### Apollo BBS Archive - August 5 - 7, 1991

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7844
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike on Energy
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:09:55

    So you're part of the conspiracy who is keeping Joseph Newman and his Energy
    Machine suppressed?

    Message: 7845
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:11:24

    You challenged me to explain the paradox, and I did.  I did not, however,
    claim that it was a proto-lobster which laid the first chicken egg. It was
    obviously some bird very much like a chicken. A proto-chicken, if you will.

    Message: 7846
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike's yawn
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:14:12

    Thanks for the dump of scientific knowledge.  That is, in fact, what it was
    I was trying to remind you of.  All of the matter and energy were around at
    the beginning of the time line which we call the creation of the universe,
    as well as "before" then, whatever that means.

    (Sorry if I sound too dogmatic, Daryl, but I am tired and need to use
    shorthand.  Consider it simply one explanation for the universe)

    Message: 7847
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James Hawley
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 05:35:37

     Sorry, James, but I have to pop one of your bubbles.
     I have never pointed a finger at anyone and said "I'm going to heaven and
    you're going to hell! Nyah! Nyah!" or even words to that effect.
     I am ready at any time to vice and expouse my personal beliefs, and to help
    point the way to what I consider to be the truth to anyone who is seeking
    it. I do not, however, judge my fellow man, or condemn him, since that is
    not my job. I believe that the God in whom I believe is the sole judge of
    the heart and spirit of the individual. The best (or worst) I can do is to
    see the fruit of that spirit (the actions of the individual) and point out
    that those actions do not indicate righteous thought. Only God can convict
    or condemn, for He alone is just and righteous, but He is also a loving God
    who gave His most precious gift, His only begotten Son, to die as the
    payment in full for the sins of the world. Mine. Yours. Rod Williams'.
    Everyones'. All we need to do is recognize that fact, and accept it as the
    truth in our lives. And THAT, my friend, is a very personal thing between
    you, or I, or anyone else, and God Himself. I do not rejoice to see anyone
    miss the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Anyone.

    Message: 7848
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl #7841
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 06:51:23

    I just always wonder about a person dying most horriably - wasting away,
    stinking, a walking corpse - of cancer thinks that God 'is right here'?!
    I'll just bet his family wonder's too. And I'll bet that ALL of them wonder
    if hell could be worse! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7849
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl on evolution
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 06:58:11

    I'll bet you don't believe that birds were once cold blood reptilian
    creatures do you? One does not have to be a scientist to look at them now
    and see a connection with the reptiles. They could NOT have evolved from
    this to now in a scant 8,000. The ostrich has a bone in his leg that
    disappears before he is born - that the only bone like it was a dinosaur
    bone! But I'll bet again you'll just whip out the old Bible and it'll say
    thats a lie! It might take you awhile, but you'll find it.
                            *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7850
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James H.
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 07:18:50

    You are right - people need something to believe in. Personally, I believe
    in a little bit of everything - not just one thought, one belief, one
    philosphy! So far, I have not found that 'one' thing that doesn't have some
    mystery about it. No matter what, there is NO subject that isn't excepted on
    faith.
    I can't see spending one's entire life in expectation of a unknown after
    life! No one would want a glorious Heaven than me. I hope it is all true.
    But I see no proof of it anymore than there is proof of the big bang theory.
    However, the latter has a bit more proof to it and makes more sense. But I
    see no reason that they conflict at all! If God is all the Bible says He is
    and of course, He would be much more ... then he will know what is in my
    heart - my confusion etc. If I am wrong in believing in evolution or a big
    bang theory, then He will understand that. If I find the Bible a mess of
    contradictions and man made laws - He will understand. If there is no God,
    then no problem.
    I think the main thing that governs us all is our fear of death! Some simply
    fear it more than others. These will spend their lifetimes convincing
    themselves they KNOW the answer - yet these same people will be as afraid as
    the next person when death comes to their door. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7851
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: carter/being a child
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 09:21:08

     Look, I am not the one who is being the child and pointing fingers.  And I
    sure the h**l don't need your permission to practice anything I want.  Seems
    to me you are the one who has to get all defensive and bent out of shape
    when someone disagrees with you.
      About CAPS, !!!!!! and ???????.... Guess you don't know anything about
    emphisess.  Then again your not acting very adult in any case.
     Unproved theroies????  Now that's really interesting.  But then again the
    bibble is about unproved as you can get.
     Ya know I could get upset and complain to the sysop here about being called
    childish, etc. but your lucky, I don't act like that.....Maybe you should
    ask Cliff for some time in the ZONE...
      Maybe the rest of the people someday will get lucky.  Maybe you will grow
    up and be less offensive to the rest of us...

