### Apollo BBS Archive - Feburary 2 - 10, 1990

    Apollo 7.2 300/1200/2400

    What is your first name:JOESPH

    What is your last name:BLOW

    Hello, Joesph Blow
    Is your name correct:Yes

    Unacceptable name

    Type

    Apollo 7.2 300/1200/2400

    What is your first name:TOM

    What is your last name:WRIGHT

    Hello, Tom Wright
    Is your name correct:Yes

    Caller # 144709 (29 today)
    It is now 02/10/90  21:52:18
    Message range is (62966-63220)

    *=* Main Menu entered *=*

    Main Menu command ( for help):B

    *=* Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Bulletin Board command ( for help):RC

    Message to read (62966-63220):62966-

    Press  to abort

    Message: 62966
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 05:47:37

     Yep. I'm fortunate enough to only have the problem in one eye, and that is
    well under control. Of course, I have had two surgeries on that eye, one for
    the glaucoma and the second for the cataract that the first one caused. Now,
    with a lens implant, I still use drops twice a day, but my peripheral vision
    is stable and I see better out of the operated eye than I do the "good" one.
    (I still have not seen marijuana prescribed for glaucoma patients, which was
    the reason for my last post on the subject. It was experimented with several
    years ago, but is not used, at least to my knowledge.)

    Message: 62967
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Tommy Tenuta
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 05:55:17

     There are presently two cases in Phoenix who are the subjects of fund
    raising drives for life saving operations. Tommy Tenuta is one and a 22 year
    old girl in need of a heart lung transplant is the other. Something like
    60-100 thousand dollars is necessary just to get on a waiting list for
    organ donors.
     I think it is a damn shame, and a blot on the medical profession, when
    babies and young people have to be put in the position of buying life. If
    you aren't rich, or can't raise enough money, go crawl in a hole and die.
    What ever happened to the Hippocratic (or is that hypocritic?) oath, part of
    which says that everybody, regardless of ability to pay, deserves the best
    the profession has to offer?
     I thank God every day for good health!

    Message: 62968
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter on victims
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 06:03:56

    People addicted to drugs are, generally speaking, non-productive members of
    society. They can't work and function properly under the influence of
    mind-altering drugs. Since a normal source of income would not be available
    to them, they would continue to steal to obtain money for drugs, legal or
    not. The only alternative to that would be to set up a drug-welfare program
    to support their addiction, a step too far to suit most of us.
     Legalization would also fail to prevent pregnant women from using, and thus
    we wold be legally creating even more addicted babies.
     Victimless? Hardly.

    Message: 62969
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: old fart/young mind
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 07:57:44

    Thanks, that is a real compliment.

    Message: 62970
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: capitol punishment
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 08:00:19

    Although I dislike congress as much as anyone, I am not ready for such
    draconian measures. Although, one could define capitol punishment as the
    devastation inflicted on all of us by the denizens of such a place. :-)

    Message: 62971
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: daryl/62956
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 08:02:47

    There are no winners in a situation like this. My point is that if you
    are going to stick your nose in other people's business, their business
    becomes your business.

    Message: 62972
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Paul on stealing
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 08:54:07

            People will steal for many reasons.  But because drugs are illegal,
    they are WAY over priced.  Priced so high that an average person making an
    average wage HAS to steal to support his habit.  I have known several drug
    users,  and the idea that they don't do anything usefull except take drugs
    is a myth.  Many of them successfully work right along side their
    counterparts being undetected as a drug user.

            Now, IF they were legalized, the cost of using drugs would really
    come way down...making it possible for the normal wage earner to support
    this habit.  And.... when the time came for this person who made the mistake
    of taking drugs in the first place, to kick the habit, there would be help
    for him, without him being held criminally libel.

            I would be crazy to think stealing would vanish off the face of the
    earth, but there would be a major drop in the need to steal!

            Paul, you seem to think that because drugs are illegal now, that
    they are unattainable to pregnant woman...  The only thing unattainable is
    friendly help, as you made that mom to be, a criminal!

    *=* Cliff *=*

    Message: 62973
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Morality
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 09:05:37

            I see that some people in Aspen are trying to force their morality
    on the citizens within that city in regards to buying and selling of furs.
    This means fur coats, fur lined boots and gloves....

            Morality is a fine thing, but how far does one need to push it.
    Next, they will make it mandatory we all become vegetarians.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 62974
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bobby/pills
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 10:01:25

    The only powerful drug I've ever taken is ONE Tylnol3 - a pain pill! I hated
    the way it made me feel - like I lost momentary control of my body. It of
    course, took the pain away, but I never want to take another.
    The only other drug I tried twice was grass - once in smoking it and once in
    eating it in brownies. The first time I smoked it, I thought right away it
    was the greatest thing in the world! I litterly laughed for two hours. BUT -
    you crash with the stuff. One minute it's there, the next, it's gone and you
    feel WAAAAAY down! Very unlike alcohol where it's a gradual let down. Soon
    after that, we ate the Brownies and I got sick! No laughing here. So that
    was the end of my drug use. It's highly over rated in my opinion. I don't
    want to have a substance take away my control. With alcohol, I remain in
    control. So if any of it were legalized, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot
    pole - make that 50 foot! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62975
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/drunk
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 10:08:28

    But it is your responsibility if you get drunk! Not mine - not the
    bartender's - not the booze manufacturer's - not Cliff's  - etc. etc.
    No one bends my elbow for me. Hey, I've got an idea - let's have a 'drunk'
    GT??!! *Heh We should always have GT's that go along with the theme of the
    BB discussions don't you think? Ha ha. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62976
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on drugs
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 10:11:12

    Your posts are still running excellent. You ought to write an article on the
    subject. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62977
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff again
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 10:15:02

    Never do you give the opinion in your posts that you want drugs legalized
    - but you point out that seems to be one of the only solutions. I too feel
    this way. I don't want us to have legal drugs - it is so untasteful to think
    about it - that we, as a nation need this sort of thing. But facts are facts
    and we can't hide in the sand.

                      -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62978
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/last/fur
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 10:23:23

    I too do not like forced morality even though I'm totally against using fur
    for clothing when it is not needed. I would like to see it all abolished -
    not through forced laws, but by the people simply not buying it. They at
    least are coming out with such fabulous fakes that one doesn't not need the
    real thing to be stylish. But if someone were to buy it, I would not throw
    stones at them. That's their business. I might have a long talk with them
    though! Ha.
    However, this doesn't not work in all cases - I.E. the distruction of the
    rain forrests, etc. All the education and convincing in the world isn't
    going to help re: this subject. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62979
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on drugs
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 11:19:47

         Cliff is right.  If the cost of drugs is lessened (it's estimated that
    if drugs were legalized, the price would drop by as much as 90%, less
    whatever tax the government felt like adding on there) then the addict can
    better afford to buy his fix, and won't need to steal.  Studies indicate
    that even addicts only take their dosage to a certain point; in other words,
    they don't just keep on going until the can't go any more.  Thus legalizing
    drugs would indeed have a significant effect even on the criminal activities
    of users who steal to support their habit.

    Message: 62980
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Politics
    Subject: 62973/Morality
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 15:25:27

    Do you think we tend to make laws too quickly in the US. Anytime a
    group gets enough legislative strength they try to foist their morality
    on others who don't share their same values. Your example of Aspen is
    one form of this type of despotism, another is the perennial drive to
    rid the streets of pornography. What could the US do counteract this
    tendency to convert morality into legality ?

    Message: 62981
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Vote
    Subject: The question
    Date: 02/02/90  Time: 18:43:57

    After a week or so have passed, I'd like to see the same questions regarding
    marijuana.

    Message: 62983
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: Home of the Brave
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 02:25:00

    Wow.
    See this movie if at all possible.
    It is currently running at Arcadia 8 at Midnight but you may be able to
    rent it from Tower.

    Message: 62984
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: morality and furs
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 04:03:26

    The senseless and brutal destruction of animals for trivial purposes is a
    worthy thing to outlaw, I believe. The crime should not be in the possession
    of fur coats or ivory trinkets, but should focus on the trapper or poacher.

    Message: 62985
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: drugs
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 04:14:20

    Most drugs alter the ability to reason. Since we pride ourselves as being a
    species capable of great reasoning ability, and since our society is
    structured upon said reason, to legalize drugs would only serve to corrupt
    the basis of our society. The government cannot condone that which
    potentially impairs society.

    I do not believe the use of drugs by an individual should result in
    imprisonment. However, the convicted addict or casual user should be forced
    to make an effort to come to grips with his substance abuse, or suffer the
    loss of certain privileges.

    Message: 62986
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger #62980
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 08:32:35

    I'll answer that question .... 'Let the people vote on most major laws that
    they are trying to pass' ... AND .... No riders on any law that is trying to
    get passed!!!
    I do believe there is nothing in our Constitution that says we can't vote
    more that once a year. A special election could be held for just such laws
    as abortion, legalizing drugs, flouridating our water supply. And none of
    the old proposition types either where they are confusing - if you vote yes,
    it's really no, etc. I.E. this abortion issue is getting dangerous. If they
    put it to the vote of the majority of this state, that would be that. It may
    go against what I believe in - but I firmly believe in the majority rule.
    Didn't we vote down Val Trans and the Stadium successfully? The
    Terry Goddard's of this world, wether we voted them into office or not,
    cannot use their own morality against the public. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62987
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nick on furs
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 08:40:02

    Trouble is .. trappers are legal, poachers are not. Did you know that the
    latter are distroying the elephant herd in Africa to get their tusks for
    ivory? Who needs things made out of ivory anyway when plastic would be
    better? They just cut off their complete faces and leave the carcass to rot.
    Here again, as long as there's a market for such things, they'll continue to
    do it. Ditto the Rhino - they use his horn for aphrodeasac (sp?) purposes.
    I am thankful at least that the people of America arne't interested in such
    trinkets, but there is still a big market for it world wide.
                                   -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62988
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bad news
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 09:04:35

    For those of you that do not belong to the O.F.'s sig - there was a message
    left in there this morning by Paul saying his youngest son got killed in a
    car accident in Redding Calif. What a awful shock. He will be back
    wednesday. Poor Pauley. My heart goes out to him. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 62989
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul and family
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 09:33:37

    I hope they recover quickly and manage to live with this great loss.

    Message: 62990
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 10:56:51

    Ya, I was going to put up a funny post about Rhino horns but it doesn't
    really seem appropriate now.
    My sympathies to you Paul.

    Message: 62991
    Author: Henrietta Cruz
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Irrationality
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 11:40:15

      Why is it that pro-abortion legislators, when they want to block pro-life
    legislation, deny that a fetus is a baby, but when they want to use
    taxpayers' money for prenatal care, they refer to "the mother and her unborn
    baby" and "the baby in the womb?"
      Why is it that pro-abortionists adamantly state that government must stay
    out of women's private lives, but at the same time are doing everything they
    can to get the government to fund abortions?
      These discrepancies are just two blaring indications of the fundamental
    lack of integrity and reason inherent in the pro-abortion arguments.  These
    people should reflect on the realization required by common sense that they
    can't have it both ways.

    Message: 62992
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nick
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 12:58:15

    Re:  The senseless and brutal destruction of animals for trivial purposes is
    a worthy thing to outlaw"

    I even remember reading about clothing being made of "unborn seal skin".  It
    is such a travesty.  Although I don't think a movement against things of
    this nature will make much headway, considering the rate and attitude of
    abortion.

    Message: 62993
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 13:00:16

    Re:  "No riders on any law that is trying to get passed!!!"

    I agree!  Either that or allow the pres to line item veto.

    Message: 62994
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: INTERESTING
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 14:37:59

    (excerpts from two articles in today's Republic.....)

         "Americans drank less liquor last year, continuing a decadelong trend,
    and wine consumption dropped for the third straight year, and industry group
    reported Friday.
         Changing lifestyles, concerns about health and publicity about drunk
    driving and alcohol abuse contributed to the declines, according to the
    Jobson Beverage Alcohol Group, which publishes an annual survey of
    alcoholic-beverage consumption."

         "William Bennett, the nation's drug policy director, raised questions
    Friday about the effectiveness of drug-education programs.  He said children
    are more likely to respond to aggressive law enforcement and ensured
    punishment."

    My questions:  If alcohol abuse has declined due in part to education, why
    wouldn't the abuse of other drugs also decline with education?  Furthermore,
    if drugs were legalized would Bennett be out of a job and does that have
    anything to do with his going against the facts and waging a "war" we've
    already lost?

    Message: 62995
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter
    Date: 02/03/90  Time: 21:27:01

    Re:  "If alcohol abuse has declined due in part to education, why
    wouldn't the abuse of other drugs also decline with education?"

    Maybe alcohol abuse has declined in favor of drug abuse?

    Alcohol abuse is down and drug abuse is up.  Hmmmmm.

    Message: 62996
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: 62985
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 01:18:09

    We pride ourselves on being a species capable of great reasoning ability...

    The keyword is "capable."  Most of the time our cognitive, problem solving
    skills are whored to achieve irrational or unethical ends.

    Message: 62997
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: 62973
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 01:24:37

    Mandatory vegetarianism might not be a bad idea.  I'm not a vegetarian, but
    would gladly vote in (and obey) such legislation if it were actually
    offered.  Neither of us has any right to kill other beings for food, or for
    any other purposes, merely because it is useful or appeals to our aesthetic
    or sensual tastes.  Any rationalizations of such acts are absolutely without
    merit.

    If I were starving in the wilderness and a wild hare wandered into range of
    a well thrown rock, the right thing to do would be to leave it alone.  I'm
    not saying that I would do this, but that would be the proper thing to do.

    Message: 62998
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: drugs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 01:43:06

    I feel that the legalization of drugs would greatly reduce theft, burglary,
    and drug-related violence, however, the argument that drug use would not
    increase, based on the assumption that more or less everyone who would use
    drugs already does, seems a bit weak.

    I believe that a substantial portion of this country's non-using population
    refrains from drug use because of a fear of the law and also because of the
    societal stigma associated with the use of the illicit.  Obviously, I am
    refering to a certain type of person: someone who feels that it simply isn't
    worth the risk of losing their job or the respect of their family, or the
    possibility of jail or other punishments, should they be arrested for an
    illegal act.  Someone for whom respectibility is paramount: someone who is
    basically comfortable with themselves, and whose life (past or present) does
    not drive them to take dangerous substances in order to escape their
    emotional problems.

    The reasons for not using drugs are relatively few:
    (1) Fear of prosecution : (2) Fear of the effects of the drugs : (3) The
    stigma attatched to drug use : (4) Too expensive

    Remove three of these reasons, and it seems fairly obvious that drug use
    will increase.  If this were the case, the question then becomes "is the
    increase in public funds and the reduction of certain types of crimes worth
    the (possible) increase in drug use."

    Message: 62999
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: laser show
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 01:54:47

    Missed the laser show?

