### Apollo BBS Archive - July 24, 1991

    Mail from Melissa Dee
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 17:36:22

    Yeah, Peter told me about that lady asking if we had gone out with the same
    guy.  Pretty funny, in a sad sort of way.  And I hear that Mike is now going
    out with someone that you and someone (one of the Peter's?) has known for a
    while.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Mike?  Which Mike?  And who is he going out with.  You have my curiousity
     2:up.
     3:
     4:I'm digging it.
    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7671
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike/Rocks
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:56:48

    Well, I wouldn't trust you to keep your facts straight. Carbon can't be used
    to date rocks. Carbon dating is only used for xDdating things that once
    lived.

    Message: 7672
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 22:45:24

    You and I must think alike, buddy!  (About the molesters, too.)
    Radioisotope dating has been challenged, and anyway it's hard for the
    average joe to put his trust in such an arcane and inaccurate thing.  But
    who can deny the evidence of simple and easy-to-understand mechanical things
    like millions of years of erosion?  The geological record speaks for itself.

    More to the point, what do the creationists say to this?  "If God created a
    perfect earth, why shouldn't He create it complete with a geological
    record?"  A geological record of WHAT, for heaven's sake?  Why on earth(!)
    should He create it with a geological record deliberately designed to
    deceive Man into believing falsehoods?  It makes no sense whatever.

    We are told that we can see proof of the wonders of God in everything He
    created, from the mighty mountains and oceans down to every tiny leaf.  And
    I wouldn't waste one moment trying to tear apart such an exalted thought.
    But in the same breath we are told He must have created the earth in such a
    way as to cast doubt on His existence.  "It's the only explanation",
    apparently.  And a pretty lame one at that.  Why should He do such a thing?
    To test Man's faith?  Rubbish!  To play dirty tricks on Man, to
    intentionally lead him into a wilderness of doubt?  What kind of logic is
    that?  Would God tell lies to us?  That's not my picture of God.

    I think God was dropping us a broad hint that we were meant to use the good
    brain He gave us to find Him for real.

    Message: 7673
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 01:31:02

    Her.

    Message: 7674
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Earth 6000
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 01:32:13

    If the earth is indeed 6000 years old then by next month the Pacific Plate
    will have moved 2000 miles north.

    Message: 7675
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 09:22:57

    You mean to tell me that the creationists believe that God created a perfect
    world complete with a record  that it's millions of years old, when it
    really isn't and they actually believe this?? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7676
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 12:47:21

    Why is that any different than creating Adam as an adult instead of a baby?

    I'm an athiest, but I think talking about carbon dating, erosion, evolution,
    and whatnot is a pretty silly argument against the Bible.  If there's a God
    who can do what ever he wants and whose motives are beyond our
    comprehension, what's to stop Him/Her/It from creating everything already in
    motion?

    Message: 7677
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Michael/7676
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 13:20:33

    There is nothing to stop the ardent Creationist from claiming such things,
    but forcing the Creationist to use such an argument exposes the religious
    basis for the Creationist's pseudo-science. The Institute for Creation
    Research (ICR) attempts to pass itself off as a scientific institution, and
    Creationism as a scientific theory. When this "theory" is disproved, the
    Creationist can claim "God can do anything He wants" --- but in doing so
    renders the so-called scientific theory unfalsifiable. And by rendering the
    theory unfalsifiable removes it from the realm of science and places it
    firmly in the realm of religion. So, by going through what may seem to you a
    fruitless exercise, we are able to expose organizations like the ICR and
    Moody Bible Institute for what they are: religious groups.

    I find it ironic that the Creationist yearns so greatly for the thing that
    is scorned. A scientific basis for the religious dogma of the believer.
    Science has such great credibility because of its success, that even the
    religionist recognizes (perhaps unconsciously) that having the mantle of
    scientific respectability is extremely desirable. Unfortunately for the
    Creationist, the scientific paradigm is directly opposed to the basis for
    religious faith and in order to become scientific, the Creationist will have
    to turn from religious dogma to scientific questioning. And that will never
    happen.

    Message: 7678
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Michael/7676
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 13:45:05

      You are right in the sense that the infallibility of the Bible and the
    existance of God are unsupportable assertions and that by trying to prove
    them false one is trying to prove a negative, which is logically
    useless. I agree with the message before this, however, in that it is good
    to keep the creationists from passing off the assertions they make on pure
    faith as having some independently verifiable basis in reality.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7679
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon/God
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 13:48:53

      You seem to know quite a bit of religios history, maybe you can answer me
    this. Is there, or was there, a religion which comprehends God in pretty
    much the same way as Aristotle described.
      See You Later,
       Dean H.

    Message: 7680
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dean/last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 14:16:10

    Oh come on Dean. Don't make us look up what Aristotle described God as! Just
    tell us. I'm very interested. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7681
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/Aristotle
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 15:36:59

      From my limited exposure to Aristotle I got the impression of a much
    different God than I see portrayed by religion. I would rather wait for
    Gordon's answer because I expect that he will probably have much to say and
    say it better than I could. If Gordon doesn't, I'll try to explain it
    myself.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7682
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 15:49:49

    I thought that some Catholic dogma was based on some of Aristotle's ideas,
    but I'll wait to hear the expert's opinion.

    Message: 7684
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger & Dean
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 16:04:34

    OK, I can accept the answer that such arguments are necessary for the few
    Christians who think there is a scientific basis for their religiously
    motivated belief in Creation.  It just seems so silly because MOST
    Christians seem to accept the idea that God isn't confined to nature's rules
    so there's no point in trying to reconcile science and religion.

    You don't have to do all kinds of research about archaeology, paleontology,
    geography, and geology to find events in the Bible that are outside of our
    normal, scientifically observable experience.