    Message: 7852
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: ann/amen
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 09:27:52

     That's called a "loving god" ann!  Or so these so called religious people
    here would have us believe.  It makes me want to puke.

    Message: 7853
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: daryl/evolution
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 14:07:42

     dw>>the odds against such things (sexual reproduction as a result of
     dw>>mutation, evolution of species from 'not-chickens' to 'chickens') are
     dw>>so astronomical that it boggles the imagination.

    yes i agree  the odds against it are astronomical  but theyre not infinite
    and as long as theres a finite chance of something happening it will happen
    eventually  all you need is enough time  but you do need an awful lot of it
    which is why belief in evolution has to go hand in hand with the supposition
    that the earth is very old and life has been around for a long time  this is
    the converse of what ann was saying in message 7849  she asked how you could
    believe a reptile evolved to a bird in only 8000 years and shes right its
    ridiculous in so short a time but of course you dont believe that reptiles
    evolved to birds at all so your belief system can tolerate a young earth  in
    fact if it could be proven that the earth was young then evolution would be
    out of the question  an old earth on the other hand is a necessary but still
    not a sufficient condition to prove evolution by itself  well if evolution
    and an old earth are only beliefs at least theyre consistent beliefs

    if youre wondering why my writing looks funny i dont have a terminal problem
    and im not trying to emulate e e cummings  im just trying to avoid using any
    capitals so mike cant accuse me of writing in crayola on walls like barb and
    im leaving out the punctuation so nobody can call me juvenile  anyway its an
    interesting exercise to see if i can still write intelligibly without
    punctuation in fact theres only one period in this piece and its right here.

    Message: 7854
    Author: $ Cliff Kolostow
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: the Bible
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 17:58:12

            I find calling the Bible a 'bibble' VERY offensive PERSONALLY...
    You can argue or believe what you wish.. This is YOUR right, however there
    is no cause to be rude or nasty to get your points across.

            TWO 'wrongs' do not make a 'right'

                            clif- *=* Chairman of the Board *=*

    P.S.  Wish you guys would grow up and argue points and keep personal slams
    out of the posts.  This is the first SIG I have scanned, and quite frankly
    I find it has left a distaste in my mouth and I will log off with out
    looking elsewhere. Bill Burkett I hope is taking care of things, he's got
    the load all by himself.

    Message: 7855
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Personally offensive
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 18:49:36

    OK, I've finally figured out what it is about all of you that gets me upset.
    It is your use of language.  Many words, especially in certain combinations,
    are extremely offensive to me.  Others are just mostly annoying.  So, to
    avoid further strain, I will list those words, which, when used by others,
    will not cause me any pain.  Please stick to this list in future posts:

     I
     will
     idiot
     always
     be
     we
     am
     are
     an

    Thanks for your future cooperation.

    Message: 7856
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: B.Dog
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 23:00:10

    BD> Thanks for the dump of scientific knowledge.  That is, in
    BD> fact, what it was I was trying to remind you of.  All of the
    BD> matter and energy were around at the beginning of the time line
    BD> which we call the creation of the universe, as well as "before"
    BD> then, whatever that means.

    You're welcome. I fail to see what your were trying to remind me of,
    as the equation "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is
    quite inclusive of energy and not exclusive as you have seemed to
    suggest previously.
    I'm pointing out that it is scientifically impossible under natural
    laws of our universe for the matter to have simply been there.
    Our universe has a set of unbreakable, fundemental laws which govern
    the extents of our capabilities. One of these is that everything has
    a beginning and an end. Every object composed of matter or energy has
    a finite quantity and has its origins. Daryl quite correctly points out
    the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a law it seems the evolutionist camp
    seems to ignore and strike from the books. Again, the empirical
    evidence is irrefutable and to maintain a belief that all this simply
    popped into existance from nothing is "unscientific and unfounded" ,
    your very own definition of religious dogma.

    -Mike

    Message: 7857
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Bill B. & Wild B.
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 23:07:05

    In Message 7836 I did not once call anyone "childish".
    I did mention my opinion of his attitude was juvenile, but cut
    short from calling him a child.

    Realisticly, anyone under the age of 21 is still considered a
    juvenile in our court system, so any admonition as to my comment
    on his attitude would need to be founded on his age being over
    21.

