### Apollo BBS Archive - July 23, 1991

    Mail from Steve Albany
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 14:42:41

            Getting ready to move to Tucson and would like to see ya before we
    leave. We expect to leave this Saturday, so if you can swing it, sometime
    this week would be nice. let me know.

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

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Why be any different from any of my friends, just drop by any evening you
     2:like.  If I am gone then someone here will know where I am and it usually
     3:isn't far.
     4:
     5:Entry code is XXX

    Mail from Melissa Dee
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 16:32:25

    Yeah, it was good to see you.  You seemed in good spirits and the more I
    think about it, the better I feel about my reading.  That was my first
    public reading (outside of a poetry class which I don't think counts).
    Now that I've done it, it should be easier to get myself up there again.

    Oh, the quote of mine was "I am woman, hear me bitch".
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Yeah, I had fun at the store.  That was my first time at a microphone and I
     2:didn't even know I was going to do open mike.  And I didn't know what I was
     3:going to say either but when they announced 'open mike' and no one came
     4:forward I thought I'd help out.  What we need is more of the same, practice.
     5:
     6:Your poem about Head touched this girl that was next to Peter and she
     7:exclaimed, "Do you think we went out with the same guy?"
     8:
     9:It was sure fun, wasn't it?         -Rod

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7659
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Six Days
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:51:48

    And you also subscribe to a 6000 year-old earth ?

    Message: 7660
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green Lantern
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 21:17:16

        Based upon Scripture and the evidence presented by geologists such as
    Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Gary Parker, I would say that the idea of a young
    earth is more than probable.  I have no problem with the idea of the world
    being more or less 6,000 years old.

    Message: 7661
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: earth6000
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:34:28

    If you believe that this planet has only been around its center sun 6000
    times then you need to rethink that position.  6000 times is nothing in a
    universal sense and we are in a universe sense, so to speak.

    We are part of a vast universe and life exists in it.  Six Trillion times
    for a captive body to sail around its center star isn't much either, in the
    length of eternity.  Our planet wouldn't be able to make it that many times
    around our sun before all things became unglued in this solar system.  I'm
    almost sure there are bodies that are going so fast (relatively speaking of
    course) that in one of our seconds, that body traveled 50 times or more
    around its captor.

    Time is relative, it is the understanding that is important.  We are all a
    part of a much larger mass of energy (just try to get away from it).  But
    that is natural because the universe is energy, things in motion = energy.

    Our human animal thoughts must be so pressurized, than from some entity that
    is off in less dense space, that we just arent't a very progressed life
    form and just perhaps that anything of flesh will not be the highest life
    form attainable, let's hope not.

    If a person could live a universal life, that is, being in touch, or
    attempting to become one with the natural free flowing energy of the
    universe and beyond, that would be great.       -Rod

    Message: 7662
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Time
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 07:45:05

    You have NO problem with a the idea of a world being more or less 6,000
    years old when rocks have been dated that are 3,500,000,000 years old ?
    And you say you were brainwashed before ?

    Message: 7663
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Erosion
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:13:45

    Boy, if all those mountains wore down that much in only 6,000 years, then
    somebody up there must have been awfully busy with the sandpaper...

    Message: 7664
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green on rocks
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:35:14

    Even if those rocks were dated wrong and off by 3 billion years, the earth
    would still be 500 million years old. A far cry from Daryl's world of 6,000
    year old er? I don't profess to know how old the earth is, but I'll bet
    Daryl is wrong! Sorry Daryl! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7665
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon/last
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:36:05

    Good one fellow. I'd like to read their answers to that one! *>>> ANN O.
    <<<*

    Message: 7666
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rocks
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:03:54

    A year and one galf ago, a team of researchers from the U.S. Government
    took some samples of fossils to several well respected institutes to
    have the pieces carbon-dated.
    The team gathered the samples from the same area, within a few square feet
    of each. Each sample was closely guarded on its journey to the labs.
    M.I.T Responded that the speciment they received was 62 million years
    old.
    UCLA responded with 15 million.
    There were three other institutions involved, one of them I think was
    Lawrence Livermore labs. They were then questioned how they could
    (A) Come up with a mean difference of 35 million years
    (B) Assure the Government how accurate their dating methods were.

    They were then re-tested. Amazingly they all came close, but not close
    enough. The oldest maintained 62 million years, the rest of the test
    sites came into the 45 million year mark. Only 17 million years.
    Then the identity and age of the rocks were disclosed;
    The "fossils" were from the Mount St Helens eruption.

    Now I ask, how many of you are willing to bet your lives on some
    fools in white coats who can't tell the difference between two
    rocks?

    Message: 7667
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:40:08

      I wouldn't want to bet my life the accuracy of carbon dating, not knowing
    enough about it personally. If carbon dating does turn out to be worthless
    however, that would not establish the veracity of creationism. If the earth
    is only 6000 years old was there some purpose in creating it with obvious
    signs of millions of years of erosion, earthquakes, sediment buildup, and
    volcanic activity?
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7668
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Same
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:54:56

    Not to mention continental drift.  I would be very interested indeed to see
    what evidence these two geologists, Dr. Steve Austin and Dr. Gary Parker,
    presented that would actually *support* a theory of a young Earth.

    Message: 7669
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: same
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:27:25

    Not to mention accounting for the number of earthquakes and volcanoes we
    have evidence for.

    Message: 7670
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Earth
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:34:02

    Celebrate, it's the Earth's birthday day after tomorrow.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$X

    Message: 76980
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Nothing (1 of 0)
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:37:07

    Message: 76981
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Religion
    Subject:  Vile whatsits
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:38:44

     RW>>I attack Christianity because it is the predominate religion in this
     RW>>land.  I, in all honesty see it as a vile and filthy thing that is
     RW>>corrupting our youth.

    I know where you're coming from with this statement, Rod.  I get a very
    clear picture of so-called "Christianity" being used to victimize you.  I
    come from a different position just because I haven't been victimized by it
    in the same way -- although I do see this kind of victimization going on.
    But Christianity is not at fault.  People are.

    I'd like to point out that there is a certain class of people -- let's call
    them "molesters" (though Stephen King's Roland LeBay had another name for
    them) -- who would use any convenient weapon to hand to take advantage of
    others.  Religion is a convenient one because it has great power over men's
    minds.  I would very much like to see a general recognition that there are
    certain people who think they have a right to ride roughshod over other
    people's rights, and that sometimes they associate themselves with
    particular religions and use them as a tool.  But it's that particular class
    of people who are our true enemies.  Those people, and stupidity.

    If I have a problem with any one religion, it's with Islam.  There's a set
    of beliefs absolutely cut out to encourage one bunch of people to oppress
    others and hack them to pieces.  In my view it's the underlying culture of
    warfare and hate that spawned the religion -- not the other way round.

    Message: 76982
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Felix/authority
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:39:51

     FC>>Most rebellion is against some authority.  I think all rebellion is
     FC>>wrong.

    This is precisely where you and I part company.  What is "authority"?

