### Apollo BBS Archive - August 7, 1990

    Mail from John Cummings
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:32:21

            I don't want you tell your kids anything! I don't ask you to make
    any changes at all in your life!
            I do point out that the discussion we had before:evolution from less
    to more complex, plan and planner, posited the possibility of a God. That
    possibility is logically and scientifically at least as tenable, or more
    than any other. (If you try to explain it other than God, you must fall to
    an absurdity of coincidences--e.g., monkeys and typewriters--or you must
    simply abandon and reject the argument. You chose to abandon it, which at
    least shows more intelligence than the absurdity of coincidences.)
            Therefore, since in this one instance at least, neither you nor
    anyone else can DISPROVE a creator, it is scientifically reasonable for me
    and any other person to assume the existence of the creator. I do so.
            I am not trying to convert you. I teach my six kids and 11
    grandchildren about a loving kind God who wants them to love Him.Please
    don't make up something different and accuse me of it.
            And PLEASE don't aske me to accept "scientific proof" of anything.
    The history of the world, from Plato thru Malthus to 1990 verifies again and
    again that Scientific Proof is just the latest theory.    --John C.--
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:I would think that it would be up to the 'believers' to prove the existence
     2:of a creator as there is nothing scientific that points to it.  And in the
     3:meanwhile the children are being lied to all in the name of non-logic.
     4:
     5:You can't expect them to lead good solid lives by starting off with tales of
     6:Santa Clause, can you?
     7:                                Rod

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 68356
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean on Love
    Date: 08/06/90  Time: 23:29:48

    I am interested in what you believe to be the "functions of love"
    that take place and how you can, in the same breath, say that
    the "functions of God were as well fullfilled..." without
    first off having some proof love exists.
    You believe in love the same way I believe in God.
    There is no difference. If you can prove to yourself that love exists
    between two entities, then you must also accept it exists between
    other entities other than yourself.

    It's not the fact the people don't believe in God...it's that they
    simply don't want him in their lives.
    Some people don't want love and fight and resist it at every turn.

    Now, in previous dialogue, some folks want to doubt the love I feel
    between God and me. That's fine. It's just like me doubting the love
    you have for your wife or kids. Just because you have absolutely
    no way to *prove* your love,  doesn't prove it fails to exist....
    The burden of proof theory is blown out the window.
    Next case.
            -Mike

    Message: 68357
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Annie on Love
    Date: 08/06/90  Time: 23:42:14

    I'll take the Rod Williams school of thought here and answer your
    question about the 70 year old woman.

    Nah. That's not love. Love doesn't exist. It's just a crutch for
    the sick and mental deformant of society. You know the world would
    be so much better off without polluting each others minds about
    this stupid sickness we call love.
    She's obviously brain dammaged, staying with an old crud like him
    because she could be out playing and having fun. Think of the wasted
    time she's spending believing in a 3000 year old superstition.
    No wonder this world is in such a mess. Too many people, idiots like
    this stupid woman, believe in love!. What a damn waste. Stop polluting
    these kids's minds. Make it illegal and we'll all grow up thinking
    for ourselves instead of someone else.
    Ban it in school and erase it from books or we'll see the end of
    the universe tomorrow!!

    Then again...time doesn't exist so there is no tomorrow...LIVE TODAY!

    Message: 68358
    Author: $ Jeff Lochansky
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Telix
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 00:43:33

    Leave me your address in E-Mail, if you don't live to far from me I'll come
    by and set it up for you, if not I'll mail everthing to you in 5 1/4 360
    format, thats the only dsc drive I have. It would take a LOOOOONG post to
    give you all the info you need. Leave your phone number and I'll give you a
    call. Sound fair????

