### Apollo BBS Archive - November 30, 1988

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4827
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Westfall
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:11:23

    What a geek.

    Message: 4828
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:11:53

    If you want to put up a vote on whether I should leave, I have no objection.
    Of course, I will also not leave, regardless of the outcome of the vote.

    Message: 4829
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:16:21

    Typical Editorial type.

    Message: 4830
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:17:34

    Ahh quit snivelling and smile!
    I'll even let you ride the Mexican Voodo skateboard you gave me.

                    -Mike

    Message: 4831
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: HEY !!!
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:21:59

    What the HAY!
    Let the gun-slamming plaquard protestors snort fumes !
    I know there's anti-gun people around, but I don't let them worry
    me...nor should anyone else. Guns and the use of them frighten the
    heck out of some people..others it just makes them feel insecure...
    so they complain in the only way they can. Freedom of speech.
    I say that if someone is against guns, then fine. They could even
    legally protest on the street out in front of my door.
    They can even run when I bring out big bertha and pop a few of them
    BULLseye signs they're carrying too.
    Freedom of expression!

            -Mike
    (In jestofcourse)

    Message: 4832
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: Shootout
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 00:05:35

      I got my film back today. I had a double set made, in case anybody (Sandy)
    wanted to relive their triumph in living color. Let me know if you want them
    and I can mail them to you or whatever.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 4833
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: CLiff/Sig
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 00:17:41

      In my opinion you don't need to create another sig for shooters. I haven't
    seen any serious anti-gun sentiments displayed here, and even if there were
    that should hardly be a reason to segregate firearms related messages as if
    we were ashamed of them.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 4834
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last...
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 01:32:36

            The GUN SIG would not have been to protect the Pro-Gunners, but to
    keep the weak at heart from having to worry.  In short, I do not wish to
    offend Mr Westfall or Apro Poet...etc.  Some just find Gun Talk offensive!

            Hmmmm I bet Sandy will love to get her hands on them pictures.
    You understand it has been rough living with her since Dean dubbed her
    "Pin Queen"....  I have to ask Her-Majesty permission for everything I wish
    to do.  Grrrrrrr

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 4835
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 06:28:49

    For you to either leave OR be a silent user would be Apollo's loss.
    You want a vote? There's mine. God bless.

    Message: 4836
    Author: $ Jeannie Innajug
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Darryl
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 07:18:36

    Awwwwwwww..........Poor Darryl............

    I have a little boy who used to run into the room, and shout something
    awfull (or at least as awfull as his little 5 year old mind could conceive)
    just for the shock value.  Not being a modern, enlightened parent, I washed
    his mouth out with soap and sent him to bed without further ceremony.

    He got the attention he was obviously craving, but not the appreciation he
    thought he wanted, so he would sulk for a few days.  Luckily for both of us,
    he outgrew the need to try to shock "old Mom" and now when he gets to
    feeling unappreciated and sulky, we both chant in unison the old rhyme,
    "No body loves me,
     Everybody hates me,
    Guess I'll go eat worms....."
       and have a good laugh.  Because he knows down deep that I do love him,
    and he's grown up enough to understand that all he's really asking for is
    attention.

    Now, why does your situation remind me so much of his?   Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

    See Y'aa..............

    Jeannie

    Message: 4837
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Question?
    Subject: DARYL POEM
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 08:06:10

    This is not a poem SIG?

    How do I access the SIG for poetry, in that case?

    Message: 4838
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl the vote
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 08:34:52

                        --------->  ABSOLUTELY (A)

    Message: 4839
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Peter
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:38:00

            The [ART] SIG.....

    Message: 4840
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: Offensive
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 14:41:04

      Its quite easy to hit [S]kip.
       See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 4841
    Author: $ Chris Neal
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: Guns
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 16:51:44

    Those who find guns offensive, are you also offended by Police men?

    ----------=============*******>CHRIS<*******=============------114/18.8

    *P.S.  Daryl --  Post and post and post, BUT DON"T LEAVE!  If you leave, who
    will keep the MUS SIG running

    Message: 4842
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last few
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 17:01:58

            See Daryl, they still love you!

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 4843
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Fire'arms
    Subject: #4834
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:32:57

    Did I say that I find gun-talk offensive?  You may be
    succumbing to another of JT's delusions.  On the contrary,
    social interaction among gun enthusiasts can be very
    revealing.  It's even amusing when you consider the
    psycho-sexual symbolism involved.  ;-)
         Apro Poet

    Message: 4844
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Last....
    Subject: Symbolism
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:56:48

      Don't you just love people who draw conclusions about things based on
    their own sexual problems?
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 4845
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Sex and Guns
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:32:04

            Now that's a good combo........put out baby or I'll blow you away.