    Don't feel bad; you didn't miss much.  The show lasted 90 minutes,
    accompanied by Pink Floyd music, much of which would have been enjoyable had
    not its volume been excessive.  I have always tried to avoid concerts and
    concert-like events (indoors) because of this problem, and I can only kick
    my own ass for having been such a damn fool to sit through the whole thing.
    Even with my fingers partially plugging my ears during much of the show, it
    is clear that I have suffered some degree of hearing damage, hopefully
    temporary.  When I exited the show, I was accosted by a man who asked "Dude,
    where is my instrument?"  I thought he was a lunatic, until he repeated his
    question and I realized he was asking the location of "Main Street."  In the
    car, the radio, which had been playing at a moderate volume, sounded like a
    whisper.  The lyrics were totally incomprehensible.  Charles Panati has said
    that the generation of Westerners addicted to headphones and loud music will
    by age fourty-five hear only half as well as their parents did at
    sixty-five.  Thus, the teenager who resents having to repeat himself to
    grandpa will himself be barking grandpa's "What's that?" a full two decades
    earlier.
    Getting back to the laser show, most of the graphics were primitive.  Lasers
    are at their best when displaying complex geometric shapes, and at their
    worst when displaying simple line drawings with halting animation.  Guess
    which predominated?
    The staging was amateurish.  At several points in the show, a formula babe
    with the requisite short black dress and long blond hair came out and played
    a large saxaphone.  This was so campy that for a while I thought she was
    merely pretending, though in fact she was actually playing.

    There was one rather interesting point in the show, during a song about
    suicide.  A laser graphic of a small (perhaps .25 caliber) semi-auto was
    displayed on the screen, and slowly rotated toward the audience.  As it came
    to face us, there was an exceptionally powerful discharge of sound, such
    that the chest cavity vibrated forcefully, and a brilliant, blinding flash
    of white light.

    The graphics were projected onto a recessed 50 foot screen in the rear of
    the stage, thus making an unobstructed view impossible for those with seats
    near the sides of the isles.  Some of the more hypnotic imagery was totally
    lost to the audience, as it was projected high into the rear of the ceiling:
    only those with balcony seats, or those in the far front of the auditorium,
    would be able to see these.  I was seated in the middle, and only glimpsed
    this by leaning out from under the balcony floor and glancing up from time
    to time.

    Message: 63001
    Author: Andrew Diceclay
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: jeff beck eats meat?
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 04:27:00

     forsssomeone so smart,  your prettystupid,didyouknowtht?

    youssay
    youarenotavegetaran,buthatyouthinkitwoudbeagooddetomaakeitmdtoryandalllifeis
    sacredblahblah...yetyouareNOTavegetarian!!!        whatahypocrite1!!!!!!

    alsoifalllifeissacred,doesthat,mean,you,never,kill,cockroaches/////?

    get,real,jeff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    then,you,say,ay,attempt,to,justfy,klling,another,animal,is,rtionizaton,and,
    is,really,immoral? can,U,explaain,why,this,is,so/???

    of,course,you,cant!!!!!!!!!!

    or,do,you,never,kill,cockroaches//???

    Message: 63002
    Author: Andrew Diceclay
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: jeffbecksreaasons
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 04:31:59

    there are more than 4 reasons  to not do drugs.

    #5   there is something better to do

    thaat is as valid a reason as  any of the ones you mentioned, and 10 X as
    infuenciaal in the decision of whether or not to do drugs.....

    so there!!!

    im a new user by the way i just  got my first computer annd modem about a
    months ago and i still can7t type wotrth a dam....sorry...

    Message: 63003
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 09:27:02

    Re: "Your Question" ------ you've got an excellent point there peter.
                               -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63004
    Author: Rose Rayes
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pro-lifers care
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 11:41:35

      The charge that pro-lifers care for distressed mothers only until their
    babies are  born is easy to make, but far easier to disprove.
      In 1986 I discovered that, though I was unmarried, I was three months
    pregnant.  So-called "pro-choice" advocates only offered me an abortion.
      Pro-lifers gave me encouragement, helped me rebuild my self-esteem and
    assisted me with food, clothing, housing and transportation.  Since my
    child's birth, pro-lifers have helped me with clothing, college and
    baby-sitting (they are the most nurturing bunch of baby sitters I've met,
    contrary to their media image of stern austerity).  Pro-lifers show no signs
    of letting me go.
      There are 18 pro-life centers for women in distress in Arizona.  Pro-life
    dollars support these centers, including Birthright, Crisis Pregnancy
    Center, Northside Pregnancy Testing Center and Alpha Pregnancy Center.
      I thank God that pro-lifers care enough about women and children to
    support them, and I'm proud to say that I have become an active member of
    their movement.

    Message: 63005
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/Drugs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 12:57:34

    Parachutes come with a ripcord which (in most cases) releases the chute.
    Obviously, it doesn't always work, and I'm not one who is about to tempt
    fate with a diversion such as parachuting. But where is this "ripcord" on a
    drug? Where does one "pop the chute" when hit with a bad Ice trip?

    Life is an interesting enough experience in itself. I don't wish to try and
    modify it by ingesting something my body was not made for.

    Message: 63006
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/Decriminalizatio
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 12:59:00

    My message was sarcasm. I have not bowed to the pressure of the pro-drug
    advocates.

    Message: 63007
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/Bakker
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 12:59:36

    Good for him.

    So?

    Message: 63008
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Drugs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:01:48

       I'm not one for oppresive government either, but I'm also not one for
    anarchy. There are some things which should just not be legal. Did anyone
    watch the Reporters last night? What is your opinion on Ice, Zak?

    Message: 63009
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter/Burroughs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:03:34

    May have had? Did he dry up? That's news to me.

    Message: 63010
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/62971
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:06:46

    I respect your opinion. My opinion is that society has degenerated enough as
    it is. I'm not looking forward to the legalization of something that will
    be then embraced by Madison Avenue, made respectable, and will be the media
    responsible for the further mass-degeneration of society.

    What would Manson have been without drugs?

    Message: 63011
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Drugs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:11:24

    But what about the addictive drugs like Crack or Ice? Sure, you and I and
    Zak are not about to go out there and try them, but there are a lot of
    unsuspecting individuals out there who have and who have suffered.

    But my point is, on an addictive drug like those stated above, what would be
    the point in bringing the price down if those addicted to them "need" them?
    They are going to get them one way or another, and if R.J. Reynolds decided
    to market it, why would they want to put a budget price tag on something
    they know they can get a lot more for? Whatever the market will bear,
    remember?

    The deregulation of the phone company was supposed to bring prices down and
    make the use of the phone an easier experience. What do we have now?
    Operators who cannot suggest advice, 6-digit numbers for long distance
    operators, busy signals or just plain ringing on directory assistance, AND
    PRICE INCREASES.

    Message: 63012
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Furs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:14:04

    IMHO:

      * Killing For Food Is Ok, also sometimes Necessary.

      * Killing For Vanity Is Obscenity.

    Message: 63013
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/62979
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:15:56

    In other words, addicts never overdose.

    Message: 63014
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nick/Drugs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:23:27

       I agree, I believe that the user should not simply be "locked up" as our
    "Do Drugs Do Time" campaign endorses. What I feel should be done is to
    require these individuals to undergo a drug-rehabilitation therapy program.
    This program should stress care and concern for these individuals, as there
    is something lacking in their life that has caused them to turn to drugs. To
    simply lock them up gives them one more aspect of society that has turned
    it's back on them, and makes the continued use of drugs a certainty in their
    lives. Many have become criminals as a result of drug abuse, and were not so
    beforehand. The cause must be eliminated, along with the need, through
    therapy, the person's self-respect built up, their priorities and outlook on
    life reviewed, and most of all, the person needs to feel NEEDED.

    In my opinion, the answer is arms outstretched in love, not prison bars.

    Message: 63015
    Author: Jayana Clerk
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: outstretched in love
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:31:56

    I don't see your arms outstrethed in ove.  Only in hate.

    Message: 63016
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:48:41

    Re:  "Neither of us has any right to kill other beings for food, or for
    any other purposes, merely because it is useful or appeals to our aesthetic
    or sensual tastes.  Any rationalizations of such acts are absolutely without
    merit."

    Hey!  I thought you were pro abortion?  Am I wrong?

    Message: 63017
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:51:47

    Re:  "The reasons for not using drugs are relatively few:
    (1) Fear of prosecution : (2) Fear of the effects of the drugs : (3) The
    stigma attatched to drug use : (4) Too expensive"

    There's a fifth one you left out Jeff.

    (5) Intelligence

    I think the majority of people who do not use illegal drugs, do not for this
    fifth reason.

    Message: 63018
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Andrew D.
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:54:29

    Re:  "yetyouareNOTavegetarian!!!"

    Either you or your computer has a severe problem.

    Message: 63019
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 13:59:49

    Re:  "But my point is, on an addictive drug like those stated above, what
    would be the point in bringing the price down if those addicted to them
    "need" them? They are going to get them one way or another"

    We could do what England does.  We could give the drugs away free to those
    who are addicted.  What a glorious use of our tax dollars.

    Just to keep the record straight, the above is massive sarcasm.

    Message: 63020
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Westfall
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 14:42:47

            If you do not think the prices would drop if made legal, then you
    know NOTHING about Capitalism and Free enterprise.

            Another thing... If you think we need laws to prevent people from
    doing stupid things...you must think people are pretty stupid.  If they are
    too stupid not to use drugs, then they are surly too stupid to pay attention
    to any law.

            You sound like the dooms day people who said when Prohibition ended,
    America would be a land of nothing but 'drunks'...  It never happened!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63021
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Furs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 14:47:39

            Killing Rabbit for food is okay...  But throw the fur away as it
    will not be legal to use it for gloves or anysort of clothing.
                    Pretty damn stupid.....don't you think?  The rabbit is dead
    anyways.
            Fur can keep you pretty warm in cold climates, is that Vanity?

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63022
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Sigh, Westfall again
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 14:53:25

            Who is going to pay for this "outstretching of Love" you think every
    drug user should get?  There are millions of them, remember.  The only thing
    lacking in their life sounds like the 'HIGH' you want to keep them from.
            If Joe Blow want to blow his brains out...let him!

            Democrats and their social 'love' programs drive me up the wall.
    Grrrrrrr  First off, that should have been left up to Churches, not
    Government!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63023
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Killing?
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 14:56:08

            Todays morality...  It is okay to kill HUMAN babies, but don't you
    dare kill a bunny!

                    NUTZ!

    Message: 63024
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Vote
    Subject: Westfall & Thornburg
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 15:05:06

            Okay, you say if drugs are legalized...we will all be DOPE heads.
    Please explain the current ote question posted in the ain menu?
    With your logic, answer [B] sould be doing something. It ain't!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63025
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last/pro-life
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 16:26:06

    Would you mind telling us the name of center, dates, why you went
    there in the first place ?

    8

    Message: 63026
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: manson sans drugs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 16:27:12

    Most likely a sociopathic homicidal maniac.

    8

    Message: 63027
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Politics
    Subject: fetuses
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 16:29:57

    A fetus is not a baby.
    A fetus is not a baby.

    I want you to repeat this sentence 100 times until you get it right.

    Message: 63028
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Bob T.
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 20:47:21

    Sorry, Bob, but almost any intelligent reason you can think of falls under
    one of my four categories.  Care to name one that doesn't?

    Message: 63029
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: 63016/Bob T.
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 20:50:44

    I find abortions acceptable only prior to that point where the abortion
    results in the death of an aware being capable of suffering.  Obviously,
    this does not include a simple fertilized egg.  I cannot give you any firm
    line of demarcation, which is why I would just as soon not be responsible
    for a pregnancy unless it was planned.

    Message: 63030
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: "Andrew"
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 21:02:19

    I didn't say that "all life is sacred."  And yes, it is somewhat
    hypocritical, but also somewhat practical, for me to advocate mandatory
    vegetarianism and yet be an omnivore.  When being a vegetarian can have some
    effect on society as a whole, then I will become a vegetarian.
    No, I don't kill cockroaches, actually: I catch them in empty margerine tubs
    and release them.  This is not the result of any conviction that cockroaches
    are aware beings, as much as it is a theoretically kind act.  Of course, in
    my house, I see so few cockroaches (aside from impeccable hygenic habits, we
    use insecticide (hypocracy rears its ugly head again...)

    Message: 63031
    Author: $ Todd Reese
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Interesting...
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 21:20:08

    Pro-Lifers are called fanatics.  Anti-fur people are called heroes.

    Something is wrong.

    Message: 63032
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jayana/Judgment
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:29:11

    How can you say that? You have never met me in person. The first thing you
    have to learn about BBS debates is that they seldom leave the BBS. For
    instance, Zak was just by my shop a little over a week ago and bought a tape
    deck from me. We chatted about this and that and we are friends! You needn't
    take this BBS thing so seriously.

    I am a loving, caring individual. I hope this does not sound too
    self-serving, but ask anyone on the board who knows me and has met me in
    person. Sure, I have my shortcomings, but don't we all? Yes, I hate the
    actions of the drug dealers that are selling this poison to our fellow
    citizens, adults and children. My beliefs prohibit me from condoning the
    legalization of these drugs. Drugs ruined the lives of both of my brothers,
    and almost ruined my sister's life as well. As a result, I now have one
    brother dead. I know firsthand the effects of drugs on loved ones. Do you
    understand now why I just cannot stand to see any effort made to legalize
    drugs?

    I tried to make a positive suggestion in the wake of hundreds of thousands
    of ruined lives, and you condemn me as being hateful. Zak and I have been
    tossing the most heated salvos at each other...why don't you ask HIM if I am
    a hateful person? I have tried to present my point of view (not too well,
    obviously, because I have been restraining myself [for certain reasons] from
    quoting from the source of my beliefs). I don't mean to sound rude, but I
    think you need to meet me before you make such a rash judgment. PBWY.

    Message: 63033
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Food
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:31:47

    Well, if I were to mention man's God-given dominion over the animals, and
    the right to use them for food, would you respect it? I am, however,
    strongly against the killing of animals simply for the use of unnecessary
    human adornment (furs, ivory, animal heads on plaques, etc., etc.)

    Message: 63034
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob/5 reasons
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:32:58

    I believe that your fifth reason is necessary to make Jeff's first three
    possible, eh?

    Message: 63035
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sarcasm
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:34:14

    Taken.

    "Let's put the 'D' back in FDA, eh?" Heh!

    Message: 63036
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/"Drunks"
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:36:22

    Are you saying alcoholism is not a widespread and very serious problem? Of
    course, it may not equal the numbers predicted by the pro-hibitionists, but
    alcoholism is a big problem...both among adults and children.

    Message: 63037
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Furs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:40:27

    Cliff, I am talking about the wholesale slaughter of seals, minks, etc.,
    where the purpose of the killing is the fur alone, not the food. I am not
    talking about using the furs for NECESSARY purposes but for useless vanity
    mink coats and stoles to be bought at top dollar by those who don't NEED
    them to keep warm. Know what I'm sayin'?

    Message: 63038
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff...Cliff...
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:47:24

    Gee, I have this feeling that there is this huge punching bag somewhere in
    Arizona with my face plastered on it. Cliff, did I say that it was
    necessarily the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility for a program like this? Why not
    organize a church outreach? There are certainly enough people in Phoenix who
    have several hours of spare time that they could devote to helping a fellow
    human in need. Cliff, whatever happened to "love your neighbor as yourself?"
    Much less "whatever you have not done for the least of these, you have not
    done for Me [Christ]?" I ask this in light of your suggestion that we just
    let Joe Blow toss his life in the gutter while we conveniently look the
    other way and cry "Am I my brother's keeper?" It is exactly attitudes like
    this that prevent a truly organized effort among the churches to establish a
    network of rehab/support centers. I'm sorry, but I can't turn a blind eye to
    someone who is throwing their life away. The least I can do is TRY to help.

