### Apollo BBS Archive - May 4, 1990

    Mail from Apollo SYSOP
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:51:38

    I have no problem with that.

    Are you really making tee-shirts?

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

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:So far we have purchased 17 dozen, 100% pre-shrunk cotton t-shirts.  We have
     2:printed about 6 dozen to date.  We are awaiting word from Reason (A
     3:Libertarian magazine) for their advertising rates, also about 25 different
     4:shirt mfgs. for their prices.
     5:
     6:I have personally sold two dozen just by wearing one.  Several people have
     7:bought three of them from me.  I went into a 7-11 the other day and the lady
     8:behind the counter said, "I must have one of those."  They are $8. per shirt
     9:with tank-tops going for $7.  We have small, medium, large and extra large
    10:in torquoise, white and pink.  We have black also but haven't gotten into
    11:the white ink, yet.
    12:
    13:The only model we have made says:  JUST SAY NO
    14:                                   to drug laws,
    15:
    16:But we will be doing Melissa's, Zak's and Daryl's entry in the near future.
    17:I can conceivably see that nationally we could sell 10 million.  We each,
    18:Peter, Mike and I, make $1. per shirt profit (that's $1. each).
    19:
    20:Everything is still in the planning stages and all of us work full time so
    21:at this point in the game it is a little hard to go full bore.
    22:
    23:The check is in the mail and if you don't receive it, it is because of Paul
    24:Savage's idea to have everything sent to Ohio first.    -Roddy

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...

    As for the message to which you replied...
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

    Mail from Apollo SYSOP
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:55:15

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

    I have just now updated Daryl's profile so he may access his password.
    I understand he is struggling.  Damn, it's a bitch to get started in life
    now days.  Taxes and government have become so costly that one can't
    maintain a new family if they have to start from ground zero in todays
    world.  I feel sorry for the young people of tomorrow...  Maybe world peace
    will bring about cuts in military spending, but somehow I don't think the
    political bosses will ever give the money back to the working man.

            Sorry for babbling...

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

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:I hear that people are so disenchanted with government that the census is a
     2:wash out.  Hopefully our shirts will help to get some grassroots movement
     3:going.
     4:
     5:Are we agnostic, yet?
     6:
     7:                                Love ya,
     8:                                 Rod

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 6422
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: bob
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:48:03

    I am barely a Christian. I believe in God. I don't believe Jesus is
    God. In fact, I believe that is may be blasphemy to do so. I believe
    that Jesus was a real person. I believe he was crucified. I believe the
    tomb was empty as reported in the four Gospels. I don't believe in the
    Virgin Mary. I do believe Jesus was an ordinary man, extraordinarily
    blessed by God. I do believe that men who preach God's message that we
    should love one another as much as ourselves, to turn the other cheek,
    to forgive rather than judge, is hated by sinful men and will always
    be killed by sinful men. I think that re-uniting with God is extremely
    easy and difficult at once. It merely takes a prayer for me to God saying
    in effect "I love you, God of the Universe that I see, even if you don't
    exist" Strange isn't it ? But , it works, for by saying such a prayer
    fills me with such a good feeling, I become convinced, not thru logic
    but through faith the He exists and that He loves me. No having to
    go through Christ to get to the father. Direct access. We all have it.

    Message: 6423
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger/last
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 14:23:11

    You must be referring to the god, Carl.  Carl never bothered to create a
    hell because he is into recycling.  The cloak and dagger type gods all have
    hells.                                  Rod

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 65295
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: s
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 21:10:30

    I'd be interested in going to one of these basic classes, since I've never
    been to one before, but I won't be here at the beginning of June.  I'd like
    to know, though, when the next one is.

       -Gordon

    Message: 65296
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gun class
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 21:36:08

    Hey, I remember one of those "basic classes." It was taught by a mean SFC
    and I wound up with what is called "M-1 thumb."
    John

    Message: 65297
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Mike C.
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:18:21

      I kept repeating the thrust of my statement, that theism requires the
    suspension of logic in the area of a basic life governing decision, because
    it was important to keep the simplicity and self-evident nature of my
    arguement in front of anyone reading the posts. You did admit, as the honest
    theist must, that a leap to faith and away from reason is required to become
    a theist. Without my stressing my original message over and over it would
    have been much easier for discussion to drift away from it, and on to such
    things as whether or not I am pure enough to be believed when I say
    something, even if it is obvious.
      My further observation, that the theist should be recognized as a person
    who has departed from reason in one important way, should not be a startling
    revelation, even if it is uncomfortable to contemplate. It makes no specific
    charge of irrationality against anyone on the rest of their existance, it
    only notes that the theist has one foot in a world where logic means
    nothing to them, and must strive to live a dual life of the mind as a
    result. Some do it admirably, and others sink into an abyss where little or
    nothing can be grappled with logically.
      If I have communicated clearly what I intended to say, it shouldn't have
    been taken as in insult to anyone here. If it was, then I have stated it
    poorly, and I regret having drifted into this matter.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 65298
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Education_1of4
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:20:52

