### Apollo BBS Archive - August 12, 1991

    Mail from Nick Ianuzzi
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 04:35:10

    Hi Rod,

    Tom's doctor is Dr. Robert H. Christensen.  He is now semi-retired so he can
    be hard to get in touch with.

    Nick
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Thanks for the info but I probably will not need it.
     2:
     3:Do you think JT would be willing to testify or be a part of the defense for
     4:a trial on the merits of marijuana?  How do I get in touch with him?

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7929
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod / Proof
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 00:23:40

        Now, Rod, you are not the first person to demand a sign or proof of such
    a nature (however, yours does get an A for creativity).

        But let's get serious.  Who am I to tell God, "Hey, do some supernatural
    skywriting for Mr. Williams"?  Indeed, why must God prove Himself to satisfy
    his creation by means of theatrics?

        There will never be enough evidence to cause someone to believe in God
    purely on the basis of his own reasoning and deduction.  There is certainly
    enough in our universe alone to leave anyone who denies a creator, without
    excuse.  But the proof that we see in an intelligently planned universe that
    could not have possibly come about by mere time and chance, is not a saving
    knowledge.  The knowledge of God that saves is found in Scripture.

        But you do not consider that to be evidence, and you believe the
    universe to be a chaotic mess, so I'm sorry, but I don't have any evidence
    that will convince your logic and reason.  Just as no one here has any
    evidence to disprove my reason for my God-given faith.

    Message: 7930
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/logic & belief
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 04:20:54

     DW>>You rely on faith, and trust that what the scientists say is true.

    This is an important point you raise.  If we can understand enough science
    to check the deductions scientists make from their evidence, we have a solid
    basis for knowing whether something is definitely true, probably true,
    possibly true, or false.  But if we don't understand the reasoning behind
    the deductions, we have to choose whether or not to trust what scientists
    claim.  Then it does become a matter of belief rather than logic.

    I'm not at all sure that schools do a good job of explaining the reasoning
    behind what they teach us.  I think you said before that you felt you'd been
    "brainwashed" by evolutionary teaching in school.  I'd be interested to know
    exactly what they did teach you.  If all they did was to say "the Earth is X
    million years old", or "Man evolved from more primitive lifeforms", without
    explaining *how* we know that, they were doing a lousy job.  A math teacher
    couldn't get away with that.  Why should a history or science teacher?

    While scientists are sometimes wrong about their conclusions, we can at
    least examine the evidence for ourselves and see whether their conclusions
    are reasonable.  Unfortunately we can't always rely on every single fact
    we're told these days, but I'm quite confident that scientists as a body
    aren't flat-out lying to us about the evidence.  Incidents like the Piltdown
    hoax or the cold fusion fiasco fortunately tend to come in single spies,
    rather than forming a pattern of deception.

    Message: 7931
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Early Man
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 04:21:39

    We may not have found the Missing Link, but what do creationists believe
    about the early humans that we *have* found -- Neanderthals, Peking Man,
    Java Man, Homo Habilis, Lucy and so forth?  Are these in fact "human"?  If
    so, why are they different from the humans we have today?

    Message: 7932
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: How's that again?
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 04:22:07

    From the Oakland Sunday Tribune:

         In 1968, a rangy young man named Richard Leakey hunkered down in a
         grey, bone-dry gully near the shores of Lake Rudolph in Kenya, brushed
         a shock of rust-colored hair from his eyes, and uncovered the skull of
         a man-like creature who lived there 2.6 million years ago.

    Message: 7933
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon/even if
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 08:22:51

    you take things out of context, i suppose.

    Message: 7934
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: daryl/proof
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 08:35:45

     The proof is in the here in and now.  I live, I get older, I will die.
    Just like you and the billions of things that have come and gone in the
    past.  Can you prove what I say is in error?  No, I don't rely on faith and
    trust in what scientist say is true.  I know for a FACT that time moves on.
    I know that every day, Monday to friday I have places to be at a certain
    Time and that other times I have other places to be.  Same as everyone else.
     Over the millions of years.
     Point number two:  No I was not trying to be offensive with the use of the
    word "bibble". To me that is the way I will refer to it, whether you like it
    or not.  But then again I could care less what you do/don't like.  I find
    you personally offensive.  But that is neither here nor there.
     Point number three: Webster defines religion as: the service and worship of
    god or supernatural.  A personal set or instituionalized system of religious
    attitudes, beliefs, and practices....  I hold to none of these.
    Evolution, once again, is merely an ongoing process along the time
    continuim.  Always has, always will be.

    Message: 7935
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl #7924
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 09:13:29

    Ok - lets skip the 'overwhelming evidence' - which I am not going to the
    trouble to read, research and then post just so you can put it down with
    your 'overwhelming religious idiocy' that the earth is 8,000 years or so old
    - (sorry Daryl. That's the way I look at it - idiocy!) How about COMMON
    SENSE? I'm not saying that the evolutionists or scientists are 100% right,
    but common sense tells me they are at least partially right.

    Do you realize how many people you can turn off to Christianty by touting
     such things? Intelligent people that are searching until they come across
    a half baked theory that the earth is only 8,000 years old and that the
    fossils, and carbon testing and the like are all fakes and that there is a
    conspiracy among the monstrous athiest scientist perpetrated by Satan
    himself to turn people from God so they'll all go to hell - they simply say
    "no thank you. I'll join the Buddists."

    You are a minority Christian. Most of them that I know do not believe as you
    do about the age of the earth. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7936
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl #7925
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 09:16:38

    Hey guy! This is something I am really interested in - your statement to Rod
    .... "What evidence are you willing to accept?"
    ....."What type of evidence would prove beyound a shadow of a doubt in your
    mind that God exists?"

    Your going to prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists???
    Oh lordy, PLEEEEASE DO!!!! I REALLY am interested in this one!!!
                               *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7937
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl #7926
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 09:19:20

    It is absolutely ridiculous to state that atheists have a religion - a set
    of beliefs whether it's without God or not. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7938
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl on creater
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 09:23:13

    it is very possible this is a intelligently planned universe. Nothing wrong
    in believing that God created it. You just limit Him and I don't!
                               *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7939
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon/early man
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 12:44:58

    The mere fact that it is difficult to distinguish between human and proto
    human forms makes it likely that these fossils are "transitional".