    Message: 7685
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green / 7671
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 16:30:07

    That's O.k. It's obvious I can't trust you to actually read my messages
    to know that I was talking about fossils..and if you knew anything
    of them you wouldn't make such a silly comment in the first place.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 77073
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: G.L./G L
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:53:33

    I'm too crabby to be confused with a real gentleman like Gordon Little. I
    mean, Gordon, you write your messages with such grace and wit and
    intelligence so that your points take maximum effect. When I write, I cannot
    resist bashing the idiots that dare take issue with me. I have a hard time
    understanding a world that has people in it that don't understand things as
    well as I do. That's a :-) for you folks who REALLY think I'm serious. (I
    don't know how to show tongue-in-cheek unless it is :-^ :-).

    Message: 77074
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Mike/comment on Rod
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 20:00:53

    Sorry, I don't get it.  What were "those words" described as "filthy
    language" in #77041?  It was kind of bizarre, but then dreams are nothing if
    not bizarre.

    I wondered if Bill had edited the post before you entered your protest, but
    I see he hasn't logged on in between.

    The only word I can see that might bother anyone is "dildo", and that isn't
    a "filthy word", it's the correct formal name for the artifact.  (Origin
    unknown, first recorded usage 1598).  If he'd said "artificial ****" I could
    understand.

    But I must be getting lax in my reading, because I showed Rod's post to
    my wife, and she pointed out that it also contained the words "pussyfoot"
    and "screw".  I think I will have to dump all of the hardware I have, and
    also get rid of our five cats.  These objects are corrupting my
    daughter's mind.

    I remember ules about language and obscenities, but I don't see how the
    mere existence of an object or an act can be an obscenity.  Should I assume
    that somebody who was born in !ntercour$e, Pennsylvania, and raised in
    Clim*x, Colorado, is not allowed to breathe a word about his childhood?

    Or am I only allowed to post this on Cosmos?

    Message: 77075
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: Poem
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 20:01:40

         An author owned an asterisk
         And kept it in his den
         When he wrote tales which had large sales
         Of erring maids and men,
         And always, when he reached the point
         Where carping censors lurk,
         He called upon the asterisk
         To do his dirty work!

                   - Anonymous, reprinted from Canadian "Good Housekeeping"
                     (a family magazine)

    Message: 77076
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Mormon bible
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 21:41:15

    I'm impressed. I found something dimly approximating that comment in
    the end of Second Nephi, and I know many a Mormon who has never finished
    reading First. I'm a little bit puzzled: I would have thought you would
    be accustomed to hearing things like that. Anyway, why would you
    be bothered about being from an imaginary devil because you refuse
    to pray to a God you don't believe in anyway?

    Message: 77077
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 22:46:40

    Loved your posts to "Pauley".  I have a few things to say about women later,
    but one thing struck me in particular:

     AO>>Real funny to look at, but not any fun at all to live like that with
     AO>>the husband having to be duped so the wife can get what she wants[...]
     AO>>This wasn't creating a home and harmony. This was showing the world how
     AO>>idiotic women are - that thrive on their emotions

    If somebody's oppressing you unfairly and you can't beat them at their own
    game, then the only way out is to use subterfuge.  This has always been true
    with oppressed groups.  Don't let the oppressors think you're smart.
    Pretend to be dumb.  Lull them into a false sense of security.  "Yessir,
    mastah!"  (Don't forget to roll the eyes -- or wiggle the hips.)  And work
    for every advantage you can behind their backs.  Hit them over the head when
    they're least expecting it.  Then look innocent -- and stupid.  "Who, me?  I
    didn't mean to..."

    If you can't have a straightforward honest relationship of trust and respect
    with somebody, then you have to resort to *not* being yourself in order to
    regain whatever little advantages you can grab.  It's not surprising that in
    spite of the changes we've seen, many men today still have a totally false
    picture of the real competence of women.

    Message: 77078
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/women
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 23:07:01

      Ann, I have read your responses to my comments, and I have several
    more ideas to present, as well as some clarifications. However, they
    take about 5 posts, and since I will be rather busy this coming week
    and I want to have room to respond to other people, I will have to
    spread it out over that many log ons. First, there are some of my views
    on authority, then on how I apply and practice those views in my home,
    then on social roles of men and women, and a couple on Paul and his
    teachings. You may agree or disagree as you choose.
      First of all, Consider: are we not expected to both submit ourselves
    and to love God? Do children not both submit themselves to and love
    their parents? It is much easier to 'submit' to someone you respect
    and love and who are sure respects and loves you. The two are not
    necessarily incompatible.
       I will not belabor the point futher. I think Gordon, in his post
    on authority, did an excellent job of explaining its nature.
    The service I was referring to that Jesus and Paul both would have
    advocated, consists not in the husband treating his wife as his
    servant, but in treating himself as hers.
       If most of your experience with authority comes from dealing with
    those who consider themselves "the boss", no ifs, ands, buts, or
    questions allowed, then I can very easily understand why you would
    object to Paul's wording. As a clarification, I do not believe that a
    man who loves his wife 'as his own body' will ride roughshod over his
    wife's feelings, treat her like a domestic slave, or go around with a
    'me boss, you peon' attitude. And no, I don't think that kind of treatment
    is good for women.

    (I composed this offline and uploaded it, and wasn't familiar with the
    24-line limit. So, this is still part of 1/5. BTW, I read your posts
    regarding your experience and observations, and I can see where you are
    coming from. I still don't think Paul was a sexist. And Gordon is
    expressing a good many of my thoughts and feelings better than I could
    myself, (on the subjects of Paul & women, anyway. Plus some I hadn't thought
    of but agree with.)

    Message: 77080
    Author: Blue Lantern
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Hi!
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 00:09:36

         Before any of you jump to conclusions, I would like to state one fact.

    I'm not Roger Mann EITHER!

    Message: 77081
    Author: Red Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 00:11:23

         Suuuure you're not!

    Message: 77082
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 01:45:05

    My old astronomy book has a sentence that reads:  Don't believe everything
    you read in this book.  It's my kind of book, know what I mean?