    Message: 63039
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/63026/Manson
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:49:52

    Justify your last statement.

    Give me a reason to believe it.

    Message: 63040
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Fetus
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:51:12

    Tell me, Roger, where does the word "fetus" derive from? (I'll give you a
    hint, it's Latin. Look it up.)

    Message: 63041
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Todd/63031
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 22:53:29

    Yes, I agree.

    Cute fuzzy little big-eyed harp seals are important, but a helpless
    developing baby isn't.

    [I believe that both are important.]

    Message: 63042
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Fetus/Roger
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 23:08:54

            Roger... the first 3 month stage is an embryo.  From the end of the
    third month of pregnancy until birth, it's a fetus.  And that is a living
    baby!
            A fetus is a baby.
            A fetus is a baby.
            A fetus is a baby but more people will defend a bunny!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63043
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/"drunks"
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 23:22:17

            You don't read so well...  Alcoholism was a big problem during
    prohibition.  And the problem is on the decline today.  As anything, the
    media greatly exagerates it.  Violent deaths by mobs (gangs) went right down
    when prohibition ended.  There were less deaths due to drinking wood alcohol
    and other nasty concoctions when it was legalized.  In short, the industry
    cleaned up its act to meet government standards.  The taxes collected from
    booze is a staggering amount.  At least the blood of good people is no
    longer spilled trying to fight it.
            However, the people who drink and drive...are criminals, they are
    the ones who should be punished, not the ones who use the substance
    correctly.  The laws you want to pass, punish everyone.

    Message: 63044
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Daryl/furs
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 23:28:22

    But the LAW talks about ALL furs.  Since most law men can't tell the
    difference beteen rabbit and mink, they ban them all!  The law in Aspen does
    not set up a difference between VANITY and NECESSARY, it just wants to ban
    all furs.  Again, forcing the morals of some on everyone, and that I resent!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63045
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Mr Westfall...
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 23:49:01

            Maybe the drug users do not want your help.  I know a few, and from
    what I gather, they hate do-gooders.  If you want, I can give your name and
    address to a group?  After they beat you up, maybe you can post how LOVE
    helped them solve their problem.  If you think a nice pep talk will make
    them see the light....you need more help then they do.
            I am all for helping a person who wants and seeks help. If churchs
    would only reach out and help when asked that would be nice.  But now days,
    very few churches will help drug problems because they are too complex and
    the churches do not have the money to help.  A free hug won't solve their
    problems.  If drug use did not have the word "CRIMINAL" attched to it, more
    people would probably seek help.  Passing more laws outlawing it has chased
    them deep underground.  Some love...  all talk and no understanding.   As I
    said a few months ago (or was it last year) I lost a good friend to drugs.
    He had no where to go for help!  He died!

    Message: 63046
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: Everyone...
    Date: 02/04/90  Time: 23:53:24

            Smile, do not let these debates get you down.  They are just
    expressions of ideas.  God knows, I ain't always right.

            *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*  I don't believe I said that??

    Message: 63047
    Author: Greg Wendel
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: SYSOP 63042
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 00:52:59

    THEN MAKE ABORTION LEGAL FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS!

    Message: 63048
    Author: Rick Myers
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: fetuses vs. bunnies
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 02:43:12

    Bunnies are cuter than fetuses.

    Message: 63049
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Fetus is a baby
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 06:27:16

    Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit ...

    Message: 63050
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rose, clinics
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 07:59:39

    Then let them make the choice of going to the abortion clinic or to the
    pro-life centers. You were able to make YOUR choice. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63051
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/ripcord
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:01:31

    The ripcord on drugs in found in your right or left hand, depending. Just
    don't raise it to your mouth, arm or anywhere else with drugs in it! See?
    Simple! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63052
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Manson
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:03:14

    "What would Manson have been without drugs?"
    Insane! What else? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63053
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on rabbits
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:11:54

    I agree there. I think any animal used for food should have it's fur used
    also as well as all parts of it's body. I.E. Cattle, sheep, rabbits, etc.
    etc. We do not eat mink, chinchilla, elephants, seal, whales, Dolphins,
    Ostriches (sp?), tigers, leopards, etc. etc. That is, not unless we
    were starving. What is so terrible re: the elephants - some tribes do indeed
    eat them, but the poaches leave them to rot in the hot African sun and they
    do no one anygood except the idiots that buy this stuff. If that's
    considered good? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63054
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Toddy/pro-lifers
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:15:46

    The pro-lifers ARE being fanatics! Haven't you read the paper lately?
                             -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63055
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/#63036
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:18:13

    Our population has double is why there is more alcoholics today.
                              -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63056
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/helping hands
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:30:16

    "There are certainly enought people in Phoenix who have several hours of
    spare time that they could devote to helping a fellow human in need"!
    Yes there is! But it just doesn't happen on the average Daryl. Most of these
    people do a lot of talking, but when it comes down to it, won't do a thing
    if it disrupts their life. How many people for instance that you know are
    taking in un-wed preg. women so that they can have their babies and not get
    an abortion? How many are taking in drug addicts? There might be clinics and
    help centers for these people, but they go out on their own at some point,
    because no one wants them. You can preach till your blue in the face to an
    addict in one of those places, but he'll still go out and do his thing! How
    many white families are taking in black drug addicts or preg. women? How
    much money do they put out on these people in need?

    These so called people that could devote to helping a fellow human in need a
    couple years ago voted in a law that we could all 'rat' on our neighbors if
    their yards were a mess, or they had a RV parked in their view, etc. etc.
    If these people can't tolarate their neighbors, how are they going to
    tolarate a stranger that 's in trouble living in their houses? I'm afraid
    that "love thy neighbor" is not the way of life around here  - if it ever
    was. It is good to think it could be - but it isn't! FACT! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63057
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:33:33

    Those are powerful words in your drug posts Cliffy. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63058
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: anti-fur heroes
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:45:33

    Don't worry, there are many of us who put the anti-fur kooks in the same
    category as the anti-choice crowd.

    Message: 63059
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: justification/daryl
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:48:44

    I think it is self-evident. Do you think Manson is sane today ? If there
    were no drugs available, would you invite him to stay overnight in your
    house. I rest my case.

    Message: 63060
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: daryl/fetus
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:52:08

    I see no "baby" in my dictionary. However, I am willing to concede that I
    meant embryo as opposed to fetus.

    Message: 63061
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Politics
    Subject: fetus/embryo
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 08:54:55

    OK: A fetus is not a baby.A baby must be born to be a baby. A three month
    fetus is not a baby. Even an 8 month fetus is not a baby. Also, an embryo
    is not a baby. A zygote is not a baby.

    Message: 63063
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 12:35:49

    Well, screaming and shoving pictures of dead animals in the faces
    of people with furs seems pretty fanatical.
    I agree with their main idea, not kiling animals for fur, but their
    execution is what I have a problem with.

    Message: 63064
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: More meddling...
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 12:59:05

            Again, your local state government is going to try and pass a
    mandatory seat belt law.   Last year it passed the House, but did not make
    it through the Senate.  So they are going to try again.  Someone wants it
    put on the books as LAW and are not going to stop till it's there.  I am all
    for the wearing of seat belts...as an act of free choice!

            When will government do its job of running government and quit
    playing mommy and daddy to its citizens?   And to think, we pay taxes for
    this bull$#!+

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63065
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Deadly cars
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 13:08:26

            The CORVETT is the most deadly car on the road if you get into an
    accident.   This info was released today....  But I knew this....  There
    have been several death related accident at 35th Ave and Bell road over the
    past few years.  People just killed with fiberglass splinters, when they
    just should have not been killed.   The only thing more dangerous, is
    smoking.   Now someone who smokes and drives a Corvett, is wanting to die!

            A four door Volvo (tank) is suppose to be one of the safest cars.
    And any other large STEEL car.  I wonder why government is trying to cram us
    into little (beer can) compacts?  What is more important, to save lives or
    to save gas?

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

                                    Thanks for the soap box!

    Message: 63066
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beer can compacts
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 15:06:09

    If *everyone* drove beer can compacts, or everyone rode bicycles, everyone
    would be equally safe (and more safe than the average driver out there
    today).

    Message: 63067
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last/not practical
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 15:12:18

            Then how do we get goods to our stores?  You need TRUCKS for that,
    not beer can compacts or bicycles.  Dog, rethink your answer for a more
    practical solution!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63068
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Practicality
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 18:54:36

    Railroads connected to light rail. Light trucks, similar to the light
    vehicles.

    For the bicycle solution, light trucks/light rail, perhaps restricted to
    certain roads/hours.

    Message: 63069
    Author: Phil Pape
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: love
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 20:22:17

    to candice prettigew
    from phil
    teenager love

    Message: 63070
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Furs
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:20:08

    I agree. A line needs to be drawn between usefulness and uselessness. I will
    not join PETA because I eat meat. I purchased a compilation album once that
    was sponsored by them, and all of the inserts that came with the album were
    designed to hang a dungload of guilt on anyone who even THOUGHT about being
    anything other than a vegetarian.*

    Message: 63071
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Drugs
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:24:16

    You say that you lost a good friend to drugs, because he had nowhere to go
    for help. I don't mean to sound heartless here, but where were you? Did you
    offer help? Or did you withhold simply because he didn't offer or didn't
    think he needed help? Cliff, those who get pulled down into the lies of drug
    use convince themselves that they don't need help, when in all actuality
    they DO. Those who won't admit that they don't have a problem are usually
    the ones that have the worst problem. It's the same problem as alcoholism,
    the first step is admitting the problem. And one cannot do that alone.

    Message: 63072
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/63046
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:25:00

    DO MY EARS DECIEVE ME? Gee, I think I shall have a heart attack now. Cliff
    NOT right? Someone alert da media! (Heh heh heh...)

    Message: 63073
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Drugs/Parachute
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:30:09

    And the simplest way to avoid faulty parachutes is not to parachute. Heh
    heh. Seriously, though, I'm trying to figure the point of your message. I'm
    talking about getting OUT of a bad trip once the irresponsible decision has
    been made to take the drug. Time machines would be cool...have a bad trip?
    Just go back about 20 minutes and toss the drug away. (But then again, if
    the trip was good, one could go back and do it again and again and
    again...uh, scrap the time machine idea.) Heh!

    Message: 63074
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/63052
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:31:36

    How do you know that for sure? If he hadn't taken all of those LSD trips, he
    wouldn't have thought he was Jesus Christ.

    Message: 63075
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/LoveThyNeighbor
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:45:57

    The reason that we do not "Love Our Neighbors" anymore is because (uhoh,
    here he goes again) the world has turned their backs on God in search of
    their own selfish pursuits. A helping hand to a person in need is a gift to
    God [Matthew 25:31-46]. However, too many have a "what's in it for me"
    attitude. If it does not benefit them in some way, they will not do it. Even
    public recognition is a benefit, because it makes one look good in the eyes
    of others [Matthew 6:1-4].

    Yes, it is sad that many cannot love their neighbors (be it a family member,
    or the guy down the block, or the poor man on the street corner, or even the
    unborn child...yes, according to Scripture all of these are our "neighbors"
    [Luke 10:25-37]). But any effort, on a large or small scale, must begin in
    the heart of the individual.

    Message: 63076
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Manson
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:51:58

    You have to consider that Manson would probably be or look nothing like he
    is had he not fried his mind on LSD. If he had never taken drugs, I probably
    would not mind having him at my house, as he would probably look and act
    nothing like he did and does today.

    Message: 63077
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Fetus
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:52:56

    Ok, I agree with your error in terminology, though I still disagree with
    your stance. ("Fetus" by the way, is derived from the Latin word for
    "offspring.")

    Message: 63078
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/NOT NOT NOT
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:54:37

    Ok, you have stated your opinions. Just be careful and don't repeat them
    over and over too loudly, especially if you are alone, or someone might
    think that you are talking to an invisible bunny-rabbit friend or somethin.
    Heh!

    Message: 63079
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Seatbelts
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:57:52

    I agree on this one. Anyhow, most insurance companies will not cover injured
    parties who weren't wearing safety belts at the time. Isn't this punishment
    enough?

    Message: 63080
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Killer Carz
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 21:59:15

    I thought the Yugo was supposed to be the most unsafe car. In an accident,
    those things are supposed to accordion just like a Coors can. You know what
    they say about Yugos...You buy a Yugo, it breaks down, Yugo buy another one.

    Message: 63082
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Goods
    Date: 02/05/90  Time: 22:00:25

    SLED DOGS, dude! Where's yer mind? MUSH! MUSH!

    Message: 63083
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Ianuzzi
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 00:37:33

         Your arguments for the illegalization of drugs don't work.
         Your first argument goes as follows:  1.  Drugs alter reasoning
    ability.  2.  We pride ourselves on our great ability to reason.  3.
    Therefore, drugs should be illegal.
         Even if the first two premises were wholly true, the conclusion would
    still not follow from them.
         First of all, it is true that man has the greatest reasoning capability
    of all earth's creatures.  But of all the things America seems to take pride
    in, reason isn't on the top of this list.  A society that keeps shows like
    *Geraldo* on the air and elects Ronald Reagan to a 2nd term can hardly be
    called a society that holds reason as the highest virtue.
         Anyway, even if reason *were* the highest virtue, it would not follow
    that all things that alter one's ability to reason should thus be illegal.
    Even though reason is good, it is a good that must be chosen, not forced.
    If an individual chooses to forfeit his reasoning abilities for a few hours
    in favor of drugs, that is his choice.  The idea that we must force people
    to always spend their time doing things that involve reason is, in itself,
    an UN-reasonable idea.
         By your argument, meditation should also be illegal, since in a
    meditative state many people imagine things to be true that are false, and
    to feel sensations and imagine places where they had never been before.  In
    other words, meditation alters one's ability to reason.

    Message: 63084
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Ianuzzi
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 00:50:29

         Also, I have to assume, based on your argument, that you are for the
    criminalization of alcohol, since it too alters one's ability to reason.  If
    you are not against alcohol being legal, then your position is horribly
    inconsistant.

         You also state that "The government cannot condone that which
    potentially impairs society."  You thus give the government the role of an
    all-knowing parent who must tell us all what is and is not good for us.
    This is not the government's role, and if it were, we'd all be suffering
    from a loss of rights.  The government is designed to help establish order
    in society, and to protect us from each other -- it is not designed to
    protect us from ourselves.
         Another problem with your above statement is that it assumes that for
    something to be legal, it must be "condoneable" by the government.  This is
    plainly absurd, as I'm sure you will become aware if you put some thought to
    it.
         Drugs do not impair society.  The abusive mis-use of drugs does.  But
    so also does mis-use of other things have an impairing effect.  Everything
    can be said to have a potential to impair society:  Nintendos, cars, knives,
    guns, stereos -- depending on how each item is used.  If people use drugs in
    ways that do not result in the harm of others, then we should no more be
    concerned than if people use Nintendoes in ways that do not result in the
    harm of others.  Nintendo mis-use can result in jitteriness, eye trouble,
    etc., but they should not be made illegal.

