Pinto or any other currently produced car. When 
disclosed later, this figure was widely misrepresented as the 
actual cost of changing the Pintos design and as being the reason 
Ford employed the rear tank design instead.

1973
----
   One steel rail was added to the Pinto's body for 1973.

   NHTSA requested cost-benefit studies from Ford on the 
Government's proposed fire standards for roll-over, side, and 
rear-end crashes. NHTSA provided its own estimates of the number 
of such deaths and injuries, and dollar values to be used for  
weighing those casualties against regulatory costs. Ford was only 
to calculate the costs of implementing the regulations across the 
entire industry and determine if the costs were more or less than 
NHTSA's estimated benefit in casualties-converted-to-dollars. 
Ford stated in the study that the use of NHTSA's figures did not 
signify that Ford accepted or concurred in the values.

   Ford's cost calculations justified the expenditure of 100 
million dollars by the industry to improve fire safety in side 
and rear collisions, while the cost-benefit ratio for the 137 
million dollar roll-over regulations was unfavorable. Ford did 
not oppose the adoption of the rear-end fire standard for 1977, 
although other car makers did, including Chrysler, American 
Motors, Volkswagen, and Triumph.
   The NHTSA study was later publicized as evidence that Ford had 
placed a price on its customer's lives, and was falsely linked to 
Pinto design decisions.

1974
----
   A second steel rail was added to the Pinto's body for 1974.

1977
----
   Statistics for 1975-1976 show that Pintos are 1.9% of cars on 
the road, and involved in 1.9% of fatal accidents involving fire.

   The federal government imposed it first rear-end crash safety 
requirement. It called for cars to be able to withstand a 30 
m.p.h. impact from a moving barrier without fuel leakage. The 
Pinto was modified for 1977 by installing a polyethylene shield 
in front of the gas tank, redesigning the filler pipe to better 
resist pulling loose from the tank, and increasing the rear 
bumper's strength.

September 1977
--------------
   Mother Jones Magazine published an 11 page article on the 
Pinto claiming that its gas tank placement made it overly 
susceptible to fuel leakage and fire in low speed rear-end 
collisions. It included documents from Ford's files intended to 
show that Ford knew it was an unusually dangerous product, knew 
it could easily be made safer, and declined to do so for monetary 
reasons and because they wanted to get a 2000 pound - 2000 dollar 
car into production immediately.

September 13, 1977
------------------
   The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
investigated the Pinto because of the Mother Jones article. A 
total of 27 occupants had died, including at least one killed by 
impact, and another 24 had been burned to various degrees.

1978
----
   Government figures showed that Pintos were 3.5 percent of the 
1973 cars on the road, and involved in 7 percent of fatal 
rear-end crashes involving fire. 

February, 1978
--------------
   NHTSA rear-end crash tests using full size Chevy Impalas on 
nine 1971-1976 Pintos and four Vegas at 30-35 m.p.h. resulted in: 
2 Vegas leaking fuel; 2 Vegas leaking little or no fuel; 7 Pintos 
leaking fuel; and 2 Pintos catching on fire.

   A California civil court jury awarded 128 million dollars in 
damages in the case of a 1972 Pinto which had a fatal fire. In 
that case a woman was killed when her new car's defective 
carburetor allowed it to stall and be rammed at 35 m.p.h. by 
another Ford. When the car burned, the woman died and her 13 year 
old passenger was severely burned. 125 million dollars of the 
award was for punitive damages, which were given based on the 
prosecution's contention that Ford documents indicated that the 
car could have been made safer for 10 to 15 dollars per car. The 
125 million dollars in punitive damages were later reduced to 3.5 
million dollars by a judge.

May 1978
--------
   NHTSA completed its investigation and notified Ford of its 
"initial determination of the existence of a safety related 
defect" in 1971-1976 Pintos and 1975-1976 Bobcats. June 14, 1978 
was set for a public hearing for Ford to dispute that finding.

June 9, 1978
------------
   Ford announced the recall of 1.37 million Pintos and 30,000 
Mercury Bobcats, and issued statements that they disagreed with 
NHTSA's opinion that the cars were defective, but would modify 
the fuel systems as NHTSA suggested in order to improve safety 
and ease public concern. Ford authorized unlimited overtime and 
work around the clock to prepare for the recall. This 
semi-voluntary recall of cars which were not substantially 
different or more dangerous than other cars of their generation 
would cost Ford about 40 million dollars. Ford had the option of 
defending itself in the NHTSA hearing and possibly preventing the 
recall, but the company felt that media attacks and lawsuits had 
prejudiced the public enough already and resistance on Ford's 
part would only keep the Pinto story alive even longer.