    Message: 7940
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Question?
    Subject: No answer yet
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 15:34:36

    I'm still waiting for the "FACTS" people on this board to address my
    simple, straightforward question. I beleive it is of enough magnitude
    that it requires an accounting and an answer; otherwise nobody in
    the "FACTS" camp can refute the validity of calling their set of
    dogmas a belief system; modernly referred to as a religion.

    Q: If matter (and energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, how then do
       you account for our existence? Bearegard Dog has continually avoided
       answering this by stopping at "The dust of the universe has always
       been there."; yet he chides Christians for believing a God has always
       been there....
       Dust is matter. A Big Bang requires big energy. It all requires a set
       of physical laws to also be in place for a "bang" to happen.
       So, explain away on your foundation of your religion; that matter
       and energy popped out of nothing, created themselves, the set of laws
       which they themselves exist by and went from zero level of complexity
       to the level we have now. (Again, flying directly in the face of
       matters own natural set of laws).

    I'm still curious for your answers. Prove *first* your foundations,
    for without them you rest in false quarters.

    Message: 7941
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: energy/big bang
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 20:28:03

    The law of conservation of energy/mass is a law of the universe since
    the big bang. Science cannot answer the question of what happened prior
    to the Big Bang. This, however, can be of little comfort to you, for all
    may indicate that a "God" may have created the energy in the universe. The
    laws of the universe still lead to Evolution and the Way Things Are.

    Finally, assuming that the energy to create the universe has always been
    there is no more difficult than assuming that a God has always been there.
    If you say you "must explain where energy came from" I say: "You must
    explain where God came from."

    BTW, you might be interested in reading Stephen Hawking's _A Brief History
    of Time_ where he gives a different reason for assuming a God created the
    universe. Read it then let's talk about it.

    Message: 7942
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Thad/evolution
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 20:44:13

    I agree with you to a point on the possibility of God-directed evolution,
    and that is this: I believe that we *can* find out how evolution works.
    Right now we have a few working hypotheses and are searching out data to
    prove or disprove them.  That there *was* evolution isn't in question, of
    course.  It has even been "tested" by tying it together with plate
    tectonics, using the association of land masses at given ages of the earth
    to predict the presence of certain fossils in certain places.

    Message: 7943
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon / "Men"
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 00:28:03

        I hope that I get those tapes back soon for you to borrow, as Dr. Ham
    goes over (I believe) all of the "early humans" that you have mentioned.
        One that sticks out in my mind is Peking Man.  I seem to recall Dr. Ham
    speaking of the discovery of the items found that led to the theory of
    Peking Man.  Bashed-in monkey skulls, evidence of fire and stone tools were
    found in very close proximity to each other.  The conclusion was that
    apes/apemen had learned how to make and use stone tools and fire.
        But what about the evidence that was found?  Stone tools, bashed-in ape
    skulls, evidence of fire.  What do we know about apes, from the standpoint
    of edibility?  They are terrible.  But what about the brains?  They are
    edible and in some parts of the world are considered a delicacy.  The head
    is boiled, the skull broken open and the brains are eaten.
        So does the evidence show that "Peking Man" learned how to use stone
    tools and fire?  Or does it show that fire and stone tools were used to cook
    "Peking Man?"

    Message: 7944
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barbarian
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 00:48:58

         WB: "I find you personally offensive."

         If I were a little less tolerant, I would suggest the ZONE to Cliff for
    a remark like that.  But I won't.  I feel I can classify myself as an Apollo
    veteran, and have debated far better than you in my many years on this fine
    system.
         I've seen characters like yourself come and go on Apollo.  They come
    in, spout off, die out, and disappear.  I'm sure that Cliff could attest to
    the fact that the number of regular dedicated Apollo users is dwarfed by the
    back log of those whose time on Apollo amounted to a mere speck in the
    history of this BBS.  Countless others, like yourself, that were full of
    themselves, oblivious to the views of others, who barged in out of nowhere,
    stomped on the feet of anyone within range, and frankly didn't care.  Where
    are they now?  Enshrined in the hallowed halls of total anonymity.
        Why am I saying all of this?  Because I was willing to give you a
    chance.  I was willing to take time out of my busy day to read and respond
    to what you had to say.  That was, until now.
        I no longer plan to waste a second of my time listening to your
    pointless tirades, your endless attempts to call your opinions "facts" (and
    then force them down people's throats), your total lack of respect for other
    users, your belittling, your demeaning, your insulting, and your
    childishness.  In other words, since you have decided that you find me
    "offensive," then I feel I need to waste no more time with you.  I'll just
    sit and watch you follow in the steps of those who have come before you.

    Message: 7945
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 01:01:10

        You have said that there is "overwhelming evidence."  I have asked you
    to prove it.  What you have presented has not been "overwhelming," nor has
    it been "evidence."  And since I have disagreed with the so-called
    "evidence" you claim to have presented, you now say that you are not going
    to waste your time to amass this great load of "overwhelming evidence"
    because all Daryl is going to do is spout religious idiocy. (In other words,
    Daryl is not going to agree with her, and pat her on the back and tell her
    what great evidence she has presented. Boo hoo. Pout pout.)  To make a long
    story short, Daryl seems to persist in expressing an opposing viewpoint, and
    that just won't do, so Ann is going to take her marbles and go home.

        If you wish to call the young-earth theory "idiocy," that is your
    opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.  But you have certainly not
    provided me with any solid irrefutable evidence that has caused me to doubt
    what I believe to be true.  I find it interesting that since you cannot
    shake my foundation, then you must resort to name-calling.  I'm not saying
    I'm surprised, I'm just saying it's interesting.  Since you cannot refute my
    position with facts, you feel you must refute it with insults.  Like they
    say, if you fling enough mud, some of it will stick.  I'm sorry, but that's
    not debate to me.