       On the subject of teaching, I recently ran across the following in an
    essay called 'The "Official Truth" and the Death of Thought', by Karl
    Hess. The essay was published in the May issue of Liberty.
       ...Wonderfully, there are a number of young teachers and a few fract-
    ious older ones who are trying to buck the tide of official truth and
    "basic education" and to move toward the encouragement of thinking.
       One attractive program is that of the Institute for the Advancement of
    Philosophy for Children at Montclair State College, Montclair, N.J. Begin-
    ning with the earliest elementary school grades and continuing into high
    school, IAPC material is based on the premise that a gang of kids in a
    classroom should be considered "a community of inquiry," as the Institute's
    director Dr. Matthew Lipman puts it.
       Each of the segments of IAPC material consists of a fictional story of
    about 90 pages and a huge teacher's manual. The story involves children of
    the age to which the segment is being presented. The manual offers,
    literally, hundreds of questions to get the kids thinking about the story
    and the implications of its every paragraph.
       By the end of the first page of the segment on ethics, for grades 7-9,
    the discussion involves killing and the differences between killing
    animals and killing people. In the segment on reasoning in social studies,
    the students actually are encouraged to discuss the fact that they are
    being _forced_ to be at school.

       My favorite is a segment entitled _Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery, for
    grades 5-6. The hero's name contains an anagram of "Aristotle" and is for
    grades where a lot of government trained students still don't even know
    how to read effectively, much less think effectively.
       On the first page of the story, poor Harry is caught daydreaming when
    his teacher asks "What is it that has a long tail, and revolves around
    the sun every 77 years?" Harry, flustered, remembers that the teacher
    recently told them that "all planets revolve around the sun." He tries
    "a planet" as an answer and is incorrect.
       Later on, on page two, he's still thinking about the correct answer,
    Halley's Comet, but he's really _thinking_ about it and not just trying
    to remember it. What a great difference!
       "So there are things that revolve around the sun that aren't planets,"
    Harry said to himself. "All planets revolve around the sun, but not every-
    thing that revolves around the sun is a planet." And then Harry had an
    idea. "A sentence can't be reversed. If you put the last part of the
    sentence first, it'll no longer be true. For example, take the sentence
    'All oaks are trees.' If you turn that around, it becomes 'All trees are
    oaks,' but that's false."
       Harry is so fascinated by his discovery (the kid has actually _learned_
    something) that he goes on to explore it with his classmates. By the end
    of the story, after many terrific, upbeat arguments and discussions of the
    sort that most kids revel in, Harry's major discovery is made and exalted.
    It's the syllogism.

       In a recent issue of _Technology Review_, the magazine of Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology, it was proposed that even mathematics could be
    approached by this discovery route rather than through the mind-numbing
    rote process that leaves most students absolutely convinced that math is
    a bore and never will be of use to them.
       The MIT proposal was that children should discover the utility of math
    and the principles of math in about the same way that many mathematicians
    have and do. They should solve problems related to their own lives. The
    axioms of geometry, or instance, should be discoveries, the way they were
    for Euclid, and not dictates from the teacher.
       Teachers who are used to doing exactly what they were taught to do
    (over and over and over again) naturally detest an idea in which the
    students so fully and energetically are encouraged to participate. Order
    in the classroom might be disrupted by questions. And how are children to
    know "what's right" if the teacher doesn't tell them?
       Worst of all, in the several hundred schools where IAPC material is in
    use in at least one or two classrooms, there is an obvious problem with
    timed, multiple-choice tests, the bureaucratic standard across the land.
    Children who are involved with the IAPC material generally don't do well
    on such tests. They try to think about the answer and they are slowed down
    by questions in which several of the choices could be proper given this or
    that interpretation. Have you ever seen a multiple-choice question where
    you didn't want to argue about either the way it's framed or the way you
    expect someone wants it answered?
       On essay questions, however, the IAPC kids are likely to go right off
    the upper scale. They are intelligent learners, not rote robots.
       It is conventional wisdom to say that the great intellectual battles
    are won or lost in the colleges. And surely there is good reason to say
    that.
       But colleges do not provide the foundations. "Higher Education" has its
    humble beginnings in the elementary schools. Might it not be that if
    children were nourished on logic and inquiry back where the academic
    stream begins, it would be tougher to sell them foolish nostrums and
    political pies-in-the-sky?

