### Apollo BBS Archive - August 17, 1991

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 8026
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: cows
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 03:48:12

    Ever since I saw _City Slickers_ I have a difficult time eating meat and
    enjoying it.

    Message: 8027
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Norman
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 10:38:10

    The baby cow was cute in the movie.  I have yet to see any other "real" cows
    that come any where near cute.  I don't really like beef anyway, but since a
    cow is used for more than just meat, I think that makes it the most ethical
    meat to be eating.  Unfortunately, I love lamb and the same isn't true
    about lambs.  I think all parts of a cow can be used for something.  And
    besides, I'm hard pressed to find any usefulness to cows besides hiding and
    eating them.

    Message: 8028
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 13:43:02

    Why should cows or oranges for that matter be useful to humans for them to
    have a purpose?  They are independent life forms, just like us.  They give
    birth and have their own purposes.  I imagine they don't like humans butting
    in on their lifestyle just as we don't like sewer roaches butting in on
    ours.  I think we should stop eating altogether, it would sure solve a lot
    of problems here.  You go first.

    Message: 8029
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon / Peking Man
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 19:26:35

        By the way, what happened to the skull?  Not the plaster copy, but the
    skull itself.

    Message: 8030
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Peking Man
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 21:38:44

    That's the point; the bones disappeared.  Either they got lost, or some
    collector glommed onto them and they never surfaced again.  I suspect they
    will turn up again some day.

    But it doesn't make a lot of difference, because lots of other remains were
    found subsequently -- in the same cave in 1958, for one.  This is only
    one set of remains.  All of the Java remains still exist somewhere.  There
    have been so many finds all over the Old World.  Hundreds of remains of the
    Neanderthals, who were more advanced.  Dozens of remains of the
    Australopithecines, who admittedly must be looked at a little closer to see
    that they're a lot more than mere apes.  Although Australopithecus is now
    believed to lie outside the direct line of descent of Man, in terms of
    evolution he's one of the closest things we have to a "missing link", i.e.,
    halfway between Man and the apes.  There's just so much evidence all over
    the place, but the most convincing evidence visually is probably a skull
    that's not half-man, half-ape, but rather something close enough to Man to
    be unmistakably manlike, while still having distinct features that show the
    primate ancestry.  That's why Peking and Java man look so good.

    I'll have to put something up about the Neanderthals also.

    This "missing link" business is overemphasized, by the way.  The term isn't
    really meaningful any more.  We have lots and lots of links, starting
    perhaps with Lucy.

    Message: 8031
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Bill/Pimples
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 21:59:42

    I think that if a thought's worth presenting, it's worth presenting well.
    On a BBS the things people write are ephemeral: here today, scroll tomorrow.
    It's grossly unreasonable to expect people to go to the effort of polishing
    every little bit of casual chitchat.  But when people write for a newspaper,
    magazine, or book, that stuff is going to be read by thousands of people,
    and it's worth putting Quality into it.  Even that BURFORD sign is seen by
    thousands of people.  Every mistake, every blemish is going to be seen and
    winced at by all those people.  So it's important for the idea of Quality to
    be somewhere at the back of your mind in the first place.  Even if you end
    up saying "what the heck, it's silly to be finicky over this one small
    point; I'll just say it the best way I can".  Lots of people whose writing
    is *published* don't seem to give a damn how they present something.  I once
    read an otherwise quite good technical paper in which the author spelled the
    word "instantiate" *three* different ways -- and every one of them wrong!

    I'm quite convinced that the pimple on your butt is of utterly cosmic
    significance.  Thanks for the suggestion of "Pus Through Time and History".
    I have to admit that this angle had escaped me entirely, and it certainly
    Deserves Further Study, as they say in the academics trade.  Anyway...
    HOW TO BUILD MOUNTAINS OUT OF MOLEHILLS (1/9162):  To begin with, find a
    suitable molehill (see p.703 for survey techniques).  You also need rugged,
    reliable earthmoving machinery.  Appendix Q lists the current suppliers.
    See pp.514-529 for an in-depth assessment of Caterpillar, John Deere and
    other domestic equipment versus the newer Japanese [continued on page 17]

    Message: 8032
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Java & Stone Cups
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 23:16:32

    That was really funny.

    Message: 5010
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 03:50:43

    Oh I don't know, I wouldn't mind chatting with Jeffrey Dahmer for awhile.