    Message: 63085
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Ianuzzi - last
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 01:05:25

         One last criticism:
         You say "the convicted addict or casual user should be forced to come
    to grips with their substance abuse."
         First of all, why are you putting addicts and casual users in the same
    boat?  It seems to me that casual users aren't doing much harm.  That is
    like putting casual beer-drinkers and chronic alcohics in the same boat.
         You seem to have good intentions in wanting to force people to come to
    terms with their substance abuse.  The question is, who is responsible for
    making these people come to terms?  The government?  Families?  Friends?
    The person who's addicted?  I don't know the answer, I admit, but it's
    obvious that making drug-use a crime isn't it.
         Crime is an activity which violates the rights of others.  Killing,
    stealing, commiting fraud, rape, molestation, kidnapping, assaulting, and so
    on are all crimes and all have good reasons for being made illegal.
         Drug use, on the other hand, does not violate anybody's rights.  The
    person is doing something to himself, not to somebody else.  If the drug use
    results in negative effects (such as the drug user killing somebody in an
    auto accident), then it is the poor judgment of the drug user (not
    controlling his environment while using drugs) that is responsible, not the
    drug itself.  There can be such a thing as responsible drug use, just as
    there is such a thing as responsible alcohol use (in which the person
    drinking chooses to limit himself to a certain amount, or when he is
    excessive, indulges in a situation where he will not be able to have easy
    access to his car).

    Message: 63086
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Adkins, er, Beck
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 01:15:11

         Your reasons not to use drugs:

    1.  Fear of prosecution; 2.  Fear of the drug's effects; 3.  Drug use
    stigma; 4.  Too expensive.

         You claim that if drugs were made legal, 3 of these fears would
    disappear.  But your analysis of the fears does not take a realistic view of
    what people's motives for using and not using drugs really are.

         The first reason, fear of prosecution, is one of the weakest reasons.
    I've never chosen to not use drugs based on this reason, because I know that
    drugs are easy to get without anybody knowing about it.  You don't have to
    be sneaky to safely get drugs; you have to be subtle, but not sneaky.
    Unless the police start doing random, unconstitutional searches on people's
    cars and houses, this fear is pretty small.
         The second fear, that the drugs will have bad effects, you admitted
    would stay the same if drugs were legal.  I add that if the drugs were legal
    they should be sold with information about their effects, side-effects, and
    long-term effects printed on each package.
         The third reason, the stigma associated with drug use, would probably
    diminish somewhat with legalization.  At least, people wouldn't worry about
    their peers looking down on them because they were doing something illegal.
    However, I think there would be just as much of a stigma attached to
    irresponsible drug use as there is today.  (Example:  alcohol abuse stigma.)

         The fourth reason that people don't do drugs you cited is that they are
    too expensive.  You are right that they would become cheaper if they were
    made legal, and thus those people who are only being held back from doing
    drugs because of the high price would probably do more drugs.  But how many
    people are out there who are not doing drugs only because they can't afford
    it?  (Especially people who have never tried drugs.)  This
    explanation of why people don't do drugs does not account for the high use
    of drugs among the lower classes.

         So, in summary, given the reasons you listed for not doing drugs, there
    is no reason to assume that drug legalization would result in mass drug
    hysteria, or anything even remotely close.  The first and last reasons are
    weak, and the second and third reasons (drug effects and stigma) would not
    be affected by legalization.

         And, finally, somebody else on this BBS was right in adding a 5th
    reason to not use drugs:  5.  Because there are better things to do.
         People who choose not to use drugs now mostly choose not to use them
    because they know that the good feeling brought on by drugs is artificial,
    and therefore meaningless.  There are many avenues of satisfaction to seek
    in life, and most people wisely choose avenues that have substantial value
    and lasting meaning (well, at least more meaning than a drug high can bring
    on.)

    Message: 63088
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Daryl on drugs
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 01:35:37

         You're a prolific guy, Daryl, and thus hard to adequately respond to.
    But I'm sure gonna try.

         RE:  "Parachutes come with a ripcord.  Where is the 'ripcord' on a
    drug?"
         In this reaction to my analogy between parachuting and drug use, you
    are missing the point of the analogy.  The point is that both are dangerous
    activities with the potential to harm the user, and that both should still
    be legal anyway.  The 'ripcord' on a drug is the user's decision to take
    steps to ensure that his drug use will be safe.  That means not using
    high doses, and controlling his environment.  This is analogous to a
    backup parachute.  I admit that this analogy is not 100% perfect, but it has
    value nonetheless.  I could come up with other analogies to say the same
    thing, but this one serves my purpose fine for the time being.  There are
    other dangerous activities where no 'ripcord' is involved.  Try to stick to
    the point, instead of clouding it.

         RE:  Your reason for not using drugs:  "Life is interesting enough in
    iteself."
         I'm glad you made this decision, Daryl, but it does not mean that
    everybody else should be declared a criminal if they decide otherwise.

    Message: 63089
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Daryl on drugs
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 01:45:06

         RE:  "What is your opinion of ice?"
         I think it's a nasty drug.  Even if drugs were legal, I wouldn't use
    it.

        RE:  your assertion that if drugs were legalized, they'd be "embraced by
    Madison Avenue," and "made respectable."
         They might try, but advertisers cannot make anyone respect anything,
    they can only suggest it.  If drugs were legalized, there would still be
    plenty of room for people to advertise against the negative effects of drug
    use.  I think the anti-cocaine use ad in which the man walks in circles
    repeating "I do coke so I can work harder so I can make more money so I can
    buy more coke so I can work harder..." is very effective.  What would stop
    such advertisements if drugs were legal?

         RE:  "In other words, addicts never overdose."
         That is not a fair assessment of what I was saying.
         Even so, I believe that for the most part, addicts do not choose to
    overdose, and that overdoses are usually the result of a miscalculation on
    the part of the addict, or of intended self-harm.

    Message: 63090
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Daryl on drugs
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 01:53:13

         The following is excerpted from this month's issue of Reason.  The
    article is titled Control Yourself.  It is by Stanton Peele.

         "Research has shown decisively that alcoholics, even while drinking,
    are crucially influenced by value choices and environmental considerations.
    Alcoholics who seem to be out of control on the street are actually pursuing
    deliberate drinking strategies designed to achieve specific levels of
    drunkenness.  Street alcoholics allowed to earn credit for booze in a
    laboratory will work until they accumulate enough chits to attain the exact
    level of intoxication they seek.  Or, allowed to drink freely in an
    isolation booth, they will voluntarily cut down their drinking to spend more
    time in a comfortable, abstinent environment with other alcoholics watching
    television.  Such alcoholics do get drunk a lot, and they prefer drinking to
    most other options available to them in their natural environments.
    Nonetheless, alcoholic drinking is a largely purposive behavior, even if
    alcoholics' purposes are quite alien to most people and even though
    alcoholics frequently regret their choices after they become sober (at
    least, until they become drunk again).
         Much of the work on alcoholics' intentions while drinking has been
    conducted at the Baltimore City Hospital, part of the federally supported
    Addiction Research Center.  But many of these same investigators are now
    giving their work with cocaine addicts a very different slant from the one
    they gave their alcohol research.  This research group is often shown on
    television working with addicts attached to electrodes or giving responses
    recorded on a computer as they take or come down from their cocaine doses.
    A researcher then explains to the interviewer how cocaine provides a
    tremendous uplift, followed by an enervating down.
         Actually, this process is a standard one observed in human being
    engaged in activities ranging from eating carbohydrates to sexual
    intercourse (hence the readiness with which these activities are equated
    with drug addictions).  Often, the researchers observe how the anticipation
    of the cocaine high or the need to reintroduce cocain to alleviate the low
    will drive the addict to do anything.  Sometimes reference is made to
    laboratory studies in which animals continue to inject cocaine through an
    implanted catheter until they kill themselves.
         Just how addictive are cocaine and crack?  Cocaine in any form is less
    addictive than cigarettes by the two key behavioral measures of addiction.
    Five times as many regular cigarette as crack smokers become addicted,
    according to Jack Hennigfield, a researcher at the National Institute on
    Drug Abuse, and addicts indicate it is easier to give up crack than
    cigarettes.  In fact, if we go by the NIDA survey to which George Bush
    alluded in his nationally televised speech last September, very few cocaine
    users become addicted.  The survey found that 21 million Americans had used
    cocaine, 8 million had used it in the last year, and 3 million were current
    users, buy only 300,000 used cocain daily or nearly so.  Government
    statistics thus show that 10 percent of current users and 1.5 percent of all
    users take the drug close to every day.

    Message: 63092
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: another article
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 02:09:44

         Another good recent article pertaining to drugs is the interview with
    Michael S. Gazzaniga, a professor of neuroscience at Dartmouth Medical
    School, in the *National Review*.

         A few quotes:

         "...Another example of hyperbole is the recent claim that there were
    375,000 'crack babies' born last year; how could that possibly be, when the
    government (the National Institute on Drug Abuse) informs us that there were
    only 500,000 crack *users* last year?  Exaggeration and misinformation run
    rampant on this subject."

         "If your goal were, pure and simple, to get high, you might try crack
    or cocaine, or some amphetamine.  You wouldn't go for marijuana, which is a
    mild hallucinogen and tranquilizer.  So, if you wanted to be up and you
    didn't have much time, you might go to crack.  But then if it were
    absolutely established that there was a higher addiction rate with crack,
    legalization could, paradoxically, diminish its use.  This is so because if
    cocaine were reduced to the same price as crack, the abuser, acknowledging
    the higher rate of addiction, might forgo the more intensive high of crack,
    opting for the slower high of cocaine.  Crack was introduced years ago as
    offering an alluring new psychoactive experience.  But its special hold on
    the ghetto is the result of its price.  Remember that -- on another front --
    we know that 120-proof alcohol doesn't sell as readily as the 86 proof, not
    by a long shot, even though the higher the proof, the faster the
    psychological effect that alcohol users are seeking."

         "Most experts insist that the rate of alcohol use before Prohibition
    was the same as after."

         "...It is worth noting that the largest proportion of [alcohol] is sold
    to the social drinker, not the drunk, just as most cocaine is sold to the
    casual user, not the addict."

         "...the vast majority of early drinkers stop excessive drinking all by
    themselves.  In fact, drug use of all types drops off radically with age."

         "*All* the cocaine users make up 2 per cent of the adult population,
    and the addicts make up less than one-quarter of 1 per cent of the total
    population."

         "Again, it is estimated that 21 million people tried cocaine in 1988.
    Yet of those, only 3 million currently use it, and only a small percentage
    are addicted."

         I could quote more and more, but I've already given you enough to chew
    on for a while.

    Message: 63094
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 02:18:17

        RE:  Your response to my comment about Jim Bakker:  "Good for him.  So?"

         Did my mentioning of Bakker's current situation bug you, or what?
         I think it's great that Bakker is cleaning toilets.  Poetic justice.

                   "Heh!"

    Message: 63095
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last few
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 03:07:46

    No wonder I couldn't get on here tonight...

    Message: 63096
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 03:56:16

    I suppose you think that the government should keep its nose out of
    inspecting our food and mandating clean air standards as well.

    By the way, meditation doesn't impair the ability to reason, it augments it.

    Your comments on my posts were too much in the style of JT circa 1984 to
    discuss further.

    Message: 63097
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Manson
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 07:45:17

    Of course, there is no way to know that for sure. I suspect, however, that
    drugs probably do not cause mental illness, but they probably exacerbate
    it.

    Message: 63098
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Fetus
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 07:48:18

    Actually, I oppose abortion. I also oppose flagrant misuse of the English
    language.

    Message: 63099
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Daryl/parachuting
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 08:15:58

    The ripcord in parachuting is an integral part of the 'trip down'.  Once you
    take that step out of the plane, you're heading down.  Just the way you
    describe the effects of one dose of drugs.

    Message: 63100
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/Reason
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:18:29

    (Re: Reagan & Geraldo) Maybe they're all on drugs. Heh.

    Message: 63101
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/Bakker
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:24:15

    Poetic justice in the fact that he abused his position as a minister of the
    world, and refused to come clean even after the truth was made known, yes.

    It just seemed rather conveniently placed, that's all.

    Message: 63102
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Misuse Of Eng.
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:25:09

    Are you insinuating that I have done so? Point it out.

    Message: 63103
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on seat belts
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:44:16

    I too agree with you here and was going to put the same post in today.
    I wear mine at all times, but be damned if I want anyone telling me I HAVE
    to! FACT: seat belts do cut down on hospital costs, lives lost, at times,
    depending upon the circumstances of the accident. FACT: The insurance
    companies want this to pass - they would make more profits if they did.
    FACT: Insurance companies have the money to pay for lobbiests! FACT: It
    would be another un-inforcable law - but they would be gathering more
    revenue from the fines when they do catch drivers without them. Just another
    way to fill the coffers. All this at the tax payers expense again. I don't
    think they give a hoot in hell about our lives!
    I firmely believe this should be put to the vote of the people of Arizona!
    FACT: our insurance rates would not go down if this law was passed. Anyone
    that thinks it would is naive. If they did happen to go down, it would be
    tiny in preportion to what we are paying. This insurance thing is a scam to
    begin with. We pay and pay and lose more or I should say, get less and less
    from them when we need it! We're all in the wrong business! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63104
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff - your post
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:52:53

    Ahem! By any chance was that directed to me re: Corvettes and smoking? Ha!
    Re: the dangers of Corvettes - makes sense. It's a high powered sports car
    that people are going to drive fast in - take chances. Why else get it then?
    It is also very small and made out of fiberglass. Not the most sturdiest
    substance on earth. But you failed to mention that the statistics were much
    lower on women Corvette drivers! Personally, I drive like a little old lady
    from Sun City! Oh lord! I AM A LITTLE OLD LADY! Sob! Time to give up the
    Vette I guess! (weep!) -=*) ANN (*=-
    P.S. I will admit that the article kind of made me uneasy to say the least.
    When in it, you do feel like your driving a small coffin! But I'd certainly
    reather be driving it than the other compact cars. At least mine is
    attractive! Gets excellent gas milage also. Whitey is talking about getting
    a big Cadillac again. I do miss a big car sometimes.

    Message: 63105
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on Beau's post
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:55:28

    In foreign countries they drive only small cars and small trucks. Large
    trucks have their own routes. He's right. That would be the answer. If two
    compacts had an accident, chances are no one would be killed - but hit by a
    standard sized pick-up or a full sized Caddy or Lincoln is another story.
                               -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63106
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:58:14

    Re: the parashute message - I think you got me mixed up with someone else. I
    posted nothing about parashutes. Wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole or
    drugs. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63107
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Manson
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 09:59:50

    I think Manson thought he was Jesus Christ before he took drugs. He was
    insane - probably born that way. But then again, how do we know he Wasn't
    Jesus? There were many in Jesus' time that thought He wasn't! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63108
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/L.T.N.
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 10:04:48

    Re: love thy neighbor ... I don't think it has anything to do with believing
    in God the way it is today. You would just not know what your getting into.
    You take some drug addict in - give him a helping hand, he falls on your rug
    and hits his head and then turns around and sues the hell outta you! We're a
    society of 'sue crazies'! Get something for nothing when ever you can
    society! The lawyers have turned this thing around for their own profits.
    It's nice to think 'love thy neighbor' - but when he takes you to court,
    that's hard to do. Am I right or what? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63109
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Drugs
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 12:37:03

    People who use drugs in a responsible mannor would continue to do so if they
    were legal.  Those who abuse drugs now would probably continue to do so but
    it might stop some of the people who get a kick out of doing drugs to
    go against athority(like parents, police, etc).