    It is some person or body put in a position of power over others.

    Now, why should anybody cede their freedom of choice to another?  There are
    good reasons.  Sometimes it's because the "authority" has particular skills,
    or talents, or knowledge that benefit those he is given authority over.
    (Note: "is given".  This is a *choice*.)  Often it's because it's better and
    more efficient to grant somebody the right to make clear-cut decisions, to
    lead everyone else in one consistent direction, than to sink into anarchy
    and confusion and get nothing achieved.  Also it's because people need a
    mechanism for resolving the inevitable disputes that arise among themselves.

    The role of "authority" -- be it academic, parental, governmental or
    whatever -- is not only to govern, but at the same time to serve.  It is a
    social contract based on fair exchange.

    As we all know, "authorities" usually enjoy their authority, and often cling
    to it long past the point when they are rendering true service in exchange
    for the privilege of power granted to them.  When they do so, it is time for
    rebellion.

    Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is usually counterproductive, because
    there is value in stability.  Ideally an "authority" that has outlived its
    usefulness should be exchanged for another by some peacefully agreed
    procedure, such as "voting".  But when authority fails to fulfill its side
    of the contract in a just manner, "it is our Right, it is our Duty" to throw
    it off, whatever that takes.  I doubt that many Americans could logically
    disagree with that statement.

    I don't suppose you yourself would, either, since you do leave the door open
    for exceptions:

     FC>>There may be a few cases when I would say it is OK.

    So would many Englishmen.  We had a King in England who thought that kings
    had a "divine right" to rule.  We tried to convince him otherwise.  He
    refused to listen.  He made war.  So we put his head on a block and chopped
    it off.  We didn't do away with the institution of kings, because we found
    them useful.  But we did make sure that all of the kings who followed him
    were better listeners, and forgot about this "divine right" rubbish.  The
    notion of "divine authority" is a subterfuge to perpetuate power.

    The major point I have to make is this.  Where does "authority" come from?
    How were the people of England to decide when it was time to say No to
    Charles the First?  How were the people of America to decide when it was
    time to say No to George the Third?  They had only their own sense of what
    was right and just.  And ultimately the choice of when it is right to submit
    and when it is right to rebel must be made by those who do the rebelling.
    "Authority" does not reside with any divine source.  It resides within every
    one of us, jointly and severally.  In that sense there is no such thing as
    an "authority" outside of ourselves; merely people we choose to place in
    positions of authority, or remove from those positions at our will (if we
    can).  And a set of guidelines for when to do so, based on human rights,
    human responsibilities, and human justice.

     FC>>I think some juvenile delinquents wear long hair like a badge of
     FC>>rebellion against their parents.  In so many words they say, "I know my
     FC>>parents dislike my long hair, but I will wear it long anyway just
     FC>>because it rankles them."

    I have no doubt whatever that some of them do exactly that.  But it's also
    interesting to note that human psychology doesn't change very much.  People
    call teenagers rebellious, but they are really very conservative.  At this
    moment I have a twelve-year-old girl in my house who is telling me what's
    "in" and what's "out" in the field of music.

    "Bryan Adams," she says, "is IN."  So I dig out my CD of Bryan singing
    "Hearts on Fire" from 1987, and she asks me "who's THAT?"  Apparently he has
    changed his style a bit in four years to conform with what's "in".  (And for
    her, unlike me, four years is a third of a lifetime.)

    The interesting thing, though, is her submission to authority.  It isn't the
    authority of her parents, it's the authority of her peers with all this "in"
    and "out" business; but it's still authority.  At this time in her life, she
    has an urge to experiment with different authorities to see which one fits
    her needs best.  She is also trying to share her findings with those around
    her, regardless of their age.

    Long hair may be simply a matter of personal taste, or it may be a badge of
    group identification.  Or it may indeed be the flag of rebellion.  But how
    does it get to be so?  A son grows his hair to identify with his peers.  His
    parents object.  But why?  What real *need* have they to have their son cut
    his hair?  Only a power need that no longer complements the boy's need to
    experiment with independence.  So they criticize and attack him.  When
    people are attacked, they get angry and feel like hitting back.  So their
    son continues to keep his hair long as a way of hitting back, as well as
    reasserting his own autonomy.  How much better if the parents were to
    respect their son's need to move gradually out of the family and into a
    larger world, and limit their behavioral demands to more practical things.

    Message: 76986
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul the Apostle
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 01:43:44

    Religious leaders in general, all those who have presented us with our
    picture of God through the ages, have rendered a valuable service to Man.  I
    also think we also have to understand that they in turn have enjoyed the
    authority we have granted to them, because it fitted their own needs to be
    leaders.  Some of them we know were corrupt and despotic, particularly in
    the Middle Ages.  Religious truth can be twisted to serve evil causes.  But
    that isn't what I want to harp on about tonight.  The point I want to make
    is that religious truth is bound to be colored by whoever writes or teaches
    it.  If the people who write it or teach it are typically (as most
    "teachers" are), motivated by a high degree of power need, then the notion
    of "divine authority" is bound to be overemphasized.  That's why I think
    we're far better off to read between the lines of the Bible and concentrate
    on the *underlying* messages it is trying to teach us about how the members
    of a community can coexist in peace with one another, and on the messages of
    love taught by Christ, not to take every word literally.

    I see the apostle Paul as a flawed human being who had some kind of problem
    with women.  Was he homosexual?  I don't know; and even if he was, being
    homosexual is quite a separate matter from whether you like and respect
    women or not.  It's all quite irrelevant.  But he saw *real* truth when he
    wrote that wonderful passage in Corinthians.

    This is his most famous writing, and justly so.  Paul is worth reading just
    for that passage, whose truth is matched by its poetry.  What did he say?

    He said that it makes no difference to me if I speak in tongues, if I give
    away everything I have to the poor, even if I give myself to martyrdom; for
    if I "have not charity, it profiteth me nothing".  It is all futile and
    empty, unless I have this thing called "charity".

    I myself prefer the original KJV term "charity" to the later translation,
    "love", simply because "love" today has these overtones of "warm fuzziness"
    and possibly sex, which has nothing to do with what Paul was talking about.
    It's unfortunate that the word "charity" today suggests coins clinking into
    a box, because in the 17th century it had a meaning we have lost today: a
    sense of caring and human kindredship.

    How could Paul recognize this truth?  Only if he himself had experienced the
    contrast between that sense of emptiness and futility and the warmth of true
    humanity that is a reflection of kindredship with God.  He himself was a
    courageous man who was cast into prison for his faith.  Yet there must have
    been times in his life when he recognized the flaws in his own attitude and
    motivations; otherwise how could he have told us about the difference
    between blindly following a path of things that one "ought" to do and things
    that one *wants* to do to express and fulfill that "charity"?

    What is the authority of the Bible?  Some time around the third or fourth
    century, a convention of church officials got together and picked out, from
    a plethora of holy scriptures, those that they thought deserving of church
    approval.  Even today there is disagreement about whether the books of the
    Apocrypha have a proper place in "the Bible" or not.  The selection was made
    by Man.