    Message: 5011
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Dahmer
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 10:39:57

    That's because you're bored.  Why don't they just nuke the guy now?  I mean,
    it's obvious this guy would just go on killing and torturing.  He already
    killed over 15 people, what more evidence does one need?

    Message: 5012
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Dahmer
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 13:45:58

    He is a product of our society, produced in the U.S.A.  He is a cancer that
    was caused directly by the whole of an ailing system.  Put the system on
    trial and then execute it, like you say, nuke it.

    FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1770
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Horror
    Subject: This Thread Is...
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 07:47:07

    Getting awfully close to mos territory, folks....

    Message: 1771
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Horror
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 10:25:35

    I am working on a theory that the flavor of one SIG leaks into the adjacent
    SIG.  COS and FIL are right next to one another in the alphabetic list of
    SIGs.  Maybe that's the reason.  The SIG immediately *before* COSmos is the
    COMputer SIG, but it's harder to turn a discussion of hardware and software
    into conversations about naked, heaving flesh.  (Note: I do *not* say
    "impossible"!  There are even hidden meanings in the words "hardware" and
    "software" themselves.)

    So perhaps the answer is to rename the COSmos SIG "XXX".  Then it would go
    at the end, right after STOrage of old votes.  It will be much harder for
    that SIG to slip off into sex.

    Message: 1772
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Horror
    Subject: SIGs
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 10:41:27

    What's the difference between people and computers?

    With computers, the software goes into the hardware.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 77583
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 02:29:06

    I've been thinking about your three posts.  There is much that I agree with.
    People become cogs in the machinery of daily survival.  The purpose of this
    machine is not so much to increase the general quality of life as it is to
    perpetuate itself.  Some people are better able to take advantage of the
    machine than others, but for most, much of their existence is spent toiling
    away in an effort to keep the machine running.  They cannot afford to stop,
    because they are a part of the machine, and if the machine breaks down, so
    do they.

    On the other hand, your premise seems to assume that only lying in the grass
    and having sex are instinctual and natural activities, and that anything
    which takes people out of the immediate physical moment is "escapism," a
    word designed to make people feel ashamed of their actions and behave as
    the speaker wishes them to.  Just about anything can be "escapism," but
    because I believe many people are inherently imaginative, creative, and
    think abstractly, I think that even in an idyllic society, people would
    collect stamps avidly, play fantastic games, create and immerse themselves
    in speculative fiction, and so on.  Perhaps more than they do now, since
    they would not need to spend 3/4 of their waking hours attending to the
    petty details of survival.  They would also, I think, imagine supernatural
    entities, and some would continue to use drugs recreationally.

    Message: 77584
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 03:46:08

    Any government that lets its citizens buy M&Ms with food stamps can't be all
    bad.

    Message: 77585
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 08:15:02

    Re: your 3 of 3 to Gordon ... I just won't say 'good posts'! They are far
    from just being good, they are excellent! They tell what the REAL reason is
    for addictions, escapisms and it is getting worse! This is why alcohol
    consuption is up and drugs.

    What ever happened to the 'Hippy Idea' of living in a commune and helping
    each other? I was sorry to see that go. I think Bhagwan and that mess had a
    lot to do with their demise. What ever happened to the idea of being more
    self suficient - like homesteading a piece of land. That was pretty popular
    there for awhile in the 70's?! What happened to men that just flat up a quit
    their jobs and shed their material shackles. How sad that they aren't around
    anymore - or at least not seem to be. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77586
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean on book
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 08:16:14

    It sounds better and better as you discribe it. Perhaps today I will get to
    the book store and see if they have it. It's called Parliment of Whores -
    right? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77587
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Bhagwan
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 10:54:25

