### Apollo BBS Archive - August 9, 1991

    *=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 7867
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: filling the void
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:04:36

    Hmm, not a lot of activity on here.  Time to fill it up...

    Message: 7868
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (1/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:05:48

    I couldn't help noticing that the Barbarian kept talking about the "bibble",
    but until I read Cliff's post it hadn't occurred to me that he might be
    doing it deliberately to annoy people.  Yes, I know that isn't what Cliff
    said, but as soon as he pointed out that he *does* find it offensive it led
    me naturally to the speculation that it could be deliberate.

    There are two interesting points here that deserve thought.  The first is
    the enormous significance of names and other titles.

    An adjective defines only an attribute of somebody or something.  It's a
    single aspect that must take its place and be seen in perspective among all
    the other aspects of that person or thing.  So you could describe me as
    "brown-haired" or "moderately tall" or "English", and they're just parts of
    who I am.  But nobody would like me or hire me or marry me based on those
    attributes alone.  I have to add lots of other attributes like "friendly" or
    "amusing" or "trustworthy" or "hard-working" or "goal-oriented" or "good-
    looking and sexy" to get them to do that.

    A noun on the other hand purports to be a more or less complete description
    of what something is.  When we say "knife" or "house" or "cosmos" or "George
    Washington", the name gives us a pretty complete picture of what the thing
    or person is supposed to be, the ideas it brings up in our mind and the
    feelings we have about it.

    Message: 7869
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (2/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:06:54

    So we can afford to be free and easy with adjectives, but we have to be very
    careful with nouns.  It's OK to use a noun to describe somebody's *role* in
    a limited context, like "the waiter overcharged me" or "the manager did a
    lousy job".  But the essential property of people is that they're all part
    of the human race and like to be seen as such.  We can safely describe
    people as "brown-haired" or "Jewish" or "Chinese" or "gay" or "Christian"
    and so forth.  But when we use these words as nouns instead, they attain far
    greater significance because they're seen as defining the whole identity of
    the person.

    At this point we have to take into account the person's own attitude to his
    identity.  Being a "trash collector" for example doesn't totally define who
    a person is.  Whether or not he objects to being stuck with a label depends
    on his own attitude to that label, or what he perceives to be other people's
    attitude toward people with that label.  So if some guy is proud of being an
    "American", a "veteran", a "Christian", or whatever, and parades that
    quality assertively in front of others, he won't mind having it used as a
    label to describe his identity.  He also can't object to being described
    with adjective like "Jewish" or "gay" or "Chinese", if these things are
    true.  But if some other people see such qualities negatively, he may well
    regard "Jews" and "gays" and "Chinamen" as insulting words.

    We can insult people with adjectives, by calling them "stupid" or other bad
    things.  But the worst insults we heap on people are usually nouns.

    Message: 7870
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (3/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:08:00

    Even labeling a person with a neutral quality is suspect, if it suggests
    that the label defines completely who a person is.  There's nothing wrong
    with having brown hair, or light hair either.  But if we describe a woman as
    "a brunette" or "a blonde", that doesn't come anywhere near to describing
    who she is, unless we add other facts like "tall" and "maternal" and
    "mathematically inclined" and "agnostic" and "midwestern" and "rich" and
    "soft-spoken" and so forth.  So she might well object to being categorized
    on the basis of one randomly selected physical characteristic.

    Proper names of people are especially important -- "holy", as one Japanese
    colleague of mine wrote when he complained of people misspelling his name.
    (His name was "Oka", which wasn't so hard to spell.)  People in some tribes
    have a "public" name and also a "private" name that is kept secret from all
    except their most intimate friends, in the belief that someone who learns
    your name acquires power over you.  (Remember the fairy tale about
    Rumpelstiltskin?)  Some Native American tribes, as is well known, would give
    a child a name at birth and a second name later on when it became more
    obvious what kind of person he was turning out to be.  The Xhosa tribes of
    South Africa had a most curious taboo.  A woman was not allowed to pronounce
    the names of her mate's male ancestors -- *ever*.  This meant that when she
    said an ordinary word that happened to contain the sound of one of those
    names, she would actually change the sound of the syllable to avoid uttering
    the forbidden name.  And to the Hebrews, of course, the name of the Deity
    was so holy that it was not to be uttered.

    Message: 7871
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (4/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:09:04

    I used to work with a fellow named Ramaswamy Balasubramanian.  It is a bit
    of a mouthful, so some people called him "RB".  He didn't like it much.  And
    it wasn't much effort to call him "Ramaswamy".  I also used to work with a
    fellow whose name was Przezdziecki.  Not surprisingly, people called him
    Joe.  But *he* didn't mind, and that made all the difference.

    I think it behooves us to show good manners by addressing people and groups
    with the names they prefer to be called by.  If the people of "Rhodesia"
    want to call their country "Zimbabwe", I don't see why we should continue to
    name it after someone who to them was just a honky.  And I'm sure that the
    "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" groups would rather we emphasized their
    positive qualities by referring to them as "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

    If somebody wants to adopt a name that is essentially untruthful or
    demeaning to somebody else (like King of the World), we don't have to
    recognize that.  But if (to cite some actual people) David Wallace wants to
    be called David Wallechinsky, or John Stephenson wants to be called Sean
    MacStiofain, or Richard Raskind wants to be called Renee Richards, or
    Cassius Clay wants to be called Mohammed Ali, or a certain person who shall
    remain nameless wants to be called Green Lantern, they have good reasons of
    their own and I think we should respect that.

    Message: 7872
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (5/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:10:10

    We have set ourselves a pretty problem in English by capitalizing some
    titles and not others.  The Germans are more logical in recognizing the
    power of nouns and capitalizing all of them without exception -- as
    Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence.  Capitalization today is
    sometimes a mark of respect, or a recognition that there's only one of
    whatever we're talking about within some universe of discourse.  (Good, I'd
    been looking for a chance to work *that* learned-sounding phrase in
    somewhere!)  People used to write about "my Father" or "my Mother", but they
    rarely do that any longer, even though they still only have one of them.
    I've seen memos suggesting that you "discuss something with your Manager",
    but people who write that are in the minority.  But it seems normal to me to
    write about "the President of the United States", and to go on to refer to
    him simply as "the President".  So *I* was very offended to read in some
    manual of "usage" that one should capitalize "President" but *not* the
    titles of other heads of state; thus if the Queen of England visits the
    U.S., the newspapers report that "the President gave a banquet for the
    queen" with a small "q".  I think this is very arrogant.

    There's no ambiguity about proper nouns in English.  We always capitalize
    them.  We can talk about a matter being "in the lap of the gods", but when
    we talk about "God" *without* an article, we're saying there's only one of
    him and "God" is his proper name.  When people write his name with a small
    "g" I can only infer that they're trying to be rude.  The best response to
    that is to address the offender by name, starting with a lowercase letter.