   Pinto sales dropped 40 percent even though the Pintos 
currently in showrooms were not affected by the recall and had 
been beefed up to the point that they were 600 pounds heavier 
that the original models. The government was now limiting the 
sales of Ford's larger, safer, and more profitable cars according 
to the number of small cars sold, so Ford was forced to offer big 
sales incentives to dealers and move those Pintos at any cost. 

August 10, 1978
---------------
  Three girls in a 1973 Ford Pinto Hatchback stopped for gas 
while travelling U.S. Highway 33 in Indiana. One of them filled 
the tank and accidentally left the gas cap on the roof of the 
car. As they drove on, they saw the gas cap fall off the roof and 
roll across the highway to stop at the opposite curb. The driver 
waited for traffic on the 55 m.p.h. thoroughfare to clear, then 
turned the car around and stopped next to the cap with her 
emergency flashers on. The eight inch high curb prevented her 
from getting the car off the roadway. The girl on the passenger 
side started to open her door so she could retrieve the cap.
   A 21 year old man who had just regained his license after a 
suspension for traffic violations was coming along behind them at 
about 50 m.p.h. in a big Chevy van. He took his eyes off the road 
to search for his cigarettes and looked up just as he slammed 
into the Pinto from behind, carrying it 154 feet down the road.
   The impact destroyed everything behind the rear axle of the 
Pinto, including the gas tank, and shortened the car by 38 
inches. The Pinto's roof popped up, the seams between the body 
and the floor pan tore, and the gasoline was crushed from the 
fuel tank into the passenger compartment. The van snapped through 
the wooden plank it had for a front bumper and rode up on the 
Pinto, gouging it into the pavement as it pushed it along. Sparks
ignited the fuel, causing the Pinto to catch fire and then 
explode.
   The girl in the back seat burned up in the car, an autopsy 
showed that she also had a skull fracture and a broken leg. The 
front seat passenger burned up in the car and was not autopsied. 
The driver was found hanging outside the car by one foot, which 
was caught in the door. She was severely burned, though still 
conscious. She died within 8 hours.
   The van driver sustained only cracked ribs. He was later 
arrested for possession of drugs, based on the contents of the 
van.

August 15, 1978
---------------
   NHTSA approved the Pinto Recall Kit for Ford's dealers to 
install on the cars. It was basically a retro-fit of the 1977 
Pinto's fuel tank shield and filler pipe modifications to the 
earlier cars.

August 21, 1978
---------------
   The first recall letters were sent out based on auto 
registration records.

September 1978
--------------
   Thirty-four days after the crash, the Indiana Grand Jury 
announced its indictments in the case. The Grand Jury stated that 
although the van driver may have been negligent they did not 
consider his conduct a criminal act. They also stated that the 
curbs on Highway 33 must be removed to allow a vehicle off the 
roadway. (The removal of some of the curbs started 10 months 
later). Ford Motor Company was indicted on three charges of 
'Reckless Homicide'; accused of recklessly designing and building 
the 1973 Pinto "in such a manner as would likely cause said 
automobile to flame and burn upon rear-end impact". Ford was also 
charged with failing to correct the car's defects after it was 
sold. 
   Cases of this kind had always been tried as civil lawsuits, 
rather than criminal trials, before this incident. While Ford 
often responded to civil suits with a settlement and a 
non-disclosure agreement in order to quash publicity, they would 
have to stand behind their product in a criminal trial and tell 
their side of the story. The nature of a criminal proceeding also 
protects the defendant against questionable evidence to a higher 
degree than civil law provides. Indiana's attempt to have Ford 
convicted as a criminal would fail.

   The maximum fine on these charges would have been only 
$30,000, but a conviction would have been a severe blow to Ford's 
reputation and would have hurt sales of all its products. A 
conviction would also encourage even more lawsuits and increase 
the likelihood of more and greater damage awards.