    A juvenile attitude is one of which cares less for anyone but his
    own desires and needs. An attitude of this type isn't necessarily
    confined to juveniles either.

    Wild B: You can't spell either.
    This makes your barely intelligible posts a chore to interpret.

    Message: 7858
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: daryl
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 23:09:13

    Good posts. Keep them comming, it's certainly refreshing to see
    such clear thinking and precise posts.

    I'll be certain to pray for Wild Barbarian tonite. IN fact I'll
    pray for the lot, it can only help and it might change their hearts.

    Message: 7859
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: carter/I could
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 23:37:22

    be insulting and say something about your intelligence or the lack of it,
    but I won't.   if my posts are "barely intelligible" as you suggest, then
    yours are simply stupid, offensive for the most part and juvenile (by your
    own definition).... I guess that about makes us even....

    Message: 7860
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 05:28:48

     Just a couple of comments. Two from that "very confusing" book, full of
    "contradictions", and one from me to you, just because I love ya.
     "The fear (read that awe) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
     "Without faith, it is impossible to please Him."
     My comment - you don't except something on faith, you accept it. Remember?
    You did it again!

    Message: 7861
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dying
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 07:24:58

      I know of more than one family where one of the members have died after a
    lingering illness: One of my Dad's employers died of cancer. Although both
    the illness and the death were difficult times, they were aware that
    sickness, suffering, and death, are part of mortality, and did not expect
    God to remove all their ills and distress. Yes, their was grief, but there
    was also hope, and they did not let cancer make them bitter against God.

    Message: 7862
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Second law
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 07:39:40

    Strictly speaking, the Second Law of tThermodynamics only holds for closed
    systems, in which no energy may enter or leave the system. Since the earth
    is not a closed system, there is an out for those who believe in spontaneous
    generation.
      However, the theory of spontaneous generation of life is about as credible
    to me as the idea that if you take a big enough collection of watch parts
    and stir them together long enough, you will eventually produce a
    functioning watch... It is much easier for me to believe that the process
    was guided by intelligence.
      But since I am not trying to prove the existence of God, It won't bother
    me if anyone claims this argument is unconvincing.

    Message: 7863
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Pauley on awe
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 08:36:45

    Here again you are confusing. You quote from the Bible ... "The fear of the
    Lord is the beginning of wisdom? ... and then you want me to change
    'fear' to 'awe' - which is NOT the same thing and you say the Bible isn't
    confusing? Come on Pauley. Where do all of you get these interpretations
    anyway? When I was taught the Bible, we were told to take it as face value
    and fear meant FEAR, not AWE!!
    I love you too even though you are quite confused. :)

                     -=* Annie Simple McPherson Oudin *=-

    Message: 7864
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Beau/word list
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 13:10:28

    will-I-am will always be an idiot.

    That's about all I can come up with from this word list, apart from "I am
    an idiot", which is offensive to ME!

    But I think Bill might have something to say about my first sentence...

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4966
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Quickie
    Subject: And The Winner Is...
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 08:27:40

    > Hey, let's all have a movie gt where we masturbate.  First one
    > who comes wins a prize.

    I think I did already!

    Message: 4967
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: Mike
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 16:57:32

    So, is it the fact that he was watching a porno flick "unsuitable"?
    Or is it that he went to a xxx theatre?  Or that he masterbates?
    I suppose the only questionable one for me is how appropriate is it to go to
    a xxx theatre.  However, he was visiting his parents.  Maybe that was his
    way of releaving the tension, so to speak.

    Message: 4968
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Who-dun-it
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 08:42:34

    I have not been keeping up with Pee Wee. I vaguely know he went to an adult
    book store and then exposed himself, right? Did he expose himself in the
    store - outside? Or did someone open the room he was in and he was playing
    with himself? Is there any proof he did any of this? I never did like him as
    a character, but I would like to know if he did this? or not. I believe in
    innocent until proven guilty! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 4969
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 13:04:58

    It wasn't a bookstore, it was an adult movie theater in Sarasota.  He was
    arrested, along with three other guys, by cops who were apparently staking
    the place out to watch for such activity.  If I were a taxpayer in Sarasota
    I'd sure as hell have something to say about that the next time the police
    chief came whining about his budget.  But that's how these shitheads spend
    our money.

    Message: 4970
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 14:40:27

    I agree.  Apparently the police department in Sarasota is overfunded.