    Creative Corner Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1957
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:30:29

    FUnny, "That kind of war sucks" is exactly what I thought you might say.
    I beleive you had no idea "What kind of war" it really was at that time.
    In this day and age we all can look back at history and see that it indeed
    sucked. At the time though, I doub't there were too many people who actually
    knew what was going on.
    Amazing that we have lawyers to not only protect us from others, but they
    seem preoccupied with not finding the truth, but finding your wallet.
    Everytime someone fears conviction for some crime they committed, they
    hide behind lawyers. I'm not saying this was your intent Rod, just
    that you brought up the Lawyer deal here.
    Take for example some accidents involving close family and myself with
    another party. At the time of the one accident, the two occupants professed
    that they were very sorry and would take the blame no matter what anyone
    said because they KNEW they were at fault. Well, even though we all make
    mistakes and can cause an accident even if we're the best driver around,
    these people after talking with their Lawyer refused to accept
    responsibility. And responsibility is so lacking in these United States
    that we must hire LAWYERS to escape it.
    What a great system.
                            -Mike

    Creative Corner Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:War

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:        I did not want to go to a war.  Wars should be fought using a
     2:computer and modem.  That's it.
     3:        Oh, and a monitor would be nice, too.
     4:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 1958

    The outer COSmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 2385
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
    Subject: hmmm
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:35:15

    Definitely an '80's joke there Daryl. Ulch.

    Message: 2386
    Author: $ Chris Neal
    Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
    Subject: Another joke
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 16:53:05

    What do Panyhose and Dukakis have in common?
    .
    .
    They both irritate the 'BUSH'!

    Hehheeeee

    Message: 2387
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: last
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:35:16

            The first time I heard that joke was 1955.  Got anything newer?

    Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 55800
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 20:48:04

    As far as I know, there is no such suit.

    Message: 55801
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:00:58

    "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
    This means, Congress shall make no law establishing religion.  I don't
    understand how you think otherwise.  In any case, your argument that the
    Constitution bars the government from "promoting" religious belief is
    ridiculous.  I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended for the
    establishment clause and the religious freedom clause to work at
    cross-purposes.  Both clauses were intended to preserve freedom of religion.
    Yet the contemporary liberal interpretation of the establishment clause is
    actually an assault on freedom of religion.  For example, the "Act for
    Better Childcare" (ABC) bill, introduced in the last Congress by Sen.
    Christopher Dodd and Rep. Dale Kildee, would have set up a system of
    government subsidies for day-care centers.  But, because they read the
    establishment clause as a bar against the government doing anything to
    "promote" religion, they excluded any day-care centers that includued
    religious training as part of their program from eligibility from government
    subsidies.  So, in the name of preventing government from "promoting"
    religion, this bill would have denied a government benefit to people
    because of the way they practice their religion.

    Now, I am sure you and I are in agreement on the merits of subsidized
    day-care.  The Dodd-Kildee bill would have been a bad idea whether or not it
    contained this provision.  But the fact that it discriminates against
    religious parents makes it that much worse -- and is contrary to the spirit,
    at least, of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.  The purpose
    of the religion clauses in the First Amendment was to prevent the government
    from coercing people into worshiping in a particular way.  I agree, based on
    this principle, that organized prayer in public schools is unconstitutional
    (though a moment of silence for prayer or contemplation is an excellent
    compromise). I see no First Amendment problem, though, with subsidizing
    secular activities of religious institutions, with religious displays on
    public property, or with the motto "In God We Trust" appearing on U.S.
    currency.  For that matter, I have no problem with Congress and the military
    having chaplains, with government employees getting Sunday and Christmas
    off, or with the government entering wars, even though all of these things
    arguably "promote" religion.

    Message: 55803
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: An interesting case
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 21:09:44

    Insight magazine, December 5, 1988, reports:

         Requiring a person convicted of drunk driving to go to Alcoholics
    Anonymous meetings does not violate constitutional rights to freedom of
    religion, a Maryland District Court has ruled.
         Last year the court ordered John E. Norfolk of Queen Annes County to
    complete a county alcoholism program and attend AA meetings twice a week as
    part of his 18-month probation for drunk driving.  Norfolk, an avowed
    atheist, went to six Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and then stopped, saying
    that the group emphasized religion in its treatment and that being forced to
    attend violated his constitutional rights.
         The program's 12 steps of recovery state that "a power greater than
    ourselves could restore us to sanity" and that participants "made a decision
    to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood
    him."
         In rejecting the constitutional argument, District Judge John T. Clark
    III cited a distinction between a religious group and one dealing with
    "spiritual well-being."  Norfolk plans to appeal.

