### Apollo BBS Archive - August 30, 1990

    Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 03:49:50

    Your idea is a good one.  Too bad greed got in the way of the publisher of
    Street News.  I'm sure you will make a good go of it.  If I can be of any
    help, let me know.

    I saw JT when I was in New York last month.  He is doing well and is writing
    some very provocative stuff.  I have copies of some articles he wrote --
    I'll drop them off at your place some time.  Are you still a night person?

    Cervelli is engrossed in his new girlfriend as well as college. I don't hear
    from him much.

    Nick
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:I would like to see some of JT's work.  Is he setting about promoting
     2:athesim in his articles, ha, ha.
     3:
     4:My log in times have been in the 3 a.m. range so I guess you could say that
     5:I like the nights better but it does make it hard for my day job.  Dealing
     6:was interesting and I'd do it all over again and take the same chances.
     7:
     8:It was nice to be able to walk into a store and pick something up without
     9:having to worry about a budget.  But I am doing well in locksmithing
    10:although I am kind of sick of it.  It takes a lot of energy which usually
    11:leaves little for my projects.  Slowly but surely though.
    12:
    13:See you when I see you,         Rod

    End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1436
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Hermaphrodite
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 15:07:38

    So we are being pulled around by our balls AND our tits?
    Ouch.

    Message: 1437
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: War!
    Subject: Prayer
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 20:10:44

      I wonder which God would detest more, a nation praying that its armies be
    successful in battle, or a sports team praying that it will win?
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 1438
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: War!
    Subject: Dean/war or sport
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 21:32:31

    An excellent question. Clearly, your thoughts have led you to ask an
    extremely meaningful question. Unfortunately, there is no God referee and
    therefore there is no judgment with respect to the venality of praying for
    an army to succeed and a sports team praying for victory. However, if we
    are willing to create a God for the purpose of detesting individuals who
    pray for victory in war or in the sports arena, I think we would find God
    detesting the sports person more than the war person. The war person, after
    all, has his or her life on the line. It is your life or mine. God could
    excuse the soldier huddled in the trench or in the jungle or in the blast
    furnace of hell for asking for divine help. However, I am sure that God
    would want to comdemn to the lowest regions of hell the general officers
    who would pray for divine intervention while they sit far behind the lines
    with their war-game strategies spending lives like so many points to gain
    an advantage in the war.

    Message: 1439
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 23:52:13

    Bloody fucking well put.

    Message: 1440
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Prayer
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 23:53:53

    What about praying for sex?  I've done that when I was a Christian.  Man, it
    took a long while to get that prayer answered but He finally came through.

    Thank you Jeeeesus.

    Message: 1441
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 02:00:13

    I'm still waiting for the Second Coming.

    Message: 1442
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dean on God
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 09:14:50

    Did you read in the paper where Hussein stated that God was on the side of
    Iraq and Satan on the side of America???
    Sigh! I guess that means we're gonna loose, right? (snicker!)
                                  -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 1443
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 17:22:27

    No, hardly.  Satan has control over the Earth, and can certainly set things
    up so that we won't "loose"

    Message: 1444
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 18:17:45

    Can we infer from your most recent post that you are no longer a Christian
    Agnostic (whatever that means) but have become a full fledged atheist?

    Message: 1445
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: rod/praise
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:00:07

    Once in a while, I do let it all hang out. --- remember this is not
    the X-rated Cosmos Sig ---

    Message: 1446
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff/atheism
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:06:16

    If being an Atheist means I have to like Madalyne Murray O'Hair, absolutely
    not. See, if I say I'm an Atheist and I change my mind, I look like a fool.
    No, I prefer my Christian Agnosticism. I also admire and enjoy the writings
    of Paul Tillich.

    Message: 1447
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:51:33

      I personally lean toward the sports team also, just because of the
    triviality factor.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 1448
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: War!
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 20:52:02

    No, I didn't see it, but I think I could have predicted it.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 1449
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann?Great Satan
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:42:44

    No Ann, that means we will win.  You see, Adolph Hitler had God on his side
    too.

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 69028
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sandi on Iraq
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 08:36:42

    I remember a time long ago when we were worried about an unstable country
    getting to be a world power and many thought we should nuke them before it
    happened. That country was China. They did indeed become a super power, yet,
    NOTHING has happened. They have THE BOMB! They are still a unstable country.