    I had the opportunity to visit "The Ranch" up in Oregon and Medina, a small
    commune in England, both of which my mother was living in at the time I
    visited.  Medina was really nice.  It was like a big family, all working
    together.  Some people cooked, some cleaned, some taught classes for the
    children, etc.  Everyone had a specific task assigned to them and it changed
    around every once in a while.  So, you only had to do your one thing.  You
    didn't have to worry about washing your clothes, cooking meals, driving into
    town, etc if you were the breakfast cook.  The whole thing worked really
    well.  I didn't have to have a "job" but I took some on somedays so I felt I
    was helping out.  It was pretty fun.  The only draw back was the religous
    stuff at night, and I didn't attend any of that.  It was manyly meditations
    and stuff.  But the thing is, that was these people's common bond.
    The Ranch was the same thing on a much bigger scale.  I think Medina had
    about 75 people and the Ranch was somewhere in the thousands.  It was
    amazing how well the set up worked but you didn't get to know as many people
    and people had to work harder than in England just because of the sheer
    numbers of people.  By the time I visited The Ranch, Rajneesh was speaking
    again and giving morning talks.  They were pretty funny but nothing I had
    really hadn't heard before.  It seemed more like people around him were
    controling things and that was sad, since they ended up being corrupt and
    screwing a lot of people.

    Message: 77588
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: GL/planets
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 12:10:06

    First of all, that's not one of the basics--That's more advanced stuff.
    Second, God already owns the planets: If you want Him to give you one,
    you have to pass the prerequisite basic self-management course, called
    "mortality"...If you can handle that (most people flunk out..it's a
    tough one, and no one passes without help) then you get all kinds
    of really neat graduation presents...

    Message: 77589
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject:Thad/owning planets
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 13:55:38

    I would think that whoever ended up owing this particular planet must have
    cheated on thier finals.

    Message: 77590
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: etc
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 13:57:49

    Mark, Nick, Ann and Melissa, I will comment later on your posts but I have
    to go now to the local Circle K and buy some M&M candy.

    Do Drugs, Do Time.  Drink till you drop.

    BTW, at 11 E. Ashland, two blocks south of Virginia there is a performance
    by Hernia Retraction Accordian, 8:30 P.M.  Three dollars at the door.

    This is Peter Petrisko's musical group and will be a great form of escapism.
    There will be hanging art for you lovers of canvas and serveral other groups
    are to preform.

    Message: 77591
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Cheating...
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 16:29:34

      If you don't like this planet, try anywhere else in the solar system...
    I rather prefer this one.
      Now, if it's the inhabitants you can't stand, then, Like I said, most of
    them are flunking one part of the course or other...the net effects are
    truly ghastly.

    Message: 77592
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: TC/graduation
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 20:37:58

    Well, perhaps you could upload some of the more advanced stuff ???

    Message: 77593
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: GL/Advanced
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 21:09:44

      I prefer to begin at the beginning...I don't have a quick summary of the
    'more advanced' stuff available. I would recommend as a next step that you
    find or somehow acquire a copy of the Book of Mormon, and read it: If you
    are somewhat familiar with biblical language, you should have little
    trouble...I first read it when I was about 8 or 9 years old, and although
    I didn't understand most of what I read, I somehow absorbed a lot of it.
      Joseph Smith desribed it as the "keystone of our religion", and everything
    else we teach stands or falls along with it. In most copies of the book, you
    will also find an account of its origin. There is plenty of 'advanced stuff'
    either directly taught or hinted at there.... In the meantime, it would be
    easier to answer questions than to guess at what you are most interested in.

    Message: 77594
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 21:41:34

    Just for one moment, I thought I was "GL"!

    Message: 77595
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 21:42:50

    I agree with Ann, these were not only excellent posts, but very important
    ones too.

    I'd like to pick on a little word you used right up front: "corrupt".
    "Corruptness" is an important notion.  Basically it means "broken away".
    Something is "corrupt" when it gets torn away from its original purpose or
    goal; when it changes from what it was into something different; when it
    gets turned around and headed in the wrong direction, or loses sight of why
    it was there in the first place.

    We can certainly say this about government: that people put governments in
    place to serve them, to settle disputes among them, to organize people into
    a common effort so that they can achieve something for the good of all, and
    to coordinate a defense against outside enemies.

    These are the reasons why people put governments in place.  They define what
    the people want to get out of it.  If you asked why some other people chose
    to serve in a government, what *they* get out of it, their answers would be
    quite different.  I'm grossly oversimplifying here, but you could summarize
    those reasons as "it gratifies their need for power".  Relativity is a
    useful concept to me, and I think it's important to understand that people
    always do things for their own reasons, not for other people's reasons.

    There are always competing forces at work between what some people want and
    what other people want, just as there are competing forces at work between
    your teeth (which you want to stay in one piece for chewing food) and the
    forces of tooth decay (corruption).  When a government becomes corrupt, it's
    only doing so because it serves the purposes of its members, to the
    exclusion of those who put them there for quite a different reason.