    Message: 7873
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (6/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:11:15

    The question is, whom are they trying to be rude *to*?  Not, presumably, to
    a god they don't believe in.  Obviously, therefore, to the people they're
    talking to.  This raises an even stickier question, and it's where we came
    in with Cliff's comment.  Granted that it behooves us to treat *people* with
    respect, and address them as "John" or "Fred" as opposed to "hey asshole".
    But what responsibility do we have to treat with respect the things that
    *they* hold sacred?  Especially if somebody happens to hold those same
    things in contempt.

    The answer to this clearly lies in what we're trying to achieve with
    conversation.  I remember the headmaster (that's "principal" to you people)
    of my old school -- a dry old stick he was -- standing up and prating about
    the Purpose of Debate.  "The Purpose of Debate," he intoned solemnly, "is
    not to..." something or other, I'm damned if I can remember what it was now.
    Couldn't have been important.  "The Purpose of Debate," he droned on, "is
    not to Entertain.  That is the job of the Comedian."  I remembered *that*
    point, because I disagreed with it.  First of all, if something's worth
    doing, it's worth having fun while you're doing it.  Secondly, and more to
    the point, if you can make somebody laugh you're more likely to get them on
    your side -- which leads me to what he said last: "The Purpose of Debate,"
    he concluded pompously, "is to Persuade!"

    So if we really want somebody to *listen* to our point of view -- even if
    we're angry -- we're better off not doing things calculated to annoy them.

    Message: 7874
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (7/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:12:19

    If on the other hand our real object is to piss them off, then by all means
    let's go ahead and call them all kinds of a jerk and spit on everything they
    hold sacred.  But let's be honest about what we're doing.

    Conversely, if somebody does something to annoy *us*, especially saying we
    must be dumb to hold some particular view...  well, what are they really
    saying?  If I truly think I'm right about something, and somebody else
    thinks I'm stupid, what does that say?  Either I made an honest mistake,
    which everybody does, and that doesn't make me stupid, it just makes me
    wrong.  No big deal.  Or else *they're* wrong.  In either case, *their*
    opinion of me as "stupid" is completely unfounded.  That makes *them* wrong.
    So why should I get annoyed at somebody who calls me stupid, when the very
    act of doing so proves that they're wrong?

    Um, well, I guess all of that was the first of the "two interesting points
    that deserve thought".  The second one is how we react to people's actions,
    based on what we believe about their intentions.  Cliff thought the
    Barbarian was trying to be offensive by referring to the "bibble".  He could
    be right.  Only the Barbarian himself can tell us the truth.  My belief was
    that the guy simply has trouble with spelling -- which was amply borne out
    by lots of other typos.  I thought of this as the written equivalent of
    spluttering with anger.

    Message: 7875
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Idea for thought
    Subject: Ruminations (8/8)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:13:03

    The point is that if we simply ignore the things people do to piss us off --
    and not seeing them in the first place or "believing they're not there" has
    exactly the same effect -- then we're more likely to respond calmly and
    rationally to an attack.  I don't advise doing this when somebody points a
    gun at you.  I do say that it works with verbal attacks.  All of those
    insults are just so much harmless crap that really translate into a simple
    "I'm angry".  If we did that mental translation every time we saw a rude
    word, we'd find it a lot easier to come up with the right response.

    Message: 7876
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Annie/awe
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 05:20:54

     I'm not confused,dearie. The Hebrew word that is translated "fear"
    indicates a reverential awe as opposed to yet another Hebrew word that
    translates to fear as in terror. Nothing confusing or mysterious about that.

    Message: 7877
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon/bunches
    Dat

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Gordon/your 8

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Great posts.  I like to refer to the bible as the babble.  I think that
     2:fundamentalist religion, because there is a lot of it still in existence,
     3:holds the human back from a better, more clear and concise life.
     4:
     5:Because fundamentialism affects me directly I use some of my free space to
     6:refute it, whenever and where ever I can.
     7:
     8:I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
     9:I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning.  So, I like to say Xtian
    10:and that god is a dork and such stuff.  I like to piss people off who piss
    11:me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
    12:passages.
    13:
    14:But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
    15:It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
    16:my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him."  It freaked me out and
    17:I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
    18:
    19:I just remember the head trip that I got from  the experience and I am a
    20:sharing kind of guy.
    21:
    22:Again, good posts,
    2 lines left
    23:                                Rod
    1 line left
    24:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 7905

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$RC

    Press  to abort

    Message: 7877
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon/bunches
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 05:30:19

     Like WOW! An 11 post message on the main  board, and then an 8 post message
    here!
     Do you stay up all night thinking on these things?
     Strange part of it is, I really dislike such loooooooooooong messages, but
    yours are about the only such that I take the time to really read. Thanks
    for taking the time to post them, even the points with which I don't
    necessarily agree.

    Message: 7878
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: 2nd Law
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 07:47:00

    Give me a break.  Take a break from chemistry and read some physics. Learn
    just where and how the 2nd law gets applied, and where it doesn't. And what
    forces can seem to repudiate it.

    You talk about fundamental laws which "govern the extent of our
    capabilities. One of these is that everything has a beginning and an end."

    What do you mean by "our capabilities" ??? The human capacity to function?
    Perhaps the human capacity to think?  Or do you mean something more
    "universal" than that -- like that the Universe has to have a beginning and
    an end, or that God has to have a beginning and an end?  If we're going to
    consider evidence irrefutable ...

    Message: 7879
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Names
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 07:56:51

    I have noticed, since the Green Lantern scandal, that the users of this
    system continue to address me as Beau while proclaiming the need to address
    Green Lantern by what they presume is his "real" name.  I also recall that
    the switch to "Felix" by another user didn't bother folks too much.

    No persuasion here, just bringing up a few observations.  Probably not even
    entertaining.

    Reverend Beauregard Jackson Culpeper Dog, Colonel, CSA, retired

    Message: 7880
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Gordon: Idiot, Huh?
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 08:04:02

    > will-I-am will always be an idiot. [...] I think Bill might
    > have something to say about [that] sentence...

    Yes:  I have to agree.  (With the sentence, not that I might have something
    to say about it.)

    Message: 7881
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Gordon's Ruminations
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 08:04:28

    Re your Ruminations (8/8):  Wonderful stuff.  Should be required reading by
    all!

    Message: 7882
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Beau
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 09:26:14

    I think the reason people are/were upset about the name "$ Green Lantern"
    is the way he insisted that he wasn't the same person who used to log on as
    "$ Roger Mann" in spite of a lot of evidence that he was.  People don't like
    being lied to.  "$ Felix Cat" came right out and said that he was changing
    his BBS name, so no-one got upset.