    Message: 55805
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:12:28

    If you're having trouble reading my messages, perhaps a change in majors
    is needed.
    Your assertion that Atheism does not imply hedonism, humanism or
    anything else holds no value in truth. The very definitions of the "other"
    rely upon Godless convictions. Wether or not you agree with this is not
    to say that the majority of Atheists donot follow this pattern.
    Dodging involvement with any one group connected with such ideals tends
    to show nothing of interest. What I am interested in is what would you
    consider proof of the existence of God? It's all too easy to sluff
    off the world around you as being a galactic mistake, I'd like to hear
    just WHAT would convince you there is a creator.
    Perhaps nothing would, because like most asserted Atheists, shown proof
    they get curiously defensive, overbearingly angry and storm off in a
    maelstorm of lawsuits and anti-Christian slogans.

    Message: 55806
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Insight Lawsuit
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:54:45

    How very curious.
    That would indeed be one of the "fine-line" cases. I know little about
    the case, AA or the prescribed method in which they help people to get
    off the bottle. Taking it at face value, I would question the intent
    of the lawsuit a little further. If indeed the method of "cure" in the
    "AA" meetings is based upon seeking spiritual guidance, the attendee
    is still, however strongly religious it may be, not forced to particpate
    beyond being there at roll call.
    You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
    In this case, I would applaud the Judges ruling not on the basis of my
    personal convictions, but based on the assumption that Mr Norfolk
    and his lawsuit are a result of loathing the meetings.....which were
    forced upon him for the DWI. This in itself could forseeably remain
    in his mind the next time he picks up the keys to drive away while
    under the influence.

                            -Mike

    Message: 55807
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 23:05:52

    You're hoping the ACLU is victorious.
    How will a victory change your life ?
    Is this another needle in the side of Christians or some valuable
    item in your log books?
    How much do you care that "In God We Trust" is printed on our money?
    You stated before that you believe young kids could not discern the
    difference between a historical event or saying and that of an
    advertisement. Did you say this because you're worried young children
    might find God, or did you say this because you want to control what
    they see and read in their life?
    Or perhaps some other reason?
    My intuition tells me that you would revel and be delighted to see
    all the works and words of God totally obliterated from the face of the
    Earth forever. That way future generations would have no idea of
    God's existence.
    Well, even if all the bibles, churches and Christians were removed,
    people would still find something to worship...some will find God
    while others will find "Bobra" or whatever.
    I beleive you want censorship of Christianity so badly that this small,
    tiny message on our money bugs the living hell out of you and this is
    why you wait so eagerly to hear the results..if indeed there is a suit.

    Just my intuition...
                                    -Mike

    Message: 55808
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: J.L.
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 23:18:19

    I must have made a mistake.  I thought those were your statistics.
    And that is not the first or last contradiction I've made.

    Message: 55809
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Movies/religion
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:11:04

        Not just Christians, but just about anyone depicted in a movie is a
    little loopy, simply because ordinary people are dull.

         /
     /  *  /  Alan
    *     *

    Message: 55810
    Author: $ Alan Hamilton
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Slogans
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:25:46

        I don't object to religious displays on public property, as long as any
    and all religions are allowed displays.  So, if a Christian group is allowed
    to put a Nativity scene in a public park, a Satanist group should be allowed
    to put up an upside-down cross and a pentagram.  Same goes for the currency.
    I think a compromise of "In God Almost All Of Us Trust" would be okay.

         Something I find amusing is that both sides of this argument keep
    insisting that it's a very minor thing ("it's so unimprotant, why do you
    want to change it?" "it's so unimportant, why do you want to keep it?"), but
    both sides are very adamant about their positions.
         As for the slogan being an affirmation of the influence of religion on
    our country, I find the dollar bill a strange place to be printing history
    texts, and I am unimpressed with teaching via simple slogans in any case.

         /
     /  *  /  Alan
    *     *

    Message: 55811
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Religion
    Subject: A-L-A-N
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 09:59:21

            A compromise would be used maybe if both sides were equal in size.
    Again, we are a Christian Nation founded by a majority of Christian founding
    fathers using Christian values and Common Law.  Since we Christians are a
    MAJORITY....we rule. (why pussy foot around the tulips).  It is because of
    our great Constitution that atheisis and other religions are allowed to
    exist openly.  Now you wish to flaunt your un-beliefs in our faces and want
    us to pretend there is No GOD!  You remind me of an old Twilight Zone TV
    program where Books, the Bible and believing in GOD were against the law of
    the Government.  This seems to be the direction athiests are trying to take
    this country... a little bit at a time.... ever so slowly.
            The "In God We Trust" does not even say what God...  Lucky for you
    it does not say "In a Christian God We Trust" or you would really freak out!

