### Apollo BBS Archive - September 7, 1990

    Mail from John Cummings
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:01:58

            Yes, there are sure a lot of bad things happening and have happened.
            But, that does not define intelligence or the lack thereof. You said
    the human is "illiterate". Please explain that--by my definition of
    literacy, the human is the only animal WITH the quality.

            Having weapons of destruction also does not deny intelligence.
    Indeed, it may underline it, since they have not been used. Just because the
    human does things which Rod does not like, or with which Rod does not agree,
    cannot label the human illiterate, un-intelligent, or beastly.

            The human does many things which are kind, loving, considerate,
    helpful to other humans and to animals. Do you ignore these? -John C-

    Mail from John Cummings
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:06:11

            If religion were what you claim, then it would really be a disease.
    But the religion you outline exists only in your mind, Rod. Why do you
    assume that a natural disaster must be "a work of God"? I never posed that
    point. The creator made a world (in this imaginary discussion we're having.)
    and the world is as we find it. So far, we have not considered any further
    action from the creator. Are you with me?    --John C--

    Mail to John Cummings
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 14:48:13

    I will answer your post off-line but let me say this about that:

    I have on many occasion seen species of animal other than human showing
    consideration, love and kindness not only to their own kind but to others as
    well.

    All life is equal.  When the 'soup of life' came about all were equal but
    due to particular environment and specific events that happened to each,
    growth and development went towards survival.  Therefore one kind developed
    sharp claws, others large tails and still others long necks.  The species
    that I represent developed over millions of years, hands with movable
    fingers that were once toes of feet.

    Just because we developed the use of our toes as fingers and started walking
    upright for survival does not make us "intelligent" as you say.  It just
    give us the ability to make things.

    I don't doubt that if some of the other species had developed hands that our
    world would be just as messed up as it is now as it seems that all life on
    this planet is, during this period in the development of life, fairly
    illiterate.
       Read the classic, Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana and see
    what the area was like then and compare it to now.  It was the human animals
    doing and no others therefore we may not be the dumbest animal but we are
    the ones who have messed it up the most and that responsibility lies
    SOLELY with us, not the cat, the dog or the zebra.

    It is scary to raise children in this world.  Take a deep breath in the
    great out of doors and then tell me that man is intelligent.

    Message: 4225
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: statistics
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 20:03:46

    Every minute, humanity's male organs ejaculate forty-three tons of semen.
    This is discharged into vaginas at the rate of 430,000 hectoliters per
    minute, as compared with the 37,850 hectoliters of boiling water produced at
    each eruption of the world's largest geyser at Yellowstone.  The geyser of
    sperm is 11.3 times more abundant, and shoots without intermission.

    Message: 1472
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Different girls
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 09:09:01

    So, I guess men would like to have sex with lots of different girls, rather
    than just one?  Why is that?  I mean, after being with someone for a while,
    you both know what to do and how each other works.  I see that some people
    could get into a pattern or only use one position but if the two people are
    imaginative and creative, why the need for different women?

    Message: 1473
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Different Girls...
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 09:30:07

            Naaaaa, only the one you Love is needed.  Without the Love angle, it
    seems sooooooo empty.  Take it from an old sailor...me!

                            clif-     (not that old)

    Message: 1474
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Melissa #1472
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 11:05:23

    I'd like to know the answer to that one myself! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 1475
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: evolution
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 12:21:44

    Evolution made us this way. Our genes have the greatest possibility of
    spreading with the more women that copulate with us. Women, on the other
    hand, have the greatest probability of spreading their genes if the children
    they raise survive. Therefore, women tend to be nest-makers, and men tend to
    have wander-lust.

    Message: 1476
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: :Last
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 16:32:30

    I don't buy it.  Women can make babies by themselves and men aren't going
    around spreading their seed because they want many children.  In fact, they
    are usually trying to avoid it.
    Try again.

    Message: 1477
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/evolution
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 18:17:27

    Nonsense.  Recent studies have shown that to be a lot of male chauvinism, at
    least where birds are concerned.  The famales play all kinds of tricks on
    the males in order to mate with other males.  Birds are not generally
    monogomous.

    Message: 1478
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Different Girls
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:02:33

      How many women are there on the earth right now? How many over 18?
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 1479
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 09:16:02

    SEE!  See!  It's like this cultural thing to be funny about it but it seems
    to be a cultural thing about it being true.  Like, even if a guy IS in a
    monogamous relationship, he really wishes he could be screwing everything in
    sight.
    I think it's a manly issue.  Men feel that the more they fuck, and
    especially, the more different women they fuck, that the more they are a
    man.

    Message: 1480
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Sex
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:06:53

    Blame it on Ma Nature.  I have always had an inner desire to mate with just
    about every female that I see.  My inner being has this model of a female
    body and when I check out women then I compare them to this model.

    If it matches or is close enough then I have this GREAT urge to have sex
    with them.  I must think of sex at least three times per minute.

    I also have this survival instinct but that's another story although it
    is the same type of instinct as all other built ins that the animal species
    develops.

    Sex is a big motivator in a persons life and if it weren't then we would
    wear bland clothes and drive plain automobiles and girls would not wear
    makeup and guy would not wear tight jeans.

    Just thinking about it make me want to make love.

            Rod to right hand:   What are you doing this evening dear?

            Right Hand:  I'm busy, my finger is cut and it hurts.
            Left Hand:   I'm not doing anything, big boy, pick me up at 8.

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 69249
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/sun
    Date: 09/06/90  Time: 22:32:13

    Well, that should be dramatic. Fortunately they say it's millions of years
    in the future.
    I'm still young and naive enough to think that humans are not a completely
    failed experiment that should be written off...