    Message: 68359
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: wierd physics 1
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:01:39

    Consider this:

    If I am 300,000 km away from you, at rest relative to you, and you flash
    a light once per second, you will perceive an interval of one second
    between each flash, and though I will see each flash a second later than
    it actually occurs, I will perceive the same 1 second interval between
    each flash that you do.
    If, on the other hand, I am travelling past you at 75,000 km/sec, and
    as I pass you, exactly as I am next to you, you flash your light, what will
    be the interval between your flashes as I now perceive it?  After one
    second I will have traveled 75,000 km.  At that point, you will flash your
    light the second time; but in the time it takes the second flash to travel
    the 75,000 kilometers, (one-quarter second) I shall have traveled 75,000/4
    km.  This forms a convergent series, and without bothering you with the
    details, I can tell you that I will have travelled another 25,000 miles in
    the time it takes for your second flash to reach me.  Since it takes light
    1/3 of a second to travel 100,000 km, and since my velocity is constant,
    I will always perceive an interval of 1 1/3, or 4/3 seconds, between your
    flashes, while you will always perceive an interval of exactly one second
    between them.

    Now, you have said that the increase of mass as the speed of light is
    approached would prevent an object from being accelerated past the speed
    of light, since at c it would be infinitely massive and would require
    an infinite amount of force to accelerate it.  One problem I see with this
    is that we are speaking of measured mass; the proper mass does not increase
    with velocity; motion does not create mass, and the increase in measured
    mass is merely an aspect of the kinetic energy of the moving body.
    According to the Lorentz-FitzGerald equation, the *measured* mass of a body
    is derived thus:

    *m* = m0/SQR(1 - v^2),

    where *m* is the measured mass, m0 is the proper mass (or rest mass), and
    v is the velocity of the mass, relative to the observer, expressed as a
    ratio to the speed of light, so that  0<= v <1.
    But to the moving body, its mass has not changed at all.  That is, if v
    is set equal to zero (if we are travelling at the same velocity as the
    body), then the equation becomes an identity, *m* = m0.  This is as it
    should be; the increase in mass is not a property of the body, as proper
    mass is; if it were, it shouldn't be different for every observer moving
    at a different velocity relative to the body.

    So, while it would take us an infinite amount of force to accelerate a body
    moving at the speed of light relative to us, the body, using a drive
    traveling at the same speed as the rest of it, would need no more than the
    normal amount of force to continue its acceleration.  If it takes us more
    force to deflect a particle accelerated to near the speed of light than
    ordinary momentum could account for, it is because its velocity, relative
    to us, is so close to the speed of light, and consequently, as the mass as
    *we* measure it is so vastly increased, it takes so much more force as
    applied by *us* to deflect it.  But if the particle carried its own little
    drive, so that it could accelerate itself, there would be no problem.
    Consequently, the speed of light is the greatest *measurable* velocity
    attainable.
    But let us assume that you are correct; that it is an absolute maximum
    velocity, and that no massive object could exceed the speed of light.
    Then what about massless objects?  Photons are massless, and yet you
    say they are particles.  What about objects of *negative* mass, whatever
    that means, if anything?
    Here is where it gets interesting.  Let's go back to my first message.  I
    am passing you at a constant relative velocity of great magnitude, but less
    than the speed of light.  At some time after I have passed you, let us
    assume for the sake of speculation that an entity passes you at faster than
    light velocity, heading toward me.

    Let's assume that each of us possesed a mysterious device which flashed a
    light whenever the faster than light entity passed it.  I could interpret
    this light as an indication of its passing you, and vice-versa.
    In the example I gave in the first message, any interval that you perceive,
    I perceive as being a full third longer.  So let us assume that as I passed
    you, our watches were synchronized to 12:00 noon.  Let's say that 45 minutes
    later, by your watch, the entity passes you.  It's 12:45 pm to you.  If the
    interval between noon and the entity passing is 45 minutes to you, then it
    must be 4/3 of that to me, or about an hour to me.  So, let's say that,
    looking back at you in my telescope, I see the entity pass you at 1:00 pm
    by my watch.
    Now, the entity, traveling at faster than light, must reach me before this
    scene arrives (since the scene is viewed through my telescope as light).
    The entity, then, must pass me before 1:00 pm my time.  Let's say, 12:55 pm.
    Now, let's say that you have your telescope trained on me, also.  If the
    entity passes me at 12:55 pm my time, then what I perceive as a 55 minute
    interval since noon, you must perceive as a 55 times 4/3 minute interval, or
    about 73 minutes.  Thus, you see the entity pass me at 1:13 pm your time.
    Thus, I perceive the entity to have passed me at 12:55 pm, and passed you
    at 1:00 pm; therefore, it seems to me to have passed first me and then
    you.  But you perceived the entity to have passed you at 12:45 pm, and
    passed me at 1:13 pm; therefore, it seems to you that the entity first
    passed you, and then passed me.

