### Apollo BBS Archive - August 10, 1991

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:RC7905-

    Message: 7906
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:03:39

    Thanks, Rod.

    So, DID he get hit by lightning?

    Message: 7907
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:06:22

    Thanks for your comment on my post, Daryl.  Did you mean 7853?  That was the
    only one about evolution.  I was also wondering what reaction you had to
    #7819-7826, which was concerned solely with the age of the Earth, not with
    evolution.

    I think it's very necessary in science to take separate issues and treat
    them separately.  I think there's very strong evidence for evolution, but of
    course we can't point to a skeleton of something exactly halfway between a
    man and an ape and say "there you are, the Missing Link; that *proves* it".
    Furthermore, we can't point to any evidence for continuing evolution in Homo
    Sapiens within *recorded* history, that I know of.  It's all circumstantial
    evidence.  So it's always possible to cast doubt on the theory somehow.

    However, with the age of the Earth, which is a separate issue, we do have
    that crucial continuity with the past.  We can point to processes occurring
    today, watch what they do and how fast they do it, then see for a fact what
    they have done in the past and measure how long it must have taken.  Yes,
    there will always be some uncertainty about the exact age of the Earth, but
    the proof that it's older than a few thousand years is, literally, as
    "rock"-solid as you can get.

    Message: 7908
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ostriches
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:07:33

    An even better question about the ostrich is why it exists at all.  Why does
    it have wings when it can't fly?  It would be better off with arms, or
    tentacles, or anything other than wings.  The ostrich doesn't look as if it
    was consciously designed for a purpose at all.

    It's easy enough to explain, however, if certain birds in the past found
    they could survive better with the benefit of greater size to beat off
    predators.  Ostriches are good fighters and kickers.  Gradually the birds
    evolved to be larger, and size was eventually more useful than the faculty
    of flight.  So they grew big enough to give an enemy a good drubbing, but
    far too heavy to get off the ground.  Their wings then became mere vestiges
    of the days when their ancestors *could* fly.

    We can say even more about the human appendix.  It's useless.  It's a
    liability, in fact, because it's prone to a certain number of infections
    that cause death.  Obviously it hasn't had time to evolve away completely
    since we changed our diet.  Its presence doesn't serve any useful purpose or
    provide evidence of conscious design.  It does, however, provide evidence
    that our ancestors were a lot better at eating their veggies than we are,
    mainly grass and other tough cellulose stuff that took a lot of digesting.

    Message: 7909
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl on bone
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 08:31:04

    I was NOT trying to give some 'flimsy' attempt at evidence toward proving
    that birds evolved from reptiles! AND PLEASE be me guest and research it for
    yourself. You people keep saying OVER & OVER again for us to prove this
    evolution thing and when we attempt to, you redicule us - as if we do not
    have a brain to think this out with!
    My comment about the bone was just a small one - there is overwhelming
    evidence that birds were reptiles whether you say it isn't so or not! Even a
    total novice can see with their eyes and smell with their noses.
                                  *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7910
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 08:33:52

    Daryl, Daryl, Daryl. Sometimes you amaze me. Don't you know sarcasm when you
    hear it? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7911
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Thad/Second law
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 21:25:24

            That argument about the watch parts being stirred for centuries
    until a real watch pops out (or derivatives--e.g., a thousand monkeys
    hitting typewriter keys until *Hamlet* is produced) is a very interesting
    argument, to me. While I want to neither prove nor disprove the existence of
    God, I think it is intensely interesting to consider the origin of mankind,
    and I am inclined to believe that Divine intervention is the only probable
    and reasonable explanation.          --John C--

    Message: 7912
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl's fast feet
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:48:18

    So you just ignore evidence and reasoning when it suits you, tarring it with
    the epithet "religious beliefs".  And then you have the audacity to put
    creation scientists up on a pedestal above people who can actually reason
    out some sort of truth from a set of facts.

    Let's hear some of this wondrous reasoning of Creation Scientists?  Let's
    hear their explanations of the geological evidence which Gordon posted last
    week.