February 2, 1979
----------------
   The indictments concerning the designing and building of the 
car were found to be unconstitutional and were set aside. The 
State of Indiana had attempted to bring criminal charges against 
Ford on allegations which had been covered only by civil law, 
rather than criminal law, for years after the car was designed 
and built. The charges of failing to modify the car were 
retained, as that part of the Indiana criminal law had been in 
effect for 41 days before the crash.

   At the outset of trial, Ford outlined the nine point defense 
it would present:
  1. Highway 33 was poorly designed, and its high curbs set up 
what would have been a serious accident, regardless of what 
vehicle the girls drove. Those responsible for that dangerous 
road were not being held accountable.

Message: 60887
Author: Fred Porlock
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last 14
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 22:53:55

And to think some of you used to complain about the guy who used to post two
or three messages worth of book excerpts.
 
Dean, when did you go to work for Ford?  What is your source for all of
these "facts"?  What prompts this strange devotion to big business?  I'm
sure the boys at Ford love ya.  Their toadies are all on the payroll, and
they probably never dreamed they'd attract groupies.

Message: 60888
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 23:01:49

  I have never had any connection with Ford, and I don't even own any at the
present time. The information I found was mostly from a book written in
Indiana and published in 1980, called 'Reckless Homicide:Ford's Pinto Trial'
. There is more information in the 1986 book, "Ford: The Men and the
Machine", and a more recent book, "The Suicidal Corporation". None of these
books are especially simpathetic to Ford, and all I have done is organize
data in chronological order and point out some of the errors of fact which
were widely published at the time. If you have others sources or more
information I would very much like to have it.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 60889
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pinto15of21
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 23:02:37

  2. The driver of the van rammed the girls at 50 m.p.h. even 
though their emergency flashers were on. He was not being held 
responsible.
  3. The 1973 Pinto met all government safety standards at the 
time it was built.
  4. The 1973 Pinto met Ford's internal 20 m.p.h. standard, while 
no other manufacturer had any standard.
  5. The Pinto was comparable in design and manufacture to other 
1973 subcompacts.
  6. The very people at Ford who designed the Pinto and were 
accused of knowingly compromising its safety had bought Pintos 
for themselves and their own families to drive.
  7. Data given by the federal government and the State of 
Washington in 1977 and 1978 "showed that the Pinto performed as 
well or better with respect to fires and collisions than most 
other subcompacts".
  8. Ford had acted as quickly as possible to modify the Pinto as 
soon as the recall decision was made. Thus, they were not 
negligent in repairing the vehicle's alleged defects during the 
41 day period preceding the crash.
  9. In a rear-end crash with such a heavy vehicle and at such 
high speed, "other subcompacts, and even larger cars, would have 
suffered the same fate."

   The prosecution's case depended largely on proving that the 
closing speed in the crash was low. The speed of the van had been 
established at about 50 m.p.h., so witnesses were produced from 
the accident scene to testify that they thought the Pinto was 
still moving when it was hit. The driver of the van took the 
stand and testified that he thought the Pinto was moving at 15 or 
20 m.p.h. He had earlier testified that when he looked up his van 
was only ten feet from impact and that he did not even recognize 
the Pinto's emergency flashers in the time it took to cross that 
span (about 1/6 of a second).
   One of the prosecution's eye-witnesses claimed that he could 
see from the opposite lane of traffic that the Pinto was doing 30 
to 35 m.p.h. and the van 40 to 45. This would have meant a 
closing speed of only 5 to 15 m.p.h. This same witness described 
a defense photo of another Pinto, which had been hit from behind 
at 50 m.p.h., as being less damaged than the one he thought was 
hit at 15 m.p.h. maximum.
   The remainder of the prosecution's case was to try to prove 
that Ford knowingly deviated from accepted design practices in 
putting a rear mounted fuel tank in the Pinto. Their expert 
witnesses listed practically every car ever made with an 
above-axle gas tank and documented the fact that Ford was aware 
of this design and had used it before, but chose not to put it in 
the Pinto. On cross examination these witnesses were forced to

Message: 60891
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: $tatus users only
Subject: B-Dog & GIF
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 23:17:20

        I was in hopes it would work on the MAC and ST.  Try sending me the 
Roger Rabbit GIF file...PLEASE  (Have you been in the PHAntom Zone yet?)

        Let me know if ANN's GIF files display!