    Now, imagine any changes going on in this entity.  Imagine that you observe
    it "aging" between its encounter with you and its encounter with me.  I will
    then observe it "growing younger".  Which way does this entity live, then?
    Clearly, time would then have a different direction depending on who was
    looking.  This would mean that there is no absolute order to events; events
    occur, and they are ordered subjectively by the observer.  Therefore, our
    entire notion of cause and effect would be dashed.

    Of course, the question arises as to how you would "observe" such aging, but
    that is another question altogether.

    Message: 68364
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: light/doppler
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:06:46

    If light is a particle (photon) and the speed of light is constant relative
    to the observer, then the speed of the photons must be constant relative to
    the observer.  Since any particle can be considered an "observer", the
    speed of any particle must be constant relative to any other particle.
    Since the relative speed is constant, their relative distance must also be
    constant; and so, once their initial distances are determined by the
    periodicity of the source of emission of the photons, these relative
    distances cannot change.
    Therefore, photons traveling in one quantum packet will keep a constant
    distance from photons in another quantum packet, thus the distance between
    quantum packets, that is, the wavelength, is constant.  Therefore, light
    should never experience a change in wavelength once created, and the doppler
    shift of light should be impossible.

    Message: 68365
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Mike C./love at 70
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:11:28

    But she said that there was terrible verbal abuse.  I don't understand why
    you insist that she should love her husband; love is something you earn, not
    a right you enjoy through formal relationships (i.e. husband-wife).

    Message: 68366
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: addendum/mass
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:35:16

    Incidentally, making v equal to the speed of light, in the
    Lorentz-FitzGerald equation, does not make measured mass infinite.
    m/0 is not infinity; m/0 is undefined.  The measured mass of an object mving
    at the speed of light relative to an observer is undefined.  The measured
    mass of an object moving faster than the speed of light relative to an
    observer is an imaginary number; interpret this as you will.
    The FitzGerald contraction would cause its measured length (in the direction
    of motion) to be zero:

    *L* = L0 SQR(1-v^2/c^2),

    and so with the relative velocity equal to c, the measured length would be
    zero.  Of course, to the object moving at the speed of light, or anyone
    moving at the same velocity, its measured length would be normal.

    Message: 68367
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Pauley on lust
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 07:49:28

    I agree with you for the most part  - but why is lust considered a 'baser
    emotion'? We are born with it arn't we? Any emotion can be 'baser' if we
    allow it right? I guess I should ask you to define lust! To me it means
    wanting someone sexually. Now if that leads to a happy lasting relationship,
    it can't be classfied as baser - if you lust after a married man or woman
    and you can't have them or distroy their marriage, that's baser. Or if you
    let lust over power your life  that's all you think of, then that can't be
    good. But gads, if your married for 10 or more years and your still lusting
    after your mate, that's great! What's with this 'baser' stuff anyway?
    I certainly agree that the sex part of marriage does not hold it together.
    As the years pass, it goes down the line of what's important to that
    relationship. I think that's normal. All the stuff written about sex and
    older people for the most part is Crapola. It leads people to think they
    MUST have a active  sex life for health and happiness! If they don't have
    it, then they feel unhappy and frustrated. Ridiculous! Fact: - people, men
    AND women reach the non-child bearing years and their sex life declines
    normally! It happens to the animals too. It's part of the 'grand design'!
    Do you agree? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 68368
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: John on Rod on hell
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 08:06:17

