Apollo BBS Archive - September 1990

Apollo BBS Archive - September 14, 1990

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 69559
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff / Syrup
Date: 09/13/90  Time: 23:25:54

   Sorry that you find my post to be so unbelievable, but all that you need
to do is call one of the pharmacies in town to verify my claim. In fact, the
bottle bears a disclaimer on the bottle that the contents are not a product,
nor licensed by, the Coca-Cola company.

Message: 69560
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff / Feathers Gold
Date: 09/13/90  Time: 23:27:09

   That was what I was asking, so I was on the right track.

Message: 69561
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod / Bible
Date: 09/13/90  Time: 23:39:13

   Rod, knowing you, I don't doubt at all your gleeful claim of defacing
God's word. It just proves all the more that you are not a real atheist. If
you were a true atheist, you would disregard the Bible altogether, and move
on to what most sincere atheists would regard as more important things. But
you, rather, seek a vengeful glee in doing everything you can to offend this
God you claim does not exist, demanding at every turn for God to do
something about it. In my mind, this would be utter foolishness to someone
who is convinced that there is not a God. You are more a hateful agnostic,
who, through his actions, confirms his belief in a 'god,' although whoever
that 'god' is, he hates 'his' guts for one reason or another.
   In short, I believe the conversation was between myself and Ann, and
anyone else who has anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the discussion. If you
sincerely want to be the 'true' atheist you want everyone to think you are,
then why don't you just sit back and ignore my posts, or any posts for that
matter that deal with God. [That is, unless you have anything to say other
than your desire to smear human waste in God's face, your Bible defacing
project, and other such jolly exploits.] The only people you're impressing
are the other 'hateful agnostics' on this board, not anyone who has anything
pertinent to say on the existence [or non-existence] of God.

Message: 69562
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann (Pts. 2 and 3)
Date: 09/13/90  Time: 23:53:01

   Ann, I'm sorry that I did not get the chance to reply to your other two
posts as I did to your first. For some reason (probably my own
fumble-fingers), I didn't even know that you had written a continuation of
the first post. I have them buffered, and will read and respond to them
offline.
   I also respect you, Ann, just as you have respect for me. It is certainly
nice to know that we are really reading each other's posts, and not simply
looking for a key phrase or 'bite' to twist and throw back at each other (as
some delight in doing). I also, am not trying to convert you. It's something
that is not mine to do. For me to think that I could would be denying the
sovereignty of God. Only He can enlighten. I merely present the truth as I
read it, believe it, and defend it. If I become an instrument through which
God imparts saving faith, then 'soli Deo gloria!' But if I don't, I'm not
about to bash someone over the head until they 'submit.'
   I think we have somewhat of a common ground, as you once were a
churchgoer and studier of Scripture, and I'm sure that you've retained some,
if not quite a bit, of what you read and learned. It would be my earnest
prayer that you would not disregard the Bible as a record of who Jesus was
(and is) and what he did (and does). Jesus was not a cross-builder, he was
not forced by God against his will to become the Messiah, he did not have
sex with Mary Magdalene as a child, nor was he any of the things he was made
out to be in Scorcese's film. The beginning of the film states that it is
based on a fictional work, whereas the Bible is widely accepted to be a
record of fact, kept remarkably intact (99%) for over 1900 years.

Message: 69563
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 00:05:34

Re: What happened to Satan
 
   Although I know it does not matter one whit whether I give you an answer
or not, I'm going to give one to you anyhow. Isaiah 14.12-15.
 
   Yes, the Bible is a 'need to know' book. But it depends upon whether you
desire to know what God has revealed to man concerning Himself, or whether
you desire to try and obtain the mind of God, knowing each and every one of
His thoughts. The former you can obtain through the Bible, while the latter
you cannot. You cannot know everything there possibly is to know about God
because, you silly man, you are not God. (Thank God!)

Message: 69564
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger / Scholarship
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 00:07:11

   I'll take the authority of Scripture over authority OVER Scripture every
single day. I'll take Luther, you can have Tillich as well as Erasmus.

Message: 69565
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger / Li'l Christs
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 00:08:57

   There is only one Christ. We are only man and not God, and thus cannot be
or become Christ. We are told by Christ Himself to follow Him, not BE Him.