    I do not believe that Hussein can be liken to Hitler and his power either.
    For one thing, Germany was almost an entity unto itself - it didn't need
    that much outside help, such as food supplies, etc. as Iraq does. A country
    can have the world's biggest army and if they can't supply food, clothing,
    and weaponry to that army, it is good for nothing. Germany had outside help
    too because the world was split at that time - many were for Hitler and what
    he was doing. Not so with Iraq - thus the United Nations embargo!

    I see no justification to wipe them out for fear they'll be a super power
    someday. We do not have the patent on 'super power's' anyway. We should be
    on the alert because the government of that country is very cunning. If we
    are threatened - such as in the Cuban missile crisis THEN and only THEN do
    we really interfer! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69029
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger on superpower
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 08:37:44

    Re: that subject, my definition of a super Power is a country that has the
    bomb and the power to use it! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69030
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod your 1 of 4
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 08:52:32

    WOW! Terrific posts Rod. My only comment is that I agree with what you say.
    This coutry and world have gone a bit bonkers. We forget the simpler way of
    life and panic when our oil might be taken away.
    I remember a time, I think it was about ten years ago when we had a stupid
    paper crisis or some such rot. People actually rioted at the stores to get
    paper towels and toilet paper!! (no one ever thought of procuring the Sear's
    Catalog instead! ha. ) I also remember a few people were killed in these
    riots. We went to the store and people were coming out with 2 or 3 baskets
    full of toilet paper - when we got inside, all was gone! The crisis passed
    in a couple of days but it was scarey to see how these people acted when
    they thought their toilet paper supply was going to be cut off! We also had
    a short supply of beef at one time, but the people did not act so strongly
    and there was no riots. Guess because the price of beef was higher than
    toilet paper eh? Can't stock up on what you can't afford! We ARE SPOILED!
    The best thing we can do is to be more self sufficient. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69031
    Author: $ Mad Max
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: College
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 13:15:19

    Gee with all the horror stories about ASU, I'm glad I decided to attend GCU,
    my registration yesterday went smooth as silk and I got every class I
    wanted.Not only that I got them for the time slots I wanted also. The worst
    thing that happend is that I have a class on monday nights during the time
    STNG is on, but a vcr solved that problem. Again I want to thank the person
    that recommended that I check out GCU, best move I ever made. Beautyfull
    school, great people and atmosphere.

    Message: 69032
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: College
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 15:17:33

    Well, Pat, you were smart.  I only have one year left and if I quit now,
    there goes 5 years down the tubes.  If I had to do it over again, I think I
    would have gone to Europe for a year before starting and then taken all the
    b.s. classes at a community college.  However, I did get to move into a dorm
    my freshman year and getting out of my house at that time in my life was my
    biggest priority.

    Message: 69033
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pat/ASU
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:09:01

    ASU's fine as long as you stay out of the engineering, math and chemistry
    departments where none of the TA's have any grasp of English.

    Message: 69034
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: general BS
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:21:12

    Consider such diverse things such as ammonia, dynamite, paint, cellophane,
    synthetic rubber, some types of cloth, plastic, fertilizer, medicine and
    dishwashing detergent, weed killers and insecticides. Just for starters,
    these are a few things either made from petroleum itself or made from
    petroleum products that have nothing to do with cars, gas guzzlers or
    otherwise.
    I know many people on this board like to think that the conflict in the
    Middle East would be made a moot issue if we all just parked our cars and
    sat at home twiddling our thumbs until someone perfects the hydrogen engine
    or makes affordable electric cars that can go farther than Mesa to
    Metrocenter and back, but even the part of the argument that has to do with
    the petroleum itself has to do with a great deal more than just cars.

    Message: 69035
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff B
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:22:10

    Whatever Thou say.