    Were the choosers infallible?  According to the Catholic Church, I guess so.
    Is the Church infallible?  Is the Pope infallible?  According to the Church,
    yes; but it's an awfully circular argument.  I have a very hard time finding
    anything in Scripture that says the Pope is infallible, even in religious
    matters.  "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church," said
    Jesus; and the first thing Peter did was to deny Him three times.  Peter was
    a fallible human being.  I'm not grinding Peter into the dust; I'm just
    pointing out that he was human.  As for any "divine authority" in later
    Popes, forget it.  A few of them were so degenerate they spent their lives
    screwing and hatching murder plots -- or avoiding being murdered themselves.
    One faction in the Middle Ages decided they didn't like the Pope in Rome, so
    they set up their own rival Pope in Avignon instead.  The whole thing was a
    mockery of Christianity.  But the lesson it teaches us is that we must be
    very careful when interpreting anything at all written or said by Man that
    claims to represent the ultimate truth about God.

    Still, that little convention of bishops in Roman times did choose to set
    their seal of approval on the writings of Paul.  And in spite of his problem
    with women, I'm rather glad they did.  In that same passage from
    Corinthians, he spoke another great truth that gets far less attention than
    it ought to.

    "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know
    in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

    In a quiet moment of intimacy, Paul admitted his own fallibility.  He told
    us clearly that it is hard to know God.  "We know in part," he said; and in
    the light of that statement, we must follow his clear directive to read his
    other thoughts as if he were giving us his own best shot at a picture of
    God; not the true picture.  Which he knew he was.

    Paul did as much as any human being could be expected to, being flawed as we
    all are.  And he did better than most human beings do.  He tried to be
    honest with us.

    In doing so, he gave us a valuable hint that we should read the rest of the
    Bible in the same light of careful interpretation, remembering the
    fallibility of Man.  Authority lies within ourselves.  We weren't given the
    power of free thought for nothing.

    Message: 76990
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 05:45:40

    Re:phone solicitors, esp. computerized ones, I'm delighted that  you have so
    much time to waste with them. I don't.
     As to the postal increase, I only hope that a little of it finds it's way
    into my annuity. I'm falling behind inflation.
     God bless ya real good!

    Message: 76991
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 07:46:50

    First of all, I do respect your opinion, even though I disagree in part,
    not all however.

    I think it best, under the circumstances, that you not answer my posts - you
    are right, you won't change my mind one iota as it is obvious I won't change
    yours. That's OK - I never did think I would change yours - but I did want
    to understand why you come to the conclusions you do on the subject.

    The reason I did not want you to quote from the Bible - I KNOW what the
    Bible says - I wanted to know in YOUR words where/how/why you can read the
    same thing I read and we can come to such different conclusions.
                                 *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76992
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Bill
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 07:55:17

    You took that statement I made wrong about why I bothered to send long posts
    when Bill said a lot in a few words.
    I have a tendency to ramble on and repeat myself - thus making them
    unecessarily long and drawn out. I admire a person with a talent of saying a
    few words but saying a lot.

    I do want to point out that I have written you many posts on this subject
    and could turn around and say to you that you aren't interested in my view
    point and that you are biased or that you will change a bit because of them!
    So don't start crying in your beer because I dont' agree with you in
    everything. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76993
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Rod
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 07:59:17

    There isn't enough Christians on Apollo to form a prayer chain around Rod's
    house, Besides, do you want to insult the man? Also, he may just call the
    police. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76994
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Rod again
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:00:22

    He is one of the most free thinking people you will ever meet.
                     *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76995
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl # 76972
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:07:04

    Of course there is a difference(s) between men and women - but that doesn't
    give you license to assume because of the difference, that man is above,
    better, head of, ruler of, or anything else other than another human being!
    Men are stronger (some) yes, but so is a jackass! :)

    If you don't want to be called a sexist, don't talk like one! Simple!
                               *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76996
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:08:17

    Go to bed! You need your sleep! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76997
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: This board
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:14:00

    Wow! Apollo is really jumping at this time with mucho messages. If this
    keeps up, pretty soon I'll have to capture the messages to read off line.
                               *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 76998
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl/Count Me Out!
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 08:27:41

    > You have your own views and your own bias, and unfortunately,
    > it won't let you comprehend how one can submit to the word of
    > Scripture in regard to women and the church and still not be
    > sexist.

    For many years I had a policy of not getting involved in religious
    discussions -- here or anyplace else.  In fact, for quite some time I had
    the Religion category masked out here on Apollo.

    I've been backsliding lately, allowing myself to reply to posts of a
    religious nature.  As of now, I'm returning to my former policy.

    Message: 76999
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Green Lantern
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:35:22

    Hey, by any chance are you a Christian who doesn't have religious beliefs?

    I've only met one person who could make that claim, so your answer to this
    question should settle the issue of whether or not you're Roger Mann since
    Cliff keeps refusing to clear this up.

    Message: 77000
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: MJ/GL
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:51:03

    I am not a Christian. I do not have religious beliefs.

    Message: 77001
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Thad
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 10:59:37

    Re: your ... "Note that in Ephesians, where Paul instructs wives in
    submission and obedience to their husbands, he also instructs
    husbands to love their wives, even as Christ loved the church, or
    their own bodies"!

    Pardon me, but there is a big difference in 'submission and
    obedience' and loving someone!

    Re: your... "I don't think that meant He would approve of husbands
    treating their wives like some kind of domestic slave. He had
    something else in mind. Remember that Christ taught that "he who
    would be greatest among you, let him be your servant"!
    That is a very vague statement - on one hand you imply that men are
    not expected to treat their wives like slaves and then you imply it
    might just be for the women's benefit if they did because that
    would be making them a better person being a servant. If not, then
    what do you think "He had in mind for them"?

    We are not far in agreement on decision making - I would never have
    different landscaping put in and not tell my husband or if he
    didn't want it and I went ahead anyway. He wouldn't do that to me
    either. But you said your wife would not do it but you didn't say
    you wouldn't! -=* ANN *=-

    No, I guess the Bible doesn't say "women must bear children" (your
    quote) But I will post what it DOES SAY again and again ....

    "... but by good deeds as befits women who profess religion. Let a
    women learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman
    to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For
    Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, but the
    woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be
    saved through bearing children if she continues in faith and love
    and holiness, with modesty"!!!

    Yes, it doesn't say she MUST bear children but it does say she will
    be SAVED if she does!!

    That Biblical quote also says OUTRIGHT that Adam was not deceived -
     yet he most certainly was - by Eve. I've had ministers tell me
    that women must go through the pains of hell in childbirth because
    of what she did in the garden. That is her lot in life, etc. That
    is such a tasteless, offensive idea I don't want to think about it.
    It is idiotic and ridiculous.

    I agree that ... men are not biologically equipped to nurse a
    child .... that it naturally formed that men went out in the world
    and the women stayed home and raised the children ... that for the
    most part, men have larger bodies and muscles, have traditionally
    been assigned the tasks involving heavy physical labor.