    Message: 7883
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Pauley on awe
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 10:23:20

    But I speak English and the Bible is written in English, right? Why would
    anyone have to know Hebrew? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7884
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon on you 8
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 10:25:52

    Veddy interesting! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7885
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 12:51:46

    I suppose the topics discussed on here float in and out of my head at all
    sorts of odd moments, and then I feel a sudden urge to write something.
    It's a bit like a sudden urge to...  well, I suppose I could think of a lot
    of parallels!

    As far as taking the time goes, the pieces I posted last night were both
    ones that I'd started writing previously.  Just so happened that they got
    finished together, so the result was probably a bit like dropping two bombs.

    Message: 7886
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Names vs. Handles
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 21:01:15

    Well, you might try to let them wriggle out that way, but I remember at
    least one who insisted that it just wasn't right to address someone by the
    handle when you knew their name.

    Message: 7887
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Bill
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 23:12:53

    Thanks for the comment, Bill!

    Re 7880: Aren't you being too modest?  :)

    Message: 7888
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul Savage
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 01:04:05

    I have seen plenty of messages where you tell people, "Oh, you're going to
    hell!  The bible says it, I interpret it, I judge you".  Shall we put it to
    a vote?

    Message: 7889
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Names
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 05:30:41

     Speaking strictly for myself, ROn, I have no problem at all calling you
    Beau Dog, nor do I have a problem with referring to Bob Thornburg as Felix,
    since neither of you ever tried to hide your true identity behind some
    half-baked subterfuge. I do, however, have a problem with the underhanded,
    tacky way that Roger Mann turned himself into the green lantern, and do not
    choose to go along with the ploy. That is my opinion, and that is my choice.
    By refusing to recognize a phony name, I am not demeaning or insulting any
    real user of this BBS, and so am not breaking any rules. Therefore, I will
    continue to refer to that individual as Roger Lantern, Green Mann or
    whatever uninsulting term comes to mind. I believe such a practice falls
    under my constitutional right of free expression, doesn't it?

    Message: 7890
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 05:33:34

     One doesn't really have to KNOW Hebrew, Annie. Just realize that there are
    many expressions in Hebrew and NT Gr

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Paul/Green Lantern

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Don't you have the capability to live and let live?
     2:
     3:

    Edit command:

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command:

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command:

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command:

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command:

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command:A

    Message entry aborted

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$RC

    Press  to abort

    Message: 7890
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 05:33:34

     One doesn't really have to KNOW Hebrew, Annie. Just realize that there are
    many expressions in Hebrew and NT Greek that can and do have more than one
    interpretation when translated into English. A good concordance, such as
    Strong's, would help a lot in this regard, and would enhance your study of
    God's Word and your understanding of it.

    Message: 7891
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James Hawley
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 05:37:31

    Like you, I have opinions. Like you, I exercize my right to express those
    opinions, as opinions. I judge nobody at any time. Judgement is not in my
    nomenclature. Take all the votes you wish. If it is your opinion that I
    judge anyone, that is your opinion, nothing more.

    Message: 7892
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 08:00:10

    > Re 7880: Aren't you being too modest?  :)

    Oh, all right.  I'm usually more of a FLAMING idiot.

    Geez.  Now I'm embarrassed.

    Message: 7893
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Beau dog
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 17:21:13

    BD> What do you mean by "our capabilities" ???

    Our capabilities; meaning our ability to measure and size up the world we
    live in with what we have available to us to do so. Some very obvious
    limitations are our own senses. Granted they're quite marvelous, but
    totally inapropriate for the most part of science. We are finding the
    need for more and more "test" equipment...equipment geared for our
    limited senses to sense activity we could otherwise not. So it bears
    to reason there are more things about us that we cannot sense even
    with existing equipment. -Still more stuff to discover. If you had
    told someone 100 years ago you could prove the existance of atoms by
    writing your name with 50 of them they'd laughed you out of the town.

    Our ability to sense and measure is very limited compared to what we'd
    like to sense and measure. Wouldn't you aggree?

    RE: 2nd law: There's no such thing as a true representation of a closed
    set. Physically impossible. You cannot truly isolate a part of the
    earth from itself. You are always bound to it. Mathematically this is
    equivalent to the "Paradox of set". ; Is the set complete without
    including itself as a part of the set? Again, nice try, no cigars.
    You've given no evidence to refute the matter and energy issue, where
    do you come up with your foundation for your set of religious beliefs in
    the "Biggie Bang Theory"?

    Message: 7894
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Ann/Hebrew
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 18:29:17

      You speak English and Don Quixote is written in English, so why should
    anyone have to learn Spanish? You speak English and 'Crime and Punishment'
    is written in English, so why bother to learn Russian?  Or have you never
    heard that sometimes subtle and important nuances sometimes get
    lost in translation?

    Message: 7895
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 20:19:50

    OK, no closed system. Therefore, there will be what seem like exceptions to
    the 2nd law. Therefore, the second law may not apply in all of the cases
    which you'd like to think it does.

    I don't know what you're on about with this matter-and-energy thing. I
    maintain that it was all around at the big bang, and seems to have been
    spreading since.  Of course, it may *not* have been a big bang, but that
    seems to be the best explanation for a universe that seems to be expanding
    in all directions from a common center.

    So we're broadening our horizons with explorations into the very small, the
    very distant, and the very large (strings of galaxies, etc.).  Are you going
    to tie that observation to part of this discussion? Perhaps you'll go back
    to your comment in 7895 and my 7878 and see how your definition of
    capabilities can be used to show that God doesn't have to have a beginning
    and an end, or that the Universe can't be eternal?  Perhaps our limitations
    are really in fathoming the infinite?

    Message: 7896
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann / 7848
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 21:55:24

        I've known of terminal patients that have asked for the 23rd Psalm or
    some other text of comfort to be read to them.  In their hour of pain, the
    only thing that helps them through the pain and the agony is knowing that
    their God is with them.
         I think that it's rather unfair of you to assume the thoughts of the
    dying, much less group them together as a whole.  How do you know?
         Too many people gauge the quality of life on material things and
    superficial matters.  Who are we to attempt to search the hearts and minds
    of the elderly and terminally ill?

    Message: 7897
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann / 7849
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:00:12

        No, I'm not going to 'whip out' that Bible that you seem to hate so
    much.  But I am going to disagree with you.  So the ostrich has a bone that
    disappears before it is born, and the evolutionists claim that it is
    identical to a dinosaur bone?  It doesn't prove that at all.  It just proves
    that it has a bone that disappears before it is born (and I would want to
    research that matter for myself anyhow).  Anyhow, that is a rather flimsy
    attempt at evidence toward 'proving' that birds evolved from reptiles.  It
    proves nothing.  "They could NOT have evolved from this to now in a scant
    8,000."  You know, I agree with you there.  And you want to know why?
    Because they didn't evolve at all.