    Message: 69250
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: MacGregor
    Date: 09/06/90  Time: 22:34:46

    First you miss the point altogether, and then when you finally come to see
    it (if in fact you have) you fly off into the opposite extreme.  I realize
    of course, that you are merely attempting to ridicule me because you feel
    embarassed, but my point is very valid.  The point is that mathematical
    models are not reality, and should not be confused with reality.  The point
    is that the mathematical symbols we use to *represent* actual physical
    properties...the magnitudes on which our calculations bear, are not physical
    realities.  The principles used do not state real relations among those
    realities.  That doesn't make them useless; but it doesn't give
    them the significance that you are trying to give them, either.

    Message: 69251
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/A-bombs
    Date: 09/06/90  Time: 22:39:54

    Far more people were killed in conventional bombing than with both the
    A-bombs combined.

    Message: 69252
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 09/06/90  Time: 22:43:24

    I agree that we both could benifit by further research.

    Message: 69253
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/models
    Date: 09/06/90  Time: 23:03:53

    You're still doing it.  The rock does not follow a circular path.  It might,
    under appropriate controls, follow an approximately circular path, the
    degree of approximation varying with the tightness of the controls.  It does
    not fly off at a tangent to the circle; a circle is a geometric planar
    entity, and a tangent is another geometric entity, a line which touches
    another line but does not intersect it, at a single point (in this usage).
    There is no time T1 and time T2 except in your model; there are no more real
    "points in time" than there are "points in space."  You say that the string
    may have one of two states, whole or broken.  Well, in your model, that is
    so.  In reality, the border between a whole string and a broken string is
    fuzzy.  The string is not "whole" in any mathematically continuous sense
    even when common sense tells us that it is whole; it is composed of discrete
    material units held together by internal forces.  The discrete material
    units are not touching each other; they are seperated by a distance.  We
    call the string broken when, at the scale on which our common sense
    operates, the distance between certain particles is greater than what our
    definition of a whole string would allow.  At what arbitrary distance would
    you determine the string to have "changed states" ?  It does not take "zero
    time".  There is no such thing as an instant in time for the same reason
    that there is no such thing as a point in space.

    Message: 69254
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: JB/69250
    Date: 09/06/90  Time: 23:13:48

    Hey, stop it with the name calling already.

    Message: 69255
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Name calling?
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 00:01:11

            Yea, knock it off....  At least on the PUBlic board!   Humph!

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

    Message: 69256
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: MacGregor/RADAR
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 00:59:23

    I can't say that I know anything about the operation of oscilloscopes.  What
    I don't see is how you could measure the distance between two pulses of a
    trace with a speed in the millisecond range, when the interval is in the
    nanosecond range.  That isn't to say that it can't be done; that is to say
    that I wish someone would explain how to me.

    Message: 69257
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Beau Dog/name callin
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 01:02:10

    Quite right.  But it is hard not to be tempermental when someone posts
    messages distorting what you say into ludicrous straw men, not even for the
    purpose of refuting you, but solely for the purpose of ridiculing you. I'll
    be civil to those who are civil to me.  Can any reasonable person ask more?

    Nevertheless, I deleted the explicit insults.

    Message: 69258
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: model & reality
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 01:05:33

    When we set out to create a physical theory, we choose certain observable
    properties of reality which we take to be primary, and represent them as
    a certain group of geometric or algebraic symbols and magnitudes, *through
    appropriate methods of measurement.*  Through these methods of measurement,
    we make each state of a physical reality correspond to a value of the
    representative symbol.
    We connect these symbols by means of propositions which we use in our
    mathematical deductions, but they do not state real relations among the
    real properties of bodies.  The only constraints, therefore, are the
    analytic constraints involving internal consistency.
    These are then combined according to the rules of mathematical analysis in
    order to form our theory.  The magnitudes involved in the calculations are
    not physical realities, and the mathematical propositions do not state real
    relations among those realities; it doesn't matter whether the operations
    performed correspond to real or conceivable physical transformations; it
    is only important that the logic is valid and the calculations accurate.
    The consequences drawn from these calculations can then be translated into
    terms giving them an empirical interpretation.  These consequences are
    compared with the empirical behavior which the theory is supposed to
    represent.  If they agree *to the degree of approximation corresponding to
    the measuring procedures used*, the theory is said to be good.  If not, the
    theory is said to be bad and requires either modification or rejection.

    Thus a "true" theory is not a theory which gives an explanation of physical
    appearances in conformity with reality; it is a theory which represents in
    a satisfactory manner a group of empirical observations, or if you prefer,
    experimental "laws".  A "false" theory is not an attempt at an explanation
    based on assumptions contrary to reality; it is a group of mathematical
    propositions which do not agree with experiment.
    Mathematical deduction does not introduce directly into its calculations
    the facts we call circumstances in the concrete form in which we observe
    them.  It does not draw from them the facts we call consequences in the
    concrete form in which we ascertain them.  The devices we use, both natural
    and synthetic, to observe real entities, and the real entities themselves,
    are not mathematical entities.  In order to introduce them into our formulae
    it is necessary to translate actual circumstances into numbers by the
    intermediate step of measurement.  At both its starting and terminal points,
    mathematical theories can only be connected to observable facts by means of
    this translation: in order to introduce the circumstances of an experiment
    into calculations, we make a model which replaces the language of concretes
    with the language of mathematics; in order to verify what our calculations
    predict for that experiment, we must transform numbers into a reading
    formulated in experimental language.  The method of measurement is the
    dictionary by which we carry out these translations; there is, however,
    never a complete equivalence between two texts when one is translated into
    another.  Between the concrete facts as we observe them and the symbols
    which represent them, there is a very great and important difference.