    Message: 4971
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: PeeWee
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 16:42:14

    Anyone see the article on him in the New Times?

    FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1749
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Telescope
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:18:13

    Yeah, that movie went out of its way to show Arabs as good guys full of
    scientific and medical knowledge.  Quite a Renaissance Man Robin brought to
    England with him.

    What upset me was the lack of Prince John. I mean, the Sheriff of Nottingham
    aspiring to the throne of England?  The Sheriff of Nottingham having chests
    of gold to bribe the great landholders (were they barons or lords or what
    back then?)   GIVE ME A BREAK.

    Message: 1750
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:30:56

    It has been theorized that Richard the Lionheart was queer.

    Message: 1751
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Filmography
    Subject: Robin Hood
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 23:45:48

     The thing I didn't like about an otherwise great film was the way in which
    the Sherrif was made to look silly and ridiculous... I think they could have
    made him a little bit more evil and sinister, not silly....
    Otherwise I thought the movie was very good.  Costner might not have been
    the ideal actor for the part, but none the less he did a great job.

    Late Night Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 2065
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: What?
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:20:40

    Real discussion on this board? (or at least, what usually passes for it on a
    BBS).  Pirating and copyrights, cool.

    Message: 2066
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:34:40

    No hat.  Hair loss runs through the males in my mother's family.  Isn't that
    charming?  WOMEN pass on the gene that makes MEN bald!  (Hemophilia too,
    come to think of it.)

    I don't think we have any radioactivity around here.  Just geothermal
    activity.  Our water comes up out of the ground at 90 degrees.  Sure saves
    on heating though.

    I'm thinking of growing a tail so that at least I can make the most of what
    I have at the back and sides.

    Message: 2067
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon/hair
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 23:19:17

    Carry a can of spray paint in the appropriate color.  That should solve it.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 77421
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/GT
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 00:57:56

    Is the roommate housebroken?

    Message: 77422
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Still More Porn
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 01:41:06

    So what do the anti-porn forces think about people who make their own?

    Lots of couples these days are filming *themselves* with their own video
    cameras and using the result to get turned on.  It's getting very popular.

    ...er, so they tell me...

    It's hard to trot out all the old arguments about porn degrading or
    exploiting women, glorifying fornication and so on when what these people
    are looking at is a normal happy couple having sex.  Any comments, anyone?

    Message: 77423
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: M. James/auto&manual
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 02:26:03

    I've also noticed that there is a great deal of variation in the types of
    activities and the degree of conscious control of those activities which can
    be placed on "automatic pilot."

    It seems that conscious control plays its greatest part in the initial
    stages of learning an activity.  This applies to everything from driving, to
    shooting, to playing chess.  As someone acquires a skill, particularly if
    acquired by repetition, more and more of the development of that skill
    involves what might be termed subcognition.  This especially applies to the
    mechanical aspects of the activity.  By the time a person acquires
    expertise, most of his or her conscious direction is applied to very
    creative, artistic (for want of a better word) refinements; the bulk of the
    effort has become automatic.  Those of superior talent in almost any skill,
    regardless of how much of that talent is innate, and how much is the result
    of hard work, seem to act almost without conscious deliberation.  Of course,
    this is an oversimplification, but one which carries a significant point.

    However, for one reason or another, whether absent-mindedness, apathy,
    depression, or something else, people sometimes rely more on subcognition to
    accomplish a task than is prudent.  I have noticed that I do many ordinary
    tasks without conscious awareness (or at least, at a slightly later time,
    without memory of the event).  This frequently works well, but is sometimes
    embarassing when one cannot remember what one just did, or when glitches
    occur, such as storing milk where cereal goes, or vice-versa.

    Message: 77424
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Porn/1of3
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 02:34:08

      Mike's series on pornography is an interesting study in self-
    contradiction. It also does a fine job of demonstrating everything I accused
    theists of and more.
      He disputes as ludicrous my assertion that theists promote an image of
    sex, without a theist blessing, as being evil, dangerous, and unfulfilling.
    The rest of his series of messages is pretty much devoted to promoting an
    image of sex, without a theist blessing, as being evil, dangerous, and
    unfulfilling.
      Everyone is well aware that there are sexually transmitted diseases.
    People who aren't devoted to enforcing one pious set of 'virtues' on
    everyone else are also aware that STD's are not the unavoidable, God-sent
    punishment for having sex which so many would have you believe.
      Those who do feel the need to define what others can read or watch or do
    often seem to have lost the ability to make distinctions between coercive
    and non-coercive behavior. Child pornography and sex crimes are nearly
    always mentioned whenever one of these guardians of proper thought is
    telling us why we shouldn't abide sexually explicit material. Logically,
    there is probably about as much connection between sex crimes and the kind
    of sexual material that arouses a normal person's interest as there is
    between auto theft and Hot Rod magazine. If you weren't sick enough to
    violate another person in the first place, being exposed to seductive images
    won't turn you from admirer to attacker. I know that there is a porno
    equivalent to the twinkie-defense, but I am convinced that it is BS and is
    only used by defendants who are stuck without any real excuse.