    When I find an obvious, bold faced lie in a book that is telling me that
    every word of it is true then I discount it to another fairy tale.  Men use
    religions for control of the masses and they have been somewhat successful
    thus far.  But there are always the freethinkers who for some reason have a
    questioning mind.

    One day (or late evening) charity will win out over greed and systems of
    governing the masses will not be needed.  The only systems we need are for
    lines of supply and something akin to the International Red Cross.  We need
    to organize and work together for once in our history and that we may be
    just about capable of doing.

    But when all these people are led astray by tales of the afterlife and how
    to get a good spot and then blindly (excuse me, THROUGH FAITH) follow then
    we IS in trouble.  And we are in trouble.

    A lot of people seem to be living for and planning for the afterlife and not
    the NOW, which, by the way, it always is.  There are so many divisions in
    this world from different religions and sects that it is no wonder that we
    are only as far as we are which is too darn far away from being a half way
    decent, fun planet.   I have no use for religions or gods.  -Rod

    Message: 77083
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 01:47:52

    Sorry Ann, but you have that bible verse a bit mis-aligned with reality.
    First, you didn't quote it exactly right and that is a no-no, here.  We
    don't want those kiddies reading about any fancy South American birds, now
    do we?

    "Let the one among us who is without sin, cast the first stone." is the way
    it reads but you misinterpret it.  Back in those days, in ancient Greek,
    stone meant fish.  And as near as the latest scientific scholars have
    concluded, the literal meaning is:  Let's go fishing and cast out our
    lines.  Those Greeks were funny people.

    Message: 77084
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon & Dean
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 01:48:59

    I found that your posts were Bill & Ted, the first one.
    And arf, arf too.

    Message: 77085
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike's Women 1/17
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 02:19:26

    It was ironic that Mike should accuse women of being the more emotional sex,
    because the most striking impression his post made was an emotional one!
    (mainly, "madder'n hell").  I don't think I agree with all of his
    conclusions, but if you look past that first impression there are actually a
    number of truths that need to be addressed.  Let's look at it point by
    point.  First, the language issues.

     MC>>The females are now revolting [complaining] against words like: "GIRL"

    I don't know where Mike's been for the last ten years.  In a business
    environment it's been quite unacceptable to refer to professional women as
    "girls" for at least that long, or longer.  And I think that's justified on
    the grounds that "girl" implies "child", which in turn implies "immature",
    "not yet competent", "small and insignificant" and other things.  This
    parallels the black community's pointing out that "boy" was typically used
    to address slaves.  Yes, I know we do say things like "I'll send one of my
    boys round to tak care of it", or talk about an "old boy network" (though
    that refers back to schooldays).  But that's in limited contexts.  The fact
    was that we did refer to women disproportionately as "girls", and I can see
    why it's demeaning.

    Mike's point is taken, though, if you look at some of the niggling or even
    downright nutty things considered "politically correct" by the movement.

    "Nonsexist language" is a problem we can only solve in English by inventing
    a new set of pronouns with indefinite gender, and nobody seems willing to
    bite the bullet on that one.  Up to a point we can say "he or she" or
    "he/she" or "(s)he", but it makes for badly cluttered prose.  We can resort
    to passive voice to avoid using pronouns at all, but that robs our writing
    of its punch.  And I find it infuriating when people write things like this:

         If a police officer goes to the scene of a crime and discovers that...
         [four or five more lines of stuff involving various male bystanders]
         The next thing she has to do is...

    At this point I screech to a halt and scratch my head.  Who the hell is
    "she"?  I don't recall anyone mentioning a woman!  Oh, of course, the writer
    must have meant the police officer...

    Naturally, like most people, I assume by default that the police officer was
    male, since we ALWAYS think of specific people as having either one sex or
    the other and we HAVE to make a choice when we visualize a real person doing
    something concrete.  Of course I know perfectly well that there are police-
    women as well as police-men, but *most* of them are men, so which shouldn't
    I assume that this one was?  What the writer has done is to quite
    deliberately set me up and then bludgeon me over the head for making that
    assumption.  I object violently to this habit.  The point is that the
    subject of the passage was "police procedure", not "feminist politics".

    To clobber the unsuspecting reader in that way is gratuitous, inappropriate,
    irrelevant, and offensive.  There's a time and a place for everything, and
    this kind of writing doesn't endear any readers to the cause.

    As for the latest example of radical thought, the spelling "womyn", this is
    plain nutty.  I tilted at this one on Apollo a few weeks ago.  The argument
    for it is supposed to be that the word "women" contains the word "men", and
    the revisionists want to avoid the suggestion that "women" are just some
    appendage to "men".  I think this is a stupid idea, not least because I
    could argue the converse just as validly: that "men" are an incomplete (and
    presumably inferior) form of "women".  (And what the heck is the singular
    form anyway?  Is it "womun"?)

    The impression it really gives is that these "womyn" want to reject "men"
    altogether, which is a good way to rouse antagonism, destroy political
    goodwill, and sabotage your own cause just for the satisfaction of
    prolonging the war.  It's quite pointless, since men and women are all hu-
    MAN beings whether they like it or not.  The only effect of this idiotic
    spelling is to confirm other people's prejudices that women are crazy and
    illogical.

    Enough about the lunatic fringe; what about the real issues?  Men and women
    are different and think differently?  Yes, this is indeed becoming more and
    more a proven fact today.  There are real gender differences in the brain.

    I have an entire consistent philosophy all worked out about what constitutes
    "masculine" and "feminine", and why they came to be, and how they relate
    together, but I certainly don't have the time to go into all that.  Suffice
    it to say that I do categorize qualities like aggression, competition,
    domination, independence and so forth as "masculine", while their opposites
    -- cooperation, submission, relationship etc. can be meaningfully classed as
    "feminine".  However, it is very important to emphasize that "masculinity"
    and "femininity" in this sense are ABSTRACTIONS, not descriptions of actual
    human beings.

