### Apollo BBS Archive - June 22, 1991

    Main Menu command:V

    IF... Caller I.D. were available now, would you......

    [A] Not Get the option, and keep current system.
    [B] Get the option at $6.00 per month plus hardware.
    [C] Undecided...?

    Note:  The $6.00 per month is the current estimated cost.

    How do you vote [A-C] or [CR] to abort:B

    Poll results to date:
    [A] 2    [B] 3    [C] 3

    Mail from Apro Poet
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:02:33

    Sorry to hear about your dental dementia.  Hope it all
    works out well.  I think dentists are obligated to set aside
    their personal lives in such situations.  It's interesting
    that you had a perfectly legitimate need for cocaine but
    were denied its medicinal benefits by the law.  There's an
    interesting article in July's Scientific American about the
    history of public policy toward drugs in America.

    Start a revolution by ad?
    Sounds intriguing.  Things would have to get pretty bad
    before I would want to start a revolution.  The mathematics
    of constructing secure clandestine networks is an equally
    interesting subject.  Do you know anything about "Public Key
    Cryptography"?
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:I know nothing about "Public Key Cryptography".  I was thinking of placing a
     2:small ad on the Back Page of New Times that basically says:
     3:
     4:                        Grass Roots Movement
     5:                             Smoke-in
     6:                           Patriots Square
     7:                        (time & date)
     8:
     9:This would give one some idea of the interest and if everyone has not
    10:already been brainwashed or scared to death then go from there.  The ad
    11:would be paid with cash and done under an assumed name, such as BMI (Bowel
    12:Movement, Inc.)  We want to get the shit out of society.
    13:
    14:Although what you mention, the "mathematics of constructing secure
    15:clandestine networks" would be very helpful.  Because once the establishment
    16:gets wind of the operation they would set out to put it down fast.
    17:
    18:Ads could be placed in various parts of the country several months prior to
    19:an event, giving people time for 'word of mouth' information.  But again he
    20:ads would have to be done without giving out a tracable name.  And again
    21:there would have to be enough interest.  I don't know if the time is now but
    22:it seems to be getting nearer.  Look at Woodstock and see how word of mouth
    23:caused people from all over the nation to be in one place.
    24:  My dental problem was interesting and a good experience over all.

    Mail from Apro Poet
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:08:25

    Oh.  Regarding future civilizations digging up our remains:
    Have you ever read "Motel of the Mysteries"?  It's about
    a future archeologist who digs up a motel and concludes it's
    some kind of sacred religious complex.  It's a hilarious
    book, one big farce.  HAHAHAHAHA

    I don't know about the most recent magnetic pole reversal
    but I might be able to research it pretty easily.  I wrote
    a memo to myself to take a stab at it.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:I only mentioned the 'magnetic pole reversal' on the main board in order to
     2:try to scare a few people.  About the only thing that I can think of that
     3:would unite the masses would be some kind of world scare.  I'd bet that the
     4:people of the Philipines are more closely united now than at anytime since
     5:WWII.
     6:
     7:I liked the story in the Republic about the 'Doomsday Asteroid' even though
     8:it doesn't really change anything.  They give the odds of being killed by
     9:one as greater than being killed in an airplane crash.  I've never heard of
    10:a death by asteroid although I've heard of thousands of deaths by airplane
    11:crashes.  How do they figure?
    12:
    13:Sometimes I think the Republic looks more like the National Enquirer every
    14:day.  Oh well.

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7470
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Good stuff on C.I.D.
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 23:06:32

            Caller-I.D.   (Not "Cubic Inch Displacement")

    Imagin how the Apollo ((SHIELDS)) would work.  Take a pesky user or a user
    such as Jeff Beck...  Put his number in a NOCALL.LIS file and the $ystem
    would tell him Apollo was closed to the public for the day.  Jeff would
    think the ((SHIELDS)) were up for all and might not even catch on that the
    ((SHIELDS)) were up because his number was locked out.  Then take a Good
    user who I know likes to use Apollo as a non-member.  I could have his
    number in a GOODCALL.LIS file and the ((SHIELDS)) would drop to a low level
    so he could do his mail or posts.  The options a caller-I.D. number gives a
    SysOp so he can protect his system and users is awsome, yet leaving it wide
    open for good BBSing by the 'good-guys'.

            I am NOT against a lock-out of your caller-I.D. number, just do not
    expect me or many others to answer the phone or to even have it ring where
    we have a anti-lock-out-ringer in place.  After all, it is YOU who are
    calling ME...Using my phone, my hardware or getting me up from a favorite
    T.V. program.  As the Callee, I feel I have as much if not MORE rights then
    the Caller because s/he has involved me!

            I moved this from the PUBlic board as I felt un-at-ease posting this
    info there.   I am enjoying this debate very much, and no insult was ment
    when I was JOKING with Mr. Little.

    Message: 7471
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Caller ID
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 23:41:59

    I wonder how similar subjects would have been debated before
    the invention of the telephone.  Hmm.  "Mailer ID."

      I foresee court cases involving forged phone logs.
    Say, for instance, someone presents evidence that person X
    phoned in a bomb threat or a false fire alarm.  Has the
    evidence been constructed at the answered phone?

      Could techno-wizards inject a victim's phone number into
    such a log to make it appear as if the wizard's prank were
    pulled by his victim?

    Message: 7472
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Kars / Automotive
    Subject: Cuda....
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 02:03:01

            I have my 65 Cuda pushed up under my patio...  I am working on it
    again and hope to have the body ready to paint in two weeks.  Then the
    power plant built and ready to drop in by the end of July.

            Working on my neighbors 67 440 GTX has got me wanting my toy back
    together.

            By the way, anyone have a Plymouth Road Runner they want to sell...
    the 383 type will do fine.   68, 69?

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- miss my car....

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4867
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Quickie
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:16:59

    Same here.  I was just skimming this as it flashed by at 2400 baud, and I
    was thinking "damn, even the Subject lines are a subtle turn-on", when up
    came 4864...

    Message: 4868
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Re-BuTTal
    Subject: Supreme Court
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 01:35:49

    Well, they did it.  They say that states can ban nude public
    dancing.  I guess that means we all have to pull up our
    pants while we're on Apollo.

    But we can pull them back down again as soon as we log
    off because then we're not in public anymore.

    It also means that when the Supreme Court is in chambers
    they can dance nude all they want.

    Message: 4869
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Supreme Court
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:40:12

    Anybody want to form a start-up to make pasties and g-strings?

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:EA

    You chose Answer !

    Subject:last

    Enter a line containing only an <*] to stop
     1:I'll be in the fitting department.
     2:
     3:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 4870

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 75873
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller ID
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:19:59

      >> I have nothing to hide.  My number is right there in the phone book.

    So is mine.  But that isn't the point at all.  First of all, the fact that
    my number is in the book doesn't mean that everybody I call gets to learn my
    phone number as a result.  They have to know my *name* to find that out.
    And there's no law that says I have to give it.  I'm quite entitled to make
    an anonymous inquiry without having my number recorded in some database.

    Paul is quite right, of course, in pointing out that unlisted numbers don't
    protect you from junk phone calls, because of those autodialers that dial
    every number on the exchange, listed or not.  Only an answering machine, or
    a secretary, gives any kind of protection against that.  But that's far from
    being the whole issue.

    What advantage is there to the *public* in having a telephone number
    transmitted to the recipient every time a call is made?  Clearly there are
    communication advantages in having the *ability* to transmit the number
    automatically, because often the recipient does want to call back.  But
    whether or not he can do so should be a mutual agreement entered into with
    the caller's explicit permission.  Looked at this way, Caller ID should be
    an optional convenience to both parties, not a mandatory loss of control
    over information that is owned by the caller.

    Theoretically, identification of the calling number should cut out obscene
    and harassing phone calls, or calls made for some other illegal reason.
    There might be some marginal reduction, but any idea that such calls would
    be eliminated is nonsense.  Telephone calls can be quickly traced even
    today, but anybody who really wants to make an anonymous phone call has only
    to use an anonymous phone booth.  Alternatively, I myself could use any one
    of several facilities to relay calls (especially for computer connections)
    that would not display my own number to the recipient.  So mandatory Caller
    ID is only a drawback to people who want to make calls directly from their
    *own* private phone.  There's little benefit to "public order" in it.