    Message: 7946
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann / Evidence
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 01:09:37

        No, I'm not saying that I have solid physical evidence that God exists.
    I am asking what sort of evidence Rod is willing to accept.  And since Rod
    is an atheist, IS there any evidence that would prove to Rod that God DOES
    exist?  In fact, can Rod look at any of the evidence and question, "Is God
    behind this?  Did God create?"  He cannot.  Why?  Because as soon as he does
    this, what does he stop being?  An atheist, of course.  So there is no
    evidence that Rod would be willing to accept that God exists.

    Message: 7947
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann / Religion
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 01:11:29

        It is ridiculous because you say it is.  As I said, ask American
    Atheists, and they will tell you that they are a religious organization.

        (I feel like I am in the middle of an "Argument Clinic" sketch in a
    Monty Python program.)

    Message: 7948
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann / God
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 01:16:17

        Tell me where I limit Him?  You are the one that is saying that He
    couldn't do it in six days, not me.  In fact, I believe that He didn't even
    need to take six days to do it.  But He took six days and rested on the
    seventh for a reason.  God says, "I worked six days and rested one, you do
    the same."  Did He really mean, "I worked six million years and rested for
    one million, now you do the same?"  Of course not.  What were the six
    creative days and one rest day a model for?  Our work week!

         You look at six days and say "God couldn't have done it in that short
    of a period of time."

         I look at it and say, "God, why did you take so long to do it?"

         Who is limiting God here?

    Message: 7949
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike / Facts
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 01:18:39

        Don't hold your breath.  Some of the natives are getting upset because
    we keep disagreeing with them.  Could it be because they still have not
    presented facts?  ...Naaaaaah.

    Message: 7950
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: carter/you wouldn't
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 03:36:41

    be happy if someone with overwhelming proof walked up to you and slapped ya
    with all the proof in the world.  So why bother with any proof with someone
    like yourself.  We have better things to do than waste our time and energy
    on you

    Message: 7951
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: westfall/hmmmmm
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 03:42:09

    Maybe you think we should all bow in your devine presence????  Hmmm...not a
    chance sucker.....  And all the little terms that you soooo dearly use to
    describe me fit yourself as well.  I don't try to force anything down
    anyone's throat.  Unlike your so-called religious rantings and ravings, at
    least what I beleive in has some background in science and can be proved.
    You can't say the same. Oh well.

    Message: 7952
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/AA
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 07:12:35

    The American Atheists is a very screwed-up organization.  It has become a
    cult of personality (well, almost) around Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

    Fortunately, only a small percentage of non-believers are members of AA.
    Most of us just ignore them, or take opportunities like this to call Madalyn
    the Pope in Texas.

    Message: 7953
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl's work
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 07:13:36

    So, do you work 48 hours a week and sit around on your butt on Sunday?

    Message: 7954
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl your 2 posts
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 08:25:21

    What a strange fellow you are. You post 2 to me - back to back - berate me
    for not producing 'Overwhelming' evidence to prove to you evolution is a
    fact and in the very next post, when I have ask you for overwhelming proof
    that God exists - you cannot give it to me!

    It seems to be OK that you disagree with people, but they can't disagree
    with you. You puff up like a rightous missionary. Why don't you calm down?
                               *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7955
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl on limit
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 08:33:21

    I say you are limiting God to six days! He also could have done it in one
    second too, right?

    Look! No one knows anything really about God - how He created the universe,
    how long He took and most of all "WHY"??? You don't have the answers any
    more than the rest of us do. Why can't you admit that? Why can't you let
    other's believe the way they do and sit back and stroke your chin and say
    ..."Hmmmmmm? They could be right. They could have a point. I think my way of
    thinking is best, but I'll listen with an open mind." *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7956
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barb
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 09:48:24

    I agree with you about Daryl, but it's USUALLY easier just to >> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 4992
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Melissa on Mike
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 09:36:10

    Why are you bothering to answer his vile spruing posts! He isn't interested
    in talking about this subject - your oppinion vs his - he wants to insult
    you with 'Melissa Pee' and 'ignorant fucks' et al. He is NO gentleman nor is
    he a Christian. He's a mad dog. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 4993
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Gordon on fuck
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 09:42:05

    It's not that the Bible says you can't say fuck or like words - it does give
    pretty clear instructions on how to treat your fellow man however, and
    calling them an ignorant fuck just isn't in there Gordon. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 4994
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Melissa/Bad Words
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 12:47:08

    Oh probably "fuck" and "shit"...

    Message: 4995
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: ?
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 15:40:06

    If this were *public* I would most certainly not use the words:
    Ignorant fucks to describe people like Ann Oudin and Green Lantern.
    But because this *is* the Cosmos Zone, even mad dogs like me like
    to dump a chest  load from time to time. But as usual, there's the
    screaming hoarde of ugly cunts like Oudin out there soley to
    place blame, point fingers, wretch incomprehisbily and moan about
    one of life's simplest pleasures; the desire to tell everyone
    just to kiss your ass and close the doors.

    Whatza matter, wretch-lips? You don't like me being a Christian, yet
    you swing around and moan because I often act like you?

    Aww shucks, maybe someone forgot to change your diaper at the door,
    this is the Cosmos SIG and *you* can go fuck yourself.

    BTW; Melissa Dee has at least the capability to rationally answer
    and participate in discussion here. Although from time to time
    I will disaggree with her, she at least bounces back and returns
    my favors in like fashion.
    For that I respect her.
    Unlike you, a lazy, cowering blob of sickly smoke-filled jelly without
    a spine. You're constantly sucking worms from the bottom of the garbage
    heap here and on the main board, your brain-dead assertions are a
    disgrace to anyone searching for female intelligence and your
    purile, self-serving, ass-kissing, infected personality disorders
    wont get you any brownie points here.
    You'd be better off masturbating with your joystick in front of a
    crowd of homeless dogs; you might get your jollies sooner.

    Now I'll probably burn good in God's eye for this, but it's under
    the laws of Apollo and non-public. Yep, mad dogs like me like
    places like this; we get to bark all we want when we feel we need to.

    Woof woof.

    Message: 4997
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: River Styx
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 20:47:04

    I'll pay top dollar for center grandstand seats when old Mike tries to
    cross.