    There is a very great and important difference between a theoretical fact,
    which is a set of mathematical data through which a concrete fact is
    represented in our calculations and reasoning, and a concrete fact as
    observed.  In such a theoretical fact there is nothing vague or indecisive.
    Everything is determined in a precise manner; the body studied is
    geometrically defined; its sides are true lines without thickness; its
    points are true points without dimensions; the different lengths and angles
    determining its shape are exactly known; to each point of the body there may
    be a corresponding temperature, and this temperature is for each point an
    exact number not to be confused with any other.
    Opposite this theoretical fact there is the concrete fact translated by it.
    The body is not a geometric solid; it is a fuzzy mass.  However sharp
    its edges, none is a geometric intersection of two surfaces; they are more
    or less rounded and dented.  The thermometer does not give us a precise
    point-temperature; it gives a mean temperature relative to a certain volume
    whose very extent cannot be exactly fixed.  We cannot declare that this
    temperature is "exactly" 98.7 degrees; there is no such thing.  We can only
    assert that the difference between the temperature and 98.7 degrees does not
    exceed a certain fraction of a degree depending on the precision of our
    measuring methods.  A single observed concrete fact can be translated into
    an infinite number of theoretical facts; the mathematical elements which
    constitute a theoretical fact may vary infinitely within a range delimited
    by the limit of error of the measurement.

    So then, the conditions of a concrete fact are translated into an infinite
    number of theoretical conditions & the calculations will produce an infinite
    number of theoretical consequences.  If these fall within the range
    of tolerance of our measuring methods, so that they yield a definite
    concrete result, then the theory is useful.  For example, let us say that
    the temperature we take is used in a calculation.  In this case, a definite
    practical fact is translated into an infinite number of theoretical facts.
    Calculations occur.  Then, we have an infinite number of theoretical
    results.  If these can be reduced to a definite practical result, if for
    example the theoretical temperature results do not vary by more than a
    thousandth of a degree, but our thermometer cannot distinguish between
    differences less than a tenth of a degree, all is well.
    But this does not always occur.  There are some cases in which there
    is a high dependence on initial conditions.  In the field of fluid
    mechanics, a small change in viscosity may *drastically change* fluid
    flow.  It may also happen that the system suffers an abrupt qualitative
    change at some critical point.  If the conditions are practically given
    and not mathematically given, if we are not dealing with an exactly defined
    position of some material point but rather some point taken inside a small
    spot...if the direction of the initial velocity is not a mathematical
    straight line taken without ambiguity, but one of the infinite
    number of lines connected by the contour of the small spot, we cannot
    necessarily use the theory to determine a definite practical result.

    Message: 69262
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Melissa/parenting
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 05:27:20

     It has been well said that the two most responsible jobs in the world are
    invariably given to rank amatuers, and they are citizenship and parenthood.
     There are many sad tales of fractured adults whose problems originated in
    childhood because of poor parenting, and we can only wish that there was a
    pat solution to all of the problems associated with that situation.
     Unfortunately, governmental intrusion into the sanctity of the family
    circle is not the answer, since, like most government operated projects,
    overkill is a very real problem, too often resulting in worse catastrophes
    than they were instituted to cure.
     THe family is the basic unit of all society, and it's sanctity and privacy
    must be the first consideration in all matters. In the same breath, existing
    laws against assault, battery, etc. must be enforced wherever they are
    violated. Aside from that, education seems to be the best answer. Perhaps a
    course in proper parenting should be a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage
    license? Just another thought.

    Message: 69263
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Politics
    Subject: stupid candidates
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 05:33:42

     If there was an award for individual instances of stupidity, Dave Moss
    would surely have won hands down the other evening. Now that he has firmly
    planted both feet in the political cement bathtub with his remark praising
    Hitler, there leaves no doubt as to the Democratic candidate. Not that there
    was much question prior to his foot-in-mouth/brains-in-butt statement.
     It might be interesting at this point to have a poll of the users as to who
    would get their vote in the most likely choices comes November. Who would
    you vote for if it comes to a choice between Goddard & Symington? Goddard &
    MEcham? Goddard & Steiger? One of those is the most likely choice.
    Personally, I hope it never comes to a Goddard/Mecham contest. I would hate
    to vote for either one!

    Message: 69264
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: jeff/weak
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 07:35:51

    The feebleness of your position has become manifest by your latest attempt
    to deny reality. The lack of "substance" (heh, heh) in your rapidly
    deteriorating position is best seen by your weak attempt to deny that the
    string has two states: broken or unbroken. By your own admission, you posit
    an arbitrary "something" (that something is what I and the rest of the world
    calls a point) at which the string is deemed unbroken. Consider that point.
    Before the separation of the last atom from the bond of its neighbor, it
    travels to a point X,Y,Z at which it is deemed broken. There is no
    in-between state "broken and not-broken.:
    (BTW, I hope you appreciate the addition of "ad hominem" to our argument.)

    Message: 69265
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: oscilloscopes
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 07:43:28

    Oscilloscopes operate on the principle of an electron beam striking a
    phosphorescent screen and causeing the "point" (in this case it is not
    a point) to glow. It is well known that an electric field will cause the
    beam to deflect. There are pairs of plates for the X-axis and Y-axis. If you
    like so:

          _______

        |         |
        |         |
        |         |

          _______

    A potential Ex is applied to the X axis plates, and the beam moves in the
    direction of the E field. Like wise if a potential Ey is applied to the Y
    axis plates the beam moves in the direction of Ey field. (up)

    Consider a radar  pulse: it can be described as a function of time E(t).

