>used it in the past.
No one is questioning whether Mr. King is black.  The question arises
whether King's race should make police officers "afraid as hell."  Your
statement seems to imply that cops should have a different standard for
large black guys than for just large guys in general.
That two posts later you don't understand why anyone pointed out your use
of the adjective is almost as informative as your original use.
--
ted frank                 |
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     |
standard disclaimers      |
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: History, Its Dangerous
Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir.wetware.com
Reply-To: drieux@wetware.com
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Lines: 43
In article AJv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, mrynders@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Maurice Rynders) writes:
>In article <1993Apr12.143224.23273@alleg.edu> meyerj (Jon Meyer) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr5.073813.5246@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter
>>D. Hampe) writes:
>>> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>
>>> >pps: Why is there Still NO CALL to end Clinton's Illegal
>>> >war in Somalia?????
>>>
>>> Hold on there tex - it's not his war.  Everybody knows that
>>> its Part of the ReaganBushLegacy.
>                   ^^^^^^?
>>
>>Yeah, sure.  They created the starvation there.  They put the warlords
>>there.  Yep.  Sure.  Been brainwashed by the media, haven't you?
>
>He probably is. By the way: what has Reagan to do with this any way? I
>bet most people had never even heard of Somalia, during the Reagan
>administration!
Ok boys and girls,
"What was the 'Ogadan War'????"
The Money Raised in Band-Aid covered How Much of
the Cost of Which Soviet Client State to replace what
catagory of weapon system lost in the aforementioned war?
Why was the Joke: "We arm the World." Really Not that funny?
Gonzo Station is the designation for WHICH USN Op Area?
and the primary threat targets in the Area Were:.....
ciao
drieux
---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings
From: al976@yfn.ysu.edu (Franklin Kadell Jordan)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu
I am so tired about all this debate on how many gays there
are!  Such arguments are basically worthless, imho.  Would it
really matter if it were millions of people who are regularly
denied access to housing, employment, and personal security or
even only one?
As for death threats, I happen to know from personal
experience that gay people are far more likely to receive
them based on political veiws or even personal philosophies
related to the issue of sexual orientation than are heterosex
uals. Not a week goes by that I personally or one of my friends
is not physically or verbally harrassed for even appearing to
be gay.
Everyone is garaunteed certain unalienable rights under
our current form of government in theory, yet every day
gay people are victimized by their local governments, by
the police force, and by (for the most part) an uninformed
and ignorant public. Is this democracy? I don't think so.
A society's sense of justice is judged on the basis of
the treatment of the people who make up that society.
All of those people. And yes, that includes gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals whose "crimes" have no victims, and who
are as varied and diverse as the society of wich they are
a part.
--
Frank Jordan                                                [D[D[D[C[C[C
Gay Arab Bassoonists UNITE!!!
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 73
In article <stevethC5nwnn.49t@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>In article <1993Apr18.001338.21323@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>>No social problem, however great, is worth destroying the freedom in America
.
>>>The destruction of freedom is never an answer to any social problem.
>>
>>You can't even walk down the street at night alone in America because of drug
s.
>>Freedom my ass.
>>
>>Ryan
>
>Why exactely can't you walk down the street safely?  It it because somebody
>will jump out from behind a shadow, and, SELL YOU DRUGS?  Hardly.
Or mug me.
>  On the
>other hand, it's certainly possible that you are walking down the steet of
>a bustling lawless part of your metropolitan area.  Lawless and bustling: read
>underground economy.
Why must you pursue this fantasy that all crime is derived from "underground
economies".
>  There, it may not be a very safe place to be at all.
>Unless of course you're there to buy some drugs...
>
>I explained how the WOD is a major cause of large-scale crime in America.  The
>head of the Guardian Angles agrees with me: legalize drugs and watch violent
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Haaahaaaahaaaa
>crimes significantly decrease.
>
>As for me, well, I think I'll go take a walk tonight--alone.  I feel safe.  I
>just hope the FDA/FBI/DEA/BATF isn't back at my apartment confiscating all my
>property because they found my phone number written on a phone booth that was
>also used by a drug dealer.
Yeah buddy, this happens all the time.  Tell me, HAS IT EVERY REALLY HAPPENED
TO YOU?   That's what I thought.
> In that sense, I don't feel safe.  I'm an honest,
>law-abiding citizen (drug laws included, FTM), why is it that I fear the
>government more than I fear criminals?
>
Your foolish.
>Freedom MY ass.  This is NOT what the founding fathers (some of whom would be
>thrown in prison under today's drug laws) had in mind.  All of these problems
>you come up with pale in comparison to the fact that the very fiber of our
>country--the US Constitution--is being destroyed.  What good would it do
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Must I ask again, what part?
>even IF the WOD actually reduced crime: we just created a new class of
>criminals, headed up the gang's current leader: Bill Clinton.  The DEA, etc.
>are private armies that answer directly to the president.  They possess
>advanced weapons and survailance technology.  Does this sound familiar to
>anybody?
>
>Do you support "Mein Furher Clinton"?  Hmmmmmm?  You seem to have come out
>against the current adminstration: why are you eager to endow it with
>even MORE power?  (Power of the most dangerous kind, too).
>
All I ask is that drugs stay illegal.  I don't think it's too much to ask.
Ryan
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 32
In article <1qrohrINNipe@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (Wil
liam December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr18.003848.21571@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) said:
>
>>>> However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
>>>> be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  [Ryan C Scharfy]
>>>
>>> Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican
>>> idea that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and
>>> simply decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please
>>> explain why the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like
>>> cigarettes" is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for
>>> nicotine...  [wdstarr]
>>
>> Yeah, Cancer is pretty cool, isn't it.
>
>Ryan, please explain how the "coolness" or lack thereof of cancer is
>relevant to a discussion of the legalization of currently illegal
>recreational drugs.  For that matter, please explain how it's even
>relevant to a discussion of currently _legal_ recreational drugs such as
>tobacco. [wdstarr]
You said it worked so well with tobacco.  I was being fascisious(I can't spell
worth a damn)
Look, this is getting ridiculous, first, I think tobacco should be legal.
Anybody who can't see the difference between tobacco and marijuana has got to
be high.
Ryan
From: system@garlic.sbs.com (Anthony S. Pelliccio)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Organization: Antone's Italian Kitchen and Excellence in Operating Network
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 47
kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>
>>Funny, but I've seen a LOT more than 10 or 15 seconds of that video, and
>>I still think the police involved were guilty. I don't think there's any
>>excuse they could POSSIBLY come up with that would make what they did
>>OK. I don't care if Rodney King was satan himself, there's just no
>>excuse. Now, whether they did it because he was black or they did it
>>because they wanted to beat up on somebody they were arresting is
>>another entirely separate question that I have insufficient information
>>to make any kind of conclusion about.
>
>
>        How about the fact that you have a bunch of cops putting their lives o
> n
> the line day in and day out who are afraid as hell of a large black guy that
> took a large amount of punishment and refused submit?  Oh yeah, did you watch
> the start of the video when King got UP out of his prone postion and charge
> the cops?  Sorry, the video cuts both was when you sit and watch it start to
> finish.
>
>
I have to agree with you... the police may have carried it a bit too far
but Rodney King was no angel either. And I don't think ANY guilty
verdicts should have been returned. I'm sure you know why they handed
down guilty verdicts on two of the officers. It's quite simple really,
it was a compromise to avoid rioting in the places where minorities
think it's right to riot. I hate to say this, but I would have liked to
see them riot with everyone prepared. It would be open season if your
skin was even slightly brown.
Hey, my motto is, you don't fuck with me or my stuff and you don't get
killed. It's just that simple.
Tony
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Anthony S. Pelliccio, kd1nr/ae    // Yes, you read it right, the  //
-- system @ garlic.sbs.com          // man who went from No-Code    //
-----------------------------------// (Thhhppptt!) to Extra in     //
-- Flame Retardent Sysadmin       // exactly one year!            //
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- This is a calm .sig! --
--------------------------
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Re: If Drugs Should Be Legalized, How?  (was Good Neighbor...)
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 22
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> > However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to
> > be bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never
> > heard of a recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal
> > meth and LSD.  The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine"
> > cigarettes, pot and heroin.
>
> Or, the government could adopt the radical and probably unAmerican idea
> that citizens are free to live their lives as they wish, and simply
> decriminalize cocaine, marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc.  Please explain why
> the idea of allowing recreational drugs to be "bought like cigarettes"
> is "just plain silly."  After all, it works just fine for nicotine...
I'm all in favor of drug legalization, but I do see some problems with
it. My hope is that people disposed to doing so would simply overdose
quickly, and be done with it, before making a mess of thisgs.
--
Let me get this straight: Medical treatment costs too much and is
inefficient, so we're going to let government make it better?
From: neal@magpie.linknet.com (Neal)
Subject: Re: race and violence
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 8
I replied to your message, however, it is listed as a new topic with
the title: "rnitedace and violence". Possibly line noise or error
caused to post as a new topic. I see it here as #100.
Regards,
Neal
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: ca
Lines: 13
In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.
Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more
Pulitzers the same way they did last year.
--
Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
-- Hobbes to Calvin
USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 23
In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
tes:
>
>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid
is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as
me how, I just have seen the results.
Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
the head.
>--
>_______
>Steve Thomas
>steveth@rossinc.com
Ryan
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: National Sales Tax, The Movie
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA08871; Thu, 15 Apr 93 07:42:23 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA05233; Thu, 15 Apr 93 07:42:12 -0700
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
(16.6/16.2) id AA27601; Wed, 14 Apr 93 10:02:10 -0600
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Lines: 54
Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
own CNN news LOGO!
Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this
seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching
time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by
now.
YEAH!  Free HEALTH CARE!   Oh, yeeaaaahhhh!
heh heh
" Bill makes me feel like DANCING! "
MORE AMAZING PREDICTIONS FROM THE INCREDIBLE BROMEISTER!
--------------------------------------------------------
We take you back to Feburary 20th, when the INCREDIBLE
BROMEISTER PREDICTED:
" $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "
" A NATIONAL SALES TAX "
Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!
i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996.
Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.
Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.
ii)  Unemployment will rise!
iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase!
We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997!
Everyone will DANCE AND SING!
Yup.  I'm gonna <glancing at watch> bail out of here
at 1 PM, amble on down to the lake.  Hang out.  Sit
in the sun and take it EASY!   :)   Yeah!
I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
the middle class to pay for my programs "
To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
the middle class to pay for my programs "
From: mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad
Organization: Texas Tech University
Distribution: tx
Lines: 32
bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk) writes:
> 	A few weeks ago I found out about some of the politics that
> is going on with the Texas bullet train, and was appalled at some
> of the apparent underhanded tactics to push this thing through
> without any public say whatsoever.  So, I wrote up a short
> editorial thing and posted it, hoping to get some discussion.
>
> I suppose editorials don't do it here.  So now I am asking for
> the general opinion of the net about the proposed high speed
> train.
>
> What do you think?  I personally think it is a stupid idea, and
> that there are a few people somewhere who are going to get very
> rich from this deal.
>
My opinion is this:  In a society whose economy is primarily based on
capitalism, the role of government should be to provide those goods and
services that need providing for the general public's good.  BUT government
should supply those necessary goods and services only when it is impossible
for a private enterprise (or individual) to make money from providing them.
I agree with some of the other posts that this train probably can not make
money and will rely heavily on State tax dollars.
The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?
I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With
the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think
people in Dallas or Houston need it either.
David McGaughey
Texas Tech University
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com>, rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
> Look at the whole picture, not just
> randomly picked libertarian positions.  If government is not allowed to
> use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
> can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.
Either the government has force available to it, or it doesn't.  The
Libertarian position is that the government can use force only when someone
else uses force first -- even when that first force is not directed
against the government, but one of its citizens.  That all being true,
what safeguards do we have against the government CLAIMING that some
initiation of force on its part is really a response?  (Like the burning
of the Maine, the Tonkin Gulf incident, or the assault on Waco?)
I ask this not to argue, but to understand.
(Followups to alt.politics.libertarian only.)
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Return of the Know Nothing Party
Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir.wetware.com
Reply-To: drieux@wetware.com
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Lines: 38
In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>Well Actually its a case of Resolving whether one
>>Supports Biblical Literalism, and the Enerrancy of the Bible,
>>or Whether on wished to Jump On the SeXularHumanist,
>>Detain all the True Christians in Death Camps approach
>>of the Northern Liberal Abolitionists and their EFFORTS
>>to Destroy the Bible, Corrupt the Moral Fibre of American
>>and Lead the God Fearing into the Bondage of Liberal Degeneracy.
>>
>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible,
>>christianity and american history.....
>
>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage,
>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??
So which are you advocating?
That You know Nothing About American History,
Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?
Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?
ciao
drieux
ps: what WAS the "Free Negro Sailor Act" about,
and what was the Supreme Court's Ruling On it... and
More Importantly, how does this Complicate the Mythology
that all blacks were slaves????
---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings
From: brow2812@mach1.wlu.ca (craig brown 9210 u)
Subject: Re: Stop The SeXularHumanistOppression { former my beloved  Damn Ferigner's Be Taken Over}
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Lines: 35
In article <C5HIu1.8A9@spss.com> gregotts@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
>In article <C5HCrw.Dn3@junior.BinTec.DE> muftix@junior.BinTec.DE (Juergen Ernst Guenther) writes:
>>
>>I never understood why Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc. accusing
>>US. people for imperialism though think of them as "The Americans".
>>
>>Not few Europeans think of you all as Americans (and of the US. as
>>a bunch of blasphemeous trash that GOD has to extinguish sooner or later ...;)
>>
>> .m.
>
>It would not be surprising that a continent that produced fascism, communism,
>and two world wars might have quite a few people who tend to think of other
>people as trash that should be extinguished sooner or later.  I seem to
>remember a gut called  Hitler who felt the same way. One wonders what would be
>the fate of Europe if God had extinguished this nation of blasphemeous trash
>before 1917. (Not that I believe in gods.)  How many millions of people through-
>out the world would have to die because no force could stop the insane, bloody
>European imperialism? Thankfully the "imperialistic" US helped put an end to
>these games so that the rest of the world can sleep alittle more safely. Thus, I
>could care less what "not few Europeans" think so long as they can't do anything
>about it.
>
>  - Greg Otts
>
>These opinions are entirely my own.
>
But remember that had God extinguished the blasphemous trash of Europe (and
Imperialism with it), the United States would not exist today to put an end
to those "games"....begs the question, which came first, the chicken or the
egg???
C.Brown
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (Was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Questions about "non-initiated force"
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 69
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
In article <C5JH23.Eu8@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.164605.8439@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>|> ...you don't specify the means through which the government
>|> is to be prevented from becoming the tool of business interests.  As a
>|> left-wing, big government, conventional liberal, I'm just as willing as
>|> you are to vote against anti-competitive regulations that favor auto
>|> dealers.
>|>
>|> But what I hear from libertarians is a desire to limit incumbents' terms,
>|> to weaken government by eliminating its power to enforce antitrust laws,
>|> and a desire to eliminate legislator's pay.  Each strikes me as a
>|> particularly ineffective way to insure that auto dealers and other special
>|> interests cannot influence public policy.  In fact, they seem clearly
>|> designed to accomplish the opposite.
>
>...If government is not allowed to
>use "non-initiated force" to achieve its goals, than no special interest
>can influence the government to use non-initiated force on their behalf.
Fine.  Libertarians and anarchists are not alone in being uncomfortable
with the use of state sponsored coercion.  The notion that coercion can
be virtually eliminated in a society (or more properly that once it is
eliminated on the part of the state it is no longer worth serious
consideration) is a view that is peculiar to libertarians and anarchists.
For example, does "non-initiated force" (coercion) include tax collection?
Does it include the minimal level of regulation of commerce envisioned
by Adam Smith?  Since coercion can be exercised by actors other than the
state, how is the state to deal with it?  Exclusively through after the
fact arbitration/legal compulsion?
>
>The means to reaching such a restricted government is another topic
>which I'll address briefly.  It certainly won't happen until
>libertarianism is the dominate philosophy.  What means do we have to
>make libertarianism the dominate philosophy?  Statists run the education
>monopoly, so we have to be creative.  The Advocates for Self-Government
>reports 85% of their Seminar 1 participants "embrace" libertarianism.
>That's the best means I've seen yet.  We should lobby for compulsory
>Seminar 1 attendance. :) [in jest!]
Well, I must admit that the picture of libertarians as Amway participants
is somewhat more reassuring than the idea of them trying to govern a
complex, conflictual, industrial society.  I'd venture to point out,
however, that if libertarians couldn't convince at least 85% of a group
of "seminar participants" to "embrace" their philosophy, their
propaganda skills need to be honed.
Frankly, however, it is no great trick to create a government for a
society in which (almost) everyone is assumed to agree about what is a proper
government policy.  Once that is assumed, all sorts of annoying formalities
can be dispensed with, elections, police, etc.  And as Mr. Marx said,
the state will just wither away.
On the way there, however, would you like to explain how eliminating
virtually all policies that restrain private coercion in the
current society will help us to live happier lives? Or is it like
socialism; just some short-term pain that we'll have to bear until
everyone has had the benefit of "re-education" through regular
"seminar" training?
jsh
>
>Roger Collins
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: URGENT **** TED FRANK WANTED FOR KILLING AJ TEEL...
Lines: 181
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <1993Apr12.031404.25988@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
|>In article <C5Bvqy.FLD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>
|>>|>But punishing the person for posting such a thing smacks of
|>>|>authoritarianism.
|>>
|>>It's a deliberate act of fraud intended to cause harm.
|>
|>You seem to be unclear about the legal meaning of "fraud." Mere
|>misrepresentation is not fraud.
Your comment here is meant as a put down. It fails for several reasons :
1) You have edited out the context of the action under discussion.
2) I never brought the legal definition up. I use the English language
and not the legal dialect. The legal definition of fraud changes from
one country to another in any case. The context of the discussion is morality
of censorship.
|>>|>How does a posting from your site do any such thing? Especially if your
|>>|>site is a university? Do you know any person who believes that a
|>>|>university endorses every comment made from a university site?
|>>
|>>That is why I refered specifically to a company.
|>
|>Good. Now, do you know any person who believes that a company endorses
|>every comment made from a university site?
You are extrapolating from the statement I made concerning a circumstance
in which such an act of censorship would be permissable to the Teel case.
If you had bothered to read the post instead of trying to prove how stupid you
thought me you would have done rather better. The mode of argument I was using
was a form of rhetoric. Argument by example, I describe a wide set of
circumstances in which an action is permisable and demonstrate that they
do not apply, thus the action is not permisable.
Obviously a company posting from a University adress would be squashed,  it
would be contrary to the internet comercial use.
|>>|>Usenet does not distribute letterhead.
|>>
|>>Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
|>
|>I suggest strongly that if you mean for this to be taken as letterhead you
|>get a better stationery designer.
Now you are clutching at straws. In the context of the discussion it was
the fact of association between the company and the post that was important.
The typeface etc is inconsequential.
|>>There are people on the net who are openly supporting the murder of members
|>>of my family.
|>
|>Sigh.
If you are implying that I am lying I suggest you read Mark Holohan and Ulick
Staffords posts into soc.culture.british. If you are suggesting that
advocating murder is a trivial matter I would prefer that you state it
directly.
Certainly I oppose the right of Dr Sidiqui and the Ayatolah Khomenhi to
call for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Incitement to murder is not part
of what I consider legitimate freedom of speech.
|>>|>As for your notion that employees can argue their different political
|>>|>views "at their own expense," could you explain precisely what "expense"
|>>|>you're talking about?
|>>
|>>Internet is not free. The connection charges are quite expensive for comercial
|>>concerns.
|>
|>Could you give me a cost breakdown for the expense to your company
|>attributable to an employee's posting a political view in disagreement
|>with yours? Numbers, please.
That is irrelevant, the case is not the incremental cost but the facility
cost. If I decide that a company I am associated with should subscribe
to USEnet that usenet connection is the property of the company. It is
quite legitimate for a company to have a political or other agenda and
regulate the use of its property in accordance with its policy. For example
if a Microsoft employee were to post "Windows NT is crap don't buy it"
from a Microsoft machine I would consider it reasonable for Microsoft to
sack that employee. In the same way if a company decides that it has
political objectives it might wish to regulate postings in a political
manner. This is no worse than Rupert Murdoch using his papers as a political
platform for his views.
|>>I was refering to the arrogance of your position, quoting the words written
|>>by slave owners at me in the cause of freedom.
|>
|>Which words written by slave owners did I quote? I don't recall quoting
|>anyone.
ah yes you did not quote them, merely refered to them.
|>>Your constitution is not
|>>considered sacrosanct in other parts of the globe.
|>
|>Nor have I assumed it is. I don't consider the First Amendment to have
|>talismanic value.
|>
|>>You might just as well have attempted to argue from the King James bible
|>>to a Muslim. I was pointing out that your reasoning is parochial when with
|>>little effort you could have made a substantive point.
|>
|>I made the effort; apparently you made a certain effort to misunderstand
|>me.
Your article consisted of a reference to the first ammendment, your signature
and pretty well damn all else.
|>>|>For an example of a UK publication that understands this, try INDEX ON
|>>|>CENSORSHIP.
|>>
|>>I used to subscribe, I would still if I was not moving.
|>
|>INDEX regularly publishes opinions by non-Americans who believe the First
|>Amendment represents appropriate free-speech principles for all open
|>societies. See, e.g., the opinions of the dissenting law lords in the
|>SPYCATCHER case.
Are you refering to the initial hearings on an injunction or the judgments
on the substantive case?
The initial hearings that the government won were judged on the not unresonable
judgment that assertion by the government that the national interest might be
harmed would be grounds for prior restraint. The second set of hearings on the
substance judged that the government had no case and that the official secrets
act could not be used to suppress information in thwe public domain already.
The part that they won was over the copyright issue which is rather separate.
Here again the issue of censorship is rather different in the case that
information is divulged on the understanding that it will not be communicated
to third parties. The first ammendment certainly does not apply in this
case as the numerous prosecutions of spies in the US proves.
The crux of the Spycatcher affair was extrateritoriality of British law.
The censorship aspect of it arose as a result of the government's
ludicrous attempts to prevent summary of the case in the book.
|>>|>You haven't any reason to believe that anything I've said has been reached
|>>|>unquestioningly.
|>>
|>>Only most of what you write.
|>
|>For someone who purports to be opposed to argument from assertion, you
|>certainly get by on assertions a lot.
Funny I saw that as a rejection of an assertion that you had made. Of course in
rejecting an assertion I have to make a contrary assertion, since this assertion
is unprovable I left it at that.
So far I have not seen you demonstrate a command of the contrary opinion to your
own. You are attacking my anti-censorship view because I dare to accept the
validity of some pro-censorship arguments while rejecting their conclusions.
Plus I am not an absolutist. I have this funny idea that the solution to this
problem was not decided in 1789 by a group of white male gentry in secret
session and sumarized in a single line. Furthermore I don't think that the
issues are half as simple as you imply.
|>>You may think that I am being anti-American in disallowing recourse to the
|>>first ammendment. It's just that this argument has no currency in the parts
|>>of the world where there is state censorship such as Iran, Kewait and Israel.
|>
|>I don't pretend to have geared my discourse for all conceivable audiences.
I don't think that you have geered your discourse to any audience save that
of proving that you are the only person wearing a white hat.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 56
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:
>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Broward Horne) says:
>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it?
>
>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not
>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.
HAHAHAHAHAH.  Oh, CHRIST!  Oh, HAHAHAHAH.
whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK
about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just
the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.
Holy christ! :)
Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?
Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "
Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "
( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )
Broward:  " Oh, here comes a National Sales Tax "
Clinton Supporter:  " Oh, no, Bill never said that "
Want some more "free predictions" ?
:)
>>     It always makes me smile, to see George Bush used to defend
>>     Bill Clinton.  Can you imagine anything sadder than to be left
>>     with GEorge Bush as a final argument?
>
>True. The Republicans did look pretty pathetic in November of '92. >:-)
Yup.  They surely did.
Almost as pathetic as Clinton suppoters are looking in
April of 93.
Well, chumbo, I see my my watch here that my "appointment"
at the lake is about 2 hours past due! :)
You'll let me know who the "full-time" working thing works
out, won't you?   I want to enjoy EVERY minute of my free
time and FREE health care ( the ONLY reason I would have
gone back to working! :)  THANKS, BILL! :) )
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 10
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) says:
>All together now... c'mon, you know the words... "Meet the new boss! Same as
>the old boss!"  And the chorus: "We won't get fooled again!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm.  Can I, eh,  get a little side bet on this one?
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Nntp-Posting-Host: dzoo.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 22
In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>his so called stimulus package.
>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>immunizations for poor kids.
>
>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
delivered to their doorsteps.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice (GM trial)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 40
In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
>
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
On the other hand, it would be kind of scary if there were *never* a final
verdict, because a party to litigation could keep saying "Oops!  I forgot
to bring up this evidence," and demand a new trial.  You get one bite at
the apple.
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
It's up to General Motors to find those witnesses in the first litigation.
You'd be up in arms if a plaintiff suing General Motors pulled the same
stunt and made them relitigate an issue that they already lost.  It's not
as if General Motors couldn't file enough discovery motions to delay the
trial until they found all the witnesses they wanted.
>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?
Define "obvious bias."
>Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
Did GM move for a new trial on those grounds?  No?  Perhaps they had a
reason?
--
ted frank                 |
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     |
standard disclaimers      |
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 29
In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into
problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even
when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe
that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side-
effects, and bad reactions scares them.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: sents@dixie.com (Jeff Sents)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Lines: 19
paolucci@spot.Colorado.EDU (Paolucci Paul) writes:
>In article <C5Gpto.Kq0@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
>[biased and decidedly not-as-funny-as-dave stuff deleted...]
>I sure hope that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is enjoying these "lists"...
[stuff deleted]
>I'm no Clinton fan, but I'm no Ipser fan...
Then why not simply stop reading them. This isn't intended as a flame,
but your post reminds me of the old joke:
Patient: "Doctor it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Then stop doing that."
Regards,
Jeff
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?
Lines: 101
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <C5GK0w.J8H@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|>Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?
|>
|>
|>
|>Socialism may have collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Disunion
|>but it lingers on in Western Europe and the United States. It remains
|>the primary ideology in the hearts and minds of the liberal academia
|>and media. But all the political correctness they can muster may not be
|>sufficient to hold back the economic forces that threaten to spread
|>socialism's collapse from the second world to the first. Indeed, it is
|>becoming more apparent every day that socialism may not even survive
|>the turn of the century.
Ed of course has never demonstrated remarkable knowlege of socialism,
or any other political system come to that.
|>While the Swedes have already discarded their "third way" and the
|>French have made history by turning out the Socialist Party in a
|>record-setting defeat, it is Italy that appears most precariously
|>on the edge of its political existence.
That leaves Germany, Japan and the UK as examples of a country where the
right wing government is on the verge of collapse. Oh and of course the USA
which just elected a socialist government :-)
|>Italy, today, is a basket-case even by European standards. It has
|>introduced 17 new taxes in 5 months and public-sector revenue is at or
|>near the 50% of GDP mark.
Etc, unfortunately you can't pin this on the left or the right, both are
to blame. Both sides are equally deep into the corruption scandal. The only
untained party is the northern league which is a bunch of nationalist
separatists and the communist party which has collapsed.
|>In spite of this political gluteny, it has
|>an annual deficit exceeding the sum of all other EC countries and a
|>public debt 2.5 times that of Latin America. Italy is understandably
|>having serious trouble selling its treasury bonds in the markets. And
|>while Italy is an extreme case, it is anything but unique; all
|>European governments appear headed in the same direction in spite of
|>their nominally non-socialist governments.
|>
|>Unfortunately, Europeans being, well, Europeans, it is very unlikely
|>that they will discover American-style liberty. Instead, they will
|>likely lurch from socialism to fascism as quickly as they had moved
|>from fascism to socialism never pausing along the way to reasseses the
|>role of government, itself. I hope I am wrong.
Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together
before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget
deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.
And here in Europe we have zero interest in Ed-Ipser type freed thank you.
We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers
for the benefit of the super wealthy. We are quite happy with social
democracy and despite the fuss made in Time and Newsweek there is remarkably
little being done to reverse the social welfare reforms brought in by
socialism.
The problem with socialism is that it started with the aims of free education
and health care and provision of the welfare state. This has been achieved
across the whole of Europe, only the USA is struggling to catch up. The
problem for socialism is what to do now it has succeeded.
|>Nobody ever claimed that the collapse of socialism would be pretty.
|>The decline of the nation-state will probably lead first to anarchy
|>since politicians always cut essential services before pork. Los
|>Angeles has rampant crime and frantically waits for the next wave of
|>riots but it has a spanking new subway that nobody wants to use and
|>which, like every other public transit system in the world, will never
|>be economically viable. (If you were trying to extort tax payers,
|>which would you cut first, mass transit or police protection?)
Ed starts to discus LA, presumably he thinks that it is in Europe. On
the other hand he most probably hasn't heard of a European city.
|>Thus does the world hurtle toward chaos even as the 21st century
|>approaches.
Rather the opposite. What is happening in Italy is that the communist party
has collapsed. This has meant that the grand coalition between right and
left wing parties to keep out the communists has also collapsed. The
magistrates have seized this opportunity to crack down hard on fraud and
corruption and have arrested half the politicians. The fact that the socialists
are in charge this week is incidental, the right is into the corruption just
as baddly.
What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much
better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going
to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people
who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of
Pavarotti's and porn stars.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Return of the Know Nothing Party
Summary: The right to know nothing
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords:
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Lines: 32
In article <C5JLq3.2BL@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com                               writes...
>In article 23791@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) writes:
>>In article <C56HDM.945@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>>But I guess one needs to know a little about the bible,
>>>christianity and american history.....
>>
>>Mt. St. Helens didn't spew such crap.  How do you manage,
>>drieux, day in & day out, to keep it up??
>
>So which are you advocating?
>That You know Nothing About American History,
>Or that You Know Nothing About the Bible?
>
>Is this a Restoration of the "Know Nothing" Party?
>
Go easy on him drieux. It is the right of every American to
know nothing about anything.
>ciao
>drieux
>"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
>All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
>		-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3
Lines: 84
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <1993Apr13.234600.14061@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
|>Here is a press release from the United States Information Agency.
|>
|> Digest of Foreign Media Reaction from the United States Information
|>Agency April 12 (1 of 3)
|> To: National Desk
|> Contact: Anne Chermak of the United States Information Agency,
|>          202-619-6511
|>
|>   WASHINGTON, April 13  -- Following is part one
|>of a digest of foreign media reaction from April 1-12, compiled
|>by the United States Information Agency:
|>
|>                   TERRORISM AND WORLD INSECURITY
|>
|>   In recent editorials, Iran was universally recognized as
|>te source of the double threat of state-sponsored terrorism
|>and Islamic extremism.  But beyond this fear and condemnation,
|>journalists found little common ground that would compel both
|>North and South, and Arab and non-Arab nations to work together
|>to combat the global threat of terrorism.  For example, Egyptian
|>and Algerian papers were in the forefront in charging U.S. complicity
|>in the current instability in the Middle East.  Those commentators
|>asserted that the United States had promoted Islamic fundamentalism
|>during the Afghanistan War and had further added to regional
|>instability by alternately encouraging Iraq and Iran.
The cads! The fact that this is precisely what the US was up to of
course is not mentioned. It is a fact that Regan and Bush sold arms
to Iran, it is also a fact that they supported and armed Iraq.
Still this is state dept propaganda so none too surprizing.
|>   India's papers weighed the pros and cons of helping the West to
|>identify Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism, noting on the one
|>hand that doing so could "bring ruination to Islamabad's Kashmir
|>cause" but, on the other, could also bring India's security apparatus
|>uncomfortably close to the CIA and the Mossad.  Arab papers continued
|>to portray Iraq and Libya as being unfairly treated by the UN while
|>Israel remains unpunished for resolutions which it has violated.
In the case of Lybia there is the problem that the US only decided
that Gadffii ordered the bombing after it needed to make peace with
damascus during the gulf war. One day the US is certain that its Syria,
the next Lybia. For a strange reason the US will not provide evidence to
Lybian courts for extradition proceedings. Faced with similar demands the
USA would reject them as would any other country.
|>   Concerning Northern Ireland, President Clinton's message of
|>consolation to the victims of the Warrington bombing was seen in
|>British tabloids as signalling a tougher stance by the American
|>government against violence by the IRA.
The word is "terrorism".
The problem is that after the behaviour of George Bush the USA has an
image abroad as doing precisely what it likes and is in its own interests
then comming out with a Dysney scripted sugary justification repeating a
fitting combination of the words "freedom" "dignity" "democaracy" or
of "terrorism" "dictatorship" etc as appropriate.
The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people there are
rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who they
loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked attack.
Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is meant to be
the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there is to be
movement it would be easier for the USA to move.
First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the
Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil
production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment
Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would
use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.
The Iranian clerics would have an interest in seeking a raprochment
simply because a permanent war footing is debilitating. They also need
western technology.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Nntp-Posting-Host: hqsun4.us.oracle.com
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Distribution: usa
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.
Lines: 34
In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...
>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that
>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d
>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.
>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking
>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill
>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal
>gain like Nixon did. NOT!
Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.
Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.
I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole,
rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers
of his office for personal gain.
You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these
events occurred.
>>Along with normalized relations with the PRC.
>"Normalizing relations" with Cambodia? You must be joking. We sponsored
>the OVERTHROW of the Cambodian government. After repeated failed attempts
>of course.
Your sad level of historical and political knowlege is probably best
exemplified by the fact that you think PRC stands for Cambodia instead
of Red China.
From: timr@sco.COM (Tim Ruckle)
Subject: Who are The ``Rich''? (was Re: Professors Whining About Pay)
Organization: The Gifted and The Damned
Summary: soak 'em if you got 'em...
Keywords: not me!
Lines: 79
Candidate Clinton promised to tax the rich, and most folks thought that
was a pretty nifty idea.  Then President Clinton said he wanted families
who make more than $100,000 to bear 70% of the new tax burden, and many
were quick to complain that their six-figure income does not make them one
of the well-to-do.  It's particularly ironic (to me) that it's in those
traditionally liberal enclaves of the Bay Area and academia where the
wealthy are struggling so to fit themselves into the mantle of "just
regular working-class folk".
Nobody will ever admit to being rich; everybody's middle class.  So who
are The Rich?  Well, I'll throw out some stats from the 1990 Census and
let you be the judge...
Va negvpyr <mzimmersC5E1qK.Fn9@netcom.com>
mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) jevgrf:
} In article <1qcdvbINN5ti@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
} fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
} > [...]
} >that would be about $55 to 65 thousand US, and that is what tenured
} >professors can expect to make.  For a PhD with say 10 years experience,
} >$65,000 is a lot less than what he could be making in industry.
}
} Oh?  As a 12-year veteran of Silicon Valley, I've seen precious few
} employment ads that call for PhDs.  And $65K is hardly chump change;
} it's well above the median *household* income for the state.
Bay Area average household income is in the mid-$40,000 range.  National
average is $31,889.  The Bay Area has nearly twice the national average
of six-figure income households (9.1% vs 4.8%*).  The cost-of-living here
may be high, but I don't think it's twice the national average...
} >In Los Angeles, modest home prices can be $500,000.
A 1,500-square-foot tract house in a Bay Area working-class neighborhood
goes for about $250,000.  I doubt that the Los Angeles market is all that
different.  It would appear that this definition of "modest" is perhaps a
bit immoderate...
} So what?  They're no cheaper for those who are gainfully employed.
}
} >In California, $65,000 is not upper-middle-class.
}
} It depends upon your definition; it's clearly above average.
It is more than what two-thirds of California households make.  Seems
to me that belonging to the upper one-third is not an unreasonable
definition of "upper-middle-class".  Note that if that professor's
spouse earns $35,000 they become one of Clinton's "rich" families.
Here's a breakdown of national, California, and Bay Area household incomes:
<$30K  $30-50K   $50-100K  $100K+
------------------------------------
US  49%     24%        23%      4% * the Census Bureau did some weird
CA  41%     26%        26%      7%   rounding here...more like 5%
BA  34%     25%        31%      9%
And to add a little prespective:
A minimum wage earner working 40 hours/week makes $8,840/year.  The poverty
line for a family of four is $15,171.  If they make up to twice that, the
government considers them to be "working poor".  Say we decide to call this
the "lower-middle-class".  Then how 'bout:
$30-50K annual income is "middle-class".  $50-100K is "upper-middle-class".
$100K+ is "rich".  $1,000K+ is "filthy-rich".  and $10,000+ is "Bill Gates".
make sense? ;^)
-timr
--
There's nothing surer,
The rich get rich and the poor get poorer,
In the meantime, in between time,
Ain't we got fun.
--Raymond Egan
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lines: 19
In article <C5Jv7A.7F7@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people
>there are rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who
>they loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked
>attack.  Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is
>meant to be the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there
>is to be movement it would be easier for the USA to move.
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker
It is also widely stated (in non-mainstream sources) that the CIA had a
large part in the overthrow of the popular (and popularly-elected)
left-leaning Premier Mossadegh in 1953.  Is this widely recognized outside
the U.S.?  (I have never seen it mentioned at all in mainstream U.S.
media.)  How about within Iran?
--
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
"One either has none or not enough."
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov (John Cobarruvias)
Subject: Re: Newsweek reports Clinton approval ratings...
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Lines: 28
In article <8597@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
writes:
>When I heard the latest approval rating reported for Clinton, I
>laughed so hard I forgot the exact numbers.  Maybe one of the
>Clintonettes can refresh my memory...
>
>Has his rating dropped to 48 or 49 percent?  Ha HA HA HA HA!
>
>*snick* oh my either way, it's still the lowest rating any President
>has ever mustered in his first 100 days, since these polls started being
taken.
Hum, I guess this has some significance as opposed to having an incredible
drop during the last days in office. Unfortuantely having a loss in the
polls during the last days of office usually means no re-election. Ask
George.
>
>He was finished before he started!
Good one, Roooster. Thats hard to top.
>
>The Rooster
>
>
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Lines: 36
Nntp-Posting-Host: mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
> new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
> from the fire.
>
> 	Thoughts?
>
> 	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
> denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
> to the previous ruling appear.
Welcome to the conservative judiciary.
> 	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?
> Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
I think Scalia's point was that you get one chance.  If new information
comes out later, tough.  If the conviced want justice, they have to hope
the governor is feeling charitable.
There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite
evidence of his inocents.
> 	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
> shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
> a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
>
> 	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?
It got swept away in the Reagan Revolution...
--
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA
Lines: 34
In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
>tes:
>
>>
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>>
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as
>me how, I just have seen the results.
>
>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
>the head.
>
I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:
Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
being screwed up in the head, given that example!
(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
THIS to THAT!).
--
_______
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?
Lines: 42
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
|>>}
|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
|>>
|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
|>
|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary
Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection
effectively makes it a tax.
|>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't
|>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not
|>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from
|>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a
|>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The
|>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live
|>off the land ...
|>
|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
has done to the country.
Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves,
thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
class.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 20
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: beowulf.jpl.nasa.gov
In article <1993Apr15.162552.5510@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1qjtmjINNq45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, carlos@beowulf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>> 	I have come to the conclusion that the TV stations here in LA
>> 	WANT a riot to happen when the verdict comes in.
>
>   Why is this surprising? Then the _Times_ can get a few more
>Pulitzers the same way they did last year.
I suppose ALL media want something to happen, otherwise what would
they report: that's their job. (duhhh to me!)
But it's not so much surprising that they want a riot as it is amazing
how they carry that desire across in not so subtle ways (at least to
me...)
carlos.
"I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln
...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Temper tantrums from the 1960's
Summary: Pathelogical liars
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords:
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Lines: 36
In article <1993Apr15.175829.22411@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@us.oracle.com (Michael Friedman)        writes...
>In article <1993Apr14.231117.21872@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM  writes:
>>In article <philC5Ht1t.GwA@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)                   writes...
>>>Correct. JFK was quite disgusting in that way. The reports of the women that
>>>he coerced via power of the office are now in the dozens. Today, we';d
>>>call for immediate resignation for that kind of behaviour.
>
>>I guess coercing women into having sex is MUCH worse than stealing, breaking
>>and entering, rigging national elections, starting secret wars that kill
>>hundreds of thousands, and using the powers of your office for personal
>>gain like Nixon did. NOT!
>
>Garrett, you are a really pathetic liar.
Isn't name calling fun!
>
>Some of your charges are arguable, but most of them are obvious lies.
>I challenge you to present us with any evidence that Nixon stole,
>rigged a national election, never mind elections, or used the powers
>of his office for personal gain.
What do you think happened at Watergate? What do you think they broke into
the building for? It wasn't to just look around. Do I have to draw you
a picture?
>
>You can't because there is absolutely no evidence that any of these
>events occurred.
Whatever...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster
Lines: 55
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
|>
|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.
Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them. They
certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
was not necessarily their true position.
|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
|>>set in.
|>
|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body.
|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their
|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
|>as a check on the more-often elected House.
The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
a bit too slow.
|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
|>a "veto" by the Senate.
The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
of being a check on unreasonable legislation. The veto was clearly regarded
as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.
the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
of the states is not a reasonable restriction.
From: hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: fillibuster
Lines: 43
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
In article <C5Dsyr.325@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|>|In article <C5BupH.FCp@dscomsa.desy.de>
|>|hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>
|>|>The filibuster does not make sense because the senate is elected as a last
|>|>gasp assembly. It is designed to be the repository of doddery old men with
|>|>no power.
|>
|>|       Phill, I don't know which Senate you're discussing, but it ain't
|>|ours.
|>
|>Phill probably thinks that the US senate is supposed to be the equivalent
|>to the UK's House of Lords.
The status of the House of Lords today is quite different to its status
in 1789.
|>Which just goes to show that where the US is concerned Phill still has no
|>idea what he is talking about.
Maddison and Hamilton were both studying existing forms of government for
several years before they wrote the federalist papers. That the US system
is based to a considerable degree on the UK model is pretty widely accepted.
At the time there was no other major country with a representative body.
The French plebicite had been suppressed for 140 years and its restoration
eight years later would mark the start of the French revolution.
After the UK system the major influences were the Dutch system and of course
the classical systems. Nobody seriously suggests that Rome or Greece were
models though because the political systems of both countries were acknowleged
disasters. The main lesson learnt from Greece was that unless a federal
state was constructed a war would be inevitable. The Greek democracies were
always fighting amongst themselves which is how Rome managed to invade. Had
the federal consitution been rejected the new Roman empire in the shape of
Britain would quite certainly have reabsorbed much of the colonies in due
course. Moreover the states would have been at each others throats as soon
as the Louisiana purchase situation arose during the Napoleonic period.
Phill Hallam-Baker
From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
unconscious?
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
>
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
forgot to call all of your witnesses.
If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
expert witnesses).
--Tim Smith
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: <None>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 22
In article <1993Apr12.183349.23115@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
[...]
> What I see is that the media is reasonably fair, but is seen as
> 'liberal' by conservatives, and 'conservative' by liberals.
Not that I think anyone cares, but this pattern (using other examples
of course) was discussed 2,000 years ago by Aristotle in
_Nicomachean_Ethics_.   Note that you can't use this insight to reason
backwards; e.g.:  Since the conservatives see the media as liberal and
the liberals see the media as conservative, the media are fair!  (though
I've seen this "reasoning" implied)
> Don Pajerek
>
> Standard disclaimers apply.
Ken
--
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Nobody can explain everything to everybody.
opinions are my own      | G. K. Chesterton
From: bram@byron.u.washington.edu (Bram Currie)
Subject: MOW BODYCOUNT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1qksooINNihu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu
Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at the MOW?
The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior Senator?  The King of
the motss/bi?
Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers
get brought out.
--
bram
----------------------------------------------------------
Bram Currie                                    bram@u.washington.edu
From: em@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Electronic Maintenance)
Subject: INCREDIBLE NEW B.B.S.
Organization: Hewlett Packard Roseville Site
Lines: 39
NNTP-Posting-Host: hprpcd.rose.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL7]
WOW !!!!
Did I discover a great BBS !!
It's called Sovereignty Lies In The People
BBS: 916-589-4620  14.4 k baud.  FREE and Confidential
! Fictitious names OK !  Subjects and files contained on the BBS:
* FIND OUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SCAMMING US !!!!
* State Citizenship documents and issues.
ARE YOU A CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC CITIZEN OR A U.S. FEDERAL CITIZEN ?
Remember there were only State Citizens before the 14th amendment!!
One is subject to federal income tax, one isn't.
Did you volunteer to surrender your State Citizenship when you got
your Social Security number?  Which one are you?
* Tax laws and issues.  BEAT THE IRS
* Traffic laws and issues.  BEAT TRAFFIC TICKETS.  Can you answer this one:
What law allows a police officer to arrest you without a warrant when
he issues you a ticket?
* Religious truth issues.  ARE ALL RELIGIONS SCAMS ????
ARE ALL CHRISTIAN  RELIGIONS OF THE GREAT CREATOR GOD ????
* Trust documents and issues.
The SYSOP told me that instructions to beat traffic
tickets will be on the BBS shortly.  Beat traffic
tickets without going to court!!!  The BBS is GREAT, spread the word !!!!
Also:  How come I don't hear more people talking about the
Federal Reserve Bank?  Just ask yourself these questions:
1) Why would anyone borrow money from themselves at interest?
The Federal government does * NOT * * NOT *
The Federal reserve Bank is private.  The American people are
being ripped off royally.  100% of the income tax goes to pay
on the Federal debt to the Federal Reserve Bankers.  Not one
dime goes for services.  Services like the military and
welfare come from excise taxes and the like.
2) Why do we the American people stand for this?????
** Check Out The New BBS **
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: re: fillibuster
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 132
In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>|>>Come to that under the original plan there wasn't meant to be anything
>|>>much for the federal government to do except keep the British out.
>|>
>|>       That's also untrue, but at least we're wandering a little closer
>|>toward reality.  That the Articles of Confederation fell apart is enough
>|>proof it was there for just a tad bit more.
>
>Well yes and no. The Federalist papers are propaganda and it is therefore
>difficult to determine precisely what Maddison etc were up to from them.
There are a couple of ways to look at them.  One is, "We want
you to support this Constitution, so we'll say anything that we think
will appeal to you," or the more straightforward, "This is why we think
what we've suggested in this Constitution is a good idea."
You clearly consider the former to be the primary situation.
>They
>certainly emphasised a limited role for the federal government but this
>was not necessarily their true position.
Well, I know Hamilton was a dyed in the wool monarchist, and
probably the authoritarian extreme to Jefferson's democratic impules.
But what would you suggest as a means of determining their opinions
on the government if we don't consider what they wrote about the
government?
And is writing in support of something automatically "propoganda"
to the point we must assume it is untrue or that they are saying what
they don't believe?
>|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
>|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
>|>>set in.
>|>
>|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
>|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
>|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
>|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
>
>The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in
>question.
If the Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords, than
we'd almost have to state that the House of Representatives was also.
(In fact, they both were, because the British government had much
greater power than did the American system).
>|>       My reading of the Constitution and other writings gives me absolutely
>|>no reason to believe the Senate wasn't intended to make use of their
>|>law-making powers.  In fact, grid-lock appears to have been designed
>|>into the system, with the Senate being a more deliberative body to act
>|>as a check on the more-often elected House.
>
>The system is meant to be slow to react, the problem is that it ended up
>a bit too slow.
I disagree.  The system is not too slow, it was simply designed to
handle less than it has demanded that it handle.  As somebody in Washington
put it (whose name I forget), "Congress has become everybody's city
council."
Congress is more than capable of quick action, and has more than
enough power and time on its hands, if it confined itself to what its
original jurisidiction was and allowed more local autonomy.
It is not a case of the system of government they created failing,
but that it is operating under a set of conditions they specifically
wanted to avoid.  Namely, a concentration of power.  It would seem
then that the proper thing to do is not to reduce the power of either
House in some attempt to grease the wheels.  All you'll get then is
a system which moves quicker to do stupid things.  It would make more
sense to make more decisions at a local level.
>|>       On what basis do you suggest that the Senate was supposed to be
>|>some sort of rubber-stamp for the House?  You'll note that while the
>|>President's veto may be over-ridden, the House can't do anything about
>|>a "veto" by the Senate.
>
>The Presiden't veto was meant to be entirely separate. Until Bush abused it
>in a quite extraordinary manner it was used more in accord with the intent
>of being a check on unreasonable legislation.
Please explain to me how Bush abused the veto in an "extraordinary"
manner.
>The veto was clearly regarded
>as a completely last gasp measure its use was meant to be restricted to
>preventing the legislature interfering with the actions of the executive.
I fail to see where any restrictions, implied or otherwise, were
placed on the veto.  It could just as easily have been read as a means
to put a check on democratically popular but unwise (in the executive's
opinion) policies.
There is no limit in the Constitution to the President's veto power
regarding what a bill is for.  Previous Presidents have used the veto
for any number of reasons, most usually having something to do with their
agenda.  I am really curious how you single Bush out as *the* President
who abused vetos.
>the Senate is not meant to be exactly a rubber stamp body, it is meant as
>a check on unrestrained legislation. That is the extra measure built into
>the constitution in favour of the status quo, 60% of the representatives
>of the states is not a reasonable restriction.
Why is it not a reasonable restriction?  Because 51 Senators
is the magic holy number upon which Laws must be based?  If 41 Senators
feel safe enough with their state constituencies to stand up and
fillibuster isn't that *enough* to indicate there's a sufficient question
as to whether a law is a good idea or not to re-evaluate it?
Why one earth *should* 51% be sufficient to enact a law which
covers 250 million people in very, very diverse places and living
in radically different conditions?  Why *shouldn't* a super-majority
be required?
Any system in which the simple majority is given absolute power
to ignore the minority then the minority *will* be ignored.  I do not
see this as a positive thing.  And for all that I'm sure the Republicans
are looking for pork as much as the Democrats, they've got some legitimate
objections to the legislation in question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: matt@galaxy.nsc.com (Matt Freivald x8043)
Subject: Re: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face
Nntp-Posting-Host: pogo.nsc.com
Organization: Thought Police Watchdog Agency, U.S.A.
Lines: 370
Who wants to look through the bars at some reactionary Liberal conspiracy-
theory idiots and see how they rant and rave at the erosion of their populist
support?  This is very typical of the elitist Liberal attitude that The People
are incapable of thinking for themselves.  This elitist attitude will be the
eventual undoing of the arrogant liberal tide sweeping America, as The People
begin to realize more and more that they are being treated like errant children
and robbed of their freedoms by a bunch of Utopian arrogent socialist jerks.
In article 167077 in talk.politics.misc, New Liberation News Service
<nlns@igc.apc.org> writes:
>Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face
>Lines: 164
>From: New Liberation News Service <nlns>
>Subject: NLNS: Fascism with a Friendly Face
>/* Written  8:33 pm  Apr 14, 1993 by nlns@igc.apc.org in igc:nlns.news */
>/* ---------- "NLNS Packet 3.11 *** 4-14-93" ---------- */
>Fascism with a Friendly Face: Does Rush Limbaugh Remind You of
>Anyone?
>Daevid Bornhuetter-Machen, The Madison Edge
>"The main difference between Adolf Hitler and Rush Limbaugh is that
>Hitler was original and showed initiative."
