### 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

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.