    Message: 7913
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject:  Watches and Monkeys
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:57:23

    I don't like the argument about the watch parts so much, because the trouble
    with stirring watch parts around is that there is an awkward tendency (as we
    all know) for the little screws to get knocked out of the holes as soon as
    they pop in, instead of being screwed up tightly.  I prefer the monkeys and
    Shakespeare myself, because you can assume that the monkeys are truly
    hitting keys at random.  Given enough time, their eventual authorship of
    Hamlet is a certainty.  It would be an awfully *long* time, but it would not
    be infinite.  Furthermore, we can actually compute, according to the laws
    of probability, how long it would take them.

    It can be hard to escape the notion of Divine intervention at some stage to
    ensure that the creation of Man would occur.  The question is, at what stage
    did such intervention occur?  Was it right at the time of the event?  Or did
    God cleverly design a set of basic physical laws that he knew, given lots
    and lots of time, would eventually result in life arising and ultimately
    lead to the advent of Homo Sapiens?

    Message: 7914
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon/Lightening
    Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:22:49

    No, he died about 10 years ago of heart failure.  No doubt he is in the
    depths of hell and will be until it freezes over.

    I have died several times now and both times found the experience quite
    refreshing.  At least I went to the brink of physical death slightly into
    calm and peace.  It will be great, the most fun thing a person can do, I
    well imagine.  Just don't tense up, relax and enjoy and you just may wake up
    feeling better than at any conscience time in your life.

    I've noticed that when a person thinks they are going to have a heart attack
    and worry about it, tense up and freak out then they are probably going to
    have a heart attack.  But if you can honestly feel that, "okay" so I've
    messed up and stressed out so if I am going to have a heart attack I may as
    well relax and go quietly to sleep.  Those weren't the times I felt death
    approaching but on those particular occasions, I've always woke up feeling
    like a top.

    The human form is somewhat of a joke and of course it is on us.  Our bodies
    are stupid growths and compared to spiders and squirrels and other
    creatures, we are no more ugly or beautiful than they.

    We aren't even any better, just another life form living and trying for some
    unknown reason to survive and reproduce.

    Message: 7915
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:33:46

    Prove that your god exists.  If your god does exist as you say it does and
    if it is as all powerful as you say then perhaps you could invoke some help
    out of it to prove your point.  If it is too busy then perhaps it could send
    you a helper of lesser but capable power for your assistance.

    Sounds logical to me.  But I am almost sure that you will point out
    something from your Book of Rules which you call a bible that says something
    to the tune of, sorry can't help, against the rules.

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4978
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Who-dun-it
    Subject: Mike/FL SEX CRIMES
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 06:09:51

    > Did your infintesimal imaginations ever dream there could be
    > another reason for the cops being at the place Pee Wee just
    > happened to be?

            In an Associated Press story credited to James Martinez, the Gazette
    says (in part):
            "Theater employees said as many as eight undercover vice and
    narcotics detectives have been in the theater for hours at a time.
            "'I don't have to explain why we do what we do,' Sheriff Geoff Monge
    said in refusing requests from The Associated Press for an interview. ...
            "Monge has said his undercover detectives' top priority is drug
    enforcement.  Patrols of adult theaters and other vice stings are done only
    to ***FILL THE BOREDOM BETWEEN COMPLEX DRUG INVESTIGATIONS,*** he has said.
    [Emphasis added. -wrb]
            "For example, if a drug buy were set up for the evening and fell
    through, then the detectives would go to the adult movie theater, according
    to a sheriff's spokesman, Capt. Terry Lewis."

    Sounds like heavy-duty investigative work to me.

    Message: 4979
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: Mike
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 14:30:28

    Another unemotional response, I see.  You have done nothing to support your
    ideas on women.  Conversely, everytime you open up your flap, you sound more
    and more like the "womyn" you destest.  What a whinner...
    In any case, people have already addressed your ignorance about our supposed
    ignorance as to what the police were really doing there.  If cops really
    want to stop "criminal activity in their area", why don't they get out of
    the porno theatres and back on the streets.