    True, if Caller ID is the rule, you can refuse to answer your phone (and so
    can Apollo) if no caller ID is displayed.  It's your right.  But I doubt
    that that's a good idea, because you have no guarantee that a caller ID will
    *always* be transmitted.  There might not be one on a call originating from
    overseas.  And it might be a call you don't want to miss -- if only because
    the caller paid a lot of money to make it!  Conversely, the presence of a
    caller ID is no guarantee that the call is one you want to take.

    Caller ID is very useful as an *option*.  But if its transmission is
    mandatory, the *only* parties that really gain anything, in the balance, are
    the telephone companies (who don't have to implement a slightly more
    complicated mechanism to allow optional blocking), and enterprises that are
    in the business of collecting people's phone numbers.

    If such enterprises are guaranteed to record a number on *every* call, the
    phone company can charge them more for Caller ID service.  It's all money.
    Make no mistake, *mandatory* Caller ID is an issue of big business versus
    the public.  That's why it's caused a fight in more than one state already.

    All three "conventional" means of communicating with people have always
    allowed you to initiate contact without necessarily allowing the other party
    to "return the call".  It's an unspoken assumption about communication.  You
    can visit someone in person without giving them your address where they can
    visit you in return.  You can send a letter without a return address on it.
    Or you can make a phone call without giving out your phone number.  Any
    change in these rules violates a long-held custom.

    The phrase "nothing to hide" suggests that anybody who wants to make a call
    anonymously, or without giving out their number, *does* have something to
    hide.  As indeed they do -- their phone number!  But they have entered into
    a contract with the telephone company with the (admittedly unwritten)
    understanding that their number is information that they have complete
    ownership of and control over.  It is shared only with the telephone company
    -- or possibly with the police and other legitimate authorities.  The number
    is not a commodity to be sold to others for the profit of the telephone
    company.  To do so is a violation of that unwritten understanding.  People
    have a *right*, acquired through custom, to hide their telephone number from
    others if they wish.

    The phrase "nothing to hide" also suggests that people who do wish to hide
    their number are doing something wrong.  If this is an accusation, it is
    false.  There are many legitimate reasons for phone calls that are
    anonymous, by number if not by name.  Celebrities are not the only people
    harassed by too many callers.  Doctors and people in many lines of work with
    a large public practice may use an answering service to handle their calls,
    then call the client back from their private phone.  They have a right not
    to have that private phone ringing at all hours of the day and night.
    Ordinary individuals may be harassed by private enemies or violent ex-
    husbands and boyfriends.  (Or girlfriends!)  Other people may wish to make
    anonymous calls because of circumstances they feel are embarrassing --
    perhaps an inquiry to a suicide or drug hotline, a sexually transmitted
    disease clinic, or something of the kind.  I suppose such organizations are
    discreet, but that makes no difference; I'm sure there are lots of people
    (especially kids living with their parents) who would be mortally scared of
    seeking help that they badly need, for fear that "somebody might call back".

    Passing from the serious to the comic, suppose a guy has ordered a gift for
    his wife and *doesn't* want the store to call his home for obvious reasons.
    "Hello Mr. Smith, the fur coat you ordered has arrived...  oh, er, sorry --
    that's *Mrs.* Smith, is it?"  And to return to the serious again, how many
    people might not bother to make that "anonymous" crime tip if they had to go
    to the trouble of finding a phone booth, instead of just picking up their
    own phone at home?

    Anonymity is a right.  And it's very much in the public interest that it
    should continue to be a right.

    I very much dislike any argument that seems to be saying "I never do such-
    and-such, so why should I bother defending other people's right to do it?"
    I suppose it's a fairly small minority of people who really have a strong
    need to keep their telephone number private.  I'm equally sure that the
    people who drive off-road vehicles, or climb mountains or sail regularly, or
    own 500-watt stereos, or have long hair or walk around in bare feet, or
    never mow their front lawns, or take ten kids all at once into a McDonald's,
    are significantly in the minority.  Gun owners and dog owners are a
    minority.  There are also minorities of people who *dislike* each of these
    behaviors.  In every case it's possible to muster some kind of argument for
    a law against the behavior.  Anonymity permits crime.  Dogs bite people and
    crap in the street.  Some other activity is dangerous to others, or we "have
    to" go rescue people who get into trouble doing it.  Or it's noisy or ugly
    or tasteless, "a deterrent to visual amenities", and so on and so on,
    blah blah blah.

    Many of these arguments are very weak.  But if only 1% of the people suggest
    restricting some right of others because it profits them personally...  and
    if 10% of the people are the kind of jerkoffs who buy their arguments...
    and if only 10% of the people are personally affected by such
    restrictions...
    ...AND if the other 79% don't give a damn, then the jerkoffs will win every
    time.  We should remember that well-known piece of prose that runs: "When
    they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
    Catholic..."

    It behooves every one of us to defend the rights and freedoms of others,
    even when we are not personally affected one way or the other.  And privacy
    is a very fundamental right.

    Message: 75879
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Various
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:33:03

    I also have a few comments on the Robber Barons (interesting stuff, Apro!),
    and of course on child raising.  Those will have to wait for another night,
    though.

    But I would like to know exactly what it is Paul dislikes about Spock -- or,
    to be more precise, which edition of Spock.  I have three editions kicking
    around somewhere -- a 1957 edition, a 1975 edition, and a later one where he
    adopted the "politically correct" nonsexist pronouns.  The only one I can
    remember reading all the way through is the 1975 one, but I don't remember
    anything I violently disagreed with.  Perhaps it's the vintage '57 model
    that's so pernicious...

    Message: 75880
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Spock
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 02:43:06

    With respect to "nonsexist" language, in the 1975 edition I remember Spock
    commenting that he generally referred to the child as "he", because he
    needed "she" to refer to the mother.  That sounded perfectly common-sense
    and logical to me.  You have to jump through hoops and write clumsy English
    to write all these gender-free sentences.

    Did everybody hear about this new Random House so-called "Webster's"
    Dictionary, with all the latest up-to-the-minute politically correct
    spellings like "womyn" (avoiding the "sexist" implications of the letters
    m-e-n contained in the word "women")?  Does this kind of stuff make you puke
    as well?  (What on earth do they do for the singular of the word?  How do
    they avoid the sexist implications of the letters m-a-n?  Do they spell it
    "womun"?  The dictionary apparently gives no solution to this mystery.)

    It's all so pointless.  As for Noah Webster, if he were alive today, he'd
    turn over in his grave -- as an Irishman once said.

    Come to that, how many people are getting tired of the phrase "politically
    correct"?  It's been cropping up with irritating frequency the last couple
    of years.  I suspect what annoys me most about it is that the political
    views it refers to are sometimes far from "correct" -- at least, to my way
    of thinking.

    Ho-hum.  Must be in a curmudgeonly mood tonight.

    Message: 75881
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Crank Calls
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 04:35:23

            Caller-ID in the test area GREATLY cut down on crank calls.
    It is a fact that most such calls are done by...KIDS!  Kids hardly want to
    run down to the mall and spend 25 cents per crank call, they do it right
    from home.  Gordon would like these callers to have 'anonymity'... Hmmmmm
    Something you want to tell us Gordon.

            Just think what a boom Caller-ID would be to BBS SysOps.  They could
    find out who the users are who try to crack passwords.  Find out what users
    have multiple identities, some of which are not very nice.  But then again,
    MOST of this type crime would STOP!

            You know my Phone number... You use my hardware... and you don't
    even want me to know who you are or your phone number?  Humph!

            Oh yea, not every one will get this service either.  Maybe some
    businesses will advertize 'No Caller ID Phones' at his place of business.

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

    Message: 75882
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/education
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 05:31:07

     Why in the world are you so against high school courses in proper child
    rearing, when there are so many high school kids having babies these days,
    married or not, long before they are emotionally or educationally prepared
    to become parents?
     Why, too, do you continue to digress from this discussion into tangents of
    irrelevant, immaterial musings? Nobody has connected child abuse with any
    income level of society, nor has anyone considered those events that occur
    in every baby's life, such as up all night, crying, diarrhea, or whatever in
    the light of abuse, nor has anyone, at least in the course of this
    discussion, considered simple disciplinary spankings as abusive. (There is,
    of course, a point past which a spanking becomes abusive rather than
    correctional.)
     All you are doing is what you have been doing right along. Criticizing
    someone else's suggestions for a possible solution without contributing one
    single positive suggestion of your own. "Minding one's own business" is not
    a solution. In many cases it could be contributory to the abuse itself. TO
    stand by and watch a child abused and do nothing is to condone and
    contribute to that abuse.
     What is your next (first) positive idea on the subject?