    Message: 7898
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon / Evolution
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:15:25

        Good post.  I don't think that there will be any way to accurately gauge
    the actual age of the earth.  Since we only have the present and not the
    past, we can only really speculate.  We have no way of testing the accuracy
    of any dating system.  In the end, creationism and evolutionism (really the
    only two world views on the matter) are belief systems, religions if you
    will, with a set of dogmas, beliefs and creeds.  Each one attempts to
    interpret the scientific evidence in light of it's own religious beliefs.
    Personally, I feel that the creation scientists seem to do a better job of
    it.  But I don't expect anyone to agree with me, just as I don't expect to
    see eye to eye with a Jehovah's Witness.

    Message: 7899
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff / "Bibble"
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:19:30

        I find it offensive as well, however it is not the first superficial
    attack I have seen taken out on the Bible, and it certainly won't be the
    last.  I have only my own life and actions to be held personally responsible
    for, and if someone feels that it is his lot in life to behave in such
    fashion, that is his personal decision.  However, if he is wrong and we are
    right, then he will come to a day when he will have to accept
    responsibility for his actions.

    Message: 7900
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Beau's list.
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:21:07

    I am.  We are.  I always will be.

    Message: 7901
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike on Prayer
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:24:45

        When nothing else can be done, prayer is a Christian's most effective
    tool.

    "Get on your knees and fight like a man!" - (Petra)

    Message: 7902
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann / 7863
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:34:15

    Annie, Annie, Annie.  Sometimes you amaze me.  Have you forgotten that the
    Bible was not originally penned in English?  The Hebrew and Greek words from
    which all English versions are translated do not have single one-definition
    word-for-word meanings that can always be rendered into English in one word.

    The TEV reads, "To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the
    LORD.  Stupid people have no respect for wisdom and refuse to learn."

    The Amplified Bible (one of the few versions that attempts to convey all the
    richness and depth of meaning found in the original manuscripts) reads, "The
    reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord is the beginning and the principal
    and choice part of knowledge - that is, its starting point and its essence;
    but fools despise skillful and godly wisdom, instruction and discipline."

    Message: 7903
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann / Bible
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:46:58

          Ann, the Bible is NOT written in English.  It is written in Hebrew,
    Greek and portions in Aramaic and is TRANSLATED into English.  The fact that
    English and these languages are not 100% literally and structurally
    compatible shows the importance of at LEAST knowing how to get definitions
    of certain words (such as a Hebrew/Greek lexicon).

    Message: 7904
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: James / 7888
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:49:25

         Hey, it's my personal belief that anyone who dies rejecting the Son of
    God is going to have a very unpleasant afterlife.  I do not make apologies
    for it.  If I felt I had to, then my beliefs would not be very strong, now
    would they?  I feel that Paul will agree here.

    Message: 7905
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon/your 8
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 23:43:55

    Great posts.  I like to refer to the bible as the babble.  I think that
    fundamentalist religion, because there is a lot of it still in existence,
    holds the human back from a better, more clear and concise life.

    Because fundamentialism affects me directly I use some of my free space to
    refute it, whenever and where ever I can.

    I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
    I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning.  So, I like to say Xtian
    and that god is a dork and such stuff.  I like to piss people off who piss
    me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
    passages.

    But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
    It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
    my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him."  It freaked me out and
    I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.

    I just remember the head trip that I got from  the experience and I am a
    sharing kind of guy.

    Again, good posts,
                                    Rod

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:UIP

    Message to update (7856-7905):7905

    Edit command:F

    Range of lines to fill:

    Invalid line number

    Edit command:L7

     7:
     8:I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
     9:I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning.  So, I like to say Xtian
    10:and that god is a dork and such stuff.  I like to piss people off who piss
    11:me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
    12:passages.
    13:
    14:But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
    15:It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
    16:my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him."  It freaked me out and
    17:I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
    18:
    19:I just remember the head trip that I got from  the experience and I am a
    20:sharing kind of guy.
    21:
    22:Again, good posts,
    23:                                Rod

    Edit command:E7

    Cannot edit an empty line, use eplace

    Edit command:E8

     8:I can and have posted without using a red harring but the answer or comment
    Find text:harring
    Replace text:herring

     8:I can and have posted without using a red herring but the answer or comment
    Find text:

    Edit command:L8

     8:I can and have posted without using a red herring but the answer or comment
     9:I receive from the fundamentialists are demeaning.  So, I like to say Xtian
    10:and that god is a dork and such stuff.  I like to piss people off who piss
    11:me off, who are rude enough to answer my posts with meaningless bible
    12:passages.
    13:
    14:But another reason I do it, and it was the main reason, was to shock minds.
    15:It all came about around 1969 when I was a self-taught Christian and I heard
    16:my best friend of 15 years say, "Damn God, damn Him."  It freaked me out and
    17:I expected a lightening bolt to hit him or for him to die in the night.
    18:
    19:I just remember the head trip that I got from  the experience and I am a
    20:sharing kind of guy.
    21:
    22:Again, good posts,
    23:                                Rod

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 7905

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 4972
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Pee
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 10:34:06

    No one told me who saw his privates? Did he expose himself to the general
    public or just to some people in the back room of the place? If he came out
    of the back waving his Talley Whacker, then he should have been arrested. If
    he were in the back with himself exposed, so what? Are the police so naive
    as to think these guys never get a hard on - take it out of their pants??

    Why are the police spending money staking out a place like that unless there
    was reports of exposure to people that didn't want to see such things?
    People that go to such places are fair game for seeing something like that -
    along with moans, groans and sighs! If he went out on the street with his
    THANG hanging down - or standing up, what ever, then he should have been put
    in the slammer. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 4973
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Geez...
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 21:03:30

    He was in an adult movie theatre, not a book store.  There were three films
    showing (sequentially, on the same screen).  It was dark.  Some undercover
    cops were apparently wandering about the theatre during the movie. At least
    one of them allegedly saw Pee Wee expose himself.

    Pee Wee has admitted to being in the theatre, but no more.