      See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 65302
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: cliff/logic
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:28:06

    There is nothing wrong with suspending logic in order to believe in
    something that cannot be known through physical observation or logic.
    There is no criticism intended, I am sure. The point is that some
    of the folks who are theists are taking this personally. You shouldn't.
    It's just a fact. Read Paul on the triumph of foolishness over worldly
    wisdom. And I have never laughed at you. I understand your sincerity.
    All I ask is that you listen to me too.

    Message: 65303
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: bob/insult
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:28:56

    better.

    Message: 65304
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: rod/jesus
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 22:32:53

    I think the BAC's have missed the point, which may explain why they
    have so much animosity. The idea is to die with Christ, so that God
    creates you as a new man. Too many BAC's think all you have to do is
    believe and go on being your own nasty self. Dying with Christ, to
    become part of the body of Christ is a serious matter, and something
    that is at once very easy and also very hard. It is similar to the
    attitude of a secular humanist who loves mankind so much they are willing
    to give up their own egos for the benefit of the rest of mankind. It
    is called love.

    Message: 65305
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:19:17

            Your observation  is a bunch of garbage.  I read every evolution
    article I run across.  I love science books.  But my logic tells me there is
    a God, so I must have gone beyond your logic... yes?  You obviously think
    you know more about how I think, then I do.   Of course you are insulting,
    when you tell a theist that he has suspended logical thought.  I am so
    offended, that this will be my last response to this avenue of personal
    belittlement you seem hell-bent on forcing us to swallow.

    *=* the 'offended' Apollo Sysop *=*

    Message: 65306
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/logic
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:37:48

            I do listen to you Roger.   I even try to understand where you are
    coming from.   I just don't buy the 'suspending logic' stuff because you are
    trying so hard to defend what you think is correct logic.   I am not the one
    trying to convince anyone my logic is more correct then theirs, so therefor
    they don't THINK.  That form of attack belongs to you athiest and agnostic
    thugs.   I am sure you have thought this out for years, using the logic you
    understand.  I am even sure Rod has done the same.  But somewhere, you have
    taken a different road.   I can handle that...but you can't?

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

    Message: 65307
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Vote
    Subject: current question
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:40:41

            If you are a $tatus user and have not used your [V]ote in the [M]ain
    menu, please do so.  Only a few more days before I close it out.

            If you are not a $tatus member... how come?  Better go see the
    [$]cmd in the [M]ain menu and consider becoming one.

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

    Message: 65308
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger once over
    Date: 05/03/90  Time: 23:49:21

    But her husband would not find bits of her memory laying under her bed.
    She might find the magazine, however, even though he looked at it by
    himself.

    Message: 65309
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Melissa/nudes
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 01:04:26

    There is quite a bit of difference between fantasy and reality.  A man may
    fantasize along with your stories, or with the pictures in a magazine.  But
    most will not act on these urges.  A way to dispell pressure without hurting
    your mate.

    Message: 65310
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Cliff/My opinion
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 01:06:17

    No, you're not illiterate.  A dork, maybe.  You are a bit slow typing and go
    off on rants, but when you try you do very good.  A case in point is your
    evolution messages.  Very well prepared.  I thought they showed merit.

    Message: 65311
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: War!
    Subject: Last 500!
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 01:06:59

    Hey, slow down a bit!  Either that or Cliff needs to get a 9600 baud modem.

    Message: 65312
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Dean/Suspension
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 05:42:09

      And we keep telling you that there is no suspension of logic involved in
    becoming a Christian.
      You are apparently equating the logic of life with the basic premises that
    a person accepts.  We have a different set of premises than you do, but
    operate upon them with the same logic that you use (those of us who are
    logical, that is -- there are quite enough non-logicians on both sides of
    the fence).
      Our beliefs appear illogical to you because you cannot apply logic to your
    own set of basic premises to reach the same conclusions that we have.

                                           =(O,O)=  Hoot!

    Message: 65313
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: In search of
    Subject: Pascalaholics
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 05:46:19

      I've been getting no answer from Pascalaholics Anonymous for over a week.
    Does anyone know anything about it?  Are they down for repairs?  Dead in the
    water?  Lost their lease?  On vacation?