    Message: 75883
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon/Spock
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 05:46:33

     The original Spock is the one that I, and a lot of that generation, so
    violently disagree with. That one abhorred any physical correction of a
    child whatsoever, advocating instead a totally permissive attitude toward
    child rearing, an avenue which Spock later repudiated himself as having been
    a horrible mistake. Roger's two darlings aside, I'm sure that most of us who
    lived through that nightmare can relate some weird tales of the totally
    undisciplined monsters that "by the book" rearing produced.

    Message: 75884
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on abuse
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 06:25:59

    Well excuuuuuuuuse me! I thought we were talking about child abuse!

    What is my "next positive idea on the subject?" - Same as the first one -
    "Mind your own business"! And I don't mean that if you see someone outright
    abusing a child, a wife, a dog or what have you, that you shouldn't do
    something to stop it!! I mean leave 'mandatory' out of it and leave it out
    of the schools! This world would be so much better off if people did mind
    their own business. We have become a nation of 'Tattler's' on each other. I
    read an article not to long ago where it more than suggested to children
    to turn their parents 'in' if they knew they took drugs!

                               *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 75885
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: News Today
    Subject: The Repulsive
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 06:47:18

    I wish there was another major newspaper in this Valley so that I could
    cancel my subscription to this idiotic Republic and their yellow journalism
    - thier irresponsible reporting. They over did themselves this morning with
    a front page article with the headlines that say .... "Doomesday asteroid
    has our number." My heart literlly lerched when I read that. I could not
    believe they wrote this article on a 'maybe it'll happen'!! There is no ONE
    doomesday asteroid - just a 'maybe' it's out there and 'maybe it will hit
    our planet anywhere from 20 years from now to eons from now and 'maybe' it
    will wipe out hundreds of miles of the earth, taking millions of people with
    it!!! They just added one more unecessary thing for us to worry about -
    become fanatical and paranoid about!
    I'm not saying an article couldn't be written about this subject because it
    'could' happen of course and we should be prepared - like having a rocket
    ready to shoot it out of the path of the earth. But it would belong in the
    middle of the middle section of the paper or in the Sunday edition
    somewhere, not on the front page on a Friday morning! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
    Oh yeah! They also added a list of statistics that read ....
    YOUR CHANCES IN FATAL THINGS... Here are estimates that have been calculated
    for the risk of death from various threats for an American over a 50-yr.
    period.

    THREAT                      RISK OF DEATH
    ____________________________________________

    Botulism                    1 in 2 million

    Fireworks (fireworks???)    1 in 1 million

    Tornados                    1 in 50,000

    Airplane crash              1 in 20,000

    Astroid Impact *               1 in 6,000

    Electrocution               1 in 5,000

    Firearms accident           1 in 2,000

    Homicide                    1 in 300

    Auto Accidents              1 in 100

    Message: 75887
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Cont.
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 12:12:52

    THREAT                      RISK OF DEATH
    ____________________________________________

    Old age                     1 in 1

    Message: 75888
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller ID
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 12:28:11

    I'd still say that crank calls are a minor problem in the universe.  We've
    had a couple in Massachusetts, one in two years in Phoenix.  Both were made
    by school kids, undoubtedly.  As for the "pranksters" on Apollo, I can't say
    that they bother me at all.  What's a garbled name or a rude remark or two
    from some anonymous person?  Lots of people spend their time online being
    even MORE rude to one another under their REAL names!

    Besides, if caller ID is OPTIONAL, you can still impose a requirement for it
    before connecting anyone to the system.  If you want to.

    No, to me it's a matter of perspective.  Anonymity allows pranks and so
    forth, granted, but most of them are no big deal.  Loss of privacy, on the
    other hand, IS a big deal for everybody.

    Message: 75889
    Author: Paul Harris
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: new stuff
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 12:43:07

    Hi folks. I'm just testing a new upload utility. I finally got a
    real computer! It's hard to believe I've been surviving on a
    Tandy 102 all this time!
               ___________PH___________

    Message: 75890
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill Burkett
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 14:33:57

    P.E. doesn't "encourage an attitude towards healthy living," it's just a
    bunch of sports.

    At my high school there was a required class called "Health" which was
    intended to encourage an attitude towards healthy living.  I have no
    objection to this material being mandatory.

    Message: 75891
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller Id
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 15:54:36

      Cliff's response in 75881 sums up his attitude when he implies that Gordon
    must have some kind of criminal intent or he wouldn't value privacy above
    petty crime detection. This 'You must have something to hide or you wouldn't
    want privacy' attitude is shocking, especially from someone who goes out of
    their way to go uncounted by big brother. If enough of us take this
    position, it wouldn't take a decade for the last vestige of privacy to
    disappear.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 75892
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Pol. Correct
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 16:04:39

      Political correctness seems to be coming into its heyday, just as the New
    World Order has. I hear about it every day now. On NPR and channel eight it
    is a constant topic.
      I had always considered 'political correctness' to mean that something had
    no merit, and was only being pushed politically because it could not be
    reasonably advocated. I still see it that way for the most part, but it
    almost sounds like the media and academic circles from which this
    'correctness' originate are now ready to go public with it and carry the
    banner proudly forward. Every interview I hear seems to involve first
    denying that there is such a thing, and then advocating every tenet of it
    anyway for the rest of the program. There is one exeption, I saw the Dean
    from Yale on McNiell-Lehrer last night do the exact opposite. He said, yes
    it exists, and then proceeded to tear it completely to shreds with rational
    arguments against the whole and the parts of it.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 75893
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller ID/
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 16:15:16

    Gun Registration. What goes for Caller ID goes for Gun Registration. "You
    must have something to hide or you wouldn't want to keep it secret you
    own a gun"

    Message: 75894
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Michael
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 17:40:53

    Yeah, and who taught the health classes?  The coaches!  Those health classes
    were a joke!  The even had a sex education part: one day, a film, no
    discussion.  It was just the basic what a man has that a woman doesn't and
    vice versa, and the different biological things that happen.  There wasn't
    even anything about intercourse, condoms or any form of controception, and
    of course, the standard "this is only for married heterosexual couples".
    Half the class I'm sure could have taught the coach a thing or two.  Some of
    the girls probably did, having had witnessed teacher-student sexual
    relationships there in other classes.
    Anyway, I think it would nice to have a exersize class, sport whatever that
    you could choose from instead of being forced to take the regular PE.  I
    ended up taking dance type stuff all through high school anyway, and it was
    a good release for tension and nervous energy.  And there were always tons
    of after school sports to be into too.  We only had to take PE freshman year
    but if you couldn't graduate without a passing grade in it.  That seemed
    pretty stupid.

    Message: 75895
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Robber Barons
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 18:21:20