    It's also possible to lose sight of a goal if the goal itself is a moving
    target, and we fail to correct our aim when the target moves.

    What do we really want out of the world?  You might be familiar with Abraham
    Maslow's "Pyramid of Needs".  Maslow believed that it's possible to put a
    priority order on the needs we have, ranging from basic safety and security
    from harm, and physiological needs such as hunger, then going on to a sense
    of belongingness, and then self-esteem.  At the top of his pyramid he put
    "self-actualization".  He held that the "higher" needs are not addressed
    unless all of the underlying needs have been satisfied.

    Maslow's beliefs are open to challenge, but there is a lot of truth to them.
    People might enjoy collecting model cars (self-actualization), but they
    don't do this to the extent of neglecting "acceptance" by other members of
    humanity.  "Acceptance" in turn becomes unimportant if they're hungry.  And
    people will interrupt a meal to defend against physical attack.

    The notion of people competing against one another for sheer survival is
    appropriate, if survival itself is at issue.  "Fun" is way up top of the
    pyramid.  It's the last thing we'll be thinking about if somebody else
    threatens us.  If it's a choice of me or him, I'd far sooner it were me.

    But if survival itself is reasonably assured, then it's time to think about
    moving on to something higher and better.  The lust for power is simply the
    need to soothe a deep-rooted fear for survival.  People who are obsessed
    with the need for power and status and more money than they could possibly
    know what to do with, at the expense of other people's needs, are frightened
    people who are still fighting an ancient battle that was won long ago.  The
    human race need not fear that it will become extinct any time soon, if only
    people will pull together instead of putting one another down and killing
    one another.  If we can all agree on this point, there will be no need for
    any one individual to be physically threatened by another's existence.

    The person who thinks it's more important to push his status up a notch than
    to look after somebody else's needs may have his priorities a bit out of
    whack, but at least we can justify what he does by saying he's looking after
    himself, just as anyone else would do.  If on the other hand he actively
    oppresses or kills other people just to make himself feel a little safer,
    then that's way out of proportion.  He's literally living in the past.

    Life *is* competition.  We get advantages from competition, the greatest of
    which is that competing with others spurs us on to greater achievements.
    But the question we have to ask ourselves is, are we competing at the right
    level?  Are we playing the right sport, in the right arena?  Once upon a
    time, it was a question of whether one human being or another survived.  By
    now we should have moved up the pyramid, and we should be competing for who
    is having the most fun.  Perhaps in many ways we are.  But a government, or
    an entire social system, that isn't geared to this level of competition,
    that still forces people to fight for their most basic needs, has become
    "corrupt" in the sense that the target has moved and their aim has failed to
    move with it.

    Competition is a fact of life, and so is cooperation.  We cooperate in
    something when we feel assured that the outcome will benefit us.  People,
    like matter, tend to clump together because "in union there is strength",
    and they feel that they need that strength.  So they form their little
    groups, and they call themselves "IBM" or "the Preston Chamber of Commerce"
    or "the Hanseatic League" or "the League of Women Voters" or "the Teamsters'
    Union, Local 503" or "the First Baptist Church of Marietta, Georgia" or "the
    Nation of Islam".  Or something.  This is all very well, but if anybody does
    anything different from the rest of them, like wearing red instead of blue,
    or sticking an earring in his ear, or disagreeing with the President, or
    claiming that the Earth moves around the Sun instead of the other way round,
    they all get ridiculously bent out of shape.  They are dominated by fear.

    Fear is the reason people don't change things.  Our society, when you think
    about it, is laughably inefficient.  What do we really want, in a material
    sense?  Shoes, houses, jeans without a hole in the knee, electricity for
    light and heat, cars to drive around in, books and paper to read and write,
    music and entertainment, people to care for and educate kids, people to fix
    things when they go wrong, and of course food, drink, and medical care.  We
    also need services to help people get the things they need.  Of course this
    isn't an exhaustive list.  But when you think about it, how many people are
    actually employed in doing useful things solely to benefit others?  Now, how
    many people are employed to *stop* other people from getting something for
    fear that it might take something away from someone or put someody else out
    of a job?