Message: 69566
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann / Your Questions
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 00:10:47

   Are very good and honest questions, and it is my sincere desire to reply
to them as soon as possible. I noticed you have a seven part post to me also
and I have my buffer open and ready to capture! *grin*

Message: 69567
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on the Seven
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 00:16:32

   Ann, as I was downloading your posts, I was briefly reading each one as
it came down the line, and I see a lot of sincere questions, questions that
demand sincere answers. And I plan to offer you as many sincere answers as I
can. I've already read quite a few questions of yours that I wish I could
answer right here and now - and were it not for the fact that I have to get
up early for work tomorrow, I would. But trust me, I will reply to them as
soon as I can (and my earliest opportunity to do so will be early tomorrow
evening...I'll even try to track down some computer paper and print your
posts down so I can review them while I'm at work, to give me a little bit
of a head start in composing answers. Hang in there, and bear with me!

Sincerely,
Me.

Message: 69568
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 00:35:43

   Rod, trust that I am not going to go to the effort of answering Ann's
questions merely so you can chime in with your hatred and disregard. Ann,
unlike you, is sincere in her search for answers. She, unlike you,
recognizes Jesus, although she is not certain on exactly who He is. And she,
unlike you, respects other people's opinions, and not only when they agree
with her own.
   If you dread my posts, as you claim you do, then I'm surprised that you
don't simply [S]kip over them. You know the [S]kip command, don't you? It is
displayed as an option before EVERY single message. Even if you do a
non-stop read, there is always the  key. Certainly you have been a user
on Apollo long enough to know these basic commands. Nay, I know better. You
feign that you dread my posts, but if you did, you would not be so eager to
read them, distort them, and mock them. No, Rod, you love them and you know
it. Not on the basis that I present my sincere beliefs, but that I'm a
Christian 'sheep' that you can billy-club over the head with your prejudice.
   This, Rod, is why I intend to reply to Ann's posts in MAIL, as I should
have in the first place. I guess I am pretty stupid, to open myself up again
and again to the pseudo-atheist court jester of Apollo.
   And if I have offended anyone by this post (including you, Rod), I'm
sorry that your feelings have been hurt, but I am not sorry for what I've
said. Christ said that we should turn the other cheek (and God knows you've
responded by smashing both of them over and over again, Rod.) But He also
told us to defend our faith, yes, even die for it if we have to. Our weapons
are not guns, but the word of God and Faith. Enjoy the dead airtime, Rod.

Message: 69569
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: In search of
Subject: Lost dog
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 01:37:28

  Three legs, blind in left eye, missing right ear, tail broken, recently
neutered.  Answers to "Lucky".

          We all live in a   ____nhnn________   yellow subroutine

Message: 69570
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve/grains
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 01:58:03

According to "Reading the Numbers," they both have  480 grains.  The author
says that when the 5,760 grain troy pound was considered by many medieval
Europeans to be too small for everyday use, they added four troy size (480
grain) ounces to get a sixteen ounce pound of 7,000 grains.  Hmmm...that
doesn't work out.  Oh, wait...The Romans adopted the Egyptian pound, called
libra pondo (lb.) and divided it into twelve parts of 437 grains each,
calling each part an uncia (which means twelfth part).  The use of this 12
ounce pound spread to Europe, where the ounce was enlarged to 480 grains and
the pound was named a troy pound in honor of the thriving French medieval
trading town of Troye

Message: 69571
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve/puzzles
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:01:27

I have no idea about "Moishe."  Is that the famous Israeli?
 
Mozart's 37th...hmmm...Absolutely no idea.  Mozart?

Message: 69572
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve/compass
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:05:59

Well, I haven't used too many compasses (the last time I *saw* a compass was
in Weblos (sp?) so I bungled the question.  I asked it because I read that
magnetic north was situated right around Prince Edward Island (still should
be) and hence it would point due south, but magnetic "north."  I understand
our local declination is around 12.5 degrees east, though this information
was published around 1985.  I think the declination needs to be adjusted
about 1/15 of a degree each year.