      In Chicago, the new International Working People's
    Association had five thousand members, published newspapers
    in five languages, organized mass demonstrations and
    parades, and through its leadership in strikes was a
    powerful influence in the twenty-two unions that made up the
    Central Labor Union of Chicago.  There were differences in
    theory among all these revolutionary groups, but the
    theorists were often brought together by the practical needs
    of labor struggles, and there were many in the mid-1880s.
      In early 1886, the Texas & Pacific Railroad fired a leader
    of the district assembly of the Knights of Labor, and this
    led to a strike which spread throughout the Southwest, tying
    up traffic as far as St. Louis and Kansas City.  Nine young
    men recruited in New Orleans as marshals, brought to Texas
    to protect company property, learned about the strike and
    quit their jobs, saying, "as man to man we could not
    justifiably go to work and take the bread out of our
    fellow-workingman's mouths, no matter how much we needed it
    ourselves."  They were then arrested for defrauding the
    company by refusing to work, and sentenced to three months in
    the Galveston county jail.
      The strikers engaged in sabotage.  A news dispatch from
    Atchison, Kansas:
           At 12:45 this morning the men on guard at the
         Missouri Pacific roundhouse were surprised by the
         appearance of 35 or 40 masked men.  The guards were
         corralled in the oil room by a detachment of the
         visitors who stood guard with pistols ... while the
         rest of them thoroughly disabled 12 locomotives which
         stood in the stalls.
    In April, in East St. Louis, there was a battle between
    strikers and police.  Seven workingmen were killed,
    whereupon workers burned the freight depot of the Louisville
    & Nashville.  The governor declared martial law and sent in
    seven hundred National Guardsmen.  With mass arrests,
    violent attacks by sheriffs and deputies, no support from
    the skilled, better-paid workers of the Railway Brotherhoods,
    the strikers could not hold out.  After several months they
    surrendered, and many of them were blacklisted.
      By the spring of 1886, the movement for an eight-hour day
    had grown.  On May 1, the American Federation of Labor, now
    five years old, called for nationwide strikes wherever the
    eight-hour day was refused.  Terence Powderly, head of the
    Knights of Labor, opposed the strike, saying that employers
    and employees must first be educated on the eight-hour day,
    but assemblies of the Knights made plans to strike.  The
    grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
    opposed the eight-hour day, saying "two hours less work
    means two hours more loafing about the corners and two hours
    more for drink," but railroad workers did not agree and
    supported the eight-hour movement.
      So, 350,000 workers in 11,562 establishments all over the
    country went out on strike.  In Detroit, 11,000 workers
    marched in an eight-hour parade.  In New York, 25,000 formed
    a torchlight procession along Broadway, headed by 3,400
    members of the Bakers' Union.  In Chicago, 40,000 struck,
    and 45,000 were granted a shorter working day to prevent
    them from striking.  Every railroad in Chicago stopped
    running, and most of the industries in Chicago were
    paralyzed.  The stockyards were closed down.
      A "Citizens' Committee" of businessmen met daily to map
    strategy in Chicago.  The state militia had been called out,
    the police were ready, and the Chicago *Mail* on May 1 asked
    that Albert Parsons and August Spies, the anarchist leaders
    of the International Working People's Association, be
    watched.  "Keep them in view.  Hold them personally
    responsible for any trouble that occurs.  Make an example of
    them if trouble occurs."
      Under the leadership of Parsons and Spies, the Central
    Labor Union, with twenty-two unions, had adopted a fiery
    resolution in the fall of 1885:
           Be it Resolved, That we urgently call upon the
         wage-earning class to arm itself in order to be able to
         put forth against their exploiters such an argument
         which alone can be effective:  Violence, and further be
         it Resolved, that notwithstanding that we expect very
         little from the introduction of the eight-hour day,
         we firmly promise to assist our more backward brethren
         in this class struggle with all means and power at our
         disposal, so long as they will continue to show an open
         and resolute front to our common oppressors, the
         aristocratic vagabonds and exploiters.  Our war-cry is
         "Death to the foes of the human race."
      On May 3, a series of events took place which were to put
    Parsons and Spies in exactly the position that the Chicago
    *Mail* had suggested ("Make an example of them if trouble
    occurs").  That day, in front of the McCormick Harvester
    Works, where strikers and sympathizers fought scabs, the
    police fired into a crowd of strikers, running from the
    scene, wounded many of them, and killed four.  Spies,
    enraged, went to the printing shop of the *Arbeiter-Zeittung*
    and printed a circular in both English and German:
         Revenge!
         Workingmen, to Arms!!!
           ... You have for years endured the most abject
         humiliations; ... you have worked yourself to death ...
         your Children you have sacrificed to the factory lord
         -- in short: you have been miserable and obedient
         slaves all these years: Why? To satisfy the insatiable
         greed, to fill the coffers of your lazy thieving
         master?  When you ask them now to lessen your burdens,
         he sends his bloodhounds out to shoot you, kill you!
           ... To arms we call you, to arms!

    Message: 75900
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 19:42:23

            The Gordon quip was a joke about him hiding anything.
    But, Caller I.D. will give me MORE privacy.  Right now I have been getting
    about 5 prank calls a week, some of them very late at night.  In short, I
    am being bugged and have no PRIVACY to do things like ...SLEEP!  Your phone
    number is already a matter of record.  Even unlisted, unpublished numbers
    can be had.  I had a non-published for years and found it did NO GOOD at all
    to stop prank calls.   Asking the Phone Company to TRACE calls is a joke.

            Now Dean, tell me what the GOVERNMENT will find out by me having
    caller I.D.    Filling out the long form for Census takers gave away info
    that the Government could not get from the Phone Company.  It gave away
    personal info.....   If you want privacy so much, why do you even have a
    phone? Or are you one of the few who believe no one ever listens in... like
    big brother?

    Message: 75901
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger on I.D.
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 19:45:08

            Well yes, I have something to hide...  My guns from the criminals
    who would steal them.  The people in China had gun registration... they are
    dead now.   My family in Russia is DEAD Roger...  Do you feel good about
    this?  You should, it was people like you made gun registration happen
    there.

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

    Message: 75902
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean on Privacy
    Date: 06/21/91  Time: 22:15:19

            Do you have a drivers licence?  I bet you have your S.S. number on
    it?   Do you have VISA.. MasterCard?   Do you own a home in Arizona? Do your
    children go to PUBLIC school? Do you have any outstanding loans on anything?
      If you answered YES on any of those questions, you are not a TRUE PRIVATE
    person.  You are in the SYSTEM.

            As for your paranoia about businesses getting your number or
    address, you had better never write a CHECK... as they will have all this
    info.  Businesses are not going to use Caller I.D. numbers, just like MOST
    don't record the check info.  Give me a break, you guys are just looking for
    something to complain about.

            Where the system has been tested, the MAJORITY want it.   I will be
    on the lookout for a phone system that won't ring if there is no number.
    If the call comes from other then a 602 area code, then it will ring as it
    will detect out - of - state - status.

            I think I will mention this to Dale at Prometheus for an option on
    the 9600 C.I.D. modem...  switch selected of course.

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

    Message: 75903
    Author: Bob Stien
    Category: Politics
    Subject: saying
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 02:35:33

    Have you killed your boss today?

    Message: 75904
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hello
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 03:07:16

    Regarding caller I.D., there are two things which you might want to keep in
    mind, things which I did not see in the last fifty or so messages I just
    scanned.  First, if you have an unpublished phone number, you no longer can
    control who knows that number (at least, under the most radical caller I.D.
    programs).  Second, whoever knows your number (except in the case of
    unpublished listings) can easily find out your name and your address.  Quite
    frequently, if I have a number but no name (or if for some reason I wish to
    know the address associated with it) I call the telephone reference section
    of the Phoenix Public Library.  I give them the number, and they look it up
    in a cross-reference directory.  This usually gives me the name and address
    associated with the number.

    I see that my name is no longer on the logon blacklist.  I point this out
    for those individuals of slow wit who wish to impersonate me.  I logged on
    using my real name because I promised the SysOp I would not call back unless
    I did (or words to that effect).  I still feel that it (like my phone
    number) is nobody's business, but that's life, and that's also a rule of the
    board.  Well, it's been almost two months since my last visit.  Nice seeing
    you all again.

    Message: 75905
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie!
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 05:30:50

    "Leave 'mandatory' out of it and leave it out of the schools"? That's the
    same as saying "just ignore it and it will go away". Ann, there is a growing
    cancer in our midst. It is called child abuse. Not discipline. Not
    spankings. Not "grounding". ABUSE! Horrible, painful, debilitating,
    crippling and often fatal child ABUSE! This cancer is growing every year,
    not just being better reported. One of the main reasons that it has been
    growing is that we have been ignoring it. Continuing to ignore it is not
    going to cure it! Literally thousands of children in this country are being
    deprived of their absolute right to live happy, pain-free and fear-free
    lives, and your "cure" is to ignore it? You utter pure nonsense, Ann.

    Message: 75906
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Annie,again
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 05:32:30

    Friday mornings are awful, aren't they?

    Message: 75907
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon #75887
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 07:55:15

    Those statistics are the only true ones I've seen. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 75908
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on phone
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:07:00

    I don't know if Big Brother listens in on phone conversations, but I know
    the phone company does for a fact. We have a regular service, not a business
    phone because it cost more. Even though our business is run from my phone,
    so is my personal calls - even more so. One time when business was at a
    frantic pace and getting call after call, I TWICE answered the phone "Whitey
    Oudin Construction"!! TWICE only!! I thought it sounded snazzy and cute.
    Well, the next day the phone company calls to tell me that isn't allowed
    because we don't pay for a business phone and if we do it one more time, the
    extra cost will be added to our next bill!! I was floored that they found
    out and the only way they could have would be if they listened in because
    the two calls I answered with the construction co. - my kids were on the
    line and I KNOW they didn't turn me in to the phone company. This is scarey.
                                 *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 75909
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on kids
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:19:12

    I just said mind you own business, not ignore a problem. There is a big
    difference there. You cannot make it a law to force people to go to school
    or take a test or some other nonesense before they can have children - are
    deemed fit to have children! That's butting your nose in where it shouldn't
    be - making it mandatory! Education is another thing. We should be aware of
    the problem - we should butt in if need be if we see a child abused or even
    think he is being abused. We should teach our children to be good parents at
    home and be a good parent ourself! We could publish articles, books on what
    it means to be a good parent. All we can do is sit back and hope people will
    comply - will see that there is a problem. And BTW - what should we focus on
    first - the abuse of children or the abuse of the elderly?? Doesn't all of
    them deserve a pain free happy life?? How about the abuse of woman too?