    Message: 4974
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Doggy last
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 07:17:44

    Those cops get paid to wonder around those kinds of movies? I could think of
    a lot of places they would be needed more. I don't think Pee Wee comitted
    any unpardonable sin - but if he intended to continue his career, not only
    should he NOT of exposed himself, he shouldn't be going near those places! I
    don't think he should be prosecuted though. That's silly. I can understand
    parents banning him now on the other hand. Such is life. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 4975
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: You lot
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 17:29:23

    It's pa{ently hilarious to watch you guys dance around the true
    issue here with the cops.
    SOmeone said the cops's budget is too fat or words to that effect.
    Gee. Another expert observation by someone who probably knows
    everything there is to know, no doubt.
    Let me interject some common sense and see what happens;
    Cops are paid and governed by the local City for whom they serve.
    If a citizen complains about criminal activity in their area, one
    would expect them to show up, wouldn't one?
    If you took your hand away from your noses, you might put 2 and 2
    together...but it might ruin one of your pet arguments in the running.
    The cops are *always* going to porn shoppes because CRIME AND VIOLENCE
    tend to inhabit some..read *SOME* of them.
    Did you ever take a minute out to think that maybe, perhaps the cops
    are there to curb or catch criminals and not just sex crimes?

    The fact is, DRUGS are a large part of the porno-goer's lore these
    days. Did your infintesimal imaginations ever dream there could be
    another reason for the cops being at the place Pee Wee just happened
    to be?
    Or is it oh-so too convenient to blast the cops for doing their jobs
    you really have no fucking idea about anyway ?

    Message: 4976
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Buzzz!
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 20:25:06

    Thanks for playing, though, Mike.

    This *was* a 'sting' operation against the patrons of the theatre.

    (Not really a sting, but they went in knowing what they were going to get)

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Cosmos-Chatter

    Subject:last

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Off?
     2:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 4977

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:R4977

    Message: 4977
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 23:54:12

    Off?

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* FILm & Video Bulletin Board entered *=*

    FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 1752
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: PC Robin Hood
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 07:58:56

    Someone suggested out that Robin Hood was PC.  I *will* mention that there
    is a big surprise when King Richard makes his appearance.

    Message: 1753
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Costner
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 07:59:27

    You know, I'm not sure he's the right actor for *any* part, except perhaps
    "The Kevin Costner Story."

    Message: 1754
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 17:40:48

    That'd be pretty boring.

    FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 77450
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: room for one more?
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:17:28

    Wow, only four posts since early this evening!  What would we do without
    Rod?  Time to fill this board up a bit, too...

    Message: 77451
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (1/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:18:39

    I've stopped referring to "porn" because the word itself (from the Greek
    word for "harlot") imposes a prejudice in people's minds that labels it
    "bad" right from the outset.  I prefer the neutral word describing simply
    "something that arouses erotic instincts".

    I haven't seen a single argument here to convince me that ordinary erotica
    showing normal sex between two people is in any way harmful.  To be quite
    clear about this, what I mean by "harmful" is that the sale of erotica in
    some way contributes to crime, to violence, to bad relationships between
    people, or somehow causes the breakdown of society.  Conversely, if we made
    erotica unavailable to people, I don't believe for one moment that the evils
    we have in society today would magically disappear, or even dwindle a bit.

    Let me start off by stating what I believe to be ideal goals concerning sex.
    One, we need to reproduce ourselves.  Two, people ought to have close,
    honest, and loving relationships.  Three, people have a right to enjoy the
    fulfillment of their sexual desires.  And four, people shouldn't abuse one
    another.  That's all we need to say.

    The *enjoyment* of sex is extremely important, and has a very positive value
    to society.  Couples only have sex once in a while in order to reproduce.
    The rest of the time, they do it because they like it.  And if they *do*
    like it, they like one another more.

    Message: 77452
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (2/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:19:44

    We have a strong interest in keeping couples together in the long term, not
    least for the sake of any children they might have.  I certainly don't say
    that sex is all there is to marriage, but I do say that sexual difficulties
    can and do ruin marriages, and conversely that sex can be a powerful bonding
    factor that motivates people to work on other problems they might have in
    their relationship.  Good sex is in everybody's interest.

    Now, what influence does erotica have on couple relationships?  Two good
    ones that I can think of.  One, a number of couples (a large number if I can
    believe what I hear) like to look at various kinds of erotica and,
    especially in the age of the VCR, rent erotic movies.  They watch this stuff
    together and get turned on.  And then they go and enjoy one another.  The
    movie intensifies their enjoyment.  It contributes to exciting sex, and
    therefore to good bonding.  Who can argue with that?

    The second point concerns the general atmosphere of openness about sex that
    erotica encourages.  The fact that something appears in a book, or a
    picture, or a movie, is evidence that the creator of the work believes it is
    OK to feel these feelings and enjoy doing these things and to communicate
    those facts openly to other people.  That openness has a real effect on the
    viewer's belief system about what is OK and what he or she "ought to" feel
    guilty about.  It encourages people to be honest with *one another* about
    what they like and want, or don't want.  A close relationship must be based
    on honest sharing of self, not on concealment through fear of disapproval.

    Message: 77453
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (3/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:20:49

    I can imagine that thousands, perhaps even millions, of people might have
    wanted to suggest something to their mate, or share some fantasy, and felt
    too awkward to do so.  Then perhaps they might watch an erotic movie
    together and the subject matter gave them exactly the cue they needed to say
    what they felt, or wanted -- as well as the "permission" to do so.  This can
    only be positive.

    Now, what are the alleged drawbacks of erotica as far as couple
    relationships are concerned?  I've heard somebody say that "there's
    something wrong if couples need a dirty movie to get turned on".  Maybe
    there is.  But if there is, it isn't a problem that will be solved by making
    the erotica unavailable.  The problem is there anyway.  If anything, viewing
    erotica is likely to stimulate more open discussion that could lead to
    solving the problem.  And even if it doesn't, I would far sooner see couples
    having good sex with the crutch of erotica that not having any sex at all.

    Some people are concerned about what happens if a child should stumble on an
    erotic movie -- whether the movie stars the child's parents or someone
    entirely different.  Now I don't think erotic scenes should be intentionally
    inflicted on a child.  Prepubertal children don't have the emotional
    equipment to *share* in a sexual experience with another person.  They can't
    understand the feelings involved.  Unlike sharing a game or a fishing trip
    with a child, the only person who gets any pleasure out of it is the adult.

    Message: 77454
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (4/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:22:19

    So showing an openly erotic scene to a child is confusing to the child.  How
    is he or she expected to react?  Not the same way that the adult does,
    obviously; that just isn't possible.  The adult gets some kind of
    gratification, but the child is probably uncertain and scared.  This is a
    kind of molestation.

    However, the key word here is "inflicted".  If a child, alone, should happen
    to come across an erotic videotape and watch it, the experience may be
    puzzling, even stimulating; but at the same time the child has complete
    control over the situation and can stop at any time.  Adults *do* do things
    that puzzle children.  Children do stumble on their parents making love, or
    see things they "shouldn't".  These things don't do any harm.  I wouldn't
    show an erotic movie to my daughter deliberately, but neither would I be
    worried if she happened to see part of one somewhere.  If it did happen, I
    would hope -- furthermore, I would *expect*, knowing her -- that she would
    tell me or my wife about it, and probably ask some pertinent questions.