Message: 69573
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Steve/aspirin
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:13:03

I don't use aspirin.  The point illustrates economic issues, not consumer
issues.  Their prices are monopolistic.  They don't have to "drive everyone
else out of business" in order to be monopolistic.  The point is not how
much Bayer charges, not how effective their product is and not whether $8.99
is going to break anyone.  The point is that capitalism doesn't work the way
free-market purists claim it does, that capitalism doesn't force reasonable
prices (and by reasonable I mean related to the costs of capital and
production) and that capital doesn't rush in like the cavalry to make prices
competitive again just because someone charges unreasonable prices.  The
example is trivial.  The point is not.  Got a problem with that?  Take an
aspirin and shut up.

Message: 69574
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/language
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:15:46

I just don't think "piles of bricks" exist until we define the concept using
words.  So in my opinion, the problem is fictitious.

Message: 69575
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:26:03

I don't think we have any way of knowing which explanations are closer to
the truth.  I think Ptolemy's *description* of the universe was not as
accurate a representation of the observable facts as Copernicus'
heliocentric view is.  That says nothing about their explanations.  I can't
really address their explanations, because the only thing left is their
representations (at least, that's all most of us know without delving into
the history of those particular theories).  What I'm talking about is
something quite different.  We've been oscillating between wave and particle
theories of light for quite some time now, but the formulae representing
experimental laws have been passed from each theory to the next like an
Olympic torch.  
What has come of explanations of gravity in terms of forces acting at a
distance or of distortions in the "fabric of space-time"?  Nothing.  These
explanations are not only confusing, they are painful!  What has been useful
are the descriptions of motions, not the explanation of the underlying
reality behind these motions.

Message: 69576
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Melissa
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:29:57

Oh, alright. Sorry!  You win!!

Message: 69577
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/ASN.1
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:41:14

I haven't the foggiest.  If I understand you correctly, the problem is one
of distinguishing between definition by synonym, and definition in use.  We
can easily set up a table defining symbols tautologously through the use of
synonyms; that's what normal language dictionaries do.  But when the same
symbols can mean different things to different people at different times,
when furthermore, sentences using these symbols suffer the same type of
semantic ambiguity, we must determine the meaning of the symbols and
sentences *in use*.  There is no general algorithm which allows identical
symbols to be differentiated when they are identical and used identically in
identical sentences.  Consider the sentence "All matter has mass."  Now I
might simply be defining one concept in terms of the other.  In this case,
the sentence is true purely as a formal consequence of the meaning of the
symbols, and is an analytic statement which is always true regardless of the
facts of experience.  On the other hand, I might say "All matter has mass"
intending to assert that any solid, liquid or gas behaves in a defined
manner under defined circumstances, which is an empirical statement which
must be validated by the facts of experience, and which can also be refuted
by observing a solid, liquid, or gas which does *not* behave in the
proscribed manner.  As isolated sentences, there is nothing to differentiate
them; the symbols are identical and are arranged identically.  There is also
no contextual clue which would allow the determination to be made.  The
problem is one of judging intent, and the only solution in such a case is to
read minds.  The problem then, is to design a language so that words cannot
be used this way.

Message: 69578
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl/syrup
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 02:44:00

Well then, I was right; it is *not* Coca-Cola syrup being called "coca-cola"
syrup.  It is something else.
 
Yes, you were on the right track with the puzzle.  Sorry! You win!

Message: 69579
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 03:48:22

Wow, what a post from you.  Opps but you're wrong again.  I consider the
bible that I have a research tool so that I can look at the funny stuff you
send our way.  I had to, as you put it so well, deface it in order to make
it seem more real or at least make it a bit funnier.  I've even done that to
your posts.  I stayed awake for hours one evening using my Search & Replace
function to alter your posts.

When I finished and re-read your posts I had such a good laff that my tummy
became sore.  This is the truth.  You can well imagine what words of your
posts I replace most often and with what.

By the way, if you want to have a private discussion with Ann then take it
to mail but by placing them on the Main Board your are inviting comment from
a Public Forum.

You had a few good puns in your post to me and I appreciate that.  You do
have a sense of humor.  

You can feel avenged when God and/or Jesus judges me because you just know
in your heart that I will receive double the punishment that every other
non-believer gets.  So cheer up, I'll get it in the end.

                                        Rod

Message: 69581
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/lode
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 04:00:11

What constitutes magnetic north.  Is it a big mother load of iron from a
meteor or something.  And if it is then I can see it shifting from its own
weight.  It must be awfully strong in order to affect metal from so far
away.