    For centuries that worked, but a blind man can see that times have
    changed! Women give the babies bottles instead of nursing them -
    cars take us to far places - modern equipment such as backhoes can
    be run by women or little men - plumbers, lawyers or engineers does
    not take big strong people. So who is taking care of their children
    as you ask?! The baby sitter! Is that good? I don't know, probably
    not, but in this day and age, it isn't automatic that it's the
    woman that should stay home. A man is perfectly capable of raising
    a child - changing diapers, feeding a baby, cleaning a house as a
    woman is! He is just as emotionally equipped as a woman to do so -
    just as women are capable emotionally of going out into the world
    and making a living!

    You said the physical differences between men and women are
    especially evident and significant in athletics! Yes, I agree.
    So? Does that mean she is less than men because it is a fact?

    You said ... "I would also say that men seem to be generally more
    competitive and aggressive than women. Considering that it is
    generally men who abuse and dominate women, not the other way
    around. I would say at least that points to a difference between
    the sexes!"

    I hope you know by now that I never said there is no difference
    between the sexes. I admit to the differences -I just want to know
    why and how those differences make a man above a woman - or that
    women should keep silent in church and not get on the pulpit -and
    he is always the head of the household, etc.????

    As for abuse - it is society that instigates men do this and it is
    about time it is stopped!! If you disagree with that, then you are
    telling me it is in men's nature to abuse?

    As for men dominating women ... that's not true at all - SHE lets
    herself be dominated by him and it's about time that stopped also!
    To be honest, in this war of the sexes that seems to be waging, it
    is the women that disgust me in some cases more than the men - like
    a women that sticks around after her husband beats her for the
    upteenth time! Or allows him to sexually abuse them. UGH!
                              -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 77005
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Thad 5 of 6
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:03:28

    The ideal for both men and women, plus the children would be to ...
    ... have a farm and both do the labor on it - women giving birth of
    course and going back out in the field to help. Both cooking and
    taking care of the household duties and babies!! Different, yet
    co-equals! Working together for home and family.

    Of course, this is totally impractical in today's age. So, both the
    parents must work in most cases. We all know the men's part here,
    but lets look at the woman's life ... she gets up and feeds the
    kids - takes them to the sitter - goes to work -puts in as many
    hours as a man and at probably the same type of jobs -she shops for
    dinner on the way home - comes home and cooks dinner -straightens
    up the house and does the dishes - bathes the kiddies and puts them
    to bed and gets herself ready for the next day. On the week ends
    she does the laundry and heavier cleaning -and all the time looking
    like she stepped out of a beauty shop!  Can't have a messed up
    woman here can we?! On Fridays she collects her paycheck that might
    be more or equal to her husband's but chances are it is less.
    So along comes the men and tells them God says " they are the head
    of the household" - "that you lady, can't preach in our church" and
    that "you can never have authority over men"!! (Hmmm - I've often
    wondered if this in  essence also meant their young sons? The
    Chinese thought so at one time. Japanese too!)

    Not only does the women have God against them, they must suffer
    through the rags on the newsstand and the movies and TV --- ALL
    showing her she is nothing but an airhead - a sex symbol - a toy
    for man and by god she had better look good!!! The beer commercials
    really get to me - the light beer commercials. They want more women
    to drink beer so they show these airbrushed lovelies doing so that
    have the figure of a Venus and they certainly are 'getting their
    men!' Yet in reality, men that drink lots of beer, be it light or
    not gets a beer belly! Women will too if they drink enough of it!
    As much as I thoroughly enjoy 20/20  - it rankles me when I see
    Barbara Walters looking 20 years younger than she is and there
    beside her sits Hugh Downs that is not only old looking, he looks
    like a beached whale! I don't really mind that, but there is
    absolutely NO WOMAN on the news that looks like Hugh does, is the
    equivalent. A wrinkle isn't allowed on a women, nor fat, nor age!!
    Just check the news channels - all the women are perfect, some even
    look like hookers off Van Buren. There is no equivalents to Ted
    Koppel, Downs or David Brinkley. Speaking of David - he looks like
    a corpse on TV and I cannot see where he is any great newscaster.
    But really, I don't care, but it should be fair and women are
    partially to blame that it isn't. Instead of just fighting to be a
    newscaster, they should have fought on being able to be themselves
    also!!!

    Message: 77007
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Cat
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:06:16

    Re: your ... "let me set the record straight. I do not want to
    listen to women preach. They do not belong in the pulpit"!

    Why do they not belong in the pulpit? You yourself admitted there
    is no difference in souls and that Jesus died for us all.

    You do not want to listen to a women preach? Is a woman's voice so
    much worse to hear than a man's? Can she not possibly be as
    inspired as a man - have the Holy Spirit dwelling within her as
    much as a man? Cannot her words save souls also? If the latter be
    true, isn't it your Christian duty to let her??

    What is a pulpit? Isn't it just a piece of wood or marble that is
    man-made? Isn't it what is said behind it that counts? Not by who?

    To a small degree, I can understand what you said about head of the
    household, but if I live a million years, I will not understand
    this 'pulpit' thing and women. I am trying to - really!!! No one is
    shedding one ounce of light on it except to tell me they believe
    what Paul said and take it that it was from God. I truly am amazed
    that none of you question him. Even I, when deep into the Lutheran
    church - believed just about as you do - I still questioned Paul
    and that was a LOOOOONG time before woman's lib. came about. *ANN*

    Message: 77008
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:07:08

    Your posts on authority really moved me Gordon. And as for what you
    said about Paul ... you made him a human being and not some woman
    hating zealot only. I still think he was that, but I now won't turn
    my back on everything he wrote because of it. Thanks. -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 77009
    Author: $ Felix Cat
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 11:39:13

    Re:  Boy, that's just what we need -- *another* source of domestic
    arguments!

    I'm not sure if your comment is serious or sarcastic.  I keep trying to say
    that I don't think it really matters how long or short one's hair is.  The
    attitude of the heart is what is important.

    Message: 77010
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Women 'casters
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 12:39:03

    I agree with you there. For some reason, Patti Kirkpatrick sp? is being
    replaced by some blond bimbo that was a Miss Arizona person way back when. I
    am insulted that the powers-that-be think I will watch their substandard new
    coverage if there is a good looking blond behind the desk. It does show a
    sexist mentality of the folks who run Channel 12 News.

    Message: 77011
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Women
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 12:41:24

    Preachers. I remember Alice Goodwin Brown of the Southboro Congregational
    Church who graced our pulpit all too few times, who infused in our youth an
    enthusiasm for church and learning about God that no 60 year-old old man
    could do.

    We need more women in positions of power in the church.

    Message: 77012
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Question?
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 15:39:26

    You're a non-Christian with no religious beliefs who goes to church
    regularly?