    Why do you think Rod "seems kind of up tight and tense about the subject of
    hell - paranoia"?
    That's one thing Rod is not - tight and tense about anything to do with
    religion. You are reading something into it that's not there. Or wishing it
    perhaps? -=*) ANN (*=-
    P.S. Re: "he seems to have a concept of hell that would make a chipanzee
    scared"! ..... Pardon me, I don't know what your religion/beliefs comprise
    of, but of all the religions I went to/belong to all taught hell was a
    scarey, horrible place to be feared. Not one taught me that hell was simply
    a place without God and that was 'the hell of it!' What does that mean
    anyway? - what is a place like without God? Is it like Heaven but you go
    around moaning and groaning that you missed the boat where God is concerned?
    Do you go for an eternity wishing you had believed?
    If you think I belonged to/went to obscure religions you're wrong - I was a
    Catholic and a Lutheran - went to Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, and
    several Holy Roller types and they ALL taught the same stuff - hell is pain,
    fire and brimstone, a real place with the devil that you spend an eternity
    in with no hope of getting out. Where are all of you coming up with this
    'hell is without God' explaination? Is this a new religion or something?
    I don't know about child abuse in teaching them about hell - all I know is,
    the nuns and priest scared the holy hell outta me telling me about the pains
    of hell! It DID warp my child mind at the time to where I couldn't think for
    myself. Child abuse? Yes, of a sorts!!! Just my opinion.

    Message: 68369
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike on love
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 08:21:53

    I see your point - but I still do not see this situation as love! He was
    cruel beyond comprehension. Because of the era they came from, she had no
    thoughts of leaving. We knew them for a long time - yet never ONCE did
    either say a loving or kind word to one another. Both complained constantly
    of each other. She couldn't even move a knick knack or he'd raise holy hell
    about it. He never gave her a thought about how she might be feeling and
    she, after so much, didn't either think about him. It was all/become rote
    more than consideration. Love has to have some kind of basis to exist. She
    professed no love until he died. See what I mean?
    I believe that when two people make the commitment to each other, they ought
    to do everything possible to make it last and work. To keep the love between
    them alive and healthy. That love can go from lust, to need, to
    companionship over the years - makes no difference what kind of love it is.
    If that relationship goes like the people I spoke of, what is the reason to
    stay around? This can be negative and distructive. Where's love there?
                                    -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 68370
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: News Today
    Subject: War in the Mid-East?
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 09:47:54

            Is it going to happen?  Does anyone care?  If you do care, is it
    just about the GAS prices?   Should we intervene with military force to get
    our people out?
            There more to life then brutal Love and wife beatings guys!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 68371
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Love
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 17:31:02

    Love is defined differently by everybody.  It seems to me that God is
    usually defined differently by individuals as well:  people in the same
    religion, even people in the same church, AND  people in the same household.
    Love is not a concrete thing.   There is no one definition that everyone
    can agree with.  It cannot be proven to exist.  It is an emotion.
    I think many abused children grow up getting love and pain confused and
    therefore, end up like the battered women who stay with their husbands
    because that is what they think love feels like.  It IS what love is to them
    because that is what they learned.  In fact, if you were to give them a
    choice of men, I bet they would chose the one that is bad to them.  To be in
    a good relationship - they wouldn't know what to do.
    Of course, they can get better through therapy or some self-realization but
    until that happens, they wont see the other side.  They can't.  That isn't
    their world.  When the husband says he will stop and gives her flowers and
    candy, she latches on again.  Only until SHE realizes it wont stop and SHE
    decides she doesn't want in the relationship will she try to get out.
    It may seem to not make any sence but I've seen the same situation over and
    over and over again.  The individual stories aren't even that different.
    And I have seen some people get help or change on their own and leave.  And
    it is a small percentage.  And of those, not all of them stay healthly.  The
    new reality is too much for them and they go back to what is familiar.
    Anyway, thought I would share my experience to maybe cast some light on the
    "why does she stay" and "that's not love" comments.