    The pulse rises from 0 to Ey stays there for T amount of time. The voltage
    is applied to the Ey plates along with a clock voltage that looks like a
    ramp function on the X plates. If the ramp function is fast enough the
    entire

    A pulse will be painted on the screen like this:

        ___
        | |
    ____| |____

    Now, clearly the x-axis is time and the Y axis is E. Now assume the
    circuitry necessary to receive back the echo pulse exists and can feed the Y
    -axis plates in this case you get a wave form like this:

         ___
         | |
         | |
    _____| |_____/\____

    The second pulse is degraded and smaller than the first. Now, obviously the
    distance between the leading edge of the original pulse and the leading edge
    of the echo pulse is the amount of time it took the original pulse to travel
    to the object and return to the receiver. Since we know the speed of light,
    it is simple to convert back into distance and divide by two to get the
    distance to the target.

    Message: 69267
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: In search of
    Subject: The Twilight SIG
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 09:12:14

    HEY!!!   I said, "what the heck is going ON, here"!

    Message: 69268
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Melissa/parenting
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 10:50:47

    One thing that would help greatly is to set a limit on how much welfare pays
    per child. As it is now, the more children, the more money the parent(s)
    get. My son's ex-wife's family is a good example. Ten out of the eleven in
    her family is on welfare as is her mother. Two of the sisters are not
    married - one having never married, yet they both have six kids and the one
    that never married is preg. again. She recieves welfare checks from 3
    different states too. Illegal for sure! Everytime they have a kid, the
    welfare check gets fatter! I've been very tempted to turn the one in, but
    hesitate, because the kids might suffer. These kinds of people believe that
    welfare is a proper way of life and think nothing of this.
    Another thing I've thought of is to not pay out welfare to someone that is
    not married - BUT - here again, the kids would just be the one's to suffer.
    Perhaps a limit could be set on that - say an unwed mother can get welfare,
    but if she has a second, third etc. no more upping the check. Stay the
     same. We live fairly near a market what would be considered 'the wrong
    side of the tracks' - many, many welfare people shop there. I've seen
    several that drive almost new automobiles, yet they pay for groceries with
    food stamps!! Ditto driving down the street where these people live - new
    cars are seen in their drive-ways. New furniture being delivered to their
    homes etc. I can't imagine how they are getting away with this.
                             -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69269
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod on the bomb
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 10:57:40

    I don't think there was a scarcity of the bomb when they dropped it on
    Japan. In other words, if  we just showed our strength and it didn't
    work, we'd have a few exta bombs to take care of them! Even that thought to
    me is horrendous.

    Perhaps we did drop that bomb in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, there IS
    NO COMPARISON though!!! To me, that was an atrocity equal to what the
    German's did to the Jews! Horrible beyond belief! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69270
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff on bomb
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 10:59:23

    #69251 True! But there still is no comparison between using reg. bombs and
    the A-bomb. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69271
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ann/bomb
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 12:17:45

    How can you compare dropping The Bomb to gassing of millions of Jews whose
    only crime was being Jewish. The Bomb saved millions of American and
    Japanese lives. We were at war against Japan. Surely YOU remember. I do. My
    uncle fought at Guadacanal against the Japanese. The Japanese started it and
    they would have continued to fight until the very last man or child if it
    had not been so dramatically ended with The Bomb. Comparing an odious
    war-like regime to millions of innocent Jews is like comparing Mecham to
    Symington.

    Message: 69272
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Symington/last
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 14:17:08

            Yea, Symington is in the Phoenix 40's pocket and VERY corrupt
    already.   Where as Mecham won't kiss up to the Phoenix 40, and they have
    black balled him.  Your Right, you can't compare Mecham to Symington.

    Message: 69273
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Vote
    Subject: Old (Twin Peaks)
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 14:23:36

    Cliff, seeing's how we're discussing topics with so much import these days,
    howzabout a vote?  If you post it, please do so anonymously; wouldn't want
    Mr. Beck to think he's being persecuted.

    Keeping in mind the crisis in the Persian Gulf region, apparent weakness in
    the national economy, and the upcoming state and local elections, please
    answer the following fundamental question:

    Who killed Laura Palmer?

    [A]      Her father.
    [B]      That nutty psychiatrist.
    [C]      The girl who likes all that "dreamy" jazz.
    [D]      The guy who beats up his wife with a sock.
    [E]      $Jeff Beck.
    [F]      None of the above.

    Poll results:
    [A] 2    [B] 0    [C] 1    [D] 3    [E] 14   [F] 7

    Message: 69274
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: mecham
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 14:53:30

    Oh right. Once is not enough. Mecham had the slimiest characters working for
    him PLUS he is owned lock, stock, and barrel by that wonderful American
    institution, the Mormon Church.

    Message: 69275
    Author: Bill Needle
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beck
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 15:40:58

    It's no use Beck.  You might as well try to argue Pythagoras out of his
    conviction that numbers have some empirical significance.

    Message: 69276
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mormon Church
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 16:21:08

            This is NOT true at all.   We happen to know Mr Mecham (for several
    years)...  Just what the Phoenix 40 wants you to think.  Why is it when you
    don't like a man, you attack his religion connection? I am not a Mormon, but
    I am not blinded by bigotry and hate like you.

            As for the slime... well, it seems to pop up all over the place
    where there are politicians.  Why do you belive it is just in the Mecham
    camp?

            Notice that NONE of the pet projects got rammed down our throats
    when Mecham was in office.   Everything has been fed to us since Mofford got
    the seat.  The budget was also balanced WITHOUT new taxes...   Taxes and new
    taxes went into effect after Mofford took over.  And the witch even has
    asked for more.  Humph!