>--Mort Sahl on The Tom Snyder Radio Show, ABC Radio Network,
>October 27, 1992.
Although I find myself often disagreeing with the populist rationale
of Mr. Limbaugh, I find him entertaining and I often agree with his
conclusions.  The fact that he sends liberal reactionaries like these
idiots through the roof makes him all the more entertaining.
>(NLNS)--Believe it or not, I was planning this comparative review of
>Mein Kampf and Limbaugh's transcribed rant, The Way Things Ought to
>Be before Sahl issued his comparative review. As usual, Sahl's was
>independent and sharp as a scalpel.
>        My effort can only dream of comparing favorably to Mort's. At
>least it has a fairly popular orginating premise; everyone I'd mention the
>idea to thought it was either divinely inspired or at least past due for
>delivery.
>        Those reactions are based on parallels that should be obvious to the
>most peripheral observer of the Acts of those False Prophets. Both are
>noted for their galvanizing oratorical skills, which they both used with
>passion to generate a political cult of massive numerical proportions (in
>fact, Limbaugh claims to have an audience of just over 12 million, almost
>identical to the number of votes cast for Hitler in the April 1932 German
>election). Both used a myopic social perspective to build the cult, and
>enthusiastically amputated facts from the record to fabricate their
>ideological quilt.
Actually, I find Limbaugh's oratory less than sizzling and his debating
skills sometimes lacking, even though his conclusions are often correct.
I would suggest that a bankrupt leftist ideology that hopes to use concentrated
political power and a loaded gun to force everyone to do the "right" things
(where "right" is defined by the elitist academics who lead the movement)
is showing an acute case of "myopic social perspective", not to mention
arrogance and utter stupidity.
Limbaugh is certainly far from perfect, but his opponents in the established
body politic and the media are the ones arguing for Federal control of
virtually all aspects of the lives of the Citizenry, and for the elimination
of local control over Affairs Public.
Perhaps Limbaugh has a following because The People are tired of being treated
like errant children by a self-important group of arrogant controlling myopic
people who have no understanding of how life operates outside of the "oughta-be's"
inside their own hopelessly closed minds.
>        The last point is glaringly documented by passages in the opening
>pages of both books. Hitler's example is when, on page 5, he claims the
>German nationalist terrorist Leo Schlageter (he bombed part of a railway
>line between Dusseldorf and Duisburg, being caught in the act, in 1923)
>was "betrayed to France by a representative of his government" when
>there has never been any factual foundation for such a statement.
>        In fact, the governments of both the Reich and Prussia, as well as
>the Vatican, actively intervened to save him from execution, and almost
>succeeded.
OK, let us take your word for that and work with it.  A nice specific
incident.
>Limbaugh follows suit by making the hysterically sarcastic
>claim in his introduction that "in a school or during a commencement
>ceremony or many other public places... God is unconstitutional." Of
>course, it's not God but the official imposition of particular concepts of
>God against an individual's will that's unconstitutional. But Limbaugh is
>too gleeful in his talent for distortion to want you to know that.
Hmmm, "Congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion,
nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Liberal translation: "the
federal government (as long as it is run by Liberals) may force local
school districts to include certain iconic content in Christmas displays,
while prohibiting others."
I think Limbaugh has you on this one.  It seems to me that he is arguing
for LESS imposition of the federal government into religion.
Nice job on the specificity of that one, too.
[Analysis of historical/modern communication media deleted]
>        But, as Mort Sahl also observed on the radio the other night, some
>cloutmeister of the radical right wants Limbaugh to be a focal point of
>their propoganda. (And remember, Sahl is an Al Haig conservative these
>days.)
>        Mort might not know exactly who Rush's equivalent of Rodolf
>Hess is (the book itself suggests Ed McLaughlin, the former president of
>ABC radio and now Limbaugh's partner in EFM Media, the radio
>program's production company). But Mort himself is a veteran of the talk
>show, having hosted them in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. He
>knows what evil lurks in the hearts of major market media men. He knows
>that Limbaugh could not have collected his audience had not the
>opportunity been placed on a silver platter and handed to him. Limbaugh
>earns his money just as honestly as Al Capone did; it's almost worthy of a
>RICO indictment.
Ah yes, it is a conspiracy of profound proportions.  Methinks that you
may be a bit resentful of Mr. Limbaugh's success because you attribute it
primarily to luck (how, after all, could anyone with profound differences
of opinion from yourself have become successful without the operation of
conspiracy or blind luck!)  Do you feel this same level of knee-jerk
resentment against lottery winners, or do you congratulate them on their
good fortune?
>        On questions of social issues, there is an overabundance of
>material in the Limbaugh book that seems to echo Hitler's venom. For
>example:
This should be great fun, since it is the Liberal movement in America
that is pushing the hardest for centralized fascist control of The People
and business (government/business 'partnership' indeed), and Mr. Limbaugh
is the populist nemesis of that movement.
I have read Mr. Limbaugh's book, and although it was not the most literary
piece I have read in recent memory it certainly did not contain "venom"
at all, let alone "venom" comparable to an individual who callously murdered
millions out of racism.
>On Their Own Qualifications to Control Society
>        Hitler: "Out of the host of sometimes millions of people, who
>individually more or less clearly and distinctly guess the truth, partly
>perhaps understand it, one man [author's emphasis] must step forward in
>order to form, with apodeictic force, out of the wavering world of
>imagination of the great masses, granite principles, and to take up the fight
>for their sole correctness, until out of the playing waves of a free world of
>thought a brazen rock of uniform combination of form and will arises"
>(page 577).
A very serious tone in that oratory.
>        Limbaugh: "Who needs the media when they've got me? ... The
>show is devoted exclusively to what I think ... [the phrase "with half my
>brain tied behind my back to make it even"] denotes the egress of mental
>aptitude I require to engage and demolish liberals and others who disagree
>with me ... It might take four or five years, but I'm convinced The Media
>will slowly and reluctantly come around to my way of thinking, kicking
>and screaming all the way." (pages 266, 21, 299 and 273, respectively.)
You neglect to mention that Mr. Limbaugh (have you ever listened to his show,
BTW?) continuously encourages his audience to think for themselves rather
than blindly following any media icon, himself included.  You yourself mention
that he makes no bones about his show being strictly about his own opinions.
He also adopts a rather satirical approach, and presumes his audience to be
intelligent enough to distinguish satire from seriousness (and he says as much).
This is in contrast to the average mass-media show, in which the audience is
treated as society's intellectual lowest common denominator.
I am sure that Adolf Hitler was a master of satire; I am sure he was just
kidding when he said that the Jews were the cause of Germany's problems and
needed to be exterminated.
>On Religion as the Basis of a Nation
>        Hitler: "In this world human culture and civilization are
>inseperably bound up with the existence of the Aryan. His dying-off or his
>decline would again lower upon this earth the dark veils of a time without
>culture ... He who dares to lay hand upon the highest image of the Lord
>sins against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and helps in the
>expulsion from Paradise." (Page 581.)
This is not religion, it is clearly a perverse worship of race.  Since
Christ was a Jew, it seems quite unlikely that Hitler's characterization of
the Aryan as "the highest image of the Lord" fits with Christian doctrine.
>        Limbaugh: "America was founded as a Judeo-Christian country ...
>But our intellectual and political elites are often either hostile or
>ambivalent toward religion ... People for whom belief in God is at best a
>charming superstition have managed to ban prayer from the public schools
>for the last thirty years. Is it only a coincidence that the quality of
>American education has declined ever since?" (pages 274-5.)
Private religious schools have a vastly better record of success than
publicly funded schools.  American history is indeed primarily Judeo-
Christian.  I suppose that Mr. Limbaugh pointing out facts is equivalent
to Adolf Hitler worshiping the Aryan race.  I think you might be reaching
just a wee bit here.
>On Popular Culture as a Reason for Social Collapse
>        Hitler: "The fight against the poisoning of the soul has to set in ...
>One has only to look at the menus of our movie houses, vaudevilles and
>theatres; and one can hardly deny that this is not the right kind of food ...
>Theatre, art, literature, movies, the press, billposters and window displays
>must be cleaned of the symptoms of a rotting world and put into the
>service of a moral idea of State and culture." (pages 346 and 348.)
Definite suggestion that the government should control the entertainment
industry here.
>        Limbaugh: "Today, Hollywood is in trouble. The reason [is] that
>Hollywood has forgotten who its audience is ... They make fun of people
>who believe in God. They ridicule the traditional family, heterosexuality
>and monagamy. They disparage American heroes." (page 254.)
Just a guess here, but I don't think that Mr. Limbaugh would advocate
government control of Hollywood.  You should perhaps call his radio show
to confirm this.  I believe this is more a criticism of Hollywood and the
depraved moral values it espouses, not an advocation of government control
of Hollywood.
90's Liberals, on the other hand, want to have complete government control
of our school systems, so that the government can teach The People at an
early age the "right" way to view religion and morality.  I believe Mr.
Limbaugh is against this, as his satirical use of the "young heads full
of mush" hyperbole indicates.
>On the News Meida
>        Hitler: "The activity of the so-called liberal press was the work of
>gravediggers for the German people and the German Reich. One can pass
>by in silence the Marxist papers of lies ... it's task is only to break the
>people's folkish and national spine, in order to make it ripe for the yoke of
>slavery of international capital and its masters, the Jews." (Page 331.)
Pretty strong conspiracy theory insinuated here, with an implicit plea for
government power to be used to break up the conspiracy.
>        Limbaugh: "Elements of The Media have jumped on the
>bandwagon of leftist causes. The cynical journalist of the past has been
>replaced in many cases by an enthusiastic cheerleader for causes ... During
>the Gulf war, CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw [said] CNN is a global
>network. We can't take sides. Cant take sides? --- --- ---! ... If they don't
>realize that their freedom lies in the United States of America and that
>therefore they should defend this nation, they are hopelessly misguided
>and, may I suggest, flirting with megalomania." (pages 270 and 268.)
Indication here that "Elements of the Media" (since career is a self-selected
categorization, perhaps an inferred 'larger percentage than represented in
the populace at large') has a leftist bias.  Doesn't sound too unreasonable.
No insinuation that CNN should not report in an objective fashion, only
that for reporters to say that they do not have any personal bias in the
situation is disingenuous to megalomaniacal.
You may disagree, and it may well be exagerrated, but it is not an unreasonable
opinion; and Mr. Limbaugh goes well out of his way to make sure that his
audience knows that these are his opinions, unlike most other reporting that
purports to achieve perfect objectivity but in actuality will in some degree
or other, in a statistical sense, reflect the biases of the reporters.  Who
is being disingenuous here, Mr. Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh?
Again, you should ask Mr. Limbaugh himself, but I expect that he would
oppose government control of the media.
>*     *     *
>To continue these comparative excerpts is certainly possible, but
>ultimately too depressing to take in one reading.
It is indeed depressing to see such myopia and tiresome Liberal arrogance.
Liberals love to play games with paradigms as a way of discrediting people
who disagree with them.  Why don't you challenge conservative ideology
on an intellectual level rather than engaging in ludicrous comparisons?
Perhaps the underpinnings of your ideology are intellectual only in that
they exist in your mind, not the real world.
>        After putting these books down, there is one undeniable fact that
>haunts me. In the 1920s, Adolf Hitler fed depressed and frightened
>Germans the opiate of hatred of those around them; in turn, it allowed
>Germans to hand their collective national power to the Nazis. In the 1990s,
>Rush Limbaugh is doing the very same thing: distributing hatred to
>depressed and frightened Americans; in turn, it is helping the American
>radical right to maintain its power base as the 12-year nightmare of the
>Reagan-Bush era comes to an end, hoping to rebuild it into their hopes for
>The Fascist States of America.
Perhaps there are a few among the intellectually challenged who percieve
Rush Limbaugh as a hate-monger, but in my experience he has been spreading
laughter at the ludicrous self-importance of the Left, not hatred.
As to Mr. Bush, you may be correct about his fascist economic leanings.
Mr. Reagan, on the other hand, did his best to reverse the fascist trend
of government involvement in business.  Mr. Clinton is increasing fascism
in America through "business/government partnership" and increased levels
of taxation.  Perhaps you should not have skipped your vocabulary classes
in grade school.
>        And if Limbaugh is not as repellant a Hitler, it is only because the
>radical right utilizes Limbaugh as its own gateway opiate. One can only
>wonder what the ultimate drug is they plan to hook America on.
Hmmm.  Seems to me that Limbaugh is not in any way comparable to Hitler
because he has not murdered six million Jews and many, many others out of
racism.  I come from a mixed-race family, so I am quite well attuned to
racism; I don't hear any coming from Rush Limbaugh.  The only place I hear
racism coming from these days and being taken seriously is from the Liberal
Left.
The Liberal Left is the movement I see trying to get America hooked
on the opiates of Socialized Medicine, Socialized Transportation, Socialized
Education, etc.  The Left already has America hopelessly addicted to
that Liberal drug, the Social Security Chain Letter.  It is quite clear
to me that while the Hitler analogy does not really apply to either Rush
Limbaugh or William Jefferson Clinton, if one of the two is closer than
the other it is clearly the Fascist Clinton.
>The Madison Edge can be reached at PO Box 845, Madison, WI 53701-
>0845; (608) 255-4460.
>
>--- 30 ---
This is the same address as "Idiots Anonymous", isn't it?
Matt Freivald
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiBORGalism:
THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.
FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.
CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.
YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu
> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at
> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior
> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?
> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers
> get brought out.
Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops),
who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the
density of the crowd in small regions.
These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA
methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be
methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers,
so as to justify bigger budgets.
Steve
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Lines: 12
The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
- Dave Borden
borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Lines: 32
In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes...
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide.
Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to
do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations
cost $$$.
Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 41
(oh boy. it's the [in]famous Phill Hallam-Baker.)
In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
}
} In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
}
} |>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
} |>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
} |>... but like "basic plus" cable, you have to tell them that you don't
} |>want it ... for example, Hutterite colonies in western Canada are not
} |>part of it (Mennon and Hutter were fundamentalist Protestants from
} |>Germany whose followers left for the New World ... Mennonites are a
} |>very diverse lot while Hutterites are similiar to the Amish).  The
} |>American idea being floated today gives you no option but to live
} |>off the land ...
} |>
} |>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
} |>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
} |>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
}
} Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
} don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
} has done to the country.
how about what 25 years of tax-and-spend, big government, institutionalized
dependency, and out-of-control good intentions at others' expense has
done to the country?
}
} Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselves,
} thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
} ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
} class.
yeah, right. and Clinton is any different? please.
he is just a better lia... i mean, politician.
you think Slick and his gang of elitist socialist academics will lead
us to the promised land? don't hold your breath.
-*-
charles
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Capital Gains tax increase "loses" money
Organization: NWO Steering Committee
Distribution: na
Lines: 46
In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>
>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large
>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a)
>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by
>>accumlated gains.
>
>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains
>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there
>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised.
>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that
>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort
>"trends".
Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they
clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86
blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:
1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find
oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term
that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a
few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with
preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.
2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of
what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects
beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to
unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on
taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar
advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice
was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986),
but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates
(without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).
It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal
economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless
pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe
accurately what happens in the real world.
--
MORAL: Always Choose the Right Sort of Parents
Before You Start in to be Rough
- George Ade
Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: fillibuster
Summary: Proceedure
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords:
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Lines: 24
In article <C5JpL7.5Cz@dscomsa.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de                            writes...
>In article <1993Apr12.002302.5262@martha.utcc.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>|>>And like the house of lords which it is copied from it was given pretty
>|>>wide powers. Unfortunately they started to use them and thus the gridlock
>|>>set in.
>|>
>|>       I wasn't aware the House of Lords had "wide powers."  I was under the
>|>impression is was pretty powerless compared to the House of Commons, and
>|>certainly didn't have almost equal their powers.  (The Senate is restricted
>|>only that it may not introduce bills relating to raising revenue.)
>
>The Senate was less powerful than the House of Lords in the period in question.
>The stripping of the powers of the House of Lords did not occur until 1914
>and David Llloyd George's budget. Even despite this the House of Lords has
>considerable power even today and is far from a rubber stamping body.
>
Just how much power does the House of Lords have now?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]
Distribution: na
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 46
In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left.
>
Not at all.  I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right, or even
Center.  In fact I don't consider myself very religious at all [ this will
probably result in flames now :) ].  In fact Phil, you should leave
religion out of it.  It just clouds the issue.
>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the
>natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones.
How typical.  So you think we shouldn't avoid these 'events' [ I shall
refrain from the word disaster since it seems to upset you so much.  :( ]
when we can.  In case you didn't realize it, the natural disasters [ oops,
sorry events ] you are refering to  we have no control over.  Man-made
ones we do.
I guess you missed the show on Ch 20 earlier this week about the disaster
[ oops there I go again... I meant to say event ] on the Exxon Valdez.
Just a natural every day occurance to spread oil on 300 Miles of beach. I
would like to know which natural event [ hey I remembered not to say disaster ]
that would be similar to this.
>Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't
>disasters at all.
Hmm, I suppose you could be right.  They are as natural as a tree, or a
sunrise.  NOT !
>So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do
>so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me.
>
So look, if you want to worship a oil slick ( or toxic waste dump or live
in a house that has a cesspool in the front yard ), fine, you have my
permission to do so [ yea right like you need MY permission... ], it just
won't be in the neighborhood where I live.  But DON'T try to push your
shortsighted tunnelvision views off on the rest of us.
--
| Russell Hockins               | There are people who believe that there is |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc.   | no such thing as an environmental disaster.|
|                               | Pretty weird... ain't it?                  |
| My own opinions  no one elses |  packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa  |
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 15
tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
>>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.
>I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
>convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
>sufficient.
So, you sat in the court room and listened to the case.  After careful
consideration, you have come to your conclusion.  Well, good for you.
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Lines: 36
In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.121723.20568@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>When are Libertarians going to draw a clear line between
>>themselves and NAMBLA? By your own statements, you were once
>>a member of an organization which you *knew* supported
>>exactly what NAMBLA supports, namely abolishing the age of
>>consent. I've never supported any such organization. YOU
>>have.
>While both organizations may, on paper, support the abolition of the age
>of consent, there the resemblance stops.
>One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade
>to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.
What's the difference, in practice?
It amounts to your saying, it's disgusting but should be legal,
***or***
someone else saying, let's allow the parties involved to decide what is
disgusting.
Or, if you're like me, you think that it ISN'T a coercive law, because
some children can't make informed consent.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Lines: 40
In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>:
>>: As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>: is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the
>>: tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>>:
[...]
>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.
You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE
opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own
agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen.
While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that
if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become
a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area.
I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is
more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many
instances.
>Just
>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>condition.
I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as
you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not
be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of
libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of
government coercion except in a very limited cases.
--
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu
Sans Peur
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 41
Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@zeus02.desy.de) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>>}
>|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
>|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
>|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
>|>>
>|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
>|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
>|>
>|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is
>|>voluntary
>
>Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of
>collection effectively makes it a tax.
Could it be because you're British, Phill, and living in Germany?
While the EC working rules are more liberal than what we have in
the 1989 US-Canada FTA, there's probably a law about that (having
health insurance coverage is a condition of my being down here,
for example).
You have mentioned this once before, yet both the NY Times profile on
the German sickness funds (late Jan.) and pamphlets that my girlfriend
gives to her language students from the German consulate both say that
it is "voluntary" (okay, there were quotation marks (-;) and that only
90% of the population is covered by the sickness funds (analogous to
our provincial health insurances, but not divided by province/state).
Another guy in health care policy says that the Turkish guest workers
aren't covered ... he's written to me a couple of times (he's not a
post-er).  I'll ask him ...
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Gore throws out the first ball. And media coverage of it
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Lines: 37
Nntp-Posting-Host: mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
In article <1993Apr15.093957.1213@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) writes:
> In article <1993Apr13.122543.1682@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >
> > In article <C5E2JA.849@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> >> This past Thursday VP GOre threw out the first ball at the home opener for
> >> the Atlanta Braves. According to the news reports he was quite loudly booed.
> >> (No, Dr. Norman, these were not your typical beer swilling red-necks.)
> >>
> >> Personally I wouldn't have paid any more attention to the incident except
> >> that the evening news when describing the event, went on to comment that
> >> being booed was nothing unusual since it was normal for audiences to
> >> boo at this point since the celebrity was delaying the start of the game.
> >>
> >> What a bunch of crock. I have never heard of any incident in which the
> >> thrower of the ceremonial ball has been booed before.
> >
> > Dan Quayle got roundly booed in Milwaulkee last year.  (I was listening
> > on the radio).  This was the game that Quayle told the Brewers players that
> > he would like to see them play the Orioles in the ALCS.
>
> It's come to this, has it?  Defending Al Gore by comparing him to Dan Quayle?
Who compared Quayle to Gore?  Mark said he had never heard of any incident
in which the thrower of the ceremonial ball had been booed before.  I mentioned
another incident.  (And if the media had a liberal bias, I'm sure he would
have heard of the Quayle incident.)
If I was to compare Quayle to anyone, it most likely would be Elmer Fudd.
> I'd say that about says it all... back to the pit with ye, back to alt.fan.
> dan-quayle!  Begone!
--
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 7
Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
--
The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? |
From: sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Lines: 26
In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
># Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes
># make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you
># know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one
># "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since
># I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk!
># -RSW
># --
># * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
># * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
># * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
>
>I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and
>putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about
>this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for
>the district attorney?
I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*,
well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn
purple with rage I was 12 at the time.
>--
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: The Manitoban Candidate
In-Reply-To: bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca's message of 10 Apr 93 23:10:23 GMT
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University
<1993Apr10.231023.19680@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
Lines: 18
bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to
> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health
> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.
With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian
socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got
the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the
control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high
public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market
forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.
Steven Smith
From: garrett@Ingres.COM
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: My $.02
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords:
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Lines: 59
In article <1993Apr16.010908.22897@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)         writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr15.013651.11353@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>>>steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>[...]
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.
>
>You seem to be saying that a LIMITED government will provide MORE
>opportunities for private interests to use it to pursue their own
>agendas, and asking libertarians to prove that this will NOT happen.
>While I can't offer such a proof, it seems pretty damn plausible that
>if the government does not regulate a particular area, it cannot become
>a tool of private interests to pursue their own agendas in that area.
>I rather suspect that it's the sort of government we have NOW that is
>more likely to become such a tool, and that it IS such a tool in many
>instances.
>
Pardon me for interrupting, but why doesn't anyone ever bring up other
possibilities besides more government, less government, or no government
and stop there? It seems to me that the problems with society go MUCH
deeper than government. Democracies seem to reflective of the majority
of society, both the good and the bad. If you take away the government,
you still have the structural flaws in society, except this time, with
no restraints. Yes? No?
Why doesn't anybody ever discuss communal society, like a
kibbutz? I never studied it on depth, but from what I've heard, the kibbutz
in Isreal was very successful. It is also very close to what Aristotle
and Socrates believed was the best.
Sorry to detract from the discussion.
>>Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.
>
>I suspect that this is because "improvement in the human condition" as
>you define it is not the primary goal of libertarianism, and would not
>be the primary goal of a libertarian government.  My impression of
>libertarianism is that its primary goal is the elimination of
>government coercion except in a very limited cases.
But what good is change if there is no tracable improvement in the human
condition? Who would ever support the change if you tell them it won't
improve their lives? I know that there are, and will be, libertarians
who will jump in now and say that it WILL improve our lives. I can deal
with that. All I'm saying is that improving the human condition must
be the PRIMARY goal of any organization.
>Ian Sutherland
>ian@eecs.nwu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: AM Press Briefing by Dee Dee Myers -- 4.15.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 844
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 15, 1993
PRESS BRIEFING
BY DEE DEE MYERS
The Briefing Room
9:45 A.M. EDT
Q	  Why was the 10:00 a.m. postponed?
MS. MYERS:  Just due to scheduling conflicts.  So as we
put out, the President will meet with the leaders of the national
police organizations at 2:00 p.m. in the Rose Garden, as opposed to
10:00 a.m.  The only other things on his schedule today are:  At
11:00 a.m. he'll meet with General Vessey, who, as you know, is on
his way to Vietnam to continue working on the MIA-POW issue.  At
12:30 p.m. he'll have lunch with the Vice President in the Oval
Office.  And at 2:00 p.m. he'll meet with the police organizations.
Then from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. he'll do his weekly photos with the
various groups.
Q	  A photo op with Vessey?
MS. MYERS:  There's no coverage on the Vessey meeting.
Q	  Why?
MS. MYERS:  Why?  It's a closed meeting.
Q	  What about the lunch?
MS. MYERS:  The lunch?  No, there's no coverage.
Q	  Is he meeting with any congress people today?
MS. MYERS:  Nothing scheduled.
Q	  There are no meetings --
MS. MYERS:  There are no congressional meetings today,
no.
Q	  Has the President been given any information by the
Pentagon or reached any conclusion about the validity of this report
from Hanoi?  Any instructions to Vessey on how to deal with the
Vietnamese on that subject?
MS. MYERS:  Well, clearly, the report is the first order
of business.  It's high on the agenda on something that they'll
discuss.  I think the President and General Vessey will discuss the
parameters of his visit to Vietnam today, but the President hasn't
drawn any conclusions about the report yet.  Certainly, it's
something that he wants General Vessey to talk with the Vietnamese
about first.
Q	  Did the President talk with any Republican senators
yesterday about the stimulus package?
MS. MYERS:  He spoke with Senator Dole.
Q	  How many times?
MS. MYERS:  I believe once during the day and once last
night.
Q	  What was the outcome of that?
MS. MYERS:  They're continuing to work toward some kind
of an agreement on a jobs package.
Q	  Is it your impression that Senator Dole is in any
way flexible on this?
MS. MYERS:  Well, I think we're hopeful that we're going
to get some kind of jobs package through the Senate, and we'll
continue to work with Senator Dole and others until we reach some
kind of an agreement.
Q	  Did they discuss the VAT tax?
MS. MYERS:  I don't know if that came up.
Q	  Can you check that?
MS. MYERS:  Sure.
Q	  So what are they -- is the President offering to
scale down his program -- is that what he's trying to do, buy it down
to where Dole will sign on?
MS. MYERS:  Well, he's trying to protect as much of it
as he can.  But it's important to him to get some kind of a jobs
package through the Senate and through Congress now.  And as soon as
we reach some conclusions on that, we'll let you know.  But at the
moment, he's continuing to consult with members of Congress
including, obviously, Senator Dole.
Q	  Is he talking to anybody else?
MS. MYERS:  I don't believe he talked to any other
Republicans yesterday.
Q	  Is he talking to anybody today?
MS. MYERS:  I don't think anything is scheduled, but I
wouldn't rule it out.
Q	  We were led to believe that the President called
Mr. Dole on the subject of Russian aid and that Bob Dole brought the
conversation around to stimulus package.  Is that correct?
MS. MYERS:  I think the President has contacted several
people on Russian aid.  I think that it was always expected that the
stimulus package or the jobs package will be part of any conversation
he would have with Senator Dole.  The primary objective of the
conversation was Russian aid.  That was the first order of business,
but it was both.
Q	  In the President's mind, are they linked
politically in that if the Republicans continue to reject the
stimulus package, he thinks it will be harder to sell Russian aid to
the American people?  Has he made that argument?
MS. MYERS:  I can't talk about specifically what
arguments he might have made.  The President is obviously committed
to both.  He liked to see a jobs package to the American people
first.  But as you know, we outlined the details of additional
Russian aid last night in Tokyo.
Q	  But does the President believe that the stimulus
package will make it more difficult to persuade Americans to vote for
Russian -- to accept a vote for Russian aid?
MS. MYERS:  I think that the President is going to
continue to work to pass the stimulus package, to pass a jobs
package, and we're still hopeful that we'll get some kind of jobs
package through the Congress.
Q	  Is it fair to say that the President is negotiating
now with Dole?
MS. MYERS:  He's discussing options with him.
Q	  On the stimulus, is it your understanding that over
the break some Democrats, themselves, have left the support that they
had earlier for the package, the stimulus package?
MS. MYERS:  I think we still have wide support in the
Senate for the jobs package.
Q	  But specifically, that you've lost Democrats other
than Shelby?
MS. MYERS:  I don't believe so.  There hasn't been a
vote.
Q	  What about Kohl?
Q	  Kohl and Feingold?
MS. MYERS:  There hasn't been a vote yet.  And we'll
continue to work with senators to try to get a majority to try to
bring the package to a vote, because we believe that a majority of
the members of the United States Senate support the package.
Q	  If you're weren't worried about Kohl and Feingold,
why did George mention Milwaukee projects the other day?
MS. MYERS:  I think George pointed out a number of
projects in a number of states that stand to be funded, or to lose
funding if this jobs package doesn't pass.
Q	  No Democrats.  (Laughter.)
MS. MYERS:  I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Q	  Does he plan to talk to Dole again today or any
other Republicans again today?
MS. MYERS:  There's nothing specifically scheduled, but
again, I wouldn't rule it out.
Q	  Does he plan to put out any more press releases to
any other states today?
MS. MYERS:  What we've done is we're in the process of
breaking down the benefits of the jobs package state by state.  I
think it's entirely feasible that as we sort of are able to sum those
up, we'll send out press releases to the various states that suggest
how their states would benefit from this package.
Q	  Will you share those with us?
MS. MYERS:  Sure.  As we did yesterday.
Q	  Do you have copies of the ones you sent --
MS. MYERS:  Yes, we made those available yesterday.  And
we certainly can continue to provide them today.
Q	  Dee Dee, since yesterday's questions and subsequent
stories about the VAT, what further consideration of this issue has
been given?
MS. MYERS:  Nothing's changed since yesterday.  I think
the President commented on it this morning to say only that it was
something he knew was being considered by the task force and that he
has not made a decision on, and I don't think we have anything to add
to that.
Q	  But he also said that business and labor groups are
telling him they support it.  Can you tell us --
MS. MYERS:  I think that there has been -- I'm not going
to speculate on who supports it.  I think the President said that
there has been some support among business and labor groups.  I don't
think he said he was directly contacted by them.
Q	  Are we to take that to mean that the administration
has sounded out business and labor groups on this --
MS. MYERS:  I think there's been plenty of public
discourse on this over the years and even recently, but I don't think
I want to add to that.
Q	  In February, though, the President said that this
was something to be considered 10 or 15 years down the road.  What
has happened between then and now to cause this administration to
change its mind?
MS. MYERS:  I think as we said yesterday, it is
something that the working groups are looking at.  They're
considering a wide variety of options on everything from funding to
specific options that will be covered by the President's health care
plan.  The President has not taken it up yet, has not made a decision
on it.  And beyond that, I don't have anything to add.
Q	  You haven't answered the question.  It wasn't being
considered by anyone in the White House after the President's
comments in February, and George reaffirmed that in a briefing.
Q	  And then suddenly --
Q	  What happened?
MS. MYERS:  The working groups, as we have said
throughout, we instructed to consider a wide variety of options
across-the-board.  And one of the things that has been talked about
and that they are clearly considering is some kind of a value-added
tax.
Q	  But the President himself took this off the table,
Dee Dee, and suddenly it reappears.  And this goes to the credibility
of this administration in a way.  What has happened in the meantime?
MS. MYERS:  The President has not looked at this, it
hasn't been presented to him, again, yet.  The working groups are
looking at it, as they're looking at a wide variety of options, and
no decisions have been made.
Q	  And it raises the question of how independently the
task force is working.
MS. MYERS:  The task force was instructed to consider
all options, and they've taken that mandate seriously and they're
considering all options.
Q	  But that's not the impression that the President
left in February.  The impression he left was that this was something
that was long-range, to be looked at 10, 15 years down the road.  The
clear implication of his remarks was that this was something that was
not on the table, not an option.
Q	  "If it changes I'll tell you."
Q	  Bring him on.
Q	  And you repeatedly referred to the President's
remarks, telling us that those were still in operation.
MS. MYERS:  It's changed, and we told you.  (Laughter.)
Q	  But that's what Alice Rivlin's comments and Donna
Shalala comments were about.  I mean, that seemed like an
orchestrated effort because you have two independent Cabinet officers
--
MS. MYERS:  I wouldn't -- no, Alice Rivlin's not a
Cabinet member, first of all.  Second of all, it was not
orchestrated, but clearly, they both said yesterday and in the last
couple of days that it's something that's being looked at.  We
confirmed that yesterday.  And I don't have anything to add to that.
Q	  Is it because he has very few options?
Q	  Is this something that it will be incumbent upon
the task force to convince the President about?  In other words, has
the President himself personally ruled it out and it's now up to the
task force to convince him to put it back on the table?  Or is it, in
fact, back on the table, having been placed there by discussions with
the President?
MS. MYERS:  It is not the working group's mission at
this point to convince the President of anything.  It is their
mission to put before him his options and to explain the benefits and
the costs and the basic pros and cons of each of those options.  I
think that they will certainly present the VAT to him in that
context, and at this point he's not -- that presentation has not been
made, but it's something that he will hear and he has not made a
decision on.
Q	  They will present it to him as one of his options,
though he specifically ruled it out?
MS. MYERS:  Correct.
Q	  Dee Dee, is this more than a trial balloon?  Is
this a serious consideration that the working groups are giving to
this form of taxation?
MS. MYERS:  It's simply a statement of fact.  The
working groups are considering a wide variety of options on a number
of issues relating to health care reform.  One of the options that
they're looking at is the VAT.
Q	  Dee Dee, when the working groups were examining
this possibility, was this on the table during the same time period
that you were telling us that it was not?
MS. MYERS:  I don't know what the specific timing of
their drafting of options is.  I don't know.
Q	  Who was telling you that it was not under
consideration?
MS. MYERS:  I was referring back to the President's
comments.
Q	  Have they discovered that the sin taxes won't raise
enough money to fund the core benefit package?
MS. MYERS:  No, there's no decisions that have been made
on how to pay for the health care plan.
Q	  I'm asking whether the projections --
MS. MYERS:  There's a number of options depending on how
the plan is structured.  You can't decide how much the plan is going
to cost until you decide what the plan is going to look like.  And so
you can't discuss what financing options have been ruled in our out
until you know.
Q	  Dee Dee, we've been told that they have a computer
models on a number of possible packages.
MS. MYERS:  Correct.
Q	  The question is whether they have now determined
whether sin taxes would not produce enough money for even the barest
minimum package.  That is not a very difficult computation.
MS. MYERS:  It is a question that you know that we're
not going to answer until -- there's a number of options being
considered.  It depends on how the package is structured.  The exact
details of the package and the financing mechanisms used to pay for
them are all among the decisions that have yet to be made.
Q	  And when the President has been meeting with health
care -- his health care advisors, which we are told he has been doing
--
MS. MYERS:  Correct.
Q	     they have never once said to him, these are your
funding options, including the VAT?  He has never heard the word VAT
in his --
MS. MYERS:    I am not going to comment on the specific
nature of the daily -- they're not daily, but the quasi-regular
briefings.
Q	  Well, you have.
MS. MYERS:  I have not, other than to say that he's not
considered the VAT.  And I think that is a true statement.
Q	  No, but you said that it has not been presented to
him as an option.
MS. MYERS:  Correct.
Q	  That doesn't mean he hasn't heard about it.
MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to get into the details of
what's discussed.  I think that statement stands for itself.
Q	     specific, Dee Dee.  When you say he hasn't
looked at it, do you mean that he hasn't looked at it in terms of
paying for medical coverage, or hasn't looked at it in general?
Because back in Chilicothe he was very specific in defining how it
works, what the advantages are, the whole thing.  It sounds like --
MS. MYERS:  But that was -- I think in Chilicothe, if
you go back to his remarks there, it was a broader philosophical
discussion of the tax structure.  And I think the comments were
generally in reference to the overall economic plan.  But clearly,
it's something that he's thought about in the broad context.  I mean,
that was clear in Chilicothe.  What I'm saying is that in the process
of the working groups it's something that he hasn't considered yet.
It's something that the working groups will present to him among the
number of options, and that no decisions have been made.  And I'm not
going to comment any further on the details of the meetings where
health care issues are being discussed.
Q	  It's your statement from this podium that no
discussion of this has taken place.  You say that no option -- that
the option has not been presented to him.
MS. MYERS:  That is correct.
Q	  Do you stand by -- does the White House still stand
by George's statement in March that this will not be in the proposal?
MS. MYERS:  No decisions have been made.  We have
nothing to add to what's already been said.
Q	  Let me follow up here.  Do you stand by what Rivlin
said yesterday, that if any kind of VAT were to be used or
considered, that other changes to the tax code would have to be made
so that it would be less regressive?
MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment any further on what
might happen if.
Q	  But do you stand by the previous conversations in
February that if there were to be a VAT, I think the President said
you'd exclude food and energy --
MS. MYERS:  I'm not going to comment on the specific
structure of a decision that hasn't been made.
Q	  Was the President aware prior to Donna Shalala's
comments yesterday that this was under consideration by the working
groups?
MS. MYERS:  I don't know specifically what --
Q	  Could you check for us, because that's a real
important credibility question?
MS. MYERS:  Sure.
Q	  Since the task force was brought together this
issue has been discussed, at the beginning and throughout, as one
fairly painless way to raise a lot of money.  Were you all kept in
the dark?  Was the Press Office kept in the dark over the past month
and a half when you've been denying that a VAT tax would be
considered that it was actually on the table over there as an option?
MS. MYERS:  I think we've said all that we have to say.
It is something the working groups are looking at.  The President has
not made a decision about it yet.  And beyond that, I have nothing to
add.
Q	  Well, sorry, Dee Dee, there are still a couple of
questions that we are going to have to ask because we have a problem
with credibility here -- yours primarily.  What we're asking is, if
you all were not told at all that this thing was being considered
while you were coming out here and telling us that it was not, or if
it's a case that you were coming out here and deliberately misleading
us.
MS. MYERS:  I don't believe that anyone has ever come
out here and deliberately misled you from this podium -- ever --ever.
Q	  Has anyone tried to shade it a little bit to
indicate something -- has anybody told anybody to come out --
MS. MYERS:  We're not trying to shade answers or
deliberately mislead anybody.  I've said what I have to say about
this issue.
Q	  All we were trying to find out --
MS. MYERS:  I understand what you're trying to find out
and I've given you the answers, Helen.
Q	  We're trying to find out what changed -- what made
it an option again.  That's the --
MS. MYERS:  The working groups were given a broad
mandate to investigate all options, and they are doing that.
Q	  Yes, but it wasn't an option before.  How can you
investigate it if the President has taken it off the table?
MS. MYERS:  It is something that they're obviously
considering and the President has not made a decision on.
Q	  Yes, but he took it off the table in February.
MS. MYERS:  Working groups are considering it.  They'll
present it to the President at some point and he'll make a decision.
Q	  Why would they consider it if he has taken it off
the table?
MS. MYERS:  It's clearly on the table.
Q	  Yes, but he took it off the table.  Did he change
his mind?
MS. MYERS:  It's back on the table, Bill.
Q	  Did he change his mind?
MS. MYERS:  He said this morning that he hasn't made a
decision about it.  He obviously knows that it's on the table.  It's
something that he will look at at some and when we have a decision on
this we'll let you know.
Q	  So he must have changed his mind, right?
MS. MYERS:  At some point it will be looked at.  I mean,
--
Q	  Dee Dee, there's like two options -- either he
changed his mind or the working groups think they're authority
exceeds the President's.
MS. MYERS:  The working groups were given a broad
mandate to look at all options; they've done that.
Q	  Are you going to put out his income tax?
MS. MYERS:  Yes, there will be something available on
his income tax probably later this afternoon.  His return will be
available.
Q	  Will there be any kind of briefing to go through
it?
MS. MYERS:  No, nothing's planned.  I think someone will
be available, probably not in a briefing setting, but to walk you
through the questions.
Q	  We're used to be walked line-by-line through the
presidential tax forms.
MS. MYERS:  I've seen those briefings.  (Laughter.)
Q	  Could we have one?
MS. MYERS:   No, I don't think there will be any kind of
a formal briefing, but there will be somebody available to answer
your questions about it.
Q	  Did they file a joint form?
MS. MYERS:  Yes.
Q	  When did he file it?
MS. MYERS:  I believe it's being filed today.
Q	  Dee Dee, is there going to be a backgrounder for
Miyazawa?
MS. MYERS:  No, there will be a readout after the
meeting.
Q	  No backgrounder today?
MS. MYERS:  No backgrounder today.
Q	  This is complicated stuff.  We need help.
(Laughter.)
MS. MYERS:  We can't give you taxes and Miyazawa all in
one day, it's too confusing.  (Laughter.)
Q	  Vance and Owen have opened the doors on the use of
force in Bosnia.   They've both said that, A, they never ruled it
out, and B, it might be necessary now.  Does that influence your
thinking on whether or not to change your approach?
MS. MYERS:  There's been no change in our policy towards
Bosnia.  We have always said that we'd consider --
Q	  But does that impact upon your decision?  Are they
people whose opinions would carry weight with you?
MS. MYERS:  They're people whose opinions carry weight
certainly.  I mean, the President supports the process that they've
initiated.  But there's been no change in our policy for Bosnia,
although we're considering a number of options right now.  If the
Serbs don't come back to the negotiating table, if they don't sign on
to some kind of an agreement, we will consider additional options,
which we've been saying regularly.
Q	  One follow-up question then?  We cannot get a
straight answer from anyone in the administration.  Why do you not
set a deadline for the Serbs?  Can you tell us the strategic or
tactical reasons for not giving them a deadline to come to the table?
MS. MYERS:  We're continuing to put pressure on them
every day.
Q	  Which doesn't work so --
MS. MYERS:  Well, we think it is having some effect.
We're going to continue to tighten sanctions.  As you know, we
support the omnibus resolution.  We expect that to come to a vote on
the 26th.
Q	  You say it's having an effect -- can you give us
any documentation?
MS. MYERS:  I'd be happy to provide somebody to talk to
you about the impact of the sanctions and things like that.
Q	  There's been no -- you have not been able to
provide anybody who can tell us that the sanctions have had any
effect in Bosnia.  Serbia, yes; in Bosnia, no.
MS. MYERS:  I think that they've had effect in Serbia
and we think they've had some effect in Bosnia.  And again, I'll be
happy to provide somebody to walk you through the details of that, if
you'd like.
Q	  We would like to hear from someone who can show us
what the effect has been in Bosnia.  We had the briefing on all of
the terrible things that are happening in Belgrade, but we haven't
seen anything that indicates an impact on the fighting.  Can you
provide something along those lines?
MS. MYERS:  I will see what I can get you.
Q	  On the extra Russian aid that Christopher announced
this morning -- where is that money coming from?
MS. MYERS:  We'll have to work with Congress on the
details of that package.
Q	  So that would be new money that you would hope to
get?
MS. MYERS:    Yes, that's new money, in addition to the
$1.6 billion announced in Vancouver.  So I assume that you all have
seen the $1.8-billion package that was announced this morning in
Tokyo by Secretary Christopher.
Q	  Isn't there a concern, though, about offering
something which you have to get in Congress?  I mean, that was the
concern with Vancouver; you didn't want to do that.
MS. MYERS:  The concern with Vancouver was to do
something immediately, which required money that was already approved
in the Fiscal '93 budget.  What we're looking at now is a little bit
longer-term plan to build on top of the $1.6 billion that we
announced in Vancouver.  This clearly will require congressional
approval, or some of it will anyway, and we're going to continue to
work with Congress to make that happen.
Q	  To what extent has that been vetted or agreed to by
Congress?
MS. MYERS:  The President has had a number of
conversations with members and will continue to work with them as
this process moves forward.
Q	  Was Christopher able to put this package out with a
fair degree of understanding that you will be able to get it through
Congress?
MS. MYERS:  It was created in consultation with
Congress.
Q	  In meeting with the law enforcement officials, is
that -- does that have a set speech and a goal?  A direction?
MS. MYERS:  Yes, the President will talk about -- and
the law enforcement organizations are endorsing the President's jobs
package.  They believe particularly the summer jobs package will help
give kids something to do.
Q	  Who are they?
MS. MYERS:  It's members or leadership from three
organizations:  NAPO, which is the National Association of Police
Organizations; IBPO, which is the International Brotherhood of Police
Organizations, I believe; and IUPA, which is the International Union
of Police Associations.
Q	  Will the FBI chief be there?
MS. MYERS:  The FBI chief?  No.
Q	  Or any other federal law enforcement officials?
MS. MYERS:  No, it will be the President and these
national law enforcement organization leaders.
Q	  Does the $1.8 billion announced today include the
$400 million that's in the FY '94 budget for disarmament?
MS. MYERS:  No.  The Nunn-Lugar money is separate.
Q	  So this would be the $700 million that's in the
budget already, plus another $1.1 billion?
MS. MYERS:  I believe all of this is on top of the $700
million already in the budget.
Q	  Is this going to be part of the supplemental or
Fiscal '94 --
MS. MYERS:  We'll work with Congress on the exact
funding mechanism -- on exactly how this will be paid for.
Q	  This $1.8 billion on top of --
MS. MYERS:  On top of $700 million -- on top of the $400
million Nunn-Lugar money we announced earlier.
Q	  And this is what prompted the President to call Bob
Dole -- it was on this tranche, not on the previous money he was
calling Bob Dole?
MS. MYERS:  Correct.
Q	  Is there a briefing on Miyazawa?
MS. MYERS:  There will be a readout after the meeting
with Miyazawa.  Tomorrow.
Q	  Dee Dee, on a totally unrelated matter, some
Republicans who are active in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are
complaining about this new cozy relationship between the White House
and the Chamber of Commerce.  There are -- the town hall meeting the
other night, the satellite and all of this relationship.
Does the White House feel that you're getting too close to these
Chambers of Commerce?
MS. MYERS:  That's an interesting charge.  (Laughter.)
After how many years of Democrats being accused of not paying any
attention to the Chambers, now there are those who would accuse us of
being too close.  I think that's interesting.  But no, we're thrilled
by the support we've received from the national Chamber and local
Chambers across the country and we'll continue to work with them on
this and other initiatives.
Q	  What's the status of the President thinking about
going to this Democratic retreat?
MS. MYERS:  It's on his calendar.  I think he'll almost
certainly go.
Q	  All three days?
MS. MYERS:  We haven't figured out exactly when he'll be
there yet.
Q	  Is it open to coverage?
MS. MYERS:  No, I believe the whole thing is closed.
Q	  Is he going to have any kind of address, statement,
anything at all on the gay rights march on the 25th?
MS. MYERS:  We're still looking at that.  We haven't
made a final decision about how we'll -- who will make a statement or
what --
Q	  Any meetings scheduled with any of the leaders?
MS. MYERS:  Nothing is scheduled, but I wouldn't rule it
out.
Q	  What about an AIDS czar?
MS. MYERS:  It's coming.
Q	  Anything on the weekend?
Q	  There's been a suggestion that he's going to this
retreat to avoid having to participate in the gay rights -- or appear
or have any involvement in the gay rights march.
MS. MYERS:  No, I think this is something he's been
discussing for a long time -- appearing at the Senate Democratic
retreat.
Q	  The weekend?
MS. MYERS:  Weekend?  Don't know -- the only thing on
right now is the radio address on Saturday.
Q	  Any travel plans?
MS. MYERS:  If it changes -- none right now.
Q	  He's not going to be off campaigning for his
stimulus package?
MS. MYERS:  No specific plans right now.
Q	  What about mid-week?  Anything likely?
MS. MYERS:  It's possible.  Yes, I think it's likely
that we'll travel next week -- certainly the weekend.
Q	  Has he called Thurmond about his daughter?
MS. MYERS:  I don't know.  I'll check.
Q	  Going to name a drug czar this weekend?
MS. MYERS:  This weekend?  I don't believe so.
Q	  And the radio address on Saturday -- is that going
to be focused on the stimulus package?
MS. MYERS:  I'm sure it will.
THE PRESS:  Thank you.
END10:10 A.M. EDT
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: VP Gore Joins Students in Orlando for 1st Kids Earth Summit
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 102
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                CONTACT:  Heidi Kukis
THURSDAY, April 15, 1993                       202-456-7035
Julia Payne
202-456-7036
GORE JOINS STUDENTS IN ORLANDO FOR FIRST KIDS EARTH SUMMIT
Will Take Part in Special Town Meeting On the Environment
******** SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 1993 - ORLANDO, FLORIDA **********
WASINGTON -- Joining students from across the United States
and around the world for the first ever Kids Earth Summit, Vice
President Al Gore will travel to Orlando, Florida, on Saturday
(4/17) and participate in a special town hall meeting, hosted by
Linda Ellerbee for broadcast on Nickelodeon, to hear the young
people's concerns and share ideas about the environment.
The Vice President will take part in the "Kids World
Council: Plan It for the Planet" from 2-5 PM (EDT) Saturday
(4/17) in Orlando, Florida.  He will tour a display of student
environmental projects, then videotape the town hall meeting
where he will discuss with student delegates their concerns about
the environment and their plans for an environmentally sound
future.
The town hall meeting will be moderated by Linda Ellerbee
and taped for a news special, "Nickelodeon Special Edition:  Plan
It for the Planet," which will air on Sunday, April 18 at 8 PM
(EDT).  It is sponsored by Nickelodeon and the Children's Earth
Fund.
"Young people care about the environment because they know
it affects our future.  Across the country and around the world,
young people are speaking out about the environmental challenges
we face.  They are identifying problems, thinking about
solutions, and they are demanding action from their leaders," the
Vice President said.
The Kids World Council delegates are meeting for three days
in Orlando to discuss how to save energy and switch to renewable
energy.  They will be following the format and goals of the Earth
Summit that took place last year in Rio de Janeiro.  The Vice
President led the Senate Delegation to the Earth Summit.
"I look forward to hearing what young people have to say
about the environment and their future.  Their insight into the
world around us is important," the Vice President said.
(MORE)

SCHEDULE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
Saturday, April 17, 1993
2:15 PM (EDT) VICE PRESIDENT TOURS display of student
environmental projects.
Nickelodeon Studios
Orlando, Florida
3:30 PM (EDT) VICE PRESIDENT TAKES PART IN TOWN HALL MEETING
with Kids World Council delegates and
Linda Ellerbee.
Nickelodeon Studios
Orlando, Florida
5 PM (EDT)    VICE PRESIDENT DEPARTS from Kids World Council
for Washington, D.C.
NOTE:  PRESS THAT WISH TO ATTEND SHOULD CONTACT EILEEN
PARISE OR MARTY VON RUDEN IN FLORIDA AT 407-352-7589.
##
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks to Law Enforcement Leaders
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 227
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
The Rose Garden
2:52 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Ladies and gentlemen,
two months ago I presented a comprehensive plan to reduce our
national deficit and to increase our investment in the American
people, their jobs and their economic future.  The federal budget
plan passed Congress in record time, and created a new sense of hope
and opportunity in the country.
Then, the short-term jobs plan I presented to Congress,
which would create a half a million jobs in the next two years passed
the House of Representatives two weeks ago.  It now has the support
of a majority of the United States Senate.
All of these members of Congress know it's time to get
the economy moving again, to get job growth going again, to get a
fast start on the investments we need to build a lasting prosperity.
Unfortunately, a minority of the members of the United States Senate
have used gridlock tactics to prevent their colleagues from working
the will of the majority on the jobs bill.