    You must be too old now to remember how it was when you were having
    children. How would you have liked to have someone tell you you couldn't
    have children until you proved worthy - AND - just how would you do that
    since you've never had kids??? Talk about nonesense! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 75910
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on paper
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:19:56

    With the Republic, everyday is awful! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 75911
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: NewsPapers
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 08:53:53

            The Arizona Newsday at 4636 N 43rd Ave will soon be in print.
    This will be a FULL service paper.....
            I believe the charter subscription will be $100.00 for a TWO YEARs
    of home delivery.  You also get $200.00 in coupons for advertising.

            I for one do not get or buy the Republic or the Gazette of which is
    not even in state owned.  I haven't for years.....

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

    Message: 75912
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mark Adkins
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 09:08:24

            When you use MY hardware... It becomes MY business!

            Also, no one wishes to impersonate you.  You need to get rid of your
    paranoia.

                                            SysOp

    Message: 75913
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Kurds and Russians
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 11:58:28

    The Kurds had plenty of guns. The Shiite Moslems had plenty of guns. The
    Iraqis had plenty of guns. Do you have a helicopeter gunship ? It is quaint
    that you think your puny gun is going to make any difference if the
    government ever decides to quash any rebellion with physical force.

    Message: 75914
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Welcome Back
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 11:59:49

    Mark.

    Message: 75915
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Be Nice
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 12:01:25

    Wouldn't it be better to be friendly ?

    Message: 75916
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Afghanistan
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 13:27:59

            The rebels in Afghanistan held off and won against Russian
    helicopter gunships.  Quite frankly it takes more then gunships to win an
    internal struggle.

            The Moslem people have to many different factions and had no strong
    SINGLE leadership to defeat the Iraq army under Saddam.

            No use talking to you Roger, I know your feelings against human
    rights and the 2nd amendment.  You probably even believe that the POLICE
    will protect you from bad guys.   I know I am not going to convince you that
    bad guys will NEVER register their stollen weapons.  That they will ALWAYS
    be able to obtain weapons, and only the GOOD guy will suffer.

    Message: 75917
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 14:53:33

      >> Caller ID will give me MORE privacy.

    Yes, this is quite true.  Even if the caller is not obliged to give out his
    number, he is, so to speak, obliged to give out other information: namely,
    the FACT that he is choosing to withhold his number.  Before, this
    information was not available.

    Message: 75918
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Apro/History
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 14:54:26

      >> Henry George...  wrote a book that was published in 1879...  *Progress
      >> and Poverty* argued that the basis of wealth was land, that this was
      >> becoming monopolized...

    Certainly there's some truth in this, and especially so in the United States
    at that time, where the white settlers were expanding and taking over
    millions of square miles of land previously unavailable to them.

    However, in another respect, George was behind the times.  Somebody -- it
    may have been Alvin Toffler -- noted recently that for centuries into the
    past, there was some identifiable commodity that was central to the
    generation of wealth, and that elite classes had fought to maintain social
    systems that ensured their control over that commodity, thus maintaining
    their power over the rest of the population.

    In medieval times, this wealth-producing commodity was indeed land.  Hence
    the elaborate feudal systems set up in medieval times to protect and defend
    land, or to take it from others.  A man measured his status in land.

    But by the nineteenth century, with the shift away from a purely agrarian
    economy, the basis of wealth had also shifted away from land to the
    ownership of capital and the means of production.  The Industrial Revolution
    was only the sharply accelerated culmination of a change that had been going
    on slowly for centuries.

    Now the ownership of businesses and factories and control of the money
    supply became all-important.  So in this respect, Henry George was a litle
    out of date.  It isn't accidental that certain revolutionary ideas such as
    Marxism, anarchy and so forth didn't emerge until later in the nineteenth
    century.  Of course there had always been revolutions, and revolutionary
    ideas, throughout history; but the particular system that these people were
    railing at had not arrived in full flower until quite recently.

    Toffler, or whoever it was, went on to argue that we are in the midst of yet
    another change, where *information* is becoming the chief wealth-producing
    commodity.  And indeed, the communication and control of information have
    become more and more important over recent decades, with issues such as
    ownership of copyrights, "intellectual property", Freedom of Information
    acts, export of technology, the control and influence of the media, and so
    forth all coming to the fore.

    Personal thoughts:  All this is not to say that capital and land aren't
    important today.  Of course they are.  Or, for that matter, that control of
    information hasn't been important in the past.  There have always been
    "state secrets", military spies, and so forth.  In a broader sense,
    suppression of knowledge has always been a tool of oppression.  In the slave
    states of the last century, education of blacks was discouraged or even
    forbidden by law.

    Back in medieval times, the Church fought attempts to publish the Bible in
    English or other languages that would lay it open to the scrutiny of the
    common people.  Such things were seen as "dangerous".

    Information has always meant power, but much more so when it can be
    leveraged directly into physical power, as it can be today with information
    about technology.  But it's the *mechanization* of the means of production,
    and later of information processing, that has made each of them in turn
    assume far greater significance than formerly.

    Today we see more and more fights going on about the control of information,
    such as the pirating of software and of audio and video recordings, attempts
    to control home taping, and sophisticated techniques for military and
    industrial espionage.  Information alone (not just technology for processing
    it) accounts for an enormous amount of business.  People pay others just to
    deliver bulk information (address lists and so forth); to process bulk
    information (copying, generating paychecks etc.); to collect and process
    information and deliver advice based on it (various kinds of consultants);
    or to generate creative ideas (advertising, writing, scientific research).

    Lawyering, a huge business today, is essentially information processing plus
    aggression.  When you hire a lawyer, you hire a bellicose champion who uses
    his skill with words and information to do battle for you, just as in the
    old days you would hire a champion to do battle with sharp steel.

    We should realize the importance of information when we see so many people
    and organizations all around us trying to collect it -- both private
    organizations and governments.  And we should ask ourselves just what they
    are doing with it, both how it might benefit us and how it can be used --
    subtly or otherwise -- to control us.

    We see, too, increasing privatization of information formerly in the public
    domain -- notably words and phrases.  Once upon a time, if the guy next door
    started manufacturing "Acme" washing machines, he didn't mind much if you
    went into business selling "Acme" clothes brushes.  You weren't treading on
    his toes.  Today, with businesses invading market areas quite different from
    the ones they started up in, and with such factors as "name recognition"
    being important, people guard their names with increasing jealousy.  Hence
    Beretta's argument with Chevrolet over the latter's use of the name, even
    though Pietro isn't in the car business and GM isn't in the gun business.

    You'd better be careful before you call your product anything at all
    beginning with "Mc", otherwise McDonald's might sue you.  And it's no good
    changing the spelling to "Mac", either.  That will get the hamburger
    merchant off your back, but then you'll have Apple Computer to contend with.

    The English language, and its common words and phrases, used to be in the
    public domain.  Today, you must avoid using certain phrases in connection
    with your product.

    You can't say it's "the right choice", or tell your customer "Don't leave
    home without it", because now somebody else owns those phrases.  Whole
    sections of our language are being fenced off for private use.  This is a
    perfect parallel to the enclosure of "common" land that caused so much
    protest in sixteenth-century England.

    What does all this march of progress mean for the ordinary human?  Are
    civilization and technology good things or bad things?  The answer is not an
    unqualified one, but on the whole I would argue strongly for "good".

    In the physical sense, there's little doubt that people are better off with
    technology -- with more material goods, more food, more leisure, better
    medical care and longer lives.  Though urban living and the ability to feed
    more people on less land does lead to overcrowding, which is an enormous
    drawback.  This, and the alienation in today's mass societies, allow a whole
    host of problems to emerge, including increased crime.

    But that leads me to the more interesting question of people's psychic and
    "spiritual" wellbeing, which is more important in the long run.  To ask
    whether people are "better off" is to ask if they are happier.  "Happiness"
    does not depend only on material goods, but on such intangibles as freedom,
    and the ability both to act and to think independently.  In this sense I
    argue that civilization and technology are also, on the whole, beneficial.