            The only other thing I can think of, is that you people must really
    FEAR God and you get upset when you see his name.

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 55812
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 55803/court case
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:38:30

    That sounds like a terrible decision.  AA is unquestionably religious.  The
    decision is all the worse since there exist secular alternatives to AA
    (called "Secular Sobriety Groups").
       I have heard of other cases in which judges have actually ruled that
    convicted criminals have to attend church.

    Message: 55813
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 55801/Taranto
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:44:57

    You misquote the first amendment.  It says "respecting an establishment of
    religion," not "respecting the establishment of religion."
    It seems to me that "respecting an establishment" is broader than
    "establishing".

    Message: 55814
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 55805/Carter
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:52:48

    Perhaps a change in majors would be necessary to be able to read your
    messages, but I'm not interested in becoming a special ed teacher.
       I don't think that the majority of atheists are hedonists.  The majority
    may well be humanists, but I don't find that particularly objectionable,
    since I've taken the time to find out what humanism really is rather than
    believing fundamentalist propaganda which misrepresents it as "self
    worship."  (Humanism is relatively selfless.)
       What would I consider *proof* of the existence of God?  Nothing short of
    a knock-down argument.  However, I don't demand *proof*, only substantial
    evidence.  This could be any number of things:  1. A strong a priori
    argument or set of not-so-strong a priori arguments which together
    constituted strong evidence.  2. Empirical observations best explained by
    postulating the existence of God.  3. Revelation from God (direct, not
    hearsay).
       In fact, however, the existing a priori arguments all taken together
    constitute strong evidence *against* the existence of God.  Empirical
    observations have made the postulation of God superfluous.  And I have
    received no revelatory messages.

    Message: 55815
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: AA Sentence
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 14:45:24

      If I was forced to attend AA meetings and listen to religious dogma I
    would probably make the most of it by questioning their reasons why I should
    believe until they threw me out.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 55816
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Chomsky
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 18:19:08

      It is commonly remarked that indigenous factors have played
    a role in driving the enemies of the Fifth Freedom into the
    hands of the Russians.  That is true, but not pertinent here.
    The point is that for quite understandable reasons, US policy
    has regularly labored to reinforce precisely these tendencies
    and to block alternatives.  Nevertheless, tactical
    considerations may on occasion dictate a different course, as
    when Nixon and Kissinger finally recognized that the
    Sino-Soviet bloc was unresurrectible and decided, rationally,
    to exploit the conflict and to accept Chinese overtures,
    hoping ultimately to draw China into the US-dominated sphere
    and convert it to what we call a more "open" society - one
    open to US economic penetration and political control.
      In an important study of the Guatemalan intervention,
    Richard Immerman argues that top US planners and corporate
    representatives closely linked to government (or running it)
    really believed that Guatemala's moderate reforms constituted
    *prima facie* evidence for "the penetration of Central
    America by a frankly Russian-dominated Communist group"
    (Adolf Berle, on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations,
    to the State Department), thus justifying US intervention in
    defense of freedom.  He may well be right, but the point is
    of little significance except for the (rather boring) study
    of the psychology of leaders and ideologues.  It is a rare
    individual who consciously believes that what he or she does
    is genuinely evil; as noted earlier, it is easy enough to
    come to believe whatever is convenient.  There is no reason
    to doubt the sincerity of Japanese fascists who explained
    that they were creating an "earthly paradise" as they swept
    across China 50 years ago, not for crass economic motives -
    Japan was, after all, spending more than it could hope to
    gain in protecting the "true nationalists" under its wing
    from bandits such as Chiang Kai-shek - but to bring the
    benefits of civilization to benighted and oppressed people
    who had been victimized by Western imperialism.  Similarly,
    Hitler doubtless sincerely wanted peace - on his terms - and
    the integrity and vitality of the German nation, as he
    proclaimed, and Soviet leaders yearn for stability and
    economic development in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.  We
    should have no difficulty in understanding their self-image
    and picture of the world, if we can look honestly at
    ourselves.  Not only state planners, but the educated classes
    generally, are given to sincere belief in the most
    astonishing (and self-serving) fantasies, a fact of little
    relevance to the study of policy formation.  In the case of
    official enemies or precursors in imperial aggression we
    readily understand that true interests are disguised in
    propaganda, perhaps even disguised to those who propound it.
    Only in studying the record of our own state is such
    elementary rationality proscribed.