    Message: 4998
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: Hummm
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 22:23:55

    Wow.  Carter "respects" me.  What is the world coming to.
    I don't know.  I mean, I respect people's right to express themselves but
    when it gets really demeaning, I turn off.  I don't understand how someone
    can consciously try to hurt another human being, slice them up with words,
    and feel good about it.
    Kay Sarah, Sarah, I guess.
    Ann, thanks for sticking up for me.  I appreciate your good faith effort.
    And some advice for the future?  Do what I do: just hit [s]kip when you see
    his name.

    Message: 4999
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: Mikey
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 08:40:47

    I really think you ought to take Rod's advise dear. You know ... if you suck
    a dead dog's dick first thing every morning, everything else for the rest of
    the day will certainly be better! Have a nice day! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 5000
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: $#!+
    Subject: Ashamed
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 08:50:52

    There are days when I am truly ashamed of the way human beings treat each
    other.  I think this is going to be one of those.

    Message: 5001
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: last few
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 12:09:30

    Excellent posts!

    Message: 5002
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: 5001
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 12:39:48

    Excellent post.

    Message: 5003
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Ann/4999
    Date: 08/14/91  Time: 00:03:49

    It got stuck in my throat.  (hey, isn't 999 something else upside down?)
    Yipes, I'm getting the fuck outta here before my tube implodes.

    FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1757
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Trivia
    Subject: Deep Throat
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 03:06:25

    Jane and I saw Deep Throat in Boston years ago.  We laughed.

    Message: 1758
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Junk Culture
    Subject: Deep Throat
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 11:53:34

    Definitely a funny/stupid porno movie.  Horrible music, stupid plot.  But
    you should see it anyway.  If only to see what it's like.  And you think
    differently when you drink your next Coke.

    Message: 1759
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Filmography
    Subject: Pornorama
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 11:56:37

    There are a number of interesting Adult films out there.  For more realism,
    and erotica, I would try something produced/directed by Candide Royal.  She
    puts out some pretty good quality.  Get a good review book and see what
    they say.  90% of porn is the 'ol in and 'out, with not much inbetween.  You
    can only see so many cum shots before you get 'full' of it.

    Message: 1760
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Filmography
    Subject: Last
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 22:27:09

    Is Candide Royal the lady that produces/directs for women?  I heard a long
    time ago on the Playboy Channel (back when it was still in the valley) of
    this lady that has actually stories, plot lines and believable dialogue.  I
    keep forgeting her name when people tell me, too.  Freudian?
    Thanks for the reviews.  I didn't know _Deep Throat_ was suppose to be funny
    but oh well.  Coke still comes in bottles?  I stick to water, thanks.

    Message: 1761
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Review
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 09:33:41

    I didn't care for _Deep Throat_ and I know YOU wouldn't like it.

    Message: 1762
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Review
    Subject: Last
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 17:25:35

    Oh really?  Why?

    Message: 1763
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: last 2
    Date: 08/14/91  Time: 00:05:28

    I'm staying away from these.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 77498
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann / "Fear"
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 00:25:07

        I just received in the mail a portion of a new Bible translation that is
    in the works.  The portion is a completed translation of the book of
    Proverbs.  In the appendix there is a terrific section on the "fear of the
    LORD."  When I get the time, I will type it in.

    Message: 77499
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 03:08:10

    What happened to your sister's marriage was very sad.  It's unfortunate that
    we don't have a lot of information about the exact nature of the problem
    between them, and of course without talking to the man himself we have only
    a second-hand picture at best of what was in his head.

    I don't doubt for one moment that it's possible for a trained counselor --
    or for certain untrained but highly intuitive people, like your mother -- to
    recognize accurately that a person is heavily into erotic material.  Certain
    patterns of behavior tend to go together, to form a "syndrome", just as
    particular diseases display an array of symptoms.  A "syndrome" is simply a
    collection of things that usually occur together (the word literally means
    "running together").

    If we see someone with red spots on his face and a runny nose and eyes, we
    can deduce that he probably has measles, if we've seen or heard about
    measles before.  Because we know that measles causes fever, we can ask him
    if he feels feverish, or take his temperature with a thermometer, and the
    chances are very high that we will turn out to be right.  We don't have to
    know the cause of measles to make this deduction.  All we have to know is
    that the symptoms usually occur together in a syndrome we recognize as a
    recurring pattern.  Since we encounter this pattern often, it becomes
    familiar and we attach the label "measles" to it.  We can also make
    statements about the prognosis with some confidence: the likelihood of death
    (quite low) and the probability of changes in eyesight (significant).

    But just because the symptoms occur together, it doesn't follow that the
    fever caused the spots, or the runny nose caused the fever.  These things
    are only symptoms.  The real cause of measles is the measles virus, and
    that's something we will never even see unless we have a blood sample and a
    microscope, plus the knowledge of what healthy blood should look like
    compared with blood that has been infected with the measles virus.

    Knowing nothing about the measles virus doesn't invalidate our empirical
    knowledge about measles.  If we learn that keeping the patient in a darkened
    room helps to avoid damage to the eyesight, that knowledge is genuinely
    useful.  But if we don't know anything about the measles virus, anything we
    believe about the cause of measles is still a misunderstanding; and it's
    difficult to treat measles effectively without true understanding.  It would
    be silly to assume, for example, that measles is caused by red spots on the
    skin, and to try to treat it by covering them up with face powder.  The best
    treatment for measles would be a drug that directly kills the measles virus
    in the bloodstream, or helps the body to do that job itself.  The best
    protection against measles is to keep people away from the measles virus, or
    from people infected with it.

    Like medical symptoms, behavioral symptoms tend to occur in clusters, or
    syndromes.  Trained therapists have little trouble recognizing clusters of
    symptoms that go with alcoholism, or drug addiction, or adults who have been
    molested as children, or agoraphobia.

    The cluster of symptoms that go with drug usage are well publicized so that
    parents can recognize them in teenagers.  We can also say a good deal about
    the "serial killer" syndrome, recognizing the tendency for many serial
    killers to start their careers by starting fires and doing other destructive
    acts.