    "Freedom" and "independence" are things that every man or woman inherently
    possesses.  We are free to do anything we choose, or think anything we
    choose -- unless somebody else can stop us.  And this depends, first of all,
    on whether the other person *wants* to stop us, and secondly, on whether he
    is *able* to stop us.  Motivation and capability are the two factors.

    Whether we choose *not* to do something solely because somebody else doesn't
    *want* us to is essentially a question of ethics.  It's a crucial question,
    but outside the realm of this discussion because it assumes cooperation
    within a society.  Much of the history of the human race is concerned rather
    with competition -- with enemies fighting rather than friends collaborating.

    One significance of technology is that it changes physical capabilities.  It
    constantly changes the balance of power between offense and defense.  If
    it's easy to defend against a threat, the result is survival.  If it's
    easier to press the threat home, the result is defeat, possibly death.  The
    interest of the human race as a whole lies first of all in survival, and
    therefore in keeping the advantage with the defense.

    In a purely military sense, we have seen the advantage swing between offense
    and defense many times.  In the days of fists alone, it was relatively more
    difficult to destroy an opponent.  Stone clubs changed that if the attackers
    had the advantage of surprise.  Knives and swords changed it even more.

    Armor corrected that a little; and later, the stone castle gave the
    advantage back to the defense.  Then gunpowder swung the balance to the
    offense, and the castles passed into history.  But by the time of World War
    I, firepower was so awesome that on land, defense could be assured with a
    line of trenches and a hail of lead.  Then mobile armor -- tanks -- and
    aircraft gave some advantage back to the offense.  Later, radar bolstered
    the defense.  And so on.

    SDI -- Star Wars -- is a further attempt to buttress defenses, but only
    because the nuclear bomb has left the advantage so decidedly with the
    offense.  Today, it is much easier to destroy -- even to destroy the entire
    human race -- than to defend against such destruction.  In terms of
    capability, the offense has won.

    Likewise, in terms of controlling and restricting human behavior, we have
    equally awesome weapons today.  They depend on the gathering and processing
    of *information* about human behavior.  We have cameras and tape recorders
    to record what people do and say, and satellites that can see details much
    smaller than a man from several miles up.  We have instruments for gathering
    and analyzing data all across the electromagnetic spectrum.  We have "lie
    detectors" that really do detect lies -- some of the time.  We can't
    actually tell what people are thinking, but we have hundreds of techniques
    for making a pretty good guess about the way they think.

    To support all of this, we have huge networks for information gathering,
    based on the fact that people in complex civilizations are necessarily
    interdependent in order to survive, and therefore cannot avoid such
    information gathering.  Again, solely in terms of capability, the offense
    has decidedly won.

    But the *capability* to restrict, or even to annihilate, people, is only
    half of the story.  The other half is the *motivation* to restrict people's
    thinking and behavior.  And in respect of motivation, civilization and
    technology have a very different story to tell.

    What is a human being?  The first thought that comes to mind is a friend, a
    lover, a spouse, a parent, a child, a colleague.  But this again is looking
    at a society whose members are in collaboration with one another.  What of
    groups who are in competition?  Is another human being just a nuisance, a
    competitor for scarce resources, a fly to be swatted or a bug to be
    squashed?  It's not a nice way to think about other people, but
    pragmatically, it *is* the way that competitors -- enemies -- may think of
    one another.  And it's in this respect that civilization and technology
    change the attitudes of competitors to one another, even to those who
    couldn't give a damn about other people as human beings.

    If we consider land to be the paramount resource -- because it's your source
    of food -- then the essential motivation is to get possession of land.  If
    other people are in possession of it, the trick is to get rid of them.  You
    don't care how you do it.  You can scare them off into the hills, but it's
    just as easy to put the lot of them to the sword.  You might as well burn
    their villages while you're at it, so that nobody who escapes is tempted to
    come back.  It's no hardship to build a few new mud huts.  It doesn't take
    too much longer to build a castle.  What use are people, really?

    If you're a member of some barbarian tribe, the answer is "none".  You could
    try to enslave the people and make them work the land for you, but in an
    unorganized low-tech society you can't do that with too many of them.
    They'll probably rise up and bash in your skull (as you justly deserve), and
    take back their land.  Your best course of action is therefore to kill them.

    If you have a "civilization", as the Romans did, you have an infrastructure
    in place to deal with rebellion.  At this point it becomes profitable to
    enslave people rather than annihilate them.  So you have far less motivation
    to kill them out of hand.  Their lives may be miserable -- literally "a fate
    worse than death" -- but at least the survival of some of them is assured.
    Here we see the beginning of people themselves being valued as a resource,
    rather than being discounted as a rival user of resources.  We get value
    from our slaves.  But in order to do so, we must give them something in
    return: namely, their lives.

    If we move now to an industrial society, people become even more valuable to
    us as a resource to work our factories.  It's no longer good enough to chain
    them to an oar in the galleys or lacerate their backs with a whip.  It's not
    their muscle power that we value.  We've replaced that with a steam engine.
    We need their physical skills to operate machines and place things on
    assembly lines.  To deploy these skills, we *have* to give our slaves the
    freedom to move around.  We must renegotiate the contract we have with them.
    We expect more from them; but they in their turn can demand more from us.

    One thing we need from them is not just physical dexterity, but a modicum of
    intelligence as well.  To do that, we must educate them.  In the process, we
    will inevitably give them some tools to think for themselves.  Then we will
    see the beginnings of thought and of mass consciousness among the common
    people.  They will begin to realize that they and we are essentially no
    different, except that we have more skills than they do in the manipulation
    of power.  They will demand a further renegotiation.  They will go on strike
    for higher wages.  But our slaves have only begun to understand their power.

    Finally, if we move to a postindustrial age where wealth is generated by
    information and by the ability to process information, people become even
    more valuable as a resource.  Only the human being is possessed of truly
    intelligent thought.  The intelligent thinker is not only valuable, but
    *in*valuable as a resource.  To make use of such resources, we must value
    them and pay what they are worth.

    Furthermore, we must educate our slaves thoroughly to make the best use of
    them.  Education in turn, and the capability of free thought, will give them
    the tools to fight back at us, to insist upon their rights.  In order to be
    of real use to us, they have to be just as smart as we are.  We no longer
    have the same motivation to keep our slaves in ignorance, much less to
    destroy them.  Education for this reason is a double-edged sword.

    It's interesting to look at the "liberal" versus the "conservative" view of
    education.  Both parties are interested primarily in power, and in
    maintaining the ascendancy of certain elite groups over the rest of
    humanity.  What they have in common is the motivation to power.  What
    differentiates them is their beliefs about the best way to perpetuate it.

    The "conservative" view is to emphasize *overtly* that human beings all have
    free choice to make of themselves what they will (and this is true).
    Covertly, the conservative notes that some human beings are more capable
    than others (which is true also), and derives comfort from the fact that he
    will always be superior to somebody -- in terms of capability, but
    especially in terms of finances, from which he derives his status.

    He bolsters this belief, secretly, by seeking to classify certain people as
    "inherently" inferior, usually on grounds of heredity and race.  There is
    some truth in the notion of inferiority by heredity, though not by race.

    He tries to put as many people as possible into this "inferior" class by
    artificially classifying certain races, groups, cultures or behaviors as
    inferior.  And he tries to perpetuate the division by drawing strict lines
    between the groups and making it difficult for people to move among them
    (for example, by making it financially more difficult for people of the
    "uneducated" class to acquire an education).

    The "liberal" view is to emphasize *overtly* that human beings should all
    have equal rights (and this is true).  Covertly, the liberal also notes, as
    the conservative does, that some human beings are more capable than others,
    and derives comfort from the fact that he will always be superior to
    somebody -- in terms of capability, but especially in terms of "morality",
    from which he derives his status.

    The liberal bolsters his beliefs, secretly, by seeking to classify people in
    general as morally flawed, and making allowances for this.  It has been well
    said that the conservative thinks that "evil" is an external force present
    in some people and absent in others, while the liberal thinks that "evil" is
    inherent in everybody, and ought to be either excused or controlled.  Both
    views, of course, are rubbish.  There is no such thing as "evil".  There is
    only human nature, and things that make us happy or things that make us
    unhappy.  And friends, and enemies.

    But the most interesting thing about the liberal is the way he goes about
    making sure that somebody will always be inferior to him.  The conservative
    uses economic forces in a blunt manner that is at least honest.  The liberal
    pretends to "empower" the underclasses (read educationally underprivileged),
    partly by means of education, but rarely by the kind of education that
    anybody can use to gain an economic advantage over anybody else.  It's all
    very well to know about "black history" and "women's issues", but how does
    that help a human being to succeed in a competitive environment?