    I would add two points of caution.  One is that I assume parents should, and
    do, discuss sex openly with their children.  If a child is given the message
    that discussion of sex is off limits, there is no outlet to resolve feelings
    or confusion about sex.  I strongly suspect that some people who are opposed
    to erotica are also opposed to sex education and are uncomfortable
    discussing sex with their children.  This is their problem.  Unfortunately
    they make it their children's problem as well.

    Message: 77455
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (5/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:23:30

    The second point is the precise content of any sexual scene viewed by a
    child.  I wouldn't worry about a child who happened to see a bit of the
    Playboy channel, any more than I'd worry about a child who walked into the
    bedroom and surprised his parents making love, or stumbled across a couple
    doing something out in a field somewhere.  (Of course, I wouldn't want a
    child to have a steady diet of that stuff!)  But I would worry about a child
    whose first exposure to sex was in the context of violence or some other
    perversion.  I suspect that the first exposure to sex makes a very great
    impression, and as such it ought to be a good one.

    I'm reminded of a story I once read in a book called "The Sexual Deviate"
    about a young man who was attracted to animals.  According to the author,
    this young man lived on a farm as a boy, and at the age of nine he witnessed
    a bull and a cow copulating.  "Through some tortuous mental process that
    need not concern us here," wrote the author (thus bugging the hell out of me
    because that "tortuous mental process" was *exactly* what I'd like to have
    understood; but this wasn't a really scholarly book), "he came to regard the
    cow as a suitable object for his own lust..."  I'm not suggesting that every
    farm boy who saw such a thing would be attracted to bestiality.  But clearly
    that early experience was formative for somebody naive and uninformed.  In
    my opinion the best antidote to such things is open discussion and sex
    education for young children.  I don't mean erotic movies.  I do mean clear
    statements about what sex entails in a mechanical sense.  Children will fill
    in the emotional part for themselves when they're ready.

    Message: 77456
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (6/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:24:40

    As a side benefit for young children, open discussion of sex helps to
    protect them against molestation.  A child isn't afraid to come to Mom or
    Dad and complain that "Johnny hit me".  Many children *are* afraid to come
    to Mom or Dad and say that "Mr. Smith tried to put his hand up my skirt."
    They don't understand what's going on to begin with, and afterwards they
    think they aren't allowed to talk about it.  If they *know* they're allowed
    to talk about it, they can say "no", they know they will get reassurance and
    support, and you can go round to Mr. Smith's house and sort the bugger out.

    But I'm digressing as usual.  The difference between a child stumbling on a
    movie that's simply "erotic" and one that's violent -- showing a rape, for
    example -- is quite considerable.  There is a good argument against violent
    pornography.  The only question, as I've said before, is where to draw the
    line.  I'm sure a lot of people like to play bondage games and similar
    things, and I can't see any objection to anything people do with one
    another's consent.

    Now, what other objections to erotica have I heard?  That it excites
    prurient interests.  I'm trying to figure out precisely what this means.
    The assumption is that it means something bad (oops, I typed "bed" and had
    to correct it; must be getting late, Sigmund).  So what is it that's bad?
    Is it the fact that the viewer is getting turned on?  Sorry, I totally
    disagree that "getting turned on" is bad.  It's a perfectly normal
    physiological function, and nothing to feel guilty about.

    Message: 77457
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (7/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:25:47

    The only other thing I can think of is that the viewer (let's say it's a
    man) is identifying with the male figure in the scene and fantasizing making
    love with the woman.  And of course, he's NOT MARRIED to her!  Sorry, I have
    to totally disagree that this is "wrong" also.  I always make a very clear
    distinction between feelings (or fantasies) and behavior.  I can think of
    some very objectionable people I've known whose heads I would love to bash
    in.  That's "feelings" and "fantasy".  But what goes on in my head doesn't
    hurt anybody at all.  If I were to act out those fantasies, on the other
    hand, that would be very wrong.  So I would never consider doing such a
    thing.  We can only be held to account for our acts, not for our thoughts.

    All right, so this viewer has a fantasy about making love to this woman.
    But is he going to be encouraged to act out such a fantasy?  The answer is
    that he can't, because the woman in the movie is inaccessible to him.  He
    can only seek to make love with some other woman.  It might well be his
    wife!  If it isn't -- or if he isn't married -- you can rest assured that he
    would have cooked up such desires spontaneously in any case.

    Perhaps the real objection to erotica is that it encourages people to think
    about sex.  Again, to me sex is a normal function, and I see nothing wrong
    with it.  Attempting to inflict guilt is self-serving moralizing.

    Another objection I keep hearing is that erotica is "addictive".  People get
    hooked on it, so they say.

    Message: 77458
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (8/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:26:56

    The best way to tackle this question is first to ask what kind of people get
    hooked on erotica, and second -- because this is the point -- to ask how it
    would help if erotica were banned.

    What kind of people do use erotica to the extent that they feel "hooked"?
    As I said before, erotic feelings are something that should ideally be
    shared with another human being and used to build relationships of intimacy.
    In order to do that, you have to have trust that your feelings and desires
    will be accepted.  Now I would say that *all* of the people who feel
    "addicted" to erotica share one characteristic: that they believe they have
    no opportunity to share their desires safely with a partner.  That's why
    they're sitting alone with their books and films, instead of with somebody.

    What kind of people are they?  The first kind of person is the one who can't
    share because he feels guilty about any kind of sexual feelings.  The guilt
    is HIS problem, not anybody else's.  He isn't hurting anybody by sitting
    alone and drooling over erotica.  If you took the erotica away, he might be
    frustrated.  Or he might be grateful because you "removed the temptation".
    But it isn't our responsibility to remove people's temptation to do things
    that don't hurt anybody and aren't wrong in the first place.  It's up to
    them to sort their own heads out.  Are they more likely to sort their own
    heads out if we do remove the erotica?  No way!  They'll just bury their
    guilt problem and pretend it doesn't exist.  If they *do* have the erotica
    at least they may eventually face up to whatever problem they do have.

    Message: 77459
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (9/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:28:01

    The second kind of person is allied to the first.  Perhaps he's married, but
    he'd like something his wife isn't giving him.  Perhaps she can't help it.
    Perhaps he made the mistake of marrying a blonde when he has a secret
    hankering after redheads.  Or perhaps there's something he'd like to do
    sexually that's distasteful to his wife.  So he'll look at his erotica and
    fantasize.  No big deal.  What happens if you take it away?  He'll look at
    other women and fantasize.  Or maybe do more than fantasize.  Now is that
    better or worse?  Perhaps if his wife discovers his erotica she'll be
    shocked.  Or perhaps it will give him an opportunity to talk to her about
    it.  If she won't talk, that's her fault, not his.  Perhaps he can get her
    to dye her hair red, or whatever turns him on!  Or perhaps she's a bitch who
    isn't prepared to accept him for who he is and what he wants anyway.  Either
    way, it's a wash.