    If you ask what this means about what real human beings are like, I'd first
    have to restate the obvious: that men are more "masculine" and women more
    "feminine"; but that leaves us with useless stereotypes that obscure
    important information:

     1.  Nobody is born "all masculine" or "all feminine".  I might say the
         average male was naturally 65% "masculine" and 35% "feminine", with
         women the other way round.  The figures are arguable.

     2.  We accentuate these differences by social conditioning.  Again pulling
         figures out of the air, we might condition men to be 80% "masculine"
         and 20% "feminine", with women the other way round.

     3.  The figures are only guesses at an average for all men and women.
         Individuals are highly variable.  More women than you'd think are more
         "masculine" than many men, and vice versa.

    Now, what does Mike say?

     MC>>Women are better at some things than men are, Men are better than women
     MC>>at some things too.

    That's quite true.  But I'd point out two things in addition.  First, the
    differences are a great deal less than you'd think in most fields.  All
    right, I know most men can hump heavy objects around for longer than most
    women can.  But sheer physical strength is less important in most jobs today
    than it was in a preindustrialized society.  Actual performance of women in
    jobs like plumbing, engineering, law enforcement has been very satisfactory.
    Even in the armed forces, women have stubbornly refused to conform to the
    expected stereotype of screaming, fainting, or running away under fire.

     MC>>It's all a matter of finding what you do best and going for it.

    That's the second point, and it's only common sense.  I heartily agree.  But
    we mustn't lay down blanket policies that men can only do *these* jobs and
    women can only do *those* jobs when differences among individuals often
    transcend gender boundaries.

    This is robbing people of the chance to do what they are best suited to, and
    it's one of the major things the women's movement is complaining about.

    People ought to be graded by performance, not by sex.  Perhaps a woman can
    do the same job as a man, but not quite so quickly if it involves truly
    heavy physical labor.  If she *wants* to do the job, I don't see why she
    shouldn't; but measure her output and pay her by how much she gets done.
    The interesting thing with many jobs is that while most men are
    intrinsically better at certain tasks, a woman often makes up for her
    shortcomings by being thoroughly motivated to prove that she can do as well
    as a man.  If she produces the same output, she ought to be paid the same.

    Mike's remark about "women who snort testosterone" was more accurate than he
    realized.  It's almost literally true.  Intrauterine hormones do affect
    gender development.  Some women are very masculine in their thought and
    outlook, and even physique.  But if a woman *wants* to wear army boots, why
    not let her?

    Not that I'd want to see women serving in a job where their lack of physical
    strength might endanger the people they're working with.  But the answer
    here is insisting on the right physical requirements.  We have height
    requirements for policemen.  It makes no sense to let some 105-pound woman
    do a job if she can't hack it.  But there are a few 180-pound bodybuilding
    women around who could.  Why not give them the chance?

    It's significant here that the air force is much less resistant to putting
    women in combat roles than the other armed forces, because the requirements
    for physical strength are less in a flying role.

    What of women's endurance, especially their pain threshold?  I'm not
    convinced that women's pain threshold is lower than men's.  I think this
    particular "difference" is mostly social conditioning.  It's acceptable for
    a woman to complain that something hurts.  For a man, it's wimpy and
    unmasculine.  In spite of which I'd point out that women can and do sustain
    all kinds of illnesses and injuries and carry on without complaining where
    some men act like babies and want to be looked after.  And speaking of
    babies, I wonder how well most men would hold up during childbirth.

    I suppose lots of people are afraid that if we let women do all kinds of
    "masculine" things that they didn't traditionally do, then women in general
    are going to start turning into substitute men, abandoning their traditional
    qualities of nurturing and so forth.  I disagree.  People are the way they
    are.  Women who insist they want to do the roughest, toughest masculine jobs
    do so because that's the way they are.  You won't masculinize other women by
    letting some women do those jobs if they want to.  And you won't "feminize"
    them by not letting them.  All you'll do is frustrate them.  You won't meet
    a more angry person than your radical lesbian feminist, so you might as well
    let her do what she wants in life and then she just might shut up.

    Motivation is the key here.  Men's and women's motivations often differ.
    There is lots of argument about whether or not men are better than women at
    certain tasks, and there certainly are differences.  Women are often better
    at sustained or intricate activity requiring patience, while men do better
    at short bursts of intense effort; again, on average.  Men are often better
    at focusing intently on one thing to the exclusion of others; women at
    juggling several tasks at once.  On average.  But are men inherently better
    at math than women?  The jury is still out.  The issue is obscured by claims
    about how girls "don't try as hard", "are programmed or expected to fail" at
    math, and so forth.  Nobody seems to be seriously asking whether girls might
    have the same math aptitude as boys, but are not as motivated to develop it.

    Women complain about household tasks, childrearing and so forth, and "why
    don't men help out more"?  It's true, men are just as capable of changing
    diapers or washing the floor.  And it's true, men don't do it as much.
    "You're perfectly capable of doing it.  You just don't *want* to!" complain
    the women.  And that's quite true too.  But the women end up doing the job
    anyway, while the men don't.  And why?  Because most women are more
    *motivated* to do those things.  In my view, motivation ought to be taken
    into consideration in discussing the fair division of labor.  Perhaps a man
    can do certain chores as well as a woman, and perhaps she doesn't even like
    doing the chores very much.  But in all probability he dislikes doing them
    even more, because he doesn't have the same motivation.  Without that
    motivation to carry him along, the task is more stressful. [TO BE CONTINUED]

    Message: 77093
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 03:28:46

    I think I'll read those posts, offline.

    Message: 77094
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad/reality
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 03:29:53

    Thad, a comment you made to Ann, something to the effect of expecting our
    children to love us and abide by our rule and we in turn love and abide by
    the rules that some attribute to one of their gods, interested me.  Since
    we have eight children here, I would like to make a brief statement.