    In all likelihood, many syndromes are less easily recognized and do not yet
    have a name.  If your mother claimed that she could recognize when somebody
    was devoting more attention than usual to sexual material, I wouldn't waste
    one minute trying to contradict her.  People are far too ready to pour scorn
    on "feminine intuition", as if it were all nonsense or black magic.  It's
    actually a valuable talent for pattern recognition.

    Pattern recognition gives us important information, even when we don't
    understand the reason why the different elements of the pattern go together.
    We can say, based on previous experience, that "this looks like a man we can
    trust," or on the other hand, "Uh-oh!  Here comes trouble!"

    But pattern recognition by itself tells us only that these elements
    generally occur together.  It tells us nothing about which element in the
    pattern occurred first, or caused the others to arise.  The elements of the
    pattern that we can see with our eyes do not necessarily even include the
    original cause -- which is true with the measles virus.

    In the case of drugs, we can say that many drugs have a physiological effect
    of their own that tends to cause addiction.  But these are secondary
    effects, and don't tell us why some people choose to get involved with
    addictive drugs in the first place.  I won't try to address alcohol here,
    because alcoholism is probably complicated by the fact that some people are
    more physiologically prone to alcohol addiction than others.  But I can say
    for a fact that heroin is physiologically addictive, and cocaine is
    definitely psychologically addictive.  So how come I, and the majority of
    other people, have *chosen* to avoid these drugs that we know are dangerous?

    We waste an incredible amount of effort on this "war on drugs", and all we
    do is to keep a lot of people in jobs that satisfy them personally because
    they love to criticize people and fight people and look down on those who
    are "less than" themselves, which makes them feel better.  We spend very
    little effort finding out *why* people are attracted to addictive drugs in
    the first place, why people like you and me use their common sense to avoid
    such things like the plague, what pain it is that these people are trying to
    escape through their use of drugs, and just why they see drugs as their only
    means of escape.  Understanding and perhaps curing these things would do an
    incalculable amount of good.  It would also upset a great number of people
    who caused this pain in the first place, or who derive great personal
    benefit from their role in "heroically" fighting the evils of drugs.  That's
    why we still have a "drug" problem (actually a *people* problem) that's
    strangling us all.

    Erotic material, on the other hand, is not addictive.  It's certainly not
    physiologically addictive, and the only time it can be psychologically
    addictive (unlike cocaine which hits brain centers that were never "meant"
    to be stimulated by drugs) is when it fulfills a psychological need that
    should never have been there in the first place, or should have been
    fulfilled by other means.

    There are so many ways to fulfill these needs.  The most basic way, of
    course, is through a sexual relationship with another human being.  Yes,
    erotic material can give you (or me) an extra little fillip of excitement,
    or stimulate the imagination; but it can't provide love, or closeness, or
    touch or physical stimulation, or any of those things.

    Furthermore, even those of us who don't seek out explicitly erotic material
    are still being stimulated by erotic things all the time.  Erotic stimuli
    are quite unlike drugs.  I can eat a steak or drink a glass of water or
    smoke a cigar and I know it's completely free of heroin, cocaine, marijuana,
    speed, or any other such drugs.  I can't say the same thing about erotic
    stimuli in my environment.  I only have to look at a magazine or walk down a
    street or through a shopping mall or even go to work, and everywhere I go I
    see deliciously warm, soft female flesh being deliberately revealed and
    enhanced by decoration, so that I would just love to touch!  I hear
    seductive voices and smell attractive smells and watch enticing, sinuous
    body movements.  Everywhere I go, I am SURROUNDED by erotica!

    In spite of this, whenever I talk to a woman I still look at her eyes, not
    at her boobs.  Not only is there a strong attraction about the eyes, but the
    personality shines through them, and when I talk to a woman (or any human
    being) I like to feel that I am communicating with her.

    It's funny, I just wrote this stuff down because it was what was in my head,
    and I didn't even realize where I was going until I got here.  Now I have to
    explain...

    Sex is a natural instinct.  We have sexual reproduction because the mixing
    of gene pools is beneficial by producing change and variety and adaptation.
    Promiscuity is a natural instinct in the male, and perhaps there's also a
    vestige of it in the female, because a constant change of partners optimizes
    this mixing of gene pools.  But in the human, we derive even greater
    benefits from couples staying together in the long term to support, raise,
    and educate children.  So we have "pair-bonds" that tie couples together, as
    well as the forces of promiscuity that tend to pull them apart.

    Ideally these forces should be in balance, with the scale coming down on the
    side of stability.  In adolescence we experiment with different partners.
    We don't jump at the chance of a lifetime bond with the first partner we
    find.  We have an attraction, yes, but we find out whether that partner is
    truly suited to us, and if she (or he) isn't, then the force of change and
    promiscuity is there to pull us away and send us on to the next candidate.

    Ideally we find a partner who *is* well suited, and who fulfills needs in us
    that *counteract* the forces of promiscuity.  So we stay together.  But the
    point is, not that the desire to mate with other partners disappears --
    still less that such desires are "wrong" in themselves -- but that there
    should be other and stronger considerations and motivations in our lives
    that keep us together and faithful to one partner.  As long as all goes
    well, that is.  If something turns out to be seriously wrong with that
    partner, we are not bound to her or him for life.  We still have that
    healthy force of promiscuity that tells us to go look for someone better.

    So when someone is compulsively promiscuous, or addicted to pornography
    instead of to a partner, we can't necessarily conclude that "addiction to
    sex" is the cause of it.  We can only conclude that the two forces are out
    of balance.  Instead of asking why such a person is so absorbed with
    erotica, or compulsively seeking different partners -- in other words, why
    the force of promiscuity is so *strong* -- we should ask what it is about
    their life, or their current partner, or themselves, that makes the force of
    stability or faithfulness or intimate relationships so *weak*, or otherwise
    unfulfilling for them so that they have to resort to private erotica or to
    screwing around as the only way to fill this awful void.

    Wanting sex with someone isn't wrong in itself.  What we do expect to see is
    that other considerations will be balanced against the desire.