    Message: 55819
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Lippard
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:25:32

    All right, I was mistaken.  It should have been "an" rather than "the."  So
    what?

    Message: 55820
    Author: $ James Taranto
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Post office
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 19:28:13

    Today, The Washington Times carried an article about Heritage Foundation
    proposals for reforming the Postal Service, the subject of a chapter in the
    forthcoming book "Mandate for Leadership III."  We got a call from a guy at
    the Postal Service wanting a copy of the "Mandate III" chapter, and we were
    happy to oblige.  Needless to say, the USPS sent over a private messenger to
    pick it up.

    Message: 55821
    Author: $ Jim Lippard
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 55819/Taranto
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 20:24:23

    Sorry, my misreading of "establishment" made a significant difference
    between the article that preceded it.  Using "the" requires that it be
    interpreted correctly, while "a" allows for a reading in which
    "establishment" means simply any established thing.  On this reading,
    "respecting an establishment of religion" means giving any special
    consideration to any existing religion.
       Given the correct reading of "respecting an establishment of religion"
    (allowing for the legislation of religious doctrine or church government),
    the argument against the motto rests more upon legal precedent than upon any
    direct interpretation of the establishment clause.
       So I must admit that any straightforward reading of the establishment
    clause would not preclude the use of the currency motto.  If the language
    "wall of separation between church and state" were there, however, I think
    the story would be different.  Since this language is taken by the courts to
    be implied by the first amendment, then I think the argument against the
    motto goes through.
       (By the way, even if it is conceded that atheists' freedom of religion is
    not infringed by a declaration of belief in God since they have no religion,
    that objection does not work against Theraveda Buddhism which is an
    atheistic religion.)

    Message: 55822
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: JT/ACLU suit
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:46:03

            What basically started the IGWT debate was Jim Lippard mentioning he
    was going to file a lawsuit in January against our State for their use of
    their seal.  After discussing Prop. 106 for a while, Bob Thornburg mentioned
    that he had recently read where the ACLU was starting a lawsuit against the
    Government for their IGWT motto on currency.
            Well, Bob, did you really read this and where?

                                    Rod

    Message: 55823
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike Carter
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:46:20

            Okay, so what?

    Message: 55824
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: IGWT
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:48:53

            The "In God We Trust", and Prop. 106 debate which started on the
    15th of this month is right at 145K in size.  I have it all on one file and
    copies can be had for the asking.  (disk to disk transfers free, hard copies
    $15.)
                                    Rod
    P.S.  I ran the whole thing through a spell checker to make it more
    readable.  For a break down on who made the most spelling errors please
    guess.

    WAY Below Normal Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 527
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Tawdry Tales
    Subject: Aww shucks
    Date: 11/29/88  Time: 22:45:42

    The lions spat me out when I insulted the one that swallowed me whole
    ...on my way down I mentioned that it had "Hawley Breath" and immediately
    the lion wretched violently, puked me up in a pile of disguting body
    parts (half digested), turned around and walked offf growling.

    Poor James, you realy expect someone to bend over and take your silly
    childhood prattle just because they're a Christian?
    Fair warning, Christian or no Christian, I am nobody's pincushion.
    And Rod, you should talk. If you eased up (along with the rest of you) on
    myself and various others on these boards, you might be suprised .
    In all areas of life, you will find that YOU actually train people how
    you want them to treat you. So when Hawley chokes his chook about my
    posts, or Rod grants his blasphemous rantings around, do you really
    think that after 5 years on this board I'm going to sit there and
    play Church Mom?
    Get a jump on being nice ... you'd be amazed at the results!

                            -Mike

    Message: 528
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Mike Farter
    Subject: Last
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 01:49:42

    You were the one berating others in your posts.  So don't give me any of
    this "be nice first" crap.

    Message: 529
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Annie the ASSp
    Subject: Mike
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 08:44:03

    But I thought one of the Christian teachings was to 'turn the other cheek'?
    Stop me if I'm wrong - but didn't Jesus Himself say that 'outright'? - no
    if's and's or but's??? Just curious. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 530
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Annie the ASSp
    Subject: last...
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 10:01:18

            Just how many times must one "Turn the other Cheek"?

    *=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

    Message: 531
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Wesson Oil Dean
    Subject: last
    Date: 11/30/88  Time: 21:52:29

            Christians make their own rules, I've noticed.

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