    Rather, the liberal idea is to bring about equality by means of "quotas".
    But "quotas" are dependent upon political support to make any impact.
    "Quotas" don't truly empower the individual or make him free.  All they do
    is to ensure that the common person is indebted to liberal politicians for
    his wellbeing.  It's a subtle form of power, but power nonetheless.

    I often think of the universe in terms of gender.  Conservatism is rigid,
    demanding, hierarchical, separatist -- masculine.  Liberalism is "kinder and
    gentler", incorporative, egalitarian, yet with its own set of demands and
    dangerously seductive -- feminine.

    In the Middle Ages there were no political parties, yet the same entities
    existed in the form of Church and State.  State was the Father, controlling
    men's bodies.  Church ("Our Holy Mother Church") was indeed the Mother,
    controlling men's minds -- looking after the poor with charity, practicing
    forgiveness -- as long as you subscribed to Her beliefs.  Is the liberal
    "political correctness" of today very much different from the "orthodox
    religious dogma" of yesteryear?

    It's no wonder that "separation of Church and State" is a key issue.  Once
    you let these two points of view get in bed together, with their common
    lust to power, and ordinary person doesn't stand a chance.

    Education of children today, as I've said, is a two-edged sword.  On the one
    hand it's in the interest of everybody to get as good an education as they
    can.  In addition, people are far more useful as resources if they are
    educated; so there is business interest in good education.  On the other
    hand, educated and aware people are a threat to those who would control
    them.  Besides which, there are political groups who seek to control
    people's thinking, but in quite different ways.  It isn't surprising that
    there are battles about how education should be done, or the amount of money
    that ought to be allocated to it.  Education in general suffers as a result.

    But on the whole, what civilization and technology have given to Man is an
    environment in which people are valuable as resources, and where their value
    is enhanced by their freedom to think for themselves.  It's no accident that
    the Western world has attained technical superiority over the Communist
    world.  Most of that superiority is based on creative thought.  And the
    price of creative thought is to allow the creative thinker -- and the people
    as whole -- to have their freedom.

    While war has become more destructive, the impetus to destruction has
    lessened.  Since other humans are valuable as resources, there is a great
    motivation for the victor in a war to simply *control* a conquered people,
    rather than to annihilate them.  So war is gradually, by fits and starts,
    becoming obsolete among civilized people.  For the moment, we prefer instead
    to compete in ways less destructive of humanity -- such as economic rivalry.

    What will the future hold?  Some science fiction writers would have us think
    that the ability of machines to do the work of men will liberate people to
    live a life of leisure in the future.  Human psychology suggests otherwise.
    Too many people seek to dominate others rather than to let them be.  When
    machines can replace all functions of a human being, including that of
    creative thought, the course of history may change once again to lethal
    competition among humans.  Unless, by that time, we find that there really
    are enough resources to go around, and learn to leave each other in peace.

    Message: 75933
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller-ID/Privacy
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 16:32:33

      I'm sorry, but I still cannot understand any objections to the caller-ID
    feature.  Since anyone making a call *can* prefix it with a code that keeps
    the phone company from transmitting his number to the call recipient, anyone
    *can* still attempt to make an anonymous call.
      If I had the feature, I would, of course, inform all my friends of it and
    warn them that I do not answer anonymous calls.
      Businesses, drug hot-lines, and the like are *likely* to receive anonymous
    calls, and want the calls more than they want the caller's phone number, and
    you can still call them anonymously.
      Listen up!  *No* *one's* rights are violated by caller-ID!

    =========  Pascal  #(u,u)#  Yawn!  MacProgrammer  =========

    Message: 75934
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last...
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 17:51:02

            They won't listen Steve...  Gordon is posting myth and untruths
    on a system that is not even installed here yet.  He fantasizes that this is
    the ONLY way businesses will get his number.  Quite frankly, most of them
    won't even want his number.  Maybe Gordon and Dean find it too much of a
    hassle to punch in a two digit code to block their numbers.

            You know, it's the CALLER with all the rights all of a sudden and
    the callee has NO rights.   I like my privacy, and that is WHY I want the
    system.... too screen out those I do not wish to talk to!

            Businesses WILL answer screened out or not....  Home owners may
    choose not to answer Caller I.D. screened calls... but if you don't want
    that home owner or your friend or your mother to have your number, what the
    hell are you doing with their number and why are you even calling them?

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

    Message: 75935
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 17:53:53

    Re:  Data strongly suggests that milk must trigger some reaction in those
    around the user making them want to attack.

    Ah Ha!  It was the kid's fault all along!

    Message: 75936
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Steve
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 17:58:54

    Re:  It may be possible to build the box such that my phone won't even
    bother to ring if the number is either not provided,

    Anytime I get a "P", my answering machine will take the call.  I can hardly
    wait.  Just think, no more salespeople in the middle of supper!

    Message: 75937
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 18:03:28

    Re:  I have a stone hedge around my house.

    Do you have a moat and draw bridge?

    Message: 75938
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller-ID/Privacy
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 18:21:18

    Steve, I agree with everything you said in message 75933.

    Message: 75939
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 19:32:52

    I did not claim anyone wanted to impersonate me.  I merely pointed out a
    fact which would be useful to anyone who *did* wish to (and there have been
    a few in the past).

    I AGREE that if someone wants to use your hardware, you have the right to
    set the rules.  Since I do not wish to obey these rules, I have NO right to
    call the board.  So, I will now go away again to boards whose rules do not
    chafe.

    Message: 75940
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Little
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:21:47

    Great stuff.  Regarding the commercialization of language:
    don't forget the big hubbub over "Lexus" (the car versus the
    database).  I've already put in a bid on the property
    rights to the dollar sign character, but I think Donald
    Trump beat me to it ... or outbid me, one or the other.

    Remember, education is sometimes indoctrination in drag.

    Public Key Cryptography may have some bearing on what you
    were saying about information control = power.  It seems
    that mathematics has determined that secure communications
    between intelligent people is inevitable.  PKC seems to be
    a fundamental parameter in infopolitics.

    Message: 75941
    Author: $ Apro Poet
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Robber Barons
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 00:42:06