    Message: 77425
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Porn/2of3
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 02:34:58

      Since I hate to work without proper research, I rented an X-rated video
    tape and watched it today. It was called, "I Hate To See You Go". If we had
    a PORno SIG I could post a complete review of it, but you can't have
    everything. Anyway, before the movie began there were two public service
    messages on the tape. The first one was a warning about STD's and included
    quotations from the Surgeon General on monogamy, abstinence, condoms, etc.
    The second message was urging viewers to become politically aware and
    protect their right to read and view what they wanted to through the
    political process.
      The film had all the plot elements of any good drama; a mystery to be
    solved; a conflict to be settled; forces of good and evil; and some
    characters who fit somewhere in the middle. There was no violent or forced
    sex, although there was one scene where a woman who was caught spying on a
    frisky couple was very mildly blackmailed into joining in by the rather
    facetious threat that they might tell her boyfriend she was a peeping tom.
      In the end: the good guys prevailed, the bad guys went to jail, and the
    woman who's life had been saved from a murder plot went away in spite of the
    fact that her savior 'hated to see her go'.
      All in all, I would have to say that it was a healthier experience than
    watching the evening news, or the 700 Club, but that's not much of an
    endorsement. Oh, and for those who keep score, rapes I committed after
    watching the tape: 0, more perverted tapes I went back and rented after
    watching the tape: 0, percentage by which my evaluation of women as special
    human beings who should not be treated as objects or toys went down: 0.

    Message: 77426
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Porn/3of3
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 02:36:16

      It should be obvious that pornography often depicts things that a person
    might not want to risk doing in real life. That is common to just about all
    entertainment though, and we don't forbid movies from showing people diving
    through plate glass windows or taking on bullies twice their size for fear
    that everyone will run out and do it. It's up to the viewer to realize what
    should only be enjoyed vicariously and what is an acceptable risk in their
    own circumstances. Sexually, this could include putting both health and
    relationship at risk, depending on the precautions taken and the type of
    existing relationship, if any.
      Even in my darkest fantasies of assuming total power over the denizens of
    the earth, as they cower helplessly before me, it never crossed my mind to
    persecute people for going to church or praying. They aren't hurting anyone,
    except possibly themselves, so I say, "Let em knock themselves out." I hope
    this takes a load off your mind Mike. I have to agree when you say,
    "Fortunately there are more people with common sense than there are Dean
    Hathaways." If this were not true there could only be a few people with
    common sense, since there are only a few Dean Hathaways (I only know of one
    other, but I haven't done an extensive search). I suppose that was meant as
    an insult, although it doesn't actually exclude me from the ranks of people
    with common sense. It just celebrates the fact that the set of all sensible
    people is greater than the set of people with my name. If you could have
    framed the insult so that it did exclude me from having common sense I would
    have taken it as a compliment, for in my more conceited moments I like to
    think I have uncommon sense.  See You Later,  Dean H.

    Message: 77427
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: M. James/planning
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 03:00:58

    The entire advantage of planning is that it takes into consideration
    currently prevailing factors and allows undesirable elements to be avoided
    or minimized while increasing the chances for a desirable outcome.

    The emphasis, however, is on *currently prevailing conditions*.  For this
    reason, plans, if they are to be rational, must be flexible.  It is not
    rational to plan out an entire lifetime based on the assumption of the
    continuity of currently prevailing conditions, unless those conditions are
    so restricted that their continuity is virtually assured.

    This is doubly important when an important element requiring continuity is
    one's own attitude, intellectual or emotional development, or desires.  To
    assume you are going to be the same person ten years from now that you are
    now, is to assume a lot.  When considering your own predilections in your
    plans, you should examine in as objective a manner as possible your
    historical tendencies: Are you known for sudden, intense, but short-lived
    passions and interests?  What are the personal goals and traits which seem
    most stable in your life?  How much do your interests depend on your current
    environment, on those who are now around you?