When Congress returns, I ask every senator from every
state and from both parties to remember what is at stake.  The issue
is not politics, it's people.  Sixteen million of them are looking
for full-time jobs and can't find them.  These men and women don't
care about who's up or down in Washington.  They care about paying
the rent and meeting the mortgage payment, about putting food on the
table and buying shoes for their children, about regaining a sense of
dignity that comes from doing a day's work and supporting their
families and drawing a paycheck.
They're asking those of us who have the privilege of
serving to put aside politics and do something now to move our
economy forward.  I am prepared to do that.  And I have been working
with the Senate to come up with an adjusted package that meets some
of the concerns of those who have been blocking action on the jobs
plan.  I'm willing to compromise, so long as we keep the focus on
jobs, keep the focus on growth and keep the focus on meeting unmet
national needs.
Our opponents have been asking for a smaller package.
Today I ask them to join me in determining exactly what kind and what
size package Congress can approve that actually meets the needs of
the American people.
But even as we make those reductions and the package
will be smaller, I believe we must address problems that are on the
minds of millions of Americans, and one in particular, and that is
the need to toughen law enforcement in our society to deal with the
dramatic rise in violent crime.
So I will ask, even in this reduced package, for an
additional $200 million in federal funding to help local communities
to rehire police officers who have been laid off because of the
fiscal problems caused by the national recession.  Together, with a
matching effort by local governments, this could put as many as
10,000 police officers back on the job, and back on the beat in
communities all across our nation.
At a time when too many of our people live in fear of
violent crime, when too many businesses have closed and too many
people have lost their jobs because people are afraid to leave their
homes, rehiring thousands of officers is one of the best investments
America can make.  And I ask both Houses of Congress to make that
investment in our people's safety and in their piece of mind.
I believe in the need for strong federal action to keep
the economy going toward recovery and to create jobs.  Make no
mistake about it:  I will fight for these priorities as hard as I
ever have.  I will never forget that the people sent me here to fight
for their jobs, their future and for fundamental change.
I want to thank the police officers who are here today
and tell you that not a single one of them knew before they came here
that I had determined to ask for more money in this jobs bill to
rehire police officers.  They came here because they believe in the
summer jobs portion of the package.  And I want them to be free to
talk about that.  They came here not out of any law enforcement
concern other than the fact that they wanted the kids in this country
to have a chance to have jobs this summer, to have safer streets and
a brighter and more peaceful future.
I say what I say today not just because it's good for
law enforcement but because it's good for the people who live in
these communities.  I have always supported community policing not
only because it helps to prevent crime and to lower the crime rate,
but because it cements better relationships between people in law
enforcement and the people that they're hired to protect.  It reduces
the chances of abusive action by police officers and increases the
chances of harmony and safe streets at the same time.
These are the kinds of things that we are trying to do.
I promised in my campaign that I'd do everything I could to put
another 100,000 police officers on the street over the next four
years.  This makes a good downpayment on that.  This keeps in mind
the core of the jobs package.  And this will help us to move forward.
So I ask the people in the Senate who have blocked the
jobs bill, let's work together.  I can accept a reduced package if
you will increase your commitment to safe streets.  I do not accept
the fact that we should reduce our commitment to summer jobs or to
building our infrastructure or to doing those other things that will
create real and lasting  prosperity for our people.  I have done my
part now to end the gridlock; I ask you to do yours.
I want now to give the people who are here with me on
the platform a chance to make some remarks and to be heard by the
American people -- beginning with Janet Reno, the distinguished
Attorney General.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Q	  Mr. President, can you tell us -- do you think that
the jobs package could be put in further jeopardy by controversy over
the suggestion of a VAT tax at this point in the congressional
dialogue?
THE PRESIDENT:  Not at all.  I think it should have --
they wouldn't have any relationship one to the other.  First of all,
I made absolutely no decision on that.  You should know that there's
a lot of support in the business community and the labor community --
people have asked us to consider that because of the enormous burden
of the present system on many of our major employers, particularly
many of those that we depend upon to generate jobs and to carry the
strength of this economy.  But I have made absolutely no decision
that would even approach that on that or any other kind of general
tax.
Q	  Do you personally believe that the American public
is ready to pay for -- to have another tax to pay for health care?  I
mean, apart from what business and labor leaders have said --
THE PRESIDENT:  I'm not going to speculate on that.  I
will say this:  The real issue is how quickly we can recycle the
benefits of all the savings to cover the cost.  I mean, that is --
everyone knows that if you do what we're proposing to do, if you
streamline the insurance system, if you fix the system so that
there's no longer an enormous economic incentive to over-utilize or
over-provide certain services, if you provide primary and preventive
care in places where it isn't now, every single analysis shows
absolutely massive savings to the health care system.
The real question is whether you can transfer those
savings to cover those who have no coverage now or those who have
virtually no coverage so that you provide people the security.  I
have no idea.  The polls say that, but I don't know.  All I know is
the polls that I see in the press that many of you have commissioned,
they say overwhelmingly the American people want the security of an
affordable health care system.
But I don't think that has anything to do with this
stimulus, and it certainly shouldn't have.  People want a job first
and foremost.  They want that more than anything else.
Q	  Now that you've announced your willingness to
compromise on the stimulus package, can you tell us what parts of
your package you consider vital and uncompromisable?  I assume summer
jobs is one.
THE PRESIDENT:  I want the summer jobs; I want the
highway program and I want the police program.  I still intend -- let
me say this:  I still intend to fully and aggressively push the crime
bill, which did not pass the Congress last year.  This is a
supplement to that, not a substitute for it in any way.  But I think
we need to do that.
I think we need the Ryan White funds because of the
enormous health care burdens to the communities that are inordinately
and disproportionately affected by the problems of caring for people
with AIDS.  And there are several other things that I think should be
done.  We have to do the Agriculture Department meat inspectors; the
safety of the public depends on that.
There are a number of other things that I don't -- I
don't think any of it should be cut, but I have given Senator
Mitchell and Senator Byrd -- I talked to them.  And Senator Dole
called me yesterday to discuss this, and I told him that I would call
him back.  I called him back last night in New Hampshire and we
discussed this.  And I basically asked them to talk today, and said
that I would not make any statements about any specifics until at
least they had a chance to talk to see whether or not they could
reach some accord.
So I don't want to be any more specific than I have been
already, and let's see if they can talk it out.
Q	  When you talked to Senator Dole and Senator
Mitchell did you tell them about your -- increase also, that $200
million, that you want that as part of the package?
THE PRESIDENT:  I did -- I told Senator -- I left word
for Senator Mitchell last night about it.  When I talked to Senator
Dole -- I don't remember for sure -- I do not believe I mentioned it.
But I did tell him that I was prepared to reduce the package and I
wanted to break the gridlock, and I told him that I was working on a
reformulation of it so that -- in the hope that it would become even
more focused on jobs and the kinds of issues that I thought the
American people wanted us to address.  And this is certainly
consistent with that.
Thank you.
END3:12 P.M. EDT
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 16
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu
In article <1993Apr15.162802.20933@hydra.acs.ttu.edu> mcgoy@unicorn.acs.ttu.edu (David McGaughey) writes:
>
>The question, I think, then becomes:  Do we, the general public, need the train?
>
>I certainly do not, nor will I ever, need this train in Lubbock, Texas.  With
>the inexpensive air travel provided between Dallas and Houston, I don't think
>people in Dallas or Houston need it either.
I totally agree.  Really, the only people this is going to benefit, are
those who live in the cities where the train stops.  Who wants to drive
to the train station from X (Lubbock for example)?  It's probably farther
to drive to the train station than it is to the nearest national airport.
I really can't see spending 5.7 billion on a system that only three cities
will benefit from.
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: President's Trip to Pittsburg
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release                             April 15, 1993
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April
17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the
state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818
full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a
public address at Pittsburgh International Airport at 9:30 am.
The President will leave Washington early Saturday morning
and return that afternoon.  A White House press charter will
depart Andrews Air Force Base at 7:30.  Filing facilities will be
available in Pittsburgh.
###
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Subject: Re: high speed rail is bad
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 14
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu
In article <1993Apr13.150740.6221@iqsc.COM> rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black) writes:
>rail in Texas.  Being from California, I have come to the conclusion
>that one has two choices for preventing economic strangulation through
>traffic:  High speed rail or growth limits.
>
>Rex
Growth limits?  How will HSR help with the traffic congestion?  From what
I understand, the rail will not stop in places like Waco, or Bryan, or
lots of intermediate places in between.  Even though I live in Austin,
I don't see myself using the train except on rare occasions.  probably
twice a year.  And at $65 dollars a ticket I could probably drive for
cheaper also. (even if the price of gas went up)
From: chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 111
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu
> Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
>
>
>10. Men in uniform are persona non grata in the home of our Commander in
>    Chief.
>
>9.  Algore's enviro-mentalism will make the Clean Air Act look like an
>    industrial policy.
>
>8.  Higher taxes are once again the prescription for all that ails America.
>
>7.  Tax dodging is unpatriotic; draft dodging is a symbol of pride.
>
>6.  Beaded curtains hang from the Oval Office windows.
>
>5.  Socialism may be dead in the ex-Soviet Union but we are told to prepare
>    for the nationalization of our health care resources. (These people
>    must be inhaling something.)
>
>4.  Not quite free love but eating Flowers is considered healthy.
>
>3.  The feminazis have a President in the White House whether the rest of
>    us realize it or not.
>
>2.  Slick may be the first draft dodger to send American troops into
>    combat.
>
>1.  Slick may be unpopular with middle-class Americans, but he's a BIG HIT
>    on campus with the professorial class.
>
>
>
>Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
>
Here's my own top ten response to Mr. Ipser's list
10.  It's about time we have a President that might actually stand up to the
military.  Our men and women in uniform must learn that the world does not
revolve around them, and that one of the things they're out there defending
is our right to be critical of them, even denounce them.
9.   Let me explain something to you.  Environmental policy and industrial
policy MUST go hand in hand.  Our nation, and indeed, our planet cannot
afford to continue ignoring this as was done over the last twelve years.
Our industrial/environmental position has been downright SHAMEFUL! We
must have active government support of the key industries such as,
telecommunications, microelectronics, medical, biotech, and environmental
tech.  Meanwhile weed out old, inneficient, high-polution, industries
that are better left to other nations.  This will make us richer, help
produce new jobs, and help the environment.  To give credit where credit
is due, I heard a lot of this in a speech by Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
tonite.  In addition, it's time we get really, really serious about
issues like overpopulation, globabl warming, and ozone depletion.  The
planet on which we live should be our utmost priority!
8.   It just so happens that that it takes money to make this country work,
to provide the services that people need, and to help solve the problems
that need to be solved.  Granted, some things can probably be done more
efficiently for less money, and should be.  But some things are going to
cost more money and I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whining about
taxes all the time.  You want to live in my country, you pay your fair
share!
7.   I can't believe what hypocrites people are when they ask people to give
up their lives for their country and then complain about taxes.  If you're
willing to send me off to die for some stupid obsession with fighting an
enemy which at best doesn't affect us and at worst really should be our
friend, then you have no right to tell me you shouldn't pay taxes!
6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!
5.   Look, Canada, Europe, and Japan manage to provide health care for their
citizens (and, yes, basic health IS a human right which people are
entitled to).  If these nations aren't capitalist enough for you, then
I guess we've found something better than capitalism!  There is nothing
sacred about the capitalist system, and if something, be it socialism
or anything else, works better, then I say let capitalism die.
4.   Make love, not War!
3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly
have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.
2.   See number 10.
1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!
-Amar Chaudhary
Peace, Land, at Matzoh!
"AC in DC in 2008!"
None of the opinions here necessary reflect the opinions of Yale University or
anyone or anything associated with it, except for me, of course :)
Please post reponses or send them to chaudhary-amar@cs.yale.edu
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 33
In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writ
es:
>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR
.C
>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>
>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>
Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready
immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one
frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health
care service.
(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are
slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't
deserve my tax help).
ryan
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 44
In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <15377@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> #But what came out,
> #in much lower profile reporting, was that the "victim" was a
> #prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the false
> #accusation.
>
> There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the
> defense merely alledged that she was. Even Clayton knows the
> difference. Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know the difference.
Evidence given for her prostitute status, besides the admittedly
questionable claim of the man on trial included:
1. Prior employment in a number of massage parlors, with women who
claimed that she worked as a prostitute;
2. Walking around a truck stop at 4:00 AM wearing a lace miniskirt,
a halter top, and no underwear of any sort;
3. Not having a purse or other I.D. with her.
Not enough to convict her, but enough to create reasonable doubt
whether a rape actually took place, or theft of services.
Are you just ignorant, or lying again?
> #the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
> #Marines were engaged in self-defense.
>
> No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder
> on proof. A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines:
>
> #	New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in
> #the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving the
> #Marines acted to cause injury.
The accounts on the evening news indicated that they claimed self-
defense, and the judge agreed that they were so operating.
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
Distribution: usa
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 111
In article <1993Apr14.164549.24069@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly) writes:
> In article <15342@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# # # And now those "other options" don't exist.  We probably agree on this
# # # more than you think--welfare was invented to solve a problem of the
# # # 30's, but the poverty is now so much worse, and our economic infra-
# # # structure has been so eroded, that it just can't keep up any more.
#
# # You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost
# # collapsed.
#
# Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy
# is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of
# prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.
In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal
welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.
# No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is
# wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.
Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further
into socialism.
# # # # # (2) Whether or not the fathers work
# # # # # is not germane to single mothers.
#
# # # # Very true.  But the promotion of casual sexuality is something that
# # # # plays a part in the single mother problem.
#
# # # I'll buy that--and there's lots of reasons for it, extremely far down on
# # # the list being the flash-in-the-pan media attention a bunch of middle-
# # # class dropouts got for their philosophy and experimentation.
#
# # Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the
# # TV and movie industries for two decades now.
#
# *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see
# dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it,
# they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have
# shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to
# personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for
# the decline in that, too?
To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible
for themselves, yes.
# # # # Come on.  You and I both know that the major problem of this society
# # # # today isn't a lack of employment, it's a lack of people willing to work.
#
# # # Huh???  Tell that to the single mother I know who was laid off from
# # # her $10/hour job at a hospital and now works 2 full-time minimum-
# # # wage jobs to barely be able to support herself and her kid.  *Barely.*
# # # Hey, she's too proud to go on public assistance, but the only jobs
# # # she can find are menial and with no benefits.  And no career path
# # # either--they find excuses to lay people off and hire new ones rather
# # # than give raises and perks.  And why not?  It's a lot cheaper.
#
# # Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage
# # to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a
# # cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost
# # of living is lower.
#
# The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city.
# Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are
# abundant--I'll pass them on.
Sonoma County.
# You live in a strange and wondrous place, sir.  Inexpensive housing,
Not exactly cheap, but not Los Angeles, either.
# lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose
# that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least
# not dissuade them.
No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the
spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty
enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY
more limited wealth away.
# # # I see a lot of people willing--nay, eager--to work.  What I don't see
# # # is a system that makes it at all feasible to do so.  It's not just
# # # welfare, which nobody enjoys, but there just aren't the jobs any more.
# # # When the US was expanding industrial capacity there was always a mill
# # # to go work in--skills to learn, a future.  Now there's only McDonalds.
#
# # Odd.  Not the experience of anyone I know.  Just the opposite.
#
# In California???
Yup.
# # # Mr. Cramer, I was there:  Hippiedom was a very low-budget operation.
# # # Our drugs were cheap.
#
# # The money I was referring to was Aid to Families with Druggie
# # Cohabitators (AFDC).
#
# Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after
# buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read
# about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me
# your statistics about AFDC abuse.
I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the
food was secondary.
# Ken Perlow   ***** *****
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Lincoln & slavery (Re: Top Ten Tricks You Can Play on the American Voter)
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 27
In article <CB.93Apr5130728@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> Craig Depken writes:
>
>     The fact that the South had a number of slave owners is true, but
>     relatively small numbers (around 1200) had more than a few hundred slaves.
>     (I have to get references that I do not have here for
>     exact numbers.)
>
> If it has any bearing on this discussion, I saw a figure for the total
> number of slave-owners as 300,000.  Does anyone have a figure for how
> many slaves there were?  How many farmers without slaves?
>
> Chris Brewster                            E-MAIL ADDRESS: cb@cray.com
In 1860:
region              total population  free blacks  %       slaves   %
U.S.                32,227,616        487,070      1.5%    3,953,818 12.3%
Confederacy          9,103,332        132,760      1.5%    3,521,110 38.7%
Union Slave States   3,212,041        128,158      4.0%      432,586 13.5%
All Union States    23,124,284        354,310      1.5%      432,708  1.9%
Union "Free" States 19,912,243        226,152      1.1%          122  0.0%
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Evidence
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 28
In article <115298@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> BK:
# ##So tell me---what's immoral about homosexuality?
#
# CC:
# #The promiscuity and fetishism that characterizes it.
#
# Hmmm.
#
# I've told you more than once that I've been monogamous for almost 4 years
# now, and that I really don't get into fetishes.
Then you are nearly the only homosexual who is.  I don't believe you.
You've changed your story before.
# Yet you maintain my homosexual activity is still immoral.
#
# Care to elaborate?
#
# For that matter, explain why fetishes are immoral?
#
# kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
The fact that your fetish is more important than who you are making
love to.  (Actually, in your case, "having sex with.")
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 27
From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
Male sex survey: Gay activity low
A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
examination of American men's sexual practices published since
the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 27
In article <1993Apr13.104856.25246@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> In article <C581G8.Kw8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> >In article <15283@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ##For a while, homosexuals paid higher insurance rates than straights,
# ##and with very good reason, until the government made it illegal to
# ##do so.
#
# Well if we go by this philosophy how many Children do you think
# we help pay for with our insurance premiums???  Children who obviously
# cannot be afforded, since the insurance companies have to pay for
# all of the prenatal and birthing.....  What about the children born
# with horrible flaws who cost the system an arm and a leg to be kept alive?
# We all pay because we are all part of this society and we should take
# care of one another.....
Oddly enough, dependent coverage costs a bit more than for one self
alone.  But if you really believe your claims, you could make a lot
of money starting the "Homosexuals Health Insurance Co." and refuse to
insure "breeders."  But I shudder to think what your premiums will be
like.
# Bil Snodgrass III
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 48
In article <C5Jy07.8GK@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr15.053553.16427@news.columbia.edu>, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.
edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>
>|>cmk@world.std.com (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>|>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>|>>}
>|>>} Secondly, any Canadian who has worked and participates in the
>|>>} insurance (it's a negative option, you have to explicitly decline
>|>>} it) knows that the premium is deducted separately ...
>|>>
>|>>yes, and some Americans actually have a problem with having more
>|>>of their money taken from them to pay for others' health care...
>|>
>|>But note again, the Canadian and German health insurance is voluntary
>
>Not true. I am required to have insurance by law. the method of collection
>effectively makes it a tax.
>
>
>|>>the selfish bastards that they are. unfortunately, that number has
>|>>diminished recently, but once President Pinocchio gets through
>|>>with us, i hope for a reversal of trend.
>
>Well here we have the right hoping for more selfish bastards. Pity they
>don't look at what 12 years of the Regan/Bush "selfish Bastard" ecconomy
>has done to the country.
>
>Elect a selfish bastard government and they will run the country for themselve
s,
>thats why they are selfish bastards. Bush and Regan gave tax breaks for the
>ultra rich and paid for them by borrowing against the incomes of the middle
>class.
>
This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
1980 election.
This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame,
pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than
the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples'
books.  What a joke.
Ryan
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Release on USIA Appointments
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 101
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                        April 15, 1993
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT JOSEPH DUFFEY NAMED TO HEAD USIA,
MICA TO CHAIR BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING
Washington, D.C. -  President Clinton today announced his
intention to nominate American University President and former
State Department Assistant Secretary Joseph Duffey to be Director
of the United States Information Agency. The President also
designated Daniel Mica Chairman of the Board for International
Broadcasting.
"Joe Duffey's expertise in the fields of education,
communications and foreign affairs is vast and will serve him
well as he takes the helm at USIA and works to promote the ideals
of democracy and freedom abroad," the President said.
President of American University in Washington, D.C. since
1991, Duffey previously served nine years as Chancellor and
President of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In 1977
he served as Assistant Secretary of State, Education and Cultural
Affairs in the State Department. Duffey served as Chairman of the
National Endowment for the Humanities under both Presidents
Carter and Reagan.
In 1978 and 1980, Duffey served as a United States delegate
to the General Conference of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization. In 1991, Duffey served as
joint head of the U.S. Delegation observing national elections in
Ethiopia.
USIA, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, is an
independent foreign affairs agency within the executive branch
that explains and supports U.S. foreign policy and national
security interests abroad through a wide range of information
programs. Among the agency's programs are the Fulbright academic
program, Voice of America, the Worldnet satellite television
system and a network of overseas libraries and cultural centers.
The agency has more than 210 posts in more than 140 countries.
(more)
Press Release
pg. 2
Mica becomes Chairman of the Board for International
Broadcasting after serving as a member of the board since 1991.
"Dan Mica has done an excellent job on the Board of
International Broadcasting and I expect he will continue as
chairman to promote the cause of democracy abroad," the President
said.
Biographical sketches of the appointees follow:
Joseph Duffey has served as President of American University
since 1991. Prior to his tenure at American, Duffey served as
Chancellor and President of the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst (1982 - 91) and as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings
Institution (1982). He served as Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Humanities from 1977 - 82 and as Assistant
Secretary of State, Education and Cultural Affairs with the
Department of State in 1977. Duffey holds 14 honorary degrees
from American colleges and universities. In 1980 he was named
Commander of the Order of the Crown by the King of Belgium and he
has been a member of the Council of Foreign Relations since 1979.
Duffey received a BA from Marshall University in 1954, a BD from
the Andover Newton Theological School in 1958, a STM from Yale
University in 1963 and a Ph.D. from the Harvard Seminary
Foundation in 1969. Duffey is a member of the National Business-
Higher Education Forum and a founder and co-chairman of the
Western Massachusetts Economic Development Conference. Duffey is
married to Anne Wexler and has four sons.
Daniel Mica is a former U.S. Representative from the 14th
District of Florida and has served on the Board of International
Broadcasting since 1991. During his tenure in Congress from 1979
- 89 he served on the House Committee on Foreign Relations and
was appointed by President Reagan as the Congressional
Representative to the United Nations.
-30-30-30-
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights
Organization: NCSU
Lines: 38
---
51 Arrested for Defying Judge's Order at Abortion Protest Rally
The Miami Herald, April 11, 1993
Melbourne, Florida --   [...]
Circuit Judge Robert McGregor's order prohibits anti-abortion pickets
within 36 feet of the property line of Aware Woman Center for Choice.
Even across the street, they may not display pictures of dead fetuses
or sing or chant loud enough to be heard by patients inside the clinic.
The protesters say the ruling all but wiped out the First Amendment
to the Constitution.
``This is our sidewalk,'' said Joe Carroll, 33, a landscaper who
marched with his children, Mary Grace, 8, and John, 7.
``I am not a rescuer.  I am not a trespasser.  It's just that this is
my sidewalk.  I am not really protesting abortion.  We are protesting
denial of our rights of assembly, religion, speech.  This judge is
trashing the Constitution.''
The children's grandmother led them away, sobbing, as Carroll and
his father were arrested.
Outside the clinic, Eleanor Smeal, president of the Washington,
D.C.-based Feminist Majority Foundation, called for the Florida
Legislature and Congress to pass laws as tough as the judge's
order, which covers only Brevard and Seminole counties.
``This cannot go on,'' she said.  ``This is not freedom of speech,
this is total psychological warfare with violence.  It is ridiculous
to have to ask clinics to go court-by-court . . . to get protection.''
[...]
---
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: The DEFAMATION LEAGUE
Organization: MCSNet Contributor, Chicago, IL
Lines: 235
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.mcs.com
The following was posted and no doubt retyped by Yigal Ahrens and considering
the importance of the issue and the almost total blackout except in
California, I am reposting to other appropriates groups.
From LA Times, Friday, April 9, 1993.  P. A1.
EVIDENCE OF ADL SPY OPERATION SEIZED BY POLICE
By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer
SAN FRANCISCO -- Police on Thursday served search warrants on the
Anti-Defamation League here and in Los Angeles, seizing evidence of a
nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than
950 political groups, newspapers and labor unions and as many as
12,000 people.
Describing the spy operation in great detail, San Francisco
authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how
operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and
infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American,
right-wing and what they called "pinko" organizations.
Representatives of the Anti-Defamation League, a well-known
organization in the U.S. Jewish community dedicated to fighting
anti-Semitism, declined detailed comment Thursday but denied breaking
any laws.
Police allege that the organization maintains undercover operatives to
gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los
Angeles and San Francisco.
Groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political
spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan
Resistance, Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, the National Assn. for the
Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers and the Jewish
Defense League.  Also on the list were Mills College, the board of
directors of San Francisco public television station KQED and the San
Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.
People who were subjects of the spy operation included former
Republican Rep. Pete McCloskey, jailed political extremist Lyndon H.
LaRouche and Los Angeles Times foreign correspondent Scott Kraft, who
is based in South Africa.
Authorities said much of the material collected by the groups was
confidential information obtained illegally from law enforcement
agencies.  They also alleged that data on some individuals and
organizations was sold separately to the South African government.
In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from
police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony
counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West
Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify
the search warrant.
The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than
25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I.
Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in
San Francisco.  Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation
Council of Greater Los Angeles and one of the state's leading tax
attorneys, will be out of the city until late next week and could not
be reached for comment, his office said.
Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a
panel appointed by then-Sen. Pete Wilson to secretly make initial
recommendations on new federal judges in California.  Hochman is a
former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.
The league, which initially cooperated with police, has denied
repeatedly that its intelligence-gathering operation broke any laws.
League officials will not confirm or deny whether Bullock was an
employee and have said they simply traded information with police
departments about people who might be involved in hate crimes.
But in an affidavit filed to obtain warrants for Thursday's searches,
San Francisco police alleged that "ADL employees were apparently less
than truthful" in providing information during an earlier search
conducted without a warrant.
David Lehrer, executive director of the Los Angeles ADL office, said
the organization has not violated the law.  "There is nothing
nefarious about how we operate or what we have done," he said.  "Our
record speaks for itself."
The police affidavit contends that Lehrer had sole control of a secret
fund used to pay for "fact-finding operations."  Lehrer, according to
the documents, signed checks from the account under the name L.
Patterson.
An ADL official said the account was used to pay for subscriptions to
a wide variety of extremist publications that might balk at sending
them directly to the Anti-Defamation League.
Bullock, 58, who has been collecting intelligence for the ADL for
nearly 40 years, defended his efforts during a lengthy interview with
San Francisco police.  He said that he gathered names from many
sources and entered them into his computer under headings such as
"Skins" and "Pinkos," but that did not necessarily mean that they were
under surveillance.
"I might never see or call up on 99% of them again," Bullock said.
"And it doesn't mean anything that they're in the files.  It's not a
threat to anyone's civil rights that a name appears in my files under,
say, 'Pinko.'"
In recent years, Bullock worked closely with San Francisco Police
Officer Tom Gerard, who fled to the Phillippines last fall after he
was questioned by the FBI in the case.
A former CIA employee, Gerard supplied Bullock with criminal records
and Department of Motor Vehicles information such as home addresses,
vehicle registration, physical characteristics and drivers license
photographs.
Using files gathered for the Anti-Defamation League, Gerard and
Bullock also provided information to the South African government,
receiving $16,000 over four years, the documents show.
The file on Times staff writer Kraft, which was apparently sold to the
South African government, provides some insight into the hit-and-miss
nature of the spy operation.
The file notes that Kraft's articles "appear frequently in The Times
and are well researched and written," but little else about the file
is accurate.  The brief entry confuses The Times' Kraft with another
Scott Kraft and provides the South African government with the wrong
Kraft's physical description, photograph and other personal
information.
Nevertheless, the documents provide illuminating details of how
Bullock for decades infiltrated all manner of organizations, from
skinheads to left-wing radicals, searching regularly through the trash
of target groups.  Using Anti-Defamation League funds, he also ran his
own paid informants under code names such as "Scott" and "Scumbag."
He worked closely with police officers up and down the coast,
exchanged information with the FBI and worked with federal agencies,
including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
It was Bullock's work as a paid informant for the FBI -- while spying
on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League and the South African
government -- that proved his undoing. The FBI learned that he was an
agent of a foreign government and began investigating, leading to the
probe of the Anti-Defamation League's intelligence network.  The
Anti-Defamation League employed undercover operatives to gather
information in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Washington,
Chicago, St. Louis and Atlanta, according to the affidavit and
investigators.  Joining San Francisco police in searching league
offices and a Los Angeles bank were investigators from the office of
San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith and the state Franchise Tax
Board.  The Los Angeles Police Department, which earlier refused to
cooperate with the investigation, was informed of the searches in Los
Angeles but not invited to participate.  Investigators suspect that
some confidential information in the Anti-Defamation League files may
have come from Los Angeles police officers.
From Los Angeles Times, Saturday, April 10, 1993.  P. A23.
ADL VOWS TO COOPERATE WITH SPY INVESTIGATION
By Richard C. Paddock, Times staff writer.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Anti-Defamation League defended its record as a
civil rights group Friday and said it will cooperate with authorities
who are investigating whether the organization collected confidential
police information on citizens and groups.
But San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith said that Anti-Defamation
League employees involved in intelligence gathering could face many
felony counts of receiving confidential files, eavesdropping, tax
violations and conspiracy.
Police have accused the Anti-Defamation League of not being truthful
about its spying operations, which collected information on more than
12,000 individuals and 950 political groups across the political
spectrum.
Hundreds of pages of documents released by prosecutors Thursday show
that the ADL maintained a nationwide intelligence network and kept
files on political figures.
Even so, Smith suggested that if the Anti-Defamation League shut down
its spy operation, prosecutors would take that into account when
deciding what charges to file.
In a statement released in Washington, National Director Abraham H.
Foxman described the ADL as "a Jewish defense agency which has fought
to protect all minorities from bigotry and discrimination for 80
years."
Foxman said the organization is regarded as a credible source on
extremist groups and has a tradition of routinely providing
information to police, journalists, academics, government officials
and the public.  It has never been the policy of the ADL to obtain
information illegally, he said.
"Like other journalists, in order to protect the confidentiality and
physical safety of its sources, ADL will not comment on the nature or
identity of any source of information," Foxman said.
The Anti-Defamation League refused to acknowledge that one of its
longtime employees, Roy Bullock, was anything more than "a private
individual who is alleged to be an ADL 'informant.'"
Among the documents released by prosecutors were detailed statements
showing how the ADL funneled weekly payments to Bullock through
Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman.
"Roy would penetrate organizations and needed this arrangement to be
distanced from ADL," Hochman told a San Francisco police investigator.
Hochman could not be reached Friday at his home or office for comment.
Despite the Anti-Defamation League's assertion that it will cooperate
with authorities, San Francisco police said the group did not turn
over all pertinent documents during a voluntary search of the group's
offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco last fall.
A second round of searches Thursday, this time with search warrants,
produced a vast quantity of records, primarily dealing with financial
transactions, Smith said.  Further searches may be necessary and it
will be at least a month before any charges are filed, he said.
"The investigation, of course, will go wherever the facts lead us,"
the district attorney said.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI                                                TV made me do it!
arens@isi.edu
js
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: Red Army Fraction (RAF) communique
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 33
As quoted from <c115184.734895755@assn119> by c115184@cs.UAlberta.CA (Merth Eric William):
>
> >In article <C4vBM1.Gs0@NCoast.ORG>, cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
>
> >|>As quoted from <C4vCtB.J1H@dscomsa.desy.de> by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker):
> >|>
> >|>> Isn't it wonderfull the way people can make the sadistic and indescriminate
> >|>> murder of the Bader-Meinhof gang sound like altruism?
> >|>
> >|>Gee Phil, I'd remember where you are and that these people are monitoring the
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >|>net.  I'd also remember that they have about as much sense of humor as Ed
>    ^^^
>
> Damn. It isn't Big Brother after all? And all this time I thought that all
> those revolutionaries, while blowing things up and killing the odd
> innocent person in the process, really did love all us proles. ('cause
> _everybody knows_ that dialectical materialism will save you [even
> if it has to get you killed first]).
> What a fool I've been.
What you fail to see is that in order to make a nightmarish stew of psychosis
and repression, you have to break a few eggs.  You the evil productive
elements in society, are those eggs....
Damn the spirit, full speed ahead....
--
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Subject: CLINTON: Press Briefing by George Stephanopoulos 4.15.93
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA  02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 1135
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                  April 15, 1993
PRESS BRIEFING
BY GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
The Briefing Room
1:04 P.M. EDT
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Good afternoon.
Q	  Could we do this on the lawn?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That would be nice.  Let's go out
to the cherry blossoms.  We'll do like the President.
Q	  Is the stimulus package dead?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely not.
Q	  Can you tell us more about the Dole talks?  You
said it was a good visit, but no compromise.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.  The President had a good talk
with Senator Dole last night.  I think that as we said before, there
were no specific compromises on either side, although it was a very
good discussion about the jobs package and about other issues as
well.  As you know, the President first called Senator Dole I believe
Tuesday night to talk about the Russian aid package.  They did not
speak -- Senator Dole called him back Wednesday morning -- when the
President was out.  Instead he spoke with Tony Lake, and at the close
of that conversation, indicated that he wanted to speak to the
President about the jobs and stimulus package.  They finally talked
about that yesterday afternoon.
At the close of that discussion they said that they
would have another talk last night, which they did, when the Senator
was up in New Hampshire.  And although there were no specific
compromises made on either side, they did say that they would
continue to have some discussions.  And that's where we are.
Q	  Well, who is giving in?  Where is it standing --are
both making concessions?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that it's at that
phase.  No compromise has been made.  As the President has said
consistently, he intends to come forward with an adjusted package.
He believes in the package, but he believes that if it's going to
take adjustments to get the minority to release it, he's willing to
make those adjustments.
Q	  On the subject of a VAT --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, boy.
Q	  Can we stay on this for one more minute?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sure.
Q	  We have a problem with the five minutes --
Q	  I know no decisions have been made, but what would
lead the health group to believe that a VAT might be necessary?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Sorry, Andrea, I'm not going to go
down that road.  No decisions have been made.  As the President said
this morning, a number of groups, a number of members of Congress, a
number of other organizations have recommended that this be looked
at.  The working group is looking at it, but no decisions have been
made.
Q	  To follow, have they done that directly through
him?  Have labor and business groups been in touch with the President
about it?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, although
there's a lot of people who have public decisions in support of the
VAT.  But the President has not made a decision.
Q	  At the meetings that he's had with his own task
force advisers, have they discussed the funding issue and what the
possible options would be?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that that has been
presented for a decision, no.
Q	  Not for a decision, but has it been discussed as an
option?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, there are a lot of levels of
briefing.  I do not believe that the VAT has been presented to the
President as, okay, this is something for you to decide on.
Q	  You're not saying he didn't know it was being
considered, though, are you?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he said it's being considered.
Q	  He knew that.
Q	  But has he discussed that with his advisers?
That's what I'm asking.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has said it's being
considered.  I do not know what level of discussion there has been
over the VAT.  It is something the working groups are looking at.  I
don't even know that it's --
Q	  But he didn't say he was considering, did he, at
this stage?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, he is not.  I think we're
getting into something of a metaphysical debate right here.  What is
considered --
Q	  Well, he is the one who said, I haven't reviewed
it.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That is true.  That is what I just
repeated.
Q	  George, is there any concern here that as a result
of the definite statement he made in February and the promise that if
it were to be considered he'd let us know, and having it trickle out
the way it did, that there may now be the development of a
credibility gap on this issue and others?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think so.  I mean, it is
now public knowledge that this is being considered.
Q	  Is he or you at all embarrassed about the absolute
statements that were made from this platform to the effect that it
was off the table and was not being considered, and then to have it
come out not from you people, but --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, wait a second.  It came out
from the administration.  What are you talking about?
Q	  What I'm saying is, though, that the President said
he would let us know.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Right.
Q	  You people then said -- you said, I believe, that
it's not going to be on the program.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  On March 25th.
Q	  On March 25th.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Circumstances change.
Q	  Well, I understand.  But we have to find that out
by rooting around in the fine print of an interview
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Rooting around -- I know you did do
a very good job there to read the USA Today article.  But this is --
(laughter) -- the Deputy Director of the OMB and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.  I mean, that is common anytime you guys
write a story that has an unattributed quote from somebody in the
Clinton administration, the headline is -- I'll look at it right
here, and AP story -- "Clinton wants more money for spying."
Q	  What about his remark that if it were being
considered, he'd tell us about it?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  And the administration's concerned,
and he'd let you know.
Q	  And did he?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.  Absolutely.  What did he say
this morning?
Q	  It had to be dragged out of you here yesterday.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It didn't have to be dragged out of
me.  We had the Deputy Director of the OMB, we had the Secretary of
Health of Human Services say it was being considered.  That is his
administration.  That is his administration policy.
Q	  Were these authorized trial balloons, or were they
orchestrated leaks?  I mean, what was the --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They were asked questions, they
answered the questions.
Q	  You're saying here that it didn't have to be
dragged out, that you more or less made it clear yesterday you were
considering it.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Absolutely.  I was very clear.
Painfully clear.
Q	  Was there a particular political strategy in making
it clear the administration is considering a new tax increase on tax
day?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, it was just this issue is being
considered.  They were asked if it was being considered; they
answered that it was being considered.
Q	  George, The New York Times --
Q	  Why do it yesterday?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They were asked.
Q	  The New York Times reports today that Secretary
Reich and the chief economist at the Labor Department used apples and
oranges numbers in order to portray last month's unemployment figures
in a way that was supportive of the President's job stimulus bill,
but which turned out to be totally false.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if it was totally
false, but I think -- (laughter) -- the chief economist at the Labor
Department did grant that it was an inappropriate mixing, and they
say that.
Q	  The question is, is the President concerned about
behavior that amounts to corrupting government data?  And what's he
doing about it, if so?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The chief economist has said that a
mistake was made, it won't happen again, and that's the end of the
matter.
Q	  Isn't that the same information that goes to the
President?
Q	  If I could go back to the stimulus package --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There's two separate pieces of
information.  I think that's where the confusion was.
Q	  When did you all first learn about this mistake
that was made?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I read the article this morning.
Q	  And as far as you know, is the President aware of
it?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think so.
Q	  And was he aware of it before he read about it in
The New York Times?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  Not to my knowledge.
Q	  Did you ever hear about it before this morning?
Anything?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I didn't.
Q	  Wasn't the President given an erroneous spin on
this for his own purpose?  For his speeches, for his arguments?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well again, I'm not sure.  Both
statements are true.  What the Labor Department has granted is that
mixing them in one sentence, essentially, was misleading.  They said
it was a mistake.  They said they wouldn't do it again.
Q	  Did they drop it -- is this something that you
choose to spin or make an issue of?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Whenever fewer people are out of
work, we're gratified.  But that doesn't take away from the need to
get this jobs package going.
Q	  If I could go back to the stimulus package for a
minute.  You said that the President plans to come forward with an
amendment.  Is the timetable still what it was -- that the amendment
would be laid down on Monday and voted on on Tuesday, or did he, in
the conversation with Dole, talk about the possibility of putting
that off for a few more days to give more time for the discussion?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think at this point there's no
changes in the schedule at all.  I don't know that they discussed the
timing like that.
Q	  Do you believe that you're closer or getting closer
this week than you were last week?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I believe that we're going
to pass a jobs package.  The President is prepared to make
adjustments in order to get that to happen.  I don't know where the
votes are on cloture at this particular time.  I don't know what's
going to happen until we have a vote.  But the President believes
deeply in this jobs package and wants to get it done.
Q	  Has there been any indication that this situation
has changed?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're going to continue to work on
it.  We'll know when the votes are taken.
Q	  George, last week you said that there are -- or
various people in the administration were saying that you couldn't go
through Dole, you were going to have to try and go around him because
he was immovable on this subject of a compromise, or at least the
compromise he wanted was not anything like the one that you could
accept.  This week you're talking to him.  Is that because you've
realized that the peeling off effort wasn't going to work?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's because Senator Dole wanted
to talk to the President about the stimulus package.
Q	  He initiated the conversation?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  Secretary Reich this morning said that, in fact,
the President is not willing to compromise on this bill at all.  You
say he's making --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know that that's exactly
what he said.  I think he said he didn't have any indication that
there was any compromises yet or that there would be a compromise,
and the President doesn't want to compromise.  And the President
doesn't want to compromise.  But if he has to make adjustments to get
it through, he will.
Q	  Officials here yesterday said that Panetta was
working on a series of adjustments that might be made public before
the actual vote.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's possible.
Q	  Today?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure exactly when that will
happen, but I think that it's very possible that we'll come forward
with some sort of a different package, or Senate Democrats will come
forward with some sort of a different package in order to get it
passed.
Q	  As we understood his conversations with Dole, the
first one was some discussion of this and I'll get back to you
tonight with some details or some adjustments, or whatever the phrase
is.  Did he offer him some details or some adjustments?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it's a question of how
detailed.  I mean, I think they had a general discussion about the
package last night, subsequent to their conversation yesterday
afternoon.  I believe that there will be follow-up discussions today
in the Senate, not necessarily between the President and Senator
Dole.  And let me just reiterate, neither side has made specific
compromises at this date.  When we have something we'll let you know.
And I'm not suggesting that Senator Dole has accepted anything that
we've talked about or that we've offered anything in a hard way.
Q	  What are the follow-up discussions if not the
President and Dole?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think Senator Mitchell is going
to talk to Senator Dole.
Q	  Is that a threat?  (Laughter.)
Q	  Did the President say to Senator Dole, all right,
how about this number as an overall size, or did Dole say to the
President, I can go as high as this?  Did they talk numbers?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think it was a negotiation
in that respect.  It was more of a discussion about their positions.
Q	  Did they discuss actual numbers?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.  I know they
talked about the basic outlines of the packages.  I think they talked
about the programs they cared about.  I don't know if they got to the
level of this many x-billion dollars.
Q	  Does Dole have to sign off before there is a
package?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, of course not.
Q	  Did the White House have anything to do with the
protesters who showed up in New Hampshire today where Senator Dole
was speaking?  Was that in any way organized by --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not to my knowledge, no.
Q	  And has the President been in touch with Senators
Kohl or Feingold?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think he's talked to them,
no.
Q	  George, is the President considering the more
palatable fact of having a national sales tax instead of having the
haves having to continuously pay for the have-nots?  And is he going
to scrap his proposed tax on the privileged few, with the haves
having to pay for the have-nots?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes deeply that
the tax rates on upper income Americans, as he presented in his
budget, should go up.  And I think for the second half of your
question, I'll refer you to my briefing from yesterday.
Q	  George, on the subject of accuracy in information,
you suggested the other day that the stimulus package included money
that would solve the water problem in Milwaukee.  Apparently that is
not true.  It's actually waste water money.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's waste water money for
Wisconsin, and some could go to Milwaukee.
Q	  But it would not affect the drinking water problem
because it's waste water money, right?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It would affect the water treatment
overall.
Q	  But the implication from your statement the other
day was that it would help fix this disease problem in Milwaukee now.
Would you agree that's not the case?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure of the specifics.  I
know that it goes to the overall water treatment in Wisconsin.
Q	  A leftover question from this morning, which was,
when did the President find out that the task force was deliberating
on a VAT?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not sure exactly when.  I just
don't know.  I assume it came up over the last -- certainly between
the time that we had commented on in the past and two days ago.
Q	  So sometime since March 25th?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that's right.  I don't know
the exact date.
Q	  George, the President this morning mentioned that
some labor and business groups are for the VAT tax.  Apparently, the
National Association of Manufacturers talks about perhaps the VAT tax
being okay if it replaces the BTU tax.  So does the President feel
that perhaps this might be in place of some other tax he's proposed,
or is this totally in addition to the other taxes he's already
proposed?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think we've said all we have to
say about the VAT at this point.  I mean, there's just no -- this is
being considered by the health care working groups, and that is all.
The President hasn't made any further decisions beyond that.
Q	  But it would be to finance health care, it wouldn't
be to replace some other tax that finances -- it wouldn't replace the
income tax, for instance?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  There have been no discussions on
that.
Q	  In terms of getting a VAT tax through Congress,
Senator Dole's press release today said VAT -- on tax day.  Do you
think -- does it have a chance of getting through Congress?  Would it
have a chance?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I have no idea.
Q	  Is that a consideration whether you all put it
forward?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That would become a consideration
if the President were to decide to do it.  It's not in consideration
now.
Q	  You said at the beginning of the briefing that
circumstances had changed and that had caused the VAT to now be under
consideration.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, what the President referred to
this morning.  These groups came forward and said this is something
that has to be considered.
Q	  Those are the circumstances that have changed?
That's the only difference between now and when he emphatically ruled
it out that groups have asked it to be considered?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's what he said.
Q	  Is that true?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  Was there, in fact, some understanding that sin
taxes would not produce enough money for the health care benefits?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm not going to get into the
deliberations.
Q	  But, George --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  What the consideration is, as
the President said, groups came forward and said this is something
you ought to consider.  The working groups are looking at it.
Q	  Is that the only thing that's changed since his
prior statement and your prior statement on the VAT?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  Can you explain how those groups -- how that
information got to him that groups wanted it?  Was it just reading
the newspaper or did groups make presentations?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think the groups -- as you know,
the health care task force has met with dozens of groups.
Q	  But this is the President's knowledge that these
groups had come forward.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think he was referring to what
was coming to the working groups.  Obviously, there have also been
published positions in the newspapers.
Q	  Have certain groups briefed him on the group's
presentations to them?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they've briefed him
-- I mean, how detailed the briefings have been.    I know that the
working groups decided to look into this after being pressed by these
groups.
Q	  What kind of arguments did the groups make that
were persuasive enough that the President would change the position
that he had enunciated previously?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know, it's just they've had
longstanding positions that this would be a good way to finance
health care.
Q	  The President wasn't aware of those longstanding
positions?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He may have been at some level.
Obviously, he's been a governor for a long time and he knows the
basic arguments for and against a VAT tax.
Q	  What we're trying to figure out here -- you're
telling us that the only change, the only thing that affected this
change in the President's attitude toward the VAT between February
and now --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President's attitude hasn't
necessarily changed.  I mean, he has not made a decision.
Q	  I know, but the President said that it was off the
table.  So did you.  And you're saying that the only thing that's
changed is the positions of these groups, except you're also
describing them as longstanding positions.  I don't see the change.
If these groups haven't had any change in their position that's been
made to the President --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, they've made the
presentations to the health care task force.
Q	  There's no relationship at all between the fact
that sin taxes that he had said -- suggested in February that he
favored will not produce enough revenue to finance --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think he ever suggested
that they would produce all the revenue.
Q	  Well, he suggested that he thought that those were
appropriate ways to finance health care.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He did say that.  I don't know that
he said anything to refute that.
Q	  But, in fact, has the task force discovered that
there wouldn't be enough revenue from those taxes to finance the kind
of core benefits --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't think that the task
force ever suggested that there would.
Q	  George, if he advocated a VAT tax, would that break
his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his
programs?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I can't comment on a hypothetical
situation.
Q	  But does that promise -- would that promise not to
raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the programs prevent him
from seeking a VAT tax?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President has made no decisions
on the VAT tax.  When he does, we'll tell you and we'll explain the
implications then.
Q	  Which specific groups can you cite -- business,
labor or otherwise -- whose recommendations to the health care task
force has prompted this consideration?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't have the specific.  I just
don't have that.
Q	  George, can you tell us to what extend these other
alternatives, for instance, the employer tax or the sin taxes or
other financing options are also still on the table and what these
options are?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, as members of the task force
and representatives of the working groups have said, they are looking
at a wide variety of options.  I think that Ira Magaziner said that
there are 20 different options under consideration.  But I'm not
going to comment --
Q	  What's the scope --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not going to comment on
them, no.
Q	  What's the scope of the need?  How much are you
talking about that has to be produced by one or a combination of the
--
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  That's what the health care task
force is looking at.
Q	  Since there's not going to be any briefing on the
Miyazawa visit, two questions:  One, generally what does the
President hope to use that meeting for, but more specifically, is his
task complicated by the Japanese anger over the Vancouver note and
the remark about market access at the press conference?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The Vancouver note?
Q	  Does no mean yes.
Q	  Yes and no.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I don't know.  I saw the
Prime Minister's press conference where he was asked the question
about that note and he gave a very gracious and complete answer when
he was asked the question.  The questions of trade are something that
certainly will be discussed between the Prime Minister and the
President.  There is obviously a trade imbalance between Japan and
the U.S. that we want to do something about.
Q	  Also in those comments the Prime Minister made he
suggested that the United States should come down heavy on him in
terms of trade.  Are you going to oblige?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:   I think the President will state
our views on trade very clearly and our views on the trade deficit
very clearly.  I don't necessarily want to agree with your
characterization of the Prime Minister's comments.
Q	     that we need specific export targets, specific
numerical targets -- is that what he's going to discuss with
Miyazawa?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They're going to have a broad
discussion of a wide range of trade issues.  I don't want to get into
those specifics until after the meeting.
Q	  Why?
Q	   That's the crux of the issue, right?  Whether or
not -- does the President believe that without specific numerical
targets, it is really, as he said in his press conference, sort of
hopeless that this is going to change very much?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that we must
have pressure on Japan to turn the trade imbalance around.  I do not
want to get into the specifics of how that would be done.
Q	  But does the President believe that their stimulus
package announced yesterday will rectify the imbalance?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think, first, the President wants
to get a full briefing on the stimulus package from Prime Minister
Miyazawa himself, and then he'll make the comment on it.
Q	  How about the Russian aid package?  There seems to
be some confusion about how the U.S. views that, Secretary
Christopher saying -- or Bentsen saying the Japanese may need to do
more, the Japanese saying that that's not what they heard?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, we're going to continue to
work with all our allies in the G-7, and we're going to continue to
press for help for Russian reform, Russian democratic reform.  And I
think that, so far, we had a very good announcement out of Tokyo and
we're going to continue to work with our allies for bilateral
packages.
Q	  Do you think the Japanese need to do more?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're going to continue to work
with all our allies to do as much as we can.
Q	  Secretary Christopher was asked today on the Today
Show this morning what he thought of Margaret Thatcher's comments on
the Bosnia policy.  And he said, "It's a rather emotional response."
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Over an emotional issue.
Q	  Right -- to an emotional problem.  Does the White
House condone that kind of remark?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think that Secretary
Christopher's remarks speaks for itself.  The President believes also
that this is a deeply troubling situation that we're trying to find
answers for.
Q	  But that specific -- "rather emotional response" --
specific term?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, it speaks for itself.
Q	  In connection with that, doesn't it seem that with
the numbers of people who are being killed at this very moment, is it
good American policy to put off some decisions that might be made now
to help Boris Yeltsin win a referendum?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  For example?
Q	  To take stronger action, to take military action --
air strikes, anything that can be done?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  The President believes that what
must be done now is to push harder for sanctions.  He is also -- as
you know, the administration has been discussing lifting the arms
embargo.  He believes those are the appropriate ways to increase
pressure at this time.