    These are considerations such as "it will hurt my partner", or "rape is
    wrong", or "it won't be very fulfilling if it's purely physical and nothing
    else", or in the most general sense, "it implies some kind of responsibility
    that I'm not prepared to take on".  This doesn't only mean the possibility
    of children; there are other more personal kinds of "responsibilities" and
    commitments we may be implying when we have sex with someone.  If somebody
    insists on being promiscuous to their own detriment or to the detriment of
    somebody else, we *could* conclude that they are "too driven by lust", but
    it might be more profitable to ask why these other considerations aren't
    playing their normal role in balancing out the "lust".

    You mentioned that your mother could tell when her children had been
    involved with erotic material, and it isn't too difficult to guess what some
    of the symptoms might have been that gave her clues: secretiveness, hiding
    magazines, spending time alone with it and so forth.  And perhaps looking
    flushed and guilty!  Now I'm guessing that the word "children" here suggests
    that we're talking about young fellows, teenagers in all likelihood.  The
    teenage years are decidedly not a time when things are in balance.  Sex
    drive in the male is supposed to reach its peak at the age of seventeen.
    And sex is a brand-new interest; it takes years to explore all the new
    feelings and social implications and find out how they fit in with
    everything else.  At the same time, "society" frowns on teenagers actively
    practicing sex.  What outlet is there to balance the sex drive?  The use of
    erotic material at this age is not an "addiction"; it's a *normal* outlet.

    It's also an outlet that might be expected to fade away into perspective
    later as other considerations and social/sexual relationships take their
    place in someone's life.  It doesn't do a thing to help if somebody comes
    and beats the adolescent over the head and makes him feel guilty for being
    interested in sexy books and pictures.  He has nothing to feel guilty about.

    With your sister-in-law's marriage, or with any kind of marriage counseling,
    the only way to approach it is to treat the marriage as a contract in which
    the partners have to fulfill each other's basic needs to make the
    relationship succeed.  Since people's needs differ, we can't begin by
    imposing an arbitrary framework of value judgments, such as "men ought to go
    out to work and women ought to stay home".  It all depends on what suits the
    couple themselves.  But it goes wrong if somebody isn't getting their needs
    met.  Usually what happens then is that that partner gets angry and starts
    withholding things the other person wants, or doing things to make *them*
    angry, and so the trouble escalates.  Only when you've pinned down the
    source of the problem can you start to ask questions like "is it reasonable
    for him to get drunk and give her a black eye every Saturday night?" or "is
    it reasonable for her to keep pleading headaches because she has a hangup
    about sex?" or "is it reasonable for him never to take her dancing because
    he hates dancing?"  Sometimes these questions have a definite "yes" or a
    "no", but more often it's a question of incompatibility; you can't say
    either one's wrong, only that they disagree.  If they care enough about the
    marriage, one or the other will adjust.  If not, it's goodbye.

    I've no doubt that these people made an informed guess when they asked your
    sister-in-law about the "porn".  If they weren't having sex and he didn't
    seem to have any opportunity for an affair, and perhaps there were other
    clues in his behavior, that might be good grounds for suspicion.  What I'm
    not so happy about is the implied value judgment about his use of this
    material, without any further information about it.  Some couples, after
    all, like to enjoy this kind of material together, so we can't brand him
    automatically as "bad" just because he enjoyed it.  If his wife didn't like
    that, all we can say is that they didn't share the same values, and were
    therefore incompatible -- unless one of them was prepared to make an
    adjustment.

    I'm not saying that the counselors did this, but if they *did* start off
    with the assumption that "porn" was automatically bad, instead of simply
    asking the guy why he liked it, I'd expect him to shut up like a clam right
    there, because they weren't being sympathetic to his needs.  First I'd have
    to know just what kind of material it was.  If it was sadistic stuff or it
    was oriented toward some deviation, it's fair to conclude that he had a need
    that his wife couldn't reasonably be expected to satisfy.  If it was plain
    old tits 'n' bums, or even more explicit stuff, I could go two ways.  If the
    rest of the relationship was satisfactory and he wasn't being unfaithful or
    doing anything else objectionable, I'd ask what the big deal was and why his
    wife couldn't just accept his interest.  If he was addicted to porn in place
    of having sex with his wife, I'd ask why he wasn't having sex with his wife.

    And this again could go a number of ways.  Did *she* have sexual problems
    that made him resort to other means of satisfaction?  Or did he, or she, or
    both of them have some *other* problem that interfered with sex between the
    two of them, so he went off to get his satisfaction somewhere else instead?
    OK, maybe the guy was just a jerk.  But I'd still say he got into porn in
    some way as a result of being a jerk, not that porn made him into a jerk.

    As to the matter of blame, you did mention that he "began abusing her and
    the ideals he used to share with her".  I don't know if this means he beat
    her up, or what.  If he started beating her up, I can safely say he had
    other problems to start with.  If it was just a matter of getting angry and
    insulting her, I'd have to ask whether it was originally his problem, or
    whether he was just angry at the breakdown of the marriage.  Again, I see
    the porn as a symptom that commonly accompanies underlying problems, not as
    the cause of them.

    Jesus was a great guy for getting inside people's heads, and excelled at
    exposing hypocrisy.  He dealt in compassion, and also in Truth.  It's in
    this context that I look at his remarks.  The hypocrite is not
    compassionate, but uses the weakness of others to prove that they're all
    sinners, while he's not.  Jesus exposed this hypocrisy by pointing out that
    you can't claim to be free of lust just because you didn't act it out.  You
    can only claim that you're better at controlling it, or didn't get caught.

    In spite of this, people still haven't absorbed the real thrust of Jesus's
    message two thousand years later.  Perhaps you remember poor Jimmy Carter
    making that remark about "lusting after women in his heart" some time during
    the 1980 Presidential campaign.  He was only being honest and speaking the
    humble truth.  He was politically naive, of course, and that's deadly; but
    it isn't a sin.  Jimmy Carter was lucky.  They only nailed him to the wall.
    They nailed Jesus to a tree.  People don't like it when you speak the truth.

    Message: 77511
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Green # 77494
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 08:49:33

    Bravo Green Lantern! Applause applause applause!! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77512
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green #77496
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 08:51:11

    Said the spider to the fly! Heh Heh Heh  *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77513
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/last
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 12:42:33

    No, I really am. I have heard second-handed reports from non-Mormons. Thad
    represents his religion extremely well with his straightforward messages and
    so I am not afraid that I will be blasted if I ask him questions about his
    belief.