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

Message: 60892
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pinto17of21
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 23:37:21

admit that virtually all of those manufacturers also made small 
cars with rear mounted tanks, and even some of the very models 
cited as examples were later changed to rear mounted tanks for 
various reasons. Over 90 percent of passenger cars sold in the 
U.S. from 1968 to 1977 had rear tanks.
   The most respected prosecution witness was an ex-Ford 
engineering executive, who had never worked on the Pinto, but now 
hired out as an expert witness against car makers in liability 
cases. He testified that the above-axle fuel tank design should 
have been used on the Pinto, and it would have been much safer. 
He also testified that Ford had estimated that increasing their 
self-imposed 1973 rear-end fire safety standard from 20 m.p.h. to 
30 m.p.h. would have cost $6.65 per unit in the Pinto model. On 
cross examination this witness divulged that the above-axle 
design he had used at Ford was done to increase luggage space, 
rather than the safety of the car involved, and that he himself 
did not become convinced that it was a safer design until 1977.
   The prosecution's expert witnesses were found to be in favor 
of recalling many other small cars made in the U.S. before 1977 
as well.

   The prosecution had maintained that the closing speed of the 
crash was low, and that this proved Ford's recklessness. If fell 
to Ford's defense team to solve the mysteries surrounding the 
case, dig out the facts that the prosecution overlooked, and 
expose facts that the prosecution had knowingly ignored.
   The reason the Pinto had stopped, and why it was traveling the 
opposite direction from the girl's intended destination, had 
never been discovered or explained by the state. The prosecutor 
had boasted that Ford's attorney would never 'stop that Pinto'. 
By going back over the police reports, Ford investigators found 
the name of a person who knew, and had told police, about the 
lost gas cap and the car being stopped at the time of impact. The 
car's driver had been alive for eight hours, and had told at 
least two people at the hospital. The story had been retold to 
everyone there. Ford tracked down one of the witnesses and had 
them testify. That information fit the evidence at the scene 
perfectly and explained details such as the position of the gas 
cap (on the ground next to where the car was hit) and the 
passenger's door being ajar before impact.
   The doctor who examined the van driver immediately after the 
crash testified that the man told him that the Pinto was stopped 
when he hit it. The van driver's contrary testimony in court may 
have been encouraged by drug charges which were hanging over him 
at the time. The doctor also said that the man was very evasive
and would not answer when asked if he had been smoking marijuana.
   The man who headed NHTSA from 1969 to 1973 testified that the 
number of Pintos involved in rear-end-crash fires was not out of 
line given the number of Pintos on the road, and that he was 
surprised when Ford did not contest the recall. Less than 5 
percent of fatalities occur in rear-end collisions. Beefing up 
the rear not only increases the risk of injuries such as 
whiplash, but it can worsen crash performance in the other areas 
where 95 percent of fatalities do occur. He also testified that 
1/16 to 1/12 of fire-related fatalities are in rear-end crashes, 
and most of these occur at 'very high speeds'.
   Ford documented the fact that it had spared no expense in 
working to prepare for the recall after the government announced 
its initial findings.
   The jury was shown films of crash tests run by an outside 
consultant on Pintos and vans identical to those in the real 
crash. The films showed that it required a closing speed of 50 
m.p.h. or more to duplicate the damage of the actual vehicles. 
More tests showed that at that speed the van would have caused 
massive fuel leakage and probable fire when crashed into many 
other small cars, and even a full sized car. It was not known at 
the time, but the prosecution had paid for some crash tests too, 
but did not use them because they also showed that it had to have 
been a high speed crash.

   The crash test films were to have been the final part of 
Ford's defense, but another witness was turned up at the last 
minute. This was another person who had been working at the 
hospital when the Pinto's driver was brought in and had talked to 
her. She confirmed that the Pinto had been stopped at the time of 
impact.

March 13, 1980
--------------
   The jury, which included a '76 Pinto owner, found Ford 'Not 
Guilty' on all charges. The cost of Ford's defense over the 19 
month criminal trial had totalled approximately 1.5 million 
dollars.

   A total of 117 civil lawsuits were filed involving the fuel 
system in the Pinto/Bobcat. Nine of them were still open as of 
1986. A total of 59 occupants are believed to have burned to 
death.

  Surprise, I didn't really need message number 21 after all.    
    See You Later,
       Dean H.

Message: 60897
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last...MANY!
Date: 09/10/89  Time: 23:47:19

        If anything, this will teach you NEVER, ever argue with Dean!

I found the results interesting... thanks Dean.