    Message: 77013
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Differences
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 16:40:23

      I read a book recently, supposedly about linguistics, that explains a lot
    of the differences between men and women.  Essentially, we speak different
    languages, and this creates confusion when, for example, a woman speaks to a
    man (in "womanish", if you will), and he is listening (but in "mannish"),
    and hears something other than what she says.
      There are a lot of other examples of behavior, and I'd consider it much
    more of a book of psychology than of linguistics.  I wish I'd had it before
    I got married; it would have cleared up a lot of confusion.
      The book, by the way, is "You Just Don't Understand", by Dr Deborah
    Tannen, and it's one I'd recomment for *everyone* who has any reason to deal
    with the opposite sex.

      We all live in a   ....,,,,________nnhn____   yellow subroutine

    Message: 77014
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon / Bible quote
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:15:15

    You erroneously assumed and infered that Jesus mentioned the
    "seventy times seven" as a figure of how many times God would
    forgive our sins.
    In Matthew 18:22 , it says;
    "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven."
    If the folks who readily condemn material from the bible would
    accurately quote from it, instead of adding their own words to it,
    people might respect your views a little more.
    In the previous verse [as always, hecklers never read things in context]
    you would see that it was PETER asking Jesus how many times PETER should
    forgive his brother when his brother sins against him.

    No, it's not the bible that is corrupt, it's the folks who refuse to
    listen to its truths and open their minds to a different and peaceful
    way of life.
    The truly evil are our enemies, they spit hate in the name of science,
    spew lies from foul mouths and put words in place of others to make
    their justifications.
    It's pure sickness. Don't be a part of it.

    Message: 77015
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:17:47

    Your reply is evidence you don't think or care to engage in thoughtful
    discussion. You'd rather belittle someone and spit in their face like
    you always have before listening or discussing an opposing viewpoint.

    It's truly a lie when you say you have an open mind.

    The same mind that shuts like a bear trap when religion is brought up.

    Message: 77016
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/Machines
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:23:03

    Marketing Machine:
    "Hi there. Please don't hang up. I'm BOB, and I'm here to give you
    details on how to win your own home."

    --details--

    MACHINE: "Please state your income:"

    Me: "This is Agent Rudd with FBI Special Operations. We've got a log of this
    call and the number it was called from. You'd save yourself a lot of
    grief by calling me at 262-6151 by 7am tomorrow morning." --click--

    Actually, I hang up the instant I hear the characteristic audio feedback
    static from such machines. I have not been called more than a few times
    in the last year or so anyway, since we got the unlisted number.
    You can tell when they're blind dialing, they don't know who you are
    or your name.
    I like my wife's{response when those calls come in;
    "Just say no!" -click-

    Message: 77017
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/women
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 17:48:14

    I think you mya have mixed up part of Daryl's and my answer.
    Even though men and women are different, in most of the ways
    you have mentioned they are alike and equal, and I hadn't
    mentioned that yet in any of my posts.
     Even though men do dominate and abuse women, I definitely
    do not believe that they should.
      I have a somewhat different view of leadership than the
    usual one you find, and I am not sure I can explain it,
    words do not really suffice, and I don't have many examples
    readily at hand. I will read your posts more carefully
    (I make that a standard practice, to capture posts and
    review them more carefully before I try to answer.)

    Message: 77019
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann / Agreement
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 21:44:16

         It personally does not affect me one whit that you disagree with me.
    And I hate the taste of beer, and I don't waste tears, so don't worry.

    Message: 77020
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Ann / 76993
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 21:45:25

         Ann, please get a clue.  It was sarcasm.

    Message: 77021
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann on Rod
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 22:08:14

         Rod is not open-minded.  The only reason that you THINK he's open-
    minded is because your closed-mindedness is closer to his closed-mindedness
    than my closed-mindedness.  Nobody is really open-minded.  Everyone has
    a biased, opinionated view.  It is just that some are more tolerant of other
    people's views than are others.  Rod has proved, time and time again, that
    if he cannot succeed in getting someone to agree with him, then he pulls out
    the condescending attitude, epithets and the like.  When Rod cannot keep up
    his end of an discussion, he resorts to cheap shots below the belt that have
    nothing to do with promoting the exchange of intelligent ideas whatsoever.
    Rod cannot deal with the fact that people can put their faith in a Higher
    Power, and rather than being open-minded and accepting that person's right
    to do so, he accuses them of 'leaning on a crutch' or 'being brainwashed.'
    He mocks, he scorns, he taunts.  He does everything that a truly
    free-thinking person would NOT do.  Resorting to psychological warfare and
    strong-arm tactics to assert his opinions above and beyond all others is not
    the mark of a free-thinker.

        To me, a free-thinker is one to whom you can discuss your views vs. his
    in a rational and level-headed manner, and even though you may not change
    each other's minds, you walk away knowing that this person at least took the
    time to listen to your point of view, ponder it, respond to it from his
    point of view in a manner that shows that he's exerted some thought into
    responding assertively and yet respectfully.

        Rod does not do so.  To those with whom he agrees, he usually says
    something like, "Good post."  To those with whom he disagrees, he responds
    with "Your words are empty.  You are just spouting the party line.  Stop
    leaning on your crutch and get a real life."  It's as simple as that.

    Message: 77023
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann on "Sexism"
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 22:22:17

        I have never said that men and women are not equal.  Christ died for one
    just as much as he died for the other.  He loves one as much as he loves the
    other.  But He has set up a system of marital and family order which is in
    accordance to His plan, which is a result of a higher intelligence that I am
    not capable of comprehending.  But He says that man is to be the head of the
    home.  This does not mean that the woman does not have the right to give her
    opinion in all matters, and the man should certainly weigh his opinion
    against that of his spouse's.  But the final decisions rest with him, and
    therefore the burden is on his shoulders to make sure he makes the right
    decisions.  God has told man to love his wife as Christ loved the church.
    How many men do you know of that love their wives that much?  He is telling
    us that, second only to God, we are to love, honor and respect our wives in
    all things, even to the point of giving one's own life to defend and protect
    her.  A woman should respect her husband's God-given position as head of the
    family unit INSOFAR that his actions, attitudes and decisions are not
    contrary to the will of God.  In that case, she has the right to stand up
    for what is right.  In the end, the Christian family unit has a structure
    given by God...but every member OF that structure must subject his or her
    own will to be in harmony with the God which they believe in and serve.
        My wife believes in this also, and not because of any pressure on my
    behalf.  Remember, SHE was the Christian and I the unbeliever when we first
    met.  My views did not become her views... Actually, her views became mine.
    And if the tables were turned, and I were her, I would feel exactly the same
    way.  It's a God-given order, and it works well if it works by His will.

    Message: 77024
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill / Religion
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 22:23:40

        That is fine, if you feel that you must withhold your opinions on the
    subject of religion.  They have certainly not offended nor agitated me.