    Message: 63110
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/english
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 13:01:08

    I am not sure it was you, but the whole thing that started my tirade against
    murder of the English language was a statement that equated fetuses to
    babies. If it was you, then shame on you. If not, you may feel satisfaction.

    Message: 63111
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Fetii are babies
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 13:11:22

    Kill da wabbit

    Message: 63112
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: embryo<>fetus<>baby
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 13:41:19

    I am accustomed to opponents of abortion incorrectly referring to
    first-trimester EMBRYOS as "fetuses", but now they're calling them "babies"
    and even "children."  Pretty soon they'll be calling unfertilized eggs
    full-grown adults.

    Message: 63113
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Daryl on loss
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 15:09:06

            Don't you preach to me about where I was when my friend got on
    drugs.  I tried to talk him out of it.  He did not want to even see me and
    avoided me.  He had made some new (bad) friends...  I tried several times to
    get in touch with him.... next thing I heard was he died.
            First off, this was many years ago.  I knew nothing much about drugs
    or how to cope with a drug user.

            I however felt the loss...  this may be the reason I stayed off
    drugs myself.... and the fact I was racing full time in those days, and did
    not have time for such things.  Idle hands equal trouble!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63114
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Ianuzzi
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 16:05:17

         Keeping our food and environment clean is in no way connected to
    whether or not drugs should be legal.  I don't know why you are so quick to
    assume my position on those things; actually, I think we should have laws
    that control the quality of our food, water, and air.  That isn't
    inconsistant with anything I've said, I think.
         I'd like to hear more about hypnosis augmenting reason.  I'm sure it
    can help people, but there are also situations where people under hypnotic
    suggestion babble about their "past lives" and on stage I have seen people
    convinced that they were chickens.  Hardly augmentation of reason there.

         I was not around during Apollo's "glory days" and don't know what JT
    was like, but I'll consider your comparison a compliment for the time being.

    Message: 63115
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 17:09:37

    Indeed.

    Message: 63116
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Ann on Foreign cars
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 18:46:58

    Excuse me Ann, but before you blast off with a blanket statement;
    "In foreign countries they drive only small cars and small trucks."

    You can forget and completely iron out:
    Australia, Africa, England, France and Germany in that statement.
    Other countries I'm not sure about.

    And another thing...he's *not* right. Statistics indicate otherwise.
    The overwhelmming majority of road fatalities involve passenger
    vehicles. Not a BIG truck colliding with a little car as you would
    like to suggest.

    Someone once suggested outlawing cars and using motorcycles only as a means
    to safer roads. Ha. These fools out here can't drive a stabilzed platform
    at decent speeds...and they want to put those same geeks on two wheels?
    One thing is for sure, all the bad drivers would die off VERY quickly.

                    -Mike

    Message: 63117
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl Westfall
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 19:01:28

    B U L L S # ! +  !!!!
    "It is the same problem as alcoholism, the first step is admitting the
    problem. AND ONE CANNOT DO THAT ALONE."
    I say again... B U L L S # ! +   !!!!
    Ohhh boyyy. You make it sound like it's everyone else's fault that so
    and so is on drugs. You further state that if we don't tell them
    they have a problem, they'll never be at fault .
    Somewhere you seem to have swallowed this current barrage of bull-puckey
    we're getting from the "specialist generation". The hoardes of lawyers
    and shrinks and quacks generated from the years of glorification on
    TV in the last 20 years. The years of constant parental misguidance
    and status symbology pounding. And now we see people making a disease
    out of an attitude. Turning a bad attitude and a selfish contempt into
    some form of inherited disease that requires S#!+PILES of BUCKS and a
    ton of salt to swallow it all down as they coddle and pamper the deviant
    weenies with their "Addictive relationships," "Pedicure nightmares"
    and psycho-counseling for muffy, the 70 lb chihuahuha with an eating
    disorder.
    GAG ME WITH A F-ING JACKHAMMER! Get a GRIP. Can you say that? G-R-I-P
    on life. BE RESPONSIBLE...remember that word? People are NOT BEING
    responsible it's as simple as that! And they're reaping it!
    They think PRAYER in school requires a spanish inquisition requiring
    hundreds of thousands of dollars to decide ..while all this time johnny
    is blowing crack up his a$$ in the closet. Geee. Priorities, priorities.

    I don't mean to pick on your parade Daryl, but all it took is someone
    with good sense like yourself to start spouting this same line of
    crap and you're it.
    We give these drug addicts, alcoholics and certifiably brain damaged
    counselors a reason to thrive on their misery. Attention and pity.
    I am by ** NO MEANS ** advocating you stop trying to help someone..
    My entire point spins around the growing idiocy of turning fact into
    six thousand different stories. Taking a simple problem like drug abuse
    and turning it into a multi billion dollar "war".
    The complete stupidity of calling an attitude problem a disease.
    It's the "I'm sick, care for me generation."
    I'll care for them when they, the abusers, sickos and slime balls
    take the first step and recognize the problem on THEIR OWN.
    You can't force a horse to drink...but what are we trying to do?
    With all of this current "Pity the druggies, pushers and homos" charade
    we're losing sight of the real problems. Problems that cause it all
    to begin with. SO while congress decides to shaft the only real source
    of moral standard, the holy bible, johnny, jimmy, cindy and frank
    are all busy blowing their lives out their a$$es .
    And to think we have elections that don't check for drug use..

    "Ohh wow man, like, check this psychadellic ballot out..wowwww."
    I have no pity left for drug users. Die and be happy.
    Let God sort them out.

    Message: 63119
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Zak
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 20:42:03

    Please stop leaping over my very careful delineations.  Fear of prosecution
    is quite powerful -- in the group I described.  You obviously have no
    concept of the bourgeois mindset.  Merely because YOU are not daunted by the
    possibility of prosecution, nor are your friends and associates, it does not
    follow that everyone else is the same.  I have known a number of people for
    whom the mortification associated with prosecution is deterrent enough --
    never mind the actual penalties.

    Yes, the stigma of using illicit drugs would diminish with legalization.
    Yes, there still would be the stigma of the addict, but that was not the
    stigma I was refering to in any case.

    I would suggest that the high price of drugs is only part of the reason some
    people choose not to use them.  Really, for most, it is merely a
    rationalization for their more conservative fears.  The point is, it is
    enough to discourage a borderline case with the pre-existing tendency not to
    use drugs.  There are plenty of such people around.  Just consider drugs to
    be another consumer item, and you will see how this is plausible (i.e. I
    might take up skiing (I have heard it is extremely exciting) if it didn't
    cost so much.)
    The lower classes, as we know, pay for their expensive drugs with criminal
    proceeds.  Again, my message did not involve such people.

    Finally, I did not respond to the "fifth reason" when it was originally
    posted, because it is rather contrived (read "silly").
    To say that people should choose not to use drugs because "there is
    something better to do" is to say nothing.  Is there ALWAYS something better
    to do?  Why?  Can you give me a reason why there should be something better
    to do that does not involve one of my four reasons?  Your statement, "People
    who choose not to use drugs now mostly choose not to use them because they
    know that the good feeling brought on by drugs is artificial and therefore
    meaningless", is laughably naive.  The point in doing drugs, just as the
    point in listening to music or viewing art, is to alter one's emotional
    state in a pleasant manner (and admittedly, in some cases, to provide some
    accompanying degree of mental stimulation): but this is rather subjective,
    and certainly, one does not eschew all of life's activities merely because
    they lack meaning.  Pleasure is a more mundane motive than philosophy.

    Message: 63121
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/63033
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 21:00:51

    No.

    Please do not invent anthropomorphic authority figures to condone your
    selfish and barbaric acts.  If you are going to be evil -- if you are going
    to use others for your own benifit regardless of their suffering -- then
    stand up on your hind legs and admit that you just don't give a damn.
    It's always so terribly pathetic when evil people wuss out.  If it isn't
    "drugs/my childhood/my war experiences/my psychotic episodes made me do it",
    it's "God says it's OK."  Who do you think you're fooling?  Why bother
    trying to.

    Message: 63122
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Beck
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 21:57:42

         I still maintain that fear of the drug's effects is the single most
    powerful deterrent for potential drug users.  If the number of users
    increases when drugs are legalized (I can't say this won't happen), it is
    likely to even out just as it did not long after prohibition.
         Say there is a substantial increase in drug users.  The ratio of
    addicts is pretty low, but perhaps drug legalization would yield a few
    (*few*) more addicts.  Even if this were the case, big deal.  Society as a
    whole is not going to cease to function.  We'd save $11 billion, reduce
    crime more-than-significantly, at the cost of a handful of people who
    weren't emotionally stable to begin with.  Sounds like a good deal to me.
         I don't know who this group of people with the "bourgeois mindset" are
    that you speak of.  You have some friends who fall into this category.  What
    financial category do they fall into?  Did somebody actually tell you that
    fear of prosecution was the main motive behind his/her not using drugs?

         You shouldn't laugh at the fifth reason (something better to do).  I'm
    not talking about casual users here, I'm talking about addicts.  Also, we
    should make some distinctions between different drugs (marijuana, which has
    relaxing and/or hallucinogenic effects; and cocaine, which produces a plain
    feeling of happiness because it stimulates endorphin release).  In "junk
    drugs" such as cocaine and heroin, you cannot make a comparison between
    enjoying music and art.  For while one is stimulates through appreciation,
    the other stimulates directly through neurological chemistry.  Anybody can
    see that there is a difference between these two forms of "pleasure."

    Message: 63123
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beck
    Date: 02/06/90  Time: 22:11:42

         To say that people would equally well choose one form of "pleasure"
    over the other denies that people can tell the difference.  And if there are
    people who can't tell the differene (or who just don't give a s#!t), how
    many of them are holding back from using drugs now because they're afraid of
    getting caught?  If you said "practically none," you would be right!

         Our whole discussion is based on value systems.  I can't speak for
    everybody, but in general people tend to place more value on productive
    and educational activities than on mere pleasure.  (You may be laughing at
    my naivete' at this point.  Just let me finish.)  Personal responsibility is
    based on self-value, and it seems that people establish this feeling of
    value more and more as they engage in meaningful activities such as doing
    work, having friendships, obtaining material goods and learning about the
    world.  People who become addicted to drugs are mixed up about their values,
    or perhaps don't have good self-value.  The number of people with such
    emotional problems will not change if drugs are made legal.  People tend to
    give up drug use when other more meaningful things in life are more
    important.  (Example:  William Bennett gave up his cigarette habit before he
    became drug czar.)
         Anyway, some people are beyond treatment and not everyone will freely
    choose to give up drugs.  That's a fact of life with or without drug
    legalization.
         Casual use, by the way, is only a problem insofar as it affects other
    people.  I think a stigma would still exist among people with strong values.

    Message: 63124
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Posts...
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 00:32:33

    Great posts guys.....  I can see the great depth of thinking on this subect.
    Not an easy problem, for sure, but let's be sure to keep our cool here.  If
    the answer was too easy, there would be no problem.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63125
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Last
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 02:22:02

    Yeah, F---in' right, Cliff.

    Message: 63126
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 04:03:48

    I said that meditation and the effects thereof could augment the ability to
    reason, not hypnosis. A person in an hypnotic state is no more able to
    reason well than a person who is asleep.

    Message: 63127
    Author: Hans Glans
    Category: War!
    Subject: Drug War
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 09:35:55

    Well, Zak, you have some good points there. I would like to add this. A
    common arguement is about people stealing to pay for legalized drugs. True,
    this would happen, but I know those who steal to buy a bottle, or cartons of
    cigarettes. And like you said, it would eliminate the whole "drug mafia",
    since, with their profit margin, they couldn't compete with even highly
    taxed legal drugs. Which, of course, they should be taxed in line with
    alcohol and cigarette taxes.Revenue for a money hungry government. Maybe the
    tax money could be used for treatment and education. Rather than
    enforcement, like now, where the money comes from other programs.

    Also, I find the ad about "do drugs, do time", with the young, conservative
    looking lady being booked. How does this fight the drug war? By making
    someone lose their job? Wouldn't this make them want to alter their senses
    even more?

    Message: 63128
    Author: Hans Glans
    Category: War!
    Subject: Thorny Dude
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 09:41:16

    I have friends that are undoubtedly more intelligent that use pot for the
    altered state of mind. One uses it for creativity in writing music, another
    for relaxation on the weekend. You may not choose to do it, but it is not
    your right to condemn others that use drugs in ways that do not hurt others.

    Message: 63129
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike on cars
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 10:06:08

    I do believe that at least England, France and Germany do indeed drive small
    cars for the most part. I know Japan does. All you have to do is watch a
    travalog on these countries to see. In fact, what other countries even
    manufacture as large a car as Lincoln or a Caddy?
    Actually , to really be safe, we ought to ride bicycles only. Motorcycles,
    no! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63130
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: Laurie Anderson
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 13:45:41

    Tonight at Gammage, 8PM.
    I believe there are still seats available.

    Message: 63131
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 15:55:12

    Re:  "we will all be DOPE heads"

    Surely you have me mixed up with someone else?

    Message: 63132
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger Doger
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 15:57:55

    Re:
    A fetus is not a baby.
    A fetus is not a baby.

    Like, what is this supposed to prove?  Are you saying it is wrong to murder
    a baby, but it is perfectly OK to murder a fetus?

    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    Message: 63133
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 16:01:18

    Re:  "one of my four categories"

    Gee, I missed a day and all ready forgot your four.  I remember the fifth
    reason that I provided.  "Intelligence"

    Intelligent people don't do drugs.

    Message: 63134
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 16:04:58

    Re:  "I cannot give you any firm
    line of demarcation"

    That sounds like a reasonable answer.  I am nottotally against abortion.
    There are reasons for it.  Convenience is not a proper reason.

    Message: 63135
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 16:09:52

    Re:  "If you want, I can give your name and address to a group?  After they
    beat you up, maybe you can post how LOVE helped them solve their problem."

    A group?  You mean like in "Hells Angels?"

    Message: 63136
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 16:15:26

    Re:  "The pro-lifers ARE being fanatics!"

    You can't say pro-lifers are all fanatics anymore that I could say all
    pro-abortionist are all fanatics.  There are fanatics and non-fanatics in
    both groups.  If you insist that all pro-lifers are fanatics, and since I am
    pro-life, I will punch your nose the next time I see you.

    But very gently to be sure.  I wouldn't want to make you cry.

    Maybe I should just give you a dirty look.

    What is your preference?
    :-)

    Message: 63137
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 16:18:14

    Re:  "Now someone who smokes and drives a Corvett, is wanting to die!"

    Now who could Cliff be possibly talking about, huh Annie?  :-{

    Message: 63138
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Bob on Hells Angels
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 16:29:09

            The Hells Angels I have met are nice guys compared to the group of
    drug addicts I had in mind.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63139
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Tales & Tall Stories
    Subject: Helmet laws
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 18:09:26

    From Rider, March 1990:

    From the *I Got a New Attitude* department: Gary Busey, still recovering
    from his run-in with a curb in Culver City, California, has changed his tune
    and now advocates the use of helmets.  To a cheering studio crowd the actor
    told the audience of the Arsenio Hall Show on November 28, 1989, "Next time
    you're doing 45 miles per hour, look at the curb and think about
    slam-dancing with it once, and you'll start thinking about helmets."  Saying
    he had reflected on the wreck and the effect his subsequent ouspoken
    preference for riding helmetless might have had on kids, Busey stated, "My
    attitude is becoming helmet-conscious to wear one" and went on to encourage
    any kids watching the program to wear helmets.