    Message: 68372
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff B/Telix
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:06:28

            Thanks for the tip: I think I'm closing in on it, and I appreciate
    the help.       --John C.--

    Message: 68373
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/Hell
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:13:42

            Annie, didn't you ever stop to think, even as a child, that the
    soul leaves the body at death, so hell fire, brimstone, etc., can't bother
    it, anyway--there's no BODY to feel dpain.  The "weeping, wailing, and
    gnashing of teeth" is sorrow for the loss of God.  Even as a child, that
    should have been apparent, especially as Catholic, Lutheran, and
    Episcopalian.     --John C.--

    Message: 68374
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Mid-east war
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:18:04

            Sysop, you're right again! Yes, there's more to life than wife
    beating!  There's "servicing the target," as they say in the artillery."
            Yes, we should intervene! Otherwise we're going to see something
    like Hitler in the 1940s!
            I hear that the 82nd airborne is on the way.  Not enough! Is Mad Max
    around? I bet some Rangers and some Seals would help if they went over there
    to kick butt and take names.     --Peaceable John C.--

    Message: 68375
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: John C./68373
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:40:34

    On the other hand, after the soul is gone (if you believe in a soul), the
    body cannot be made to feel pain; so some might argue that it is the soul
    that has the capacity for feeling pleasure and pain.

    Message: 68376
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: air pressure
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:50:51

    I don't think most people realize how heavy the air really is down here at
    the bottom of the atmosphere.  The air exerts 14.7 pounds per square inch.
    Of course, the insides of our bodies are at the same pressure, so this is
    equalized.

    But consider a sphere of metal, made of two hemispheres with flat rims.
    Put these together and there is nothing to keep them from falling apart
    again.  But attatch a valve to one hemisphere to which you can attatch a
    pump to pump the air out of the interior.  If the sphere is a mere one foot
    in diameter, it has 452 square inches of surface area.  Upon each square
    inch, 14.7 pounds of force is exerted, unbalanced, by the atmosphere.  There
    are then a total of 6644 pounds of force squeezing the sphere on all sides.
    If you were to attatch handles to each hemisphere, and have horses pull in
    opposite directions, each horse would need to pull 3322 pounds!
    Triple the size of the sphere, and you multiply the total force by nine, so
    for a three foot sphere, it would take a little less than 30,000 pounds of
    force pulling on each hemisphere to pull the sphere apart.

    Message: 68377
    Author: Mike Lauson
    Category: Joke
    Subject: jack and jill
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 22:25:44

    jack and jill went up the hill
    each with a buck and a quarter
    jill came down with $2.50

    Message: 68378
    Author: Mike Lauson
    Category: For sale
    Subject: guitar
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 22:29:52

    hey musicians...
    i wanna trade a hondo duluxe series
    lead guitar for a good acuistic
    guitar! seriously!

    Message: 68379
    Author: $ Jeff Lochansky
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Mideast
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 22:46:24

    From what I understand they air dropped the 82nd in today. They must have
    been planning this for a few days, because it takes at least 72 hours to
    deploy the 82nd. I think Bush is setting him an ultimatum for the safe
    release of americans in Kuwait. If they don't respond I think Bush will
    announce tommorow that the 82nd just invaded Kuwait. At least that is my
    humble opinion.

    Message: 68380
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: love
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 23:39:51

    My parody on Rod has nothing to do with my opinion as to
    the situation with the prescence or abscence of love with that
    70 year old lady. Don't put words in my mouth.

    Secondly I disagree with you Melissa. Love is *not* simply an
    emotion. Love stirrs the emotion(s) but is not an emotion in itself.
    If this were true, love would certainly die a quick death.
    Love maybe manifested in an emotional surge.
    Love is far too enduring, subtle and loud at the same time. Love
    has been poked at in prose, poetry and pathos.
    No one has ever touched really upon its essence or been able to
    separate it into a jar and classify it with a label and file it
    away. No, emotion it's not this I know.
    Love grows stronger as we grow weaker. Nothing can break it
    and nothing can measure it. It can't be seen, touched, smelt
    or paid for. It can be felt inside........not by any of the senses
    we accept as evidence in a purely mathematical or scientific manner.
    Nope. Love cannot be proven to exist. It's all hearsay...testimony
    by those who know it. Much like Christians who know Jesus in their hearts
    and the love he brings them.
    No, I can't prove to you the existance of love or God. It's something
    you need to find out for yourself. That's what so special about both.
    The love you experience is personally unique. When you accept Christ
    its exactly the same thing.             -Mike