    Message: 77025
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Religion
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:02:25

      You have done very well, and yet done very badly at the same time. You
    have advanced a very strong and telling argument that the bible is full of
    sexist attitudes which prevailed at the time it was written. You have also
    shown rather conclusively, that religious men today cling to those attitudes
    and point to their inclusion in the bible as an excuse for dragging them
    down through generation after generation. Unfortunately you also made the
    statement that Daryl, as a representative of this divinely-inspired-sexism,
    did not have a mind of his own. That was a double tragedy because for one
    thing it was a nasty and uncalled for remark, and furthermore, it opened the
    door for these latter-day defenders of the keep-women-down-through-religion
    movement to turn against you personally instead of having to come
    up with a better argument than, 'the bible says so, and we dare not question
    it.'
      Aside from the slip into personal insults, I was most impressed with your
    writing on this issue. Keep up the good work.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 77026
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/molesters
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:19:24

      Yes, there is a class of people who will use anything they can find to
    exert power over others. The institutions of church and state would seem to
    have been chiefly run by these people throughout human history. The state
    offers certain benefits that make it an attractive idea, at least in theory.
    Likewise the church offers to do similar, great things for us in the next
    world. Unfortunately the bodies of authority created by both institutions
    are filled with petty dictators, not so much due to accident as due to the
    fact that only the petty dictator would seek the power over others which
    these institutions exist only to exercise.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 77027
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Entertainment/Movies
    Subject: Gordon on Rod, & etc
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:44:05

    I think I'm in love.  Great post(s).

    Message: 77028
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:44:38

    Now I know I'm in love.

    Message: 77029
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Bill/former policy
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:47:08

    You'll be missed.

    Message: 77030
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green Lantern
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:48:32

    Hey, I think you're neat.  Your posts have always showed charming character,
    at least very witty.
                                    Rod

    Message: 77031
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Chad/supplement
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:51:34

    Yeah, I checked out the Mormon bible and when I got to:  "If a man refuses
    to pray then they are from Satan", I threw it down, ain't had call to pick
    it up again.                            Rod

    Message: 77032
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Daryl/watches
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:53:46

    I'll never have you repair one of my watches, unless you get rid of that
    monkey wrench, then maybe.

    But you gotta write a secular poem for the occasion.
                                    -Rod

    Message: 77033
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Head
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:55:57

    Well put.

    Message: 77034
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl / tears
    Date: 07/22/91  Time: 23:58:08

    It's good to cry, sorta cleans one's emotions out.  You can't waste tears, by
    the way.

    Message: 77035
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 00:13:33

    But I thought this was an open discussion board, a free exchange of ideas
    and then an occasional serious debate on the issues.  Instead of a boxing
    match, it is more like a game of chess with all players learning something.

    How did I "strong arm" you?  Whenever I've seen you at GTs I always thought
    well of you.  But yes, I do hit below the belt, verbally.  But then again
    that is me.  Listen, I see a fantasy as not a bad thing unless the program
    lines are skewed like all of the main religions that I've see. Hell, update.

    If everyone allowed themselves to fall into Christianity, for instance then
    tomorror (or late tonight) no one would have any freedoms, we'd all be in
    jail, even the guards in a manner of speaking.  We need freethought, a
    re-examination of everything, every last detail that is us and to come out
    with a better running ship, a light ship preferably.

    So, take heart, peace.

                                    Rod
    Christianity and Islamism are both vile and corrupt, but Islam sounds a tad
    more vile although that is no excuse to excuse our vileness.  Vileness needs
    to be eliminated for the health of the entire population.  We need to error
    check and upgrade, reformat to efficiency and compassion.

    Message: 77036
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: My Dinner with...
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 00:16:02

    Welcome back.

    Message: 77037
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
    Subject: Everyone
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 00:19:20

    Thank you, thank you, all.
    Message: 77038
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Joke
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 01:02:04

    You mention in a message to Thad the Bible verse which states, 'who ever
    thinks they are the best are the least and shall be the servant of others',
    was interesting.

    What that means, according to my bible is that whoever knows they are right,
    through faith in Jesus the Christ, shall be the masters of all.  Can't you
    read?                   -Rod

    Message: 77039
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 01:13:39

    I see what I will call a flaw in your post to Chad.  By the way, I enjoyed
    reading them very much.

    You say that a male of the species is just as capable as a woman of raising
    a child, changing the diapers, etc.  In part I agree but the part I am
    having a problem with is this:

    Most females are raised with dolls and they learn the mommie role in
    'playing house'.  The daddies go off the work while the little girls do
    their thing.  I played it when I was a kid.

    And the little boys are given (gads) guns and big toy trucks and such....GI
    Joe is a homosexual dude who has a problem with women and likes his men with
    a military hair cut.  (That last sentence was especially for you, Ann
    because I think it will make you laugh a bit or at least get a funny
    expression on your face.)

    Yes, you are correct, the male animal is capable of it but we are formatted
    into a role by our parents, peers, teachers, and (ugh) church.

    Yes, I think I could handle it but I'd go crazier much, much faster and I
    think I would need Jasmine's support.

    The way I see it is that both Mother and Father should create a society
    where the child has ready access to both parents and not just one.

    Jasmine's and my first five years were spent like this because I was a
    part time leathersmith who ilked out a living and we were together.   But,
    as you well know, Capitalism is demanding of its proletariat class, to say
    the least, eh?

    Take care Ann, you are correct in general but it would be sure nice if man
    grew breasts if they found themselves in a reverse role model.  -Rod

    Message: 77041
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/ponder point
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 01:44:41

    I simply do not have the time to pussyfoot around.  I like to come right to
    the point, the meat of the matter, so to speak, so to speak.

    We could take five years to accomplish what I'd like to see in two.  Life is
    too precious to screw around with words.  Let's get it done and gone so we
    can see a brighter tomorrow and not one of sorrow because everyone is
    restricted to the point that George III would favor.

    Get it, dude?  BTW, I had a vivid dream of you this morning, (no joke).  You
    were a contestant in a game show and I was watching you on tv and there was
    a fancy dildo that you left, for sale, on a stand that I had.  I can't
    remember it all but I was awaken by a call for a locksmith.

    We are the people, but let me cut this short, read carefully the messages of
    Little, Oudin and Hathaway of late.  Please...and ponder their content in
    your heart without mockery of ANY sort.

    No one was mocking you but you left some snipe messages, one in particular
    to Ann wherein you said something about hating beer and other weird stuff.
    Then you do the same to Bill who has been fair and just in his dealings.

    Chess, anyone?

    Message: 77042
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Oxygen
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 02:09:13

    Some people suffer more than others just because of the jobs they are
    required to do.  The more fresh oxygen molecules that find their way into
    your bloodstream and brain, the more alert.  We all suffer, from time to
    time a lack of rich oxygen.

    If you work where there is a lot of pollution then snort a wiff of the
    'miracle drug', oxygen.  It can make rockets go into space.

    When I am out working on a particular hot day or a polluted day and I spy
    some fresh greenery, I usually visit it or at least my nose does.  However
    beware of green colored plastic plants.  Of course, with the harsh chemicals
    that are added to some plants, it's a hard decision on what to do.