Mail to John Cummings
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 04:01:06

The next post was written off-line so capture it in your buffer and
reply at your leisure.
                                Rod

Mail to John Cummings
Date: 09/14/90  Time: 04:01:55

Speaking of 9 volts of determinable electricity in the human body in my
previous post I failed to add a thought I had pertaining to the discussion.

Five or so years ago I had a Motorola Portable Telephone with a
touch-tone, membrane key pad.  It was also an intercom.  Anyway this
radio/telephone with its Ni-Cad battery pack operated on 1 and a half watts
of energy.  And it worked anywhere in the Phoenix valley that an FM
transmitter would reach including some places in Paradise Valley and Falcon
Field in east Mesa because that was pretty much a straight shot at the tower
on South Mountain.

But what I am saying is that 1 1/2 Watts could allow remote and clear voice
transmission over long distances.  I don't know what amount of wattage the
average body contains and I'm sure it varies but even so humans use what
they have to transmit distress signals, happiness and contentment level
signals and perhaps even specific messages.  But we humans for the most
part, because it isn't a taught subject in general quarters, have not or
have forgotten how to interpret the signals in total.  Simple messages can
easily be felt from those we are close to but get around a stranger and
many problems are present.

A person has to be very flexible and super aware in order to correctly
identify electrical signals from total strangers unless circumstances
dictate a quick meeting of the minds.

These apparent minute electrical signals that each animal generate and
expound throughout thier environment are being received by others of all
varieties and species.  Whether they can be interpreted or not is quite
another matter altogether.  Usually they can't be or I should say they
aren't by the persona on their outer shell.  But deep within lies a chamber
of mind that all senses lead to.

This is the main source of thought and even though it hears and under-
stands many things of itself it doesn't mean that everyone will comprehend
in their conscience mind.  Some of us are allowing ourselves to be
distracted by our hobby, belief system, or delving deeper and deeper into
books when the answers take modern thought based on what we have previously
learned and are now learning.  I am specifically talking about Bibles.

One book says that everything was created by one entity.  Some believe
this theory.  If this were so then how is that belief germane to living?  It
isn't.  If it were so then why would IT want any sort of recognition?  It
wouldn't or shouldn't unless it was suffering from megamania.

If it were true that we were created then this creator hopefully would
want to see what it 'made' have a good time.  I know I want those my wife
and I made to have a good time.  I would not want and would feel embarrassed
by any of them trying to worship me or Jasmine.  I know what each of little
ones want and they do not have to pray to me.  I know what each of them need
and it doesn't include great pain and suffering like so many children and
adults experience on a continual basis.

All life is equal everywhere in the universe and the lifeforms you see
around you are, in effect, more closely, proximity wise, related to you and
I than something 100 million light years away.  Therefore we all should
treat each other as close relatives, brother and sister and yonder gender in
order to have a good world.  That would be what a god would like to see, at
least a good god or shoud I say a fun god.  But Noooooooooo, we gotta have
some monster who's knee deep into S & M and worse.

We gotta, according to the many, have a god that not only wants but needs
worship as well.  One that likes deep dark, bloody and cruel soap operas for
amusement, I assume.

Oh, he says, LOOK, I have made a good world with good people, I have
succeeded at something nice.  Instead of:  What a shitpot, people killing
all sorts of the beautiful things I made including each other.  What a pity,
perhaps I'll just recycle the shit into something more pleasant.  Oh lookie,
there goes another of my creation going through a windshield and being
decapitated.  Oh, there's a widow lady with three children and they are
undernourished and hungry and the cuppard is bare.  Too bad, they should
have prayed to me harder.

We're all god in that our potential, given the sum of eternity is unlimited
and once, perhaps, we free ourselves from the fleshy body and from the pull
of this planet then perhaps we can live free.  Because it is too much to
ask that mankind wake up and realize that it is actually more fun to have
fun that to not have fun.  And it's also cheaper.

One basic problem that we in this country and others around the world are
experiencing is our basic system of operation.  Take the U.S. for example,
we started out quite a while ago with capitalist ideas.  Nothing wrong in
that especially not at first but the deterioration of a system is based upon
its weaknesses or limitations.  We are forced by our laws to continue
playing this system as well as we can.  It is gung ho to every capitalist
and it is to the point now where the system is no longer practical or
helpful to play.
                                Rod