    Message: 77514
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger lantern /77494
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 15:23:12

    That's quite true. Fortunately enough, the Bible says nothing about
    allowing people to run roughshod over you either.
    I'm always amazed at the hypocrasy and audacity some people have
    who will deny the existence of a loving God , fly in the face of
    all of the evidence around them and spit on the Christians who attempt
    to follow Jesus's example, then in one swift step, turn around and
    use scripture in an attempt to highlight a persons failures.

    I'll be quicker to admit my failures in my life than most, I see no
    reason to be ashamed; I've learned tons from my mistakes and I fully
    expect to make tons more.

    Of course I'll always fall short of the glory of God, I'm just a man.
    And I expect, I'll fall short of your glorious righteousness too...and
    anyone else that repeats the error of looking at men instead of God.

    Message: 77515
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Green Lant/Beleifs
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 18:03:45

      What would you like to know? If you have specific questions, I'd be
    glad to try to answer. If you want a rather general summary, I can upload
    a short one which was written by Joseph Smith.

    Message: 77516
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean/Porno
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 18:13:02

     I'm not aware of the whole story either. My sister-in-law was very
    reluctant to file for divorce...she tried everything she could to preserve
    the marriage. She has not talked about it a great deal, at least not to
    me...the information I have is second hand, through my wife.
      I have also heard of another case where a man who became involved with
    Pornography got tired of just reading it, and wanted to experiment with his
    wife...she didn't like the idea, so he eventually decided he would find
    someone who WAS willing... that marriage didn't last, either.

    Message: 77517
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/glory
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 20:20:55

    Let me quote again from James: James 2:18
    But someone may object: 'Here is one who claims to have faith and another
    points to his deeds.' To which I reply: 'Prove to me that this faith you
    speak of is real thought not accompanied by deeds, and by my deeds I will
    prove to you my faith.' You have faith enough to believe there is one God.
    Excellent! The devils have faith like that, and it makes them tremble. But
    can you not seee, you quibbler, that fiath divorced from deeds is barren?
    Was it not by his action, in offering his son Isaac upon the altar that
    our father Abraham was justified ? Suerly you can see that faith was at
    work in his actions, and that by these actions the integrity of his faith
    was fully proved.

    I am not talking about my righteousness. I am talking about the claims
    of the believer. If the believer has no deeds to "prove his faith" then
    that faith is as "the body is dead when there is no breath left in it, so
    faith divorced from deeds is lifeless as a corpse.

    Message: 77518
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Thad/summary
    Date: 08/12/91  Time: 20:21:30

    A summary would be a good start.

    Message: 77519
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Porn Plus
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 02:52:30

      You have raised several points, Gordon, that I am going
    to have to take some space to answer.
      First of all, as Rod pointed out, there is a time when sexual
    urges and desires awaken, and become a powerful and driving force.
    That much we agree on. I don't agree that promiscuity is an
    "instinct" that adolescents should indulge, although I do think
    that men naturally tend to be more promiscuous that women.
    The 'instinct' that you mention is amply accounted for by other
    factors. First of all, there is the natural human curiosity and
    desire to explore; second, there is the natural human desire for
    variety.  Then, too, the sex drive is non-specific...in most men,
    nearly any female will suffice... Women seem to be a little bit
    more choosy.
    Now, in human reproduction, since children are dependent on their
    parents and require a long period of learning before they are able
    to function as adults (in contrast to most other animals), the
    pair-bond you speak of becomes much more important. (That's one
    reason it's not good for humans to emulate primate sexual behavior
    patterns)

      In selection of a mate, there are a great many factors to be
    considered; mutual likes, dislikes, values, standards of behavior,
    mutual expectations, and so on. A man ought to evaluate a prospective
    wife's potential as a companion in a long-term enterprise and as
    a mother, and a woman needs to evaluate her prospective husband's
    potential as a similar long-term companion and as a father.
      (As a side note, many cultures have placed a great deal
    more emphasis on this aspect of marriage than on mutual attraction,
    and have considered this too complex a task to be entrusted to mere
    children...arranged marriages in those cultures don't seem to do
    any worse than ours. There is, I think, much too much emphasis in
    American culture on mutual attraction...especially sexual attraction,
    regardless of other considerations.)
       Adolescence is indeed a proper time to be exploring relationships,
    how to get along with the opposite sex, and all these other things,
    and the sex drive is a powerful motive to do so...if it is controlled
    and restrained.  Since having children is the normal and natural
    consequence of sexual intercourse, that should properly wait until
    the other provisions for raising the children which are likely to
    come have been made. Any other standard creates problems, such as:

       If boys may have all the benefits of marriage with none of the
    burdensome responsibilities, then why should they bother? If one girl
    starts getting 'too serious' (or jealous) and infringing on a guy's
    personal freedom to do as he pleases, then he can easily dump her
    and move on to another conquest. There are many thousands of boys now
    who will tell a girl ANYTHING in order to get her to have sex, with
    a completely straight face and an equally complete disregard
    for the truth, and no intention at all of following through with
    their promises....and there is no shortage of gullible girls who
    fall for those lines. Now, there is exploitation. Then there are the
    ones who mean well but chicken out when they are called on for a
    permanent commitment.
       As for the girls, they are very often left with the demanding
    tasks of providing for a baby without the economic or educational
    resources to do it with. There are other consequences of sexual
    relations, also: Since I am not a trained counselor and people don't
    come to me with their problems, I am not well versed in exactly what
    those consequences are, but having children seems to be the most
    obvious and important one.