                                        =(O,O)=  Hoot!

    Message: 65314
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Melissa again
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 07:32:44

    However, the principle is the same. The objection Ann had to a man looking
    at girlie magazine was that it was an "insult?" (can't remember exactly
    what it was) to her. Likewise, Ann admiring another man would be an insult
    to her husband, regardless of whether she saw him in a mag or on the street.
    So, finding the mag under the rug or bed would be confirming evidence that
    her husband had seen and most likely admired another woman would be the
    same if he caught her admiring another man.

    Message: 65315
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 08:03:23

    Exactly!  How often do you catch YOUR wife in a glance?  See, you seem to
    thinks these scenarios are compariable and yet they aren't.  If I woman
    looks at a young hunk at the grocery store, her husband is never gonna know
    unless she tells him about it, which isn't likely.  However, unless a man is
    very good at concealing his magazines, a wife will find out at some point
    that her husband has been looking at those women.
    And women are supposed to just accept it!  "Oh, we're men, dear.  It's are
    nature to want to look at naked women.  Every man does it dear.  Just look
    how profitable the industry is..."

    Geez.  I am sounding like a feminist.  Yuck.

    Message: 65317
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: melissa/glancing
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 09:14:53

    You mean women just glance, not ogle ? Like men ? My point is that one
    shouldn't do such things, even if the other person never sees it.
    I sound like Jimmy (I've lusted in my heart) Carter. Oh, well, there's no
    telling how far one will go to win a debating point. Anyway, the more
    general question is: "Is there any difference between behavior observed
    and behavior hidden". Is it wrong if only detected ? Is it OK as long as the
    other person doesn't know about it ? If it is wrong only when the other
    person finds out, then having extra-marital affairs would not be wrong !

    Message: 65318
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger on looking
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 09:35:13

    I do not mind if my husband looks at other women - I look at men all the
    time in his presence or not. I would not turn away from a nude pix of a man
    nor do I expect him to turn away from a nude woman pix. However, I don't
    want or expect either of us to get hooked on this thing. Need it! If he
    started bringing Playboy home, I'd think he was nuts, resent it also and
    wouldn't understand.
    Both of us are great people watcher. I just think there is a big difference
    in looking at real people, admiring them, than the fantasy pix in the
    magazines.
    I also do not think that men enjoy such pix anymore than a woman would - IF
    we could see it all like the men get to. I had to laugh yesterday when I
    read an article about Cosmopolitan Magazine and how they had the first male
    nude photos - they showed Arnied, Burt posing - and it showed nothing at
    all! A sham! If I am going to go to the trouble to see a nude Arnie, then I
    want to see more than they showed, that's for sure. I would then buy the
    magazine on occasion to see some of my hero's in ALL their glory! Lets face
    it - they can air buff the pix, photograph it through cheese cloth, but the
    size can't be stretched. hahahahahahahahahahahhaha. Oh! Did I say that?
    To sum it up - such things that we are talking about is fine in moderation
    only. If it causes any sort of trouble in a relationship, then it should be
    abondoned immediately. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65319
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Melissa on men
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 09:46:06

    Re: "We're just men dear" ....... that is so idiotic to me!

    If a man gives some gal the once over, that's alright. Ditto a woman doing
    the same thing. But you and I know that's a lot different than hiding a
    Playboy magazine under the bed or rug!  Kind of sounds like some 13 year old
    sneaking a peek.

    You are not sounding like a feminist. I hate that word too. Your just
    'calling it like it is'! -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65320
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/last
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:03:12

    Having an extra maritial affair is wrong - EVERY aspic of it! I firmly
    believe that if either of the marriage partners find a time in their
    marriage that they want to do such a thing - don't want to prevent it - then
    tell the other before you do it! It would still hurt, but not nearly as much
    as betrayal, deceit, lying would do if found out and it usually is. If
    telling the other person, that would give that person time to think it out
    before the damage is done - time to decide if you want to stay or not - time
    to try to patch things up before they went too far - time to reflect if you
    love this person or not - time to figure out what you want to do with your
    life if the other does this thing - to figure out if you can live with the
    knowledge he/she wants someone else sexually. If not told and it is found
    out, if that person decides to stay and forgive/forget - so much would be
    lost, never to be retrieved back again. The person that was cheated on would
    have to live with that knowledge the rest of their lives. Trust, which is
    one of the most important things in a marriage would never truly be there
    100% ever again! That person would probablly feel inferior, inadiquate,
    lowly for a long time. Love for the cheater would not be the same pure love.
    The list is a long one. I believe in sex before marriage - a person can go
    to bed with many if that's their choice, but once a marriage comittment is
    made, it should be stuck to for the rest of their lives or get out of it.
    Too much distruction occurs when a loved one cheats. It is betrayal of the
    first class. I do not believe it can't be prevented! We CAN control our sex
    urges! Men & women. There's no excuse at all. Just my opinion.
                        -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65321
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: James Hawley
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:34:59

    Re: Evolution messages

            Why Thank you James...  Coming from you, it means a lot.