    The only thing that is different about children and adults is experience.
    I mean, in reality I am no older than a child, any child, but I can remember
    the sun rising and setting many more times than they (unless perhaps they
    sleep outside).

    A parents job is to give their children the best advice they know, taken
    from things they learned during their life.  But a child has a mind as well
    and even though there is less experience it doesn't mean that their mind is
    not better tuned to a particular thought than ours.

    You cannot demand love, under threat of eternal punishment or in any other
    way.  All you can do is hope.

    Give the best advise possible, in the best advice voice you have and hope
    the child takes this information into account in making their decisions.

    Love and obedience cannot be demanded, only earned.

    I say that humans are babies of the universe and an adult does not know
    the real answers any more than does a child.  But the child may actually
    have a clearer picture than the adult as the mind of that child has not yet
    been fully corrupted.

    I expect no worship and I demand no love.  Their minds are equal to mine
    and in many ways are better because they are mutants of Jasmine and I and
    are, in a sense, the newer models, an upgrade if you will. -Rod

    Message: 77096
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Who said?
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 05:17:22

    This above all, to thine own self be true: and it must follow as the night
    the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
    Willie the Shake Speare.

    Message: 77097
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 05:23:19

     I hate to interrupt, since I'm sure you will leave me more to respond to in
    the next few posts, but I have to correct one comment you made in #1.
     You are absolutely, 110% wrong if you think that I consider you a "raving,
    drooling at the mout feminist." I think that, in many ways, you are more
    representative of the kind of woman any man would be proud to call wife than
    many women I know. Perhaps not in EVERY way, but in many. I don'T have to
    agree with everything you say or stand for to respect you for what you are,
    you know.
    Reading on......

    I guess I'll have to take these posts one at a time, or forget what all I
    wanted to say. Your #2 is a very sad but all too true commentary on a mental
    attitude that I believe was, to a degree, fostered by the media. A lot of
    this "dumb housewife" rotine was begin by such old time stars as Burns &
    Allen, with Gracie (smart as a whip and the real business head of the team)
    playing the dippy housewife who couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time.
    THey may have been (and were) a hilarious team, but unfortunately also
    succeeded in subliminally planting some strange ideas concerning the role of
    women in many minds. When TV came along as the "brains" of many homes, this
    role playing was exemplified and magnified by such programs as "I Love Lucy"
    and even more so by "All in The Family". Just goes to show ya how powerful
    the influence can be, huh?
    Reading on.............

    Harmony in the home is not a cause, it is a result. A result of a family
    with a firm foundation that includes, but is not limited to, mutual love and
    respect, consideration for the other party in all things (by BOTH parties),
    and recognition of the fact that neither is "boss", but that both parties
    are equal partners in this thing called marriage. It's what the Bible calls
    "in honor preferring one another". It's a two-way street, all the way to the
    end. If there is a head of the household, let it be Christ, with all major
    decisions filtered through His will by prayer. (You may not agree with the
    last part of the equation, but believe me, it does work.)
    Reading on............

    Good posts, Ann. Thanks for sharing.
     One problem I think you overlooked is the number of women who have been
    forced into the workplace due to the economy. I thought it strange that,
    after I posted to you yesterday, I read one of the top news stories of the
    day about the drastic increase in child crimes in the past few years.
    Something like a 161% increase in violent crimes committed by kids 12 and
    under! Every one of the professionals in the field of child psychology
    and/or crime blamed the increase on one basic thing. (Well,two) Abuse and
    neglect. Neglect and abuse. One has to wonder how much of that neglect can
    be attributed to working mothers who, through no real fault of their own,
    cannot fill two hats at the same time, that of laborer in the field and
    mother at home. WHen we consider the ultimate future of this syndrome, it
    becomes frightening.

    Message: 77101
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger Lantern/70773
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 05:47:08

    May have been "tongue-in-cheek", but expresses the true nature of Roger
    Green Lantern Mann better than anythin else you have posted recently, under
    either of your names.

    Message: 77102
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: Mike/77041
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 06:57:24

            I read it over and over again.  I found no profanity.. I found it
    had no personal attacks of demeaning nature aimed at any user.

            I have to agree with Little's humorous post about post 77041.

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    P.S.  Bill, please read 77041 and post your thoughs...just in case you see
    something that I failed to see.

    Message: 77103
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: Gordon's Poem
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 07:31:56

    Thank you very much. An excellent poem.

    Message: 77104
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Master @ Arms Speaks
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 08:23:12

    > What's happened to ; "The family oriented reading material" on
    > this board when you allow Rod Williams to use those words in
    > his post #77041.

            I've reviewed Rod's message, Mike, and have to agree with the others
    who have commented that it contains no violation of the ules.
            It's not just the words, Mike; it's how they're used, too.

    Message: 77105
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod my god
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 08:58:29

    Thank you for straightening out what a stone really is. I won't say I won't
    make that same mistake again however. I have a funny habit of thinking what
    I read I know what it means. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77106
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 09:15:27

    Me too! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77107
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: Rod/Bill & Ted
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 13:56:10

      Did you know, my excellent friend, that the original title of their
    latest film was, "Bill And Ted Go To Hell"?
      See You Later,
       Dean H.

    Message: 77108
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 14:00:47

    *Sputter* *Blush* My, my Pauley. That was the nicest compliment I
    heard in ages. I feel the same way about you and I hope you know
    that. (your post #77097)

    One thing I have always liked about the Apollo people is that we
    can have heated discussions on the board - name call and act as if
    we'd like to lynch each other - but underneath, we are friends that
    respect each other. At least most of us are that way - I won't
    mention any names. Ha. Thanks again. I'll bask in that awhile.