Q	  What is your response to the critics who would say
that the U.S. is now stymied by trying to help Boris Yeltsin retain
the presidency?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They're wrong.  We're pressing hard
for the Serbs to come to the negotiating table.  We're pressing hard
for increased sanctions, and we're talking to our allies about the
arms embargo.
Q	  You were putting great store in Vance and Owen
getting people to agree to that.  Now, Vance and Owen have both said
that military force to some extent would be acceptable.  Does that
change your thinking?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Clearly, we're going to listen to
whatever people who have put so much time into a situation have to
say.  But at this point, the President is moving forward on sanctions
and talking about the arms embargo.
Q	  A follow-up on a Dee Dee comment this morning.  She
said she would be able to provide some administration officials who
could document the effect the sanctions are having in Bosnia.  Are
you going to be able to do that, or do you have anything --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that's what she said.
Q	  That's exactly what she said.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think that's true.  But
what she said -- we would look into the situation of what kind of
evidence can be provided in Bosnia.  Obviously, if there are
connections between the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs in Belgrade and
we are tightening the screws on the Serbs in Belgrade, that will have
an effect over time.  I do not know day by day, minute by minute,
what kind of help is being given between the two and what the exact
effect has been.   But, clearly, we are slowing the shipment of goods
into Belgrade.  We are having an effect on the Serbs there.  What
kind of effect that will eventually have on the Bosnian Serbs I don't
know.  But one thing I would say is if it were having no effect at
all, I don't know why they'd be fighting it so much.
Q	  Are the First Lady's tax returns going to be
released?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think there's a joint tax return.
And it will be probably later today.
Q	  Is the President considering signing an executive
order banning discrimination against homosexuals in the federal work
force as part of the gay rights march here next week?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think there's any proposal
for that at this time, not that I know of.
Q	  It's something that the President promised during
the campaign that he would do.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I have not seen any -- I don't
think it's anything that's on his plate right now.
Q	  Is he meeting with gay rights leaders at any point
on this issue?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know about on this issue.
I assume that he'll meet with representatives of the gay and lesbian
community sometime soon, as he meets with representatives of lots of
different groups and communities.
Q	  Do you know if that's scheduled --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's probably going to be tomorrow.
Q	  Probably going to be tomorrow?  (Laughter.)
Q	  It's a good thing you asked.
Q	  Who's probably going to be there?  (Laughter.)
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.
Q	  How long --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know.  That's all I know.
Q	  Do you know if it's at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow?
(Laughter.)
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know what time it is.  I
don't even know for sure if it's going to be tomorrow.
Q	  Environmental groups have asked him to make a major
speech next week of some kind.  Is that going to happen, do you know?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if they've asked, but
I think the President has always planned, as he did last year, to
give a speech on Earth Day and I expect that he will.  If it's not
exactly on Earth Day, it might be a day before or something like
that.
Q	  Is he planning to sign or announce the signing of
the biodiversity treaty in connection with Earth Day?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know the specific
timing of something like that, but it's certainly something under
discussion and something we've been working on.
Q	  Campaign finance reform?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We're working on it.
Q	  Do you think it will be next week?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm just not sure.
Q	  The biodiversity treaty is something you're working
on?  I missed the question.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes, something we're working on.
He asked if it was ready to be signed, and I said I didn't know
anything about that but it's something we've certainly been working
on.
Q	  Do you know what organizations might be represented
in this meeting with the gay and lesbian groups?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't.
Q	  Do you know if he is going to reconsider being out
of town on the day of the march?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's got to be at the Senate
meeting in Jamestown, and I believe he's also going to be giving a
speech to the American Association of Newspaper Publishers in Boston
on Sunday, as he did last year.
Q	  Would you have told us if she had not pressed you
on the question?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  On what?
Q	  On the gays.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  When we went through the
President's schedule for the day, certainly.
Q?	    George, what day is the publisher's speech?  Is
that Sunday?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think it's a Sunday.
Q	  And Saturday he'll be in Jamestown?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  So you're just going to be in Jamestown for one
day?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No, I'm not sure.  I don't know how
long the Senate thing goes.  It might go overnight.  I just don't
know.
Q	  You would have made the gay meeting public, right?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm certain if we had the meeting
-- I don't know about open to the press, but we would have told you
about it.
Q	  I mean, because it is, as far as I can tell, the
first time in history a President has met in the Oval Office with --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I didn't say it was going to be in
the Oval Office.  (Laughter.)  But I didn't -- I'm not say that it's
not, but I didn't say that it was.  (Laughter.)
Q	     at the White House in the Bush administration
gay officials were invited to a bill signing ceremony and the White
House had to repudiate having done that.  So I just wanted to make
sure --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, the President wouldn't do
anything like that.
Q	  Certainly not.
Q	  What marching orders did the President give to
General Vessey?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  They had a very good discussion for
about half an hour today.  He wanted -- the most important thing was
he had a full accounting for American POWs and MIAs.  He will
obviously look into the circumstances surrounding this new document.
The President stressed that he wanted the fullest possible accounting
and said that only when we have that can we even consider any changes
in our policy towards Vietnam.  He'll be looking at Vietnam's
response to the questions raised by the document and he'll also look
into investigations on discrepancy cases, increased efforts on
remains, implementing trilateral investigations -- and access to
military archives.
And Ambassador Toon also briefed the President on the
activities of the joint commission and on the document.
Q	  Vietnam says it's a fake.  What is the DOD analysis
at this stage?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  It's not completed yet, and it's
also the first thing that General Vessey will bring up with the
Vietnamese.
Q	  A number of Defense officials have been saying that
they think that the 600 or so prisoners referred to are, in fact,
non-Americans that the Vietnamese had captured who they referred to
as Americans from time to time.  Do people --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  We don't have any final
determination.  We're going to wait for the complete review; when we
have it, we'll make a judgment.
Q	  I know you don't have any final determination, but
given all of the intense public interest in this, do you think that
that's a likely possibility?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I just don't want to characterize
it in any way until the review is complete.
Q	  George, was there a topic scheduled for the speech
in Boston?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.
Q	  Is the President going to have a press conference
tomorrow with Miyazawa?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I think so, but I'm not positive.
Yes, I expect, yes.
Q	  Was Toon in with Vessey?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  He was in on the meeting?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  What was the question?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Was Ambassador Toon in with Vessey,
and the answer is yes.
Q	  Do you have any response to The Wall Street Journal
report this morning the President's distressed about some of his
press clippings and that perhaps he's distressed with you about that?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  No.  Well, I do have a response.  I
think the article was highly misleading to the extent that it implied
that the President has had restricted access to the press.  I would
point out that he's answered 358 questions on 77 occasions, more than
any of his predecessors. I would also point out it also --
Q	  How many questions?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Three hundred fifty-eight, on 77
occasions.
Q	  How many were while he was jogging?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, no, that's actually a very
good question, Andrea.  And I would point out further that the
article also implied that these questions were only answered at
tightly controlled photo opportunities, which is just patently false.
He's had 13 press conferences in either the East Room, the Oval
Office or the Roosevelt Room or the Briefing Room, in addition to
questions taken at photo opportunities, and that is only the --
Q	  Oval Office press conference -- when was that?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's answered questions in the --
East Room.  He's had five in the East Room, he's had one in the Oval
Office, he's had one in the Rose Garden, he's had one or two in the
Roosevelt Room.  And this is just to the White House, Washington
Press Corps.  In addition to that, he's had 17 interviews with local
television anchors.  He's met with the editorial board of The
Portland Oregonian.  He's had an hour-long interview with Dan Rather.
He's had interviews with local press from California, Florida and
Connecticut --
Q	  Can you address the question of the attitude?  The
article implies that he doesn't --
Q	  Why doesn't he like us?  (Laughter.)
Q	  Did you really get blamed for that Post story?
Q	  The story is that you -- are you held responsible
for it.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think I'm going to comment
about this.
Q	  Are you denying that the President has shown
displeasure publicly?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I am not commenting on the
discussions between the President and myself.
Q	  Did the President write that letter to Chris
Webber?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  What?
Q	  The letter to the University of Michigan basketball
player?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Oh, yes.
Q	  That is an authentic letter?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  Since the President first talked about the VAT in
February, he said at the time that he thought there probably should
be exceptions made in basic necessities such as food and clothing.
Does he still hold that position given the impact it could have?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I just can't comment on a
proposal he hasn't made.
Q	  George, does the President have some agenda for
this meeting with the gay leaders tomorrow?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, I think it will just a
general meeting on the wide range of issues that they care about
including AIDS and other issues -- civil rights.
Q	  The military issue?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I'm certain it will come up.
Q	  Is he using this event to name the AIDS --
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't think so.
Q	  George, what specifically is the President doing to
prepare for tomorrow's meeting with the Prime Minister Miyazawa?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  He's had briefing memos.  He's had
general discussions with members of the Treasury Department, the
Trade Representative and others.
Q	     report yet?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  I don't know if he has the report
referred to in The Times, but Ambassador Kantor was here to brief him
today.
Q	  He was?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Yes.
Q	  Does he intend to use any of these instances that
--
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Again, I don't know that the
report's been presented.  But obviously, the President will press
hard in any case where he thinks that a violation has occurred.
Q	  In terms of the Wall Street Journal, the thrust was
that there's a real schism here -- a hostility.  Do you think he
feels that way?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  Not at all.  As I said on the
record in the article, I think the President likes reporters.  Again,
I think that the thrust of the article was still misleading.  The
thrust of the article was that in some way, some attitude which the
President may or may not have is affecting access when, in fact, he
has the most open, accessible administration than have any in recent
history.
Q	  Can we come up to your office?  (Laughter.)
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:  If you're invited.
THE PRESS:  Thank you.
END                    1:34 P.M. EDT
#57-04/15
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Drug Use Up At Younger Age
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Keywords: youths drugs LSD inhalants
Lines: 62
The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14,
1993 issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up At Younger Age" by Mike
Snider, p. 1A).
Drug use is on the rise among kids as young as eighth graders -
usually 13 - and they're using more LSD and inhalants like glue
and air fresheners, says a new survey.
The annual National High School Senior Survey on Drug Abuse finds
"statistically significant increases" in eighth-graders' use of
many drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, crack, LSD and inhalants.
"We may be in danger of losing some ... hard-won ground (in reducing
drug use) as a new, more naive generation of youngsters enters
adolescence," says Lloyd Johnston, University of Michigan, chief
researcher on the study sponsored by the Department of Health and
Human Services.
But drug use among high school seniors is continuing a decade-long
decline.
The study of 50,000 students shows the percentage who tried the
following in the 30 days before they were polled:
* 8th-graders  - alcohol 26%; cigarettes 16%; marijuana 4%;
cocaine 0.7%.
* 10th-graders - alcohol 40%; cigarettes 22%; marijuana 8%;
cocaine 0.7%.
* 12th-graders - alcohol 51%; cigarettes 28%; marijuana 12%;
cocaine 1.3%.
Among 12th-graders, use of marijuana, cocaine and inhalants
declined over the year before.  Not so with LSD.
* 2% of eighth-graders have tried LSD in the last year, up 24%
over 1991.
* Use of LSD among seniors is at its highest point since 1982; 6%
tried it in the last year.
Reducing drug use among students "requires a different kind of
strategy" that Health Secretary Donna Shalala says will be part
of an overall illness prevention plan.
The survey shows drugs are easier to get and fewer eighth-graders
disapprove of them.
"It's scary," Shalala says.  "Dealers are focusing on younger, more
vulnerable kids."
Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
[the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: We're winning the war on drugs.  Not!
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Keywords: drugs DEA WOD legalization
Lines: 140
The DEA and other organizations would have the American people
believe that we are winning the "war on drugs".  I'm going to
dispel the propaganda that the DEA is putting out by showing
you the drug war's *real* status. To help prove my assertions
I've also posted two articles from USA Today that clearly
demonstrate that drug use among certain age groups *is* on the
rise.  If WOD is working, as we're led to believe, then drug
abuse should have gone down substantially by now.  The reality
is, is that it has not gone down very much.  If anything,
substance abuse is on the rise.  I'm also going to supply a
possible solution to this problem.
The following text is an excerpt from an article about rock music
and pot entitled "Hello Again, Mary Jane" which appears in the
current issue of Time magazine (April 19, 1993, p. 59).
Law-enforcement officials say pot advocates are just blowing
smoke when they talk about the comeback of the weed.  "Perhaps
because of the change of administrations, the marijuana lobby
is out in full force," says Robert Bonner, head of the Drug
Enforcement Administration.  "The fact is, they're losing the
battle."  In 1985 more than 23% of youths ages 12 to 17 said
they smoked marijuana; in 1991 that figure was 13%, and Bonner
says it is still falling.  Bonner also offers a reminder that
studies confirm such marijuana health risks as destruction of
nerve cells in the brain and lung damage.
The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike
Snider, p. 6D).
Adolescents' choices
Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
Estimated, per 100 students
1991     1992   Pct. chg.
Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16%
Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%
Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
1993 report
We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one
of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that
the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics---
only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone
down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is
an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to
deceive the public.
Usage of *one* particular drug may have gone down but at the same
time usage of other drugs may have gone *up* (a.k.a. substitution).
Also, drug usage among *one* particular age group may have gone down
but drug usage among another age group may have gone *up*.  Therefore,
if one takes a look at the big picture, taking into consideration *all*
the statistics, then it's obvious that the so-called "war on drugs" is
being lost.  Perhaps the drug war is being won as far as illegal drugs
go, but if one factors in alcohol abuse, smoking, and use of inhalants,
then the magnitude of the drug problem in this country can then placed
in its true perspective.
For those of you who don't consider alcohol to be a drug then try
drinking a fifth of whiskey sometime and then come back and tell me
that it's not a drug.  Agencies like the DEA only go after *illegal*
drugs.  This is one of the reasons why the drug war is a fruitless
attempt at preventing substance abuse---people will merely switch to
another drug if the one they were using becomes scarce or unpopular.
The solution to the drug abuse problem in this country may be to
legalize some---not all---drugs whose toxicity has been shown to be
within reasonable limits (you won't drop dead after using it a few
times) and then couple this with a massive drug education program.
The reason why I think legalization is *part* of the solution is
because people seem to be able to easily obtain drugs despite the
government's efforts to the contrary---the money spent on drug
interdiction could be spent more effectively elsewhere (e.g., drug
education).  Additionally, legalization would reduce crime because
the profit motive would be taken out of drug trafficking which often
goes along with other kinds of crime.  Not to mention the fact that
addicts would have less reason to prey on innocent people for their
money and posessions in order to support their expensive habit;
legalization would cause the street price of drugs to fall
substantially so drugs would be much more affordable to addicts.
IMHO, the way to reduce substance abuse is to do to drugs what has been
done to smokers:  make drug use socially unacceptable rather than try to
employ heavy-handed law enforcement and punish people by incarcerating
them.  As you already know, people in the U.S. smoke a lot less than
they used to.  This reduction in the number of smokers has been brought
about by public awareness campaigns, laws restricting where people can
light up, warning labels on cigarette packages, taxation on tobacco in
order to reduce consumption, and so on.  I propose that similar methods
be used to reduce substance abuse after legalization has been carried
out.  They are as follows:
* Drugs being sold must come with clear, concise information which
states the possible health hazzards involved with using this
product and recommendations on how the drug should be used.
Things like dosage levels and how long the drug should be used
ought to accompany the packaging the drug is contained in.
* All drugs should be taxed at a rate that generates a lot of
revenue but not so high as to encourage people to acquire drugs
through illegal channels.  Part of the revenue collected from
drug taxes should be used to fund drug education and law
enforcement.
* Make it a felony to sell drugs to minors (people under the age of
18).  Anyone can sell drugs but they must not dodge paying the
taxes on drugs or sell drugs with the warning information absent.
Failure to pay the appropiate taxes on drugs or omitting warning
information should also be a felony.
* Establish a government agency whose job is to insure that the
purity and safety of all drugs is as high as possible.  This
agency would try to prevent people from getting a hold of bad
drugs---something that is a fairly serious problem now.
I'm sure that many of the things I've discussed in this article have
been hashed out before in this newsgroup.  Nevertheless, I thought
it was a good idea to give my two cents (actually a buck and a half...)
all at once so you could get a good idea of where I currently stand on
WOD.  Go ahead and tear into my post; I'm sure there is something in it
that you may wish to take a different view on or flame. :) :) :)  BTW,
I posted the articles from USA Today to not only help prove my
assertions but also to provide information on LSD usage among youths---
something which I noticed some posters to this group were interested in.
Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
[the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eighth-graders
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Keywords: youths drugs LSD inhalants
Lines: 87
The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. eighth-graders" by Mike
Snider, p. 6D).
A new national survey says drugs are easier to get, more teens are
using them and fewer deem drug use as risky.
For the last two years, government officials have trumpeted results
from the National High School Survey as signs that the drug war is
being won.  But this year, officials are retreating - drug use by
eighth-graders has risen, according to the survey of 50,000 students
nationwide.
Possible reason for the increase:  more experimentation.  Why?  If
drug use dropped during the '80s, eventually some students will
have fewer "drug-using contemporaries" who act as examples of
substance abuse's drawbacks, says social psychologist Lloyd Johnston,
one of the survey authors.  Each new wave of youths "must be given
the knowledge, skills and motivation to resist using these drugs,"
Johnston says.
This type of resurgence "is possible," says Eileen Shiff, author of
"Experts Advise Parents" (Delta, $14.95).  But that's not the issue,
she says.  The prevalence of alcohol and drugs among teens today
could result in more alcoholic adults decades from now.
Aggravating the problem:  baby boomer parents - who experimented with
drugs and alcohol as teens - trying to be friends, not parents, to
their children.  "I've even seen parents serving kegs of beer" to
their underage kids and friends, Shiff says.  For a recent graduation,
Shiff and other parents organized an all-night, "lock-in" party where
no booze or drugs were allowed.  "We need to fulfill that parental
role, otherwise the peer group takes over," she says.
Officials may "talk about the war on drugs, but they really haven't
done anything that I've seen," says Suzanne Linkous, Scottsdale,
Ariz., 16, a volunteer who talks with teens about drugs, dating and
other issues on a peer counseling and suicide hot line.  Linkous, a
member of USA Today's Teen Panel, says "there's always going to be
experimentation" with drugs.
A real war on drugs could be waged "education-wise," she says.  But
"some don't want to give kids the facts.  They think it will give
them ideas; it's the same with birth control.  I think you should
give the kids the information or have it accessible" through classes,
pamphlets and speakers, she says.
Education efforts need to start as soon as kids get in school - in
kindergarten, says Dallas Owens, 17, teen panelist from Miami Shores,
Fla.  "I remember in kindergarten, I used to see (drugs).  I think
kids in the 10th and 12th grades have already made up their minds
(about using drugs)," he says.
Scare tactics in public service announcements aren't working; only
one commercial has gotten it right, he says.  The commercial opens
with two "good-looking girls" in the restroom talking about having
no prom date.  Then they take a hit off a joint.  "That hits home
because it's not attractive," he says.  "You can't be doing drugs if
you want somebody to like you."
Adolescents' choices
Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
Estimated, per 100 students
1991     1992   Pct. chg.
Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16%
Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%
Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
1993 report
Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
Before:  "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
the Bible through the barrel of a gun..."  --ATF spokesman
After:   "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
[the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..."  --Me
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: The Manitoban Candidate
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: PhDs In The Hall
Lines: 32
smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>bross@sandbanks.cosc.brocku.ca (Brian Ross) writes:
>
>> In the world of the future, Bill Clinton will appoint Canadians to
>> govern all American institutions (starting with the American health
>> care system).  We will be benevolent Canadian dictators.
>
>With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
>pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
>that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
>shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
>time between 1966 and 1968, tutored him in the ways of Canadian
>socialism, awarded him with smokeless marijuana cigarettes when he got
>the correct answers, then returned him to the states (under the
>control of the domineering wife assigned to his case) to attain high
>public office and destroy the evil individualistic and free market
>forces in America, thus shaping America in the Canadian image.
And not only that, made a second clone from the same tissue sample
after that of said domineering wife, to run at the helm of the
more-pro-business party under guise of more free trade ... and
she did inhale, many times, to boot ...
(-; (-; (-;
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
From: vlad@netcom.com (Vladimir Kuznetsov)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Lines: 22
In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
>--
Yes, I saw today in 6 o'clock news on KCBS here in San Francisco
this statistic quoted.
2.2% men had sex with another man.
1.3% cinsider themself homosexual.
I understand of course that because this statistic goes against
common believe and not PC-correct it must be complete BS.
Thx
vlad
--
Vladimir Kuznetsov                         (408)252-5455
Natural Intelligence Consulting            vlad@netcom.COM
73437,3344@compuserve.com
vkuznetsov@mci.com
From: texx@ossi.com (Robert "Texx" Woodworth)
Subject: Re: CA's pedophilia laws
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
Lines: 54
NNTP-Posting-Host: nym.ossi.com
#1
Clayton, my man...
You are a tad out of touch....
First, gay comunities all over the country are in the process of excluding NAMBLA
from parades etc.
#2
Nobody from NAMBLA is gonna get a job in a day care centre.  The same liberals you are
upset about are also passing laws that make tough background checks for childcare
people.
#3
Tell me, how would you feel if your employer fired you for your antigay post on the
internet?  Would you be upset ?  I`ll bet you would be pissed!
To some, your posts ,ight make the company look bad.
While your posts offend me I dont think it would be right for you to get fired over
it.
I dont believe the gay comunity is asking for hiring quotas like the affirmative
action laws of the 60's did.
My understanding is that the gay community just wants the same rights the srtraights
have.  I dont think people should have their leases cancelled when their landlord
finds out they are gay.  I dont think that when someone sees someone walk out of
a gay business and then blabs it all over work that the gay person gets fired.
Do you REALLY think these are justified ?
#4
Clayton, I am told you are a parent a couple times over.
Have you been following the strip in the paper "For Better or For Worse" ?
I honestly want your opinion as a parent on the strip.
Do you really care about your childeren
as much as friends of mine tell me ?  How much do you care about your childeren ?
How much do you care about other people's childeren?  Do you care about MY childeren?
Do you care about my sister's childeren ?
If one of your kids told you he/she was gay, would you throw them out of your home
in the middle of the night?
Would you approve of your childeren driving down to San Francisco to trow bottles
at and beat up on gay people?  Would you condone your childeren beating up on someone
elses childeren ?
I await your answers to these queastions.  PLease no flaming...
This is to be a civilised discussion, from one father to another.
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Nntp-Posting-Host: next4.cs.umr.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 13
In article <Apr.15.21.39.43.1993.8726@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>(discrediting Kinsey) says so.
Wow, does this mean 2 out of 5 homosexuals will be at the March
on Washington?  How *very* interesting.
cpk
--
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.
From: kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 34
Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer;
I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there.
Eliminate the C-17 transport. Overwight, overdue, overbudget, it was
supposed to carry tanks. New tanks are now too big for the airplane.
Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine. The breakup of the USSR has
left us with a number of sticky military problems, but NONE of them will
require "God's gift to submarines".
Ground the B-2 stealth bomber. I'm sure it's a great airplane that will do
EVERYTHING its designers said, but at half-a-gigabuck a copy, we can't
afford for even ONE to crash. And airplanes DO crash.
Elmo Zumwalt said it best 20+ years ago; "High/Low". A MIX of a FEW
extremely capable weapons systems and a LOT of CHEAPER,
moderate-capability systems.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Mitchell       | The powers not delegated to the United States by the
kmitchel@netcom.com| Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
Citrus Heights, CA | reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics
Lines: 27
In article <mattm-140493165729@mcmelmon.apple.com>, mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Anyway, I was under the impression that the Marines
> in question invited Clinton down for the same treatment.  While a
> bar fight is a bar fight, threatening the Commander in Chief seems
> a rather unprofessional thing for a professional soldier to do...
>
>
Also, it appears that two of the three Marines have some sort of charges
pending against them from another fight they were in a week before.
Interesting.
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R. Chloupek
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University)
"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:
somebody else's place."
--P.J. O'Rourke
From: chloupek@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics
Lines: 48
In article <1993Apr14.152634.16128@pony.Ingres.COM>, jab@Ingres.COM (jeff bowles) writes:
> tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
>>questions like "what kind of sexual perversions do you participate in?"
>>and you think he made a good case????? The arresting officer said the
>>bastards told him they did it on purpose and hoped the victim would die,
>>and you think the defense made a good case????? No wonder we're losing!
>>We're aparently not trying to win!
>
> The clip I saw was even worse than that. The defense attorney was asking
> something like "what have you done to serve YOUR country, as compared to
> these fine upstanding examples of patriotism?"
>
> I didn't see the response; I don't think it was shown on TV. I wish the
> response had been "I vote. I pay taxes. I pay my salary. I support the Bill
> of Rights, unlike you, Counselor."
>
> In my dreams :-(
>
> Now, the real question is, could this be a federal civil rights case, since
> the state case was a sham? (Sound like a well-known Los Angeles trial?) Probably
> not: fags and dykes aren't protected (for being fags and dykes) under civil
> rights laws.
>
>
I would doubt any civil rights case would be in order for the point that you
mentioned.  Even if it were possible, I think it is a bad idea since it smacks
real strongly of double jeopardy.  A civil case for damages is fine since that
is a trial that would proceed regardless of the first.  I think a bad precedent
has already been set in the King trial in L.A. and something like this would
make it worse.  Regardless of how bad anybody feels about this decision, it
must stand that charges of assault were not not proven against the three
marines and that's how it should stand.
Frank (who is still mad, but now somewhat sane)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R. Chloupek
CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University)
"There is only one hard-and-fast rule about the place to have a party:
somebody else's place."
--P.J. O'Rourke
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Nntp-Posting-Host: next4.cs.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr16.030703.23005@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but any parent/parents who do not allready
>immunize their children (especially if it is already free), don't deserve one
>frigging dime of tax money for health care for themselves, or public health
>care service.
>
>(I know the immunization program and the coming national health care issue are
>slightly seperate issues, but anybody who wouldn't help their kids, don't
>deserve my tax help).
Hmmmmm......what about their kids?
cpk
--
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 63
In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them
together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]
>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the
>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>
>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>condition.
Part of what started this was my earlier example of Illinois, USA requiring
anyone doing more than X automobile transfers a year (X = 10, I think)
to become licensed as a used car dealer.  In addition, it requirs anyone
with a used car dealer's license to own at least 10 cars at a time, all the
time.
Let me continue with this example and try to answer Steve's questions.
Steve, let's say you have the talent and inclination to fix up and resell
cars.  Either you've gotten good enough at it in your spare time to bump
up against these limits, or you would like to do it full-time but these
stupid, arbitrary laws prevent you from starting out small and pulling
yourself up.  So I'm protected from a hungry neighborhood competitor willing
to take a low profit while working extra hard to fulfill my needs, and you're
protected from doing what you want with your life.
Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:
Your money is truly yours; it belongs to you.  You can use it to buy a car.
If you use it to buy a car, it is truly your car; it belongs to you.  You
can use your money to fix up that car.  Since it is your car, you can sell
that car.
Your life is truly yours; it belongs to you.  It matters not if someone
thinks that it's "wrong" for you to buy and sell 10 cars within 12 months
rather than, say, 9 cars.  They may dissaprove, but it is not their life or
their money, it is your life and your money.
My money is truly mine; it belongs to me.  I can use it to buy a car.
Perhaps your car.  Perhaps that 10th car, the one that someone, somewhere
dissaproves of you selling and, presumably, of me buying.
That someone could go to the government and insist that the government make
us stop it.  But the government would be powerless to stop us from doing
what we like with our own property, in the abscence of fraud or agression.
And it would be powerless to stop us from associating with each other.
This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.
Thanks awfully,
Patrick
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Signs That It's the Age of Aquarius on Pennsylvania Avenue
Nntp-Posting-Host: next4.cs.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 79
In article <1ql7tuINN8j8@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> chaudhary-amar@yale.edu (Amar Chaudhary) writes:
>
>Here's my own top ten response to Mr. Ipser's list
>
>8.   It just so happens that that it takes money to make this country work,
>     to provide the services that people need, and to help solve the problems
>     that need to be solved.  Granted, some things can probably be done more
>     efficiently for less money, and should be.  But some things are going to
>     cost more money and I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whining about
>     taxes all the time.  You want to live in my country, you pay your fair
>     share!
Some people pay shares that are more "fair" than others, and will continue
to do so, even with the presence of President Clinton.  Until the rich
elite *hurt* from taxes and shower me with their blood dripping from the
wound of the tax dagger, I will scream and yell.  Because, taxes are
killing the poor and middle-class, and I'm tired of the wealthy getting
a free ride in this country.  Sure, they pay a lot of taxes, but I want
them to SHARE MY PAIN!!
And, not even Slick Willy is *that* fair, is he, seeing that he and his
wife qualify as one of those wealthy people I was talking about?  [They're
on the lower end of "wealthy", but "wealthy" they are.]
>7.   I can't believe what hypocrites people are when they ask people to give
>     up their lives for their country and then complain about taxes.  If you're
>     willing to send me off to die for some stupid obsession with fighting an
>     enemy which at best doesn't affect us and at worst really should be our
>     friend, then you have no right to tell me you shouldn't pay taxes!
Yah, I think the draft for Vietnam was a sack of shit.  But, do we get
to pick and choose which laws we obey, Mr. Chaudhary?  If so, shall we
set up a "you follow the laws you like, and I'll follow the laws I
like" arrangement?
>6.   Hey, I think the beaded curtains add a lovely 60's-esque touch!
I never thought much of beaded curtains.
Now beaded seat-covers, on the other hand....
>5.   [Health care is a human right--deleted]
I didn't think I was going to respond to this, but I changed my mind.
Tell me, why do you think health care is a human right?
This isn't a flame or anything, I just wonder.  Next thing you know,
free public transportation will be a human right.  Maybe membership
at prestigious health spas?
[Sorry to grease the hill on ya there....]
>4.   Make love, not War!
Be sure and wrap that wanker when you go spreadin' that free love stuff
around.  (Or, after the FDA gets its thumb out of its ass, use that neat
new "Reality" femi-condom.)
>3.   Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a male and a feminist
>     at the same time.  To discriminate against or to deny equal opportunity
>     to a MAJORITY of the population is just plain wrong, and trying to force
>     them into some sort of tradition role is even worse.  Women certainly
>     have as much to offer this world as men, and the day that gender
>     discrimination is finally broken it going to make all the revolutions of
>     the past few centuries seem like reform bills.  I look forward to it.
So do I.  Amen.  And all that.
>1.   HEY MAN, ACADAMIA RULES!!
What the hell is an "acadamia" anyway?  Is that like a macadamia?
cpk
--
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Nntp-Posting-Host: next4.cs.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 84
In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
[purile babble deleted]
Well, some form of guaranteed health care isn't a bad idea, but,
yah, I'm a bit worried of a gubnint-run HMO myself.  I'd much
rather have something like Canada has [and I'll *belt* anyone
who tells me to move to Canada :)], but since people will yell
and scream "NO!!! NOT ONE LIKE CANADA HAS!!!", we're
probably all screwed.
>      BROMEISTER PREDICTED:
>
>	  " $1,000 per middle class taxpayer in NEW TAXES "
>
>          " A NATIONAL SALES TAX "
Impressive.
Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you
will:
1.  The sun will rise tomorrow.
2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show.
3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.
Chances are, I'll get at least one of those right, if I'm lucky.
I may even get two.
>      Now, for more AAMMMAAAAZZZZZZIINNNNGGGGG Predictions!
>
>      i)   The NST will be raised from 3% to 5% by 1996.
>	   Ooops.  They ALREADY DID it.
>
>	   Okay, then.  The NST will be raised from 5% to 7% by 1996.
Can't argue with you there.  Once the gubnint has its hands in yer
pocket, they just can't help but feel around a bit....
>      ii)  Unemployment will rise!
Oh, no SH**?!  You mean, our weakened economy will collapse in
the face of all this gubnint tax-and-spending, and everyone will
be in the handout line?  You're a GENIUS!!
>      iii)  Tax revenues will decline.  Deficit will increase!
>	    We'll get another DEFICIT REDUCTION PACKAGE by 1997!
>	    Everyone will DANCE AND SING!
Deficit reduction.  Spending cuts via fee increases?
>      To paraphrase Hilary Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
>      the middle class to pay for my programs "
>
>      To paraphrase Bill Clinton - " I will not raise taxes on
>      the middle class to pay for my programs "
No, any first-year PoliSci major will tell you that the Prez
*never* raises taxes.  Congress does it.
All those who voted the Clinton ticket get to wear this *new*
label.....
+----------------+
|     SUCKA!     |
|                |
|  Made in USA   |
+----------------+
Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*
cpk
--
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?
Nntp-Posting-Host: next4.cs.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 29
In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>
>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
>1980 election.
>
>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame,
>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
>
>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more than
>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples'
>books.  What a joke.
Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?
Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into
the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE
DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax
leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.
Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in
Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.
I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in
Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)
cpk
--
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion feminist leader endorses trashing of free speech rights
Nntp-Posting-Host: next4.cs.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 9
Do the words "chilling effect" stimulate impulses within that
small collection of neurons you call a brain?
cpk
--
It's been 80 days.  Do you know where your wallet is?
Slick Willy's already got his hand in my pocket.  I'm just afraid
of what he might grab hold of.
From: de@cup.hp.com (Dan Epstein)
Subject: Re: Foreign Media Reaction April 1-12, part 1 of 3
Nntp-Posting-Host: capella.cup.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9.2]
Lines: 19
Phill Hallam-Baker (hallam@dscomsa.desy.de) wrote:
: First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the
: Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil
: production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment
: Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would
: use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.
I agree with most of what Phill says, except the point about it being in
our interests to bring down the oil price.  Consider that both the U.S.
and Great Britain have domestic sources to partly satisfy
their energy needs.    Pricy OPEC oil impacts both Germany,
Japan and many other "industrial rivals" more than these two.
In addition, the proceeds from the sale (especially by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
U.A.E. etc) are disproportionately reinvested in the U.S. and G.B.,
propping up these economies and further providing an incentive
to keep prices from falling too low.
Dan Epstein
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cramer's 'Evidence'
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Lines: 17
In article <philC5HsII.GFt@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
writes:
>Naw, I think you are. While both organizations may, on paper, support the
>abolition of the age of consent, there the resemblance stops.
>One supports the removal of a coercive law, the other a paper facade
>to "legitimize" sexual relations with children.
I get it.  One organization wants to abolish age of consent laws,
whereas in contrast the other wants to abolish age of consent laws.
This makes it respectable to belong to one organization, but not the
other.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Subject: Representation of Territories? (Was: Re: The $11,250,000,000,000 lunch)
Distribution: tx
Organization: None
Lines: 31
boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
> In article <ws0s2B1w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
(Chris Winemiller) writes:
> > BTW, is anyone besides myself peeved that non-US citizens (Puerto
> > Ricans, etc.) are very close to having full representation in the U.S.
> > House of Representatives?
> >
>
>    Sorry Chris, Puerto Ricans are US citizens.
OK.  I stand corrected.  I guess, then, that the comments about payoffs
(i.e., "pork") to Puerto Ricans that others have been making still
stands?
Now, everybody, how about some opinion on the following related topic:
Should the people who are natives of U.S. territories have
representation in the U.S. House of Rep's or the U.S. Congress?
The U.S. Constitution sets up the House of Representatives to represent
each State in proportion to its population, and the Senate to represent
each State equally.  What should be done with U.S. territories like
Puerto Rico?  Does anyone have knowledge about how this was handled in
the past, such as with the Louisiana Territory or the Northwest
Territory?
Chris
--
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project
Lines: 50
In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>
>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>
>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>
>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
1) So what?
2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.
And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
you....
>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
Fuck off
--
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
\  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
\/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Subject: Re: MOW BODYCOUNT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 33
spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>> Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at
>> the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior
>> Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?
>>
>> Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers
>> get brought out.
>
>Probably, law enforcement people (Park Service Police and D.C. cops),
>who will use aerial photographs and extrapolate based on the
>density of the crowd in small regions.
>
>These sort of techniques derive from Army Intelligence and CIA
>methods of estimating troop strength, and tend to be
>methodologically skewed to always come up with inflated numbers,
>so as to justify bigger budgets.
Judging from past experience (the '87 March, a Peace and Justice March the
same year, and 3 different Pro-coice Marches), The Park Service will come out
with an estimate that is approximately 1/2 the estimate that organizers will
come up with - though the last Choice march I went to had a sign-in system,
and the numbers ended up closer.  And then you've got the media types in their
helicopters, rolling dice.
I believe the MOW plans and handing out some sort of wristband thingy, and
basing their count on those.  I see two problems with this.  One, can they
get *everybody* to take one (and only one)?  Two, they couldn't possibly have
been able to choose a color/design that won't clash with *somebody's* outfit!
:->
bearpaw
From: lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?
Lines: 2
Nntp-Posting-Host: pcgeo23.uio.no
Organization: University of Oslo
Lines: 3
this is a tesrt
s
From: pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Lines: 50
sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
:
: No.  I make a distinction between working for yourself to survive and
: paying dues to Mother Nature in the form of labour and working for
: Joe propertyowner because you do not have the option of working for
: yourself.  Joe propertyowner stands between you and the earth you
: work and expects you to pay him *and* mother nature for the right
: to survive.  The property laws create a layer of parasites that get
: fat on the fact that people have *no option* except to work in
: factories.
:
I want people to be able to get the things they need in life.  Property
ownership may not be ideal, but it is far better at letting people get
what they need to live a productive, fulfulling life.
The first experiment in America, where property ownership was denied,
caused, starvation, hunger, and death.  Few people know that the
Pilgrims originally tried to have common property to grow food and a
common food store.  Many people know the hardships they suffered the
first few winters because of it.  After arriving, the Pilgrims made all
property common.  They all shared in the work and the resulting crops
went into a common store.  After much debate the new Governor Bradford
privitized the land; assigning plots to each family.  According to Perry
D. Westbrook:  "The change was immediately justified by the increased
industry of the inhabitants and by the larger acreage planted."
Bradford himself acknowledged this failure of communism.  He wrote:  "The
experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried
sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the
vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of
later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into
a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser
than God.  For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much
confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been
to their benefit and comfort."
Bradford did not blame this failure on the "strangers", but on the basic
selfishness in all men.  He wrote "seeing all men have this corruption in
them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them."  In other
words, according to Westbrook, "Bradford found private enterprise to be
the most suitable economic policy for mankind in its fallen state."
Let's not make the same mistake that the Pilgrims made.  Private
property allows a society to flourish, the alternative brings
starvation, poverty and discontent.
--
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Nntp-Posting-Host: trumpet.cc.msstate.edu
Organization: Mississippi State University
Lines: 35
kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.
>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer;
>
>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there.
>
>Eliminate the C-17 transport.
Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.
>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine.
>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber.
It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
SSN-21, I know litttle about.
fpa
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
Nntp-Posting-Host: solomon.technet.sg
Lines: 38
Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of
America's health care resources.
9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.
8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic
constituencies.
7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.
6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.
5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos
over to socialzed health care.
4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.
3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the
Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,
the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.
2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.
1.  Resign, now!
Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
Be sure to look for:
_Slick Willie's First Very Own Book of Top Ten Lists_
Available soon in paperback.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 53
In article <C5IAK2.5zH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> Clayton Cramer:
>> But what came out, in much lower profile reporting, was that the
>> "victim" was a prostitute, and the man had not paid her -- hence the
>> false accusation.
> There was no evidence the woman in question was a prostitute, the
> defense merely alledged that she was.
The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
apparently found this compelling.
> Even Clayton knows the difference.  Err, perhaps Clayton doesn't know
> the difference.
Clayton does indeed know the difference.  Greg apparently doesn't.
>> the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the Marines
>> were engaged in self-defense.
> No, the judge found that the prosecution did not carry out the burder
> on proof.
Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?
> A small clipping from clarinews, under fair use guidelines:
>    New Hanover District Court Judge Jacqueline Morris-Goodson ruled in
>    the benchtrial that the state failed to carry its burden in proving
>    the Marines acted to cause injury.
Because, in part [REPEAT AFTER ME], "the judge found that there was
some credible evidence that the Marines were engaged in self-defense".
Hopefully, one of these days you will understand.
> Interesting that in 2 of the 3 cases Clayton does what he accuses
> others of doing.
With respect to credibility, I would rate Clayton Cramer an order of
magnitude higher than a) the news media, and b) homosexuals.
> But I never thought Clayton was consistent.
Clayton is indeed consistent.  And so are you.
--
The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? |
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Promoting competition does not depend upon libertarians
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 60
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
In article <C5KH8G.961@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them
>  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
>  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]
>
>>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the
>>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>>
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.
[Patrick's example of anti-competitive regulations for
auto dealers deleted.]
>Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:
>...
>This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
>and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
>And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
>rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
>as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.
>
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick
Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of
eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be
free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.
(As some/many libertarians would argue.)
On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of
difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic,
to say the least.
I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education,
national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile
analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.
jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 61
In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
# #
# #    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
# #
# #    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
# #    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
# #    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
# #    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
# #    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
# #
# #    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
# #    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
# #    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
# #    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
#
# 1) So what?
Homosexuals lie about the 10% number to hide the disproportionate
involvement of homosexuals in child molestation.  They also lie
about "10%" to keep politicians scared.
# 2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
#    gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
#    us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
But many of the people who will be marching aren't homosexuals, but
other members of the leftist agenda.
# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
#
# Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
Not surprising.  Remember, that study includes homosexuals as well.
# #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
# #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
# #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
# #male population.
#
# And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
# who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
# you....
It wasn't published.
# #It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
#
# Fuck off
Typical homoseuxal response.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 19
In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:
> Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
> homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
> of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
> to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
> put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
Such as?  Not being able to get married isn't a roadblock to a permanent
relationship.  Lack of a marriage certificate doesn't force a couple
to break up.  This is an excuse used by homosexuals because the
alternative is to ask why they are so much more promiscuous than
straights.
> Dan
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 31
In article <1993Apr16.164638.27218@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
> In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
# #The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
# #Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
# #and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
# #homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
# #male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
# #straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
# #how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
#
# Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?
Marriage isn't a requirement for a couple staying together.
# What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
# with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
# hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
#
# (a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
#
# ----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
Yes you are.  When you and the rest of the homosexual community
pass laws to impose your moral codes on me, by requiring me to
hire, rent to, or otherwise associate with a homosexual against
my will, yes, you are in my face.  Until homosexuals stop trying
to impose their morals on me, I will be in your face about this.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 17
In article <C5L780.Apu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> Kaldis writes:
> #The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
> #presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
> #apparently found this compelling.
>
> Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
> they are not prostitutes.
Do they have a history of working in massage parlors, and telling
co-workers there that they are prostitutes?  Do they frequent truck
stop parking lots at 4:00 AM, without ID on any sort?
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 21
In article <1993Apr17.022222.28105@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
# 	Actually, I was rather surprised to see an article on this subject
# (i.e. the "new, inproved" survey saying that roughly 1% of men are gay)
# on the front page of The New York _Times_ recently (I think it was
# on Thurs, 15 April).  The headline was something to the effect of
# "New Survey Finds 1% of Men Are Gay"
#
# 	I was shocked, not because the New York _Times_ was running a story
# on a sex survey (although that was part of it), but because they thought
# that this news was actually important enough to warrant front page space.
# I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long as
# you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.
If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the
10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into
obedience.
# 							-Matt
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cjp+@pitt.edu (Casimir J Palowitch)
Subject: Re: CLINTON: President's Trip to Pittsburg [sic]
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 37
In article <1ql6bgINNklu@life.ai.mit.edu> Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes:
>                 STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
>     The President will travel to Pittsburgh on Saturday, April
>17 to talk about his job creation plan and its impact on the
>state of Pennsylvania, where it would create as many as 3,818
^^^^^                   ^^^^^
*Would*? Ha Haaaa Haa ha haAA
How the hell can they come up with a number, specified to the units
column, on something as complicated as this?
Face it, it's the perceptions that matter here, folks, not the facts.
Especially this one:
>full time jobs and up to 21,240 summer jobs.  He will make a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that means over 7200 new jobs
for Allegheny county (metro Pgh) alone!
Haaaa   HAAA ha HA HAAA heh heh  HAAAA  <snif>
Doing what?  I hope it's fixing the potholes on my street.
Let's face it, folks, we're in a depression and this is the WPA.
Clinton's really coming here to beat on Sen. Arlen Specter, who happens
to be vacationing in Africa (Don't know whether to laugh or cry)
--
** Casimir J. (Casey) Palowitch  -  In 1996, there will be two kinds  **
**      Slavic Cataloger         -  of computer professional : those  **
**  U. of Pgh. Library Systems   -    who know NeXTStep, and those    **
**       cjp+@pitt.edu           -              without Jobs.         **
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 25
In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
>tes:
>
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as
>me how, I just have seen the results.
>
>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
>the head.
I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to
justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war"
is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take
drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking
legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the
position he's in now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Lines: 39
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences
>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>--
Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality
uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all
homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since
the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity
larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.
Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three
times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.
So... whose promiscuous?
Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because
someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....
Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
Look closely at the person, not the group.
All flames will be ignored.  :)
Later,
_______________________  ______________________________________
(                       )(                                      )
( Brian Stone           )(                                      )
( UNT-CAS Tech. Support )(   Life without your touch is hard,   )
(                       )( but life without you in unthinkable. )
( brian@gab.unt.edu     )(                                      )
(_______________________)(______________________________________)
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: The Manitoban Candidate
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 12
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, smith@phoneme.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) says:
>With yet another tax being floated by the Clinton administration to
>pay for new ``free'' social programs, I've really begun to suspect
>that the Canadians, long resentful of their place in the American
>shadow, brainwashed an American draft dodger who fled to Canada some
Hey, he HAS been talking with Mulroney a lot, huh?
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: " Only $17 / Month! "
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25085; Fri, 16 Apr 93 07:52:11 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA12308; Fri, 16 Apr 93 07:51:10 -0700
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
(16.6/16.2) id AA28928; Thu, 15 Apr 93 10:11:24 -0600
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Lines: 58
Ahhh, remember the days of Yesterday?  When we were only
going to pay $17 / month?
When only 1.2% of the population would pay extra taxes?
Remember when a few of us predicted that it wasn't true?  :)
Remember the Inaugural?   Dancing and Singing!  Liberation
at last!
Well, figure *this* out:
5% VAT, estimated to raise $60-100 Billion per year ( on CNN )
Work it out, chum...
$60,000,000,000  /  125,000,000 taxpayers = $480 / year
But, you exclaim, " I'll get FREE HEALTH CARE! "
But, I exclaim, " No, you won't! "
This is only for that poor 37 million who have none.  Not for
YOU, chum. :)  That comes LATER.
Add in the estimates of the energy tax costs - $300-500 / year
Plus, all that extra "corporate and rich" taxes that will
trickle down, and what do you have?
$1,000 / year, just like I said two months ago.
And, the best part?   You don't GET ANYTHING for it.
Deficit is STILL projected to rise at same rate it's  been
rising at, by CLINTON'S OWN ESTIMATES.  And this assumes that
his plan WILL WORK!
I mean, come on, it doesn't take a ROCKET SCIENTIST to see
that in another 2 or 3 years, we're GETTING ANOTHER WHOPPING
TAX INCREASE, because the deficit will STILL be GROWING
FASTER THAN the ECONOMY.
All Clinton is doing, is moving us to a HIGHER diving board.
Face it.  Clinton is Bush X 2.  In four more years, our
country will be completely bankrupt, and your children's
future, so oft mentioned by Pal Bill, will be gone.
And those of you still deluding yourselves will be faced
with the guilt.
Well, <glancing at watch>, gotta go.  I want to be out of
here by noon.  Got an appointment at the lake.  No tax
there, yet.
:)
From: hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?
Organization: Wake Forest University
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: ac.wfunet.wfu.edu
(NOTE: cross-posted to alt.politics.italy and talk.politics.misc
This is a reply to an article by Ed Ipser which also appeared in
alt.politics.usa.misc and alt.politics.libertarian, but no longer belongs)
I hate to defend Ed (the article was very poorly written) but here goes:
hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together
>before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget
>deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.
Italy's per-capita debt is much higher than USA's.
>We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers
>for the benefit of the super wealthy.
This is *exactly* what the public in France & Italy perceive to be the
problem-- thus the French election and Italian pulizia.
Regarding the post-pulizia Italy:
>What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much
>better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going
>to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people
>who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of
>Pavarotti's and porn stars.
Wrong.  This is true perhaps only for the Lega Nord.
The referendum Sunday is expected to establish a British/American style
first-past-the-post system in the Senate.  If implemented, it would
encourage a two- (or perhaps three-) party system in Italy.
Most likely the DC and PSI will not be these parties; rather there will
be a shakeup of the entire party structure from which 2 new parties
will emerge to dominate.  Will Lega Nord be one of these?  Who knows.
(The Camera dei Deputati (lower house) will likely remain with
Proportional Representation for a while, but there is talk of switching a
portion of that house, too. Maybe as much as 40% first-past-the-post)
Overall, the electoral reform in Italy is a welcome change.  Italians
are tired of having crappy government.  Porn stars, Pavarotti's and
Hunters & Fishers won't gain seats because PR is dead.  A good two-party
system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.
It's about time.
Jeff Hagen
hagenjd@ac.wfu.edu
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 38
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) says:
>Let the "GREAT CHUCKMEISTER" make a couple predictions, if you
>will:
>
>1.  The sun will rise tomorrow.
>2.  Rush will bash Clinton on his next show.
>3.  I will turn out to be Clinton's love child.
Hey, *I* wasn't the one dancing and singing on Jan. 20, now
WAS I?   I was roundly ridiculed for my "predictions".
Sure they were easy.  TEll that to the other 43% of the people. :)
>
>+----------------+
>|     SUCKA!     |
>|                |
>|  Made in USA   |
>+----------------+
>
>Hook, line, and sinker!  *chuckle*
Just WAIT until the see what Clinton has planned for
their pension funds!  :)  This one doesn't take much thinking
either.    Uncle Sam needs money, BAD, and pension funds got it.
Well, they USED to have it.  Turns out the states  have been
plundering state employee funds for the past 2-3 years.  ;)
Ah, it's gonna be SWELL!
Organization: Students for Increased Beverage Access (SIBA)
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati
<93105.032616MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> <1qkl3i$9bj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Lines: 49
In article <1qkl3i$9bj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Broward Horne) says:
>In a previous article, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) says:
>>In article <1qhr73$a8d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>>(Broward Horne) says:
>>>      It sure does appear that way, doesn't it?
>>
>>The attitude that people are stupid if they don't agree with you is not
>>going to bring you great success in life. Free advice, there.
>      whew.  Mark, what on EARTH makes you think I give a FUCK
>      about being a "success", particularly NOW when I'll just
>      the HELL taxed out of me?  Oh, this is excellent.
That was hardly the point, was it? I was commenting on this all-too-common
Republican attitude that if people disagree with us, they must be idiots, they
must be sheep being led around by the Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy. This is
a dangerous attitude indeed. Because it's not a very big step from "people
are sheep, they can't think for themselves" to "people are sheep and need
firm leadership from we, who know better"... this sort of attitude makes
me worry about what'll happen to the United States if the extremist wing
of the Republican party ever gets back into power again.