    Message: 69036
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: super power/Ann
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 19:32:02

    For one thing, you don't see China going to war against everyone all the
    time...when this thing first happened, dad told me that there was a war
    about to start in the Middle East, and I asked him, "so what else is new?" I
    couldn't even figure out what he was so excited about. They are always at
    war. The only reason Middle Eastern squabbles (constantly occurring for no
    good reason) stay safely in the other hemisphere is because none of them is
    powerful enough to do any more than take potshots at their neighbors. The
    thought of one of those countries finally getting the military might to do
    something to the US other than call us names is very frightening...
    I wasn't there, but I suspect that Germany didn't have very many friends
    (other than the US, initially who sold them some weapons). They still had a
    bad reputation from WWI. The only reason no one countered Germany in the
    beginning was because no one in Europe wanted to go to war. Well, they got
    to go to war all right...
    The Sudentenland was "the last territorial claim I have to make in Europe"
    in order to "repatriate" all German-speaking people. I bet Czechoslovakia
    wasn't too impressed. Britain and France thought they had achieved "peace in
    their time."
    The parallels are striking.

    Message: 69037
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: War!
    Subject: Rod/Iraq/Iran
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 20:28:12

      Iran would have been able to defeat Iraq outright, but when the Shah was
    removed, the entire officer corps of the Iranian military was purged along
    with him. They effectively went back to WWI fighting methods, with mass
    charges of poorly armed troop{ taking horrendous casualties to prevent the
    Iraqis from advancing. Iraq modernized it forces, and become a more modern,
    mechanized war machine. As the war dragged on, Iran was ground completely up
    as far as its men were concerned, and Iraq was ground up financially, by the
    effort of keeping its technically superior, but outnumbered, forces on the
    attack. The war wound down without a clear victor. Iraq got the contended
    strip of land, but it is practically useless to them because it has become
    so polluted. The debt Iraq ran up in fighting Iran is the major reason Iraq
    invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was holding billions of dollars of Iraqi debt, which
    Iraq believes it has liquidated by seizing the country. And of course,
    getting control of Kuwait's oil production meant that Iraq could keep prices
    higher to help them raise money.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 69038
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean/economics
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 20:33:42

    "You have said, '...the essence of market controls is to prevent or penalize
    misrepresentation and coercion when individuals choose to trade.'  If that
    were only true, then we would not be having this conversation and countless
    other examples of government intervention against the market for corrupt or
    wrong-headed reasons would not have occured."

    First, I do not understand your assertion that the existence of a
    controversy could prove or disprove the contentions of one side or another.
    People can disagree about anything; that doesn't prove that one side isn't
    right, or that the other side is.  Second, you beg the question when you
    speak of examples of government intervention for corrupt or wrong-headed
    reasons.  We have only your assurance that the Alcoa affair was as you
    stated -- or any other example of government intervention gone wrong which
    you have so far used.  Third, I never asserted that market controls could
    not be misused; I merely stated what their proper *intent* is, not their
    universal purity or efficiency in application.  We have laws restricting the
    behavior of individuals, and their intent is to protect society, but that
    doesn't mean they are always justly applied or uncorrupted.

    "The fact that government power has corrupted the market everywhere is no
    proof that the market needed such corruption.  Your demand that I show you a
    pure free market before you will agree that it is good is on a par with
    someone demanding that they be shown a nation where there is no murder
    before they will believe that a nation without murder could be a good
    thing."

    This might be a valid analogy if it was the contention of one party that
    murder was caused by government intervention in the form of laws restricting
    individual liberty.  In such a case, the second party would need to find a
    nation without such laws where murder still existed before the first party
    could be made to admit his error, since he could always argue, no matter
    what the other circumstances were, that it was government interference which
    caused murder.  Similarly, in order to divest you of your quasi-religous
    devotion to laissez-faire mythology, it is necessary to find a pure free
    market for analysis, otherwise you will always claim that it is the evil
    influence of the government which has produced the excesses of capitalism.

    "I can, however, show you a modern example of an industry where there are
    no market controls.  It is a huge industry which operates all over the world
    and yet it is still carried out by business units [of all sizes].  It has
    existed for hundreds of years and yet it has resisted the efforts of all who
    would combine it into one large monopoly.  And it has remained largely open
    and competitive despite the fact that government isn't regulating its prices
    wages, benifits or ownership...it is the drug trade, of course."