    Message: 68381
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: WAR DRUGS HATE ETC
    Date: 08/07/90  Time: 23:52:38

    It will be difficult to battle in the Middle East. It will just give
    these so-called Nato Pact countries an excuse to trash America
    for being such a big bully again. Just like Panama.
    It will also give the Arabs an excuse to band and form a one-nation
    alliance. They'll go to all out war and attack Israel again.
    (and again and again for the umpteenth millionth time)
    No rest over there. Ever.

    Nope. I say stay the heck out. Let the gas prices sky rocket.
    It'll put pressure on this Nation to find alternate fuel sources
    and maybe...just *MAYBE* we'll all grow up and out of our desire
    to run the internal combustion engine. It would put the needed
    economic forces into action to get some really SERIOUS efforts on
    R&D into alternate energies. No Cliff, I really don't give a rodents
    glutimus maximus if I have to pay $20.00 a gallon. I'll just learn
    to use a bicycle. Things change. It's time for a biggie.
    If things get shaken up enough...just MAYBE this country will wake up
    enough of its people out of this long slumber of complacency and
    drug induced hibernation. Hey, did you ever think...really THINK
    about the POSITIVE aspects of seemingly negative influences?
    Sometimes this kind of thing can be a blessing in disguise. But NOOOOOOOOO
    You bunch have to go wailing about our interests in continued artificially
    low fuel prices. Snivel wretch wahhh. I say STAY OUT OF the ARAB states.
    Let those buffoons kill each other. Then we can step in.

    Message: 68383
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann/life w/o God
    Date: 08/08/90  Time: 00:11:31

    Good message Ann.  Yes, life without God has gotta be something interesting,
    doesn't it?  But according to JC (John Cummings) you are given a opportunity
    to accept of reject Him.  For instance, a person dies and is sent into this
    room where eventually you are interviewed.  You are asked at that time if
    you accept or reject your creator.  If you answer accept then you are
    forwarded to eternal reward.  If you say, "no way" then you go to a place
    with a lot of other former earthlings who answered just as you did.

    In that place w/o God everyone is given all of eternity to be sorry they mad
    the wrong decision.  See?  It is fair, huh?  And so well thought out, I
    might add.

    Clarence Darrow made a statement in a court of law that in effect said that
    the harsher the penalty, the more amount of crimes.  The death penalty does
    not stop crime.  And my point is that these parents who are threatening
    their children with an eternity of anything are going to be sorry in their
    old age because they have hardened their offspring and gave them a dimension
    that should not exist.  It is the savage that mentions such insanity to
    another.  It is the mental cripple who believes it.   -Rod

    P.S.  Thanks Ann for your help.  It is appreciated very much to be sure.

    Message: 68384
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: lust
    Date: 08/08/90  Time: 00:15:09

    Show me a person who does not lust and I'll show you a corpse.

    Message: 68385
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gas & War
    Date: 08/08/90  Time: 00:20:55

    Well, a lot of people have been getting laid off lately due to a military
    slow down.  So, Bush and some of his cronies from the CIA decided to have a
    little war just to get the economy going again.  Ho, ho.

    And about gas.....well the higher the price the sooner will it become
    feasible for the electric auto to make its grand debut.  Also the higher
    prices will once again cause the gas drinking tanks to go to the junk yard.

    In the short term it will be hard on some people but in the long run it, I
    believe is just what the doctor ordered.  I'll bet many people will take
    public transporation or car pools to work and use their precious gasoline on
    weekends and for special events.

    Now if we can only figure out a way to get an all electric airplane in the
    air....hmmmmm.