                              -=* ANN * =-

    Message: 77109
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on women
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 14:02:18

    Comments on your other posts ...
    I agree that TV did it's damage to the image of women and so did
    the movies - in a big way. Both are still doing it. While the
    woman's Lib. is focusing on such nonsense as 'girls' - 'gals' -
    'women' names etc. - they are missing things that are happening
    daily to demean women on TV that shows a false image of womanhood
    to millions of men women and children and they should demand a
    change.  Trouble is - the women are just about as much at fault as
    the men if not more so. NO ONE forces women to do anything in this
    day and age and she has plenty of choices. You do not need to be a
    flaming feminist to turn down a TV role that shows women as Edith
    Bunker types or sex symbols, or a 'husband duper'!  Each of those
    roles have their place at one time or another, but certainly not
    daily fare or the norm.  We also laughed at Mr.  Peepers, Milton
    Beryl, Jerry Lewis, but never for a moment stereotyped them as the
    norm.  But there is way too many TV shows and movies right now that
    portray a woman in a fashion she is not -giving both sexes the
    wrong opinion and the women should stop it if they want equality,
    freedom!

    Lets take a few subjects and discuss them ...

    I am always amazed at how they use women - I should say their
    bodies, sex appeal - on TV commercials to sell anything from light
    beer to used cars! And in my opinion, the commercial is telling the
    men that if you use this/their product that you will have a woman
    like that or women like that - the very blatant promise of sex if
    you buy, etc. Just yesterday I saw a commercial for Dr. Pepper. it
    lasted 30 seconds and I'll bet it showed young, perfect looking
    women in the briefest bikinis 6 or 7 times - men, a couple of
    times! It was almost on the brink of being erotica. The Taco Bell
    commercials always have some VERY sexy looking woman walking across
    the desert going to Taco Bell (I assume! I see no connection
    really) and she is walking in a very provocative manner - almost
    like some big cat - undulating.  What is so funny - I never saw a
    woman walk like that in real life - just in fantasy stuff to depict
    sexiness. If she did it often it'd put her back out of joint!

    I guess I have to pause here before other members jump all over me
    asking what is wrong with a woman's body and erotica and why can't
    she show it off, etc. etc. NOTHING is wrong with any of it - in
    it's place. It DOESN'T belong everywhere and because it is
    everywhere, it is demeaning women! It makes sense that a light beer
    commercial might show a woman in a bikini - but not in a breakfast
    food commercial - which I've seen also.

    One time I saw a toilet bowl cleaner commercial with a women in a
    bikini! In the 'before' pictures she was a housewife drudge with a
    dirty toilet bowl! After using this miracle product, she is free to
    do what she wants with her 'saved up' time so she puts on a bikini
    and goes out to sun bathe! Of course, a total transformation took
    place - no longer a drudge looking wife, she is now 'movie star'
    quality with a perfect figure and sex appeal all because she used
    this product!! It would be real funny if it wasn't done most of the
    time and taken so seriously!

    Let us discuss the problem of rape and here again I must pause and
    state --- I DO NOT CONDONE RAPE FOR ANY REASON! I don't care of
    some lovely crawls over a man stark naked - if she doesn't want
    sex, then he has NO reason to force himself on her!!

    As example.... the Mia Peeples dance show that is shown late at
    night or even the dance shows on MTV. I have watched them on
    occasion - saw women dressed many times that would look like they
    belong on Van Buren - LOOOOOOW cut blouses - almost non-existent
    skirts and black nylons with black garter belts and high heeled
    shoes! All dancing more than provocatively - the dancers are acting
    as if they are in the sex act! The men are dressed normally, but
    dance the same sex type dance too..

    My point is ... here this couple have been out for the evening on a
    date - she is dressed like the stereotyped hooker - rubbing against
    him for a couple hours on the dance floor - depicting the sexual
    act in her movements - him doing the same and when it comes times
    to say goodnight, he of course, expects sex - she resists - he
    forces it - she's raped! Here again, NO excuse on the man's part
    what so ever - but she needs to take some responsibility and I
    don't care what anyone says! By her actions and dress in this
    ficitious - but some times true to life story, she has shown him
    she is willing.  Why else did she dress like that.  Fashion?
    Hogwash!  Why else did she act like that?  Women's Lib? Just being
    herself? Expressing herself? Hogwash! She wants to be sexy like
    society says she should be because being sexy gets you --- good
    looking men - rich men - a husband -  fun - happiness - anything at
    all that's good on this earth etc. etc!! If you are ugly, fat,
    dowdy, pimply, middle aged, old aged, you get nothing!! At least
    the commercials tell us it is so. But getting back to my couple ...
    if I were that man taking that woman home from the dance, when she
    resisted, I'd certainly think her 'no meant yes, yes, yes'!!! Where
    would I get any other opinion?

    Lets talk about when the women burned their bras in the 1960's!
    It started out to be just symbolic gesture but it went awry!
    Instead of doing it as a protest sign AND in a lot of cases, for
    comfort, they started wearing skin tight T-shirts that showed off
    every curve and bounce. They'd get them wet every chance they got
    and it gave the men great joy that women did such a thing -
    probably just exactly what they wanted. Now they could see 'what
    the cow had to offer before buying her' and eroded every step we
    had made. If you doubt me on this, please note how many 'wet T-
    shirt' bars opened up!
    The point of all this was - why should women be ashamed of their
    bodies and why not show them off?! Women shouldn't be ashamed of
    any part of them - but the men still think of women that wear see-
    through T-shirts as sex symbols - easy marks, etc. and now the
    women use this to be sexy and a turn on! We can't expect to be
    treated like ladies and get respect if we don't act like one nor
    dress like one! We have to first show that our bodies are NOT JUST
    for sex, sex symbols any more than a man's is. If we did away with
    the 'nude dancers - the strip joints - the adult book stores that
    depict sex with our bodies ALL the time, then possibly women could
    be as free dress wise as the men. But not as long as it's connected
    to sex only. (Women's naked body).