>      Holy christ! :)
Hey! This is a government-funded newsgroup! Let's have some separation
of church and state, damn it!
>        Besides, let's <ahem> examine the record, shall we?
>    Broward:   " Clinton's going to taxe the HOLY FUCK out of you! "
>    Mark:      " No, he's not.  Only $17 / month "
>   ( I STILL get a laugh out of this one! :) )
More like:
Broward: "Clinton's going to raise your income taxes by over $1000!"
Mark:    "No, he's not, only about $204."
Broward: (silence)
>    Want some more "free predictions" ?
OK, I predict that in 1996 the Republicans will STILL be bitter. Yeah, yeah,
I know, it's not very impressive to predict things that are inevitable...
"...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
From: joec@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com ( Joe Cipale)
Subject: Re: Clayton Need not Retract
Organization: Cypress Semi, Beaverton OR
Lines: 13
In article <Apr.9.08.39.25.1993.15639@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>civilized society.  The _ONLY_ way a homosexual can maintain even a
>modicum of respectability is by remaining in the closet.
>--
>  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>  as this would hold such views??? |
Once again, it appears that the one-eyed man has appeared in the land of the sighted
and for some strange resaon has appointed himself the ruler and supreme power.
Joe Cipale
From: paul@hsh.com (Paul Havemann)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Excuses for Slick Willie's Record-Setting Disapproval Rati
Organization: HSH Associates
Lines: 26
In article <2671@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
> shapiro@sofbas.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
> :
> : Oh, and BTW, its William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
> :
> : Regards,
> : Steve.
>
>
> No, it's not- and I really fail to understand the use of that name
> as an insult.  Do you feel that being adopted implies some sort of
> moral failing?
Yes, it is -- you could look it up.  And spare us the thin-skinned
indignation, please; what's sauce for four years of using George Herbert
Walker Bush and J. Danforth Quayle as an insult is sauce for William
Jefferson Blythe Clinton.  Do you feel that calling a President by his full
name implies some sort of disrespect?  Hint: this is a rhetorical question.
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)
* They're not just opinions -- they're caffeine for the brain! *
** (Up to 50 milligrams per cynical observation.) **
Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement: 1,000 mg.  Keep reading.
From: dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 51
brian@gab.unt.edu (Brian "Drakula" Stone) writes:
>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>>--
>Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality
>uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all
>homosexual and bisexual men.  It would seem more logical to say that since
>the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity
>larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.
I don't understand what you are getting at here.  If the chances of
promiscuity are larger, yet the rate of promiscuity is lower in the heterosexual
community, doesn't that imply that the homo/bi sexual population is then
even more promiscuous than the raw statistics imply?
(No axe to grind here I'm just a scientist and I hate to see statistics abused.)
>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three
>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.
I am a hetero man and have had sex with one woman in my life (my wife).  It is
very pleasing to me to be able to say that.  I hope you have the same feeling
as I do.  I also wish that you could (if you wanted) experience the joys and
trials of being committed to someone for life (there is something about marriage
that makes the commitment much greater than one might expect).
>So... whose promiscuous?
>Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because
>someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....
>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays
are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?"
Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)
Dan
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com
Organization: Novell, Inc
Lines: 23
In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
Ipser) wrote:
>
>
> Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
>
>
[deleted for a very good reason which I'm sure you can guess]
>
0. Enact a law that bans people without a sense of humor from
posting allegedly humorous items. If he did this, I think
his approval rating would go through the roof!
> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists
in your .sigs, folks!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 14
In <1993Apr15.170715.29896@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
|>Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower
|>the cost and definitely make them safer to use.
|I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol
|and coffee).
I'm addicted to chocolate myself.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Nntp-Posting-Host: dzoo.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 48
In article <1993Apr15.215912.1807@martha.utcc.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>>
>>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>>
>>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>
>       I've read about more than a few of these programs that ran into
>problems in convincing parents to get their children immunized even
>when they were delivered to their doorstep.  (I don't know, maybe
>that sheet they have to be informed of about possible risks, side-
>effects, and bad reactions scares them.)
The immunization program is just a "useful first step". Among other
things, the money will go to pay for creating and maintaning a
a computerized "innoculation" database on all U.S. children.
(code-named Big Mother... Just kidding, the name will be Children
Defense Database, or something like that.)
Once the money is spent and little or no tangible results achieved,
the goverment will have to start knocking down doors, in some
neigborhoods, and bribe parents in others (probably the ones that
are paying kids for attending the school - what a fantastic idea!)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ihorton@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Dr Zippy)
Subject: Re: Sexual Proposition = Sexual Harassment?
Nntp-Posting-Host: cc_sysh
Organization: Dr Zippys psycho surgery
Lines: 13
In article <930316.144130.lynn@pcgeo23> lynn@granitt.uio.no (Malcolm Lynn) writes:
>
>this is a tesrt
>s
Of your spelling, eh?
Dr Zippy.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dr Zippy, proof that "Dum blonde" isn't a women only title |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
ihorton@uk.ac.coventry.cck
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: Clinton's immunization program
Nntp-Posting-Host: dzoo.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 52
In article <15APR199320293386@utkvx.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>In article <C5JoBH.7zt@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes...
>>In article <1993Apr14.122758.11467@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>>In article <C5FJsL.6Is@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.C
>>>OM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>On the news last night Clinton was bashing the republicans for stonewalling
>>>>his so called stimulus package.
>>>>It seems that one small item within this package was going to pay for free
>>>>immunizations for poor kids.
>>>
>>>Immunizations for children in this country are already free if you care to
>>>go have it done.  The problem is not the cost, it is the irresponible parents
>>>who are to stupid or to lazy to have it done.
>
>I don't know where YOU live, but this is not the case nationawide.
>Perhaps your state or municipality has put together the funds to
>do so, but in my area and most areas where I know people, immunizations
>cost $$$.
Nationwide, the immunization rate among toddlers is about 50%, but
it is reportedly as low as 10% in some inner-city neighborhoods.
I bet more than 10% kids living in such neighborhoods are already
covered by Medicaid.
Here in Massachussets, we have had a universal immunization program,
the kind of Clinton seems to be proposing, for many years (two decades?).
Mass' immunization rate is 65%.  What about the other 35%?  I guess
some parents are indeed too ignorant or too lazy , or simply do not
care.
>
>Sorry to shatter your stereotypes.
???
>
>>
>>    In case you haven't noticed, Clintonites are pushing a universal health
>>    care ACCESS program.  "Access" here means that folks who do not give
>>    a damn about immunizing their children will have health care services
>>    delivered to their doorsteps.
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Lines: 24
In article <15149@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <113328@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>>When are you going to admit that the data you presented show
>>just this---that only about 3% of child molesters are gay, and thus are
>>NOT overrepresented with respect to the general incidence of homosexuality?
>When someone can show something besides a Redbook article.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this irrelevant?
Either the data shows something, or it doesn't. Regardless of what other
studies show.
Admit it. What you SHOWED to us doesn't prove that gay men are more likely
to be molesters.
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Nntp-Posting-Host: irl2
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Lines: 61
In article <1993Apr16.131508.9518@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>kmitchel@netcom.com (Kenneth C. Mitchell) writes:
>>Dave Borden (borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu) wrote:
>>: The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the
>>: draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now,
>>: and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior
>>: with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us
>>: on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and
>>: Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to.
>>: Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time.
>>: Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
>
>I'm really surprised Clinton hasn't already tried to do this.  He seems
>to want to tackle other irrelevant issues first, so why not this one as well.
Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.
>
>>Let me say this about that, as a retired Navy officer;
>>
>>I agree. Cut it.  But let's not stop there.
>>
>>Eliminate the C-17 transport.
>
>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, very few
>airplanes haven't, but getting rid of something we need is not the
>answer.  What do you want to do, start over a rebuild a new airplane
>from scatch?  It'll have its problems as well and there will be calls
>again, for it to be scrapped.  THe other option is to try to extend
>the life of the C-5s and C-141s that are getting extremely old.
If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the
program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.
>
>>Scrap the Seawolf SSN-21 nuclear submarine.
>>Ground the B-2 stealth bomber.
>
>It'll cost jobs, but I'm for it.  We especially don't need a B-2. THe
>SSN-21, I know litttle about.
>
Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.
Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.
In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being
required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.
The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
a pork happy Congress.
-- Marc Mueller
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 16
SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It
was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax
was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of
quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final
stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the
large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers."
In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the
tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer
paying the full load.
These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.
--
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Lines: 38
In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
>      own CNN news LOGO!
>
>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>
>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this
>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching
>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by
>      now.
>
>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>
Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.
However....
Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
have in Europe)
and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform, and
force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
be increased only via a national referendum.
Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
all in one fell swoop.
Gerald
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
Summary: GM's quest for justice
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes...
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>	Thoughts?
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?
First, people should be aware that Brett's (no last name listed)
posts on bit.listserv.politics indicate that he has been
hostile toward GM's hiring policies and to the Moseley verdict
when it came out.  Equal opportunity disagreement, I guess.  :-)
My guess, without seeing the judge's opinion, is that GM's motion
was denied on due diligence grounds.  Otherwise, a party to a
case could always keep one or two semi-credible witnesses in
reserve to spring if they lose.  Not exactly a way to promote
repose.
Daniel Reitman
"The Uniform Commercial Code protects the innocent purchaser, but it is not a
shield for the sly conniver, the blindly naive, or the hopelessly gullible."
Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 54 Misc. 2d 168, 172, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400,
405 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1967).
From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Lines: 26
In <15378@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
Possibly because gay/bi men are less likely to get married?
What was the purpose of this post?  If it was to show a mindless obsession
with statistics, an incredibly flawed system of reasoning, and a repellent
hatemonger agenda, then the purpose was accomplished with panache.
(a) Get a clue.  (b) Get a life.  (c) Get out of my face.  I'm not in yours.
Drewcifer
--
----bi    Andrew D. Simchik					SCHNOPIA!
\ ----    as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu				TreeWater
\\  /
\/     "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 59
In article <1993Apr16.141409.25036@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale
Cook) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) w
ri
>>tes:
>>
>>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>>
>>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid
>>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as
>>me how, I just have seen the results.
>>
>>Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
>>the head.
>
>I'm sorry about your friend.  Really.  But this anecdote does nothing to
>justify the "war on drugs".  If anything, it demonstrates that the "war"
>is a miserable failure.  What it demonstrates is that people will take
>drugs if they want to, legal or not.  Perhaps if your friend were taking
>legal, regulated drugs under a doctors supervision he might not be in the
>position he's in now.
>
I do agree with you, in a way.  The war on drugs has failed, but in my opinion,
that doesn't mean we have to give up.  Only change the tactics.
For instance, here are how some penalties should be changed.
Dealing Coke -- Death
Dealing Heroin -- Death
Dealing Pot -- Death
Dealing Crack -- Death
The list goes on and on!!!......
JUST KIDDING!!!
However, on a more serious note, I do believe that we should take some money
away from the foriegn operations in South America and costly border
interdiction efforts.  (Don't think I'm going to say, "spend it to educate
people", because I know plenty of educated dopers).  Actually, spend it on
things like drug treatment programs.
I saw an interesting story on 60 minutes about how the British actually
prescribe and addict his "recommended" dosage, and try to ween him off from it,
or cut the amount down to levels where it is "acceptable".  Sounds good so far
from what I heard with a decrease in cost, lower addiction rates by wiping out
the dealer's markets, etc. (But that was the only thing I have heard about it.)
However, legalizing it and just sticking some drugs in gas stations to be
bought like cigarettes is just plain silly.  Plus, I have never heard of a
recommended dosage for drugs like crack, ecstasy, chrystal meth and LSD.
The 60 Minute Report said it worked with "cocaine" cigarettes, pot and heroin.
Ryan
From: jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu (KERRIGAN JOHN M)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: vela.acs.oakland.edu
In article <C5KMz5.Hy4@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
:>Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
:>
:>10. Institute a national sales tax to pay for the socialization of
:>    America's health care resources.
:>
:>9.  Declare war on Serbia. Reenact the draft.
:>
:>8.  Stimulate the economy with massive income transfers to Democtratic
:>    constituencies.
:>
:>7.  Appoint an unrepetent socialist like Mario Cuomo to the Suprmeme Court.
:>
:>6.  Focus like a laser beam on gays in the military.
:>
:>5.  Put Hillary in charge of the Ministry of Truth and move Stephanopoulos
:>    over to socialzed health care.
:>
:>4.  Balance the budget through confiscatory taxation.
:>
:>3.  Remind everyone, again, how despite the Democrats holding the
:>    Presidency, the majority of seats in the House, and in the Senate,
:>    the Republicans have still managed to block his tax-and-spend programs.
:>
:>2.  Go back to England and get a refresher course in European Socialism.
:>
***SNIP***
And the number one way Slick Willie could improve his standing with
Americans...
(Drum roll Anton)
1.  Get himself an appointment with Dr. Kervorkian - and keep it!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**        John Kerrigan        a.k.a.  jmkerrig@vela.acs.oakland.edu        **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 14
In article <1993Apr17.024646.28396@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st923336@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (BLORT! eeeep! Hwaaah.) writes:
> 	Wouldn't one expect more heterosexual men than gay men to be
> promiscuous simply due to a larger group of potential partners?
>
> 	Just a thought.
>
> 						-Matt
You might -- except that gay men are MUCH more promiscuous than
straight men -- which shows how damaged and screwed up gay men are.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 15
In article <C5nAvn.F3p@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> In article <philC5n6D5.MK3@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> #Tells you something about the fascist politics being practiced ....
>
> Ah, ending discrimination is now fascism.
>
> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
When you force people to associate with others against their will,
yes.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why not concentrate on child molesters?
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 28
In article <C5oG5H.4DE@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15409@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <MJCUGLEY.93Apr14110319@glenturret.maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk>, mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (Womble with Attitude) writes:
# ## Absolutely nothing, seeing as there is no table for heterosexuals.
# ## If, as you claim, the supposedly higher promescuity amongst homosexual
# ## males makes them an insurance risk, you need to be show that
# ## heterosexual males are less promiscuous than homosexual males.
# ## Without the data on heterosexual males, we cannot make a comparison
# ## between promiscuity rates of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
# ##
# ## *             mjcugley@maths-and-cs.dundee.ac.uk (world)		*
# ## *              or mjcugley@uk.ac.dund.maths-and-cs (UK)			*
#
# Well, the obvious point to make is would straight men fuck like rabbits
# if the oppertunity presented itself?
#
# I reckon *any* *man* would go wildly promiscuous if presented with a
# huge variety of willing partners.  The question here is not of being
That, I suppose, says a lot about how screwed up you are.
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# Xavier
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 30
In article <C5Jv9A.F1B@exnet.co.uk>, sys1@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
> In article <15312@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Apr08.092954.13507@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
# ## Face it, Clayton, he was not found guilty, and so what if gays sometimes
# ## make it consensually with 16 year old boys. There ARE 16 year old gays, you
# ## know. And as I recall, the case of the state rested on the testimony of one
# ## "victim" who declined to testify, even under threat. I have had teens since
# ## I was 40, and so have a lot of people. Face it Clayton, you're just a jerk!
# ## -RSW
# ## --
# ## * Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
# ## * 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
# ## * Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
# #
# #I am always amazed to see people admit to breaking the law -- and
# #putting their address in the signature.  Please tell us more about
# #this.  Were they 13?  14?  Would you like to make a statement for
# #the district attorney?
#
# I had sex with a 13 year old boy, it was great, we did *everything*,
# well, a hell of a lot.  It was fun anyway.  Oh, and before you turn
# purple with rage I was 12 at the time.
# #--
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Walz monster above, however, was past 40 when he molested these
kids, as he says above.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Relations between people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
From: jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Lines: 56
In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <C5IJ7H.L95@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>> In article <1993Apr15.021021.7538@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> >In article <C5HuH1.241@news.iastate.edu>, jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>> I really don't want to waste time in
>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!
>
>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
>not eager to make a fool of myself.
Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about
and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you
wish.
The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits
so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along
with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced
organized crime specifically; etc, etc
If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into
why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group
was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little
research.
>  From a pragmatic standpoint, there certainly is some justification
>if it is a vice people will commit anyway. Shall we criminalize
>alcohol again? If the re-legalization for alcohol were done from
Making you look bad is too damn easy.  The vast social and historical
differences between alcohol and other drugs make this comparison
worthless.
>Vice statutes serve
>only to make it more expensive for the rich and more dangerous
>for the poor, as Tim so eloquently put it. People will, however,
And so it shall be if the government (by the people) decides that
these vices are detrimental to the society as a whole.
>  And why, pray tell, is AIDS "victim" in snear quotes? Are you of
>the revisionist sort that thinks there is no such thing as the AIDS
>plauge? Or do they just deserve it?
The overwhelmingly vast majority (get the point)
of AIDS cases are contracted thru behavioral CHOICES.  Nuff said.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 46
In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>>from the fire.
>>
>>	Thoughts?
>
> How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
> unconscious?
Their testimony would be a contradiction of the plaintiff's charge (and
witness) that the occupant moved after the impact, indicating he was alive and
trying to get out (and provoking all sorts of sympathetic 'gross, burned alive'
reactions).
>>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>>to the previous ruling appear.
>>
>>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed?
>>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
>
> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
> forgot to call all of your witnesses.
They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".
> If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
> interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
> such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
> could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
> becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
> expert witnesses).
No, I support rulings that deny new trials on those grounds.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
From: fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams)
Subject: Pork ( C-17 & C-5 was (Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE )
Oanization: Mississippi State University
Nntp-Posting-Host: ra.msstate.edu
Organization: Mississippi State University
Lines: 30
muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>>>
>>>Eliminate the C-17 transport.
>>
>>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........
>
>If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
>would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the
>program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.
I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date
of the magazine?  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much
but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which
there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends
on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now,
I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many
people are out of work.
>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>a pork happy Congress.
>
>-- Marc Mueller
Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy
Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy
Congress."
fpa
From: blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)
Subject: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA05890; Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:05:06 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA23713; Fri, 16 Apr 93 11:03:42 -0700
X-Received: by uiboise.idbsu.edu
(16.6/16.2) id AA29234; Thu, 15 Apr 93 13:23:52 -0600
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.clinton.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Lines: 19
If you look through this newsgroup, you should be
able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
for our computer networks and telephone systems.
This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
bill.
I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.
I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport
in the mail soon.
I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you
have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while
you are still able.
From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 26
In article <1993Apr16.131041.8660@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
>> the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
>> emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
>> first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
>> forgot to call all of your witnesses.
>
>	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
>trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
>beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".
The test isn't whether GM knew--otherwise that would reward GM for its
stupidity.  The test is whether GM reasonably should have known of their
existence.  It works both ways--if GM had won the trial, and the plaintiff
turned up two witnesses who came forward after the first trial who should
have been located beforehand, too bad, so sad--no new trial.
Like Tim said, you don't get a new civil trial because you screwed up
the first time around.  Unlike the criminal justice system, repose is
much more important in the civil justice system.
--
ted frank                 |
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     |
standard disclaimers      |
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Lines: 39
In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com>, steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
> In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
> >In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri
> >tes:
> >
> >>
> >>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
> >>
> >
> >A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid
> >is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as
> >me how, I just have seen the results.
> >
> >Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in
> >the head.
> >
>
> I'll answer you're sarcasm with more sarcasm:
>
> 	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
> 	being screwed up in the head, given that example!
>
> (Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
> get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
> drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
> not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
> immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
> THIS to THAT!).
And not only that, but if the drugs were legal we could have pharmacists instead
of pushers selling them, and the pharmacists could be obligated to not only
inform the purchasers of the dangers of drug use, but also show them how to use
the drugs in relatively safe ways.  And the dangers of impurities (responsible
for much of the suffering that drugs cause) would be all but eliminated.
- Dave Borden
borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: NC vs Hunt (Marine Gay Bashing in Wilmington NC) verdict
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Lines: 19
tfarrell@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Thomas Farrell) writes:
|>So you feel that the defendents should have been convicted regardless of the
|>evidence. Now that would truely be a sad day for civil rights.
|I don't know about everybody else, but to me, they should have been
|convicted BECAUSE of the evidence, which in my mind was quite
|sufficient.
What evidence are you aware of. What was reported in the media, or all of
the evidence that was presented at the trial.
This sounds to me a lot like the first Rodney King 5 trial. A bunch of people
who saw 10 to 15 seconds out of a several minute long video, decided that
they knew more than people who had sat through a two week trial.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: rcollins@ns.encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Reply-To: rcollins@encore.com
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Nntp-Posting-Host: sysgem1.encore.com
Lines: 62
steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
|> Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
|> I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of
|> eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
|> barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
|> agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
|> allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
|> regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be
|> free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.
|> (As some/many libertarians would argue.)
|>
|> On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
|> is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
|> for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
|> kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of
|> difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic,
|> to say the least.
|>
|> I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education,
|> national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
|> a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
|> than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
|> exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile
|> analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.
Excellently put!
Even as a libertarian, I have to admit government does do some things I
like.  There is a beautiful performing arts complex in Ft.  Lauderdale
that was partially built with tax dollars (I don't know how much was
private and how much was stolen, I mean public) but it is beautiful and
I enjoy it.  (Keep in mind, though, most of the people in the city will
never attend a single performance there, so they might feel differently
about having to help pay for it.)
However, I have to disagree about it being desireable or efficient to
give government intervention-power on a case-by-case basis.  In fact,
we have a lot better luck maintaining our freedom of speech precisely
because it is not decided on a case-by-case basis as much as other
issues.  Judges decide whether political speech is allowed on the
sidewalk in front of the post office.  They do not try to decide just
whether pro-nazi, pro-choice, pro-life, or pro-tax political speech
should be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the post office.  You can
imagine the result if right to free speech was decided by the majority
on a case-by-case basis.
Not so with economic issues.  Government does tell taxi-drivers exactly
what they can charge, but not the bus lines or the lawyers.
Just as it is not desireable to decide rights of free speech on a
case-by-case basis, we should not decide rights to free enterprise on a
case-by-case basis.
There is hope that a government can be restricted from interferring with
free enterprise.  But there is no hope, in my opinion, of having a
government that interferes with free enterprise in an "efficient"
manner; I call it political market failure.
Thus, if you value freedom and the abundance it produces, you have to
swallow the "whole libertarian agenda."
Roger Collins
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Lines: 17
In article <16BB1B92B.DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu.Ext> DAK988S@vma.smsu.edu writes:
>You think that you all have it bad....here at good ol' Southwest Missouri
>State U., we have 2 parties running for student body president.  There's the
>token sorority/fraternity faces, and then there's the president and vice
>president of NORML.  They campaigned by handing out condoms and listing
>their qualifications as,"I listen really well."  It makes me sick to have
>a party established on many of the things that are ruining this country like
>they are.  I think I'll run next year.:(
Well, a student body president can't exactly campaign on the stand
that he's "tough on crime".  Their job is to listen to what people want
and fund things that make sense.
Condoms and marijuana aren't exactly the worst things to have available
either...
don
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Lines: 21
In article <1993Apr15.193603.14228@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you!
>
>A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid
>is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as
>me how, I just have seen the results.
Gee, the War on Drugs has been going on for all these years and they're
still getting drugs!  Imagine that...
My friends who like grass (I don;t agree but it's pretty harmless) are
unable to get it, yet I know a number of places where someone stupid
enough could get crack cocaine within a half hour of leaving my office.
The War on Drugs has been completely unsuccessful, yet it's lead to really
horrible abuses of peoples' COnstitutional rights.  I don't see how a
thinking person could justify it.
don
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: The Role of the National News Media in Inflaming Passions
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 21
Kaldis writes:
#The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was
#presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court
#apparently found this compelling.
Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and
they are not prostitutes.
#Because the judge found that there was some credible evidence that the
#Marines were engaged in self-defense.  Got it, knucklehead?
Gee, Both Clayton and Kaldis engaging in ad hominem arguments.
I presented evidence that what you said is *NOT* what the judge ruled.
Provide your evidence. Repeating a false claim is not evidence.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Lines: 27
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <1993Apr16.170521.21129@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse) writes:
>
>SPEAKING OF VAT:  Did anyone see CNN's report yesterday (4/15)?  It
>was quite hillarious (no pun intended).  They ran down how a percent tax
>was added at each stage of manufacturing, graphicaly depicting a stack of
>quarters being added at each wholesale stage.  When they got to the final
>stage (the actual retail sale) the small stack of quarters added to the
>large stack already there was said to be "the amount paid by consumers."
>In other words, they completed ignored the fact that at each stage the
>tax would of course be passed on to the next buyer with the retail consumer
>paying the full load.
>
>These are not journalists--they're lap dogs.
One of the commentators on one of the Big Three news programs
described the VAT (which ain't a sales tax) as a tax "government's love."
I was even surprised he got the reason right:  it effectively hides the
majority of the tax the consumer has to pay *from* the consumer.  It's
kind of like they do with cars.  You pay far more for automobile taxes than
most people realize because it's contained in two dozen different taxes,
everything from your license to your tires to your gasoline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>
>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>
>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed
*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they
considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
The point being that what people say and what they acutally do
may be different.
It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not
mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)
>     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
--
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Capital Gains tax increase "loses" money
Distribution: na
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 70
In article <C5J8wI.IGK@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
> In <1993Apr15.045651.6892@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@midway.uchicago.edu sez:
>>In article <1993Apr14.135227.8579@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>>>
>>>	No, I'm saying any long term investor (the ones likely to have large
>>>capital gains) would be foolish to sell in order to avoid a tax hike that a)
>>>might disappear in any given year and b) be overcome in a year or two by
>>>accumlated gains.
>>
>>To which my response is--so what?  Not all people who pay capital gains
>>taxes are long term investors.  More than enough of them aren't for there
>>to be huge blip whenever capital gains taxes get raised.
>>   I never said that *everyone* would find this advantageous.  I said that
>>more than enough would for the result to be readily noticeable and distort
>>"trends".
>
> Even if Brett's eventual-return figures were correct -- and they
> clearly weren't -- he'd still be wrong about the cause for the '86
> blip because he fails to consider 2 basic factors:
You misunderstand.  I'm not trying to prove a *cause* for anything.
Merely pointing out that Ted's assertion that the "blip" in revenues was
"caused" by selling to avoid the tax can't be proven.
> 1) As Ted notes, not everyone is a long-term investor.  One might find
> oneself, as I did in late 1986, anticipating expenses in the near term
> that require selling off holdings.  Given the choice between waiting a
> few weeks (and taking an extra tax hit) or selling in December with
> preferential tax treatment, only a fool would choose the former.
Not disputed.
> 2) The fact that Brett can now construct _post hoc_ calculations of
> what would have been more beneficial to investors is in many respects
> beside the point.  There was plenty of _Money_-style advice given to
> unsophisticated investors in late 1986 to "sell now and save on
> taxes."  In case anyone missed it, there was no shortage of similar
> advice late last year (in the NYTimes, e.g.), even though that advice
> was based not on the foregone conclusion of enacted law (as in 1986),
> but merely on the *assumption* that Clinton would raise tax rates
> (without capping CG taxes, contrary to the current proposal).
It works for any situation.  If you believe the market is going up,
don't sell.
If believe it's not, sell.  But then you'd be selling anyways, wouldn't
you?
So where is the evidence that a large number of people suddenly decided
that the higher taxes meant they should sell before the year was out?
There isn't any.
Ted's saying that the increase over the previous year is "proof" of
that proposition, but I'm saying you can't know that the trend of increasing
capital gains revenues wouldn't account for a lot of that increase.
1986 was the height of the housing boom, remember.  People were
"trading up" like mad.
> It's nice to think that investors always behave in their optimal
> economic interest.  Like assuming weightless ropes and frictionless
> pulleys, though, this sort of thinking often fails to describe
> accurately what happens in the real world.
Indeed.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Clinton caves in: reduces jobs bill
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 11
Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.
Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for
creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).
Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
From: ries@hqrim.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries)
Subject: Re: " Only $17 / Month! "
Nntp-Posting-Host: hqrim.sedd.trw.com
Organization: TRW SEDD
Lines: 25
A Alan Brock 4/14/93 Orange County Register Editorial titled "A case for
repealing the income tax" got my attention.
Some quotes:
"... a tax on income, because of the flexible definition of that
concept, invites the government to snoop into every nook and
cranny of our lives. Encouraging people to snoop on one another
and report transgressions against the almighty state, which most
Americans deplored in Nazi or communist regimes..."
"... Although most Americans paid no income tax at all 50 years ago
-- withholding began only during World War II, as a "temporary"
exigency, and in 1948 the median family federal income tax was $9..."
"Last year the federal government got only 37 percent of its income
from income taxes... How long ago was it that the federal government
somehow managed to stagger along on 63 percent of its 1992 revenue?
... Would you believe five?..."
"... The income tax has converted a free people into a society of
the fearful and the snitches..."
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Lines: 66
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>      Well, it seems the "National Sales Tax" has gotten its very
>
>>      own CNN news LOGO!
>>
>>      Cool.  That means we'll be seeing it often.
>>
>>      Man, I sure am GLAD that I quit working ( or taking this
>>      seriously ) in 1990.  If I kept busting my ass, watching
>>      time go by, being frustrated, I'd be pretty DAMN MAD by
>>      now.
>>
>>      I just wish I had the e-mail address of total gumby who
>>      was saying that " Clinton didn't propose a NST ".
>>
>
>Actually, Jerry Brown essentially did...and Clinton, in his demagogue
>persona, condemned Brown for it in the crucial NY primary last year.
>
>However....
>
>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>have in Europe)
>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform,
The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
incrementally.
(BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
Europe's that makes it "visible?")
>and
>force an agreement with the Democrats that the top income tax
>rate would then be frozen for the forseeable future and could
>be increased only via a national referendum.
This would require a constitutional amendment, and Congress
enjoys raising taxes too much to restrict themselves like that.
(Besides, with the 2/3 majority necessary to pull that off you'd
have a difficult time "forcing" anything like that.)
>Why not make use of the Clintons to do something worthwhile...
>shift the tax burden from investment to consumption, and get
>health care reform, and a frozen low top marginal tax rate
>all in one fell swoop.
Primarily because it's a practical impossibility to "freeze"
tax rates.
However, this is something that bothers me.  We're always talking
about "consumer confidence" and "consumer spending" as gauges for the
economy.  If they really are important, wouldn't shifting taxes to
consumption provide a disincentive to spend money?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Just what is in the Jobs/Pork bill?
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Distribution: usa
Lines: 26
This was in Wed. WSJ.
[start]
The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded
news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that
certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't
passed.
None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are
part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in
Community Development Block Grants.
...
[end]
I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving
about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this
wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that
same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to
do the honarable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: dunnjj@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (DUNN  JONATHAN JAMES)
Subject: Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 42
muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>Considering that Clinton received a draft notice and got out of it (he admits it) the political feasibility of him abolishing it is not something he would
>be inclined to risk any extra exposure on.
As a libertarian (with a small l) who voted for Clinton, I think that he
should abolish the Selective Service and the draft.  If his conscience
forbade him to go to war in Vietnam, it should forbid him to perpetuate
this system of government-sanctioned slavery.
>Agreed. Congress took money from NASA and FHA to fund the second Seawolf.
>The shipyards are still building Los Angeles Class submarines and there
>is a lack of ASW foes to contend with. The Navy is considering reducing
>the number of attack subs to 40 (Navy Times) and that would entail
>getting rid of or mothballing some of the current Los Angeles class.
>Politically, General Dynamics is in Connecticut and we will get
>Seawolf subs whether we need them or not.
If our government would pay attention to SERIOUS domestic issues (the ECONOMY)
and choose to stay out of other people's wars (Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia),
we would not be in this fix.  An anyway, couldn't the jobs be replaced by
improving our domestic situation?  (I'm not for continued deficit spending,
but if Clinton and Congress want to spend, I'd rather they improve the
infrastructure than fight other people's wars.)
>In addition, more bases need to be closed. Probably Long Beach Naval Station
>and others. The Navy is talking about three main bases on each coast being
>required to home port a total fleet of 320 ships.
>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>a pork happy Congress.
A novel idea:  Getting away from naval bases, what about refurbishing
decommissioned Air Force bases as airports?  This would be SO much cheaper
than building them from the ground up (Denver's new airport is one of the
most appalling examples of pork-barreling and cronyism I have seen in
my lifetime).  Even if no more airports are needed, I'm sure Bill Gates
or Ross Perot would LOVE to have their own private airfields, and the
money from their purchases could be applied to the public debt.
>Jon Dunn<
* All E-mail flames will be deleted without reading *
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: Pork ( C-17 & C-5 was (Re: ABOLISH SELECTIVE SERVICE )
Nntp-Posting-Host: irlsp
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Lines: 48
In article <1993Apr16.174304.26360@ra.msstate.edu> fpa1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller) writes:
>>fpa1@Trumpet.CC.MsState.Edu (Fletcher P Adams) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Eliminate the C-17 transport.
>>>
>>>Wrong.  We need its capability.  Sure it has its problems, ........
>>
>>If you read Aviation Week, the C-5 line can be reopened and the C-5s
>>would be delivered a year earlier and cost a billion less for the
>>program. Politically, though, the C-17 is popular pork.
>
>I do read Av Week and don't remember this.  Could you supply the date
>of the magazine?
Aviation Week March 15 1993 p.48
"the CBO estimates that matching the capability of 100 C-17s would
require 70 C-5s at a total cost of $14.4 billion. This option is still
more than $10 billion cheaper than completing the C-17 program, which
the CBO estimates will cost $24.7 billion."
Sorry, I was nine billion off. The C-5s would be ten billion cheaper.
>  As for C-17 vs. C-5 , the C-17 can't carry as much
>but has more capability ( read : can land at smaller airfields of which
>there are more of ) than the C-5.  Now is the C-17 pork?  It depends
>on whether your job relies on it or not.  :)  In California right now,
>I would say that it is not pork since due to peace dividend so many
>people are out of work.
>
Well, California voted overwhelmingly for change, right?
The argument to continue military programs just to support jobs is
a poor one. It's kept quite a few bases open that should have been closed
years ago, wasting billions of taxes.
>>The question is whether Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down
>>a pork happy Congress.
>>
>>-- Marc Mueller
>
>Huh?  Shouldn't that read "The question is whether a social-pork happy
>Les Aspin and Clinton will be able to face down a jobs-pork happy
>Congress."
>
>fpa
>
-- Marc Mueller
From: jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Lines: 25
In article <stevethC5Js6F.Fn5@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>	Boy, it looks like the WOD is WORKING REALLY GOOD to stop people from
>	being screwed up in the head, given that example!
>
>(Issue: your friend _got_ his drugs--legal or not legal, he'll continue to
>get them.  Issue #2: why should _I_, as somebody who does NOT use illegal
>drugs and who IS NOT "screwed up" have to PAY for this idiot's problems?  He's
>not doing anybody any harm except himself.  The WOD, on the other hand, is an
>immediate THREAT to MY life and livelyhood.  Tell me why I should sacrafice
>THIS to THAT!).
Hello, is there anybody in there?  You think you have to pay for this idiot's
problem now, who's going to pay for the ballooning number of addicts and
all of the associated problems with them.  I don't even want to think about
it with Hillary in the White House and an administration that "feels our
pain".
No harm but to himself?  What about when he drives his school bus full
of kids into a train.  When he gets stoned and drives up on a sidewalk
and kills 5 people.  When he lives off me on Welfare for the rest of his
life.
The problem with the WOD is that it has no bite.  Sending the slimy
bastards to the chair for selling drugs to kids, now there's some bit.
From: gadfly@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (Gadfly)
Subject: Re: California Insurance Commissioner Endorses Federal Legislation to Protect Consumers from Scam Insurance Companies
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Summary: Whatever you say.
Lines: 96
In article <15389@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > > You mean, since your philosophy took over, the economy has almost
> > > collapsed.
> > Excuse me, *my* philosophy?  You don't have any idea what *my* philosophy
> > is.  The American economy has had its ups and downs through a number of
> > prevailing economic philosophies.  But then, economics is hardly a science.
> In my lifetime, your philosophy -- socialism masquerading as a liberal
> welfare state -- has been in ascendancy.
Yo--earth to Clayton--*my* philosophy?  I have never discussed this with you.
I know it's a minor point, but, gee, dude, you have no idea what economic
and political principles I adhere to.  But don't let that stop you--you're on a
roll.  Just ascribe to me whatever you want--I know you'll choose wisely.
After all, I *do* believe in personal responsibility.
> > No, I mean exactly what I wrote--the welfare system of the New Deal is
> > wholly inadequate to cope with the current state of affairs.
> Absolutely.  So the response of socialists is take us even further
> into socialism.
Duh.  What else would you *expect* a socialist to do?
> > > Flash-in-the-pan?  No, your subculture has utterly dominated the
> > > TV and movie industries for two decades now.
> > *My* subculture?  My, we're getting personal.  The only subculture I see
> > dominating the TV and movie industries is *money*.  If you'll buy it,
> > they'll sell it.  And as recent movements to boycott TV advertisers have
> > shown, they're *very* sensitive about what sells.  Whatever happened to
> > personal responsibility, anyway?  Or am I personally responsible for
> > the decline in that, too?
> To the extent that people have been encouraged to NOT be responsible
> for themselves, yes.
(a) Just when and where have I encouraged people not to be responsible
for themselves?  Be specific--but do make up random dates and heinous
acts as you see fit.
(b) You and I have encouraged many people to do many things.  How does that
in any way make our audiences less responsible for their actions?  Is there
a finite amount of responsibility, so (cf. conservation of energy) as
I become more responsible for an occurrence by encouraging it the actual
perpetrator becomes correspondingly less so?  At what point does the
perpetrator become completely innocent altogether?  You know, this lends
a whole new meaning to the term "the moral high ground".
> > > Oddly enough, all the unskilled or semiskilled people I know manage
> > > to find employment almost immediately.  Maybe she needs to move to a
> > > cheaper part of the country, where jobs are plentiful, and the cost
> > > of living is lower.
> > The west side of Chicago is about as cheap as it gets--squalor city.
> > Tell me about all these places where it's cheap to live and jobs are
> > abundant--I'll pass them on.
> Sonoma County.
I will pass the info on.  Out of curiosity, what kind of jobs would these
be?  What's the demographic mix wrt race, age, culture?
> > lots of employment, and utterly surrounded by socialists.  Well, I suppose
> > that's the sort of environment that would attract socialists, or at least
> > not dissuade them.
> No, it's that areas with a lot of wealthy breed socialists -- all the
> spoiled rich kids, feeling guilty about their wealth.  But not guilty
> enough to give it away -- they just look for politicians to take MY
> more limited wealth away.
Life's a bitch, ain't it?  Man, you've got to get out of Fornicalia--have
you considered someplace perhaps geographically distant but politically
more friendly to you, like, say, Indiana?  Or maybe Utah?
> > Well, I doubt that much of this goes to drugs--there isn't much left after
> > buying food, and there is very little in the first place.  Sure, you read
> > about such cases now and then, but that's what makes them news.  Show me
> > your statistics about AFDC abuse.
> I can tell you that relatives I have known, the drugs came first, the
> food was secondary.
I don't doubt it, but unless you can show me statistics to the contrary
I will persist in my apparently dogmatic socialist belief (hey, if *you* say
so) that most AFDC money really does--for better or worse in the long
term--feed FDCs.
*** ***
Ken Perlow   ***** *****
16 Apr 93   ****** ******   27 Germinal An CCI
*****   *****   gadfly@ihspc.att.com
** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE!   *** ***   TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE!  ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
From: asper@calvin.uucp (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Top Ten Ways Slick Willie Could Improve His Standing With Americans
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: calvin.sbc.com
In article <mwalker-160493090617@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
>
>> Copyright (c) Edward A. Ipser, Jr., 1993
>
>This means we can't quote Ed without his permission. No using these lists
>in your .sigs, folks!
Oh, darn.
Okay, okay, let's stop slamming Ipser, and get on with making fun of other
people.
Alan
From: rolandi@hssc.scarolina.edu (Walter Rolandi)
Subject: Re: Will Italy be the Next Domino to Fall?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Lines: 13
hagenjd@wfu.edu (Jeff Hagen) writes:
>A good two-party system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.
yeah, just like we have here in the US.
--
WALTER G. ROLANDI
USENET: rolandi@andy.hssc.scarolina.edu
INTERNET: rolandi@hsscls.hssc.scarolina.edu
From: nils@monroe.dartmouth.edu (Nils Nieuwejaar)
Subject: Re: We're winning the war on drugs. Not!
Keywords: drugs DEA WOD legalization
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 42
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>The chart that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993
>issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up Among U.S. Eigth-graders" by Mike
>Snider, p. 6D).
>    Adolescents' choices
>    Drugs used by eighth graders in the last month:
>                      Estimated, per 100 students
>                             1991     1992   Pct. chg.
>    Alcohol                  25.1     26.1        +4%
>    Cigarettes               14.3     15.5        +8%
>    Marijuana                 3.2      3.7       +16%
>    Amphetamines              2.6      3.3       +27%
>    LSD                       0.6      0.9       +50%
>    Cocaine                   0.5      0.7       +40%
>    Crack                     0.3      0.5       +67%
>    Source:  University of Michigan Institute for Social Research,
>    1993 report
>We are not winning the "war on drugs".  I think you can see that one
>of the tactics that the DEA employs to give people the impression that
>the "war on drugs" is being won is to selectively quote statistics---
>only statistics that support their contention that drug use has gone
>down.  The excerpt from Time magazine that I included in this post is
>an excellent example of how organizations like the DEA attempt to
>deceive the public.
Unfortunately, there's not much we can learn from the statistics presented
here either.  Due to rounding, the 1991 est. for LSD could be anywhere
from .550 to .649 and the 1992 est. could be anywhere from .850 to .949.
This means that the actual change (if you believe these statistics in the
first place) was anywhere from 31% to 73%.  Similarly the increase in
cocaine use could be anywhere from 18% to 66% and the increase of
crack use could be anywhere from 29% to 120%.  This doesn't even
take into account the margin of error which isn't provided here.
This does not mean that the rest of the argument you present is unfounded,
but it does mean that USA Today has (not surprisingly) provided us
with virtually no information.
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 18
Clayton Cramer writes:
#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
#male population.
Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
promiscious)?
I didn't think that you did.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org
In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>
>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be
>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
^^^^^^^^^
>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>
>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	bill.
What kind of brainless clod posted the above garbage? Would they be
so kind as to explain how this is "Clinton's" initiative, when it
has been before Congress for "at least the past 6 months"?
Jeez, the next thing you know, they'll be blaming the weather on the
poor guy. They'll be blaming World War II on him. They'll be blaming
the Civil War on him. Maybe the Thirty Years War?
From: mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Subject: Re: Bill Targets Pension Funds for " Liberation "
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.
Lines: 6
>>|>       Excerpts from "Insight" magazine, March 15, 1993
*Paranoia part deleted.*
Isn't Insight magazine published by the Mooneys?
From: cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-hajmoosa)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services
Lines: 16
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucssun1.sdsu.edu
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
> (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
> --
>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>   as this would hold such views??? |
My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is
more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source
for the 1-2% figure.
Riyadh Moosa.
SDSU-Chemistry.
cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: The Tories could win the "lottery"...Clinton GST?
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 44
In article <1993Apr16.083029.12516@umr.edu> ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) w
rites:
>In article <1993Apr16.031616.23130@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rscharfy@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:
>>
>>This country is hardly ruined. In fact, it is booming compared to after the
>>1980 election.
>>
>>This whole "USA has gone to hell and Reagan/Bush caused it", is not only lame
,
>>pathetic, and old....... it's wrong.
>>
>>Under Reagan/Bush the economy grew by 1.1 trillion dollars.  This is more tha
n
>>the entire economy of Germany, a "kind, gentle" country, in many peoples'
>>books.  What a joke.
>
>Drive down to Cincinnati and take a look.  Not pretty, is it?
But drive UP to Cleveland and it is about 10,000 times better.  I from Toledo
originally (but that place always as sucked as long as I've been on the planet.
>Things were much better there in 1980.  All that growth went into
>the hands of Ron and Georgie's pals, and I DIDN'T GET A SINGLE
>DIME OF IT, DAMMIT.  And, now, I'm gonna be bled to death by tax
>leeches to pay for the damage.  F***ing great.
Republicans have been trying to pass a balanced budget amendment for the last
ten years.
>
>Oh, here's another thing.  Seems like a lot of people in
>Columbus drive over to Marysville and make Japanese cars.  Hm.
Because for a while, the American companies couln't even compete in THEIR OWN
COUNTRY, where free trade isn't even an issue.  However, even the automobile
pendelum has swung back to the Big 3.
>I wonder how many American-owned companies employ those in
>Central Ohio?  Other than Ohio State University.  :)
Oh, I don't know.  It's probably in the tens of thousands.
Ryan
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer)
Subject: Re: Clinton caves in: reduces jobs bill
Summary: Too good to be true, evidently.
Organization: ACME Products
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr16.131615.8661@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 	Clinton has backed off from the $16 billion jobs bill.
>
> 	Word is he's paring it down to the core: jobless benefits, money for
> creating full time jobs (ie, no summer jobs money).
>
> 	Chalk one up for holding the line on spending.
It seems radio reports were overly optimistic.  All Clinton wants to
cut is $2.5 Billion for community block grants, keeping in summer jobs.
Hmmm, well, looks like we need to keep up the pressure on our
congresspersons.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction."  Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 75
In article <C5K5LC.CyF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (La
wrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <15378@optilink.com> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>
>>From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>
>>    Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>
>>    A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>    examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>    the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>    percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>    1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>>
>>    The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>    by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>    the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>    wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>
>1) So what?
So there are less gays, then the gays claim.
>
>2) It will be interesting to see the reaction when 2.5million queers
>   gather in Washington DC. After all if there are only 6million of
>   us then this is an event unprecidented in history...
>
Dream on.  Abortion and African-American Civil rights rallies don't even bring
in half of that.
>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>
>Don't forget that 25% had 20 or more partners....
>
I was wondering why I wasn't getting laid.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.
>
>And what did this study show for number of sexual contacts for those
>who said they where homosexual? Or is that number to inconvient for
>you....
>
If it's more, then who cares?
>>It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>
>Fuck off
>
Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men,
because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and
with social pressures, probably would at least try.
>--
>------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
> \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
>
Did you know that is is a fact that homosexuality was comparatively high in
Hitler's storm troopers (SA) before he came to power.  I wonder if they got to
put the triangles on themselves......
Ryan
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 46
>>The article also contains numbers on the number of sexual partners.
>>The median number of sexual partners for all men 20-39 was 7.3.
>>Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>>and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>>homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>>male population.  It's a shame that we don't have a breakdown for
>>straight men vs. gay/bi men -- that would show even more dramatically
>>how much more promiscuous gay/bi men are.
>>--
>
>Isn't is funny how someone who seems to know nothing about homosexuality
>uses a very flawed (IMHO) source of information to pass jusgement on all
>homosexual and bisexual men.
Only the most comprehensive survey on sexuality in 50 years.
>  It would seem more logical to say that since
>the heterosexual group of men is larger then the chances of promiscuity
>larger as well.  In my opinion, orientation has nothing to do with it.
>
Chance and size have nothing in common on the multimillion number scale we are
talking about.
>Men are men and they all like sex.  I am a gay male.  I have had sex three
>times in my life, all with the same man.  Before that, I was a virgin.
>
>So... whose promiscuous?
>
Nobody said that you were.  Chill.
>Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have no morals.  Just because
>someone is heterosexual doesn't mean they do.  Look at the world....
Well said.
>Statistics alone prove that most criminals are by default hetero...
>
Actually, the Kinsley Report in 1947(or 48?) used a high percentage of
prisoners so...........
Ryan
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Just what is in the Jobs/Pork bill?
Summary: Answer: Local communities decide what to do with block grants
Distribution: usa
Organization: Just a Boomer, Inc.
Lines: 73
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com
In article <C5L5uM.IsF@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>This was in Wed. WSJ.
>
>[start]
>The white house, seeking to mount public pressure on GOP senators, bombarded
>news outlets in some senator's home states with news releases warning that
>certain projects may not be funded if the $16billion stimulus bill isn't
>passed.
>
>None of the projects mentioned are actually in the bill, rather they are
>part of a wish list that may be funded from the $2.56 billion in
>Community Development Block Grants.
>
>...
>
>[end]
>
>I could have sworn I heard a bunch of Clintonites going on and on, raving
>about how dishonest it was that the Rebublicans were taking items from this
>wish list in order to ridicule this bill. Now that Clinton is using that
>same list in order to garner support for the bill, are you guys going to
>do the honorable thing and say that Clinton is being dishonest.
As one of the "Clintonites" cited above, I'll try to clarify since this
is not a case of Clinton's "dishonesty." (I won't necessarily defend him
on other issues.)
There were NEVER any specific projects included in the Community
Development Block Grant portion of the President's proposal.  Congressional
Republicans, in an effort to discredit the stimulus package, selected what
they felt were silly sounding projects from a wish-list of POTENTIAL
projects prepared by the US Mayors' Conference before the stimulus package
was ever proposed.  (The document in question was designed to pressure the
White House to increase the size of the block grant proposal submitted
to Congress.  It didn't work.)
The $2.56(?) billion proposed in the stimulus package came nowhere close
to covering the total estimated cost of the original wish-list.  If it
were passed, communities would have to select which projects to fund and
at what level.
In the case of Spokane, Wa., Tom Foley's home district, no one ever
expected to be able to refurbish a local swimming pool (one of the
Republicans' examples) FROM THE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE STIMULUS
PACKAGE since the estimated cost of doing so exceeded the total
amount of block grant funds the city would receive from the stimulus
package for ALL projects.
The plan, instead, was to use the money on public housing construction
and remodeling to cope with a severe housing shortage.  (Yup, there are
places where that is true.)  The swimming pool improvements were near the
bottom of a long list of priorities prepared by the city.  The $3 million
or so to be received would cover only a few of the most pressing
priorities.
If the block grants are cut from the stimulus package, it is these projects
that will be affected by the lack of funds.  And that is why the Clinton
administration has been publicizing the issue.
A final point.  One may or may not like community block grants.  It is
worth noting, however, that Congressional Republicans' opposition to them
is new.  Since the Nixon administration, Republicans have generally
supported such grants as an alternative to targeted federal spending,
arguing that local governments are far better able to determine spending
priorities than "Washington bureaucrats."
Is it clear now?  Or is this all too complicated to understand?
jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: How many homosexuals are there?
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Lines: 28
In article <1qmtl1$71r@gondor.sdsu.edu> cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu (Riyadh Al-ha
jmoosa) writes:
>kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>> Perhaps 1%, but most likely not more than 2%.  A new study
>> (discrediting Kinsey) says so.
>> --
>>   The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
>>   my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>>   believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>>   as this would hold such views??? |
>
>    My understanding from my psycology classes is that the percentage is
>    more like 10-12% world wide.  I would really like to know your source
>    for the 1-2% figure.
>
>                             Riyadh Moosa.
>                             SDSU-Chemistry.
>                             cosc0000@ucssun1.sdsu.edu
Some survey conducted by the U.S. government and some group (I don't know
which) did what they were calling on all the news shows this morning, "The most
comprehensive survey of sexuality in the past 50 years".  Not an exact quote,
but you get the idea.