    Don't type messages after a particular bad day because they usually end up
    containing ill attempts at words.    -Rod

    Message: 77043
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/freedom
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 05:17:31

    Rod Williams is "one of the most free thinking people  you will ever meet"?
    Annie, you don't know what real bondage is until you have been bound by
    darkness of spirit.
     Another observation might be that if his thinking is "free", he must know
    what it's worth. (Nah, I wouldn't say a thing like that.) (Oh yes I  would!)

    Message: 77044
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Michael on Green
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 05:23:02

     Cliff has already answered your question, Michael. By his silence on the
    matter. Of course, Green Lantern is Roger Mann. Cliff will not say otherwise
    because Cliff is not a liar. Not only are the similarities too obvious to
    ignore, so are the circumstances under which G.L. came into being, the day
    after Mann was put in the Phantom Zone, and without ever appearing in a
    non-$tatus capacity before his sudden appearance as a $tatus user. The
    simplest equation in Apollo history is Green Lantern = Roger Mann.

    Message: 77045
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie on women
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 05:39:27

     You have made some very astute observations on the conditions today as
    pertains to the role of women in society, and, for the most part, I tend to
    agree with you. (Ain't that something now?)
     How about taking a look at the other side of the same coin?
     You have chosen to be the homemaker in your family rather than go into the
    world to make a career out of something or other, and I feel that you have
    made a very wise decision. I really think that it was God's purpose to
    create a relationship betwen husband and wife that was balanced in all
    respects, and that balance called for the woman to be the anchor, if you
    will accept that term, in the home. In it's true light, this is not a
    demeaning position, but one of the highest importance and value. A well
    balanced family demands a well balanced and well kept home, a place of rest
    and refuge from the cares and concerns of the world. A man spends most of
    his waking hours on a job, working for a goal. What is that goal? Basically,
    security and happiness. WHat better expression of that security is there
    than the knowledge of a good home to return to when the day's work is done,
    and a good and faithful wife there waiting for him? What better place for
    children to grow and mature than a loving home, maintained by Mom, the
    stable, secure, always there when you need someone, anchor of the family?
    I believe with all my heart that we would not have half the problems with
    young people today if it weren't for the fact that so many mothers and wives
    have found it necessary to compete in the professional world and put their
    careers before their responsibilities as homemakers. More problems than we
    can count begin with latchkey kids.

    Message: 77046
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Green
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 07:39:41

    Excellent post.

    Message: 77047
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: War!
    Subject: Ann/Brinkley et al
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 08:09:49

    > There is no equivalents to Ted Koppel, Downs or David Brinkley.
    > Speaking of David - he looks like a corpse on TV and I cannot
    > see where he is any great newscaster.

    Hey!  Brinkley is one of my heroes.  Watch your mouth!

    I have a friend, a lesbian, who used to work at the gym where Patti
    Kirkpatrick works out.  Said she looked great on the stair machine.

    Message: 77048
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Felix/76944
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 08:48:08

    "I think all rebellion is wrong."

    Would you like to revise that statement?  Do you think that the civil
    disobedience during the 60's was *wrong* ?  Should oppressed people just be
    sheep?  Passively being fleeced?  Willingly walking to the slaughterhouse?

    Message: 77049
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike/77014
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:13:34

    You asked that folks accurately quote from the Bible.  I should point out
    that, when they often do, they are told that the words quoted *aren't* the
    words meant, and that the passage means nothing like what it says on the
    surface.

    Children?  No, not children. It was 35-year-old *men* who were mauled (not
    men and women, of course, because God is sexist)

    Message: 77050
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green #77010
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:30:43

    Thank you Mr. Lantern for that one. It is so good to hear that someone else
    notices this junk ans being sexist mentality. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77051
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike on evil
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:36:58

    You said .... "the truly evil are our enemies, they spit hate in the name of
    science" etc.

    PLEEEZE don't speak of spitting Mike. I still have some of yours when you
    spit on me last! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77052
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: War!
    Subject: Mike #77015
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:40:02

    Another Bible quote that applies to you....

    "He who is without sin, cast the first stone!"

    Message: 77053
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Daryl #77022
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:44:27

    Have you ever thought he may be right? I don't always agree with him at all,
    but I do listen to what he has to say. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77054
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryle #77023
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 09:51:08

    That was a lovely post and that is NOT sarcasum. If every married couple
    lived that way, what a wonderful world that would be. But for me, it would
    not work because I cannot believe in it nor would I want to live that way.
    Who said "to thine self be true"? I also know many people who feel the same
    as I do about that and most are Christians!
    There are other ways to live and not be like that or believe that is God's
    will that man and women be like that and they work just as well. For you ,
    your way works! I am glad you are happy. I would be miserable!
                              *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77055
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Dean # 77025
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:01:40

    Thank you for thinking that I did good in pointing out the Bible is full of
    sexism of the day and also for pointing out that I made a nasty and uncalled
    for statement to Daryl by saying he had no mind of his own. I didn't mean it
    the way it sounded at all - he was spouting Biblical verses when I wanted to
    hear HIS personal side of it is all I meant.
    Alas, I am afraid I convinced not one of them though - they come back with
    even more so called 'proof' of the way God wants things. Thanks anyway.
                              *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77056
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Rod #77038
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:06:08

    You mean Daryl, Pauley, Mike and their ilk are our masters because they
    believe??? Where is that Marijuana again? I need some! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77057
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod #77039
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:07:23

    EXACTLY! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77058
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod on breasts
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:09:58

    One time years ago I read what I thought a kinda crazy article that said a
    man can nurse! That if a man lets a baby nurse on him or stimulates his
    breats, a form of milk or nutriment will appear that the baby can thrive
    on!!??!! Wonder how true that was? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77059
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on Rod
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 10:14:29

    Re: your ... "Another observation might be that if his thinking is "free",
    he must know what it's worth."

    Ok - so what is the price that you've paid for your way of thinking? We ALL
    pay prices in one way or another. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77060
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 12:23:41

    Regarding your nice post #77045 ... I will agree with you there
    more than I care to! (grin) Truly from the bottom of my heart I
    believe in the harmony of the home and always have strived for it.
    I also think I made a wise decision in staying home all these years
    and NEVER felt otherwise! Some of that is selfish too - I am freer
    than I would be going to a job - can spend all day at my favorite
    things if I wished - although, if I go overboard on that, I will
    disrupt the harmony of this home! Ha. As an artist - I never had to
    look for a sponsor which is the scourge of all artists that want to
    sit and create! Choosing this life allowed me to be more creative!

    I also agree about latchkey kids. Both parents working has created
    all sorts of problems. The kids lose out badly. They deserve a
    loving home like you mentioned.

    I also like housework and never found it demeaning or slavery - I
    especially like to cook. Tthis might come as a surprise from a
    woman that you no doubt think is a 'raving, drooling at the mouth
    feminist' .... I like to wait on my husband and nurture him when
    he's sick or down! I will even back down many, many times when I
    think I'm right just to keep that harmony!!!
    Am I a contradiction??? Read on and see.......!