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

Message: 60898
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dean
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 00:48:06

Nice series of post.  I guess it's like anything that the press (or others)
get steamed up about and blow out of proportion.

Message: 60899
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Question?
Subject: Automotive additive
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 00:54:44

To anyone that is staying up this late...

Has anyone seen those commercials about the oil additive that will increase
your gas mileage, decrease engine wear, etc?  Is this one of those 500 mpg
car stories?  I think it's called QMI engine treatment ($29.95) and the
mailing address is in Scottsdale.  

I know I've seen it on Channel 45 or somewhere on cable, generally at about
2 in the morning.

Any comments?  If it is actually as it advertised, I wouldn't mind paying
the $30, but would like to find out from someone who has actually used it.

Message: 60900
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 05:13:24

Are you talking about "Slick 50"?  I've used it, and it seems to work as
advertised. I seem to have gained about 1 or 2 mpg.

Message: 60901
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/one more time
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 05:46:45

 You have almost as anti-Christian mindset as Rod does, and his posts do not
deserve the dignity of a response, but I will try one more time with you,
and that's about it. Your comments are as patently the tripe that the
atheist organizations and tthe hate filled Christ bashers use that you could
have copied it from one of their text books, if there are such. By that, I
mean that you have not come up with one baseless argument that has not been
heard before.  The "obscure church" that stripped the car either acted
illegally, and thus not very Christianlike, or you don't know the whole
story. THere are such things as obtaining abandoned title to such a  vehicle
if it was obviously left there with no apparent attempt at retrieval. (Such
as the owner contacting the pastor to say that he would get the care ASAP,
for example.)  The Holy Bible is far from the "mishmash" you claim it to be.
It is God's letter of love to anyone who wants to read what God has said
instead of what they want God to say. People over the centuries have grossly
misinterpreted the Word of God and twisted it to fit their own personal
warped ideology, but that is the people's problem, not God's. How many times
have you seen posts even here on Apollo misread and misinterpreted to mean
other than what the writer intended? Plenty! Whose fault is that? The writer
who wrote as he or she felt about a matter, or the reader's who read only
what they wanted to see in the post, thereby missing a lot of what the
writer really intended? In order to know what God is really saying on any
subject, you must read ALL that the Bible has to say on that subject, not
just one or two isolated passages, as many have done and based false
doctrine on misread Scr

Message: 60902
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Rod's ddinner
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 05:53:00

You mean you actually READ them? I just used five fast (S)kip keys, knowing
Williams' penchant for blasphemy.

Message: 60903
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: More to Ann
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 06:06:09

 As I was saying, one must find a broader base than isolated texts of
Scripture on which to formulate doctrine, or even valid opinion of what God
has really said.
 As to churches buying property on which they pay no tax, or property for
profit, the only church I know of that gets into such things is the Mormon
church, and as much as I disagree with their doctrines, I would be willing
to say without fear of contradiction that their profit-making ventures are
properly and legally taxed. I know that they own several motels and other
interests, but seriously doubt that they try to get away with tax evasion on
any of them.
 In using the KKK as an example of Christian behaviour, you again stray
widely from anything that would add to your credibility or your knowledge or
understanding of anything really Christian. I have read the Bible many
times, and studied it for years, and have yet to see one iota of
justification for running around in white sheets, burning crosses and
damaging property or people because of the color of their skin in the name
of Christ. If this is a Christian act, then you or somebody had better hurry
up and warn all those wonderful black churches around the country that their
praise and worship of Jesus as Lord and Saviour is a wasted effort! I'll bet
that they don't believe it for a minute though!
Okay Ann, that's it. If you can't absorb these simple, basic facts
concerning the Christian faith into your little bigoted brain (yes Ann,
Christian bashing is also bigotry!), then I am done trying to explain it to
you. This will be my last word on the matter, at least to you. God bless.