    But this is ludicrous!!  You could not have provided a worse example with
    which to illustrate your point!  Have you ever heard of drug cartels?  Ever
    heard of the Columbians?  Ever heard of the Mafia?  Do you really think that
    the existence of the corner drug peddler shows competition at work? Where do
    you think he gets his merchandise?  Eventually, it is all controlled by a
    few sources, who largely collude with each other.  He isn't an entrepreneur;
    he's a distrubutor for the firm.  What do you think would happen if someone
    decided that they could make a profit by investing capital in, say, the
    production of cocaine, and undercutting the monopolistic prices of the drug
    cartels?  Talk about barriers to entry!  And there is certainly plenty of
    room for undercutting.  Do you really imagine that there is any reasonable
    relation between the price of cocaine and its costs of capital and
    production?  Do you honestly think that the prices are anywhere near any
    minimum average cost, or that the profits are anywhere near a normal
    interest return on investment, including any costs due to illegalities?

    Your economic theories are so simplistic as to be laughable.  They would
    only find application in a marketplace of atomistic competition with
    homogeneous products.  They don't apply to the real world at all, as
    empirical evidence clearly shows, because they don't take into account the
    structural differences of industries.  These include the concentration of
    sellers in an industry, the degree of differentiation among the industry's
    products, and the ease or difficulty with which new sellers can enter the
    industry.
    You seem to think of investment capital as some mythical ether; all
    pervasive and immune to blockage, and yet somehow able to carry waves of
    economic influence which affect real world entities.
    Mergers and aquisitions were the way our economy grew so concentrated; "high
    entry barriers," obstacles confronting a potentially new competitor into an
    industry, are why it remains so.  The threat of a new entrant can discourage
    existing firms from establishing "unreasonable" prices, but "reasonable"
    prices are not necessarily competitive prices.  And sometimes, the threat of
    a new entrant is no real threat at all.
    The effective height of these barriers varies.  "Blockaded entry" allows
    sellers to set monopolistic prices, if they wish, without attracting entry.
    "Impeded entry" allows established sellers to raise their prices above
    minimal average costs without attracting new sellers, but not as high as a
    monopolist's price.  "Easy entry" does not permit established sellers to
    raise their prices at all above minimal average costs without attracting new
    entrants.

    These barriers take various forms.  Costs for established sellers may be
    much lower than they would be for new entrants.  Existing firms may have all
    distribution outlets tied up by "exclusive dealing" contracts, requiring a
    new firm to enter both on a production AND a distribution level.  The
    economics of the industry may be such that new entrants would have to be
    able to command a substantial share of the market before they could operate
    profitably.   The large capital outlay initially required itself can
    discriminate against potential new firms.
    Another important barrier is "product differentiation" -- excessive, non-
    informational advertising.  Once a product is made to seem sexier or
    faster or glossier or cooler, the advertiser can price it above the other
    brands, confident that consumers will continue to buy from him because a
    sense of brand-name loyalty has been developed.  I went into ABCO recently,
    and while "Western Family" aspirins sold for $4.39 per 200, Bayer brand
    aspirins sold for $8.89 per 200.  Aspirin, a basic chemical compound, is
    aspirin.  Yet who do you think has the greater market share?  Who has the
    greater profit?  You have said that "You cannot produce something at a price
    which is not related to its costs of capital and production and stay in
    business, unless you are using state power to hold the capital hostage or
    to subsidize the price through the theft of taxation."  Where, then, is the
    "invisible hand" ?  Wait, I think I see it...giving the finger to Adam
    Smith.  Truly, "Bayer works wonders."
    Seller concentration is another monkey wrench in your fantasy world...so is
    aggregate concentration...

    As of *1969* the top 200 manufacturing corporations already controlled about
    two-thirds of all assets held by corporations engaged primarily in
    manufacturing.  Try, for a minute, to comprehend that fact: imagine a room
    seating 200 people, not much larger than a college classroom.  There could
    sit the men who control two-thirds of American industry and approximately
    one-third of all *world* manufacturing.  And that was in 1969!  Just
    imagine, given all of the take-overs and mergers which have since occur, and
    which reached such a fevered pitch in the 1980s, the amount of concentration
    which exists in 1990.  Yet even the asset size of our largest corporations
    under-estimates the extent of industrial concentration.  Three additional
    factors decrease the vigor of competition.  First, joint ventures.
    Businesses that are partners in one market may be disinclined to behave
    independently when they meet as rivals in others.  Second, interlocking
    management and directors are prevalent.  In *1962* the 29 largest
    manufacturing firms alone had interlocks with 745 industrial and commercial
    corporations, 330 banks, and 51 other corporations.  Third, by *1967*  49
    banks were trustees of $139 billion dollars in assets.  They had
    interlocking directorates with 6,591 companies; an average of 164 per bank.
    More than 750 of these interlocks were with 286 of the 500 largest
    industrial companies in the U.S..  The same pattern of interlocking
    relationships was discovered between these 49 banks and each of the 50
    largest merchandising, transportation, utility and life insurance companies.
    By *1973* large commercial banks controlled assets of nearly 1 trillion
    dollars,4 times that of insurance industries & 20 times that of mutual funds