    The third kind of person is simply the one who's too shy to form a
    relationship.  Does erotica help him or hinder him?  It gives him an outlet,
    so that's pleasant at least.  Does it discourage him from seeking out a real
    relationship, because it's easier to look at erotica?  Or is he stimulated
    to look for something more real?  I don't know; but either way, he isn't
    doing any harm to anyone else.

    The fourth kind of person, either temporarily or permanently, is not able to
    engage in a relationship with anyone for some practical reason.  Again,
    erotica provides an outlet for him without hurting anybody else.

    Message: 77460
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (10/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:29:04

    The last kind of person is the one with some kind of kink.  If he's into
    some strange fetish, or violent sadism, or something along those lines, it's
    something that he *can't* safely share with a partner, because there's
    nobody who would want to sit down and rub him all over with fur, or stand
    still while he cuts them to pieces with a knife.  This guy is a loner
    because he has to be.  So of course he will use erotica to stimulate his
    fantasies.  And when he does some woman in and they cart him off to jail, he
    will have vivid memories of all those lonely evenings sitting in front of a
    magazine or a TV screen looking at images and fantasizing what he'd like to
    do to the women in them.  If five percent of men commit violent crimes, and
    ninety percent of those use erotica to stimulate their sick fantasies, of
    COURSE you're going to find a connection between the two.  I've said it
    twice before already, and I'll say it again: the porn did *not* cause the
    violence.  The violent tendencies that were *already* in existence could
    only be gratified by using porn -- or by acting them out.

    So what happens if you take the erotica away?  These guys will make their
    own.  In their heads.  Or they'll cut out pictures of women and draw
    mutilations on them or stick knives in them or whatever.  You will *not*
    stop violence by suppressing erotica.

    Again, I might make an exception in the case of violent or sadistic porn, on
    the grounds that it "gives permission" to indulge in such acts.  But again
    the question is, where do we draw the line?

    Message: 77461
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Erotica (11/11)
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:29:47

    Perhaps one answer is to license the sale of the nasty stuff so that we can
    keep tabs on the people who buy it.  Such an idea seems un-American, but we
    do have the concept of "registered sex offenders", so maybe it isn't totally
    without precedent.

    But those who would support banning any kind of erotica I totally disagree
    with.  I don't buy "saving" people from their addictions when the cause --
    and the cure -- of those addictions are in their own head.  Especially when
    they're not harming anybody else, and when removal of the "drug" will only
    substitute one set of problems for another.

    I really suspect that the lack of clear thinking about sex is still a
    hangover of the puritanical attitudes we've been poisoned with for
    centuries.  It's high time we exorcised this demon of guilt.

    Message: 77462
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: Ann/statuary
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 04:30:55

    In Hemel Hempstead, where I used to live, the Borough Council in the 1960s
    erected a bronze statue of a Greek discus-thrower.  After it had been there
    a while, a few people complained about the statue's anatomical correctness.
    So the Borough Council responded by "accessorizing" the statue, as we would
    say today, with a matching bronze fig-leaf to cover the offending parts.
    (It's a good thing they hadn't gone too far in erecting the statue to begin
    with, otherwise they would have had to use a much bigger fig-leaf.)

    Anyway, it wasn't too long before somebody in the town couldn't resist the
    impulse to add a fig-leaf to his personal collection of souvenirs.  Suddenly
    the statue was "au naturel" again.  But the Borough Council reacted swiftly.
    With commendable foresight, they had ordered not *one* fig-leaf, but a whole
    batch of them, to cover just such a contingency.  The statue's modesty was
    restored within a day or two.

    Still, what can be done once can be done again, and within a short time the
    second fig-leaf had also disappeared.  The Borough Council responded again.
    So a war of attrition ensued, with anonymous members of the public stealing
    fig-leaves as fast as the Borough Council could put them back on.  As far as
    I remember, they eventually gave up.

    The whole business was reported in the local newspaper, the "Gazette", and
    needless to say most people (myself included) found it all screamingly
    funny.  What would life be like without a few prudes to laugh at?

    Message: 77463
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pornography
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 08:39:38

    An argument could be made that "sick porn" (pornography that shows violent
    mistreatment of people or animals) may make such behavior seem more
    acceptable to those that are so inclined, but I think this kind of material
    is a tiny percentage of what's out there now that women are part of the
    target audience.

    Message: 77464
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: conscious planning
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 09:39:43

    One of the points I was trying to make is that the parts of us that
    interefere with the plans we consciously make may be aware of factors we
    didn't consider when we made the plans.  If the unconscious or semiconscious
    influences make it TOO difficult to follow through, maybe we shouldn't try
    so hard.  On the other hand, some disciplined, goal-oriented people seem to
    make themselves happy with achievements that can only be accomplished
    through strength of will and sacrifice.  I don't think it's possible to
    become a doctor or a double-E without going through a period of doing a lot
    of things you don't feel like most of your waking hours, but I can see how
    this could be rewarding in the long run.  Is the reward THEN worth the
    suffering NOW?

    Message: 77465
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 09:45:25

    I know what you mean regarding improving conscious planning to work around
    limitations caused by unconscious influences.  I now know myself well enough
    to recognize that I'm NOT going to feel like doing anything for a couple
    hours after I get home from work, so I stop to exercize, go grocery
    shopping, and such on the way home, rather than going straight home and then
    feeling guilty for not getting off the couch to go out and get this stuff
    done.

    Message: 77466
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon on fig leaf
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 10:13:55

    That was hilarious. I can imagine the city government asking the main
    government for help in paying for fig leaves! I guess it works like that
    over there. Anyway - funnnnnnie! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77467
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Children
    Date: 08/08/91  Time: 22:38:14

      I like Rod's post on puberty and the effects that occur there, and I would
    like to add a couple of other ideas.  It is regrettable and unfortunate that
    there has been a lot of religious teaching that sex is inherently 'bad' and
    that youngsters will go to hell for their curiosity about it. There has been
    a lot of reaction to that kind of teaching... overreaction, I might say.
      The ideal for parents would be to notice that developing interest,
    curiousity, and desires, and teach their children... not that sex is bad,
    dirty, or that they will go to hell, but that their desires should be
    controlled and restrained until the proper time for their expression...
    which is within marriage. The natural consequence of the desire to mate is
    that one of the two people gets pregnant: and begetting a child with making
    provisions for a stable family life and its proper nourishment and support
    is immoral. There are other reasons for the various restrictions taught by
    Jews, Christians, and others, on sexual behavior.
      Unrestrained and unrestricted sex is destructive...to societies as well as
    individuals. The sexual desires Rod speaks of are too powerful to be treated
    casually or lightly, as modern libertines would have it, and too strong
    (for most people) to be entirely ignored or suppressed, as mistaken
    religionists would have it.