    There are great armies of people, lawyers, lawmakers, soldiers, policemen,
    advertising agencies, telephone solicitors and so forth, mostly employed to
    gain an advantage for somebody at somebody else's expense.  Let's think
    about advertising for a moment.  I don't need to be bombarded by hundreds of
    people every day trying to sell me their products that I don't need.  All I
    need is some kind of directory listing what's available and telling me the
    facts about it so that I can choose what fits my needs and go buy it.  The
    tonnage of paper that I alone throw away each year due to wasted advertising
    is absolutely colossal.  There is unbelievable waste in our society.

    As for lawyers, they thrive on fights.  If a husband and wife have lots of
    fights, and she starts thinking about a divorce and gets as far as going to
    a lawyer, that's it.  He'll convince her that her husband is a jerk, and get
    her thinking about how best to fight him and "get hers" in the upcoming
    court action.  If she's wiser, she'll start by going to a marriage
    counselor, and if she's very lucky she might get a competent one.  But we
    spend far more effort learning how to fight one another effectively than
    learning how to cooperate with one another effectively.  The arts of peace
    always lag behind the arts of war.

    If we learned how to get along with one another, all these lawyers and
    lawmakers and advertising agencies would be out of a job.  They'd have to go
    do something useful instead, like build houses or make shoes for people.  Of
    course, they fear the results of being out of a job.  And the people who
    aren't very good at competing get left out in the cold, so all of their
    potential is wasted as well.  All of those homeless people could be building
    houses and making shoes for people too.  But if they did that, then some of
    the people presently building houses or making shoes would be out of a job
    instead.  It's so stupid really, because we could all share the workload and
    work a three-day week or take four months' vacation every year and have fun
    in the sun, and that would make work for people doing something else useful
    like serving up food at a vacation resort or finding out how to transport
    people quickly from stinky New Jersey to sunny Nassau without damaging the
    environment too much.  With the right technology, I'm sure it could be done.

    In the meantime, can somebody tell me how to (a) design a sociopolitical
    system that provides a common direction for society without giving "leaders"
    enough power to corrupt them?  and (b) how to motivate people to work at
    something without threatening them with what will happen if they don't?
    That's the problem that we all have to solve.  The American system is better
    than most; it strikes a sort of happy medium in both areas.  The Communist
    system was a dismal failure; it leaned right over in the direction of
    enforced national unity at the expense of individual freedom, while it
    completely failed to motivate most people to achieve anything worthwhile.

    Fear is a double-edged weapon, because it motivates people to get up and do
    things that they *have* to do if they're going to get anywhere at all, while
    at the same time it makes people's lives miserable.  Then they make *other*
    people's lives miserable while they blindly follow the principle of "do unto
    others before they do unto you".  Now I know you're not a religious fellow,
    but it may have struck you (or perhaps it hasn't) that one of the most
    important messages Jesus preached was to put fear aside.  He said things
    like "take no thought for the morrow" and "why are you worried about what
    you have to wear, or even what you have to eat and drink?", and "how is
    worrying going to help you live longer?" (which is the real meaning of that
    obscure metaphor about "adding cubits to your stature").  And then he got up
    and set an example to everybody by showing that he wasn't even afraid of
    pain and death.  So nobody had any power over him, and he beat the lot of
    them even when they crucified him because they couldn't kill his message.

    Notice how threatening that message was to the people in power at the time.
    If people aren't afraid of you, you don't have any control over them.  You
    can't make them do what you want.  You can negotiate with them and come to a
    fair agreement, but you can't indulge a lust for absolute power.  You have
    to face up to your own fear, come to terms with it, and give it up.  Of
    course the Romans weren't going to do that; they'd built a whole empire on
    slicing people up and scaring the crap out of the rest.  Of course the
    Sadducees, a filthy bunch of collaborators, weren't going to do that.
    Neither were the Pharisees, white-knuckled hangers-on who didn't want anyone
    to rock the boat.  Lots of people were happy to see Jesus nailed to a cross.

    It's pretty much the same today.  Let somebody find a way to lie in the sun
    and have fun, and there are twenty people to come down on him and call him
    "lazy" or "degenerate" and ask him why he doesn't get a job, or work harder
    if he already has one.  People are always trying to get you to join this
    movement or that cause, or take exercise, or quit smoking, or save the gay
    whales, or buy a subscription to Sports Illustrated, or something.  Now, I'm
    not saying that people shouldn't contribute something to humanity.  I
    definitely think they should.  But it's important to remember that when
    people come and bug you to do something, they're doing it for their own
    reasons, not for yours.  They like you to join their "causes" because it
    makes their cause more powerful.  They like you to buy their product because
    it makes their product more successful.  They all want you to have needs.