    Message: 63140
    Author: Lawrence Wilson
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hi-Tech Drug soluti
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 21:13:42

               S P E C I A L    R E P O R T
                      BRAIN TUNER
    It looks like a Walkman but the Brain Tuner is much
    more. According to articles published in OMNI and
    Magical Blend magazine, results commonly reported
    by users of this experimental research are stress
    reduction, raising of stress tolerance levels,
    decrease in worry, depression and anxiety, normalized
    sleep patterns, reduced sleep requirements, more
    vivid and lucid dreams, improvement in both short
    term and long term memory, improved concentration,
    increased energy levels and reduced psychophysiological
    craving and withdrawal symptoms from drugs and alcohol.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    This wonderous, new device has just come on the market.
    For more information call (602)968-9764. Ask for
    Mr. Brian.  If anyone you love is hooked in the
    nightmare of drug addition, the solution may be a
    phone call away !!!!!!!!!!!
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Highest success rate to date !!!!!!!!!

    Message: 63141
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 22:14:08

      Wow! That sounds like the the early reports of the benefits of heroin.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 63142
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Absence
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 22:19:02

      I was off the board for a while and everything I was arguing about seems
    to have scrolled clear off the system. I just wanted to let anyone who had
    addressed  me know that  I am not ignoring it, I just never saw it.
       See You Later
          Dean H.
    p.s.(either that or I didn't actually post all those messages I thought I
    posted last time I was on)w3

    Message: 63143
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Yellow Belts
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:02:19

            Today my both boys got their 'YELLOW' belts in Karate.

    Congats to Tyler and Travis......

    PaPa Cliffy

    Message: 63144
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: English Only, Ja?
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:38:45

    The "English-Only" law was overturned as unconstitutional. My opinions on
    the matter?

    WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG?

    Another Neanderthal law dies a quick death.

    Message: 63145
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Paradrugs
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:40:00

    Gosh, I'm glad to hear that! I was having nightmares about you jumping out
    of airplanes while on a mixture of Peyote and LSD. Whew! :)

    Message: 63146
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Manson
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:50:48

    He "recieved" his "revelation" while on a bad acid trip.

    As to whether or not Manson was/is actually Jesus? AH! A chance to use my
    SOURCE! Hm, lemme see here.

    "Look, he is coming with the clouds,
       and every eye will see him,
      even those who pierced him...""
                    (Revelation 1:7a)

    "For as lightning that comes from
     the east is visible even in the
     west, so will be the coming of the
     Son of Man." (Matthew 24:37)

    "They will see the Son of Man coming
     on the clouds of the sky, with
     power and great glory. And he will
     send his angels with a loud trumpet
     call, and they will gather his
     elect from the four winds, from one
     end of the heavens to the other."

    The only "cloud" that Manson came in on was a drug haze.

    Message: 63147
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: L.T.N./Getting Sued
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:56:30

    "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I
    tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
    cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take
    your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one
    mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn
    away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

    Material goods are temporary. If he wishes to sue me in spite of my good
    will, let him take what petty material things he wants. That will be his
    payment in full.

    Message: 63148
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Fetus
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:57:44

    And I justified my use of the word "fetus" to mean "baby." You were the one
    that corrected yourself and decided that "embryo" was your better choice.

    Message: 63149
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Friend
    Date: 02/07/90  Time: 23:59:26

    I know it is hard, Cliff. You did what you could, you did your part. We
    should at least reach out as best we can. You tried. I'm sorry.

    Message: 63150
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Wiz/Gee...
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 00:03:23

    Nice attitude, guy.

    Message: 63151
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/Last
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 00:10:59

    I'm not even going to entertain that with an answer. I attempt to respect
    your opinion. If you are going to attack my belief in God and call me "evil"
    because I try to follow His word and defend my viewpoints with it, then it
    is pointless to even carry on a discussion with you. Just eat your carrots
    and celery and feel self-righteous.

    Message: 63152
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Thornburg
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 01:32:58

    RE:  "Intelligent people don't do drugs."

    How do you know?

    Message: 63153
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: BRAIN TUNERS
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 06:02:27

         Once the sometimes euphoric effects of these gizmos gets out, the gov't
    will outlaw them too.

    Message: 63154
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Question?
    Subject: THORNBUB
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 06:04:07

    RE: "Intelligent people don't do drugs."

    What is your definition of 'intelligent' and do you include alcohol and
    cigarettes in your definition of drugs?

    Message: 63155
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: MANSON SANS DRUGS
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 06:06:06

         Either a tv preacher or a leader of an organization similar to The
    Order.  Or maybe a member of Guns n' Roses.
         More on Manson when I log on again.

    Message: 63156
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bobby/Wobby
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 07:52:50

    You cannot murder a fetus. If it was murder, we would have executed
    millions of unwed mothers in the electric chair or gas chamber.

    Your use of the rose analogy shows the confusion that you have between
    the formation of something and the thing itself. Clearly a germinated seed
    that will result in a rose bush is not the same thing as the bush itself.
    Likewise, a zygote that will result in a human being is not the same thing
    as a human being.

    Message: 63157
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: better than drugs
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 07:55:51

    Where can I get one of these things. I could use it.

    Message: 63158
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl Loan Agency
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 07:58:28

    I need $10,000 for my personal use. I will pay you back in 20 years ---
    no interest.

    Message: 63159
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl Baby
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 08:01:01

    No you didn't.

    Message: 63160
    Author: Hans Glans
    Category: War!
    Subject: Abortion
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 09:27:46

    Pro-lifers attempt to control the bodies of others.
    Pro-choice want people to have the right to choose for themselves.

    Why legislate morality? Control...just like gun laws...and drug laws...and
    seat-belt laws...

    And, you pro-lifers, if abortion was outlawed, would you line up for your
    baby? Adoption is the chime of the movement...but they talk of the number of
    "babies" "killed" each year. If all of those were born, the adoption demand
    would quickly be satisfied...But were will all the pro-life hypocrits be?
    Off on their next cause...while someone else is left to deal with the
    problem...

    Message: 63161
    Author: Hans Glans
    Category: War!
    Subject: Defending bunnies
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 09:29:42

    It is not anyone's right to defend a part of someone else's body unless they
    request that defense.

    Message: 63162
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Bobby on fanatics
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 10:00:53

    I did not mean to imply that ALL pro-lifers are fanatics - but the group
    that rallied downtown certainly was. This is something that will go against
    them, not for them. Don't they know that.
    My idea about abortion .......
    Keep it legal but with restraints ..... the third month should be the limit.
    Not being able to have more than two - records could be kept for those that
    have them. Have clinics that are gov. sponsered but ditto the two limit. In
    other words, no using them for birth control methods. If you haven't learned
    your lesson after two mistakes, sorry! Leave it on having one to save the
    mother's life, etc. etc. And above all - do not give them to underage
    children without their parents approval. How they have let this happen I'll
    never know. For one thing, an abortion is an operation and some risk to the
    patient. I feel parents have the right to yea or nay this.
    What do you think? -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63163
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bobby
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 10:02:18

    RE: "now someone who smokes and drives a Corvette is wanting to die!"
    Cliffy said that? Not true - I don't want to die - never give it a thought.
                             -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63164
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Congratulations ...
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 10:05:05

    ... Travis and Tyler on your Yellow belts. Now you can defend yourselves
    against your parents! The next time they tell you to go to bed and you don't
    want to - just 'Karate' them and they'll think twice next time! Way to go
    guys! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63165
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on English law
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 10:37:00

            The will of the people over-rode by one man and you are happy?
            Why bother to VOTE on anything...just set up a one man ditatorship
    and let him decide.

            The IRS and taxes are unconstitutional, but you don't see them axing
    that, do you?   I wonder why?

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63166
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Voting of the people
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 11:24:22

    One of the reasons that this is a representative democracy is that it tends
    to keep the majority from being a tyranny which puts down and suppresses
    minorities.  This is one of the fears I have about South Africa changing its
    political system -- the black majority, once it gets to vote, may decide to
    punish the whites who kept them down for so long.  Only an 'impartial'
    justice system, and before that, intelligent, thoughtful debate by
    representatives of the people, can prevent this sort of thing.

    Message: 63167
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Abortion
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 18:13:18

    Hey, I have an idea. Instead of warring over who is right and who isn't,
    why not drop the issue altogether. When you look at it, abortion really
    isn't the problem. Make it legal, there will be abortions.
    Make it illegal, there will still be abortions. Law or no law,
    people will do as they damn well please. You will not change their minds
    about how to feel , much less change their thinking and interpretation
    of what constitutes life, so why rage on in pithy group temper tantrums?
    Personally, I disaggree whole heartedly with killing human life.
    However, piss me off sufficiently and I will most likely kill.
    I will kill in defense also.
    Killing a baby, fetus, growing child, teenager, adult or aged person
    is still killing. You stop life. No more growing, no tomorrow.
    Life here is temporary. We will all die. No matter how much or how
    little it matters to you, you will die. Death will come.
    In my life I have learned for myself instead of letting others decide
    for me, that there is a God and a saviour and eternal life. I have
    that to look forward to. The little price I pay here is insignificant
    to the return I will receive.
    My point; Challenge those who have such a low value on life, but
    donot allow yourself to become anything else but Salt. Try to heal them,
    not infect them.
    The price will be paid now or later. It's up to them on the length of
    the terms.
                            -Mike

    Message: 63168
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Beau of S.A.
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 22:01:38

      He correctly predicted the explosion of ethnic violence in the Soviet
    sphere as their control weakened. He's probably right about this too.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 63169
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Small Cars
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 22:06:09

      When a small car hits something, even if it is just a stationary object,
    there is less ability to absorb impact in the structure of the car itself.
    This means that more of the impact is transferred to the occupants, all
    safety features being equal, than would be the case in a larger car.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 63170
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean on me
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 23:00:48

    Thanks, Dean.  Sometimes I wonder if people read my posts.

    Message: 63171
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean on momentum
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 23:02:38

    It is a bit more complicated than that.  You have to think about the masses
    involved, and also about the 'stopping potential' of the various shielding
    materials.  Smaller, lighter cars that didn't go as fast, I still say, would
    be safer for all concerned.

    Message: 63172
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean on impacts
    Date: 02/08/90  Time: 23:19:51

    If you study the physics involved, taking a static example as a
    reference, you could not accurately say that more of the kinetic
    energy is transfered to the occupants.
    If the object the vehicle impacts with is immovable, say the concrete
    bulkhead of a freeway overpass, the following should be noted:
    (1) Vehicle (A) has a mass of 2000 kg and is travelling at
        35 mph
    (2) Vehicle (B) has a mass of 4000 kg and is travelling at
        35 mph.
    (3) Both vehicles impacted at 35 mph.
    In vehicle A's case, the amount of force delivered to the wall
    is 1/2 that of the force delivered by vehicle B. (F= Ma)
    Force = Mass times Acceleration.
    The occupants, if seated without seatbelts or other restraining
    devices, would impact with the dashboard and front window at
    35mph also. Where you get the notion a larger car somehow protects
    you from this I seem to miss.
    Vehicle B's destructive power is a result of the sheer mass. That
    same mass requires greater energy to become motive. Now, if Vehicle
    B collides with Vehcile A, Vehcile B's occupants have a much higher
    probability of escaping serious injury NOT because of the car's
    ability to ABSORB the impact for the occupant, but because vehicle
    A is not completely going to stop Vehicle B...in which case the
    occupants experience mild decelleration compared t ( CONTINUED )
    vehicle A's occupants who not only get the full impact of their
    own vehicles energy, but receive a bounce effect which can cause
    death quite quickly.
    Now, if you're like some folks who would rather feel safe in a large
    mammoth yank tank, think about this;
    If you're involved in an accident with another large american yank
    tank, your chances of surviving the accident are less than if you
    had the same accident in two small cars. Reason is because of the
    kinetic energies involved. That's why when two trucks collide
    on the interstate it makes such an unholy mess...the trucks just
    don't stop.
    Divert this energy into right angles and the likes and you get
    acrobatic effects and stuntman performances. Ever hear of a
    Yugo doing a 3 point end-over end? You wont.
    It's not how much steel you drive, it's how well built to absorb
    impact it is. That's why Volvo's fold like paper mache' when they're
    hit...car is designed to graduate the transferance of energy...
    like a shock absorber.
            "See you later"
                    Mike C.

    Message: 63174
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beau/63170
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 03:01:41

    What?

    Message: 63175
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 05:14:09

    Re:  "The "English-Only" law was overturned as unconstitutional"

    It's funny how everyone can argue about something like this and spends
    thousands of dollars in a vote, and on and on.  Then in the end, one man
    steps in and totally stops it with a bang, and no one can do anything about
    it.

    Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the English-Only rule.

    Message: 63176
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 05:17:02

    RE:  "Intelligent people don't do drugs."  How do you know?

    I think it is self evident.  Why don't you know?

    Message: 63177
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pete
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 05:21:41

    Re:  "What is your definition of 'intelligent'

    Man, I glad you asked that.  I've been dying to try out this new "online
    dictionary!"

    % intelligent adj  1 : having or showing intelligence
    % intelligently adv

    Re:  "definition of drugs?"

    % drug n  drugs 1 : substance used as or in medicine 2 : narcotic; drugged;
    drugging vb  3 : affect with drugs
    % druggist n ; druggists
    % drugstore n ; drugstores

    Isn't that neat?  I'm not sure where those "%" things came from.

    Message: 63178
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 05:27:23

    Re:  "a zygote that will result in a human being is not the same thing
    as a human being"

    Roger, you're just playing with semantics here.  If a zygote does not fall
    into the category of a human, what category is it?  A monkey maybe?
    What ever name you want to hang on it, it's alive, and it belongs to the
    homo sapiens what ever group.  It's a member of the human race Roger!

    Message: 63179
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/63152
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 07:52:10

    Let me interject: They may be intelligent, but they lack good common sense.

    Message: 63180
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Loan
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 07:53:45

    Uh, okay. What you gonna use it for?

    Message: 63181
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/No I Didn't.
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 07:54:15

    No I didn't WHAT?

    Message: 63182
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Law
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 08:03:14

    Well, I agree with you on the IRS and tax part (anyone who wouldn't needs
    their head examined!) but wouldn't you agree that we should use the
    Constitution as a measuring tool for the fairness of all of our laws? You
    avoid the meat; that, in a country comprised of the most diverse cultural,
    ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds, that a law that shows prejudice for any
    other language in government operations than English, is very very wrong?

    Message: 63183
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: impact energy
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 08:35:56

    I believe it is impact energy that is important. And energy is defined
    as 1/2mv**2. So, energy increases linearly with mass, but exponentially
    with velocity. Speed kills. The smaller the car, the less likely the car
    will absorb the impact energy, thus allowing the occupants to absorb more
    energy than a car that is larger to impact the energy. BTW, ever notice
    how well those "little" Indy500 cars absorb energy by crumpling and throwing
    off parts ? We could probably make our small cars a lot safer if the car
    mfrs applied the same technology to our cars. (Of course, we probably
    wouldn't be able to absorb the cost, then). In the case of the Tank, I
    suspect that if the tank transmitted the impact energy to the occupants
    without absorbing any of it (due to its armor plate not bending) that would
    account for a large massive body not protecting its occupants.