    Message: 77428
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Joke
    Subject: Paul Reubens
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 05:06:47

     I understand that PeeWee got a job offer yesterday. Advance PR man for the
    Montreal Expos.
     I know. Boooooooooooooooo!

    Message: 77429
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michael/planning
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 05:13:18

     Some good thoughts there, Michael. I agree, flexibility is essential if one
    is to lead a well balanced, happy life. That has become very evident in my
    life as a clown. If a childrens' performer goes into a party, for example,
    with a rigid plan to follow, the little dears will either louse it up for
    him in the first 3 minutes, or perhaps go looking for entertainment
    elsewhere. You have to think on your feet and be prepared to drastically
    alter your program at a seconds' notice. In a way. lifes' like that, too. I
    have enjoyed very much those things or events that took place unplanned and
    unprogrammed. Much more, usually, then the structured and disciplined day to
    day existence.

    Message: 77430
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/porn
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 05:19:07

     Since what a married couple do in the privacy of their own home is, and
    should be, their own business, I'm not at all sure that filming themselves
    in an act of sex for their own later viewing cold be considered
    pornographic.
     Pornography, in the strictest sense of the word, would be loosely defined
    as the production of such materials for sale to others with the intent of
    appealing to strictly prurient interest. A not too subtle difference?

    Message: 77431
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: a clarification: 1/2
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 05:45:47

      It now occurs to me that I should clarify my assertion that expertise
    generally means reduced conscious direction -- even in chess.

      No doubt the memory of chess tournaments comes to mind.  In watching
    a chess master stare at a board in deep concentration for over a
    minute, it seems clear that a great deal of consciousness is being
    focused on the task.  Yet this is somewhat misleading.  Of course,
    in tournament play, a master is going to concentrate on his moves.
    In ordinary play, I believe that a master would need to spend less
    time in contemplation than a good amateur, and the latter less than
    a novice.

      But even where tournament play is concerned, the concentration is
    somewhat misleading.  A neophyte may spend a great deal of time
    consciously deliberating the rules of the game -- which moves are
    legal and which moves are illegal.  An amateur with some experience
    will not spend time contemplating illegal moves: in fact, he will
    not even *see* them.  He has organized his perceptions so that they
    are filtered out.  A master, in some sense, has organized his chess
    playing abilities, "subcognitized" them to such a degree, that he
    does not only not see illegal moves, but does not see *bad* moves.
    (CONT.)

    Message: 77432
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: a clarification: 2/2
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 05:46:34

    Furthermore, the way these moves are made is not by the step-by-step
    conscious deliberation of a rank amateur, but by subcognitive processes
    *guided* by consciousness.  As Douglas Hofstadter puts it:

      A brilliant chess move, once the game is over and can be viewed in
      retrospect, can be seen as logical -- as "the correct thing to do in
      the situation."  But brilliant moves do not originate from the kind
      of logical analysis that occurs *after* the game; there is no time
      during the game to check out all the logical consequences of a move.
      Good chess moves spring from the organization of a good chess mind:
      a set of perceptions arranged in such a way that certain kinds of
      ideas leap to mind when certain subtle patterns or cues are present.
      This way that perceptions have of triggering old and buried memories
      underlies skill in any type of human activity, not only chess.  It's
      just that in chess the skill is particularly deceptive, because after
      the fact, it can all be justified by a logical analysis, a fact that
      seems to hint that the original idea *came from* logic.

    Message: 77433
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michael # 77415
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 06:34:36

    At the risk of being critiqued for using a old phrase ... "that was a good
    post!" *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77434
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/porn
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 17:02:29

    In view of the subject matter, was that a Passion Pit you dug for Mike to
    fall into?  Or was it just a Bare Trap?

    I know we don't have a PORno SIG, but why not post a review of the movie on
    COSmos?  Or are you having trouble deciding between COSmos and the FILm SIG?

    Message: 77435
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul/porn
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 17:04:45

    I'd certainly agree that it would be hard to find anything wrong with what a
    married couple did with their own equipment.  (Camera equipment, that is.)
    Looked at another way, you could think of it as making love in front of a
    mirror, plus time-shifting!  But it was worth asking people, because I'm
    sure there are still some who don't think you should even have the light on.