    The more fear you have, the more needs you have, and the more hold they have
    over you.  If you get your brain well soused with drugs, you have no fear,
    and they have no hold over you.  This is the real reason certain people are
    scared of drugs.  I know that drugs cause all kinds of secondary problems.
    Some people get high and rape someone, or carve somebody up, or mangle
    somebody in their car.  Others beat old ladies over the head to get money
    for drugs.  Then there's the bunch who fill each other full of lead to
    eliminate competition in the profitable drug market.  And people who live on
    drugs often pickle their brains or end up dying early.  I don't say drugs
    are a good idea.  But I do say we focus on the wrong end of the problem.

    Suppose we made all drugs entirely legal.  What would happen then?...

    No, I'm not going to follow that line of thought in any detail.  I think
    it's an interesting one, because millions of "warriors" would be out of a
    job and have to do something useful instead like making shoes for people, or
    patching worn jeans.  A bunch of people would pickle themselves to death.  A
    lot of natural selection would occur.  The people who were left would be
    those who had found ways to cope without drugs that do them harm...

    Instead, I'll speculate about what would happen if all drugs magically
    vanished overnight.  Then millions of people would be out of a job, and...
    You know, all those people who used drugs to dull their pain would get up
    and start getting angry at the people who caused that pain to start with.

    We fight this "war on drugs", but it's all bloody hypocrisy because the
    people who declared it in the first place don't want to win it.  Not really.
    The people, the ordinary people who are worried about drugs and their
    teenage kids getting into drugs, they'd like to win it.  But they don't know
    how to win it.  Instead, they rely on a bunch of power-crazy manipulators
    who tell them the way to win the "war" is to punish people and throw them in
    jail.  And the manipulators are pleased, because they keep themselves in a
    job by playing on everybody else's fear.

    Fear is an infection, like AIDS.  It's poisoned the human race.  The people
    who lust after power are dominated by the fear of what would happen if they
    didn't have that power.  So they work and slave to develop better and better
    methods of controlling everybody else.  And how do you control another
    person?  By playing on his fear, of course.  "If you don't do it this way,
    I'll fire you."  "If you don't buy me a mink coat, I'll divorce you."  "If
    you don't use our deodorant, you'll stink and nobody will want to be nice to
    you or go to bed with you."  You can stand up and say "F*** you, I don't
    care!"  Or you can lie down and say "Don't bother me man, I'm high."  It all
    has the same effect.  It infuriates them -- because it *terrifies* them.  So
    they inflict their fear on everybody else.  Fear spreads, like a plague.

    Jesus's message of love and peace of mind, and putting away fear, was too
    dangerous to be allowed to survive in its original form.  The fearmakers
    couldn't allow that.  But it was also far too powerful to be killed.

    So the fearmakers did the best they could.  They *corrupted* the message --
    which brings me right back to where I came in.  They started with his words,
    "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life".  These were not self-serving words,
    but his way of saying "*here* is the Truth, and *this* is the Way, and I
    have set you an example of what Life means and how to live it."  Then they
    put that together with Peter's assignment as the "rock" on which a Church
    would be built.  And they said "Look, this Authority was passed on to us!
    Now *we* are the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  Do it our Way!  Believe what
    we say to be the Truth, and we'll let you have Life.  Otherwise you're going
    straight to hell."  I don't say that all church people were evil; far from
    it.  I do say that a great many of them were corrupted by their need for
    power.  Jesus's fearlessness was corrupted into a tool to generate fear.

    The very worst form of corruption is the corruption of Truth.  We go wrong
    when we believe lies, or incomplete truth.  Let's take a simple slogan: "At
    McDonald's...  we do it all for you!"  That is a lie, or at best incomplete
    truth.  Companies often do their best to please people.  That part at least
    is true.  But the *reason* they do it is to make money.  There's nothing
    wrong with that, but I'd still have more respect for a company that said "We
    do it all for you because that encourages you to keep giving us your money."