    Message: 63184
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: bob/anglais
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 08:37:30

    Repetez, sil vous plait. Je ne parle pas Anglais.

    Message: 63185
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob/meaning
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 08:40:28

    This is James White's favorite argument. When faced with an irrefutable
    fact, call it "playing with semantics". I charge you with playing with the
    facts. Refute that statement with a logical argument, not silliness.

    Message: 63186
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Loan/Allen Organ
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 08:41:28

    I am going to buy an Allen Organ for my home.

    Message: 63187
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Didn't what?
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 08:42:22

    Didn't what WHAT ?
    This is silly.

    Message: 63188
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/English
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 10:13:17

            I did not think that law was wrong... people that come to this
    country should learn English.  We should not have to pay to have every form
    written in many different languages.  Stupid people always jump to the
    conclusion that one is 'prejudice' because one wants something standardized.
    I mean, why don't we let people drive on the left side of the road while we
    are at it.  They do it in other countries.

            I wish you guys would get that word "prejudice" you have been brain
    washed with and stick it where the sun don't shine....  I am sick of hearing
    it!  You use it when ever you don't like something.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63189
    Author: Steve Hodode
    Category: Joke
    Subject: LANG.
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 11:40:18

            THE  PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC'S DICTIONARY
                                    .
    WEEKEND    : ANY ILLINESS THAT CAUSES A SLOWLY PROGRESSIVE DEATH.
                   HARRY DIED AFTER A LONG WEEKEND.
                                    .
    GOOD MORNING  : WHAT YOU SAY WHEN YOUR ENEMY DIES.
                    I TOLD HARRYS MOTHER GOOD MORNING THE MORNING AFTER
                    HARRY DIED.
                                    .
    FIX  :  TO GET EVEN WITH REVENGE.
            HARRY'S DOCTOR TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD FIX HIM UP.

    Message: 63190
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bob
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 12:37:43

         Why is it self-evident?  That's a cop-out if I ever heard one.  The
    fact is, there are plenty of intelligent people out there who have tried or
    use drugs.

    Message: 63192
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Intelligence
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 13:33:10

    Trying drugs isn't any more likely to kill you than riding a motorcycle,
    taking to the Phoenix streets on a bicycle, or walking in Boston.  Then
    think of air travel.

    Message: 63193
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Andy Rooney
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 14:05:07

    'Looking at the other side of things'! .........
    In this morning's paper there was an article with the headline .. "Andy
    Rooney off air, accused of prejudice". Seems he will be suspended for at
    least three months without pay because of remarks about blacks & gays
    attributed to him in a National Gay magazine. He was quoted as saying ...

    "Most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down
    their genes because the less-intelligent ones are the ones that have the
    most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs and get pregnant!"
    Also he was quoted as saying that, although he felt sympathetic to prejudice
    against gays, he found homosexual acts "repugnant" and homosexuality "not
    normal"!

    In a Thursday interview Rooney categorically denied having made racist
    remarks, saying he was talking about problems with educating people of all
    races, not just blacks. However, he acknowledged having made derogatory
    comments about gays. "I am guilty of what I said about gays and I deeply
    regret having offended them"!

    My comment: I won't quote the rest of the article that states what he said
    he said about blacks. I believe him to be misquoted on the subject and they
    took it out of context to make it more scandalizing. Besides, what he said
    to a certain degree is very true.
    Besides, what he stated is a fact in a lot of cases - they do drop out of
    school - do drugs and get pregnant! I think the statistics prove that, do
    they not? Where is this a racial statement anyway? If he was talking about
    white people, would he have gotten all this flack? I doubt it. It does
    happen to white people too! As you all know, I proclaim to having no
    prejudice - I detest it and think it is ruining our nation. BUT .... since
    when is someone that states their personal opinion, be it prejudiced or not,
    lose their rights? Do they not have for instance the same rights as I do to
    state my opinion against prejudice? That is really beside the point here -I
    don't feel that particular statement was prejudice in nature and the
    reaction was ridiculous. In fact, I feel the same way, but that does not
    mean I condemn all blacks nor do I think these are the majority either. Why
    would they automatically assume that Rooney feels any differently when he
    made that statement? If he did!

    Re: the gay statement ....
    He said he felt sympathy for the prejudice against gays and goes on to state
    ... he felt the act "repugnant" and "not normal"! I do believe that normal
    people, for whatever that means, feels the homosexual act repugnant and not
    normal!!! I don't feel especially repugnancy, but certainly feel it's not
    normal!  For his statement of truth, he had to profusely apologize. If he is
    indeed prejudice to the core, since when does a minority have such power?
    Since when does he have no rights to state what he feels?
    It seems that now the homosexuals has more rights than the heterosexuals. At
    least they are not afraid to state their opinions about hetros. and not have
    the ceiling come down on them. Ditto anything said in the least derogatory
    against blacks. It is all getting out of hand and if they are not careful,
    there will be a backlash and that would be sad. I have much to say
    derogatory
    against 'some' blacks and 'some' gays and some 'whities' too. That doesn't
    make me prejudice, just honest. Why can't Andy Rooney have the same
    privilege? Any comments?

                                 -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 63196
    Author: Melissa Dee
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: My board
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 15:12:38

    Yes, I have a subboard on Pro's Corner (Neighborhood Pro's board).  It is an
    adult board and there will be posts much like the one you may have seen on
    the Cos sig here.
    If you want access to my board, and are over 18, call 983-6289 and leave me
    mail.
    (Oh, under Mychele Nickels)

    See ya there!

    Message: 63197
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger Mann
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 16:36:17

    I think you contradicted not only yourself but the laws of physics
    in you post about impact energy and the size of cars.
    Expanding on your hypothesis with a common root, you are saying
    that a 100 lb man hits harder in a large vessel than he does in
    a small one travelling at the same speed. You seem to forget
    that the passenger IS NOT a part of the car. Next time you have a wreck
    tell me what happened when the car stopped.
    The transferrance of energy from car to occupant is not the dammmaging
    factor...it's the occupant's OWN kinetic energy that kills them in
    most cases. Now if the big car slams into the little car, and the
    big car actually HITS one of the occupants, THEN the transferrance
    of energy is deadly.
    If I wrecked at 40 mph into a brick wall in a sherman tank, I would
    impact the tank (inside) at approx 40 mph . The force of the impact would
    be a product of my weight and the tanks initial velocity. If I impacted
    the wall in a yugo at 40 mph, I would impact the yugo with the same
    force. I fail to see where you reason otherwise.
    Nevertheless, it's moot. I drive a truck for the sane reason that most
    poor drivers are also driving small cars...so if they hit me, I'll be
    just fine.
                    -Impactus correctus

    Message: 63198
    Author: Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Andy rooney
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 16:42:10

    I think Mr Ronney's employer should take a VERY hard look at their
    policy of suspending him for that period without pay.
    They are giving credence to hearsay, they are judging him without
    proof and in doing so have added more power to those
    who spread lies and rumors to hurt people. (Child Molestation
    investigations happen this way)
    I would think that a public apology for a private phone conversation
    would be plenty, if not outrageous. But to openly suspend someone
    based on the words spoken in a private conversation?
    Even if Andy Rooney did admit to it, I think it's really pathetic,
    regardless of what was said, that an Employer feels justified
    to do that in the first place.
    What they have done is punish him for his opinion.

            and if you ask me, that's a crime worse than prejudice.

    Message: 63199
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: B-Dog on walking
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 18:07:35

            Walking is good for you..  Riding on a bike may get you someplace
    usefull.  There are some things we NEED to do in everyday life that may be
    dangerous, but taking drugs is not one of them.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 63200
    Author: Mike Middleton
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Move over rovers
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 19:57:24

    OK, you guys, I just read the last 300+ posts here. I do know a thing or
    three about 1)teenage pregnancy, 2)drug use, 3)Impact and momentum, 4)that
    Daryl Westfall is really a nice person, 4)the appropriate role for
    governmental agencies, and 5)blaming everyone and everything else for
    problems that are really inside us. However, going on the presumption that
    only those who are uninformed argue, since those who know do not need to
    have opinions verified in that manner, I will just leave a few of the things
    I have learned as a High School teacher of drop-outs and potention drop
    outs, College Physics professor, avid reader, and friend of Daryl Westfall:
    to whit:
      1)the problem with teenage pregnancy and abortion is that those are
    symptoms of a deeper problem and remedies directed at those symptoms will
    not reach the root problem. All the verbage in this area is sound and fury.
      2)those who seek to change the outside world or escape from it, rather
    than change themselves to fit in will use drugs and/or alcohol. Laws only
    make matters worse. The problem is that when people (I mean ANYONE) is not
    assured that they are loved and that the world can work out to be a good
    place, that person develops defense mechanisms. It could happen to you.
      3)F (Delta t) = Delta mv. You know that Roger. It is the impact that gets
    a person in a wreck. The cars with fold-up front ends are safer than the
    steel tank variety. Volvos crush...big delta t, small F. Momentum is the
    killer. If everyone tailgated about 1 inch apart there'd be no wrecks. Think
    about it.
    con't next post

    Message: 63201
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Brain Tuner
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 20:20:41

    Omni and Magical Blend magazines?

    I've never read Magical Blend, but it sounds like one of those stupid
    new-age self-indulgent delusional rags.  Omni went downhill very fast.  Lots
    of "reports" of UFO cattle mutilations and such.

    For the ultimate drug thrill, pay a black market surgeon to implant
    electrodes into the pleasure center of your brain.  Just plug in the
    accompanying power supply into the newly installed DIN plug at the base of
    your skull, and away you go!!
    Comes with puzzle timer (cuts off the juice so that you remember to stop and
    eat...resetting the timer requires solving a mechanical puzzle of relative
    complexity)

    Message: 63202
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak/63123
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 20:29:40

    I didn't say that people gave no preference to one form of pleasure over
    another.  Actually, I can't imagine anyone who would be so indiscriminant.
    The fact that someone needs to engage in activities which provide meaning
    for his life does not preclude behavior of a purely hedonistic nature.
    Everyone I have ever met, in person or through some medium, (including
    yourself) engages in "meaningless", but pleasurable activity.  That is not
    to say that activities of this type necessarily include drug use; merely,
    that in the absence of one of my four reasons, there is no real reason why
    one might not choose one hedonistic experience over another (in the context
    of our discussion).

    Message: 63203
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak/63122
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 20:46:49

    I fail to see how marijuana provides a more meaningful experience than any
    other drug, since one artificially induced state is no more meaningful than
    another in this context.  As for casual users and addicts, almost all
    addicts were at one time casual users.  It is a question of time for most
    people using addictive substances.  Furthermore, are we discussing the
    legalization of illicit drugs in general, or merely marijuana?

    My comparison between music and drug use was not a comparison between the
    mechanisms of pleasure for each.  My point was that music and drugs
    both function as mood altering stimuli.  The common music listening
    experience is just as impressionistic and "meaningless" as smoking a joint
    or drinking a beer; unless you are telling me that you routinely analyze the
    music you enjoy.

    Yes, I have known people who would do things if they weren't illegal.  Just
    ask yourself this question: Is there nothing I would do if it became legal,
    that I would not currently do, because of fear of prosecution?  Personally,
    I'd like to run raffles for profit: however, I will not because I do not
    feel it is worth the risk because of the current laws.  Similarly, many
    people, even if the actual risk may be relatively low, feel that the purchse
    and use of illicit drugs (particularly the hard ones) would put their job,
    friendships, spousal or family relationships at risk, and it simply isn't
    worth it to them.

    Message: 63205
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Zak/attitudes
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 21:05:23

    I know that this must be an alien concept for you, Zak, but there are
    actually people out there, large numbers of people, which do not take drugs
    because they were brought up to believe that right living people just don't
    commit felonies.Many of these people choose friends with similar attitudes,
    and thus, there are people who actually don't know anyone (to the best of
    their knowledge) who even have access to things like cocaine or heroine (or
    even marijuana).  These people are not likely to drive down to south Phoenix
    in order to try a new experience, even if drugs are sold almost openly in
    certain parts of town.

    Admittedly, these people are not likely to change, if only from inertia, if
    drugs were suddenly legalized.  But what about the next generation, which
    will not suffer such constraints?

    Message: 63206
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beau on cars
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 21:34:40

      If you are going to make the cars slower thats a whole different thing. I
    don't want to go slower.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 63207
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/cars
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 21:45:16

      I don't buy it. The car's size contributes to its ability to take
    punishment, and that reduces the punishment to the occupants. The downsizing
    of cars on America's highways is a major factor in the increased death toll
    there. Safety features, such as energy absorbing
    construction, occupant restraints, etc., can all be applied to any size
    vehicle with positive results, but they do not change the fact that a soft,
    vulnerable, cargo is safer in a larger carton.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 63208
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Intelligence
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 22:01:37

      One reason intelligent people have used drugs is the dishonesty of
    anti-drug propaganda. When people found out that they had been lied to about
    the effects of pot, they were no longer going to believe anything else the
    government said about drugs. They found out for themselves. If there had
    never been such false anti-drug campaigns as the 'Reefer Madness' hysteria,
    people would have been a lot more likely to believe that harder drugs were
    dangerous without trying them for themselves.
      The same thing goes on today. We are told that crack is an incredibly
    powerful substance which is instantly addicting. We are told that people who
    use recreational drugs can not live normal productive lives. Many
    intelligent people know that these things are false, and it gives them cause
    to doubt everything they hear about drugs. By poisoning the well of
    education with lies, you invite those who can smell those lies to drink
    somewhere else.
       See You Later
          Dean H.

    Message: 63209
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Intelligence & drugs
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 22:55:01

    INTELLIGENT(?) people who have used drugs:

    F. Scott Fitzgerald
    George Washington
    Ernest Hemingway
    Tom Wolfe
    Tom Robbins
    Timothy Leary
    Jack Kerouac
    William S. Burroughs
    Allen Ginsberg
    Robert Bork
    Bruce Babbit
    Robert Anton Wilson
    John Belushi
    The Beatles
    Robert DeNiro
    Stanley Kubrick
    My creative writing professor

    Not to mention millions of intelligent people who drink alcohol or smoke.

    Intelligence is not synonymous with common sense.  Nor is it necessarily
    life-endangering to take drugs under controlled circumstances.

    Message: 63210
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann on Rooney
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 22:56:12

    CBS was following the precedent they set earlier with their dismissal of
    Jimmy the Greek.

    Message: 63211
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Beck
    Date: 02/09/90  Time: 23:09:52

    RE:  "Similarly, many people, even if the actual risk may be relatively low,
    feel that the purchase and use of illicit drugs (particularly the hard ones)
    would put their job, friendships, spousal or family relationships aat risk,
    and it simply isn't worth it to them."

    In other words, these people have something better to do.  Reason #5.  You
    can't tell me the people you described above are only refraining from drug
    use because they're afraid of getting caught.  No, they simply have better
    more important things to do with their life.
         This doesn't mean that some of these people might not try drugs or use
    drugs occasionally.  My question is:  what is the cost of occasional drug
    use to society, if any at all?