    And speaking of nude dancers et al - I am going to appear
    contradictory here and say I am not all that against them but I do
    cry "UNFAIR"! In general I think there is nothing wrong for a man
    to go to a place and watch a good looking woman dance naked in his
    face or to watch porn movies or use a prostitute's services or
    anything of this sort and it turns him on! (Unmarried men!) I
    believe in 'turn ons'! But it is so one sided and it creates the
    problems I mentioned in my last post - women are thought of as a
    turn on when she exposes breast, derriere or what have you because
    the nude dancer does it, the topless dancer does it and these are
    all turn ons. So a man sees a topless woman walking down the
    street, whats he gonna think?  Ha! If there were the equal places
    for women to go - to see men fully naked and acting sexy - showing
    ALL of them like women do, these places would be a haven for
    fantasies, not real life - not to be expected in real life!! But
    now, they depict the woman only as a sex symbol and because the men
    don't do these things, make it appear ... #1 the women don't want
    that sort of thing ... #2 the men are NOT sex symbols .... #3 the
    man's naked body isn't as attractive as a woman's (boyee have I
    head this lame excuse many times made by men!) and #4 men's bodies
    are porn and women's are not! In my opinion, everyone of those
    statements are false! Anyway, I'm all for porn, but feel it has
    it's place and not on the street perpetrated by women. If we
    continue, we are beating a dead horse named 'Equality'!

    Message: 77115
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/book
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 17:31:43

      I have seen a lot of what you mention. For most of the past two
    thousand years, men have been murdering each other in the name
    of a man who said "love your enemies", because by professing a
    belief in him, they could gain power over other believers. But a
    certain minority have actually paid attention to those teachings
    and done great good. Most of those are not especially prominent,
    since they heed another injunction and do not promote themselves.
    The very concept of the 'brotherhood' of man and of the charity
    you mention, seems to have come from the early Christians, Paul
    included. I won't quarrel with the fact that men have been twisting
    those ideas since the very day they were uttered.
       What is the "bold faced lie" you referred to?

    Message: 77116
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/women (cont.)
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 17:33:14

      In my own home, my wife and I have similar values and standards,
    so we are usually in agreement. Although she lets me make most of the
    decisions, in some areas she has more sense than I do, and she has
    more than once corrected me. I usually ask her ideas, consent, and
    opinions, especially on major or important issues.
      My dad used to claim that he was the head of the house, but mother
    was the neck, and the neck turns the head.
      Although I do not believe it is the nature of men to abuse, I do
    believe that, generally speaking and with exceptions, they are
    naturally more agressive and competitive and seek to dominate.
    Women, similarly generally speaking and with exceptions, are
    naturally more submissive in their relationships with men.
     The fact that men abuse women and women permit it is a perversion
    of these natural tendencies.

    Message: 77117
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 20:42:30

    Actually, any perceived emotion was again misinterpreted. Like you, I'm
    still wondering how to post tongue in cheek without letting the cat out
    of the bag. My chastisement was directed soley at those obnoxious, militant
    feminist types who are constantly ripping their bras off in public to
    denounce any form of differences between the sexes. I didn't think we had
    anyone here that fell into that category, at least I thought so, until
    I read some of the replies to my posts.
    My opinion is that if we stop childishly denying our own natures, we can
    then start to understand it. To start to realise the differences is to
    start to understand. Understanding is the only true path to harmony.
    Yes, first we must acknowledge that there are no two people alike, as I
    mentioned in my original posts, there's a wonderful diversity of life
    in all of its mix. No two people are alike nor will there ever be.
    So that brings me to my point. That Women *ARE* (Thank God) different
    from Men. Although folks like Peter Petrisko want it otherwise.
    At least it would seem so from his infantile post.
    What people do with those differences is entirely up to them. I support
    women who want to do the traditionally "male" jobs. I think it's ludicrous
    that women should be pidgeon-holed into some bizarre stereotype.
    There are some jobs that each sex should avoid, however. There's noticibly
    less men in the child/infant day care scene. Men have, in my opinion, far
    less patience than women exhibit.

    Gordons posts revealed little information that was new. Like many here,
    he timidly stepped into the grey area of describing the differences
    between men and women and attempted to side-step any perceived
    responsibility for his ideas. That's a 'little'  chicken. ;-)
    If you have an opinion on something, say it as such. The folks who
    loathe differing viewpoints to their own are poorer for it.
    Don't let their spineless name calling intimidate you into doing otherwise.
    State what you feel, this is (was) a free America.
    I still think there are jobs where women don't fit in either. Although
    they'd probably never publish this, several high ranking officials are
    very aware of the male/female ratios of competence in field work. The
    Military has a unique problem. (1) There's fewer women who want to be in the
    Military to begin with, compared to the male contingent. (2) Taking
    the ratio of qualified female soldiers to the raw recruitment figure they
    came from and comparing it to the male figures will give you an instant
    breath of fresh air. There's better than 60% fall out from the female
    ranks for the same "job" classification compared to the males. Now, some
    of you will want to whine about that, go ahead. Makes no impact on the
    facts.
    The military now has a dilemma (3), where for a certain job classification,
    taken 100 male soldiers they can count on a 92% return on their tax-dollar
    training investment. With 100 female soldiers for the same position, they're
    looking at a woefull 40-50% who (A) Make it through and (B) stay longer than
    their initial enlistment. So, naturally they have been reluctant to
    train female soldiers.
    Please understand I'm not for military policy based soley upon dollar
    figures as some would want to read into this. I'm merely stating reasons
    why there are such policies against recruitment for women.
    Another thing that needs to be addressed is the male ego. On the front lines
    with bullets taking lives of those next to you, men are not going to
    typically "go for" a female soldier ordering them around. I spent 6 years
    in the military and can tell you from first hand experience what the "guys"
    think about female officers. Most of it is ego problems. Some of it is
    due to the lack of familiarity..this puts female officers and soldiers into
    a tough situation. To be fully combat ready, a unit must work in a highly
    bonded, cohesive atmosphere. Something you're not going to ordinarily get
    without 24 hour contact with people for extended periods of time. Those of
    you who were never in the military have absolutely no idea how hard it is
    to get this cohesiveness to work, even between men who like each other.
    Now the feminists, ranting red-faced, bare-breasted waving signs in front of
    the White house appear to be wholly uninformed bozos to the Establishment.
    It's no way to get meaningfull political action.
    I wonder for the future. If women are allowed to be on the front lines in
    combat capacity, then they must also share the other responsibilities and
    accept the established and combat necessary conditions.