    There are three sources of control exerted by these banks: credit, trust
    departments, and holding companies.  It is ABSURD to think that banks ignore
    the holdings of their trust departments when they face major loan decisions.
    It is equally absurd to think that a bank will ignore the needs of its
    holding company subsidiaries.
    As of *1972*, Chase Manhattan bank (at the time, the third largest bank in
    the world) ALONE had $28 billion in assets, $23 billion in deposits, and
    nearly two hundred domestic offices and more than a hundred in foreign
    countries.  On its board sat directors, in many instances chairmen, of the
    following companies:  Exxon, Standard Oil, Atlantic Richfield, Allied
    Chemical, General Motors, Uniroyal, Chrysler, International Smelting and
    Refining, International Nickel, R.J. Reynolds Industries, FMC Farm Machinery
    Corporation, United Aircraft, Pan Am Airways, General Electric, Hewlett
    Packard Electronics, AT&T, CBS, Metropolitan Life, Travelers Insurance,
    American Express, General Foods, Kellogg's, Macy's, Federated Dept. Stores,
    International Paper...the list is by no means complete, even by category,
    and goes on.  Twenty-three of Chase's directors held 105 other commercial
    directorships in major corporations and fifty-four non-commercial trustee-
    ships, many on the board of wealthy foundations.
    As of *1973*, fourteen banks and eighteen of the largest oil companies have
    overlapping directorates, and similar ties exist between oil firms and
    insurance companies, investment banking firms and foundations.
    Imagine what things are like 30 years later.  Is it any wonder that large
    corporations in competitive fields act more like partners than rivals?

    I'll be posting more...but I thought seven messages were about all anyone
    would be willing to read at once

    Message: 69046
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ASU/OSU
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 21:15:59

    When I attended Ohio State University I couldn't understand the TA who
    taught Analytic Geometry. I had to teach it to myself using the Schaum
    guide to AG. I sneaked through with a C, took Trig from an American,
    got an A, took Calculus I and II from an american got two A's, took
    Differential Equations from and American and got a B. I think they use those
    foreign TA's to weed out the folks who need to get spoon-fed and keep those
    who can teach themselves, which, after all, is one of the purposes of
    college.

    Message: 69047
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: jeff/velocity
    Date: 08/29/90  Time: 21:25:37

    vectors and position in the "real" world. Would you agree that an object
    in the "real" world that follows some path in space-time, such that the
    path can be mapped onto an x,y,z coordinate system, has a velocity vector
    at a point X,Y,Z, where X,Y,and Z is some point that can be mapped onto
    a coordinate system such that there is one and only one point on the
    graph that maps to that point. For example, the point 1,1,1 lying a curve
    mapped from the real system. Would you agree that the velocity vector at
    that point is a unique point in velocity space with respect to x,y,z and
    further that the velocity vector is the tangent to the curve at the point
    X,Y,Z ?

    Message: 69048
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Dean/Iraq/Kuwait
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:00:48

    Are you saying that Saddam Hessein repossessed Kuwait for unpaid bills?

    Message: 69049
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: But Sandi
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:06:36

    Whoever ends up with the middle eastern oil producing countries this week
    will still sell the stuff in hopefully a free market atmosphere.  Their
    wealth is not oil itself but it is what they can trade the oil for.

    Besides there is a limited supply of black gold and as our supplies dwindle
    then we humans will come up with suitable replacements for it.  We could go
    back to using plants for medicine.  Have your ever heard of THC?

    Message: 69050
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hussein
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:07:21

    Saddam Hussein had challenged President Bush to a television debate.  Well
    that's all I managed to catch thus far.

    If this is true then I will have to give Hussein credit because that is how
    a war situation should be handled, on international television with each
    side stating their views for all to hear.