      Now, returning to pornography, let me pose this question.
    Is alcoholism or drug addiction a consequence of other problems,
    social and personal, or do they cause problems of their own?
    or...perhaps is the correct answer, both? Some people (too few,
    as you point out) work on the original problems, others
    work on the addictions.
      Use of and involvement of pornography can indeed become
    addictive...the test is how easily you can leave it alone.
    Maybe there are other factors involved, but if an experience
    is pleasureable (even if it is also guilt-provoking) it is
    likely to be repeated...
       Pornography, or erotica, is specifically designed and
    intended to arouse sexual desire. Why? Because it is pleasurable...
    and people will pay for it.  It's fairly cheap and involves
    no special effort. Are the people who produce it interested in
    making married people happier? Most of them couldn't care less.
    They produce it because people will buy it, and it Puts Money
    in their Pockets. (If an artist puts just one steamy scene in
    his or her book/movie/music because it will sell better, how
    is that motive any different from the commercial pornographer?)

      Now if you could guarantee that all people would do is look,
    then MAYBE that would be OK. But that is simply not so. Some people
    get excited and want more..and more..and more.. if it is socially
    acceptable, then there is little reason to feel guilt, and little
    reason to fear being regarded as a pervert...
      There are also some, I dare say many, in whom it inspires fantasies
    and ideas of their own... each according to his nature.
      Some of those find that it is possible to act them out.. some of
    the violent rapists and the child molesters are among them. Some
    find other like-minded people to act out their fantasies with.
    Some find prostitutes (who find it likewise profitable to cater
    to men's fantasies...). Some men find willing mistresses, some
    find girlfriends/boyfriends, and there is a whole cascade of
    lesser effects. No, you can't blame all that on pornography, just
    as you can't blame all murders and burglaries on drugs, but it can
    and does give people a push in the wrong direction.
      Then there are those few who think it is just plain disgusting, in
    spite of the creator's best efforts, and avoid it entirely.
      Pornography does not and is not intended to encourage genuine, caring,
    unselfish love.. and if anyone develops it it is in spite of, and not
    because of, the porn. What it does encourage is lust...pure sexual
    desire, umixed with considerations of honor, fidelity, or
    awareness of possible negative consequences.

    Message: 77524
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: GreenLant/summary
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 03:10:29

    OK...I think I got it uploaded... under the title 'ARTFAITH.TXT' as an ASCII
    file.

    Message: 77525
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: News Today
    Subject: John Cummings
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 07:04:00

    Congrats on your Letter to the Editor in yesterday's Republic. I expect it
    will be winning Rod's reward.

    Message: 77526
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Thad/artfaith
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 07:32:39

    OK, I'll get it tonight. Thanks.

    Message: 77527
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Beau Dog/Schools
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 13:58:04

            Thanks for the kudos, Beau Dog. Yeh, I wrote it. I write often to
    that forum, because I'm deeply disturbed about the school system. I used to
    worry about my own kids, so I bought books, computers, encyclopedias, etc.,
    and spent much effort trying to make my kids literate. It worked!  Now, I'm
    worried about the rest of the kids in Arizona, and I can't buy computers for
    them all, yet I see the armies of illiterates graduating each year. So I try
    to raise the issue when I can and hope that the governor's task force will
    get some kind of message that we need a change.   --John C.--

    Message: 77528
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Question?
    Subject: GT
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 17:32:01

    Is there still a GT in the planning stages?

    Message: 77530
    Author: Aunty Em
    Category: In search of
    Subject: The Meaning Of Life
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 19:59:14

    When all the laughter dies in sorrow
    And the tears have risen to a flood
    When all the wars have found a cause
    In human wisdom and in blood
    Do you think they'll cry in sadness
    Do you think the eye will blink
    Do you think they'll curse the madness
    Do you even think they'll think

    When all the great galactic systems
    Sigh to a frozen halt in space
    Do you think there will be some remnant
    Of beauty of the human race
    Do you think there will be a vestige
    Or a sniffle or a tear
    Do you think a greater thinking thing
    Wi1l give a damn that man was here

              Kendrew Lascells

    ***??? I Don't Think We're In Kansas Anymore Toto !! ???***

    Message: 77531
    Author: Aunty Em
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Apollo BBS
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 20:08:39

    Well,  I've been gone for a while, but I just wan't to say that you guys
    are the best! Bitch, moan, & argue...... but myyyy what fun. More fun
    than humans should ba allowed to have!

    ***??? Aunty Em Aunty Em ???***

    Message: 77532
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Apollo Tips & Tricks
    Subject: trick
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 21:00:17

    This is a test....

            Why did the chicken cross the road?

    [R]ead rest or [S]kip rest:Read rest

            To get to the other side.......

                            Ha ha ha ha

    End of test..........

    Message: 77533
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Apollo Tips & Tricks
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 21:03:01

            Would you like to know the cmd for this?

    [R]ead rest or [S]kip rest:Read rest
            Then let me know......

    P.S.  NOTE!!!!!!  You users who read this with an AUTO SCAN unattended will
    not have seen what I have done.  I suggest you note these last two posts
    77532 & 77533 and read them when you log in in a manual mode.

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

    Message: 77534
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Question?
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 21:23:01

    Please tell us more.

    Message: 77535
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 21:55:32

      Yes, tell us more please.
       See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 77536
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: New Book
    Date: 08/13/91  Time: 22:13:52

      I am reading P.J. O'Rourke's new book on the federal government. I am
    about a third of the way through it and it's great. The title is "Parliament
    of Whores". Here are a couple of typical passages:
      Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys
    to teenage boys.-
      When you looked at the Republicans you saw the scum off the top of
    business. When you looked at the Democrats you saw the scum off the top of
    politics. Personally, I prefer business. A businessman will steal from you
    directly instead of getting the IRS to do it for him. And when Republicans
    ruin the environment, destroy the supply of affordable housing, and wreck
    the industrial infrastructure, at least they make a buck off it. The
    Democrats just do these things for fun.-
      So far I like the first chapter the best. It is called, "The Mystery of
    Government." Here is an excerpt from it:
      "American Civics" calls the Declaration of Independence a "living
    document." All too true.
      The Constitution is an equally forthright piece of work and quite
    succinct--twenty-one pages (in the "American Civics E-Z reader large-type
    version) giving complete operating instructions for a nation of 250 million
    people. The manual for a Toyota Camry, which only seats five, is four times
    as long. And, thanks to the pro-growth economic policies of the vigorously
    libertarian--not to say completely impotent--Continental Congress, the
    Constitution is not translated from Japanese.-
      See You Later,  Dean H.