    Message: 69277
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Vote
    Subject: JB
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 16:36:16

    So, you sly one.  How much do you get to be on-screen next season?

    Message: 69278
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Alright
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 16:37:30

    So CLIFF!  Why is it that I got on the the Twilight Sig, as did Roger Mann
    and Jeff Beck and (I think) one other person and now the thing has
    dissappeared!

    Message: 69279
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Melissa/Parentin
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 16:51:16

            Both of you are posing a problem which seems only to get worse as we
    the people try to solve it. Up till now, we have been throwing money at it,
    but it just requires more money. Birth control seems like a nice reasonable
    logical solution, but both of you are aware of women who deliberately try to
    get pregnant, to have "another person to love."
            And, of course, that other person has to go on welfare to stay
    alive.
            How about this?: Let's have the government take the children away,
    and raise them by Dave Moss standards into the type of citizen we want. We
    could make Janissaries (sp?) of them for the armed forces, and the money
    spent to raise them would go to raise them, not to a "welfare parent."

    Message: 69280
    Author: $ Mad Max
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Satellite/1940
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:28:33

    I didn't know we had satellites in the 1940's?

    Message: 69281
    Author: $ Mad Max
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Perspicacious/jeff
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:29:44

    Well thanks for the compliment, and I didn't even know (grin).

    Message: 69282
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/bomb
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:52:20

    Sure there's a comparison.  What is the difference between being blown up or
    melted by a conventional bomb and being blown up or melted by an atomic
    bomb?  The difference comes later with radiation sickness and cancer and so
    forth.  Gruesome, but not so much different from being burned to critical
    condition by ordinary flames caused by the firestorm of a conventional bomb.

    Message: 69283
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Vote results
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:53:58

    I confess.  But Satan/society/a disease/drugs/alcohol made me do it.

    Message: 69284
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 17:55:52

    No, I don't posit an arbitrary "something" at which the string is broken.  I
    posit that we arbitrary decide when to call the string broken.  Quite a
    difference there, Popeye.
    Look: We say that a person is "touching" an object when the proximity
    between that person and the object is less than what our vision can
    distinguish, or, when the proximity decreases until our tactile faculties
    are sufficiently stimulated for us to become aware of the object through
    what we call the act of "touching."  But at no point are any of our
    constituent particles making actual direct contact with the constituent
    particles of the object.  What we call "touching" is actually an electrical
    disturbance caused by attractive and repulsive fields around the particles
    of ourselves and other objects, from which we are separated by a distance.
    But there is nothing special about this distance; nothing to qualitatively
    differentiate it from any other distance in any objective sense.  And the
    same electrical forces between us and other objects are still there even
    when an object is across the room.  We don't call that touching because we
    aren't sensitive enough to these forces, which decline rapidly with
    distance.  But that is a purely arbitrary result of our physiology.  Things
    would seem quite different to a being the size of an electron.  Where we see
    solid objects touching other solid objects, it might see something akin to
    the movements of the celestial bodies (or chaos).  And for a being the size
    of the solar system, he might see solidness and stillness where we see vast
    separating gulfs and motion.

    The same is true of what you call atomic bonds.  These bonding forces are
    only digital in character in your model.  You talk about the "separation
    of the last atom from the bond of its neighbor," and actually imagine that
    this is the literal physical manifestation of your mathematical model!
    As though dimensionless points could be physical entities and changes
    occurred in "zero time," the latter being some occult border separating two
    altered physical states from one "instantaneous" moment to the next!  I
    might as well try to explain to a cat that the birds on the TV screen he
    paws at are only representations of birds, not their concrete manifestation.
    At what arbitrary distance would you determine that this last atomic bond
    has been "broken?"  Of all the forces which act at a distance, and certainly
    this includes atomic bonds, which one ceases to exist at the time at which
    Roger Mann says it does?  None of them, of course.  The fact is, Roger,
    human beings having the same general physiology and exterior references,
    we have AGREED to certain arbitrary but no less useful (for us) conventions
    such as when to call a string broken (when common sense operating on its
    natural scale tells us that it is broken), the same way that we have agreed
    about what it means to touch, and the same way we have agreed to distinguish
    between two shades of a color, at the border where they blend beyond our
    ability to distinguish them.  No qualitative objective difference is
    involved between these "states," Roger.  They are commonly agreed upon
    definitions; they are truths by fiat.  The physical conditions on which
    they are based, therefore cannot, and do not have the mathematical rigour
    which you attribute to them.

    *YOU* are the one who is denying reality, Roger, the one who is confusing
    our arbitrary and vague (though useful) conventions with actual physical
    conditions. Go back to Plato's cave and watch the shadows, sonny-boy.  Do
    not pass go; do not collect $200.00

    Now, as far as RADAR is concerned, thanks for your explanation.  However,
    I already knew that, and you still haven't explained how one can distinguish
    between the distance of two pulses when the trace has a period of
    milliseconds and the interval between pulses is nanoseconds.  Why, an
     unsynchronized pulse could go and return MANY times in the middle of the
    oscilloscope's retrace period, not to mention the problem of resolution
    even if the scope was not blanking.
    As I said before, obviously, RADAR works.  But exactly how is this timing
    accomplished using ordinary equipment?

    " 'Something' is what I and the rest of the world calls a point.  Don't get
     me dander up.   Uh-gug-gug-gug-gug."