    To summarize, there are unmistakable and undeniable differences between
    the male and female of the human species. These differences aren't the
    horrible, vile and disgusting "put downs" feminists would want to make
    you think of them. They're wonderful differences that make life so enjoyable
    with a beautiful wife. Opposites attract, and that has nothing to do with
    looks. It's the mannerisms and the astronomical set of differences between
    men and women. Some people want to make that into a gap by denying the
    differences. How silly and counterproductive. Good luck.
    Gordon: My reference to the use of the term "GIRL" is not be be assumed
    as you have noted. The feminists say it's a bad word *ALL OF THE TIME*.
    I should have qualified my statement. I certainly don't support using the
    term professionally as you suggest. So what do *you* think we should use
    to reference a 5 year old female human?  I don't care if these
    screaming hordes of testosterone-snorting, Arnold Swartznegger look-alike
    female lesbian mutant bull riding Mary-Kay cosmeticians manage to strike
    the word from official Webster's. I'll still use the word "GIRL".
    They can bash their breasts into cancerous lumps of jelly in front of the
    White House for years to come for all I care, it won't change the
    differences between male and female. Viva la Difference! Just like some
    people can walk by a row of blossoms without notice, some will never
    see the beautiful differences between men and women.
    It's their loss, certainly they can never make it mine. Amen.

    Message: 77121
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: The Questionabl word
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 20:48:40

    The words "dildo", "pussyfoot" "screw" are inherently unsatisfactory
    for young children to be concerned with in the *context* of Rod's message
    and in light of the level of censorship imposed by Bill Burkett in the past.
    To me they're nothing I'd consider worrysome.
    It's my right however, to point out disparity and discrepancy with
    the measurers and dictators of the moral standards of posting here.
    If you will recall, Mr Burkett took exception to some of my posts that
    included such horridly lewd words like "rump" "butt" and "fart".
    These words were classifed as "obscentities" by the gang of Moral dictators.
    Since then, I have paid some attention to the level of obscentity, based
    upon the level as it was applied to me, here on this board some months back.
    Mr Burkett, and Melissa Dee at the time completely denied that they were
    being biased soley because my viewpoint was strongly different from their
    own. Because they could not refute my arguments, they resorted to censorship
    and succeeded in having my posts removed from the public eye.

    As Mr Burkett once professed, his kids were reading this BBS, such material
    was inappropriate for them to be reading. I aggree. Therefore I point to
    similiar discrepancies posted by others...who he now seems to ignore and
    has since forgotten that children read the material contained within this
    realm.

    Message: 77122
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 20:55:36

    Personally I don't really care what Rod posts or doesn't post.
    I do care however, when a different measuring stick is applied to me
    or anyone else. Our viewpoints differ here. I aggree whole heartedly
    with Bill that it isn't the words, it's the context they're used in.
    Now, would you want to lay money on the following bet?
    >> Take Rod's post and send it to the Editor at the R&G or any other
    "family" Newspaper around town. If they say they would print it I'll
    buy you dinner at Applebee's.
    If they refuse to, not just based on its low level of reader interest,
    but the words I mentioned, you buy *me* dinner at Applebees.

    This changing level of censorship is at best, pathetic and aggrivating.
    It proves that the magnifying glass applied to someone they disaggree with
    is a higher power than those of whom they readily side issues on.

    This is why I continue to feel that there are two standards being set
    here and why I opposed Bill's appointment to Sysop..because I correctly
    figured he was at best, wholly incapable of presenting an objective and
    unbiased execution of his powers.

    Message: 77123
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: CENSORED
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 21:30:02

         My recent post was meant only as a tongue-in-cheek commentary on Mike's
    tongue-in-cheek series.

         It should go without saying that my nomination of the above mentioned
    series is hereby withdrawn.  Please take note of this, Mr. Burkett.

    Message: 77124
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad, bold lie
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 23:17:35

    For one, that if I won't pray to some god then I am evil and another, off
    the top, that unless a human animal professes a belief in something or
    someone they will not get to become a cloud potato when they physically dump
    their flesh.

    I've read a few religion books from different beliefs and they do not show
    me anything that I am interested in.  Fairy tales were okay when I was a kid
    but if you notice, they all contain something bad, something that will 'get'
    you if you don't follow the rules exactly.

    Message: 77125
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike, boy
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 23:26:17

    I wrote a post and in it there were three words that you objected to.  But
    you keep posting them on the board.  I don't understand.  Hereinafter let's
    refer to them as "The Three Words".  You may give an innocent child the
    wrong idea and that child may grow up to become a rapist or hooker and all
    because you keep posting The Three Words.  Gee, I would think that my
    original with The Three Words in it would have almost scrolled by now.

    How is the oxygen at the airport?  It's only fair when I am out working but
    we have a decent supply here at home, what with all the trees and bushes,
    unsprayed, I might add. Taketh careth brother.

                                    Rod

    Message: 77126
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/R&G
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 23:27:28

    Hey, seen any good lingerie ads?

    Message: 77127
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike on Burkett
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 23:30:38

    Yeah Mike, he sure is some kind of evil SYSOP, eh?  Bad guy there, bad Bill,
    bad Bill.

    Perhaps we should let Jesus decide.  When you go to bed tonight, pray to Him
    and post his answer on this important matter.  We'd all like to know what He
    tells you.

    Thanks,

                                            Rod

    P.S.  I've been meaning to ask Cat what God's voice sounds like.  Is it
    soft, harsh, wimpy, quiet????

    Message: 77128
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Night
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 23:33:53

    Good night, Chet.

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