    Message: 4980
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Re-BuTTal
    Subject: Cops
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:25:38

    "Dance around the true issue with the cops?"  The *true* issue?  Just what
    IS the true issue with the cops?

            "'I don't have to explain why we do what we do,' Sheriff Geoff Monge
    said in refusing requests from The Associated Press for an interview.

    "I don't have to explain..."  Just who the fuck does this arrogant asshole
    think he is?  He is a public SERVANT!  He is paid and employed to HELP the
    public and protect them from people and things that do them harm, NOT to go
    picking on people and things that do no harm, and certainly not to condone
    the actions of a bunch of people throwing their weight around and ruining
    harmless people's lives to "relieve boredom".  Especially not at public
    expense!  This conduct, and this incredible arrogance, is intolerable.

    Just what the hell are we really saying here?  Yes, there's crime, and yes,
    we need policemen to protect us against crime.  And yes, it's a tough job.
    So are we saying that we owe these people a debt for doing a tough job that
    we need done?  Yes indeed.

    But that's where I draw the line.  Is the payment of that debt supposed to
    include overlooking unpardonable behavior?  Does it include letting cops run
    roughshod over the populace, like the beating of Rodney King?  Because we
    need tough people to do this job, do we have to employ thugs and sadists and
    people with such overweening arrogance?  Is this what we're saying?  NO WAY!

    Message: 4981
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Pee Wee & Cops
    Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:41:16

    Okay, a cop sting goes bad and there are no arrests so the cops take some
    people they can rough up and one of their favorite spots for practicing
    sadism is the XXX Adult movie theater.  The people there are poor,
    proletariat class and can almost be counted on to cower under the brutality
    of the cops.  Pee Wee blew their cover because he was the exception.  They
    have been doing it for years.  It was probably on the cops list of "fun
    things to do when bored and want to be able to feel manly again at least
    until they go home to their wives."

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 77481
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Thad/LUST!
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:09:17

     TC>>Are you familiar with the meaning of the good old English word "lust"?
     TC>>I don't mean the word itself...but are you familiar with the feeling or
     TC>>emotion that it is used to describe?

    Well (grin), just to be deliberately obtuse, I'm going to pretend you really
    did ask two questions here, and answer them both.

    Second one first.  As far as I know -- yes!  Now how do you describe a
    feeling so that you know it's the same thing that somebody else is feeling?
    Lust is a feeling that makes me go "WAAAAAAUUUUGHHHH!"  It's a STRONG
    desire, and a delicious sensation!

    How about the meaning of the good *old* English word "lust"?  This is very
    significant.  It's an ancient word of Germanic origin, and originally it
    meant no more than "pleasure" in a general sense, with an overtone of "want"
    or "desire".  In modern German the meaning of the word hasn't changed so
    much, and it isn't a bad word at all; quite the reverse.  The adjective
    "lustig" means "merry".  The title of Strauss's waltz "Mein Lebenslauf ist
    Lieb' und Lust" is translated as "My Life is Love and *Laughter*".  If the
    Germans want to talk about what *we* call "lust", they use the word
    "Wollust".

    For comparison, we don't seem to have spoiled the modern English adjective
    "lusty" (as opposed to "lust*ful*").  "Lusty" has all kinds of positive
    connotations: healthy, hearty, vigorous, full of strength and vitality.  We
    picture someone enthusiastic, raring to go out and do great things.  And the
    German phrase "mit Lust und Liebe" is best translated as the English phrase
    "with heart and soul".

    It's true that we use the word "lust" in nonsexual contexts today when we
    speak of some "lusting" after money, or power.  It is possible, after all,
    to want something *too* much, to be overcome with desire.  But if it's money
    they want, we have to say so explicitly.  If we use the word "lust" on its
    own, it *always* means sex!  And people say that's *bad*.  They labeled it
    one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

    So what did they do?  They took all these good things -- pleasure, strength,
    vitality, desire, healthy natural instincts -- and they plastered a label on
    them saying they're bad and dirty.  They told people they should be ashamed
    of themselves for wanting something, and for having the instincts they were
    born with.  It's a sorry tale of how some people took a perfectly good word
    and sullied it with their nasty minds and their sick guilt and their jealous
    spite and their oppressive need to spoil everyone else's "Lust" -- their
    pleasure.  *These* are the people who should be ashamed.