This low percentage is merely one more in a ton of evidence disproving the 10%
theory.
Ryan
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 43
In article <1993Apr16.121720.13017@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (
Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2:
>>
>>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low
>>
>>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough
>>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since
>>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2
>>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and
>>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
>Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed
>*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they
>considered themselves exclusively homosexual.
>
Yes, and of course the Kinsey Report taken 50 years ago in much more liberal
times regarding homosexuality.........
>The point being that what people say and what they acutally do
>may be different.
>
>It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not
>mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-)
>
Or smart enough to realize that that argument would have to apply to every
survey regarding homosexuality.  Therefore, they would look stupid. (Actually,
Idid see Bryant Gumble bring that point up.  Hee, hee).
>     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday
>>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than
>>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional
>>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report.
>
Ryan
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: A Rational Viewpoint ---> was Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Santa Cruz
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu
In article <C5L0v1.JCv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dans@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dan S.) writes:
>
>Don't forget about the culture.  Sadly, we don't (as a society) look upon
>homosexuality as normal (and as we are all too well aware, there are alot
>of people who condemn it).  As a result, the gay population is not encouraged
>to develop "non-promiscuous" relationships.  In fact there are many roadblocks
>put in the way of such committed relationships.  It is as if the heterosexual
>community puts these blocks there so as to perpetuate the claim that gays
>are immoral.  "My, if we allowed gays to marry, raise children ... we might
>just find out they're as moral as we are, can't have that can we?"
>
>Just some thoughts.  Flame away. :)
>
>Dan
This is a very good point.  One that I have held for sometime.  We do not
allow people to develop on the paths that they choose or desire.  Even with
heterosexuals we tend to leave some hanging in the sense of knowledge and
information about sexuality and relationships.
It is very difficult for a young person to develop and build a positive
view of themself when they are constantly being told implicitly and explicitly
that they are wrong and immoral.
The concepts about personal relationships are deeply embedded in emotionalism
and fear- these fears cover a wide range, but mostly jealousy and lack of trust
seem to be cornerstones of modern day American relationships.  We also set on
top of this the concepts of Madison Avenue attractiveness and standards and put
the pressure on to measure up.
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Subject: Pat Robertson says ...
Keywords: Homosexuality
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 25
[In response to a report by CBN News correspondent Ken Lormond about a
meeting between Slick Willie and homosexual activists:]
Lormond: "But Clinton will not be attending a rally by homosexuals in
Washington later this month.  He will instead be out of town, on a
retreat with Senate Democrats."
Robertson: "Yeah, he'd better retreat."  [Laughter, followed by
sustained applause]
[Later, in a report by correspondent Deborah Whitsen on the fizzling
boycott instigated by homosexuals against Colorado:]
Whitsen: "Colorado ski resorts have seen record crowds this year
despite a call by homosexual activists for boycott of the state ...
There have been record snowfalls in the mountains this year, and the
skiers have been coming in droves ..."
Robertson: "And God said, let it snow ..."  [More sustained applause]
--
The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? |
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU ()
Subject: New 'GUESS' Out On Gay Percentage
Organization: Santa Cruz
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu
In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>#male population.
>
>Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
>to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
>willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
>promiscious)?
>
>I didn't think that you did.
>
>--
>-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
It is obvious that Mr. Cramer has the 'ability' to take the 'leap of faith'.
I have listened to several of the men involved in this study, and even they
claim that the men involved will not 'tell the whole truth'.
I put little value in extrapolating from these types of 'studies' or 'surveys',
they have limited subsets of individuals, and there is alot of skewing due
to improper selection methods, and the bias of the people involved in the
studies on both sides- subject and researcher.
Would you admit to be part of a group that was not very well liked?  Would
you admit to having had sex with other people at some considered abnormal
rate (this applies to heterosexual men).  In fact, as one gay man and one
straight man put it, "men lie about the number of partners, because that's
the thing to do"- our culture for the male almost requires this type of
response.  It may seem harmless and silly, but carries a large emotional
and mental price tag.
I hear college male students everyday talking about their 'supposed'
conquest.  They just have to look good to one another, at least in their
eyes.  But also know that alot of this does go on, there are many college
males (hetero) having a lot of sex with different partners.
From: rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy)
Subject: Re: New Study Out On Gay Percentage
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 17
In article <C5LA55.Bwq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU
(Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Clayton Cramer writes:
>#Compared to the table I have already posted from Masters, Johnson,
>#and Kolodny showing male homosexual partners, it is apparent that
>#homosexual men are dramatically more promiscuous than the general
>#male population.
>
>Did you ever consider the selection effect that those who are willing
>to admit to being a member sexual minority (homosexuality) are more
>willing to admit to being a member of another sexual minority (highly
>promiscious)?
>
Oh yeah, and men just haaaaate to brag about "how many woman they've had."
Ryan
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: NWO Steering Committee
Lines: 52
In <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu sez:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the
>impact, not from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?
>
>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
There's this minor thing called "interest of finality/repose".  What
it means is that parties aren't dragged into court over and over again
because the losing side "discovers" some "new" evidence.  I don't know
about you, Brett, but I suspect GM had the resources to find just
about as many expert and fact witnesses as it wanted before the trial
started.  Letting them re-open the case now is practically an
invitation to every civil litigant on earth to keep an ace in the hole
in case the verdict goes against him.
BTW, in federal criminal cases, Rule 33 does permit a motion for a new
trial "based on . . . *newly discovered* evidence" if made within 2
years of the verdict.  (Emphasis mine.)  If you're trying to make a
backhanded point about criminal justice in a discussion that has
little to do with criminal trials -- as the estimable David Brock did
in his amusing WSJ piece last week -- save your breath.
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be
>believed?
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?
Yup.  Which is why they shoulda been brought around the first time
through.
>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?
>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?
Unless there's some reason to believe that this supposed bias predated
the trial (as opposed to being a product of it), and that GM was
unfairly prevented from discovering it (by venireman concealment or
otherwise), why should GM be allowed to complain?
--
MORAL: Always Choose the Right Sort of Parents
Before You Start in to be Rough
- George Ade
Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: achates.mit.edu
In article <1993Apr15.170239.8211@hemlock.cray.com>
rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite
>evidence of his inocents.
I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who
was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book
is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays
caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.
--
John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Subject: Re: Good Neighbor Political Hypocrisy Test
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 45
In article <C5L4rp.EBM@news.iastate.edu> jrbeach@iastate.edu (Jeffry R Beach) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.165139.6240@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>> I really don't want to waste time in
>>> here to do battle about the legalization of drugs.  If you really want to, we
>>> can get into it and prove just how idiotic that idea is!
>>
>>  Read: I do not know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am
>>not eager to make a fool of myself.
>
>Oh, you foolish person.  I do know what the fuck I'm talking about
>and will gladly demonstrate for such ignorants as yourself if you
>wish.
>
>The legalization of drugs will provide few if any of the benefits
>so highly taunted by its proponents:  safer, cheaper drugs along
>with revenues from taxes on those drugs; reduced crime and reduced
>organized crime specifically; etc, etc
Ahhh, the classic Truth By Blatant Assertion technique.  Too bad it's
so demonstrably false.  Take a look at Great Britain sometime for a
nice history on drug criminalization.  The evidence there shows that
during periods of time when drugs (such as heroin) were illegal, crime
went up and people did die from bad drugs.  During times when drugs
were legalized, those trends were reversed.
>
>If you would like to prove how clueless you are, we can get into
>why - again a lot of wasted posts that I don't think this group
>was intended for and something easily solved by you doing a little
>research.
Now this is a great example of an ironclad proof.  Gosh, I'm convinced.
( :-} for the humor impaired).  First, assert something for which you
have no evidence, then dodge requests for proof by claiming to know
what this group was intended for.  As to research, if you'd done any
at all, you'd realize that there is plenty of reason to believe that
legalizing drugs will have many benefits to society.  There are some
plausible arguments against it, too, but they aren't enough to convince
me that criminalization of drugs is the answer.  I'm willing to be
convinced I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt the likes of you can do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Lines: 14
<1993Apr15.170239.8211@hemlock.cray.com>
<1qn73aINNmq9@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jfc@athena.mit.edu's message of 16 Apr 1993 21:05:46 GMT
In article <1qn73aINNmq9@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
> I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who
> was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book
> is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays
> caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.
And I recommend the movie _The Thin Blue Line_, which is about the
same case.  Not as much legal detail, but still an excellent film.  It
shows how very easy it is to come up with seemingly conclusive
evidence against someone whom you think is guilty.
--
Matthew Austern                       Maybe we can eventually make language a
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             complete impediment to understanding.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE SKY ALREADY FELL. NOW WHAT?)
Subject: Bush's WI (was Clinton's Wiretapping Initiative
Summary: BUSH'S wiretapping initiative
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1
Keywords:
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Lines: 29
In article <9304161803.AA23713@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com>, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne)         writes...
>	If you look through this newsgroup, you should be
>	able to find Clinton's proposed "Wiretapping" Initiative
>	for our computer networks and telephone systems.
>
>	This 'initiative" has been up before Congress for at least
>	the past 6 months, in the guise of the "FBI Wiretapping"
>	bill.
I guess your strength isn't in math. Clinton hasn't been president for
6 months. In other words, it's BUSH'S Wiretapping Initiative.
>
>	I strongly urge you to begin considering your future.
>	I strongly urge you to get your application for a passport
>	in the mail soon.
>
>	I strongly urge you to consider moving any savings you
>	have overseas, into protected bank accounts, while
>	you are still able.
>
Have you?
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who said anything about panicking?" snapped Authur.           Garrett Johnson
"This is still just culture shock. You wait till I've       Garrett@Ingres.com
settled into the situation and found my bearings.
THEN I'll start panicking!" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, The Movie
Lines: 43
Organization: Pitzer College
In article <VEAL.731.734985604@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.164750.21913@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@
alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:>
>>In article <9304151442.AA05233@inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com> blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) writes:
>>
>>Why don't the Republicans get their act together, and say they
>>will support a broad-based VAT that would have to be visible
>>(the VAT in Canada is visible unlike the invisible VATS they
>>have in Europe)
>>and suggest a rate sufficient to halve income and corporate
>>and capital gains tax rates and at a rate sufficient to give
>>the Clintons enough revenue for their health care reform,
>
>       The Republicans are, in general, fighting any tax increase.
>There is also worry that a VAT would be far too easy to increase
>incrementally.
>
I was a graduate student in the early 1980s, and we had a conference on
Reaganomics where Jerry Jordan, then a member of the Council of Economic
Advisors, was a speaker.  I had the pleasure of driving him back to the
airport afterwards, and since taxes were the main topic of discussion I
thought I would ask him about the VAT.  I have favored it for these reasons
you mention, that the income base is too hazy to define, that it taxes
savings and investment, that it is likely to be more visible.  He agreed,
and reported that the CEA at that time was in favor of VAT.  So why not
propose it?  I asked.  He replied that the Reagan White House feared that
the Democrats would introduce VAT *in addition to* the income tax, rather
than in lieu.  Better not to give them any ideas, he said.
Pretty prescient.
>       (BTW, what is different between Canada's tax and most of
>Europe's that makes it "visible?")
>
Yes, any Canadian readers, please tell us if the tax is displayed on price
stickers (I'm relatively certain it is not in Europe).
--King "Sparky" Banaian                 |"It's almost as though young
kbanaian@pitzer.claremont.edu           |white guys get up in the
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College      |morning and have a big smile
Latest 1993 GDP forecast:  2.4%         |on their face ... because,
|you know, Homer wrote the
|_Iliad_."  -- D'Souza
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality
Keywords: being liberal
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Lines: 32
> magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (COMPUTER DUDETTE) writes:
>I just recently realized that I am bisexual, and also just recently returned to
>religion, and have a good friend who has pointed out to me that homosexuality
>is a sin in the bible.  Well, I don't see how it could be considered a sin,
First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there, I think. In
any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
as an "immoral lifestyle choice"
>Also, I have always been a somewhat liberal feminist, and am pro-choice, and it
>seems that being pro-choice and being religious don't mix either.  I am told
This is another misconception. You are not being told the whole story.
My former minister is a lesbian, and I know personally and
professionally several openly gay and lesbian ministers. I am
a Unitarian-Universalist and like most others in my denomination,
am pro-choice. You needn't go looking to the Unitarian Universalists
(which is a liberal religion) for acceptance of your sexual
identification and pro-choice views, however; there are many of us
who believe in spirituality AND freedom of conscience.
Good Luck on your journey!
--
Daniel O'Connell
Meadville/Lombard Theological School
University of Chicago Divinity School
<dsoconne@uchicago.edu>
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: 5 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 85: 8
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 21
In article <C50KDr.Duz@acsu.buffalo.edu>
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>	I will hear what God the LORD will speak:
>	for he will speak peace
>	unto his people, and to his saints:
>	but let them not turn again to folly.
Psalm85(JPS): For the leader. Of the Korahites. A psalm. O LORD, You
will favor Your land, restore Jacob's fortune; You will forgive Your
people's iniquity, pardon all their sins; Selah; You will withdraw all Your
anger, turn away from Your rage. Turn again, O God, our helper, revoke
Your displeasure with us. Will you be angry with us forever, prolong
Your wrath for all generations? Surely You will revive us again, so that
Your people may rejoice in You. Show us, O LORD, Your faithfulness;
grant us Your deliverance. Let me hear what God, the LORD, will speak;
He will promise well-being to His people, His faithful ones; may they
not turn to folly. His help is very near those who fear Him, to make His
glory dwell in our land. Faithfulness and truth meet; justice and
well-being kiss. Truth springs up from the earth; justice looks down
from heaven. The LORD also bestows His bounty; our land yields its
produce. Justice goes before Him as He sets out on His way.
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Organization: Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 29
Distribution: na
<1993Apr2.170259.13380@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po4.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr2.170259.13380@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
to join.  There are just so many.
Dean Kaflowitz
Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
convenient that it is burdensome at times.
Dave.
=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--Never let school interfere with your education.  (Mark Twain)
--Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.  (Mark Twain)
--TACT is getting your point across without stabbing someone with it.
--Subtlety is saying what you mean, then getting out of the way before
it is understood.
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 10
af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>PPS...Am I giving you too many clues?
Too many clues, not enough substance.  You ask a lot of
good questions, though, but they are questions *you* should
be worried about, not me.  I'm not the inerrantist here.
Let me know when you are ready to get serious.
dj
From: boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the update]
Reply-To: boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 61
In article <1993Apr1.024850.20111@sradzy.uucp>, radzy@sradzy.uucp
(T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:
> >>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> >>>  666, the file permission of the beast.
>
> >radzy@sradzy.uucp (T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:
> >> Sorry, but the file permission of the beast is 600.
> >>
> >> And the file permission of the home directory of the
> >> beast is 700.
>
> boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:
> >Hey, radzy, it must depend on your system's access policy.
> >I get:
> >	$ ls -lg /usr/users
> >	total 3
> >	drwxrwxrwx 22 beast    system       1536 Jan 01  1970 beast
> >	drwxr-x--x 32 boylan   users        2048 Mar 31 09:08 boylan
> >	drwxr-xr-x  2 guest    users         512 Sep 18  1992 guest
> >	$ su
> >	Password:
> >	root $ su beast
> >	beast $ umask
> >	111
> >	beast $ ^D
> >	root $ ^D
> >	$
>
> Just a minute....
>
> 	$ grep beast /etc/passwd
> 	beast:k5tUk76RAUogQ:497:0:Not Walt Disney!:/usr/users/beast:
> 	$ mv /usr/users/beast/.profile /usr/users/beast/.profile,
> 	$ echo umask 077 >> /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	$ cat > /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	chmod 700 /usr/users/beast
> 	mv .mailrc .mailrc,
> 	echo beast logged in | mail radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com
> 	mv .mailrc, .mailrc
> 	mv /usr/users/beast/.profile, /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	^D
> 	$ chmod 777 /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	$ cat /usr/users/beast/.profile, >> /usr/users/beast/.profile
>
> <waits a while, finally gets mail.>
>
> I think you made a mistake.  Check it again.
>
I see . . . you're not running Ultrix!
:-)
- - Steve
--
Don't miss the 49th New England Folk Festival,
April 23-25, 1993 in Natick, Massachusetts!
Subject: CHRISTIAN DEVIL REVEALED!
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 56
>For a while I was puzzled by the the concept of Adam and Eve coming to
>know good and evil.  This is how I resolved it.  Within God's universe
>each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction.  There can be no good
>without evil as an opposite.  So the issue is not what you do but to whom
>you give your allegiance.  That is why, even in this sinful state, when we
>perform an evil act while we are submitted to God He does not place that
>sinful act to our account (Rom 4:8) In the same vein you can perform all
>the good deeds in the book, if your life is not under God's control you are
>still sinning (see Rom 14:23).
Now, take a good look at at, an tell me man, there is no Christian
Devil? There is, is real, is a virus, a meme, infecting and possessing
the good people and keep 'em from becoming human beings with emphasis on
the being! Is not a matter of good people an evil people, is all good
people see, but some good people vexed of the Christian Devil. An it
can't be burn out or lynch out or rape out. Only wise up let I rise up.
Christian Devil is real man, how else can you explain five hundred years
of history, even more? Can only be explained by Christians invoke
Christian Devil.
you keep on knocking but you can't come in, i got to understand you've
been living in sin, but walk right in and sit right down, i'll keep
on loving you, i'll play the clown, but bend down low, let i tell you
what i know yah
i've been 'buked brothers and i've been stoned, woe, woe, woe, now i'm
hung by a tree in the the ganging on a few, woe, woe, woe, it doesn't
matter who the man is who lives the life he loves, it doesn't matter
what the man does or the honest life he loves, i want somewhere, i want
somewhere, hallelujah, hallelujah, somewhere to lay my head, woe is me
only ska beat in 'eaven man
stiff necked fools, you think you're cool, to deny me for simplicity, yes
you have gone, for so long with your love for vanity now, yes you have
got the wrong interpretation mixed up with vain imagination, so take jah
sun and jah moon and jah rain and jah stars, and forever yes erase your
fantasy, yeah, the lips of the righteous teach many, but fools die for
want of wisdom, the rich man's wealth is in his city, the righteous
wealth is in his holy place, so take jah sun and jah moon and jah rain
and jah stars, and forever yes erase your fantasy, destruction of the
poor is in their poverty, destruction of the soul is vanity, yeah, but i
don't want to rule ya, i don't want to fool ya, i don't want to school
ya, things you, you might never know about, yes you have got the wrong
interpretation mixed up with vain, vain imagination, stiff necked fools,
you think you're cool, to deny me for, oh simplicity
love to see, when yah move in the rhythm, love to see when you're
dancing from within, it gives great joy to feel such sweet togetherness,
everyone's doing and they're doing their best, it remind i of the days
in jericho, when we trodden down jericho wall, these are the days when
we'll trod true babylon, gonna trod until babylon fall
then I saw the angel with the seven seals saying, babylon throne going down
we weeping and we wailing tonight
Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Dragons & Mice
From: martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
NNTP-Posting-Host: tigger.cc.utexas.edu
Lines: 17
He sounds really cute, Morte!  Kinds like _pete's dragon_, maybe smaller,
maybe a different species.. winge'd?  (shakespear wing-ED)
I've always hat a horde of mice to turn to for fun & sort of that kind of
mouse in Cinderella (walt disney).  I grew up sort of as an only child,
part time.. my siblings were 10-8-6 years older than me, so i was pretty
commonly a different sort of charater in their games (read: non speaking
hot cocoa-goffer, stand in (still silent) bad guy/good guy/etc), so my
mice were playmates, more than advisors.
Could curt, or whomever has a good list of books please post such list,
in all sorts of fields, like jungian, condensed buddist/etc philosophies,
multiple personailty disorders, or good fiction that has well worked
imaginary friends?
thanks,
sheilagh, wanting a bunch of library catalouge topics to search thru
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department
Reply-To: mayne@cs.fsu.edu
Lines: 14
In article <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>[Many good points deleted. Anyone who missed it should see the original.]
>Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to
>make a bible verse salad just don't cut it.  Those of us who
>want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing
>as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.
True, except that I've known few fundies who had enough sense to
be embarrassed by Josh McDowell.
(Okay, maybe a cheap shot. But I'm in that kind of mood.)
Bill Mayne
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu
Someone posted a list of x number of alleged Bible contradictions.  As Joslin
said, most people do value quantity over quality.  Dave Butler posted some good
quality alleged contradictions that are taking a long time to properly exegete.
If you want a good list (quantity) - _When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook On
Bible Difficulties_ by Dr. Norman Geisler deals with over 800 alleged contradictions.
Frank
--
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
of a thousand."  JOB 9:3
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: David Koresh - Messianic Cult???
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
Lines: 12
Hello.
I just read my first newspaper in a while and noticed an article on a
'messianic cult' leader named 'David Koresh'.
I'd like to know more about this and what is going on with them.
Please email me as I don't normally read this newsgroup.  Thanks.
Thyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com
From: lovall@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Daniel L. Lovall)
Subject: Re: Cannibalism was Albert Sabin
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department
Lines: 49
In article <zxmkr08.733955549@studserv> zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (C
ornelius Krasel) writes:
>In <f1q4yUc@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>In article <1pk2d0$7q1@access.digex.net>
>>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>>In article <f1n#0EP@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes
:
>>>}Do you have any examples of ritual cannibalism, particulary amongst the
>>>}primates?
>>>Why the "ritual" qualifier?
>
>>I was thinking of instances were a particular food or foods or drinks
>>are used to symbolize or ritualize cannibalism. Do you know of any human
>>cultures that have this type of mythology? For example, where one might
>>eat a food as representative of the body of a god, thus ritualized
>>cannibalism in the absence of the original.
>
>I know of ritual cannibalism among tribes in Papua-Neuguinea (?).
>They used to eat the brain of killed opponents. Sometimes these brains
>contained infectious agents which lead to a disease called "Kuru".
>Since cannibalism was banished by the government, the number of Kuru
>cases has dropped sharply.
>
Oh, yeah?  Well---*I* know of ....
Anyways, cannibalism is much more commmon than those who feel that it is wrong
(and then point out that the fact that western civilisation doesn't do it is
PROOF positive that we are more advanced) would have us believe.  Cannibalism
is often used in funeral ceremonies as a way of keeping the deceased loved one
alive.  Many other cultures (including many American Indian cultures) eat/ate
the flesh of slain enemies, often as a way of showing respect for the valor of
the departed.  Hearts are often favored for this, as it contains the spirit.
Have you ever read or seen "Alive", which is the story of the Argentinian boys
soccer team that crashed in the Andes and then ate the bodies of those who died
in order to survive?  Finger lickin good.  How about the Twighlight Zone
episode "To Serve Man"?
If you want more info on this, a good place to start is on sci.anthropology
Now send me $20 and eat my flesh,
Dan
lovall@physics.purdue.edu
From: ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCR
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
X-News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta
In article <C4J571.K3D@rice.edu>, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
said:
>Posted on 27 Mar 1993 at 00:16:13 by Michael Parks Swaim
>In article <C4HIM1.BrF@cs.psu.edu> jdh@math.psu.edu (Jeremy D Hall) writes:
>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336
>>
>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)
5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.
_________________________________________________________________________
�...and everything under the sun is in tune...    � "What was Jabba the �
�nd the sun is eclipsed by the moon."             �  Hut smoking?"      �
�                           --Pink Floyd          �         --Alex      �
�                             "Eclipse"           �           curious   �
�_________________________________________________�_____________________�
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: ZOROASTRIANISM - SAN JOSE - (Merc News Article)
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
Lines: 169
ZOROASTRIANISM
SAN JOSE, CA, USA
Monday April 5, 1993
San Jose Mercury News, Page 1
[Reproduced without permission]
_3,700-year tradition still glows -
'Assimilation in U.S. threatens ancient Zoroastrian religion'_
By Jeanne Huber, Mercury News Staff Writer
HIGH ON A HILLSIDE above San Jose, flames leap up 24 hours a day from a
gleaming brass urn in a temple - one of only four in the United States -
dedicated to one of the world's most ancient religions.
With the flames go the prayers of about 1,200 Bay Area Zoroastrians that
their faith will survive this land.
"There is a fear - a real fear, too," said Silloo Tarapore of Lafayette.
"We have one generation to do it or to die."
Many immigrant groups struggle to maintain an identity in a strange land.
But for Zoroastrians, it is an especially poignant concern.
Their religion has been around for perhaps 3,700 years, a heritage so deep
it scarcely seems comprehensible in a state where "historical sites" are
sometimes less than 100 years old.  It was the religion of the great Persian
Empire under kings Cyrus and Darius.  And tradition says that when Christ
was born about 500 years later, he was honored by a visit from three
Zoroastrian priests, the Magi.  Scholars say many key beliefs of Christians,
Jews and Muslims can be traced to the teachings of Zoroaster, the
Zoroastrian prophet.
Yet, with only about 150,000 Zoroastrians in the entire world, they are
a miniscule minority in every country in which they live.  Survival as a
people is very much on their minds.
Ironically, local Zoroastrians fear that the almost unlimited tolerance
of the United States may do what hundreds of years of persecution followed
by nearly 1,000 years of benign religious segregation could not do: cause
their young people to stop thinking of themselves as Zoroastrians.
Zoroastrians do not believe theirs is the only right religion, and they
actually shun the notion of trying to win converts.  So if their children
become totally assimilated, they say, it's their children - rather than
the world at large - who will be the losers.
"It's important to have an identity," said Maneck Bhujwaia of San Jose,
a leader among Zoroastrians who came here from India.  "It's important
for everybody - Irish, Scottish, Americans.  It gives meaning to life.
You don't have to depend on the majority community to give you respect.
You can fall back on your own identity."
For Zoroastrians, there's much to be proud of.
Their prophet, Zoroaster, seeking to make sense of a culture in which
animal sacrifice to multiple gods was common, preached that there was
only one god, a good one.  Zoroastrians call their god Ahura Mazda, which
translates as Lord of Wisdom and Light.
_Good vs. evil_
Zoroaster saw life as a constant struggle between good and evil, with
the good eventually winning.  Men and women could join in the battle for
good, he said, and he warned that they would inevitably suffer consequences
such as shame and sorrow if they did wrong.  He preached honesty, charity,
kindness to animals, respect for the environment, hard work, equality of
men and women - basic virtues preached by prophets of many religions.
But Zoroaster was perhaps unusual in that he told his followers not to
follow him blindly.  He demanded they think for themselves.  In fact,
Joseph Campbell, the famous scholar of the history and meaning of myths,
traced the Western emphasis on individual thought to the Zoroastrians.
Zoroastrians have many words for thought.  Their motto, leaded into a
stained glass window over the sacred fire at the temple on the slopes of
Mount Hamilton, is "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."
So it's not surprising that Zoroastrians value education highly.  In India,
where a contingent of Zoroastrians arrived in the ninth century to escape
persecution by Muslims in Iran, Zoroastrians claim 100 percent literacy;
the overall statistic in India is just 60 percent.
About half of the Bay Area Zoroastrian community came here from India
and Pakistan, mostly to study at universities.  The other half fled from
Iran after the 1979 revolution made that a fundamentalist Islamic state
where others had no rights.
Local Zoroastrians point with pride to ways their emphasis on "good
deeds" has improved life in every country they inhabit.  In San Jose,
the recent restoration of the Hotel Sainte Clarie came about because
Manou Mobedshahi, a San Francisco-based hotelier, passed the boarded-up
downtown landmark on his way to and from the temple.  At the temple's
dedication, the chief guest of honor was the mother of Zubin Mehta, the
Zoroastrian conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.
The temple exists because of another good deed: the decision by an
Iranian emigre, the late Arbab Rustom Guiv, to buy land for six temples
in North America.  Besides the 10-acre site off Crothers Road on Mount
Hamilton, he paid for land in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Toronto,
and Vancouver.  Until his gifts, there were no Zoroastrian temples on
this continent.
Local Zoroastrians raised money to build the actual temple, and the
property already had a large house that they have converted to a
community center.
The temple, dedicated a year ago on the birthday of the prophet
Zoroaster, is a simple structure with gleaming white walls, vaulted
ceilings and oak floors, partially covered with huge Oriental carpets.
Its central feature is the fire, set in the middle of a partly-glassed-
in area at the center of the building.  Although Zoroastrians are
sometimes called "fire worshippers," they actually consider fire just
a symbol of God.  "It helps us concentrate, just like Christians use the
cross and Muslims use the Holy Book," Bhujwala said.
The biggest celebration of the years occurs in early spring.  For all
Iranians, including Zoroastrians, the New Year begins on the first day of
the season because of its symbolism as the start of new life.  With
Zoroaster's birthday just six days later, the combination of religious
and secular holidays creates something on par with what most of the
United States celebrates between Christmas and Jan. 1.
For this year's celebration of the prophet's birthday, about 500 people
came to worship and revel.
"The good things in life are not forbidden," Esfandiar Anoushiravani,
a leader of the Iranian members, had said beforehand, and what followed
proved him right.
Inside the temple, worshipers filled every chair and sat or stood
around the edges of the room as about a half-dozen priests chanted
thanksgiving prayers around a table laden with braziers of smoking
sandalwood, glasses of milk and water, and a tray heaped with dried fruit
and nuts.
Kids crowded around, grabbing handfuls of the treats.  "People eat the
fruit," Tarapore said.  "It's a way to participate in the ceremony."
_Santa Claus, sort of_
The gathering even had a Santa Claus, Iranian style.  With flowing white
hair and a bag of gifts for the children, this Amownaroz wore green
symbolic of spring) and red.
He was ushed in by a sort of spring clown, Hajefyrouz, who danced and
played a tambourine.
The Zoroastrians from India were charmed.  "This is all new for us, too,"
one told a visitor who asked what was going on.
A visitor, John A. Sabanovich of Folsom, said he became intrigued with
the religion years ago while on business trips to Iran.  Zoroastrians have
no procedure for accepting converts - a result, some say, of their
centuries of persecution in Iran followed by their promise to the Hindu
king who allowed them into India that they would not interfere with his
people's religion.
But that does not stop Sabavich from joining in the celebrations at the
San Jose temple whenever he can.
"When I first heard about this religion," he said, "I thought, my God,
this is what a religion should be.  They think for themselves and do good.
"People who don't have a tradition, something to lean on, what's the
difference with the lower animals?"
------------------------------------------------ end of article ----
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 30
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>
>I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.
>Lists like this seem to value quantity over quality, an "argument
>from article length."  And the list you have here is of poorer
>quality than most.
I agree, which is why I've asked for help with it.
The reason I'm working on this list is because I've recently had one
too many Christians tell me "the Bible contains no contradictions
whatsoever."  They believe that it's true, and that it describes
reality perfectly, and even predicts history before it happens.
Before I can carry on any sort of meaningful conversation with these
people, I've got to SHOW them, with concrete evidence, that the Bible
is not nearly as airtight as they thought.  I hope to do that with
this list.
Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
indeed two different accounts of creation.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Lines: 79
Kalki Dasa writes:
>These topics are all discussed in the Vedas. In fact, the original
>knowledge of all these topics comes from the Vedas. Therefore, they are
>not "newage" at all. They are rather old by any standards. Nor is the
>popularity they are currently experiencing something new. One would
>think that the Vedas would be very popular among "newagers," since all
>the things you mention above are thoroughly described in them.
Isn't that interesting?!  In the Jewish tradition you are incredibly
wrong!  They originate in the Torah and with Jewish ancestors,
specifically the Patriarch Abraham (z"l).  That knowledge was sent East
to India and China when Abraham gave "gifts" (the commentators to Jewish
scripture say this was the knowledge of the occult arts) to all the rest
of his children when he sent them away to the East.  This assured that
Isaac only, who remained with Abraham, would inherit his most important
spiritual gifts, what eventually became Judaism.
So you see, other religions can have very parochial views too.  By the
Jewish view, you are very mistaken, your scripture are not scripture,
your gods are not gods, your practices a jumble of errors that lead
people to idol worship and away from God.  That doesn't stop us from
respecting you to the extent of not trying to convert you or proselytize
you and being willing to dialog in a respectful manner.  We're content
to let you live the way you care to live as long as you leave us be.  We
are happy to co-exist as long as you give us the same right.
But your incredible rudeness and violent nature seems to preclude that.
Too bad.  Is this typical of your religion?
>However, there is one difference between the "newage" practitioner and
>the actual follower of the Vedic teachings: the typical "newager"
>desires to acquire all the material powers and opulences mentioned in
>the Vedas, without referring to their source, the Lord. He wants the
>kingdom of God without God. He wants personal power without the
>responsibility of acknowledging its source, without the Person from Whom
>that power comes. In other words, he is just plain selfish.
You are a most presumptuous fellow!  How dare you presume that the
"typical" New Ager doesn't acknowledge God and is selfish.  What trite,
self-righteous, ego-ful garbage!  There are Buddhists, Christians, Jews,
and those of many other religions here on this newsgroups for whom your
words are simple slander.
> ...The Vedic
>follower, on the other hand, knows that no matter what one desires, one
>must worship God. And the Vedas give a complete description of exactly
>who is God, so that there can be no mistake in His identification. For
>this reason the parts of the Vedas that deal directly with the
>Personality of Godhead are not very popular among "newagers," and anyone
>who presents the complete Vedas as they are is branded as an
>"evangelist" (as if there is something wrong with that) even though he
>is simply presenting the unadulterated Vedic teachings.
Of course, from the Jewish perspective you are incredibly wrong.  We'd
say that there is no "godhead" -- just created beings who may be
enjoying a good laugh at your expense.
>A thief takes from others and says "this is mine." A "newager" takes
>from God and says "this is mine." Such a false mystic must be careful to
>avoid coming in contact with the real owner of the things he has stolen.
>Consequently, he invents an explanation for these things that
>conveniently omits the identity of their owner, the Lord. In other
>words, he lies about where he got them.
So not only are we selfish, we are also thieves and liars!  And you
expect any of us to pay attention to you and your "religion?"  Why not
call us more name?   Maybe then we'll all convert in gratefullness!
>However, the Lord is very merciful, and He sends His servants to remind
>the "newager" of his own identity as spirit soul, the eternal servant of
>God. Hence, although unwanted, the "evangelist" continues to broadcast
>the complete truth.
You delude yourself.
--
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 102
In article <1993Apr03.044958.15500@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>understand what the words mean.  Someone who inflicts pain on themselves
>because they enjoy it is a masochist.
>
>And, no:  there is nothing wrong with it.  You may think it's gross or
>bizarre (and I might agree with you here), but my/your disgust is not equal
>to it being morally wrong.
/(hudson)
/If someone inflicts pain on themselves, whether they enjoy it or not, they
/are hurting themselves.  They may be permanently damaging their body.
That is true.  It is also none of your business.
Some people may also reason that by reading the bible and being a Xtian
you are permanently damaging your brain.  By your logic, it would be OK
for them to come into your home, take away your bible, and send you off
to "re-education camps" to save your mind from ruin.  Are you ready for
that?
/(hudson)
/And why is there nothing wrong with it?  Because you say so?  Who gave you
/the authority to say that, and set the standard for morality?
Why?
Because:
I am a living, thinking person able to make choices for myself.
I do not "need" you to show me what you think is the way; I have observed
too many errors in your thinking already to trust you to make up the
rules for me.
Because:
I set the standard for my *own* morality, and I permit you to do
the same for yourself.  I also do not try to force you to accept my rules.
Because:
Simply because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't give you
the right to stop it, Hudson.  We are all aware that you would like for
everyone to be like you.  However, it is obnoxious, arrogant thinking like
yours, the "I-know-I'm-morally-right-so-I-can-force-it-on-you" bullshit
that has brought us religious wars, pogroms against Jews, gay-bashing,
and other atrocities by other people who, like you, "knew" they were
morally right.
(me)
>What is it with you, Hudson?  You think you know better than other people,
>so you want to be able to tell them what they can and cannot do to
>themselves?  Who died and made you God?  How come I can't do the same
>thing?
/(hudson)
/Aren't you?  Aren't you indicating that I should not tell other people what
to do?  Aren't you telling me it is wrong for me to do that?
It is not a moral standard that I am presenting you with, Hudson.  It is
a key to getting along in life with other people.  It is also a point of
respect:  I trust other people to be intelligent enough to make their
own choices, and I expect the same to be returned.  You, on the other
hand, do not trust them, and want to make the choice for them--whether
they like it or not.
It is also a way to avoid an inconsistency:  if you believe that you have
the right to set moral standards for others and interfere in their lives,
then you must, by logic, admit that other people have the same right of
interference in your life.
(Yes, I know; you will say that your religion is correct and tells you that
only agents acting in behalf of your religion have the right of interference.
However, other people will say that you have misinterpreted the Word of
God and that *they* are the actual true believers, and that you are
acting on your own authority.  And so it goes).
(hudson)
/Who gave
/you the authority to set such a moral standard for me to tell me that I
/cannot set a moral standard for others?
You can set all the standards that you want, actually.  But don't be surprised
if people don't follow you like rats after the Pied Piper.
At the most basic form, I am not going to LET you tell me what to do;
and if necessary, I will beat you to a bloody pulp before I let you actually
interfere in my life.
Now, at a more humane level than that, I recognize that all people are
sentient beings possessed of intelligence and capable of reason.  I also
recognize that they, like I, appreciate being treated with respect and
allowed to make their own decisions.
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 57
(hudson)
>/These people hurt their own bodies.  Why can't they hurt other peoples bodies
>/too?
>
(me)
>Because other people might not *want* to be hurt, Hudson.  And hurting
>them against their will is a violation of choice.
/(hudson)
/So. Why is someone elses will such a big deal if morality is all relative.
I don't believe I ever said that morality was all relative.
What I said was that I can make my mind up on my own, thank you, and that
you don't have the right to tell others what to think.
I think that you will find that in most moral systems, there is
a respect for human life and the dignity of the person.  It is all the
stuff besides these points that forms the core of the disagreement between
primitive moral absolutists like yourself and the rest of us.
/(hudson)
/Maybe (the insane lover of pain might reason) if other people experienced
/enough pain, they might learn to enjoy it, too.
Fine.  There is still the clinical definition of crazy.  And this also
involves a violation of free will, because the insane lover of your
little example would be inflicting pain on a non-willing subject.
Try again.
(hudson)
>/You have to have other premises to derive this.
>
(me)
>No, you don't.  That is a patently false statement.
/(hudson)
/You have to have some sort of premise about choice or self-awareness.
No, you do not.  I demonstrated to you the example of the football
team which doesn't require premises about freedom of choice or
sentience/self-awareness.
As I said, you are wrong, and you don't seem to know much about moral
systems.  If I were you, I would take David Bold's suggestion and do some
reading on the subject before you try preaching about it.
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 123
/(hudson)
/Yes you do.  Who is to say that it is immoral for onesself to experience
/pain or to be hurt in some other way.  Maybe unpleasant, but that doesn't
/say anything about morality.
It violates free will, Hudson.
(me)
>You can derive the immorality of hurting someone else entirely from selfish
>motives.  I can say, for example, that it is wrong to hurt other people
>because that makes them less productive members of society.
/(hudson)
/Why is making someone a less productive member of society immoral?
Hudson, you are screwing up again.  Morality does not (I say again, DOES
NOT) define only "right and wrong".  It also defines "acceptable social
behavior", without any overtones of good and evil.  Picking up your trash
is not really a right/wrong moral issue in the eternal sense of Good
and Evil.  Yet it is moral in the sense that it is acceptable social
behavior".
Your definition of the word "morality" is what is causing you to trip over
yourself here.
/(me)
/And since
/>I, selfish being that I am, want to maximize my gains from society, I will
/>not do anything to another member of society if that action might cut down
/>on how much benefit I can derive from society.
/(hudson)
/Why is your benefit somehow related to morality.
Again, your definition is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot.
/(hudson)
/What about if someone feels that their own personal benefit is enhanced
/more than it would be damaged by depleting the overall resources of society?
/Maybe something might hurt society, but it would help him immensly?
That is irrational thinking.
There may also be people out there who think that death by atomic
destruction is  a sublime and wonderful thing. I am not going to let them
execute that idea just because they want to do it.
Simply because I let people make up their minds about what morals they
have doesn't prevent me from spotting and stopping a madman when I see
one, Hudson.  And even then, I will only stop him when he interferes
with me and my life.  That is the difference between me and you:  you
want to interfere in people's lives even when they aren't affecting
you.
/(hudson)
/The central character in Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment,
/(R something or other) reasoned that if killed this old Jewish woman and
/stole her money to educate and establish himself financially, he could
/make a great contribution to society.  He reasoned that she was not of
/much profit to society.  She just collected rents, and hoarded money.
One of the central points of any (that's ANY) moral system is that is
has to be internally consistent.
By killing her, the character had to accept the premise that the ends
justify the means.  If he accepted that premise, then (in order to be
consistent), he must accept the idea that some day another person may
apply the same standard to HIS life.  Now, if he is unwilling to accept
this premise (which he will not be willing to accept), then he has
behaved inconsistently with his own moral standard.
/(me)
/[football example deleted]
/(hudson)
/Now suppose a freshman on the bench will only get to play if one of the
/players in the field/on the court is injured (or killed.)  This freshman
/wants to play in the big game so a talent scout can see him.  If he hurts
/a player on the team, it might slightly lessen the chances of the team to
/win, but he might gain great personal benefit.  So, operating on purely
/selfish (immorally selfish) motives, he arranges for a sniper to shoot a
/team player in the leg.  He gets to play in front of the talent scout.
/Did that freshman behave morally?
/Selfish intentions may sometimes generate (apparently) moral actions, but
/not always.
Two problems right off the bat:
1.  The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't address the goal
that I started with:  winning the game.  Playing in front of the talent
scout != winning the game.  Try creating the same analogy and keep the
ultimate goal the same, will you?
2.  The internal consistency question is also not addressed:  if the freshman
wants to do this to other people, then he has to accept the fact that
it may happen to him one day.  If he is unwilling, then he has violated
his own moral standard.
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 96
>/(hudson)
>/And from a materialistic point of view, it could be said that the nervous
>/system is just matter.  What is wrong with producing chemical reactions in
>/matter?
>
>Because this matter is different.  It is alive, and self-aware.  And it
>feels pain.
/(hudson)
/If all morality were relative- big hairy deal.
As I said, you appear to be the only person saying that all morality
is relative.  Most people I know do hold some absolutes in their
moral system.
I >>personally<< believe that the dignity of the individual and the right
of free will are absolutes.  I recognize that there are some moral
systems around which don't accept this; I reject them as dangerous
and anti-social (nazism, some forms of communism, fundamentalist
xtianity--no, that's not a slam).  But for the most part, almost
every moral system agrees on these two points.
(me)
>and the sky, and everything in it; everything that was created came out
>of God.  Everything, including this matter, is part of God.  Therefore, is
>it wrong to put parts of God in a test tube and make It go through
>reactions?  Isn't that a form of blasphemy?
/(hudson)
/Generally, Christians believe in a Creator-Creation distinction.  Other
/religions believe in one big whole.   I don't accept yor premises.
Too bad.  I know I'm right, so I get to enforce my view upon you whether
you like my premise or not.  And since you can't prove otherwise, there
isn't even an intellectual basis for your resistance to accepting my
viewpoint.
>/(hudson)
>/How long will it be before the "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else"
>/becomes more and more relative until the only rule that is left is
>/"I will do what I want to do, no matter who it hurts."
>
>There's a big jump between those two positions, and you know it very
>well.  Don't play stupid.  I realize that you're trying to dispute
>what you call "popular morality" by using what you think is logic,
>but you're stretching this a bit too thin.
/(hudson)
/I don't think so.  once morality becomes relative, it degenerates.  I am
/saying that reasoning that it is generally evil to hurt other people is bad.
/(though I don't think it is sufficient.)
Well, then answer me this:   you seem to be opposed to moral relativism
(as you call it) because it has the capacity to degenerate.  Obviously,
then, you would advocate a nonrelative (absolute) moral system.
Whose absolutist moral system do we choose?
How do we come to this decision?
What about people who disagree with the chosen moral system?
/(hudson)
/But if morality is considered to
/be relative, and this rule isn't based on anything, but is just an arbitrary
/rule, people might abandon it.
Fine.  I can agree with most of what you typed here.  However, just because
morality gets based on something nonrelative does NOT mean that we have to
pick your xtianity as its base.
We can start a morality based on dignity of humans, freedom of choice,
tolerance, etc. and NEVER EVER rely on xtianity for anything.  Just because
someone has a consistent moral system based on true principles does not
mean that they have to involve xtianity in it.  Xtianity certainly does not
have a monopoly on principles of behavior; indeed, fewer religions are
guiltier of violating their own principles
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 103
In article <1993Apr02.025636.23256@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>/Why would it be immoral to hurt someone else?
>
/(me)
>Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.
/(hudson)
/Why does that make something immoral?
Because you are not being consistent.  Moral systems must be consistent.
A person who thinks they can inflict pain on others, but doesn't want it
inflicted upon themselves, has a double standard.  And double standards are
a violation of *any* moral system.
(me)
>Morality defines how we interact with other people; the rules that we
>use to guide our daily affairs.  Our conduct towards our fellow man.  By
>realizing that we don't like pain, we can also realize that other people
>don't like it, either.
/(hudson)
/Of course we don't like pain.  I don't like brussel sprouts.  Are brussel
/sprouts immoral?
Pain isn't immoral, stupid.  Pain itself is just a physiological
reaction.
What >>is<< immoral is subjecting unwilling individuals to pain.
Or brussel sprouts, for that matter.
(hudson)
>/Is it immoral to produce these same chemical reactions in a test tube?
>
(me)
>It isn't the chemical reaction that is wrong, bozo.  It's making the human
>being UNDERGO THE EFFECTS of the chemical reaction.  Sorry; your cute
>little analogy didn't survive for very long under scrutiny.
/(hudson)
/Why would it be wrong to make humans undergo the effects of the reactions
/if humans are composed only of matter?
What humans are composed of isn't the qualifying criteria of whether or
not something would be wrong.
/(hudson)
/Is it wrong to make matter undergo chemical reactions?
Yes, if it is sentient matter.
/(me)
/>Nature is not a sentient force; there is no choice involved.  Therefore,
/>no question of morality.
/(hudson)
/I actually heard a geologist entertain the notion that matter had a will.
/There is some sentient force out there.
Fine.  I have also heard that the government is encoding the DNA for
a new race of superhumans in ordinary drinking water.
What's your point?
/(hudson)
/If humans are made only of matter, then choices are also chemical reactions,
/so why is choice an important issue.
And if that is the case, then god is only an idea contained in the minds
of people (formed of matter) and on printed pages (also formed of matter)
and does not really exist.
I can do the argumentem ad absurdium just as well as you can, but it
won't prove any points for you or me.  Got anything relevant you want to
talk about, or are you just playing cute little games?
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 14
In article <bskendigC51CqB.K0r@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>indeed two different accounts of creation.
That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of
a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been
formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand
that there are two creation stories.
Link Hudson.
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 11
In article <1993Apr5.165709.4347@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>But there is a base of true absolute morality that we can stand on.
>
>Note that if the majority of people remain unconvinced, this idea
>probably isn't worth very much in a pragmatic sense.
Maybe not to you.  But to those who stand on this base, He is
precious.
Link
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality
Keywords: being liberal
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Distribution: usa
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr5.182411.7621@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
>mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there,
Actually, there is one condemnation of lesbian acts in the Bible, Romans
1:26.
I think. In
>any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
>do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
>as an "immoral lifestyle choice"
There are plenty who don't read the Bible.
Or pray for that matter.
Link Hudson.
From: rps@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (raj.sharma)
Subject: Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Lines: 25
A poster writes:
> In the Kingdom of God (Vaikuntha) the tigers do not eat other living
> beings. In the material world, everyone is trying to consume everyone
> else. Therefore we all (even tigers, who are by no means invincible)
> should try to get out of the miserable material situation and return to
> the Kingdom of God.
Is the so-called material world "outside" the Kingdom of God?
> Right. But, unfortunately, acting like animals is the number one pastime
> of modern human beings.
Aha, animals are inferior, and humans are superior.
Huh?
[Isn't the desire to be superior so "overwhelming?"]
[that humans constantly "put down" even innocent animals.]
---raj
[P.S. - Request: please e-mail a copy of any response to
raj, as he does not read trm regularly.]
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO
Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project
Lines: 15
On a slightly different note:
There are two buildings in NY state with big 666 numbers on the
roof :)
One in Manhattan and one near Garden City. The Garden City one
is a nice black unmarked building...
--
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
\  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
\/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 24
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>>indeed two different accounts of creation.
>
>That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of
>a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been
>formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand
>that there are two creation stories.
Really?  I don't get it... Genesis first says that God created the
earth, then the animals, then humans; then it turns around and says
that humans were created before animals!  How can you escape this
contradiction?
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson)
Subject: Re: [lds] kermit's reply [was: Re: Tony Rose was : FREE BOOK OF MORMON
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Lines: 83
Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
:
(lots of stuff about the Nicene Creed deleted which can be read in the
original basenote.  I will also leave it up to other LDS netters to
take Mr. Weiss to task on using Mormon Doctrine to declare the difinitive
word on what the LDS Church teaches as doctrine.  Hopefully the LDS
netters will be amiable in their explanation.)
Since it would do no good to rebut what Mr. Weiss has stated on the origin
of the Nicene Creed and its status as devine and inspired (I say "no good"
because it cannot be proved through discussion or debate as to whether or not
the authors of the Creed were inspired), I leave you (it will be some time
before I post again) with the following thought authored by Eugene England,
Professor of English at Brigham Young University.  Mr. England wrote the
following as part of a book review section in This People's magazine (Spring
1993 edition):
"I conclude with a little sermon because I believe we will not be a Mormon--
or human--family until we can get over labeling and rejecting each other
with terms like feminist or patriarchal, liberal or conservative (Christian
or non-Christian -- Hal 8^).  When we are tempted to draw a circle around
a set of beliefs and traditions and styles and call it American, then exclude
those who don't fit, it may be well to consider that perhaps the most central
defining characteristic of a good American might be "one who doesn't draw
exclusive circles" -- that the surest way of excluding ourselves from the
central American ideal is by excluding others.  And when we are tempted to
draw a circle around "Mormon" or "Christian," to decide who is "orthodox"
and who isn't by how much they agree with us, it might be well to consider
that the central pillar of Christ's "orthodoxy" is our ability to love
unconditionally those who are different and include them in our family.
"I recently spent some time in a "Christian" bookstore in California. The
service was excellent, the clerks and customers all smiling, neat, and
well-scrubbed, and there were the expected wholesome offerings of scriptural
commentaries, sentimental fiction, and collections of evangelistic sermons.
But I was dismayed to find how much shelf space was given to attacking
others, often viciously---whether the political left, our modern American
culture, or other religions.  A whole section was devoted to "Cults and the
Occult," and as you might expect, Mormonism was right there under the same
rubric and indictment (often by the same authors) as Satanism.  And I found
I could either rent or buy (in English or Spanish) copies of The God Makers
(that absurdly inaccurate, even libelous, but very popular and dangerous
anti-Mormon film that uses exaclty the same techniques and even accusations
of the Nazi films that scapegoated Jews in the 1930s).