    Message: 77468
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 01:49:53

    My dictonary defines pornography as: Obscene literature, photographs,
    paintings, etc., intended to cause sexual excitement.
    (The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language 1989)

    Therefore you stated that if a couple made a tape of themselves and viewed
    it later, obviously becoming sexually excited, it is porn.  So you do
    believe that some porn is acceptable.

    Message: 77469
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Tape
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 02:13:34

      I don't belong to the COSmos SIG, and it wouldn't be appropriate
    to review an explicit adult film in the FILm SIG. I was essentially
    joking when I made reference to posting a complete review of the tape.
    Your series on erotica was very good. I agree that using the word
    'pornography' carries a negative connotation, but at least it offers
    the advantage of being readily shortened to 'porn' for the writer who
    is getting lazy or tired or needs to make a rhyme with 'reborn'.
       See You later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 77470
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/Porn
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 02:14:33

      I am not sure if the fault is more yours or mine, but the full, intended
    meaning of some of what I have been saying doesn't seem to have gotten
    through. For example, from your recent posts:
     >Your original message stated that "Theism" said sex was impossible
     >and unenjoyable outside of the "rigid" rules. You also claim that
     >sex outside of this is threatless and perfectly safe. Wrongo.
    Yes, those statements are wrongo, but they are not accurate interpretations
    of what I wrote. I said that theists portray sex, when it is without their
    benediction, as being evil, dangerous, and unfulfilling. And I said that
    pornography presents a conflicting image, I didn't say that all sex was
    always completely harmless. My position has always been that the truth lies
    in-between the 'death and damnation' position of theism and the 'wide-open
    anything goes' fantasy images of pornography. In truth, the kind of sex
    theism would never condone can be enjoyed without undue risk, but some care
    must be taken in the who and the how.
     >Statistic clearly show STD's are skyrocketing. Perhaps they know, but
     >like you choose to ingnore the warnings?
    The fact that a lot of people are contracting STD's does not negate my
    statement that everyone is well aware that they exist. Some still don't
    know how they work and how to avoid them. And of course, where AIDS is
    concerned, there would be new cases reported constantly for several years
    even if all new infection stopped today, just because of the long
    incubation period. The fact that many STD cases are occurring means it is
    necessary to be informed and cautious, but it does not mean that sex=death.

    Message: 77471
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/2of3
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 02:15:21

      If what I have said can be reasonably be interpreted as meaning that
    STD's can just be ignored then that was sloppy expression on my part. When
    I said that they were not unavoidable I expected the reader to realize that
    I meant that risks could be minimized with some effort, and not that STD's
    were of no consequence.
     >The empirical evidence for one, refutes any mere opinions that porn and
     >crime aren't connected. There's far too many criminals and crime scene
     >evidence and testimony to believe otherwise.
    In this case I am just responding to something where we differ in opinion
    and, unlike the previous points, I don't think there is a problem of
    interpretation. If enough murderers, along with their attorneys and their
    health-food-promoting expert witnesses, contended that their murders were
    attributable to Twinkies, would that body of evidence then refute any mere
    opinions to the contrary? How about a steady string of killers who
    'confessed' that it was their drooling over the seductively lit and
    photographed centerfold in the latest issue of "GUNS & AMMO" on one too
    many hot and sultry nights that drove them to kill?  I do not support
    restricting the rights of non-criminals to enjoy non-coercive
    activities just because certain criminal types may tend to partake of those
    same non-coercive activities.

    Message: 77472
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/3of3
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 02:16:26

     >It seems you are the one contradicting your previous stance, admitting
     >there is a danger here and that such things could ruin an existing
     >relationship. I rest my case.
    My stance hasn't changed. I hope I have been able to clarify it so that
    your interpretation will be closer to what I meant to communicate.
     >I'd almost say that you speak like you might have a vested interest in
     >pornography, like stock holdings perhaps?
    I don't own any stock, and my pornographic vest never came back from the
    cleaners. I would hate to see non-violent erotica which features only
    consenting adults become suppressed literature. Just like banning firearms,
    banning erotica would not accomplish any of the stated goals of the persons
    desiring the ban, but it would allow them to force their own tastes upon
    others.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 77473
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: James Hawley
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 05:19:58

     In the context of two consenting adults doing something in the privacy of
    their own bedroom, for their own benefit, then yes, that is acceptable, even
    if it falls under the general definition of pornography.

    Message: 77474
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: out of here
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 05:23:43

    I'm gone for a few weeks of fun in the sun, or something like that. See
    y'all around the end of the month.

    Message: 77476
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Gordon/erotica
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 18:18:26

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

    Message: 77477
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 19:33:31

            There used to be a line, "I am about to be in lust with her," to
    describe that feeling or emotion, and to differentiate it from the real
    feeling of love (or even a phony feeling of love.)

    Message: 77478
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: All
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 20:03:36

            Dagblag that call waiting thing! I've been cut off four times in the
    past three days. I finally read the phone book, and now I've programmed my
    Telix to shoot out the *70 before the number, so I should be all right.
    Until my daughter wants to call a friend, then no more ansi again. I hope
    this works.

            At anyrate, I was wondering where all the philosophers have gone
    (sounds like a song from 1968, right?) (Or was it '58?) Does "civil rights"
    really mean affirmative action and anti-conservative, or does it have some
    connectionwith "equality"? Is mankind really just a version of animal, or is
    there a "human soul" which is different IN KIND, not just in amount? Are
    women really equal to men, or was Thomas Aquinas right when he thought that
    they should not be as culpable for sin, for the poor things are not capable
    of really serious cerebral activity?

            And, is it true what they say about Australians?   --John C.--

    Message: 77479
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad on James
    Date: 08/09/91  Time: 22:55:26

    "He was presenting things as what I believed..not what I actually believed"

    Such as what?  I'd be interested to know.

    Public Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit Chat

    Subject:Condoms

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Condoms cause STDs.
     2:end

    Edit command:C

     2:
     3:These past few days were really busy.  Please accept this post as my
     4:contribution.  Thank you.
    Saving message...
    The message is 77480

    Public Bulletin Board command:R77480

    Message: 77480
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Condoms
    Date: 08/10/91  Time: 00:06:40

    Condoms cause STDs.

    These past few days were really busy.  Please accept this post as my
    contribution.  Thank you.