    The problem is, though, where do you draw the line?  Suppose the couple
    *did* sell their movies to others?  You said you'd like to see
    "pornography...  loosely defined as the production of such materials for
    sale to others with the intent of appealing to strictly prurient interest".
    But which part of this definition makes it "bad"?  Is it the "prurient"
    part?  "Prurient" according to my dictionary means "having or expressing
    lustful ideas or desires; tending to excite lust".  Now I've no doubt the
    couple themselves would be using the movie themselves to "excite lust"; so
    is that all right?  And if it's all right for individuals to manufacture and
    use an object (the movie), why shouldn't they have the right to sell it?

    A lot of argument against porn was directed at the idea that it (apparently)
    shows, and therefore tacitly condones, promiscuous sexual relations.  But
    suppose it doesn't?  It would be hilarious if we had a law that permitted
    the sale of pornographic material *as long as* the couples depicted therein
    could produce a valid marriage license when called upon to do so!  Simpler
    still, maybe porn should be legal as long as the couple wear wedding rings!

    Message: 77436
    Author: Lance Allen
    Category: For sale
    Subject: Drumset!
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 18:27:25

     7 piece Ludwig 'QuadraPlus' with Zildjian & Paiste cymbals.
     Pretty Crome outer lining. Also included is a rare 1920's Ludwig snare &
    case. Asking $600. If interested call me @ 470-1452 or leave e-mail on most
    IBM bbses to me ,
                   Lance Allen

    Message: 77437
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Still more
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 21:41:26

      I don't approve of that kind of thing...but what married people do in the
    privacy of their own homes is pretty much their own business.
      The problem with videotaping it is that others (children, neighbors,
    burglars, etc.) may see these tapes, in which case it ceases to be a
    private matter between the couple. Or if they go producing their own for
    sale, it has the same effect on others who view it as any other commercial
    porn.

    Message: 77438
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: War!
    Subject: More Porn
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 22:11:33

      Pornography works in a manner roughly analogous to tobacco, or perhaps
    cocaine, or something like. Its effects are usually gradual and
    insiduous...I don't know of anyone who died after their first puff of
    tobacco... but spread out  over a period of years, its cumulative effect is
    deadly. Actually cocaine might be a better example,... because it is
    initally more pleasurable, and acts more quickly. Certainly not everyone who
    somkes gets heart disease or lung cancer, and many people get ling cancer
    and heart disease who have never smoked...but try convincing the Surgeon
    General that the only people who were already susceptible to lugn cancer get
    it, smokers or not, or that smoking and lung cancer have a common cause.
      (Tobacco companies will tell you such things....but you already know what
    their motive$ are. They don't print those warning labels out of the goodness
    of their hearts.)
      As far as addiction goes...you might never know you are addicted until you
    try to quit.
      Pornography (and too much of modern literature and art, for that matter)
    portrays a false impression of sex and sexual relations.  The act of
    intercourse is just about as physically intimate as it is possible to get.
    If there is no emotional and other kinds of intimacy, such as in 'good'
    marriages, and no lasting commitment, you get " love 'em and leave 'em"
    behavior: with various consequences. If the emotional intimacy and
    commitment are present in some degree, there is other distress.

    Message: 77439
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean again 1/3
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 22:52:17

    Your original message stated that "Theism" said sex was impossible
    and unenjoyable outside of the "rigid" rules. You also claim that
    sex outside of this is threatless and perfectly safe. Wrongo.
    I correctly pointed out the bible does not address sex as being
    unenjoyable. There's plenty of talk about fleeing from sexual immorality
    because it is a sin against your own body, but these are not
    "rules" , they are admonitions and warnings.

    DH> The rest of his series of messages is pretty much devoted to
    DH> promoting an image of sex, without a theist blessing, as being evil,
    DH> dangerous, and unfulfilling.

    Not one place did I say that. Again, you're obfuscating the facts
    to hide your weak argument. I mentioned my marriage was very fullfilling,
    disputing your ludicrous inference that because within "rigid
    theist rules" it couldn't possibly be enjoyable.

    DH> Everyone is well aware that there are sexually transmitted diseases.

    Oh really? Why then is there an alarming increase in patients and
    reports? Statistic clearly show STD's are skyrocketing.
    Perhaps they know, but like you choose to ingnore the warnings?

    Message: 77440
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean again 2/3
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 22:53:34

    DH> People who aren't devoted to enforcing one pious set of 'virtues' on
    DH> everyone else are also aware that STD's are not the unavoidable,
    DH> God-sent punishment for having sex...