                            smile! *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    Message: 65322
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: James on modem
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:37:06

            I am still waiting for the check on the 2400 baud modem.  If you
    want to see 9600 baud, you had better send MORE money!

                                    clif-

    Message: 65323
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dee on looking
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 10:41:43

            When your man stops looking at other women...then you had better
    start worrying.  That's the nature of a healthy man!

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

    P.S.  Just make sure he doesn't TOUCH!

    Message: 65324
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Steve on Dean
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 12:18:23

    I've been trying to explain that to him for two weeks now.
    Like Cliff says, I think he's hell-bent on forcing his belittlement
    and personal views down our throats like it or not.
    I hope it helps his ego.

    Message: 65325
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ann/moderation
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 12:48:34

    So, it's all right in moderation. When I was first married, I subscribed to
    Playboy, my wife read the mag. We went to the Playboy club --- it was the
    in thing to do. BTW I MISS THE PLAYBOY CLUB ! Finally, we both tired of
    the mag and haven't subscribed since.

    Message: 65326
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: ann on men
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 12:49:34

    As I said in the prev. post, it is a matter of degree. The question is WHY
    your husband would feel that he had to hide Playboy.

    Message: 65327
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Playboy
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 14:09:04

            I don't hide the Playboy, and Sandy likes to read it to.  So what
    is the big deal?  Are you all so insecure you are afraid that your partner
    may go astray.  I feel sorry for you then.

            A man is a man and won't quit being a man just because he marries.
    And DITTO for the women.

            I also like to look at fine cars, and that does not mean I am going
    to sell the one I now own.

                                    clif-
    Message: 65328
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Question?
    Subject: last
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 18:03:53

            Are you implying that IF you do look at another woman you are going
    to sell me?           WAR ...... BUDDY!

    Message: 65329
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Toilets
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 18:11:25

            I think men stand, as a matter of some sort of biological
    instinct, to improve their 'eye - hand' coordination. I see nothing wrong
    with a man trying to improve himself.
            As for women, having the man stand and forgetting to put the lid
    down, allows us to improve on our quick reflexes and to heighten our mental
    allertness.
            Now, who is going to clean up after that poor male figure who still
    has not quite yet improved his 'eye - hand' coordination ........
    well, why not flip a coin? (actually, if he made the mess he should clean it
    up ...... be a responsible person, I say)

    Message: 65330
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last on Toilets
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 18:33:03

            I have come to realize just what a 'classy & sophisticated' board
    Apollo has become.   GEESH!   By the way, the Toilets in the PHAntom Zone
    need cleaning, and since Ann started this......

            It all boils down to the fact, that women in all their 'equal right'
    crusades, have not been able to overcome the fact that they sit, and the
    man can stand tall.  I would say that women are JEALOUS!

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

    Message: 65331
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: cliff/cars
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 20:11:38

    You may not remember it, but the Ford Edsel does remind one of the
    kinds of pictures one sees in Hustler.

    Message: 65332
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: toilets
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 20:12:54

    What a subject, eh ! From the heights of evolution to the pits of
    the -er pits, so to speak.

    Message: 65333
    Author: $ John Cummings
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Sysop/logic
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 20:47:06

    A. Motion without a plan becomes chaos.(Shake a box of fine crystal and you
    get shards of glass, not a model of the Taj Majal.)
    B. The world has developed not to chaos but towards a perfecting of its
    nature.
    C. That demands that there must have been a plan, which requires a Planner.
    D. Therefore, there must have been a Prime Mover, a Planner to start the
    world and keep it going--God.
    That's an irrefutable logical argument--if A and B are correct, then so is
    the deduction.
            I wish I had done that, but it was really Thomas Acquinas.