      A meeting was called for Haymarket Square on the evening
    of May 4, and about three thousand persons assembled.  It
    was a quiet meeting, and as storm clouds gathered and the
    hour grew late, the crowd dwindled to a few hundred.  A
    detachment of 180 policemen showed up, advanced on the
    speakers' platform, ordered the crowd to disperse.  The
    speaker said the meeting was almost over.  A bomb then
    exploded in the midst of the police, wounding sixty-six
    policemen, of whom seven later died.  The police fired into
    the crowd, killing several people, wounding two hundred.
      With no evidence on who threw the bomb, the police
    arrested eight anarchist leaders in Chicago.  The Chicago
    *Journal* said: "Justice should be prompt in dealing with
    the arrested anachists.  The law regarding accessories to
    crime in this State is so plain that their trials will be
    short."  Illinois law said that anyone inciting a murder was
    guilty of that murder.  The evidence against the eight
    anarchists was their ideas, their literature; none had been
    at Haymarket that day except Fielden, who was speaking when
    the bomb exploded.  A jury found them guilty, and they were
    sentenced to death.  Their appeals were denied; the Supreme
    Court said it had no jurisdiction.
      The event aroused international excitement.  Meetings took
    place in France, Holland, Russia, Italy, Spain.  In London a
    meeting of protest was sponsored by George Bernard Shaw,
    William Morris, and Peter Kropotkin, among others.  Shaw
    had responded in his characteristic way to the turning down
    of an appeal by the eight members of the Illinois Supreme
    Court: "If the world must lose eight of its people, it can
    better afford to lose the eight members of the Illinois
    Supreme Court."
      A year after the trial, four of the convicted anarchists
    -- Albert Parsons, a printer, August Spies, an upholsterer,
    Adolph Fischer, and George Engel -- were hanged.  Louis
    Lingg, a twenty-one-year-old carpenter, blew himself up in
    his cell by exploding a dynamite tube in his mouth.  Three
    remained in prison.
      The executions aroused people all over the country.  There
    was a funeral march of 25,000 in Chicago.  Some evidence
    came out that a man named Rudolph Schnaubelt, supposedly an
    anarchist, was actually an agent of the police, an *agent
    provocateur*, hired to throw the bomb and thus enable the
    arrest of hundreds, the destruction of the revolutionary
    leadership in Chicago.  But to this day it has not been
    discovered who threw the bomb.
      While the immediate result was a suppression of the
    radical movement, the long-term effect was to keep alive
    the class anger of many, to inspire others -- especially
    young people of that generation -- to action in
    revolutionary causes.  Sixty thousand signed petitions to
    the new governor of Illinois, John Peter Altgeld, who
    investigated the facts, denounced what had happened, and
    pardoned the three remaining prisoners.  Year after year,
    all over the country, memorial meetings for the Haymarket
    martyrs were held; it is impossible to know the number of
    individuals whose political awakening -- as with Emma
    Goldman and Alexander Berkman, long-time revolutionary
    stalwarts of the next generation -- came from the Haymarket
    Affair.
      (As late as 1968, the Haymarket events were alive; in that
    year a group of young radicals in Chicago blew up the
    monument that had been erected to the memory of the police
    who died in the explosion.  And the trial of eight leaders
    of the antiwar movement in Chicago around that time evoked,
    in the press, in meetings, and in literature, the memory of
    the first "Chicago Eight," on trial for their ideas.)
      After Haymarket, class conflict and violence continued,
    with strikes, lockouts, blacklisting, the use of Pinkerton
    detectives and police to break strikes with force, and
    courts to break them by law.  During a strike of streetcar
    conductors on the Third Avenue Line in New York a month
    after the Haymarket Affair, police charged a crowd of
    thousands, using their clubs indiscriminately: "The New York
    *Sun* reported: "Men with broken scalps were crawling off in
    all directions...."
      Some of the energy of resentment in late 1886 was poured
    into the electoral campaign for mayor of New York that fall.
    Trade unions formed an Independent Labor party and nominated
    for mayor Henry George, the radical economist, whose
    *Progress and Poverty* had been read by thousands of
    workers.  George's platform tells something about the
    conditions of life for workers in New York in the 1880s.  It
    demanded:
         1. that property qualifications be abolished for
            members of juries.
         2. that Grand Jurors be chosen from the lower-class as
            well as from the upper-class, which dominated Grand
            Juries.
         3. that the police not interfere with peaceful meetings.
         4. that the sanitary inspection of buildings be enforced.
         5. that contract labor be abolished in public works.
         6. that there be equal pay for equal work for women.
         7. that the streetcars be owned by the municipal
            government.
      The democrats nominated an iron manufacturer, Abram
    Hewitt, and the Republicans nominated Theodore Roosevelt,
    at a convention presided over by Elihu Root, a corporation
    lawyer, with the nominating speech given by Chauncey Depew,
    a railroad director.  In a campaign of coercion and bribery,
    Hewitt was elected with 41 percent of the vote, George came
    second with 31 percent of the vote, and Roosevelt third with
    27 percent of the vote.  The New York *World* saw this as a
    signal:
           The deep-voiced protest conveyed in the 67,000 votes
         for Henry George against the combined power of both
         political parties, of Wall Street and the business
         interests, and of the public press should be a warning
         to the community to heed the demands of Labor so far as
         they are just and reasonable....
    In other cities in the country too, labor candidates ran,
    polling 25,000 out of 92,000 votes in Chicago, electing a
    mayor in Milwaukee, and various local officials in Fort
    Worth, Texas, Eaton, Ohio, and Leadville, Colorado.
      It seemed that the weight of Haymarket had not crushed the
    labor movement.  The year 1886 became known to
    contemporaries as "the year of the great uprising of labor."
    From 1881 to 1885, strikes had averaged about 500 each year,
    involving perhaps 150,000 workers each year.  In 1886 there
    were over 1,400 strikes, involving 500,000 workers.  John
    Commons, in his *History of the Labor Movement in the United
    States*, saw in that:
         ... the signs of a great movement by the class of the
         unskilled, which had finally risen in rebellion....
         The movement bore in every way the aspect of a social
         war.  A frenzied hatred of labour for capital was shown
         in every important strike....  Extreme bitterness
         toward capital manifested itself in all the actions of
         the Knights of Labor, and wherever the leaders
         undertook to hold it within bounds, they were generally
         discarded by their followers....

    Message: 75947
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Vote
    Subject: New ote
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 01:56:30

            Just in case you are one that does NOT look at the ote question
    when prompted at log in.... The New ote deals with the Caller I.D.
    Question.

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

    Message: 75949
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Annie/abuse
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 10:08:05

     So your answer for the problem is that an ounce of cure is worth a pound of
    prevention. Sounds backwards to me. You are willing to sacrifice too much on
    the phony altar of "privacy", including but not limited to a significant
    percentage of today's children. (Not a majority, thank God, but a
    significant percentage. One percent would even be too much, and so,
    significant.)

    Message: 75950
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Arizona Newsday
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:14:48

    I, for one, am not going to fork out $100 for a promise based upon one
    issue.  If I could subscribe for a month or two, maybe.  If I give Ev $100,
    I am gambling that he will still be in business in six months.  I don't want
    to do that.

    Message: 75951
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: TPC
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:19:44

    So, the Oudin residence phone is being used as a business phone?  This is
    all a regulatory an contractual matter, Ann, and I'm sure TPC found out by
    noticing that your incoming/outgoing calling patterns didn't match that of a
    residence so much as a residence from which a business is being run.
    Businesses place a much heavier toll, on average, on the phone network, and
    TPC is allowed (obligated?) to charge more to businesses to compensate.

    Once TPC computer flashed the red light on your phone number, it was a
    simple matter for a TPC employee to call to see how the phone was being used
    -- and it was answered as a business phone.  No need for "listening in" at
    all.

    I, for one, would appreciate it if Whitey would stop "ripping off" TPC by
    having only a residence phone, as this action is affecting my phone bill.

    Message: 75952
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Caller ID
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:20:39

    Good idea, Cliff.  Answer all out-of-state calls.  Once the
    anti-telephone-solicitation regulations get into place in this state, all
    telephone solicitation to your home will originate from out-of-state.

    Message: 75953
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gun ownership
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:23:03

    It wasn't pistols and "assault weapons" that were effective against the
    Soviet gunships in Afghanistan -- it was SAM launchers and the like.  Plus
    the fact that, like Vietnam, "the people" were fighting for their country,
    and the army were foreign mercenaries who weren't appropriately paid or
    motivated.

    In the situation in Iraq, both sides were internal, and one was extremely
    poorly armed in comparison to the other.  No motivational factors involved.

    Message: 75954
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: The lawyer/champion
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:28:08

    This is an interesting parallel, Gordon.  I'd say that "personal injury
    attorneys" and "DUI defense lawyers" can easily be seen as hired guns, the
    situation with corporate attorneys or retained attorneys isn't quite so
    simple.  These people first and foremost provide legal advice, much of it
    being what not to do and why not to do it.  Only at the last resort do they
    don armour, mount the steed, and charge the opponent in front of the bench.
    Given that we've heard that our top Pentagon brass argues against use of the
    military, one wonders if knights routinely said "Well, that duke only took a
    *little* bit of the most *worthless* part of your holdings... we should send
    a diplomatic emissary to deliver some strong words" or if they said "Let me
    at them!  I'll tear him to shreds!"

    Message: 75955
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Vote
    Subject: marijuana vote
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 13:41:41

    Interesting - more than half of Apollo's oters were for the legalization
    of marijuana.

    Message: 75956
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 06/23/91  Time: 15:53:34

    Unfortunately we must wait until October when the new crop will be
    harvested.

    On another note, I last logged on here on the 21st and my buffer shows that
    there are 94,000 bytes of information for me to read.  Ouch!

    Ann, if you notice the odds given for a person being killed in an airplane
    crash are far less than being killed by an asteroid.  How many people have
    you heard of being killed by an asteroid?  An airplane crash?  Go figure.

    Perhaps the powers that be want to sell the people 'asteroid' insurance,
    knowing that if a big one hit that money would be worth zilch.  Or just
    perhaps the National Inquirer or The Globe bought controlling interest in
    the Republic/Gazette.  Ever think of that.

    It was thoughful of the Supreme Court to allow police to board and search
    public transportation without cause.  Sort of reminds me of Mexico or some
    other South American Countries.  Another straw added to our backs.

    STOre House of Votes Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 21
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Old ote
    Subject: Marijuana
    Date: 06/22/91  Time: 22:39:26

    Drugs... right or wrong?

    [A] I am for the legalization of marijuana
    [B] I am against legalization of marijuana
    [C] I am undecided

    Poll results:
    [A] 21   [B] 13   [C] 2

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