    People don't like it when you tell the truth.  Truth is a powerful weapon.
    One truth is that people do things for their own reasons.  Another truth is
    that other people don't like that particular truth one bit.

    They prefer to believe that everyone else will look after them out of the
    sheer goodness of their hearts.  If we all cut the crap and acknowledged
    frankly that everybody is taking care of his own needs in some way, we could
    dispense with a great deal of pious hope and wishful thinking.  People are
    always looking for "leaders", because that absolves them of taking
    responsibility for themselves and gives them someone else to blame when
    everything goes wrong.  They love to believe that "leaders" do everything
    for the good of humanity, instead of the real reason: that a leader gets his
    jollies out of his ability to lead, and the effectiveness of the job that he
    does.  "Do-gooders" get their jollies out of their ability to "do good" and
    be appreciated.  People do things for us generally because they actually do
    like having us around.  It's still their own need that's at the root of it.

    This is quite all right.  We can live perfectly well in such a world.  We
    can all get what we want.

    Still, when we fail to acknowledge fear, we fail to conquer it.  People
    cover up fear in different ways.  Some people cover it up by working like
    crazy to keep the source of the fear away -- mainly poverty.  Other people
    cover it up by learning to control other people so that they convince
    themselves they have nothing to fear from others.  Unfortunately this tends
    to divide the world into two classes of people, where one class is not only
    very skilled at removing the possessions of the other class, but also
    resents those who opt out of the game altogether.

    Message: 77607
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 21:56:04

    I don't know exactly what happened to the "self-sufficiency" idea.  I don't
    think the ideals of escaping corporate slavery have gone away.  People just
    aren't going to the extremes that were being touted a decade or two ago,
    that's all.  From what I hear, a number of people are doing things like
    retiring early, choosing to step off the fast track and live down a notch,
    refusing to move around just because the company wants them to, things like
    that.  Of course, it gets more difficult when people are out of a job and
    have to move just to get another one.  At the same time, when jobs are
    harder to get, we'll see more couples where one member just gives up their
    job and they live on the other member's salary.  Pendulum swinging back?

    Message: 77608
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad/planet
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 23:22:33

    It's set up wrong in the first place, at least for present day humans.  It's
    either too hot or too cold and then there's them damn huricanes and such.

    There are a few nice places but everyone won't fit or everyone tried and
    they became very polluted.

    If I owned this planet, I'd put it in a giant press, the size of the Sun and
    squash it flatter than a pancake.  Do you know if it is for sale?  Then
    again I think I would make a present of it to Dahmer or does he own it
    already?

    Message: 77609
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 23:42:02

    I don't really know if you write for a living or not but if you don't then
    maybe you should.

    Write on!
                                    Rod

    Message: 77610
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mark/escapism
    Date: 08/17/91  Time: 23:56:16

    I agree, stamp collecting and other avenues could be used in either event,
    to escape or just to enjoy.  Good point.

    But since our little society seems so screwed right about now I figured that
    there was more reason to escape than to enjoy.  I have a hard time enjoying
    something when I am aware of our social ills.  Since I do not drink alcohol
    I cannot forget reality and since I am not religious I cannot explain it
    into unimportance.  And the times in the past when I had indulged in pot did
    not serve to soften the harshness but to make me more aware of it.

    I do have a small coin collection made up of what I have found in change and
    I can honestly say that when I am upgrading it or just looking at it I am
    not aware of the problems in our world.  I find it hard to think more than
    one thought at a time.  This is one method that some people have used to
    eliminate their pain, by forcing themselves to think on some other matter.

    If we lived in a progressive happy world then we wouldn't be having this
    conversation and I still may have the same coin collection.  I may not then
    be aware that it would be an escape mechanism because there would be nothing
    I would want to escape from.

    But then again there is always the human body and its problems that we have
    to contend with from time to time, since birth.  Oh well.

    Message: 77611
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 08/18/91  Time: 00:03:20

    I'll comment on your post a little later.  I read them rather fast on-line
    and I need to re-read off line.

    The mention you made of the Bibical Jesus and what he said is something that
    I was aware of having studied that book for quite a few years.  It is true
    what you say about interpretations being bent for control purposes.  I knew
    and agree with what you said about fear.  I understand it.

    I hope you are saving your posts for some future publication date.

    Have you ever spoken out in a beer hall?