Message: 60904
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff/Klansmen
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 09:08:23

My family on my mother's side was from the south and I heard a lot about the
Klan from them - some probablly belonged to it no doubt. They told me the
Klan was Christian based - they got their beliefs from the Bible - that the
blacks (niggers in their terms) had the mark of the anti-Christ and should
be kept in their place and out of reach of the white supreme race! 
I also read when they marched through Prescott many years ago, the churches
were behind them. (Prescott history!)
You are right about one thing - the Christian that goes astray will get the
head lines. But - what is a definition of a Christian anyway? Paul says the
Reformation and the Crusades had nothing to do with them - yet they were the
ones that went out and killed millions of people in the name of God! They
all thought they were doing the right thing at the time. You can go to any
church and find people that live by the principals of Christ's teaching -
YET - they will go so far as to cut other religions down - saying theirs is
the only true faith etc. I have belonged to two religions and checked many
others out and this prevails throughout all. 
Questions: How can a person that adheres to Christ's teachings ....
1.... cut Morman's down for not believing in the Bible?
2.... cut their fellow man down at ANYtime?
3.... get a divorce?
4.... take the Lord's name in vain?
They do it all the time - even on this board. So - where are the guide lines
re: this? When I was a child & a Catholic, you followed the Commandents and
Love they neighbor etc. Period! Now, it seems stretched to suit. Ann.

Message: 60905
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/Nazi
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 09:17:19

Speaking of Nazism ... I do believe that the basic German religion at that
time was Lutherism! I do not think Hitler and his main cronies were though,
but the population was behind them at the beginning. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 60906
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 09:21:52

Re: "how many really follow the teachings of Christ?" (Klansmen)
That is my point - what IS the teachings of Christ? One good Christian will
say one thing and the next will say another. They seem to justify what they
want to. ALL our politicians are Christians - yet they are not a friend of
the people they are supposed to be serving. More like 'self serving'!
                               -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 60907
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob/render
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 09:33:03

I was refering to the church, it's properties as to not paying taxes.
I know one particular minister that is living like a King - not paying a
penny in taxes. He also has a Precott retreat that he owns a share in and
can use at any time. His house is a mansion.
Re: the Bible being mishmash ... for one thing, it's almost written in a
foreign language - might as well be for how hard it is to understand. It is
contradictory throughout. Most people listen to their
minister/pastors/priests
to translate it - as if they knew anymore about it! It's full of parables.
Why? The average people of those days did not speak in parables, nor do they
today. In the New Testiment, there is a tendency to put woman in their
places and that doesn't make a bit of sence to me. A human is a human!
In the Old Testiment - they DID put woman in a sub-serviant roll. If people
really believed in Christ's 11th Commandment, no one would be above others -
race - creed or sex! Can you see my point? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 60908
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Religion
Subject: Religions?
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 09:44:44

I am not against religions! If all Christians lived as they supposedly
believe, I agree with Rod that this world would be a wonderful place. I just
don't understand all the discrepicies (sp)??!! This is NOT for the sake of
an arguement - it's for better understanding. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 60909
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul...
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 10:06:17

        Yes, I read every word... I do not agree with them, but I do have a
funny bone and had a good laugh.   Rod has been trying to mellow his posts
down and yet get his thoughts on the subject in print.  He is using proper
grammar or at least trying too...  Using CAPs for God, Bible...etc.
        
        He has a right to freedom of Speech, just like you... and if you
must, you have the right to [S]kip them.  I just hope not everyone is as
thin skinned and afraid however, as sometimes there is a lesson to be
learned.  I will keep trying to get Rod to see the light... As hopeless as
that may seem.

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

P.S.  Question Paul... Does God understand humor?   He gave that trait to
man as I understand.  I do not see it in my fish or birds... ????

Message: 60910
Author: $ Michael James
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 10:51:19

On "Car Talk" (National Public Radio), I heard that Slick-50 isn't really a
one-time treatment as it is advertized.  After the treatment, you are
supposed to use their oil additive every time you change your oil (or some
other interval).

I'm pretty skeptical of this stuff because automobile manufacturers would
have a lot to gain from improving their fleet MPG averages with such a
simple technique and they're not doing it.

Message: 60911
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Nick and Head
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 18:39:05

Get a horse!

Message: 60912
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hathaway
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 18:39:13

Jesus Christ, shut up already!