    Message: 65334
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 22:27:54

      There is definately something wrong here. Message 65312 did not show up in
    my $ scan and I only found it because Mike left a reference to it in a
    message that did show up, so I did a find on 'STEVE' and located it.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 65335
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Mike/Steve
    Date: 05/04/90  Time: 22:42:04

      You make a leap of faith to become theist, then you say that your new
    frame of reference supports a totally logical explanation for it. That
    simply does not hold up. There was no logical basis for the leap in the
    first place, and after it has been made it does not become a logical basis
    for its own explanation. This type of circular reasoning could support just
    about anything one might care to construct out of it, but it does not erase
    the initial departure from logic.
      If it belittles a theist to admit that theism is not based on reason, then
    it is too bad they have to admit it. The alternative would be to derive a
    logical proof, and the closest thing I have ever seen to that is Aristotle's
    derivation of a prime cause. Even that carried over a little bit of
    mysticism from the earlier philosophers, but it did not even begin to prove
    any of the tenets of Christianity or any other religion I am aware of.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 65336
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 05/05/90  Time: 00:31:05

            Your profile looks fine to me...  There have been no changes to
    Apollo that would cause you to miss messages.. but I have watched you [S]can
    and you don't always read all posts.
            I will keep an eye on you however...

                    clif-

    Message: 65337
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Cummings/Logic
    Date: 05/05/90  Time: 00:50:42

      On the irrefutable logic of Thomas Acquinas:

      A. Motion without a plan becomes chaos.
           We say this because when motion does not seem to become chaos,
        we assume a plan. We assume that out of all other possible outcomes
        which might have been, this is an intended result and that none of
        the others would have seemed just as planned if they had occurred
        instead. How many kinds of chaos approximate order just as much as
        the result we consider planned, and were just as likely in a purely
        random outcome? Motion with a plan can be just as chaotic as without
        if the observer hasn't been let in on the plan. The assumption of a
        plan based on the appearance of order does not an axiom make.

      B. The world has developed not to chaos but towards a perfecting of its
         nature.
           If the world had developed in infinitely different random ways,
        would not each which resulted in some kind of thinking species have
        tempted that species' members to assume that their existance proved
        that everything was planned. Infinitely numbered variations from the
        world and life-mechanics that we know could exist without having
        followed the plan that we assume lead to us. Whether or not this or
        any world has, or is developing toward, a perfecting of its nature
        is a purely speculative conclusion at best.

     C. That demands that there must have been a plan, which requires a
        Planner.
          If, out of all the randomly possibly outcomes, we did not land one
        which brought us sentient life, we would not be demanding that there
        had been a plan. Even though this outcome might be just as likely as
        an infinite array of others which we cannot conceive, we are here so
        we demand a plan. Having demanded a plan (because we can not imagine
        that there might seem to be order without one) we now have to have a
        planner. It seems that we can not abide an appearance of order without
        known cause, and we can not abide an assumed plan without a further
        cause, but we can abide an assumed planner without cause.

      D. Therefore, there must have been a Prive Mover, a Planner to start the
         world and keep it going--God.
           So, we have arrived at the end of the road, which explains all the
         unexplainable elements of our existance. If we assume a God who has
         no cause, who was just always there, then what have we really gained
         over accepting the appearance of order in our universe as not having
         a known cause? God is certainly a kind of order in itself, therefore
         that demands a plan (see rule C.) If we exempt God from this require-
         ment with a wave of the 'God's intricacies are beyond our knowing'
         wand then we are left with a kind of order (God) which does not arise
         from any plan or cause or planner. Exactly the situation we could not
         abide from the simpler universe we had before we brought in God, and
         a total contradiction to the very logic we used to determine that
         there had to be a God.

           The questions which led us to embark on this search for an answer
         were quite valid and important, but the unfound answers left a
         God-shaped hole in our knowledge which had to be filled with
         something. A singular and almighty God has won out over the other
         attempts to fill that hole for the present time, but anyone could
         come up with their own variation which would be just as plausible.
           Here, I'll make up one on the spot: The lifeforce which inhabits us
         as we are born has existed forever, and the majority of it is not
         contained in living creatures at any one time, but travels through-
         out time and space as tiny, intangible, barely sentient, minutely
         powerful crystals which settle onto and into everything. They have a
         penchant for order, which they exert upon everything they touch.
         There, disprove that. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is on my side,
         so is the planned appearance of the universe.
           If the condition of the universe can be said to prove that something
         is behind it, it does not begin to tell us what. But for lack of
         followers, my facetious explanation is just a good as any. With a
         couple thousand years to polish the story I could do great things with
         it, I'm sure.
           See You Later,
              Dean H

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