    Who's enforcing a set of 'pious' virtues? I haven't seen any sex cops
    around except for what-her-name's dildo law, and she's probably an
    atheist. Again, you're conjuring your own fantasies to support
    a fallacy. BTW, It's not God-sent. It's man-created and man-spread,
    another one of your ludicrous statements.

    DH> I know that there is a porno equivalent to the twinkie-defense,
    DH> but I am convinced that it is BS and is only used by defendants...

    What's a twinkie-defense? Is it something like an Oreo-defense?
    There's far too many convicted rapists and other criminals charged on
    both sex-related and non-sex related crimes that *after* and *during*
    the incarceration period have come out and admitted they felt there *WAS*
    a connection with their behaviour and a steady diet of pornography. The
    empirical evidence for one, refutes any mere opinions that porn and crime
    aren't connected. There's far too many criminals and crime scene evidence
    and testimony to believe otherwise. The only BS I see here is the weak
    and unsupportable arguments you have so clumsily put forth.

    Message: 77441
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean again 3/3
    Date: 08/06/91  Time: 22:54:33

    DH> It's up to the viewer to realize what should only be enjoyed
    DH> vicariously and what is an acceptable risk in their own
    DH> circumstances. Sexually, this could include putting both health
    DH> and relationship at risk, depending on the precautions taken and
    DH> the type of existing relationship, if any.

    I couldn't aggree more. It seems you are the one contradicting your
    previous stance, admitting there is a danger here and that such
    things could ruin an existing relationship. I rest my case.

    My comment about common sense was a very mild insult and if your
    feelings are hurt I apologize. As far as your common sense goes,
    I do aggree that you normally exhibit a good sum of it. These
    last six posts I have responded to, however, show a major lapse
    of it. I'd almost say that you speak like you might have a vested
    interest in pornography, like stock holdings perhaps?
    ;-)
    See ya, -Mike

    Message: 77442
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/porn
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 05:23:59

     We don't need to strain at gnats or swallow camels,Gordon, to differentiate
    between something made for personal reasons and something produced
    commercially for gain.
     One major difference between a couple videotaping a love making session for
    their own later viewing and pornographic material produced for profit is the
    possibility of wrongful viewing. By that, I refer to those perverts who
    would become aroused at a porn film and go ot and rape someone, or molest a
    child, or those children into whose hands a film may fall, kids who are not
    prepared and cold not handle the emotional results from watching such films.
     While I have no problem with what two people want to do in privacy for
    their own pleasure, I do feel that tha latter groups need protection from
    commercial pornography.

    Message: 77443
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Porn on album?
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 08:23:04

    There was a small article about David Bowie's new album cover. It is causing
    quite a controversy and it will be air brushed before it goes on sale. Is it
    Bowie naked? Is it Bowie Naked with naked women? Is it naked women? Naw!
    None of thoses - its pictures (photographs) of Greek statues (antiquities)
    with their private parts showing and that is what they are airbrushing out.
    What is so funny is that these statues are displayed in some of the most
    prestigious museums in the world as classical art! Of course, these are
    statues of men.
    I find this so very two faced and puritanical! I will never understand
    people's hangups where sex is concerned! To take a perfectly natural human
    emotion and make it into a perfectly nasty thing to do except under the
    strictest circomstances is beyond me. To keep something that 99.99% of
    everyone in this intire world does/has done from the beginning, hidden from
    our children like some dark closet skeleton is crazy.
    All this is a mystery to me, but I do know one thing ... if anything is
    enjoyable or a pleasure, whether it's food, drink, or sex, people will make
    it a bad thing and curb it to where it isn't enjoyed anymore!

    Someone mentioned that a person's kids could get a hold of a vidio of 'mom
    and pop' making love and that is the danger to taping it. So what the kid
    sees what mom and pop do? Their mom and pop did it before them etc. and
    after all, that's how the kid got there to begin with and he's going to be
    doing it someday! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77444
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: GT
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 14:51:56

    I'm trying to set up a GT at my house the afternoon of September 15, which
    is a Sunday.

    Message: 77445
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 16:49:56

    My, sounds like you're planning pretty far in advance...
    So, what's the theme of this GT?  A let's-annoy-my-neighbors-GT?  A
    how-many-times-will-the-cats-go-in-and-out-the-front-door?  A redecorating
    furniture lesson from your house broken mate?

    Message: 77446
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Michael/GT
    Date: 08/07/91  Time: 23:30:21

    Will you allow hard drugs?