    Does anyone know if Bush has accepted?  If he accepts then I will have to
    give him credit also but if he flat refuses then I'd say that there was
    something rotten in Denmark, so to speak.

    I feel the American people, the same ones who are footing the bill for this
    entire escapade has the right to hear Hussein give his reasons for his
    actions.  I think it would clear the air.  And if Bush has nothing to hide
    and that will hopefully be made evident if he does accept the debate then
    everyone will have a better understanding of this tense situation.

    In all honesty I will have to say that my world citizenship comes before
    any other and I want to find out all I can in order to make the decision
    that is better for the future of mankind rather than for any one nation.

    Message: 69051
    Author: Ed Sheridan
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Saddam Hussein
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 00:20:03

    I agee with you Rod.

     *
    [B[:

    Message: 69052
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/college days
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 01:50:31

    If you aren't careful, your tongue is likely to poke a hole in your cheek.

    Message: 69053
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger/velocity
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 01:54:02

    No.  You are confusing reality with a mathematical schematic.  But
    mathematics can be applied to yield remarkably accurate *results*, using
    various approximations and analytical concepts.

    Message: 69054
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/debate
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 01:56:57

    Bush has, and should, decline.  Hussein wants to portray himself as an arab
    hero vs. the American/Zionist imperialists, and a TV debate would allow him
    to do that.  The negotiation process should continue to be mediated through
    the U.N..  It should be presented as Saddam Hussein vs. the World Community.

    Message: 69055
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Mmax
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 05:21:24

     By GCU, are you referring to Glendale Community College? If so, when did it
    achieve university status? I pass it daily, and believe that the sign still
    says COllege, and the last schedule they published, to the best of my
    knowledge, still offerred an associates degree at best.
     Anyway, I'm glad that you got the courses you wanted, and are happy with
    the school. It is a nice place.

    Message: 69056
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sandi - Hitler
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 09:04:19

    Wish I could remember my history better re: who was supposedly his friend
    before world war ll. I do know that the German people for the most part were
    behind him/believed in what he told them.  My ex- husband's wife was born
    and in Germany during Hitler's time (she was about 12 years old) her family
    and friends were behind him - but they soon become disillusioned. As far as
    countries - I think most of the world were at least trying to be friendly -
    they traded with Germany, but perhaps they didn't like what was happening
    over there. The U.S. did supply a lot of things. England did too and both
    countries tried to stay out of a war. It was not to happen. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 69057
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/Iraq/Kuwait
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 17:45:54

    No, Rod, you've got it backwards.  Dean implied that Kuwait had loaned lots
    of money to Iraq during Iraq's war with Iran, and that Hussein took over
    Kuwait so that he wouldn't have to pay back those debts.

    Message: 69058
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 18:50:23

    The purpose of college is to learn to teach one's self?
    News to me.  I just thought it was the only way to survive with a decent GPA

    Message: 69059
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/Iraq
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:24:27

    That's exactly what he did and why...also Kuwait objected recently to a plan
    put forward by Iraq in the OPEC meetings to artificially raise oil prices to
    $30 a barrel.

    Message: 69060
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/oil
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:26:06

    I didn't mean to insinuate that all drugs etc are made from petroleum (or,
    from petrochemicals, as plastics, some drugs are). I was merely trying to
    point out that petroleum has more uses than feeding 1970 Chrysler New
    Yorkers...

    Message: 69061
    Author: $ Sandi Marlin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/WWII
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:32:38

    America was full of people who didn't want to get involved a European war
    where there was no threat to our homeland. Great Britain and France were
    ready to kiss ^@# to prevent another war. No one liked us Germans very much
    but there was no one who wanted to stand up and just say no. (*I just had to
    say that, sorry*)

    Message: 69062
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: hussein/mecham
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:36:59

    Saddam Hussein reminds me of that slime-ball Mecham.

    Message: 69063
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff/OSU
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:37:27

    'scuse me ?

    Message: 69065
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:51:42

    Very funny.

    Message: 69066
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: jeff/velocity
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 19:55:44

    Perhaps I'm being too subtle. I'm opening a new discussion.
    Consider this: an object with mass has a center of gravity. consider
    the path the point that the center of gravity makes in x,y,z,t (real
    space-time). At some point X,Y,Z,T on that path, is the velocity
    vector tangent to the curve at X,Y,Z,T ?