                    -- Roger Mann

    Message: 69287
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Vote
    Subject: Iraq
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:13:55

      I would have to vote None of the Above, and since it isn't there, I didn't
    vote.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 69288
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: $Jeff/Oscope
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:17:30

      You can adjust the sweep rate of an oscilloscope so that the fixed length
    across the screen represents tinier and tinier time intervals. The scope I
    use most of the time can easily resolve events which occur as close together
    as a few nanoseconds.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 69289
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Monsoon
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:18:23

      Monsoon means season. Monsoon season is actually redundant.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 69290
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Red Dwarf
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:18:46

    Hi,
      I checked at the main library for 'Death of a System', by Leonard
    Nadolsky, and they had no reference to it. Where do you get this?
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 69291
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Edsel
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:23:05

      The hood ornament was the first piece of hardware actually designed for
    the Edsel, and at one time its photo was released and eagerly printed as the
    Edsel photo, when nothing else existed of the car yet. The ornament was an
    'E' in a circle which looked the same from in front or behind. They were so
    popular that assembly workers would pocket them for souvenirs and shortages
    of them would slow production.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 69292
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: $Jeff/fraud
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:25:00

       I have been thinking about what you said concerning fraud and coercion
    (most recently in message #69104). I still think that using 'generic'
    laws against fraud and coercion is a much better approach than having
    government micro-manage affairs in pursuit of the same general goal. You
    said that we would have to prosecute just about everyone under those
    conditions, but I disagree. Actionable fraud could be separated from
    non-actionable statements by a fairly simple standard. If a statement is
    not a lie, not a falsehood, not an untruth, then even though it may tend
    to mislead the naive listener, it shouldn't be considered fraud.
       In your example of the fat-free claims of a food manufacturer, if the
    package or ad says on it somewhere how the 93% rating is measured, and the
    food actually does average by weight as they say it does, then they have
    not lied. That should not be considered fraud. If this standard should
    result in any current advertising being classified as fraud, then I see
    that as another reason why it should be done rather than a case against
    it.
       I would prefer that we view the claims of those we deal with in the
    knowledge that they may only be telling us the favorable parts, rather
    than look to government to relieve us of the need for skepticism.
       I also think that having government react to complaints by citizens
    instead of pursuing fraud enforcement all on their own would cut down on
    their ability to use ill-advised regulations and personal vendettas to harm
    people who aren't themselves doing any harm.
      See You Later, Dean H.

    Message: 69293
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Dean/scope
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:30:22

    Great.  Now we're getting somewhere.  Could you be a little more specific?

    Message: 69294
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/fraud
    Date: 09/07/90  Time: 19:44:36

    First, one could use a lot of half-truths and misleading statements, and
    omit a lot of truths, and easily effect the same result as actual lies
    would.  Second, in using a lie for your criterion, you must determine the
    nature of the statement in retrospect.  How would you prove that an
    advertiser made an "unintentional factual error" rather than that they lied?
    It is much easier to determine the intent to defraud by the overall content
    of the commercial than from metaphysical speculations about the intent of
    actual statements, and since the result is the same in either case...
    I think though, that this criterion of no outright lies is responsible for
    the complete lack of factual content in most modern advertising.  The only
    words which most advertisers can use to distinguish his inferior or
    indistinguishable product are those which have no factual content.  And how
    do we determine factual content with respect to determining the truth or
    falsity of statements with the intent of enforcing anti-fraud laws?  We find
    that words must be given a legal meaning before it is possible to determine
    what constitutes a lie and what constitutes misleading verbiage.  We may
    find that a statement to the effect that a product is the "best" is not
    consistent with reality.  Ordinarily, we would then characterise the
    statement as a lie.  But since the word has no legal meaning, it can be used
    to make any false claims without actually being considered a lie in the
    legal sense.  Advertisers use a lot of words that way...the word "natural"
    is another example.  An "all-natural" product can contain any number of
    chemicals, including flavor enhancers, thickening agents, emulsifiers,
    and preservatives such as BHT and BHA.

    Does this list of ingredients agree with most people's definitions of
    natural?  The last time I looked the dictionary definition of "natural" said
    something about "not artificial, synthetic, or processed."
    Would you believe that according to law, a chicken can be called "fresh" and
    not frozen if they have not been refrigerated below 26 degrees F. ?
    What is a lie, and what isn't a lie?  More importantly, isn't the intent to
    mislead more important than any artificial definition of an "absolute lie"
    in determining a reasonable definition of fraud?

    Message: 69299
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul / Gustnado
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 00:45:21

        Where do they come up with this garbage? Why are people in Phoenix
    afraid to call a tornado what it really is? What about all this rain we've
    been getting? Flooding? Nah, there's no flooding. After all, SKY HARBOR only
    got one tenth of one fraction of one hundredth of one percent. It wasn't
    really a rainstorm. It was a GUSTRAIN!

    Message: 69300
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger / 69203
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 01:01:54

        I do consider SOME artists, the ones that wish to do as they please and
    then whine when they can't get government funding, to be as undisciplined
    children.
        Whenever you apply for money from anyone, there are going to be
    stipulations. When you take a loan from a bank, you are expected to pay it
    back. When you pawn a possession, you are expected to come back and pay for
    it or lose that item. And if you apply for an NEA grant, there are
    stipulations there, too. Just as you can't take out a loan and then refuse
    to pay it back without expecting some form of retribution, you can't accept
    a grant without agreeing to some stipulations. If you cannot agree with
    those stipulations, then you simply do not take the grant. Easy enough.
        It is my personal opinion that there is more than enough pornography and
    sacreligious material out there in the world, and we certainly do not need
    to have our government subsidizing even more of it.
        From a religious standpoint, I think we could learn something from
    Israel. There, use of the media to profane ANY religion (not just Judaism)
    is illegal. "The Last Temptation of Christ" was banned in Israel.