"It seems to me one major indication that a person is a genuine convert to
Christ and his redemptive love is his lack of paranoia and anxiety ("Perfect
love casteth out fear," I John 4:18).  I have always been pleased that the
LDS Church has not engaged in attacks on other faiths, though I find a
disheartening increase in willingness of individual Mormons to engage in the
same kinds of stereotyping and scapegoating---and even threats of coercive
action---as the "religious right wing" has launched this year against the
political left and American cultural and religious styles they don't like.
It is a fearful irony that in so doing Mormons take common cause with the
very people who have most slanderously attacked Mormons---people who would,
if they had power, forcefully restrict Mormons' rights along with those of
others they believe to be evil."
The above "sermon" was addressed to the LDS audience who usually subscribe
to This People's magazine, but would certainly apply to all of us who
rely on the mercies and grace of Jesus Christ to bring us back into His
arms.
Even though the LDS Church claims devine authority to exercise the principles
of the restored gospel---as in the days of Christ, the Church does not claim
perfection and infallibility in how those with authoritative status have or do
now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if
those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are
intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical
scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication
than mainstream Christianity would give it.  Once again, being in the
majority does NOT in and of itself PROVE anything except that your collective
voice is louder.  That's really all the critics of the LDS Church have to stand
on in terms of the kind of Biblical interpretation used as proof to counter
the LDS Church' interpretation!  Using someone elses biased research of truths
and non-truths (whose to say what the mixture is?) as an authoritative tool to
disprove or discredit is not being fair to anyone, least of all themselves.
Let us simply agree to disagree, and share beliefs through adult discussion
and conversation, thereby uplifting everyone.
Hal Leifson -- signing off!
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Organization: Florida State University
Distribution: na
Lines: 23
"David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
>    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
>    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
>    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
>    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
>    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
>    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
>    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
>    to join.  There are just so many.
>
>    Dean Kaflowitz
>
> Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> convenient that it is burdensome at times.
>
> Dave.
Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday
cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 6 Apr 93   God's Promise in John 16:24
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 8
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
Hitherto have ye asked nothing
in my name:
ask, and ye shall receive,
that your joy may be full.
John 16:24
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Hal's reply
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 38
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
In article <C51nLs.7As@boi.hp.com>, hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson) writes...
[...Dr. England's story deleted, it was a nice read the first time
through...]]
>now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if
>those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are
>intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical
>scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication
>than mainstream Christianity would give it.
It isn't so much a matter of 'interpretation' of Bible texts
that sets Mormonism apart from orthodoxy as it is a matter of
*fabrication*.
About 20 years ago, _National Lampoon_ had some comic strips
in them that were drawn by Neal Adams. They were called "Son o' God" comics.
It was a parody of the Jesus in the Bible. In the comic, there were a
group of thirteen Jewish kids from Brooklyn, and when one of them said
the magic word, he turned into "Son o' God." He went from a myopic,
curly headed, yarmulke wearing boy to a replica of the stylizied
portraits of Jesus --- with long flowing brown hair and gentile
features.
Now, if someone were to profess faith in this NatLamp Jesus,
and claim that they were a Christian because they believed in this
NatLamp Jesus, we would have to say that this was fallacious since
this Jesus was a fabrication, and did not really exist.
This is the exact same thing that the LDS do when they claim
that they are Christian. They profess faith in Jesus, but the Jesus
that they profess to have faith in is as much a fabrication as the
NatLamp Jesus was.
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCR
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: leo.unm.edu
In article <1pr3d3$doh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk) writes:
>>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336
>>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)
>5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.
Of course, 2+1+8+9+7+3+9+3+3+6 = 51, which, quite obviously is 23+23+5...
r.
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Reply-To: david@terminus.ericsson.se
Distribution: world
Organization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England
Lines: 50
Nntp-Posting-Host: bangkok
Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) writes:
>I was not directly going to come up with a moral argument for the  existence
>of God.  Rather, I was trying to show the absurdity of atheistic materialist
>relatavists trying to embrace some common moral system as though it were
>absolute.  Man knows in his heart that there is right and wrong.  We have
>all inherited this knowledge.
No matter how "absurd" it is to suggest that a common moral system created by
mankind is absolute, it is not contrary to reason to suggest that a common
moral system created by mankind is sensible. In fact, for the Bible to be of
any use to mankind as a moral code, it must be interpreted by mankind and a
workable moral system created for everyday use.
The Jewish Talmud is the result of centuries of Biblical scholars analysing
every word of the Torah to understand the morality behind it. The Children of
Israel were given a very strict set of Moral, Civil, Judicial and Ceremonial
Laws to follow and yet this was clearly not enough to cover every instance
of moral dilemma in their Society. For a Christian, the situation is no better.
It seems to me that the only code of morality that we have from the Judeo-
Christian God is that which is contained in the Bible (which we can see from
the diverse opinions in the Christian newsgroups is not clear). There may well
be an absolute morality defined by the Judeo-Christian God for mankind to
follow but it seems that we only have a subset simply because the concept was
written down by man.
This leads to the problem of defining morality for our society. If we take the
divine Morality then we have a code of practice which may be interpreted in many
different ways (as an example, consider the immolation of heretics in the
fifteenth century and the interpretation of the Bible which allows a man to do
that to another man under the precept to administer Justice). If we take an
agnostic Morality then we have a code of practice that can be modified to suit
society (with all the danger that this implies). Alternatively, we could take
the basis of the Judeo-Christian morality and interpret/extend this to create
and justify a code of morality which suits the society we live in and enables
the people to live Righteously (as many Christian and Non-Christian philosophers
have done).
Whatever the driving force behind the definition of morality for our society, I
think the important aspect is the result.
David.
---
On religion:
"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.
From: dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org (Mark Dotson)
Subject: Fragmentation
Organization: Dayton Microcomputer Association; Dayton, Ohio
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 49
The primary problem in human nature is a "fragmentation of being."
Humans are in a state of tension, a tension of opposites. Good and
evil are the most thought provoking polarities that come to mind.
The Bible provides us with many examples of the fragmentation of
being. The warring opposites within us are a product of man's
rebellion against God, which is described so vividly in the pages of
the Scriptures.
Man was created with the order to become a god. Those were the words
of St.  Basil in the fourth century. What he was trying to say was
that God created man to be a partaker of the divine nature. In the
Eastern Orthodox Church, this is called "theosis," or "deification."
One can also say that man was created to be whole, i.e. spirit, soul,
and body operating in unison. The story of Adam and Eve is a picture
of the archetypal humans before obtaining moral consciousness. Theirs
was a harmonious relationship with each other, the world, and the
Creator. That innocent harmony was shattered when they disobeyed God,
their natural wholeness falling apart into two seemingly
irreconcilable halves. Immediately, guilt and fear was manifested in
their lives. They become bound to hardship, toil, and suffering.  This
is symbolized in their exile from the paradisiac state.
The beast in the jungle does not possess moral consciousness. If it
were to receive this self-awareness, the knowledge of good and evil,
its paradisiac state would also be destroyed.
Was it the intention of the Creator to leave man in this state of
innocence all the days of his existence on earth? Or was the gaining
of self-awareness carefully staged by God, who did not desire that His
masterpiece, mankind, be a blissful idiot?
God must have known that, for mankind to achieve any kind of moral
value, he must pass through a confrontation with the opposites. There
is no other way to achieve union with God.
Jesus Christ is the answer to the problem of the warring polarities.
He was the perfectly integrated individual, reconciling the opposites,
and making it possible for us to be integrated, i.e. to become God,
not in His essence, but in His energies.
The opposites is THE Christian problem. The Apostle Paul describes it
with the utmost precision in Romans 7:15-24. And he follows with the
answer to his dilemma in vs 25.
Mark
X-Mailer: TMail version 1.17R
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Organization: Nobody but me -- really
Subject: Re: Is THOU SHALT NOT KILL ever applied in the Bible?
Distribution: world
Lines: 15
In <1pdj4bINNrtr@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)  wrote:
#     Are there any places in the Bible where the commandment "Thou
#     shalt not kill" is specifically applied?  That is, where someone
#     refrained from killing because he remembered the commandment.
No, for the excellent reason that there IS no such commandment.
Aside from that, please note that the Abrahamic literary tradition
is strong on narrative, light on dialog, and virtually nonexistent
w/r/t introspection.
--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Lines: 40
In article <Yfk8p=q00WBM47T0sJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
>    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
>    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
>    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
>    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
>    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
>    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
>    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
>    to join.  There are just so many.
>
> Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> convenient that it is burdensome at times.
Your last remark is a contradiction, but I'll let that pass.
I was addressing the notion of the Great Commission, which
you deleted in order to provide us with dull little homilies.
Thank you, Bing Crosby.  Now you go right on back to sleep
and mommy and daddy will tuck you in later.
Oh, and how convenient his bible must have been to Michael
Griffin, how convenient his Christianity.  "Well, I'll just
skip the bit about not murdering people and loving the sinner
and hating the sin and all that other stuff for now and
concentrate on the part where it says that if someone is doing
something wrong, you should shoot him in the back several times
as he tries to hobble away on his crutches."
I'll leave the "convert or die" program of the missionaries and
their military escorts in the Americas for Nadja to explain as
she knows much more about it than I.
Must be awfully convenient, by the way, to offer platitudes
as you have done, David, rather than addressing the arguments.
Dean Kaflowitz
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: SUNDAY! THE DAY OF OUR LORD!
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: facman
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>Exactly.  Sunday worship is in honor or the *SUN*, not the *SON* of God.
>
>Same thing, isn't it? It's pronounced the same? What other heavenly
>beings are resurrected? The moon? That would by lunacy, at least to a
>sunday worshiper.
I have heard that the sabbath was originally determined by the phases of
the moon, and had elements of moon worship.  Early stuff, Egyptian in nature.
--
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232
From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!
Reply-To: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Lines: 13
UN Resolution 666 guarantees humanitarian aid will get into Irag during
the Gulf War.  Is this war over? Is aid getting in, or are they still
trying to smoke out Saddam?  Is this the Middle East?  Are we talking
religious war here?  Am I ranting?
--
James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: lance@wolves.Durham.NC.US (Lance A. Brown)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
Lines: 20
X-Md4-Signature: c6a7a6853f7ccbdf5ccfea6cc9d0a079
In article <C4uzus.FKp@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>> Unlike kleptomaniacs and adulterers homosexuals hurt no one by having sex
>> with the same sex.
>
>What about the homosexual whose family does not accept that decision and
>is hurt (emotionally) by it?
Good question.  I don't have a nice concise answer, though.  What about the
child whose parents are crushed emotionally because he/she starts a carerr
doing something they greatly dislike.  It is the same kind of harm, and
is probably "caused" by the same thing:  The desire of the child to be
true to his or her self.
What is more important, being true to yourself or burying that truth within
you in order to maintain peace in the family?
hard question, no good answer.
Lance
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED (Judas)
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Lines: 591
NNTP-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu
I posted this several days ago for Dave Butler.  He may have missed it - my
Usenet board has changed a little.  Just in case he missed it, here it is again.
Dave Butler writes...
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Date: Thu Apr  1 20:52:11 1993
"I can basically restrict this post to showing the type of evidence Mr DeCenso
has presented, and answering his two questions (and a couple of his spurious
insults and false claims)."
MY REPLY...
O.K.
DB...
[By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference.]
DB later corrected himself...
_____________________________________________________________________
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Date: Fri Apr  2 02:32:11 1993
I owe the group an apology.  It is my habit to check my articles before and
after their submission for errors.  In my last article I stated:
> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
cannot report as to the nuances of the word.
I don't know if someone else would have caught this, though I am sure that
someone would be able to do so, but I have an aversion to disseminating
mistakes, especially when someone else might use that mistake to prove a point"
_____________________________________________________________________
MY REPLY...
Vary noble of you Dave.  I didn't want to have to go to x number of sources to
show you wrong.  (Although I am researching CHORION a little).
DB...
"Of course the only other reference Mr DeCenso has given is Bullinger.  And
Bullinger uses such ridiculous exegisis that when I accused Mr DeCenso of
actually believing Bullinger, he replied that I misquoted him:
>> "And you maintain that you find such exegesis convincing?  Oh dear."
>
> My Reply...
> Your misquotes of me are astounding, Dave.  Read the beginning of this part
of > my response to see what I REALLY said in my posting of this article.
[Actually Mr DeCenso, you said that there was "benefit" to our argument, in
that it caused to to rediscover Bullinger's exegisis.  I did not realize
that you would find such garbage beneficial, unless you were convinced by
it]."
MY REPLY...
Thank you for correcting your restating of my points.
DB...
"and Mr DeCenso also replied:
> Dave, these are not necessarily my views; they are Bullinger's.  WE will
> discuss the land issue in later posts, I'm sure.  I'm only responding to
>this one you have directed re: Bullinger's views because it's enjoyable.
Thus I apologize for thinking that even Mr DeCenso could find such "drek"
convincing....he should specify which parts of Bullinger he finds convincing
and quit hiding behind a disingenuous mask of "This is what Bullinger
believed, not necessarily what I believe." So which is it Mr DeCenso? Do you
find the exegisis convincing or not?)"
MY REPLY...
One of my purposes in debating these alleged contradictions with you and
others is to diseminate many different views of possible reconciliations
raised by various Bible scholars and students alike.  When I present MY VIEWS,
I will clearly distinguish them from now on.
DB...
"Of course without Archer and Bullinger we find that Mr DeCenso has presented
no Greek exegisis at all, and Mr DeCenso has made a big thing about my not
referring back to the actual Greek.  Thus we find this demand on his part for
quality Greek exegisis to be a hypocritical requirement."
MY REPLY...
Good point.  But in your declaring that these passages are contradictory, you
have produced only superficial reasonings and observations. Nor have you dug
deeper.  I'm glad you have begun in this post.  I will begin Greek studies on
these passages in more depth than I thought necessary, as well.
DB...
"It would be appropriate to look at what Mr DeCenso has actually USED as
evidence.  Now we know what he claims for a standard, as he has stated it
often enough:
> (a) the text itself
> (b) parallel passages
> (c) other pertinent Scriptures
> (d) historical context
> (e) historical content
> (f) other pertinent historical info
> (g) cultural context
> (h) cultural content
> (i) other pertinent cultural info
> (j) grammatical construction
> (k) Hebrew and Greek word studies
> (l) etc.
But are these actual standards he has used, or simply empty hyperbole.  Let's
see, he has used (a), and since he is trying to reconcile it to other
passages, we see that he has also used (b).  On the other hand he has
presented no use of:
(d) historical context                or
(e) historical content                or
(f) other pertinent historical info   or
(g) cultural context                  or
(h) cultural content                  or
(i) other pertinent cultural info     or
(j) grammatical construction          or even
(k) Hebrew and Greek word studies [remember, Archer and Bullinger don't count]
Thus we find his vaunted criteria for exegisis is just empty mouthings."
MY REPLY...
Question:  Do you find such criteria important?  If so, do you plan on starting
to use them to the best of your ability, or will you continue to present
shallow observations (I don't mean this in a bad way).
At this point in our _debates_, I have not found it necessary to present a
total exegetical analysis of these passages, since we seem to keep beating
around the bush and not getting into the core of the verses.  I do not believe
it necessary to use many of the above criteria to refute your arguments re:
Judas in Acts and Matthew, but I will do my best from this point on to use
several of the above criteria, since you desire me to.  I hope you will also.
It will greatly enhance our study of these passages.
DB...
"The only thing he has actually used, beyond the passage itself, is any other
passage.  Thus Mr DeCenso should be honest and note that most of his list is
red herring and his only real criteria seems to be:
> (a) the text itself
> (b) parallel passages
MY REPLY...
The reason is simple...you are mistating the passages.  You claim that the
PASSAGES contradict one another; I do not see the PASSAGES contradicting one
another.
(1) They may very well be complimentary, as many scholarly sources mention;
(2) Matthew may not be presenting Judas' death, as you claim.  But we'll look
at your defense of this later.
Also, the "reward of iniquity" in the Acts PASSAGE may not be the 30 pieces of
silver in Matthew's PASSAGES.  (Although you have a valiant attempt later at
stating why you believe it is).
At this beginning stages in our debates, we are laying some Scriptural
groundwork, which will be expanded upon through deeper exegesis.
DB...
"Of course the only reason I can see to so drastically reinterpret a passage
as he has done with Judas' death, is to make it agree with another passage so
that both could be considered correct."
MY REPLY...
One of the reasons I have given a different exegetical view of the passages is
that you seem to think the majority of scholarship is wrong in concluding these
passages are complimentary.  However, I see no problem in Tony Rose's
explanation of Judas' death...
_____________________________________________________________________
HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE INACCURACY BETWEEN JUDAS HANGING
HIMSELF IN MATTHEW 27:5 AND "FALLING HEADLONG HE BURST OPEN"
=============================================================
This question of the manner in which Judas died is one with which we are
constantly confronted in our travels. Many people point to the apparent
discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious, irreconcilable error.
Some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is
destroyed by these contradictory accounts. However, this is not the case at
all.
Matthew relates that Judas hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and
was crushed by the impact. The two statements are indeed different, but do
they necessarily contradict each other?
Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that
Judas did not hang himself. This is not a matter of one person calling
something black and the other person calling it white. Both accounts can be
true and supplementary.
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the
edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there
for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas
fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this
explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the
valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on
this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we are
not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced
was the decomposition of his body before his fall.
Louis Gaussen relates a story of a man who was determined to kill himself.
This individual placed himself on the sill of a high window and pointed a
pistol at his head. He then pulled the trigger and leaped from the window at
the same time.
On the other hand, a person could say that this man took his life by shooting
himself, while another could rightly contend he committed suicide by jumping
form the tall building. In this case, both are true, as both are true in the
case of Matthew's and Peter's accounts of the death of Judas. It is merely a
situation of different perspectives of the same event.
_____________________________________________________________________
Your only reason for rejecting this is, I believe, your attempt to discredit
inerrancy.  You haven't related how this is IMPOSSIBLE or highly unlikely.
Here's what you said in an earlier post...
_____________________________________________________________________
DB [quoting Tony Rose]...
> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
> Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks
> on this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> was the decomposition of his body before his fall.
"The added text in this version is so heavy that, assuming you are truly so
opposed to such tactics, you should find it not credible.  But you seem to
find Tony Rose's eisegesis satisfactory, while clearly rejecting David
Joslin's."
_____________________________________________________________________
Here, you discredit Tony's explanation based on what you deem too "heavy" for
the passages.  But you haven't addressed why you feel that way.  You can say
it's a vain attempt to reconcile the contradiction, but that doesn't tell me it
didn't happen, nor have you shown why you reject that possibility.
Questions:  Is Matthew lying or is Luke lying?  Or are they both lying?  Or
are either or both of them misinformed?  Why do you think there is such an
alleged contradiction?  I do not think you have ever told us what you believe
in this respect.
DB...
"At present though, Mr DeCenso only asks two questions of me:
> (1) You claim Acts and Matthew contradict one another in representing Judas'
>     death.  I ask you again to provide evidence that Matthew stated Judas
>     died in the hanging.
> (2) You claim that the 30 pieces of silver in Matthew that Judas threw down
>     in the temple and the chief priests used, is the "reward of iniquity"
>     in Acts that pictures Judas in some way purchasing a field with;
>     therefore there is a contradiction.  Prove that the 30 pieces of silver
>     and the "reward of iniquity" are one and the same.
Actually I find question (1) to be a rather stupid request, but I will answer
it because he now restricts himself to two points.  First I would point out
that hanging is a very efficient manner for ending a life.  In fact it is a
bit of a fluke when someone survives hanging (except in fantasy cowboy
movies), and even then it usually referred to as an attempted hanging."
MY REPLY...
I work at an agency that investigates child abuse and neglect.  Today, I got a
call re: a child that attempted suicide by hanging himself because his mother
is on crack.  He failed in his attempt and is in a child's psych ward at a
local hospital.  Hanging attempts are not always successful.
To assume that because most hangings are successful, this one was also is
"begging the question", if I may quote you.
[Last night, listening to _The Bible Answer Man_ broadcast, The Christian
Research Institute's show, one of the scholars on there used several of these
terms that you use.  I am not all that familiar with them.  The man on the BAM
show teaches Comparative Religion and Logic.  It was interesting]
DB...
"This is so prevalent that, so that to say a man hung himself with no other
qualifiers is synonymous with stating that he killed himself."
MY REPLY...
Qualifiers are important at times, as we'll see in an OT passage I'll mention
below.
Does hanging ALWAYS have this outcome?  Did Matthew, who is the only source we
have re: Judas hanging himself, state that Judas died as a result?  To say it's
synonymous means it has the same meaning as.  A boy (age 14) hung himself.  But
he lived.  This is only one of probably thousands of documented cases we can
discover.
DB...
"Now I am not alone in this thought; in fact, since Mr DeCenso so respects
Christian scholarly (including Greek scholars) opinion, I did some research."
MY REPLY...
Thank you, Dave.
DB...
"Interestingly, not one of the Christian references I read, interpreted the
hanging as being anything but a fatal suicide.              ^^^^^^^^^^^
MY REPLY...
[^^^ above, mine]
So it's OK to use Christian sources to back your points?  What about Tony's
position.  Do you value it or even consider it as a valid possibility?
Also, is it possible that the sources you read may be wrong, or lying, or
deceived in other parts of their books?  If so, should we do, as we have done
with Archer, toss them to the side and not value anything they say, including
their "interpretation" of the hanging of Judas?  I am sure _you_ would find
some errors and maybe even some deception in those sources.
You also noted they "interpreted" the hanging as meaning he died.  Although
that is very possibly true, do you find that in the text itself?  Remember,
that's the first criteria we must examine.
DB...
"This included:
"The Biblical Knowledge Commentary" by Woodward and Zuck"
MY REPLY...
Which I own.  It's a good source of commentary info.  But not inerrant.
DB...
"The Interpreters on Volume Commentary on the Bible" by Laydon
"The one volume Bible Commentary" by J R Dunelow
"Word meanings of the Testament" Ralph Earl
"The Abingdon Bible Commentary" published by Abingdon
"Harpers Bible Commentary" by William Neal
(Actually I could have presented many more as well)
MY REPLY...
I appreciate your doing this research, Dave.  Maybe we are getting somewhere
in how we both should approach these alleged contradictions - more in depth
study.
DB...
"In each case, these references specifically describe that the interpretation
of Matt 27:5 as successful, suicide and thus I can only conclude that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Greek word "apagchw"(ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging."
MY REPLY...
[^^^ above, mine]
No you can't only conclude this, although, as Tony says, this was a highly
probable outcome.  But Matthew does not state death as being a result.
The Greek word is APAGCHO.  Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New
Testament.
In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was
not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his
city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he
was buried in his father's tomb."             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the
result.
In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.
Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply
means "hang oneself".
DB...
"But Mr DeCenso, you are more than welcome to disagree and show more reputable
^^^^^^^^^
Christian scholars that insist that the hanging was not successful."
MY REPLY...
[^^^above, mine]
"Reputable"?  You mean ones that have never erred?
As far as   insisting that the hanging was unsuccessful, that can't be done,
even by me. ^^^^^^^^^
As I said in an earlier post...
_____________________________________________________________________
Although I still agree with Tony's exegesis as being the most probable
explanation regarding Judas' death (taking into account several criteria),
I've recently noticed some new things in Matthew.
MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and
said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the
price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's
field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of
Blood to this day.
First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of
hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in
Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all
his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the
other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle,
etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cut.
^^^
_____________________________________________________________________
I also wrote...
_____________________________________________________________________
MY REPLY...
Here we have a stickler, Dave, that I have to say I just recently noticed.
Let's look at the passage in Matthew:
MAT 27:4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." And they said,
"What is that to us? You see to it!"
MAT 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself.
MAT 27:6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not
lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood."
MAT 27:7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field,
to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
Notice verse 5..."Then he...went and hanged himself."
Matthew does not say Judas died, does it?  Should we assume he died as a
result of the hanging?                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does Acts say?
ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be
desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death....So, my line of
reasoning to dispel your contradiction myth re:the "two" accounts of Judas'
death is this...Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the
hanging incident.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise.  Therefore, there is no
contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' `death'.
.......
MY REPLY...
...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he probably did, but...?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
______________________________________________________________________
I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is, however,
highly probable.                            ^^^^^^
DB...
"By the way, while all agree that Judas died from the hanging, the books had
different ways of dealing with the contradiction we are discussing.  One
simply ignored it entirely and simply referred back to Matthew's version as
the correct version in both Matt and Acts.  "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary"
suggested the hypotheses that Judas hung and then when he rotted, his belly
exploded (which doesn't explain his headlong fall), or that his branch or rope
broke, and he fell to his death and his gut gushed out (which doesn't explain
how a hanging man, would fall headlong rather than feet first)."
MY REPLY...
The outcome of any fall is dependent upon many factors...how high the person
was suspended before the fall, any obstructions such as tree branches that may
have deviated the fall, how steep an incline of rocky surfaces the victim fell
upon, thus possibly rolling or bouncing of several rocks, etc.  In a
superficial examination of the Acts passage and the Matthew passage, we are not
given a lot of info on the geographical specifics, but Tony in the above quoted
post gave us some...
_____________________________________________________________________
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the
edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there
for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas
fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this
explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the
valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on
this way down, tearing his body open.
_____________________________________________________________________
DB...
Now truthfully, I do not see what is comforting about Matthew confusing the
source of the Potter's field prophesy, but on the other hand the author is
correct: Matthew does make that confusion.  Of course a Biblical inerrantist
who claim that every word of the Bible is guaranteed true by God, will have to
thereby add one more contradiction to the death of Judas (ie: where the
prophesy of the Potter's field came from)."
MY REPLY...
Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
this with you.
DB...
As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out
that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
MY REPLY...
Dave, we are getting somewhere, aren't we!
ACT 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples
(altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said,
ACT 1:16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy
Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide
to those who arrested Jesus;
ACT 1:17 "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field
is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be
desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states
that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?
^^^^^^
JOH 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a
thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
JOH 13:29 For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had
said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast," or that he should give
something to the poor.
So, now we know what part Judas played - he was a treasurer, per se.
Right after Peter stated that Judas played a part in this ministry (treasurer,
according to John), THEN Luke adds the parenthetical explanation of "wages of
iniquity" - money that should have been put into the ministry, but was stolen
by Judas to purchase a field.  I believe this is a better exegetical
explanation of what the "wages of iniquity" are.  What do you think, Dave?
DB...
"Now since I have given you clear answers (and even references), perhaps you
could unequivocally state what type of inerrantist you are (instead of asking
me what type I think you are, as you did to Mr Joslin)."
MY REPLY...
I will gladly admit that I am a Complete Inerrantist, although I do not have
that big a problem with the Limited Inerrancy view.
Frank
--
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
of a thousand."  JOB 9:3
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Lines: 29
In article <C51puA.K2u@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
> >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
> >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
> >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
> >    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
> >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
> >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
> >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
> >    to join.  There are just so many.
> >
> >    Dean Kaflowitz
> >
> > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> > convenient that it is burdensome at times.
>
> Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday
> cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.
Make that 20%.  Where did I see that poll recently about the
very religious and adultery?  Was it this newsgroup or alt.atheism
or some other place?
Dean Kaflowitz
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.
Lines: 82
I produced an error last week about CHORION:
>> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
>> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
>> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
>> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
>> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
>> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
>> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
>> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
>> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
>
> I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
> confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
> land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
> 1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
> cannot report as to the nuances of the word.
I abhor publishing trash (I abhor it of myself even more than I do from
others, but since I do not present myself as an authority on the subject, I do
not feel dishonest, though I do openly admit ignorance and incompetence in
this example).  Thus I felt honor bound to do a better set of research
specifically on the word.  First it should be noted that Greek grammar is not
as tough as I first assumed (it is not nontrivial by any means, and I still am
not competent with it, but it is not as opaque as I had thought).  It turns
out that while the Index for the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich "Greek Lexicon" renders
each verse in order, each word within a verse is put in greek alphabetical
order.  Thus while the the meaning of the verse is decipherable, the syntax is
far from clear.  On the other hand, a Greek-English Intralinear Bible makes
things a lot more comprehendable.  And yes, the word for field in Acts 1:18 is
indeed "chorion."
Now I've checked several Greek-English lexicons:
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher
In each case the meaning of the word Chorion was given variously as:
A space, place, region, district, field, area, "country place,"
land, farm, estate, "a bit of tillage", and similar meanings.
Nowhere do any of these books mention anything about "grave." As some of these
books go into great detail, I would be very surprised to find that these books
are all inadequate and Mr Archer is the only competent scholar in Greek.  I
think it more likely that Mr Archer's investigations into "contradictions" to
be once again, as your friend said it, "lacking in substance," and thus Archer
is again shown worthless as an expert witness (By the way Mr DeCenso, I would
have honorably presented my results on this matter, even if I had found them
to support Mr Archer's contentions).
By the way, among these lexicons, (eg: Robinson's) is the definition of
"agros," the word used in Matthew 27 to describe the field bought.  The word
"agros" is defined as "a field in the country." Chorion is specifically noted
as a synonym to agros.  This is significant, as it is evidence of how silly
Bullinger's exegisis was, which stated that the word for "field" in Matthew
(ie: agros) is different from the word for "field" in Acts (ie: chorion), and
thus we must be talking about two different fields (Of course you already
admit how stupid Bullinger's exegisis is, but this was a small serendipity
which drives the point home).
So as of now, unless Mr DeCenso show compelling reasons to believe otherwise
(eg: a reputable scholar with reputable references), I consider this
particular issue closed.  See Mr DeCenso, now you can go on to answer
questions about the denials of Peter, the day of the Crucifixion, Tyre, and
the fact that the author of Matthew quoted from the wrong prophet in
discussing the "Potter's Field."
Later,
Dave Butler
Precise knowledge is the only true knowledge, and he who does not teach
exactly, does not teach at all.
Henry Ward Beecher
American Clergyman
as recorded by George Seldes
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [still not] ANSWERED (Judas)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.
Lines: 180
Mr DeCenso, in spite of requiring Scholarly opinion on the hanging of Judas,
rejects that the scholarly opinion of the those scholars and then rephrases
those scholars opinion on the subject:
> ...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
> his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
> and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
> the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he iprobably did, but..?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
> in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is,
> however, highly probable.                   ^^^^^^
and
> Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply
> means "hang oneself".
Actually, if you do further research as to the Greek word "apacgw," you will
find that it does denote success.  Those scholars did indeed have an excellent
reason to assume that the suicide was successful.  As I pointed out, I
recently checked several Lexicons:
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher
A couple simply stated "hanged oneself", and a couple were more explicit
and stated that "apacgw" means specifically "kill yourself by hanging." A
couple also noted that the meaning of one the root words for "apacgw" is
"strangle, throttle or choke" (which pretty much invalidates the guy who
suggested to David Joslin that Judas was hung upside down).  One of the best
references though, "Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New
Testament," not only stated the translation, it gave both the root words, the
literal translation, related greek words which use the same roots, and also
other presented specific examples of the word in greek literature (to give
further context).
The word "apagchw" has two root words: "gchw" is the "to strangle" root, and
the root word "apo" means literally "away." This root words is included in
words which denote a transition.  It can mean a transition in place (eg: the
greek word "apagello" means to send a message).  "Apo" can also denote a
change in state and specifically the change from life to death.  Robinson
specifically makes comparison to the word "apokteiuo," which means "to kill."
In literal meaning the word "apacgw" means "to throttle, strangle to put out
of the way," and implicitly denotes a change in life state (ie: away from
life, to death).  So while the word "apacgw" does mean "to hang," it
specifically denotes a death as well.  Thus Robinson is quite specific when he
state that it means "to hang oneself, to end one's life by hanging." He then
notes the the use of "apacgw" in Homers Odessy 19:230 to denote context.  He
presents that example of "apacgw" as being used to explicitly mean "suicide by
hanging." Now since there is a perfectly good word for strangling, without the
added denotation of "death," and as you insist that the Bible was written by
God, and every word is precicely correct, you are stuck with the complete
meaning of "apacgw" (ie: Since the word "apacgw" was used, then death is
denoted as the result).
By the way, I note that Mr DeCenso also presents an example of "apacgw":
> In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
> it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice
> was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house,
> to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and
> died; and he was buried in his father's tomb."   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^
> Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
> APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the
> result.
> In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.
Note Mr DeCenso, as you say, the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew to
Greek, and you have not shown the original meaning of the Hebrew (ie" the the
Hebrew say "and died"), and thus whether it was simply echoed in the Greek.
It should also be pointed out that, regardless of the added "and died", the
correct translation would still be "apacgw," as the man did indeed die from
strangulation (redundant, but correct).  Further, we have evidence that the
Septuagint was repeatedly rewritten and reedited (which included versions
which contradicted each other), and such editing was not even necessarily
executed by Greeks.  Thus I am not sure that you can use the Septuagint as it
now stands, as a paragon of ancient greek.  So, what you really need to prove
your point Mr DeCenso, is an example, in ancient greek, of someone committing
"apacgw" and surviving.  Otherwise I would see you as simply making worthless
assertions without corresponding evidence.
Now I would note Mr DeCenso, that everytime I go out of my way to research it
one of your apparently contrived exegisis, I pretty much find it false.  Thus,
I think that if you are going to add to the text, something over and above
what the source clearly says, then you had better have an explicit Greek or
historical source to justify it.
By the way, as to Mr Rose's statement about trees around the Potter's Field:
> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Unless Mr Rose can show that these trees are two thousand years old, or that
there are 2000 year old stumps there, or has a 2 thousand year old description
of the area which mentions such trees, then it is inappropriate for him to
assert that the present placement of trees prove the location of the trees two
thousand years ago (after all, things change).
Now as to your other argument, ie: that the money Judas used is not the same
as the 30 silvers:
> As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
> money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
> than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
> mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
> what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
> Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out
> that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
> discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
> it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
>
>
> Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states
> that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
> But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
> obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?
>          ^^^^^^
True, Peter (or the author of Acts) does not specifically call Judas' betrayal
"an iniquity," but for that matter, neither does John specifically call Judas'
actions "an iniquity" either.  Further John 13:29 did not say that Judas took
the money box, but rather said:
"Some thought that because, Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
him "Buy what we need for the feast"; or that he should give something
to the poor, So after receiving the morsel he immediately went out, and
it was night."
Note that it is said that Judas left, it does not say that he took the money
box.  Thus when I see your explanation it still seems to me you would choose
the a an unproven iniquity, mentioned by another author, in a different
book, written at a different time, over the iniquity explicitly mentioned by
the author of acts.  I find this forced and contrived.
Of course this particular argument becomes moot, since we have have seen
evidence that "apacgw" means suicide.  You see, since Judas' hanging was
successful, he could not have spent the money mentioned in John 13:29, because
Matthew and Mark explicitly say the betrayal was on the high holy day (ie:
Passover), and thus he could not have spent the money before killing himself
the next day.  Thus the money which bought the "Field of Blood" would have to
have been the 30 pieces of silver (Of course he got the 30 pieces of silver
that night as well, and thus couldn't have spent that either.  Oh dear, I
believe that the house of cards is comming down).
Maybe we should at this point, discuss now whether Jesus was crucified on
Friday or Saturday as that is now part of the argument about Judas.
By the way, as to where the prophesy of the Potter's field came from (ie: the
mention of it in Matthew), you say:
> Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
> this with you.
I am reminding you now to discuss it now. It's all part of the same verse we
are discussing, and I wish you would quit procrastinating and sidestepping
these issues.
Later,
Dave Butler
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume, Philosopher
An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
PS. I would note again, that you are not stating that that Bible
is not possibly inerrant; you are stating that it *IS* inerrant.
Since you have been, by your own admission, presenting merely "possible"
reconciliations (I of course don't rate them that highly), then the
best you can do is say that the Bible is "possibly" inerrant, not that
it *is* inerrant.
Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Info and Experiences
From: patb@bnr.co.uk (Patrick Brosnan)
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs195.bnr.co.uk
Lines: 21
In article <1993Apr2.041929.24320@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto) writes:
>
>Concerniong this thread...
>
>Has anyone ever seen "Drop Dead Fred" ??  THis movie seems to tipify the
>"imaginary friend" theme rather well.  I LOVED the movie, as i had an
>imaginary friend when i was a kid and it borught back great memories.
>
>Seriously, if you have a chance, see "Drop Dead Fred".  It'll make ya
>think.  especially the end.
>
>Blessings!
>--Kim
>
--
Patrick Brosnan.  <patb@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!patb
Northern Telecomm, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB.
Phone : +44 81 945 2135 or +44 81 945 4000 x2135
"Oh, Flash, I love you - but we've only got 14 hours to save the universe."
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: God's promise of Peace
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 6
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
PSA 145:9  The LORD is good to all: and his  tender  mercies  are
over all his works.
JER 13:14  And I will dash them one against another, even the fa-
thers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor
spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: God's promise to the righteous
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 3
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
From: dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor
Organization: Representing my own views here only.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Lines: 97
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: In article <1993Mar30.001428.7648@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:
:
: Seriously, though, Griffen didn't save the lives of children, and he did
: destroy the life of a man, so on the most superficial of levels, he's scum.
:
I almost agree, but Griffen is not scum.  Scum has no guilt or freedom to
choose anything.  Griffen does.  God did not make scum when he made Griffen.
He made a precious person and this person chose to do wrong.  The same goes
for Dr. Gunn.
: But if you are to examine it more closely, Griffen would have preferred that
: these children were born -- yet AFTER their birth, did Griffen have any
: assistance to offer them?  Did Griffen intend to support them, educate them,
: raise them up to be useful citizens?  Did he have any intent whatsoever
: to help these children after birth?
:
Here's the real problem.  Americans have become so insensitive to the needs
of others and so completely wrapped up in themselves that they cannot see
straight or think clearly enough to make even the slightest and most obvious
moral decisions based on reality.
If a man abandons a woman to care for their child on her own, he is not
considered to be a very respectable or decent man by anyone.  This man has
fled his responsibility, has behaved like a lazy coward, and has turned
away from his responsibility to his wife and child.
However, if a woman decides to kill her unborn child to release her burden,
she is not thought of in the same way.  When the man abandons, the woman
suffers but the child is free to grow up and live a happy and normal life.
When the woman abandons, the child is diced or killed with saline or vacuumed
out, and the man has no choice, and the man sometimes suffers so badly that
he wishes he could trade places with his child.
Ths root of this whole problem is selfishness--the arrogance that says, "My
feelings and desires are supreme and your well being is not worth dung."
And when you come down to it, this is the substance of what hell is made of.
It's the reason a loving God can throw selfish people to the devil and his
demons for all of eternity.  Let any one of us unrepentant into heaven, and
we'll ruin it the first chance we get.
: Now, I don't really know the answer to these questions, but I've got a real
: good guess.
:
And, it's probably right.
: And I wouldn't call *that* 'benevolent', either.
:
It is a move in the right direction.  As it is now, we don't see our
responsibility because we kill it and get it out of sight.  The media
backs us completely.  Real responsibility does not sell.  The only
"responsibility" that sells in the marketplace is that which is just
enough to make us "feel responsible" without showing anything that
might show us our own true irresponsibility.  We want to "feel" like
good people, but we want nothing with *being* good people.  Just give
me the freedom to say "I'm good", and the rest of the world can burn.
Rape and kill my children and throw my parents to the places where
poor old folks rot until they're dead.  I'll hate my brother and sister
if I wish and I'll cheat on my wife or husband.  Screw the government,
because it screws me, and don't talk to me about giving to the church
because church people are all a bunch of money grubbing hypocrites.
But, I'm a good person.  At least I admit what I do.  At least I love
myself and we all know that is the greatest love in the world--not that
a man lay down his life for his brother...That sounds too "christian".
At the root, this is the substance of what hell is made of.
We've become a self indulgant, backslidden society no longer responsible
to our children, to our parents, to our families, to our government, or
to our God.  This is the root behind justification of every evil, of every
corruption in government, of every slanderous remark, of every lie, and
of every murder.  Society cannot continue to live like this long.  it will
have to destroy itsself soon, and perhaps in the end, that will be the
biggest blessing this world can hope to see.
Why do people see so much evil in trying to turn this situation around?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
We want prevention, not merely punishment.
We must reach the root of the evil...
It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
from the dreadful deed...
No mater what the motive, love of ease,
or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."
- Susan B. Anthony,
The Revolution July 8, 1869
From: peavler@fingal.plk.af.mil (Ninja Gourmet)
Subject: Scarlet Horse of Babylon (was Daemons)
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fingal.plk.af.mil
Keywords: dead horse, Horse of Babylon
In article <1qilgnINNrko@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
|> Its easy...
|> 667 >is< the neighbor of the beast (at 666)-
|> the beast lives at the end of a cul-de-sac.
|> r.
I noticed this dead horse in your Keywords line. Is this the famous scarlet horse
of Babylon that the Beast (that's 666 for you illuminatti) rides on in those
wonderful mediaeval manuscripts. If so, I fear your announcement that the old
girl is dead may be premature. I bet $20 on her to place in the 6th race at The
Downs last Sunday, and she slid in a bad fifth. So she is not dead. She is just
comatose. (like god that way, I suppose).
Ninja Gourmet
Will fight for food.
--
Jim Peavler			My opinions do not exist.
peavler@plk.af.mil		That is why they are called
Albuquerque, NM				MY opinions.
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Language and agreement
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Lines: 16
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
Mr. Meritt, please state explicitly the inductive argument which leads
you to conclude Mr. Tice thinks it "OK" to take biblical quotes out of
context in some other t.r.m. articles.
Also, please explain why you rely on inductive reasoning (with its
implicit uncertainty) in determining Mr. Tice's opinions when the man
is himself clearly available for questioning.
Finally, please indicate whether you agree (yes or no) with the
following statement:
The word "agree" and the phrase "not disagree" are identical in
meaning.
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?
Organization: Cabletron Systems Inc.
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.ctron.com
To: "Andrew A. Houghton" <ah0i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Andrew A. Houghton"  writes:
>I'm still waiting to hear a good response from a christian type..  how
>is christ's word (as quoted by Paul) reconciled with current christian
>beliefs?
Almost one third of the world's population claim to be Christian.  But
any similarity between their beliefs and lifestyle to the first century
model is purely coincidental.  At Luke 18:8 it states, "...nevertheless,
when the son of man returns, will he really find the faith on the earth?"
Jack
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Subject: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
Lines: 54
Frank, I tried to mail this but it bounced.  It is fast moving out
of t.a scope, but I didn't know if t.a was the only group of the three
that you subscribed to.
Apologies to regular t.a folks.
In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,
>as you would wish it.
You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I
see it used normally.
And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to
"the real world".
Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe
and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning
those perceptions.
It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see.
Values are ... well they are what I value.
They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience
rather than not, and so on.
Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are
applicable to everyone.
>If there is no such thing as objective value, then science can not
>objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
I don't agree.
Science is useful insofar as it the predictions mentioned above are
accurate.  That is insofar as what I think *will be* the effect on
my perceptions of a time lapse (with or without my input to the Universe)
versus what my perceptions actually turn out to be.
But values are about whether I like (in the loosest sense of the word) the
perceptions :-)
>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.
I don't see why.
'Usefulness' in science is synonomous with 'accuracy' - period.
Tarot predictions are not useful because they are not accurate - or
can't be shown to be accurate.
Science is useful because it is apparently accurate.
Values - objective or otherwise - are beside the point.
No?
tommy
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 113
king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would
>still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
>never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they
>would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing
>village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
>its original position of stature .
Looking at [1] we find that during Roman times "Tyre vied with Sidon
for first place in the intellectual life of the period"; that Tyre was
the seat of a Christian bishop, eventually with 14 dioceses under it;
that "the most magnificent church of its kind in all Phoenecia" was the
basilica built in Tyre ca. 314; that Tyre was well known for its
exports of glassware, wine, white marble, and dyed cloth; that Tyre,
along with other seaports, "provided outlets for South Arabian, Indian
and even Chinese trade"; that Tyre had to accomodate its growing
population by "following a perpendicular, rather than horizontal, line
of growth" (because it was running out of land to build on); that Tyre
established colonies of its own.  None of this sounds like a "small
fishing village" by any stretch of the imagination.
Centuries later, under the Abbasids, Tyre had "opulent and flourishing
bazaars" and buildings of 5-6 stories.  During this period, Tyre was
"noted for its export of sugar, beads, and, as of old, glassware."
During the Crusades, Tyre was the second-most flourishing city held
by Franks.  (There is a lot more, but I got tired of writing.)
In [2] we read the following description of modern Lebanon: "other
*major cities* in Lebanon include Tripoli, Sidon, Tyre, Baalbek and
Zahlah."  [my emphasis]  This source also discusses the impact of
the Lebanese Civil War, and the Israeli military actions (1978, 1982)
on the trading ports of Tyre and Sidon.  It notes that after Israel's
withdrawel in 1984, "Tyre appeared to enjoy a revival of its local
economy."
If Tyre is such an insignificant little fishing village at present,
why is it always called a city (or, above, a "major city")?  Why
does it show up on all the maps?   When population figures for cities
in Lebanon are given, why is Tyre always one of the cities on the
list (even if the list is only a dozen cities long)?
[1] Philip K. Hitti, _Lebanon in History: From the earliest times to
the present_, NY, St. Martins, 1967.
[2] Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, _Lebanon: a
country study_, edited by Thomas Collelo, 1989.
>>In the early 1980's Tyre had over 22,000 people.
>
>So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
>Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
>we are talking about a one-horse town.
A one-horse town?  Sounds like a lot of work for one horse.
(Anyway, Tyre is connected by roads to the mainland.  They
may even use cars these days. :-)
The 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica says "Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000."
Most other references give figures in the 14-17 thousand range.
(One atlas gives the population of Tyre as 60,000; the same
source give comparatively high figures for Sidon and Beirut, also,
so I doubt that it is a typo.  Perhaps these were figures for
the cities and their surrounding areas.)  I don't doubt that the
population of Tyre has fluctuated over the last few decades.  In
particular, the 1982 Israeli military action hurt Tyre quite a bit.
>> After Alex the G it fell once more in the 1200's, I believe.  What
>>other times did it fall that you were thinking of?
>
>To Egypt (250 bce); to the Seleucids (198 bce); Rome (63 bce); after
>Rome it fell to various Arab contingents until 1124 ce when it was
>captured in the Crusades;  it was then recaptured again by the Muslims
>in 1291 ce and subsequently pillaged; then the French, Turks, British,
>and today, Lebanon.
I thought you were talking about times that Tyre was destroyed.
Don't most, if not all, of these apply not just to Tyre but to
the other cities in the area?  Sidon, for example?  Can you make
a case for Tyre having been singled out?
>>Well, it recovered enough to have a thriving commerce in the dye
>>"Tyrian purple" in Roman times.
>
>This is correct, but they were under Roman domination, and the
>majority of the created wealth was siphoned off.  The prophesy
>hold true.
They had a good deal of autonomy under the Seleucids. From [2]:
Tyre "receiv[ed] the rights [of autonomy] from Antiochus Ephiphanes
and from 125 BC onward enjoy[ed] complete autonomy. She started a
large series of coins, occasionally in gold ..."
The descriptions of Tyre under the Romans don't seem to fit
your characterization, either.  And under the Abbasids it seems
to have been allowed to flourish.  I still think you are stretching
when you try to describe Tyre as having been nothing but a small
fishing village.
>Who is Josh McDowell.
A Christian apologist whose standards of scholarship are quite low.
He happens to quote the same source you quote (Nina Jidejian,
_Tyre through the Ages_, Beirut, Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1969).
The same sentence, in fact.  He defends the fulfillment of the
prophecy using the same argument you are using, an argument that
I haven't seen in print anywhere else, which is why I jumped to
the conclusion that you were quoting Josh.
(I tried to find the Jidejian book, but it isn't listed in Books
in Print.  Can you tell me more about it? Her descriptions are so
much at odds with everything else I've read; I'm curious to know why.)
dj
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: "Ex-Gay"? (was: HOMOSEXUALITY Fact & Fiction)
Lines: 152
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>
Tony-
While I honestly believe you believe you are doing a "good thing" by posting
that piece of propaganda, I believe the more people believe that the more they
will feel justified in their blatant persecution of gay oriented people.  I
have seen the film called "The Gay Agenda" and along with my church we found
it to be horrifying.  Not because of what was actually shown (cleaver use of
editting can create any image one wants to portray), rather becaseu we are familia
familiar with how widely it was actively distributed and how many naive people
are actually believing the garbage found within it.  The truth is that neither
you nor I can fully speak for anyone who calls themself gay, but knowing as
many as I do and knowing their testimonies and witnessing thier faith and life
I have to say that the report you posted is a very biased report, something
obviously claimed against gays as well.  The truth is that unless YOU are
innately gay you cannot know what harm you are causing.  I speak as an
abolitionist who supports affirming gay rights in our society.  I do not
support wild sex or any other misrepresentations perpetrated by Christian
Fundamentalist extremists, but I know people who are not the sexual deviants
your report paints them to be.  It is no mistake that the APA removed
homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses, it is also no mistake that
there are many Christians and homophobes who long to bring it back to the list.
I do not feel threatened by gays, I don't understand why others are.
The following is an article concerning two of the more popular ex-gay min-
istries:  Exodus International & Homosexuals Anonymous.
THE FOUNDER OF AN "EX-GAY" SUPPORT GROUP CHOOSES HOMO OVER HETERO
by Robert Pela (from Gay oriented magazine ADVOCATE)
In December 1985, David Caligiuri received one of The Advocate's homophobia rewaa
awards: the A Prayer A Day Keeps the Lust Away citation.  As director of FREE
INDEED, a national ex-gay ministry, Caligiuri was singled out for offering
discontented gays and lesbians "a way out of the homosexual death-style"
through prayer.  "I'd like to give the award back," Caligiuri now laughs, "I'm
no longer deserve it."
Caligiuri's eight year involvement with the national "ex-gay" movement peaked
with his founding of the Phoenix chapter of Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) as well
as Free Indeed.  He has since abandoned his pulpit and now says that the ex-
gay movement is a fruitless effort based on deception.  "There's no reality
in it," he says, "I was selling a product, and my product was a lie."
Headed up by national ministries like Exodus International and Courage, the
organizations of the ex-gay movement rely on the tenents of born-again
Christianity to convince disatisfied homosexuals -- usually young gay men who
are just coming out -- that they can shed their sexuality by suppressing their
sexual urges and embracing Christianity.  "We offer support to people who are
seeking to leave the sin of homosexuality," explains Bob Davies, director of
Exodus.  He ventures that "about 80% of those seeking to abandon their homo-
sexuality are men."
"Anybody who is involved in the ex-gay ministry is misguided and is wasting
their time," says Lisa Seeley, a former "redeemed lesbian" who worked with
Caligiuri as HA and appeared with him on the Sally Jessy Raphael show.  "These
organizations are for people who are spiritually and emotionally wounded."
"It's possible to change your identity or your behavior," says sex educator
Brian McNaught, author of _On Being Gay_. "But it's really impossible to
change your orientation.  These people are no longer calling themselves gay,
but they continue to have same-sex erotic feelings."
Caligiuri says he founded Free Indeed after an ominous week in 1981 when all
hell broke loose in his personal life.  A few days after his lover ended both
their romance and their business partnership, Caligiuri was sexually assaulted
by a man he picked up in a bar.  "I was really drunk," he recalls, "and I
went home with this guy.  He tied me up and raped me.  He left me tied up all
night, and the next morning he raped me again."