    Message: 69067
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Jeff B./Econ
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:07:09

      We wouldn't be having this conversation because I wouldn't have said
    anything against market controls if they were in fact used to prevent fraud
    and force in consentual trade. That simply is not even the intent of much
    market control.
      The intent you claim for market controls would not require one percent of
    the intrusion and cost of existing government regulation of the marketplace.

      Your contention that laizzez-faire can only exist in mythology unless it
    exists in pure form right this minute is flawed. A true test of
    Laissez-faire would be to actally have it in place for a significant length
    of time. That is not a mythological requirement. If fifty years of
    free-market economics, with government doing nothing but punishing fraud and
    coercion, resulted in total monopoly and rising prices coupled with falling
    standards of living for the majority of citizens, then free markets would
    have been tried and failed. That is my criteria for disproof, since I
    refuse to lay the failing of a mixed economy at the doorstep of the only
    segment of that economy which produces anything.

      You are incorrect in seeing the drug trade as one big oligopoly. The
    barriers to entry are strictly caused by illegality, as you have to realize,
    and the actual numbers of suppliers is infinitely greater than a glance at
    the news would leave you to believe. What barriers there are to competition
    are mainly due to thuggery, as I mentioned. Suppressing this thuggery is a
    valid function of government, which would leave the business a model of free
    enterprise, if the price inflation due to the risks of illegality were
    removed.

      The economics of production I described are simple, and they are the basis
    of everything that comes into being. To declare that they do not apply to
    this or that situation is to be in error. Complex arrangements do not change
    the underlying truths.{ Market controls impede the entry of capital into
    specific areas more often than anything else.

      Don't you see that when a new entrant would have to be of a certain size
    to compete with established firms, the existing firm is obviously passing
    along the benefits of its growth to customers? That is the whole point of
    free markets, that a winner be allowed to win by doing a better job. How can
    you call that a negative? How can you call that a justiication of governmetn
    interferance? We are speaking entirely different languages if you indentify
    easy entry into every market as the only test of an economic system,
    regardless of the progress that is being made under it. This sounds like an
    attitude derived from a religious devotion to regulation (sorry, but you
    asked for it).

    Message: 69072
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sandi/oil
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:50:03

    Perhaps it will soon become profitable to pump U.S. oil again.  Buy
    American, eh.

    And don't laugh but my wife has a 1976 Chrysler Newport.  It has a 360 cu.
    in. power plant, all electric and goes around the block on a tank of gas.

    But we didn't plan it that way as her grandmother from Sun City made us take
    it.

    Message: 69073
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ed Sheridan
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:50:17

    The check is in the mail.

    Message: 69074
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Doggie
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:50:35

    Thanks for putting me straight.

    Message: 69075
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hussein/Mecham
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:53:06

    A man who is willing to go on national television and state his position
    is, in my eyes, more of a man than one who refuses.

    Who has something to hide, eh?

    Message: 69076
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: American Politricks
    Date: 08/30/90  Time: 21:54:27

    What is different about the U.S. Government now than in 1964?  Has it
    improved, became more honest in its dealings with the general population?

    In August, 1964 the American People were informed via mass media that
    warships of the United States of America were attacked without warning by
    the North Vietemese while in international waters.  The attack was not
    provoked by the U.S.  Immediately thereafter the then President Lyndon
    Baines Johnson was given full power to make war in an 88 to 2 vote by the
    Senate, a unanimous vote by the House of Representatives and was
    overwhelmingly supported by Congress.

    Johnson said: "Aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed."  Senator
    Barry Goldwater said: "We cannot allow the American flag to be shot at
    anywhere on this earth if we are to retain our respect and prestige."

    And the entire incident was a lie and Johnson knew about it because he had
    the CIA set it up.  And there were many more politicians in bed with old
    Lyndon.  The warships were not attacked but Johnson and his cronies needed
    to gain the approval of the American people in order to start a vicious war
    that would leave hundred of thousands dead or worse, crippled for life.  And
    thus just after our little war with North Viet Namn the U.S. was in bad
    financial shape just as Iraq was after their war with Iran.

    This incident was not by far the first time the people of America were
    outright lied too and I doubt if it was the last.

    By the way, has anyone heard, did Bush accept the public debate with Saddam
    Hussein?
                                            Rod