    Message: 69301
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/69241
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 01:08:30

        Good for ASU, although I don't know what the purpose of the grant was
    for, or where it was going. For whatever the reason was that ASU felt they
    couldn't comply with the non-obscenity stipulation (or perhaps if it was a
    matter of principle), I cannot speculate. However, I wish that some of these
    artists would learn something from this. I think the bottom line is, DON'T
    PROSTITUTE YOURSELF. And for God sakes, DON'T WHINE. If the NEA won't let
    you do the kind of art you wish to do, then just mark the NEA off your list
    of potential sources of income. If your art is truly good or appreciated,
    you should be able to find funding. If it's not, then perhaps it's good to
    no one but yourself.

    Message: 69302
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Vote
    Subject: NEA Vote
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 01:20:05

    What is your opinion of NEA funding of artists?

    [A] I believe that artists should be free to obtain funding from the NEA,
        without any stipulations prohibiting obscenity or religious offense.

    [B] I believe that artists should be free to obtain funding from the NEA,
        with the only stipulation being against obscenity.

    [C] I believe that artists should be free to obtain funding from the NEA,
        with the only stipulation being against religious offense.

    [D] I believe that, in order for an artist to be approved for an NEA grant,
        he/she must either agree to stipulations barring obscene content or
        religious offense, or simply not apply.

    [E] I believe that the NEA has no place in our governmental system, and
        should be eliminated.

    [F] I believe that the NEA has been abused by the artists it is supposed
        to help support, and should be eliminated.

    [G] No opinion.

    Message: 69303
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beck/Radar
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 02:02:35

      Wait a minute.  What do nanoseconds have to do with anything here?  I
    thought we were talking about WWII-era radar technology.

           ======  Pascal  =(O,O)=  Hoot!  MacProgrammer  ======

    Message: 69304
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: In search of
    Subject: Reality/Beck
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 02:28:13

      What we have here is a failure to communicate.  You ask questions, and
    refuse to listen to the answers, because any answer given is in the form of
    a mathematical model of reality, and you say that the model is not reality.
      All right.  We know that.  Any model we make of reality will not be an
    exact model.  For example, Newton's law of gravity:  if it were exactly
    true, there would be no precession of equinoxes.  It takes Einsteinian
    physics to explain that, and even then Einstein might not be exactly right
    (and probably is not, for that matter).
      Does that mean that no model is any good?  No.  It only means that it's
    not perfect.  You can approach perfection if you want, and are willing to
    put up with the complications.
      Now Newton's physics are not as exact as Einstein's, but when they sent
    Voyager out to explore Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, whose physics
    did they use to aim the craft?  Newton's, because they're *much* simpler
    than Einstein's, and they're good enough.
      Thus, when the answer to your question is in the form of a mathematical
    model, get with the program and understand the model, pretending that it is
    an exact model (even though you know it isn't).  It helps you begin to
    understand the physical entity.  If the model used isn't exact enough,
    elaborate upon it to make it more exact, but *after* you understand the
    simpler model.  The simple model *does* tell you how the phenomenon behaves,
    just not *exactly* so!  Do not demand an exact answer -- there's no such
    thing in physics.
          We all live in a   ____nhnnn__________   yellow subroutine

    Message: 69305
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: MacGregor/RADAR
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 02:44:27

    I'm talking about both old and new (but ordinary new) RADAR technology.
    Nanoseconds come in through the fact that an object, say, 50 feet away will
    return a RADAR pulse in about 102 nanoseconds.  I understand from Dean
    Hathaway that his ordinary oscilloscope can easily time such intervals, but
    as yet I do not understand how.  You see, it isn't a question of disbelief,
    it's a question of mechanism.

    Message: 69306
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: MacGregor/reality
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 02:53:53

    Evidently you do have a problem communicating.  I have never maintained that
    our models are useless or should be scrapped because they do not describe
    reality but only predict.  I think that I have been quite clear on this
    point.  Do you really imagine for one second that I think we don't have the
    right to use models?  Haven't you been reading all of the essay-posts I have
    put on the board regarding physical theory?  Did I not say that the sole
    purpose and validity of a theory is its ability to make useful predictions?
    I do not demand perfection in models.  As I have said, I do not believe the
    models must (or do) even actually describe reality. Their sole function is
    to take empirical data, translate it into a form usable by the model,
    perform calculations, and translate the result into usable empirical form.
    That's it.
    This whole thing has, from the beginning, been a discussion NOT
    of the *utility* of mathematical models, but of their *nature*.  It is not a
    trivial distinction.  All I ask is that the distinction be made. It has NOT
    been made up to this point, contrary to what you said in your last post.
    The first issue was explicitly stated as "real motion" vs. a model of real
    motion.  Since then, you and Roger have staunchly insisted that points have
    real existence, that physical changes take place digitally over "zero time",
    that motion vectors and so forth have some literal empirical significance.
    As long as you are willing to renounce those and similar assertions, I have
    absolutely no quarrel.  I also have no problem discussing the details of
    physical models, so long as it is understood that they are models and ONLY
    models.

    Message: 69307
    Author: Alfred Jarry
    Category: In search of
    Subject: a chorus suggestion
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 03:50:51

    [chorus]

    That fanny Mann can 'cause he mixes up his facts and makes it all seem
    black.

    Hey, I'm no Gilbert & Sullivan.

    Message: 69308
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beck/Reality
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 04:20:08

      But so far, you've done nothing but *deny* descriptions put here by
    others, without saying anything yourself.
      Okay, so physical reactions *don*t take place in zero time.  Tell us what
    they *do* do!
      If there are no points, what do you call the locations that an object has
    as it moves from one place to another?
      Can an object move from one place to another?  If so, does it move through
    the space between the places?  Is there space between the places?  How many
    places are there between the places?  Does it take time to get from one
    place to another?