    Ok - you wanted me to "look at the other side of the same coin" -
    so now I'm asking you do the same ....

    What of the women (humans) who DO NOT want to be a housewife? Hate
    it - would be unhappy totally?? When I was young and being a
    housewife was the thing, most of the women were unhappy in that
    role. They didn't tell their husbands that, they told each other,
    but there was no way out! No where was there a sympathetic ear to
    listen except another woman that could not help you! Part of that
    unhappiness in that role was caused by the men themselves and
    society in general! Both men and women had the "she is only a
    housewife' mentality! I admit to having it at one time myself. My
    then husband had it worse though. He was TYPICAL! In fact - the I
    love Lucy show was the norm of the time. Real funny to look at, but
    not any fun at all to live like that with the husband having to be
    duped so the wife can get what she wants - and him telling her all
    the time 'how it is', etc. etc. This wasn't creating a home and
    harmony. This was showing the world how idiotic women are - that
    thrive on their emotions - that get stung if they go against their
    husband's wishes and "what would they ever do without a man around"
    attitude. I've always felt that if men had respected his housewife
    more, less women would have wanted out of the position! If he
    hadn't of enforce this 'head of the household' stuff.

    As I said, women were believing half this stuff themselves and
    becoming like a Lucy type because they thought that was the way it
    is! Fear was in the picture also - fear of getting out on one's own
    because their mother's or grandmother's never did and where were
    they to go? Sure, they could get a job, but .... #1 their pay was
    so low that it wasn't worth leaving the home for, muchless
    supplying the woman with independence mentally or materially! .. #2
    society looked down on a working woman - both men and women looked
    down on them and they were suspect! ... #3 she was to keep up her
    housewife duties if she was going to work - after all, more
    important things first, right? #4 . the macho husband didn't want
    his wife to work of course. It made him look bad, not providing for
    his family and the husbands of working wives at that time, spent a
    lot of time explaining why his wife was working - but NEVER that
    she wanted some independence from him!!! Lordy no!

    Husbands never refrained from their "God given right" to look at
    other women - reading Playboy - commenting between each other on
    some other woman's figure and having affairs! Which NONE of those
    things will ... bring harmony to the home nor make their wives feel
    respected nor make them feel that their role as housewife has any
    merit at all! But glory, did the husbands raise hobbs when the
    women started doing the very same things!!

    I want to pause here and say that I am talking about other people,
    not you. It is obvious you were/are not like that, but I tell you
    it was the majority of the men that acted like this in the 50's and
    MOST of them called themselves Christians too! I don't recall
    knowing any Atheists at that time either. In the five years that I
    was a Lutheran, 2 elders and the organist made a pass at me not to
    mention the 1 regular church member!

    In fact, men for the most part are still acting like this and they
    just keep wondering why the women are turning from them  more &
    more - going to work - don't want to be a housewife anymore and
    some not even wanting to be mother's at all - turning to things
    that the men use to do exclusively like having affairs - being
    aggressive -being abusive - drinking heavily, etc. etc. Why not?
    Like I said, what has being a housewife got them? It has gotten
    much for me, but I am a real minority Paul. When you see what I am
    saying you will understand why there isn't that little dream world
    that we all long for in your post # 77045! I don't blame it all on
    the men, but the most of it, yes! As I mentioned, the women might
    have done all that and stayed home if the men had respected them in
    thought, word and deed! But they DID NOT! I will be so bold as to
    say I like the men of today more! They are MORE honest anyway and a
    good part of them want to try to get along - be understanding.

    I want to say that my posts to you here is in no way 'men bashing'
    in the least. I told you like is was and in some instances, still
    is! The women's point of view! I could write a book on women's
    mistakes too, but we are not talking about that - we are talking
    about what makes a home. I swear to you that I would be with my
    first husband right now if he had respected my role as
    housewife/mother!!! I don't believe in divorce. I know of dozens of
    women that would not have left either if it were so. The women's
    lib. just made women realize what their plight was and showed them a
    way out.
    I feel that some day new roles will be what society dictates - both
    are equal - both choose the roles they want to play in this life and
    they make those roles work for them with respect and understanding
    on both their parts. NO MANDATORY ROLES!!! Until that day comes, we
    will be at war with each other - will be playing a tug of war where
    no one wins.  The old way just won't work anymore and instead of
    moaning over it's demise, make the new world/society/home a better
    place USING THE NEW RULES! It can be done!

    Thanks for listening. -=* ANN *=-

    Message: 77065
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Bill Burkett
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 17:56:01

    What's happened to ; "The family oriented reading material" on this
    board when you allow Rod Williams to use those words in his post
    #77041.
    A few months back if I had posted those words in that context, you and
    the rest of these part-time censors would be wailing and screaming the
    walls are falling in with such filthy language on this PUBLIC board.

    But again you reassure us that you have no capability of being
    impartial or unbiased in your scruitiny.

    Please correct the situation.
    This is a public board and my neighbors children might see that.

    Message: 77066
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike 707
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:57:18

    Rod implied this with the words "God forgives you 7 X 77".  You're right
    though, I should have verified my sources.  Bad academic practice.

    But the real problem was this.  I know how to do one of these :-)
    But I don't know how to do a tongue in a cheek.  So nuances of meaning get
    lost.

    Message: 77067
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul S/Green Lantern
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:58:01

     PS>>ignore, so are the circumstances under which G.L. came into being, the

    Oh-HO, I'd never noticed before until you posted this that "Green Lantern's"
    initials are exactly the same as my own!  Just think -- people might have
    been thinking that *I* was Green Lantern!

    Message: 77068
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Apostle Paul
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 18:58:32

    Well, thank you!  You know, I've heard several people say that "everybody
    argues like crazy on Apollo, but nobody EVER changes their mind".  You've
    just proved them all wrong!

    Message: 77069
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Tongue in cheek
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:25:06

        :-;

    Message: 77070
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/initials
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:25:54

    You'll always be Littleg to me (little g ...)

    Message: 77071
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: She-bears
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:37:44

    It was a real pity when those she-bears mauled and killed those senior
    citizens just because they made fun of a bald head and robbed banks, raped
    little kids and took drugs.  Pity.

    Public Bulletin Board command:R77057

    Message: 77072
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Bibical Paul
    Date: 07/23/91  Time: 19:46:22

    Thanks for the posts about bibical Paul.  You've made him human and I
    understand him better.  -Rod

    Caller # 162144 (5 today)
    It is now 07/23/91  02:12:36
    Last on @ 07/23/91  02:10:07
    Last message read was  (77042)
    Message range is (76792-77042)
    You have logged in 1706 times

    *=* Main Menu entered *=*

    Main Menu command:U

    $ Rod        Williams   02:12:35 (1200)
    $ Rod        Williams   02:02:03 (1200)
    $ Rod        Williams   01:36:19 (1200)
    $ Rod        Williams   01:06:23 (1200)
    $ Rod        Williams   00:58:40 (1200)

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