         While it may be true that most addicts started out as casual users,
    this in no way means that all casual users will become addicts.  Likewise,
    all people who play Dungeons and Dragons don't end up D&D junkies, and all
    people who listen to music occasionally don't end up music fanatics.  It
    takes a certain type of person in each case, and the casual use of something
    will not change what type of person somebody is.

         The naive, fearful-of-prosecution people you describe aren't *just* not
    doing drugs because it's illegal.  There are likely other reasons why this
    group would stay away, and those reasons would probably not change if drugs
    were legal.  I just don't see droves of new drug users with legalization.

    Message: 63213
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 00:06:13

    Speaking of LIFE, I have been playing tonight with 1-dimensional cellular
    automata.  In this case, they consist of a 75 character single dimensional
    array of cells, each of which has a binary value.  The cells are initialized
    with random values, and then all are updated at the same time according to
    their own values, and the values of the two neighbors to each side.  If a
    cell has a value of 1 for that time unit, an asterisk is printed on the
    screen in the current line in that position.  If it has a value of zero, a
    space is printed instead.  Each following line represents the state of the
    array at the following time unit.  Various rules yield various patterns,
    some of which are quite interesting.  Some involve regular geometric shapes,
    such as tilings of triangles.  There are various stable configurations for
    any given rule, and while different initial values do produce some
    variation, their effect is generally one of detail rather than overall form,
    such as is the case with different rules.
    The system can be viewed as a series of discrete dynamical states, as the
    lines follow one another and scroll the screen.

    Message: 63214
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak/63211
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 00:39:23

    No, not reason #5.  Reasons #s 1 & 3: fear of prosecution and fear of social
    stigma.  Not "something better to do," but rather, intimidation.  In some
    cases, their refusal to use drugs IS purely due to fear of prosecution, just
    as my refusal to hold private raffles is purely due to fear of prosecution.
    Face it, Zak, you have backed yourself into a corner and now refuse to admit
    that your position is untenable.
    Also, your argument about casual users becoming addicts was jejune.  I said
    nothing about such a process.  I did say that most addicts begin as casual
    users, and that is certainly true.  That does not, however, imply the
    reverse.  I also said that for many people using addictive drugs, it is
    largely a matter of time before some degree of addiction occurs.
    Your analogy between music, D&D, and drug is fails because, of course,
    neither music nor D&D are physically addictive.

    Message: 63215
    Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: automobile
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 03:48:17

    Presumably, a large vehicle, upon impacting a fixed barrier, will
    deaccelerate less quickly than a vehicle with a short, rigid, engine
    compartment. This should result in less injury to the occupants. An added
    benefit of a long, deformable front end is that it lessens the likelihood of
    compromising the passenger compartment to the point of crushing the
    occupants.

    Message: 63216
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thanks
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 07:34:04

     I have returned from a very sad trip to Redding,Ca. where I had to bury my
    youngest son. He was killed when his car was struck by a train at an ungated
    crossing and dragged 1/2 mile down the tracks. It was not very pretty. I saw
    the car, and I saw what was left of him, since I was having a major problem
    comprehending any ything so horrible. Now I have an even more horrible
    reality to live with.
     Tom left a 2 year old daughter and a pregnant wife, along with the usual
    assortment of debts, etc. that seem to always accompany young couples in
    these perilous economic times.
     The kind thoughts and prayers that have been expressed on here and in mail
    are greatly appreciated. Thank you all very much.
    I have returned.

    Message: 63217
    Author: Mike Middleton
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Move over con't
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 09:48:35

    To recap, it is not the size or mass of the car, but the length of time it
    takes to change velocity that determines the forces involved.
    Drug are a symptom of a problem, not the problem. The problem is
    externalizing. Mature people realize the enemy is us not them. Not that I
    expect the opiners to quit, just laying the foundation for this post.

    Daryl, you reading this? Daryl Westfall is young. He cares very deeply about
    those hurting themselves with drugs or immorality. In his youth, he thinks
    that words might turn that caring into change. He will learn. Think about
    how wonderful it is to have young people who realize the need for the
    committment of marriage before starting a new life. Think about how
    important it is for fathers to see the baby growing in their wife's womb as
    a blessed gift and not a burdensome curse. Think about our future when we
    have young people, like Daryl, who get passionate about the wrongs and pains
    in the world as they search for the means to make things better. THe world
    needs young "firebrands" like Daryl. I wouldn't have it otherwise. He is
    young. He will learn. His concerns are very deep in his heart. Give him a
    break you guys!

    Abortion: Again this is a symptom and not the problem. Choose life. Life
    does not end at birth! Consider the childhood and lives that our children
    will lead as a part of the thinking on this subject. Also place yourself in
    the spot the typical unwed low-self-esteem teenage mom-to-be is in and come
    down off the high horse.                 Mike

    Message: 63218
    Author: $ Zak Woodruff
    Category: Drug Talk
    Subject: Beck
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 10:42:31

    RE:  "Face it, Zak, you have backed yourself into a corner and now refuse to
    admit that your position is untenable."

    BS.  Show me why this is so.  Your argument sucks.

         The people you described did *not* necessarily have to fall under the
    two reasons of stigma and fear of prosecution.  If drugs were
    half-acceptable and legal, people would still choose what was most important
    to them, and if that something was friends, their job, their family, etc.,
    these same people would choose the same course of action:  not using drugs.
         There is no evidence that occasional use of an addictive substance will
    turn into an addiction.  There is a difference between "occasional" use and
    regular use.  If a person does some cocaine at parties sometimes, that is
    occasional use.  If a person sneaks into the bathroom every day to get a
    cocaine high, that is regular use.  I know plenty of people who would fall
    under the "occasional use" umbrella and who nowdays don't do drugs any more
    than they did when they were experimenting, if even that much.
         Not to mention non-addictive drugs such as LSD or marijuana.  By no
    means does occasional use of these drugs lead to addiction.  Addiction
    requires repeated, regular intake.  Show me some statistics that prove
    otherwise.

    Message: 63220
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Bulletins
    Subject: Tokyo
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 21:22:03

    Mike Tyson got knocked out in the tenth round by Douglas.  Unbelievable.

    Bulletin Board command ( for help):EA

    You chose Answer!

    Subject:Ann

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:human that is capable of controlling their habit.
    17:
    18:

    Edit command ( for help):S

    Saving message...
    The message is 63228

    Bulletin Board command ( for help):EA

    You chose Answer!

    Subject:Nick

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:st powerful lobbyists.
    17:
    18:I suspect Adolph would be proud.
    19:
    20:

    Edit command ( for help):

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command ( for help):S

    Saving message...
    The message is 63229

    Bulletin Board command ( for help):RC63221-

    Press  to abort

    Message: 63221
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 23:08:37

    Re:  "I did not mean to imply that ALL pro-lifers are fanatics"

    Whew!  I'm glad to hear that Annie.  After reading your post I have to say
    you are a woman of moderation.  Definitely not a fanatic.  I agree with your
    stand, almost.  :-)
         Now there are others on this fine BBS who are total jerks.  And I feel
    I'm being very kind to say only that.  For example, their reasoning and
    defense of their stand is supported mostly by name calling.  If you ask them
    to justify their viewpoint they say something like, "I know I'm right
    because everyone who disagrees with me is a hypocrite!"  Yelling "prejudice"
    is one of their favorites.  Then they usually paint some far out
    hypothetical "what if" situation to prove they're always right.  And to top
    it off, they log on with a pseudonym and pick "War!" for their category.
    And they got *no* $tatus!  It must be difficult to cough up $10 (maybe it's
    $12 now) when mommy and daddy restricts your allowance.  But I don't mind a
    little name calling if it's done with finesse.  Both Zak and Dog are very
    skillful in finesseful (some word there huh) name calling.  Why just the
    other day Zak called me a "hot dog" (maybe it was a "weenie")  But such is
    life.  I guess you have to take the bad with the good, the sour with the
    sweet.  Where the eagles gather, the vultures descend.
         And the Apollo is the place where the eagles gather!  Ain't that right
    Cliff!

    Message: 63222
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 23:09:14

    Re:  "Seems he will be suspended for at least three months without pay
    because of remarks about blacks & gays attributed to him in a National Gay
    magazine."

    He should have vented his anger by bashing Christians.  It's a well known
    fact you can slander and libel Christians all you want and no one will give
    you any grief.  It's on TV all the time.  For example, any modern movie with
    a Christian in it, they are always made out to be stupid, conniving,
    hypocritical, crooked, etc.  Ted Turner is a good example.  I think it
    started on the up swing with Elmer Gantry.

    Message: 63223
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dog
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 23:09:40

    Re:  "Trying drugs isn't any more likely to kill you than riding a
    motorcycle, taking to the Phoenix streets on a bicycle, or walking in
    Boston.  Then think of air travel."

    But Dog, we are talking about "illegal" drugs!  The last I heard, riding a
    motorcycle, etc. is not illegal.

    Message: 63224
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 23:10:17

    Roger, that's a very clever way to get away with playing with semantics!
    When you play with semantics and someone calls you on it, just say, "This is
    so-and-so's favorite argument.  When faced with an irrefutable fact, call it
    "playing with semantics"."  So-and-so should be someone who has conquered
    you in a debate.  And has to be someone who has caught you playing with
    semantics.

    Clever Roger, real clever!  But not so clever we can't see through it.

    Message: 63225
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak
    Date: 02/10/90  Time: 23:10:55

    Re:  "The fact is, there are plenty of intelligent people out there who have
    tried or use drugs."

    Actually Daryl said it better then I did.  "They may be intelligent, but
    they lack good common sense."

    Zak, are you saying that you can't think of one single reason why
    "intelligent" people shouldn't use illegal drugs?  The first reason that
    comes to my mind is, it is illegal!  All societies have laws to protect the
    people.  The law is the law and should be obeyed.  Yes, there are exceptions
    for extenuating circumstances, but I wouldn't call doing "illegal drugs"
    extenuating circumstances.

    Message: 63226
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak
    Date: 02/11/90  Time: 01:11:51

    But I *have* shown you how you are wrong.  I have shown you and given
    numerous examples and even given you questions to ask yourself, which, if
    answered honestly, would force you to concede my point: people would do LOTS
    of things they currently would not now do, if there were no legal
    reprocussions.  Your failure to admit this indicates an unwillingness to
    change your attitudes to fit reality, and a tendency to do the reverse.

    As for the use of addictive substances, not everyone is going to instantly
    become an addict, of course.  But the fact that you know people who have
    tried things like cocaine without becoming addicts in no way changes the
    fact that cocaine is highly addictive.  It is not quite the same thing as
    alcohol, where addiction is more influenced by genetic predisposition than
    by an inherent effect of the substance.  If you insist on denying
    established fact, I see no reason to continue this discussion.  Your
    attitude toward hard drugs is childishly naive and immoderate, and instead
    of admitting that there are two sides to the coin of legalization, you
    cling to the foolish notion that most everyone who would use drugs is
    already doing so.  Wake up.  Stop dreaming.

    Message: 63227
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: meditation
    Date: 02/11/90  Time: 01:28:27

    Most people are familiar with the mantra, "om".  (A mantra is a kind of
    magical sound formula, a syllable or succession of symbols which, if
    pronounced in the correct manner, serve as a lens to concentrate and direct
    energy.)
    Few people know that "om" is part of a Tantric Buddhist mantra, "Om mani
    padme hum".
    Fewer still are aware that it translates as "the jewel is in the lotus."
    (We all know what THAT means, don't we?)
    According to "Sex In History," "since sexual excitement was felt to indicate
    the presence of divine energy, some (Tantric) initiates -- long before the
    days of macho or even machismo -- ritually worshipped their own erect
    penises.  Others, more advanced still, attained identity with both god and
    sakti (the feminine aspect of the World Soul) and were thus able to indulge
    in perpetual and blissful intercourse with themselves . . . When ritual
    intercourse took place, particularly in one of the convoluted positions that
    were believed to stimulate the nervous system, the female energy, by complex
    interaction with the nerve center around the man's navel, helped to convert
    his activated but unreleased semen into a magical essence (bindu) which then
    broke through the lalana and rasana channels, opened up a new channel, and
    whisked it up through it to the cakra at the top of the head, the 'thousand
    petalled lotus'."  (Translation: it got lonely at the monasteries.)
    "There is a particularly interested parallel here with the Chinese belief
    that ... the semen could be made to ascend and nourish the brain." (So, next
    time someone calls you a 'dickhead', thank them.)

    Message: 63228
    Author: Robert Thornbug
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 02/11/90  Time: 01:30:23

    In your message no. 62977 you say:

    "I don't want us to have legal drugs - it is so untasteful to think about
    it - that we, as a nation need this sort of thing. But facts are facts and
    we can't hide in the sand."

    You say that you do not want drugs to be made legal, however you admit in
    other posts to being a drinker as well as a smoker.  You also state that
    you control your habit.

    Okay, I'll buy that but aren't you being a hypocrite in denying others the
    use of their chosen substance?  I think so.  Alcohol, by the way, is
    responsible for many more death than the worst so-called illegal drug.

    Would you please rethink your position on this issue. Or are you the only
    human that is capable of controlling their habit.

    Message: 63229
    Author: Robert Thornbug
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Nick
    Date: 02/11/90  Time: 01:31:00

    You state that drugs alter the ability to reason.  Shouldn't we then pass
    laws and set penalties for all things that alter our reasoning ability?

    I can, offhand, think of several books and movies that could be considered
    mind-altering.  Come to think of it I can name quite a few albums that can
    achieve the same thing.  And cholesterol could also be added to this list.

    What about staying up late?  Going without sleep certainaly affects
    reasoning.  And what about poeple that must drag themselves out of bed when
    not feeling quite rested?  They chance loosing their menial jobs if they do
    not arrive on time.  They go unreasonably off to work, driving on the road
    in this dangerous condition.  This causes death and lifelong injuries from
    accidents both on the road and on the job.

    Why not let our glorious government decide for us.  The offending
    items could be decided by whoever has the most powerful lobbyists.

    I suspect Adolph would be proud.
    Goodbye, Robert Thornbug
    You were on 03:43

    Please hang up now
    t^eT\Y|0$n?_4q
    VOICE
    ATDT2461432
    A/ RINGING

    CONNECT 1200

    Type

    Apollo 7.2 300/1200/2400

    What is your first name:LARRY

    What is your last name:MICHAELS

    Hello, Larry Michaels
    Is your name correct:Yes

    Caller # 144714 (3 today)
    It is now 02/11/90  01:33:13
    Message range is (62974-63229)

    *=* Main Menu entered *=*

    Main Menu command ( for help):B

    *=* Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Bulletin Board command ( for help):EA

    You chose Answer!

    Subject:answers

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop

    Answer to several other posts from this board.

    (1) Einstein (Intelligent people who used drugs; tobacco)

    (2) Charles Manson was a product of his environment.  Before he had ever
    heard of drugs he had been beaten and bullied by his parents.  He was
    treated like a worthless nothing from his early childhood.  It wasn't drugs
    that did him in.  It was a social structure that lacks in intelligence.

    Edit command ( for help):S

    Saving message...
    The message is 63230

    Bulletin Board command ( for help):G

    Goodbye, Larry Michaels
    You were on 00:35

    Please hang up now