Message: 60913
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: For sale
Subject: Much
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 18:59:41

*****   YARD SALE !!!   *****  !  *****   YARD SALE !!!   *****
          Saturday and Sunday September 16 & 17, 1989
             1309 E. Shangri La Rd Phx    943-7447
                       ITEMS INCLUDE:
RCA 25" MTS Stereo TV Monitor w/remote (works great as
  monitor for VCR etc, but tuner could use some work)   $125.00
Color Video Camera w/6X power zoom and Macro (exc cond) $175.00
Adapter/Power Supply to connect video camera to any VCR $ 15.00
Quasar VHS portable VCR w/battery, cables, charger/pwr
  supply, soft case, built-in camera plug    (exc cond) $250.00
Hitachi 50W Stereo Amp and Digital Tuner     (exc cond) $100.00
Ruger #1B Rifle 25-06 cal. w/6X18 scope, xtras (as new) $525.00
Radio Shack switcher for Video/Stereo component system  $ 20.00
Epson RX-80 Dot Matrix printer, Cent intfc  (good cond) $100.00
Comrex CR-II LQ printer, Cent interface      (exc cond) $200.00
Amiga software          (orginal packages, disks, docs) $ 10.00
Good Stuff I haven't thought of listing here            $ ?????
Lots of gizmos, records, and yard sale type stuff       $ CHEAP

Message: 60914
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JT
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:35:10

Re:  "So, Thornburg, you're a history buff, eh?"

I don't remember making a claim like that.  As a matter of fact I didn't get
very good grades in history.  But, I mean how edjamakated does one have to
be to know that Hitler murdered millions on Jews in WWII.

I give up; what is "Nazism" an abbreviation for?

Message: 60915
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:39:58

Re:  "Bob if you think that every high moral standard comes from your Bible"

Did I say that??  I didn't say that.  Rod said that.  I said that the
example you mentioned happens to come from the Bible.

But now you have me curious.  What "high moral standard" doesn't have its
origin in the Bible?

Message: 60916
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:43:13

21 Posts!  I just wanted you to know that I [S]kipted through all those
posts.  I mean like I never even owned a Pinto.  I never wanted to own a
Pinto.  I think Pintos look dumb.

Message: 60917
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: James
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:44:48

Re:  "Is this one of those 500 mpg
car stories?"

Let me tell you about this carburetor I heard about - - - 

Message: 60918
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:48:59

I read your long Christian bashing message.

If you are trying to say there are no perfect Christians, I could probably
agree with you.  Christians aren't perfect, but they are forgiven.

Message: 60919
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:51:49

Re:  "That is my point - what IS the teachings of Christ?"

Hmmmm.  The last time I looked, they were right there in the Bible.  When a
man says, "This is the teaching of Christ!"  One should check it out in the
Bible to see if the Bible really says that.  There are a lot of false claims
made.

Message: 60920
Author: $ Bob Thornburg
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 20:58:15

Re:  "I know one particular minister that is living like a King - not paying
a penny in taxes. He also has a Precott retreat that he owns a share in and
can use at any time. His house is a mansion.

So you are saying what?  You give me an example of a man, living like a
king, not paying a penny in taxes, and in general is very rich.  You say he
claims to be a Christian.  So this example is supposed to prove the Bible is
all mishmash.  I don't follow.  Just because there are wicked people who
claim to be a Christian doesn't prove the Bible is mishmash.  There are a
lot of wicked women who claim to be blonds, but does that prove all blonds
are wicked?  Ha!  Figure that one out if you can.  Are you a real blond Ann?
 Only your hairdresser knows for sure?

Anyway.  It is not a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to not pay taxes.

Message: 60921
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/60906
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 22:50:14

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Yes, I too have noticed that a
Christian can and will do absolutely anything and then justify the act with
their Bible.  It is like nothing is illegal in their religion except being
down on the acts of others but not their own.  I am not lumping all
Christians in together but there sure are a lot of them like I mentioned.

Message: 60922
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: About Paul
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 22:51:31

Paul is a good Christian.  His is the best Christian I know.  When Paul dies
he will surely go to heaven, no problem.  Gee, why can't we all be like
Paul?  -Rod

 
 
 
 
 
Just joking.

Message: 60923
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Bob "curious
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 22:53:48

Did you, perchance, read the message by Dean Hathaway concerning morals?  It
was up about a week ago and if you did not read it I will gladly find it and
post it for you.  You do read logic, don't you?  -Rod

(Peace & Love)

Message: 60924
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/Pinto
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 22:56:45

Even though I never plan to own a Pinto I will read the message after I log
off.  Who knows, I may go bankrupt someday and have to drive one.  -R

Message: 60925
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff
Date: 09/11/89  Time: 22:57:29

Thanks for putting a plug in for my messages on, My Dinner With....
                                Rod

VOICE

RING