    Message: 77483
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: John C.
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 04:11:11

    Welcome back!

         Where have all the philosophers gone?
         They're on Apollo, every one...

     JC>>Are women really equal to men, or was Thomas Aquinas right when he
     JC>>thought that they should not be as culpable for sin, for the poor
     JC>>things are not capable of really serious cerebral activity?

    Equal, but usually a bit different, depending on the individual.  The real
    difference between men and women in my view is just that their motivations
    and their priorities are usually somewhat different.  Thomas Aquinas was all
    wet if he thought that women aren't capable of serious cerebral activity.
    But you can't necessarily expect women to think exactly the same as men if
    they don't start from quite the same premises.  That's what he missed.

    He was at least a kind man, better than many others who want to punish a
    woman *worse* than a man for what they are pleased to call the "sin" of lust
    (q.v.)

    P.S.  I'm sure that ANYTHING they say about Australians is true.

    Message: 77484
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon on lust
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 08:18:27

    I loved you posts on the subject. Thanks once again Gordon for putting
    things into prospective. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77485
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 14:39:01

    I love ya man, but I hate to see disinformation spread about contraception.
    What data do you have that states condoms cause STDs?  I agree that they are
    pretty unromantic and cumbersome, but for horney teens that are just excited
    about "gettin' any", I'd strongly suggest them.
    In fact, I put some extra condom I had laying (excuse the pun) around the
    house on the back of my teen survival poem booklet, _Survivors_.  The
    booklet is free and they were gone in a week from Peter's store.  I hope
    they came (excuse me again) in handy.

    Message: 77486
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Porn
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 14:45:11

    Gosh, the one time you all are talking about something that interests me and
    I haven't had time to respond.  Great posts by Gordon, Dean and some good
    stuff from the other side as well.

    Message: 77487
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ah'm back
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 15:21:27

    I'm back. You may recommence calling me by whatever name you choose.

    Message: 77488
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/STD
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 20:51:47

    "STD" in Britain stands for "Subscriber Trunk Dialling", i.e., the ability
    to dial long-distance telephone calls directly.

    Now, I'm beginning to wonder if they got around to substituting this new
    term for "VD" in Britain, or if British Telecom objects.

    Can condoms be hazardous to your phone bill?

    Message: 77489
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/lust
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 22:14:28

    Lust was probably named as one of the "seven deadly sins" because of the
    quotation of Jesus "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
    Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
    on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
    heart". Perhaps theologians have made too much of this, but it seems to me
    that there is considerable psychological truth to it.
      Pornographic material (erotica, if you prefer... a skunk by any other name
    smells just as bad) has the effect of inspiring sexual desires, and
    fantasies...even if the direct object of desire is not available, the
    desire, once aroused, is easily transferred to one that is...and desires and
    fantasies often lead to plans or at least increased awareness of
    opportunities.
      My wife's sister was happily married to a man who seemed to share many of
    her values and ideals. I don't know all the details, since it happened
    before I knew my wife well, but apparently they were having problems with
    their marriage, and were seeing some marriage counselors with an excellent
    reputation. After they had been seeing them and had not made much progress,
    they asked my sister-in-law if her husband was involved with pornographic
    material. She said "yes", and they said they thought so..it showed.
      My mother claimed that she could tell when her children were or had been
    involved with it, also. Again, I don't know how she could tell, but
    evidently it has a discernable effect on a person's personality and
    character.  (After my sister in law's husband began  abusing her and the
    ideals he used to share with her, she filed for divorce.)

    Message: 77490
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Melissa/Gordon/condo
    Date: 08/11/91  Time: 01:50:53

    I guess I am on the hook with my message about condoms so here is my
    explanation(s).

    It sez so in the bible?

    It sez so in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1989 editon.

    They smell really bad.

    None of the above.

    All of the above.

    Pick the one you like best. Remember you may be graded.