           =(u,u)=  Yawn!

    Message: 69309
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/tornado?
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 05:13:01

    Actually, there really was no tornado, Daryl. Tornados originate in the
    clouds and touch down. This event, as all dust devils do, originated on the
    ground and rose. In other words, the funnel was simply a large dust devil.
     Why the weather people didn't call it that is anybody's guess.

    Message: 69310
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger on war
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 09:44:44

    I still liken the two atrocities! Did you forget that most of the people
    that died in the bomb droppings were innocent of being anything other than
    civilians??? What crimes did these people do anymore than the innocent Jews
    did?
    Lets look at this from a different prospective --- I agree that it ended the
    war and saved many American lives. BUT - why did we have to end the war in
    such a manor? Japan was totally defeated! It held no more strongholds in the
    Pacific - they were surrounded on their island! Why did we press on? We
    could have sat back and waited and it wouldn't have been long. Japan was out
    of resorces, period. Why did we demand an end then? A couple of months down
    the line at best, and Japan would of HAD to give up! We could have kept
    bombing them like we had been. Cut of any supplies.

    And I always ask that question - why not have dropped the bomb off shore to
    show our strength, not on civilians??? No one answers that - ever! Why not
    of had one of the Japanese diplomats view the bomb testing to show them what
    we would do/capable of? We were still in contact with them in Washington.
    AND another question - why did we have to bomb Nagasaki too?
    I always thought the main reason we dropped those bombs was simply because
    we had it! We created it to great expense, time and in order not to let it
    go to waste, used it! EGO! The military EGO! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69311
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger on bomb
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 09:55:38

    I feel that dropping that bomb was THE WORSE atrocity in the history of
    mankind - even over Hitler's death camps. He was insane! What is our excuse?
    To end a war? To save people's lives? To kill 200,000 people in the most
    horrible of a manor to save 200,000 other people? To show them the way to
    die that has never been on the face of the earth before? To show them a
    lingering death that is still happening today? To drop something on this
    earth that is so unstable at that time to not know what it's really going to
    do, muchless to the people below? To even risk a chain reaction with that
    first test and the whole world might have been devistated because of a few
    thousand Japanese that were holding out on an island?
    In my opinion, the only good that has come out of the bomb's creation is it
    has helped in world peace. We hold it over each other's heads!
    Personally, I'd reather we found peace in other ways, but hell, we're
    civilized! The bomb comes with that I guess. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69312
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff on the bomb
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 10:06:21

    There is absolutely no comparison between reg. bombs and the big one. With
    the old A-bomb. the total devistation was one mile, with a five mile radius
    of ruin. With the Hydrogen bomb, it was a 5 mile total devistation with a 25
    mile ruin. I have no idea what the area is for reg. bombs, but common sense
    tells me it is not as great. Who knows what we have now? Besides, you can
    get away from reg. bombs - underground etc. You can't from a A-bomb
    what-so-ever! You can be miles from ground zero and still die - probably
    will! It also distroys the ground for years afterwards. Reg. bombs do not.

                                 -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69313
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 10:13:11

    Why did you think the movie The Last Temptation of Christ profaned anyone,
    any religion? I saw it and it didn't bother me nor did I think it anything
    but one person's (the writer's) quest in finding God. It showed Jesus as
    being human and why not? Wasn't He? Just maybe in His humaness, He did have
    thoughts of what it would be like to be just like other men?! I find that
    most religions, doctrines forget that aspect of Jesus. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69314
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sandi/sun
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:09:58

    Yes, something like four and a half billion years for the sun to start
    burning higher octane.  I can hardly wait.

    We can subtract a few seconds since I started typing this.

    Message: 69315
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/research
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:14:30

    Perhaps Dean would loan his time machine gismo to us and we could visit
    those WWII days and see it first hand.

    I had a talk with a friend of mine who had served in the Navy in WWII.  The
    only thing he (he is Jewish, his name is Ezra) had to say was that a boat
    loaded with 500 jews had landed off Cuba but didn't have the extra million
    to pay Batista so the boat went to New York where it also was refused
    admission on Roosevelt's orders so the boat went back to Europe and took
    its chance.

    He was angry but did not know for sure how much the allies knew about the
    death camps.  He did say that perhaps the allies did not realize just how
    bad it was.

    Heresay to be sure.

    Message: 69316
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: My math, the sum.
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:16:53

    1 + 1 = 2, sometimes.

    Message: 69317
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mad Max/Satellite
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:22:57

    According to Jeff Beck the U.S. had satellites but were afraid to use them
    as the cameras they carried were capable of seeing into bedroom windows.

    Message: 69318
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/Death of System
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:25:34

    It's a comic book, you dork.

                    Love,
                    Rod

    Message: 69319
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/rain
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:29:46

    I live near 7th St. and Thomas and on the particular day you mention when
    there were tornado's and hard rain with lots of damage to property, well, I
    wasn't aware of it.

    I took my family to Furr's Cafateria at 32nd and Thomas for dinner and when
    I returned home I noticed that the street was slightly wet but not much.

    I guess I go to the right church.

    Message: 69320
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Bomb/offshore
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:35:41

    If we had dropped the bomb offshore it would have done quite a lot of damage
    to fish, dolphins included.

    I heard the Japanese people were prepared to fight to thier death on thier
    home island.  I would imagine that most expected to die and most believed in
    dying as evidenced by the Kamikaze pilots and mass suicides of those people.

    I would imagine that the allies were more shocked by the large number of
    deaths than the Japanese were.

    Message: 69321
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Radar
    Date: 09/08/90  Time: 15:36:48

    .......................RADAR LOVE..............

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