When Caligiuri was eventually freed by the attacker, he returned home to the
home he shared with his ex-lover.  "He had another man there with him,"
Caligiuri recalls.  "I thought at this time, 'If this is what being gay is
about, I don't want to be this way anymore."
Caligiuri vowed that if he could find a way out, he would share his discovery
with others.  He organized an antigay contingent to demonstrate at Phoenix's
gay pride parade in June 1985, and a few months later Free Indeed held its
first public protest.  At a meeting to promote a gay civil rights ordinance,
Free Indeed members loudly blasted gays, telling them ther were sinners headed
for hell.
Free Indeed began receiving about a hundred telephone calls a week, thanks
in part to a deceptive listing in the local yellow pages.  "We were listed
under Lesbian and Gay Alternative Services," Caligiuri says, "so people
thought we were a gay information switchboard.  People would call to find out
where the local bars were, and we'd preach to them about the sins of homo-
sexuality."  Ruses like this are typical of the movement, Caligiuri says,
adding, "They'll do anything to reach these people."
"David used to go on radio and say really stupid things," recalls Peter
Kelly, a counselor at Phoenix's Catholic diocese AIDS program, "like that
he knew he was gay when he started wearing pastel colors."
Caligiuri's family first found out about his ministry when they saw him on
Raphael's syndicated talk show in 1985.  "They were relieved," he recalls.
"They figured that if they had to have a gay person in the family, better
that I should be a 'reformed' gay person."
But Caligiuri was hardly reformed.  "By the time I appeared on Sally's
show," "I'd started having sex with men again.  Men would call our hotline
and tell me about thier latest sin: sex with their pastor, sex with their
father.  I was horny all the time."
Unable to risk going to gay bars, where he might be recognized from his
numerous television appearances, Caligiuri says he "used to go to bookstores
and get blowjobs."  When he wasn't working the bookstores, he was sleeping
with other "reformed" homosexuals.
"I didn't realize it at first, but a lot of the HA leaders were having sex
with one another," Caligiuri says.  "We'd go to conferences in other cities,
and we'd be paired up in hotel rooms.  Everybody was sleeping with everybody
else."
By the time he appeared on 'AM Philadelphia' television show in May 1988,
Caligiuri was having anonymous sex a couple times a week.  When the show's
host asked him if he ever "acted on temptation," his answer was a lie.
Caligiuri's duplicity began to take it's toll on him, however.  He was
suffering from chrinic fatigue syndrome and candidiasis, a dibilitating
yeast infection, and this led to his escape from the sect.  "I was too sick
to go to church," he explains.  "The more time I spent away from those people
the more I began to feel like myself.  I began to remember who I used to be."
Late in 1991, Caligiuri turned Free Indeed phone lines over to a local
church and closed the ministry's doors.  "I'd convinced myself that there
is no need in the world for ex-gay people," he says.
Today, Caligiuri, 31, is studying alternative spiritualities ("I'm interest-
ed in belief systems that aren't judgemental."), considering romance ("But
not with a CHristian!"), and searching for a new project to devote himself to.
"I feel compelled to commit myself to gay causes," he says.  "I want to
eventually stop feeling guilty about what I did and make up for the damage I
may have brought to our community."
---end article---
Caligiuri's tory is by no means unique and I have read several other articles
of former leaders and founders of 'ex-gay' ministries who have said very similar th
similar things.  Fortuantely not all of them have left Christianity, but have
come to realize that God loves them despite the attitudes of others.  Some,
like Chris Glaser, director of the Presbyterian "Lazarus Project" of West
Hollywood Presbyterian Church have actually been working with the gay community
to bring them into the sheepfold of Christ and encouraging real ethical values
of sexuality within the sphere of being gay.  I have also, as I said talked and become
and become close friends with many who once attended such groups as "Love In
Action" and others, who either once claimed to have been "reformed" or who
were too honest with themselves to live a lie, no matter who was disappointed
in them.  Some were even encouraged to marry as a way of "sealing" their
new heterosexuality, only to eventually start hitting the bars, bathhouses
and bookstores, since these were usually activities under the concealment of
night and one-night-stands of promiscuous behavior meant no continuous "sin"
through a committed relationship.  This is a horrible trap which the CHurch
has dumped on the backs of the truly gay oriented people, and the very inno-
cent victims in these cases are the wives and children of such marriages.  Yet
the church insists that there are only two options they are willing to allow
gay people: 1) heterosexuality or 2) celebacy.  This is sad.  What is also
mrtifying, is in the cases of those who cannot suppress their desires and
fear for thier sanity in such a mixed up confusion that the church forces on
them, they may even opt for 'suicide' or surgical dampering of the brain
functions.  In the past lobotomies and heavey drug suppressants were common-
place.  There are now becoming available more and more literature on the
threat of coercive Christianity toward gays, such as Sylvia Pennington's
_"Ex-Gays?  There Are None_. and others.  There are also a great many fact
based books being written to help people trapped in this confusion such as
Maury Johnston's _Gays Under Grace_, and Chris Glaser's _Come Hom!_.  I
seriously recommend those for people seeking help for this persecution and
self-acceptance.
Thank you.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 34
In article <1qh4m5INN2pu@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E.
King) wrote:
> Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would
> still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
> never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they
> would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing
> village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
> its original position of stature .
Let's see, if Alexander destroyed Tyre, and people move back, and
they construct houses, and after a while 14000 people live there
and still call it Tyre, it is not considered to be rebuilt. Instead
it's considered to be 'just-some-people-that-got-together-for-fishing-
and-they-needed-houses' place.
> So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
> Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
> we are talking about a one-horse town.
Sigh, I was never born in a city then (my home town has 10.000
people). I have to consult my city and inform them that it's from
now a fishing village. When this city (Kristinestad) was founded
in the 17:th century about 1000 people lived there, so the norms
were even more bizarre for dumb Swedish queens who founded cities
along the coast of Finland.
I would like to know why Paul thought is was worth mentioning the
small fishing place of Tyre in Acts. Again, maybe he was a keen
fisherman and wanted to visit the shores of Tyre? :-)
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 47
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Brian Kendig contorts . . .
>
>>	It can not be a light which cleanses
>>	if it is tainted with the blood
>>	of an innocent man.
>
>. . . now showing how Brian Kendig is in the dark of the
>most fundamental basic of the Old Testament.  Concepts like
>santification and Lev. 17:11 must be foreign to you.  Too bad
>you are not interested in understanding.  Too bad you prefer
>blurting folly even to your own shame.
Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It
makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
moral wrongdoing.
I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday
school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all
that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.
From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
man is wrong.  I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
to accept it, but I just can't.  If this means that I can't accept the
premise that a god who would allow this is 'perfectly good', then so
be it.
>     What ignorance you can show us next?  I guess I'll wait
>till tomorrow.
If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
before, and they just don't convince me.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Lines: 25
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>Plus questions for you:  why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so
>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism?
To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the
truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to
control events.
Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two
relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute
truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that
produces the desired results.
Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing
objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there
is no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals,
you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees
with you is amoral.
Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,
I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".
--
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietzsche
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: "Ex-Gays?" (follow-up)
Lines: 53
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>
I would like to apologize for the typos in the previous post.
In retrospect I would also like to quote another source: Douglas C.
Haldeman from his 1991 book _Homosexuality_
THERAPY INEFFECTIVE
Recently the founders of yet another prominent "ex-gay" ministry, Exodus
International, denounced their conversion therapy procedures as ineffective.
Michael Busse and Gary Cooper, cofounders of Exodus International and lovers
for 13 years, were involved with the organization from 1976 to 1979.  The
program was described by these men as "ineffective . . . not one person was
healed."  They stated that the program often exacerbated already prominent
feelings of guilt and personal failure among the counselees; many were
driven to suicidal thoughts as a result of the failed "reparative therapy."
The previous article quoted in the last posting is from THE ADVOCATE, June
30, 1992 called "The Ex-Ex-Gay" by Robert Pela.
Some personal thoughts:
It is of no great astonishment that there is a concerted effort by a major
portion of the Church to control and mandate change of a minority among
its ranks.  This was the momentum behind the Spanish Inquisition, only all
they required was a confession of faith (after much torture) and then, to
save their souls they would dispatch them to heaven through death.  Even
later, the Bible was used vigorously to defend slavery, oppression and
segragation of African-Americans, even to the justification of lynchings.
Today's scholars are just a bit more slick in their approach.  The tool is
still coersion, but now it is mostly by means of brainwashing and mind
control, convincing people that they should see themselves as less than
God sees them, then maintaining a cultic hold on them until it is felt
thier mind-conditioning is complete.  Sure, no one is "physically" forced
to stay in this "reparative therapy" but sheer social pressure is enough for
many to keep themselves in this new found bondage of self-hate.
As an abolitionist I advocate the abolishment of oppression and persecution
against gays in all facets of civil life.  A person should be judged by
the contibution, or non-contribution to the society in which they live,
not by some high-brow standard of conformity imposed by those who haven';t
a clue what is in their heart.
For those who seek more information about Gays and groups that accept them
please contact your nearest chapter of PFLAG (Parents & Friends of Lesbians
And Gays) who will be more than happy to assist you.  This is a group of
people comprised of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, their parents and friends
who have formed a support group for help and understanding.  Try talking to
a parent of a gay son or daughter and learn some "first-hand" real life and
loving understanding.  God's love and understanding for Gay people is no
less abundant.
Thank you.
PAX
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 15 Apr 93   God's Promise in John 1:12
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 8
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
But as many as received him,
to them gave he power
to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:12
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 62
I was curious to check out how many San Jose Mercury News mentioned
Tyre (1990-92). Here's the outcome from the research (condenced versions,
copyright San Jose Mercury news):
---
Bombings in the two largest cities in southern Lebanon killed 11 people
and
wounded 80 others. A car bomb blew up in Tyre, killing 10 people and
wounding
75. A man was killed and five others seriously wounded in an explosion in
Nabatiye.
---
An Israeli navy patrol boat attacked and sank a rubber guerrilla boat off
southern Lebanon early today, killing the two men aboard, the army command
said.
It said in a communique that a Dvora patrol boat opened fire on the
motorized rubber dinghy north of Tyre after identifying it as hostile. The
army
said no one on the Israeli boat was injured. The affiliation of the slain
guerrillas was not immediately known.
---
Rival factions of the guerrilla group led by terrorist mastermind Abu
Nidal
battled Sunday in Tyre, Lebanon, with machine guns and rocket-propelled
grenades, killing at least four people and wounding 15, police said.
---
Lebanon's mainstream Shiite Muslim militia said Thursday that it had
uncovered a network of tunnels in a southern Lebanese village where it said
pro-
Iranian kidnappers had held Western hostages.
Officials of the militia, Amal, led local journalists through the
catacomb-
like alleys and showed them two cells with iron doors at the village,
Kawthariyet al Siyad, near Tyre, the ancient port city, about 40 miles
south of
Beirut.
The officials said they were certain that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. William
R.
Higgins was detained there shortly after he was seized by gunmen on a road
outside Tyre in February 1988.
--------------
...anyway, I counted 20 articles during these 3 years of reporting. I also
found out the possible reason why the numbers for the inhabitants of the
city is defined between 14000 and 24000. It seems that Tyre is one of the
places
where people from Libanon flee to during more extensive bombings, so
there's
a constant flow of refugees entering and leaving Tyre (articles mentioned
thousands of people entering and leaving this place).
I counted 0 articles for my home town, Kristinestad, so from now I will
consider this place to be a fishing village :-).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-1
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; Electrical & Computer Engineering
Distribution: usa
Lines: 81
DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 1
A  D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an
Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor
VOL 1, No 11, Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
NINETEENTH LETTER
MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI
(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW)
(SAW: PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM)
In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.
In The Name Of  Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
"He is who has sent His Messenger with
guidance and the religion of truth  to make it
supreme over all religion:  and sufficient is Allah
as a Witness.  Muhammad is the Messenger of
Allah, and those who are with him are firm
against the unbelievers and merciful among
each other.  You will see them bowing and
prostrating  themselves, seeking Allah's grace
and His pleasure.  Their mark is on their face
the sing of prostrafion; this is their similitude in
the Torah and Indgil." [the Our'an 48:28-29]
Since the Nineteenth and Thirhy-first Words
concerning the mission of Muhammad (SAW) prove his
prophethood with decisive evidences, we assign the
verification of that subject to those Words.
As a supplement to them, we will merely show here
in Nineteen Signs, some  of the flashes of that great
truth.
FIRST SIGN:  The Owner and Master of this universe
does everything with knowledge, disposes every affair
with wisdom, directs everything all-seeingly, treats
everything all-knowingly, and arranges in everything with
His will and wisdom such causes, purposes and uses that
are apparent to us.  Since the One who creates knows,
surely the One who knows will speak, since He will
speak, surely He will speak to those who have
consciousness, thought, and speech.  Since He will speak
to those who have thought, surely He will speak to
humankind, whose make-up and awareness are more
comprehensive of all conscious beings.  Since He will
speak to humankind, surely He will speak to the most
perfect of mankind and those most worthy of address and
highest in morality, and who are qualified to guide
humanity; then He will certainly speak to Muhammad (SAW),
who, as friend and foe alike testify, is of the highest
character and morality, and who is obeyed by one fifth
of humanity, to whose spiritual rule half of the globe has
submitted, with the radiance of whose light has been
illumined the future of mankind for thirteen centuries, to
whom the believers, the luminous segment of humanity,
renew their oath of allegiance five times a day, for
whose happiness and peace they pray, for whom they call
down Allah's blessings and bear admiration and love in
their hearts.
Certainly, He will speak to Muhammad (SAW),
and Indeed He has done so;  He will make him the
Messenger, and Indeed He has done so; He will make
him the guide for the rest of humanity, and Indeed He
has done so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be continued In$a Allah.
Your Br. Irfan in Islam.
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Reply-To: david@terminus.ericsson.se
Distribution: world
Organization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England
Lines: 89
Nntp-Posting-Host: bangkok
In article Fo2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
<Moral Driver distinctions deleted>
>>In this case, the Driver does not evolve but simply Is. There would
>>probably not be any manifestation in an infant  because the Moral
>>Code has not been learnt yet (ie. the object upon which the Driver
>>acts upon).
>
>Without manifestation, though, how can the Driver be detected? For
>all purposes it seems not to exist until Moral Coding begins.
>Actually, I agree with your notion of a Driver, except that I think
>it's not moral but pre- (and super-)moral. It is, as I mentioned
>earlier in this thread, a primal sense of connection, a pre- and
>post-natal umbilical the awareness of which is expressed in a
>partial, fragmented way that accomodates (and forms, in return) the
>language and customs of a given culture. This halting, pidgin-english
>expression is, I think, what we come to call 'morality'.
Compare the Driver to an urge such as Jealousy, where there is an urge
and an "object". The jealousy does not technically exist until the object
is apparent. However, the capacity to be jealous is presumably still there
even though it is not detectable.
Your description of the Unbilical took me three passes to understand (!) but
I get the gist and I have to tentatively agree. I think our two definitions
can sit side by side without too much trouble, though. I haven't attempted to
define the reason behind the Moral Driver (only hinted through the essence of
each Moral). Your definition hints that animals are also capable of a
similar morality - Simians have a similar Social Order to ourselves and it is
easy to anthropomorphize with these animals. Is this possible or have I
misunderstood?
>
>>>>If my suggestion holds true then this is the area where work must be
>>>>carried out to prevent a moral deterioration of Society,
>
>>>What kind of work, exactly?
>
>>Well, here you have asked the BIG question. [...]
>>I have a slight suspicion that you were hoping I would say
>>something really contentious in this reply (from your final question).
>
>No, not at all. I was just wondering if you subscribed to some
>particular school of psycho-social thought and rehabilitation, and if
>perhaps you had a plan. I'd have been interested to hear it.
>
My p.s. thoughts falls roughly in line with John Stuart Mill and
his writings on Utilitarianism. I have no particular plan (except to do
my bit - personal ethics AND social work). My opinion (for what it is worth)
is that the Authority for each Moral must be increased somehow, and that this
will probably take several generations to be effective. I don't think that the
list of Morals has changed for Society significantly, though . The Authority element
may come from our authority figures and roles models (see Eric Berne and his
transactional analysis work [+ Mavis Klein] for references) and this is what
gives rise to a deterioration of moral standards in the long term.
I've had some more thoughts on my definitions:
I've was thinking that I should add Moral Character to the list of definitions
in order to get a dynamic version of the Moral Nature (ie. the interplay of
the Moral Code and associated Authorities). A suitable analogy might be a
graphic equaliser on a HiFi system - the Moral Nature being the set of
frequencies and the chosen 'amplitudes', and the Moral Character being the
spectrum over time.
Conscience is a little more difficult because I can't define it as the
reasoning of a person between actions in the context of his Moral Nature
because Conscience seems to cut in most of the time unbidden and often
unwanted. I think Conscience is manifest when a decision is made at a given
time which compromises one's Moral Nature. My Conscience fits in more with
Freud's SuperEgo (plus the Moral Driver) with the stimulous being the
urges or Freud's Id. The reasoning that I mentioned before is Freud's Ego,
I suppose. If the Moral Driver is part of the Id then the reason why
Conscience cuts in unbidden is partially explained. The question is "what
provides the stimulous to activate the Moral driver?". I think I need some
more time with this one.
That's about it for now!
David.
---
On religion:
"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 8
<1qh49m$mg9@kyle.eitech.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: po5.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1qh49m$mg9@kyle.eitech.com>
After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?
=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor
become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of
either.
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Subject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.44
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA
Lines: 42
TEXT 44
bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam
tayapahrta-cetasam
vyavasayatmika buddhih
samadhau na vidhiyate
bhoga--to material enjoyment; aisvarya--and opulence; prasaktanam--for
those who are attached; taya--by such things;
apahrta-cetasam--bewildered in mind; vyavasaya-atmika--fixed in
determination; buddhih--devotional service to the Lord; samadhau--in
the controlled mind; na--never; vidhiyate--does take place.
TRANSLATION
In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and
material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute
determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take
place.
PURPORT
Samadhi means ``fixed mind.'' The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti,
says, samyag adhiyate 'sminn atma-tattva-yathatmyam: ``When the mind is
fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samadhi.''
Samadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense
enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things.
They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.
Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
---------------------------------------------------------
|                Don't forget to chant:                   |
|                                                         |
|  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
|       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
|                                                         |
|    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
|          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
---------------------------------------------------------
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Reply-To: david@terminus.ericsson.se
Distribution: world
Organization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England
Lines: 77
Nntp-Posting-Host: bangkok
In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens) writes:
>
>In a previous article, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) says:
>
>>
>>I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you've got hold of the wrong
>>end of a different stick...
>>
>>David
>
>I had a look at your posting again and I see what you mean!  I was so
>intent on explaining how Jung thought we could be more moral than God that
>I overlooked your main line of thought.
>
>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality is unknowable.
Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm not a Jew but I understand that this is the
Jewish way of thinking. However, the Jews believe that the Covenant between
YHWH and the Patriarchs (Abraham and Moses, in this case) establishes a Moral
Code to follow for mankind. Even the Jews could not decide where the boundaries
fall, though.
As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all that was
required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern Judaism) believed that
the Torah was available for interpretation to lead to an understanding of
the required Morality in all its nuances (->Talmud).
The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an interface between
Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does not necessarily indicate
anything about YHWH outside of that relationship (although one can speculate).
>
>The first thing that comes to mind is that man is supposed to be created
>in His image, so there is an argument that we are committed to whatever
>moral code He follows as part of trying to live up to that image.  If we
>are supposed to live by Christ's example, you would be hard pressed to
>argue that God is a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of guy.
The trouble with all of this is that we don't really know what the "created
in His image" means. I've heard a number of different opinions on this and
have still not come to any conclusion. This rather upsets the Apple Cart if
one wants to base a Life Script on this shaky foundation (to mix metaphors
unashamedly!) As to living by Christ's example, we know very little about
Jesus as a person. We only have his recorded utterances in a set of narratives
by his followers, and some very small references from comtemporary historians.
Revelation aside, one can only "know" Christ second-hand or worse.
This is not an attempt to debunk Christianity (although it may seem that way
initially), the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the Bible
to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess this is where
Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent subjectiveness.
>
>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.
No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.
David.
---
On religion:
"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Sun
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
>#But where do those objective values come from? How can we measure them?
>#What mediated thair interaction with the real world, a moralon? Or a scalar
>#valuino field?
>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,
>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then
>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>I don't.
I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.
value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in
usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus.
The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
sound.
In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
these definitions do not mean the same thing.
In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. Even the usages of the
word "value" above do not denote observable fact, but rather a standard
of measurement. I would conclude that science does not have its
basis in values, and so your statement above fails. In fact, if one
concludes that a scientific set of measurements (values) are based on
systems derived from observation, then it must follow that in a
scientific context, there is no such thing as there is no such thing as
"objective values."
Back to the present. This has nothing to do with a moral system anyhow.
Just because the word "values" is used in both contexts does not mean
that there is a relationship between the two contexts.
If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.
So, back to the original question:
And objective morality is.....?
If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
be a good beginning.
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
eric
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: An invisible God!
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
(Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his
friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
(Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man
see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
Pick what you want!
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Lines: 41
In article <8846@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}(a) out of context;
}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}
}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
}>BTW to David Josli:  I'm still waiting for either your public
}>acknowledgement of your
}>telepathy and precognition (are you a witch?) or an appology and retraction.
}
}Can you wait without whining? To pass the time, maybe you should go
}back and read the portions of my article that you so conveniently
}deleted in your reply.  You'll find most of your answers there.
Nope:  In particular:
>once he realized that he had
Example of telepathy?
>responding Jim's threa
What threat.  Produce it.
>Jim again, still mystified
More telepathy?  Or maybe just empathic telepathy, capable of determining emotional states.
>Jim, trying to
More telepathy.  How do you know "trying"?!?!?
>Jim, preparing to
Precognition?  Substantiate.
All this taken from your Message-ID: <8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu>.
Organization: City University of New York
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:    Catholic Right & Pat Robertson
Lines: 49
The Roman Catholic conservatives are coming out in the open to line
up with Pat Robertson and his ultra Right Wing Christian Coalition.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennet, a Roman Catholic, stood
beside the Christian Coalition's spokesman Ralph Reed at a March 3
conference in Washington.  The purpose of the conference was to
publish results of a Christian Coalition poll which was designed
to prove that the Republican party would lose major support if it
backed away from the "Family Values" positons of the '92 convention.
Conservative Catholics have swung behind Robertson's organization
with political expertise, legal assistance and high tech communications
support.
The Catholic Campaign for  American, designed as a Catholic version
of the Moral Majority, was founded by Marlene Elwell and Tom Wykes.
Ms. Elwell has been with Robertson since the days of his Freedom
Council in 1985 and worked for him in his presidential bid in 1988.
Ms. Elwell was hired by Domino's Pizza magnate, Tom Monaghan, in 1989
to manage Legatus, a "nonpolitical", Catholic businessmen's group.
Membership is limited to Catholics who head corporations with a least $4
million in annual revenues.  Relying on a network of wealthy contacts
at Legatus, Elwell and Wykes had little trouble forming and funding the
Catholic Campaign.
The Campaign's list of national committee members includes U.S. Rep.
Robert K. Dornan, Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, the lovely
Pat Buchanan and Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus.   Also on the national
committee is Keith Fournier, a Catholic who heads Pat Robertson's
American Center for Law and Justice.  Another Catholic, Thomas
Patrick Monaghan, senior counsel of Robertson's ACLJ, is also an
active supporter of the Catholic Campaign.
The board of directors includes Frank Shakespeare, broadcasting exec
and former U.S. ambassador to the Pope, Wall Street executive Frank
Lynch, former Reagan official Richard V. Allen, Bishop Rene Gracida
of Corpus Christi and Mary Ellen Bork, wife of unsuccessful Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork.
In the Winter 1992 issue of _Campaign Update_ the organization's
quarterly newsletter, Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
our constitution."
Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.
Jack Carroll
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Nntp-Posting-Host: nin
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Lines: 29
In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> [...]
>
> [as I recall, I first entered the fray on this matter in response to
> an assertion by Simon Clippingdale that morality was relative.
Oops! Quite right. I got so busy that I saved Frank's last post back then,
intending to respond when I could, and I sort of forgot. I'll try to do it
soon if anyone's still interested, and probably even if they're not.
> Is he therefore trying to sell something?  I don't think so. ]
Well, yes, maybe I am. I'm trying to have people buy and take on my opinions,
thus causing said opinions to spread in time-honoured memetic virus mode until
the world is a veritable paradise. So how about it, folks? As they say over
here, You Know It Makes Sense.
> Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
> odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon
Cheers
Simon
--
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: EIT
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: kyle.eitech.com
In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>#	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define
>#what "objective values" are.
>
>Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
>sound like a good deal?
Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much
we wanted the $1, wouldn't it?
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
Would you buy used code from this man?
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Sun
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>Hmmmm.  Define objective morality.  Well, depends upon who you talk to.
>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say
>it means Stryper is acceptable.  _I_ would say that general principles
>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.
>Ten Commandments
>Sayings of Jesus
>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible,
>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether
>  you think we have accurate copies of the NT.
Gong!
Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined
an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality
with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?
Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.
>MAC
>
eric
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: EIT
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: kyle.eitech.com
In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <sandvik-140493230024@sandvik-kent.apple.com# sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
>#
>#You now pushed down the defintion of objectivity into realm of
>#objective values. So you need to explain that as well, as well
>#as the objective sub-parts, the objective atoms, quarks...
>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis
in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that
they value it's results. That does not mean that science has
it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop
valuing my privacy.
>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>from subjective values, before we go any further.
See above.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
Would you buy used code from this man?
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Sun
Lines: 14
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun
In article <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than
>
>  subjective, or varying and changing.
>
Lets see what the dictionary has to say:
objective adj. 1. As having to do with a material object as distinguished
from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Uninfluenced
by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.
eric
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 43
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}>}(a) out of context;
>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
>}
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
>
>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
(call it A) that took a quote out of context
(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
lack of X  (a common creationist error)
(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(5)  You asked Stephen to explain why you were wrong and they were OK,
or to acknowledge that he was being a hypocrite.
(6)  Both of the choices you give Stephen assume that he condoned
taking quotes out of context in A.
(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
"Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
to follow from the sentence that preceded it.
(8)  Therefore, I concluded that you believed that (2) implied that Stephen
condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(9)  But we've already seen that (2) does not imply this
(10) Therefore, you were incorrect to believe that (2) implied that Stephen
thought it was okay to take quotes out of context in A, and were
making an error of a kind that is frequently made by creationists.
Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."
dj
"Yup." -- Jim's e-mailed response when I pointed out, in a posted article,
that one of his arguments was a straw man argument, reminiscent of a
frequent creationist ploy.  (3/22/93)
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 17
In article <1993Apr17.010734.23670@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth
> is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.
I'm curious about this statement, is it a known understanding amongst
Christian believers that people who don't understand the Christian
doctrines are enjoying this state? I come from a background with
a heavy Christian teaching (Lutheran church), and consider myself
knowledgeable with the basic understandings of Christianity. At the
same time I'm *not* proud of things I don't understand or know of at
this point of time. Ignorance is not bliss!
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 21
In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
(Darius_Lecointe) wrote:
> I will repeat my position here.  Worshipping on Sunday has never been a
> sin.  As a child I attended services on Saturday and Sunday--at the SDA
> church and at the Pentecostal church across the street.  I might even go to a
> Baptist church next week.  I worship God every day, and every Christian
> should.  Even if we can prove that Christians should meet on Sunday (and
> we can't) we can never prove that violation of the Sabbath is not a sin
> any longer.  Nor can we prove that violation of Sunday is a sin.  We
> cannot use the Sabbath commandment for that purpose.
My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: scientology???
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 8
> i need some brief information on scientology (or applientology as frank zappa
> would call it) anyone have the time to send me some info on ol' l.ron and the b
> asics of what scientology is all about would be appreciated---p.s.i am not inte
> rested in any propaganda
I've taken the liberty of passing your name and address to your local org
(Scientology office).  They'll be contacting you in a few days.  I also
threw in a small contribution, so they'd know you're serious.    :-)
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Lines: 19
In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>of which is subjective.
>
>-jim halat
This deserves framing.  It really does.  "[Atoms] aren't even real."
Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are
atoms now, so what are they?  Figments of our imaginations?  The
evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with
most evidence at the moment.
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2                          *  time.  It doesn't work.                 *
***************************************************************************
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 22
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
Kent:
You say that
>There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
^^^^^^^^^
>most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>and their conceptual world view systems.
Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
probably spent more time than you doing the same.
None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
case.
Study Harder,
Tony
Subject: Re: "lds" Rick's reply
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 159
Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:
#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
#ra>
(...)
# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.
It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?
Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or other latter-day saints whatsoever.
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."
# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.
Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.
#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.
A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.
(...)
# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:
Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.
#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)
So?  --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the
kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-offspring (and those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.
(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)
#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim
Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.
#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.
In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.
#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.
Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).
(...)
#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.
The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Lines: 17
In article <1993Apr16.193723.19050@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing
>universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?
The same way that any theory is proven false.  You examine the predicitions
that the theory makes, and try to observe them.  If you don't, or if you
observe things that the theory predicts wouldn't happen, then you have some
evidence against the theory.  If the theory can't be modified to
incorporate the new observations, then you say that it is false.
For example, people used to believe that the earth had been created
10,000 years ago.  But, as evidence showed that predictions from this
theory were not true, it was abandoned.
-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 32
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1qcq3f$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com
> (Jon Livesey):
> > If there is a Western ethic against infanticide, why
> > are so many children dying all over the world?
>
> The majority of the world isn't "Western".
Superficially a good answer, but it isn't that simple.  An awful lot of the
starvation and poverty in the world is directly caused by the economic
policies of the Western countries, as well as by the diet of the typical
Westerner.  For instance, some third-world countries with terrible
malnutrition problems export all the soya they can produce -- so that it can
be fed to cattle in the US, to make tender juicy steaks and burgers.  They
have to do this to get money to pay the interest on the crippling bank loans
we encouraged them to take out.  Fund-raising for Ethiopia is a truly bizarre
idea; instead, we ought to stop bleeding them for every penny they've got.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that there's a Western ethic against
Western infanticide.  All the evidence suggests that so long as the children
are dying in the Third World, we couldn't give a shit.  And that goes for the
supposed "Pro-Life" movement, too.  They could save far more lives by
fighting against Third World debt than they will by fighting against
abortion.  Hell, if they're only interested in fetuses, they could save more
of those by fighting for human rights in China.
And besides, Suzanne's answer implies that non-Western countries lack this
ethic against infanticide.  Apart from China, with its policy of mandatory
forced abortion in Tibet, I don't believe this to be the case.
mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 31
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <1qg8bu$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
> Livesey) writes:
> #And this "objective morality" is........?
>
> And here, children, we have a person playing the "objective morality doesn't
> exist, show me one" game.  You can play this with just about anything:
>
> And this "objective medicine" is.....?
> And this "objective physics" is.....?
> And this "objective reality" is.....?
Precisely.
There's no objective medicine; some people get marvellous results from
alternative therapy, others only respond to traditional medicine.
There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term
> "objective", if anything.
I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not
be too far wrong.
mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 12
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> (b) I am neither a Christian nor a theist, but I believe in objective
> morality in preference to a relativist soup of gobbledegook.
Well, there are two approaches we can take here.  One is to ask you what this
objective morality is, assuming it's not a secret.
The other is to ask you what you think is wrong with relativism, so that we
can correct your misconceptions :-)
mathew
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
Lines: 19
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> I am not a Christian, however I suspect that all flavours of
> Christianity hold that (a) objective morality exists and (b) their
> particular interpretation of scripture/revelation/TV is a goodly glimpse
> of it.  That they may all disagree about (b) says nothing about the truth
> or falsehood of (a).
Actually, they generally claim that (b) their particular interpretation of
scripture/revelation *is* this objective morality.  That there are two
conflicting versions of this objective morality does tell us something about
(a).  It tells us at least one fake objective morality exists.
The next logical step is to deduce that any given religion's objective
morality could be the fake one.  So caveat emptor.
mathew
--
Atheism: Anti-virus software for the mind.
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64635.student.cwru.edu
In article <1993Apr17.162105.3303@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>Ifone simply says "God did it", then that is not falsifiable.
Unless God admits that he didn't do it....
=)
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
Subject: Re: "lds" Rick's reply
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 159
Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:
#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
#ra>
(...)
# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.
It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?
Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or any other Latter-day Saint...
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."
# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.
Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.
#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.
A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.
(...)
# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:
Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.
#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)
So?  --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the
kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-origin (and of those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.
(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)
#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim
Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.
#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.
In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.
#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.
Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).
(...)
#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.
The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! (NOT!)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
<sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
<1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca>
<sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
Lines: 28
In article <sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so
>> much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider
>> them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.
>I don't know, I don't care about ethnical rights and wrongs myself,
>but it's evident that Christians consider Jews no longer to be the
>sole selected group of God's people -- while Jews consider this to
>be the case.
Christian anti-Semitism comes from the obvious fact that the Jews should
know the Hebrew Scriptures better than anyone else, yet they did not
convert to Christianity en mass, thus rejecting "Christian Love."
>No wonder this caused anti-Semitism. One might even
>wonder that if Christianity didn't do this separation, would anti-Semitism
>have even started?
I don't see why not. Where are the rest of the tribal people? What
happened to the tribes of the Americas? Culture is seen as different and
undesirable in the West, particular in the US with its failed "melting
pot concept." Most tribes have been hunted to extinction, the Hebrew
tribe is one of the few survivers from the Neolithic. Of course it
becomes difficult at times to separate Christianity from the Western
experience, so perhaps you are right, perhaps it would have been a better
world if the cultural experiment in Christianity never happened.
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 38
In article <1993Apr18.020655.14233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...
>
>In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>>(Pope Charles) writes:
>>
>>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms,
>>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>>
>>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up
>>with the Swastika business.
>
>But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
>other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.
>
>>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>>
>>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>>any.
>
>Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
>make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
>long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
>the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
>escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
>and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.
[Rest deleted.  Can anybody out in a.p.h help out?]
Find out about "the night of the brown shirts".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 24
In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>... other good stuff deleted ...
>You can worship every day of the week.  The issue is not whether
>Christians are at fault for going to church on Sunday or for not going to
>church on Saturday.  Attending a church service does not mean you have
>recognized the holiness of that day (my apologies to  Paul Hudson).  The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>note that the commandment does not command you to go to church, only to
>keep it holy unto the Lord by refraining from doing on it what only serves
>to give you pleasure and satisfaction.
When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question?
In paraphrase:
On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not
accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion
in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?
From: zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel)
Subject: Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin)
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de
In <1qc6tiINNhie@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>1) We're not just talking about proteins.  In fact, we shouldn't be
>>talking about proteins at all, since (if I have to say this again I'm
>>goint to be really upset) *nobody*claims*that*proteins*appeared*de*
>>*novo*
>>the proteins did not form randomly.
>>
>Before I repond to 2.), Andy, please clarify 1.).  You state that
>proteins did not form randomly.  That seems to be my point.
Well, I am not Andy, but if you had familiarized yourself with some of
the current theories/hypotheses about abiogenesis before posting :-), you
would be aware of the fact that none of them claims that proteins were
assembled randomly from amino acids. It is current thinking that RNA-
based replicators came before proteinaceous enzymes, and that proteins
were assembled by some kind of primitive translation machinery.
Now respond to 2. :-)
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen    */
/* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de                             */
/* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous)     */
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An invisible God!
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 14
In article <1993Apr17.152833.7811@maths.tcd.ie>
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin) writes:
>> God CAN be seen:
>>        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
>Wot? God's a mooner?
Such lunacy!
>(Gee, maybe there's something in this Christianity thing after all -
>maybe God is John Belushi from "Animal House")
The SuperNatural One wants to have a personal relationship with you.
JHVH-1, come quick!
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
<1993Apr17.010734.23670@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
<sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
Lines: 7
In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Ignorance is not bliss!
Ignorance is STRENGTH!
Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Christians above the Law, was Clarification of personal position
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
<sandvik-170493104641@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
Lines: 24
In article <sandvik-170493104641@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
>time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
>states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
>words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
>as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.
Who said Christians want to conform to the teachings of Jesus?
"You are the light of the world. A city can't be hidden lying on a
mountaintop. Nor do people light a candle and cover it with a big
basket; they put it up on a tall candlestick where it can shine for
everyone in the house. That's how your light must shine in front of the
world, so that people see your good deeds and give credit to your Father
in the skies. Don't think I came to dissolve The Law [Torah aka First
Five Books] or The Prophets: [7 major plus 12 minor] I didn't come to
dissolve them, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, till the sky and
the earth go away, not one letter or punctuation mark of The Law will
ever go away until everthing has come to pass. So anyone who dissolves
even one of the smallest commandments and teaches others the same way,
will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the skies; whereas anyone
who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will be known as someone
great in the kingdom of the skies."  Matt5:14-19, Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2
From: buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann)
Subject: The bad press Islam has recieved.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 16
I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic
person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media.
When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played
up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks
the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist.
I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe
the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear
things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on.
I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can
change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just
hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail,
and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.
-Scott Vann
buddha@iastate.edu
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Reply-To: keegan@hermes.acm.rpi.edu
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Lines: 15
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
->by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the
->title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
->and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread
->"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"
if you're so insecure about people reading your posts
that you feel the need to write new posts announcing
what you wrote in old, posts, why bother? accept it
PHoney, you're a laughingstock.
From: alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!))
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Longinus Software & Garden ov Delights
Lines: 27
In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
>probably spent more time than you doing the same.
>
>     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
>case.
Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
off of AMORC??
i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
claim.
>Study Harder,
Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)
--
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<---|--->  More. More of Everything. More of Everything for Everybody.
<-|-> "Real total war has become information war, it is being fought now..."
<---|---> !MaX! Delysid - alamut@netcom.com - ALamutBBS 415.431.7541 1:125/51
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Swastika (was: Hitler - pagan or Christian?)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
The observation that the Tree of Life would rotate clockwise in the
northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern probably doesn't
give enough consideration to the feebleness of the Coriolis force compared
to, say, the phototropism of vegetation.  A much more likely explanation
is the classic one: that the clockwise swastika is the Sun-wheel, because
the sun progresses across the sky that way.  (Although that's not the
historical way it happened; clocks were first made as little imitation
images of the sun moving thru the heavens.  So it's more valid to talk of
the clock going sunwise, but do the engineers listen to me?  Of course
not.)  Anyway, there is still much uncertainty about whether the
anti-swastika goes counter-sunwise because that represents Evil, or
because it is the Sun's twin-opposite, the Moonwheel.  The use of anti-Sun
to represent Evil may be because humans are so strongly visually-oriented,
but I'm not going to try to settle THAT one just now.
-- Diccon Frankborn (dickeney@access.digex.com)
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Swastika (was: Hitler - pagan or Christian?)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 6
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
RE: Red, wwhite, and black, the colors of the Imperial German war-flag --
Go further back still.  There are +XVIII Prussian drinking songs
celebrating the red, the white and the black -- the colors, as Fletcher
Pratt points out, of blood and iron.
-- Diccon Frankborn
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
were purged.  Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
tainted evidence.  The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
place when they departed, but concrete particulars are still no more than
more or less shrewd guesses.
-- Diccon Frankborn
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
<1993Apr14.130150.28931@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> <79615@cup.portal.com>
<1qn5rn$q7p@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
Lines: 144
930418
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [Honestly.]
The word of Sin is Restriction. [Would I kid you?]
Does one man's words encompass the majestic vision of thousands
of individuals?  Quoting a man is not the same as quoting the
Order.  Taken out of context, words can be interpreted much
differently than had one applied them within the confines of
their original expression.
I think this is the case regarding Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior
of the Order to which I belong.  When he included that bit
from Merlinus X' he did us all a service.  He showed us the extremes
to which Order members have been known to go in their fervor.
I have little knowledge regarding Reuss' background, but surely
he was an unusual man, and he was an important force in the Order
for many years.
Yet as people change so do Orders change, and while we look back
so carefully at the dirty laundry of O.T.O. remember that this is
only the surface skim and that many perspectives are now encompassed
which extend beyond any one individual.  I hope to show that there
was and is much room for a difference of opinion within the Order
itself, perhaps by testing the limits myself.
Let us examine this issue a bit more closely....
"In 1895, Karl Kellner (1850-1905), a wealthy Austrian industrialist
and paper chemist, as well as a high-grade Mason, founded the Ordo
Templi Orientis.  Kellner had traveled widely in the East, where he
met three adepts who instructed him specific magical practices.
Kellner's efforts to develop the Order were later assisted by Franz
Hartmann, Heinrich Klein and Theodore Reuss, who had worked together
prior to joining the O.T.O.  The Order was first proclaimed in 1902
in Reuss's Masonic publication, 'Oriflamme'.  On Kellner's death,
Reuss succeeded him as Outer Head [O.H.O.].  The 'Jubilee' edition of
the 'Oriflamme', published in 1912, announced that the Order taught
secret of sexual magic.
"Theodore Reuss was an interesting character.  Born June 28, 1855 in
Augsburg, he entered Masonry in 1876.  He was a singer, journalist and
possibly a spy for the Prussian political police, infiltrating the Socialist
League founded by Karl Marx's daughter and her husband.  Reuss was
later associated with William Wynn Westcott, a leader of the Golden
Dawn, who later introduced him to John Yarker.  Yarker chartered Reuss to
found the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim in Germany.  After several
attempts to concretize various Masonic Rites, Reuss settled on the
development of the O.T.O.
"The Order experienced reasonably steady growth under Reuss' leadership.
For example, he chartered Papus in France, Rudolph Steiner in Berlin
and H. Spencer Lewis in the USA.  In 1912, the historic meeting between
Reuss and Crowley occurred.  Crowley wrote that Reuss came to him and
accused him of revealing Order secrets.  When Crowley looked at it afresh,
the initiated interpretation of sexual magick unfolded itself to him for
the first time.  Reuss appointed Crowley as Supreme and Holy King of all
the English speaking world, and it was this authorization that he invoked
when publishing the material of the Equinox.
"Reuss resigned as Outer Head of the Order in 1922 after suffering a
stroke and named Crowley his successor.  All was well until 1925 when
_The Book of the Law_ was translated into German.  There was a break
in the continuity of the Order.  Manyk members split with the new O.H.O.
over the book, which Crowley was actively promulgating through the Order.
He had earlier revise dthe Order rituals at Reuss's request, deeply
infusing the doctrines of the New Aeon revelation."
_An Introduction to the History of the O.T.O._, by Ad Veritatem IX'
Within _Equinox III:10_, Edited by
Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior, Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
Caliph of the United States of America,
Published by Samuel Weiser, 1990.
There are many possible reasons that our Frater Superior included this
material in _Equinox III:10_.  And this is the real point, is it not?
Why did he wish to publish such things about the history of his own
organization?  Does he represent a dogmatic threat to the principle
of Thelema?  Or is he exercising his True Will and putting forth very
complex pictures with no easy answers?  A picture which leaves room
for very many interpretations.
It is quite easy for me to see, for example, that all of O.T.O. derived
out of the dribble of faltering Masonry, purchased by clever hucksters
with an ounce of courage and some writing ability to aid them.  And I
can take that all the way down to our present Caliph, whose feeble
support of the 'Law of Thelema' is laughable at best.
Would I be thrown out of the Order for speaking in this way?
Will I?
I think not.
Why?  Because my Frater will see it as a perspective, an interjection
I am using as an example.  My illustration shows that we may express things
in the context of a larger work and the true significance of this may be
quite difficult to apprehend at first.
So it may be with OTO and Merlinus X'.  Please look O.T.O. more carefully.
I do not support Reuss's words myself, as I am not qualified to assess
them, and I am critical of their pomposity.  If I who am a member of
the Order take such a stand and am allowed to continue doing so, then
what can this say about the health of the Order?  Does it mean that
the Order has 'gone soft' and abandoned its moral principles?  Or
does it mean that it is strong in its ability to let the will of
universal kinship arise on its own, not shackled by some dogmatic
requirement?  How shall we resolve these two possibilities?
I find a high calibre of individual associated with Ordo Templi Orientis.
They are often quite intelligent and sometimes very well versed in arcane
or usual information.  They are quite often artists and geniuses.
Having met some 20 longstanding members in the SF Bay Area (many who are or
were very heavily involved with the Order), I can vouch for the integrity
of the organization as it stands.
I have sometimes questioned the policy of Hymenaeus Beta.  In these moments
I followed my intuition, and I've found little to stop me from requesting
a Second initiation from a different O.T.O. body.  I'm happily participating
in social groups (Feasts or Initiations) and have come to know the Gnostic
Mass well enough for my tastes.
This doesn't make me an authority on Order politics and explanations, however.
I can only hypothesize and relay to you what I understand based on my
limited contact with other members.
I urge you not to take the words of Merlinus X too far.  There are many
ways to interpret words, and many people who have become involved with
the Order feel very strongly about the sanctity of personal freedom
and the preservation of individual vision.
I welcome other comment on this issue and will be writing more in response
to other posts in this thread.
Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.
I am I!
Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
Reply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
Lines: 112
In article <1993Apr15.231515.19982@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|>
>|> [earlier dialogue deleted]
>|>
>|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating
>|> >|> to questions of science.
>|>
>|> [it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|>
>|> >     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|> >     based on more than science alone.
>|>
>|> Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|> why and who.
>
>        The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the
>        supernatural in the question of origins.  Is this is a fair premise?
Not entirely.  Its not a premise, its a conclusion.  Second, that scientists
(for the most part) exlude the possibility is not a problem, its a necessity.
Scientists are empircists, not theologians.
>        I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
>        truth.
So do scientists, and long before you did.  Clearly you have a deep and
fundamental misunderstanding of science.
>|>
>|> >     If you met a man who could walk on
>|> >     water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and
>|> >     then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect
>|> >     your belief in the origin of man.  (I can expand on this.)
>|>
>|> Nope, wouldn't affect my knowledge (not belief) of origins of anatomically
>|> modern humans.  If that man could show me something better, I'd change, even if
>|> it was the biblical story in exact detail.  But then I would ask, "Why in the
>|> world did your father endow us with intellect and reason, and then proceed to
>|> fool us.  I mean, the bible says nothing about the human-like creatures that we
>|> know exist.
>
>        Some of these so-called human-like creatures were apes.  Some were
>        humans.  Some were fancifully reconstructed from fragments.
Absolutely and utterly false (except for some were AMHs). Lucy (Australopithecus
afarensis, ca. 3 to 3.25 mya) is 40% complete, and about 80% taking into
consideration bilateral symmetry.  Lucy walked upright and bipedally, just
like humans, and the two share a remarkably similar dental pattern.  Her
cranial morphology is unlike humans or modern apes.  There are hundreds of
other specimens of this and other species, of which only some are *partially*
reconstructed.  They exist Bill.  You can touch them, feel them, hold them.
But forget hominids.  The earth, the universe, the cultural record all look and
test out as ancient indeed.  They are not reconstructions.  Has God has tricked
us here too?  It won't go away, Bill.
>
>|>
>|> I doubt any of us will meet a man like this.  But, Bill, if your version of all
>|> this is absolutely correct, I'm still no worried about my salvation.  I'll
>|> probaby make it (I don't steal, murder, covet, etc, and I like to help other
>|> people).  All I did was use the reason and intellect your god provided.
>|> He or she - benevolent and loving - will understand my dilemma, don't you
>|> think?
>           Good deeds do not justify a person in God's sight.
>           An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.
So *you* and other fundamentalists say.  What about the billions who don't
say so?  Beware of people who say they have the truth, Bill, and reconsider
each time you think you do.
>|>
>|> >  Science and
>|> >  the Bible are not in contradiction.  God can supercede the scientific
>|> >  "laws" as man understands them.  Creation is a good example.  God has the
>|> >  power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos.
>|>
>|> Haven't been on t.o. long, but I have a feeling, Bill, that the veterans will
>|> agree with you here.  No contradiciton, and god *can* do anything at will.  So,
>|> what's the beef? (or more properly, "where's")
>
>     My point: God is the creator.  Look's like we agree.
That was not your point, Bill.  Your point above was God *has* the power ....
Scientists generally agree with that.  That's a far cry from saying God did.
Please attempt to understand your own posts.
>|>
>|> >    If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the
>|> >    substance of the book, it must be a real laugher.  Of course Jesus existed,
>|> >    and there are volumes of evidence to back it up.  I can give many if you
>|> >    are interested.
>|>
>|> Its not a laugher, Bill.  Its a scholarly book that many happen to disagree
>|> with.  I am definitely (and seriously) interested in confirmation.  I know of
>|> the bible, inferences therefrom (e.g., prophecies), apocrypha, the Koran and
>|> others.  What I am interested is independent evidence.  Do you have any?  I
>|> know of Josephus, but this is almost certainly an insertion.  Also I know of a
>|> few Roman documents (e.g., Pliny), but these deal only with early Christians.
>|> Do you have any independent evidence?  I am most interested.  Please Email or
>|> post.  Thanks, and best regards.
>
>     I'll send you some info via e-mail.
>     Regards, Bill.
I have your info, and I have replied - several days ago.  Hope you have it.
Somehow your post above appeared at my server only today.
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 45
In article <sandvik-160493205355@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>(stephen) wrote:
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) quotes ML...
>> >> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> >> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We
>> >> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> >> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> >> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation
>> >> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.
>> >
>> >Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
>>
>> Which Jews KS?
>
>Most religious Jews with the exception of the Messianic ones and
>atheists/agnostics, Malcolm.
KS, I see you're wanting Malcolm's response. Allow me one last inter-
jection then please:
Distinguishing among the religious Jews, you've excepted the Messianic
for obvious reasons. Specifically, are you saying it's these religious
Jews, who trace their lineage back to Abraham by blood and orthodoxy,
rather than by faith, who won't agree?  Orthodox Jews?
As to the a/a (if I understand your direction), the issue remains
unproven I suspect, considering how atheists and agnostics so often
look to reason. Atheist, it is reasonable to conclude will not agree.
For agnostics, a poll seems in order. Who knows?  Myself, I'm not so
sure the atheists can be counted out.
For the orthodox, I wonder how many would follow Moses, or Abraham,
or David in accepting God's Word? Is the particular covenant to which
one adheres, more important than God promisimg? I reckon for many it
depends on the ongoing dialogue. Under these considerations, you might
understand why I think it's premature to assert who will and won't agree.
|
-- J --
|
| stephen
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic
Keywords: ... and blessed are aluminium siding salesman ...
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
<1qkna8$k@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Lines: 19
In article <930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was Jesus, wasn't it?
>No, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Definitely, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, numero uno, top dog, not one can touch, not
one can knock Bob out of the box. Bob kills me mon! Everyday!
But close El Segundo (el subliminal) is the infamous Paul (birthname Saul) the
Evangeline who became famous as a result of his numerous trampoline act
tours of the eastern Mediterranean.
Jesus on the other hand was duped, a pawn of the Con, fell pray to the
Holywood Paradox (ain't nothing but a sign in the hills!). Like many
Afro-Asians, Jesus found the earth all too pink! And to think that after
his death, the Con changed him into a tall blond Holywood sun god! And I
do mean that in the kindest way possums! Now Jesus does gigs with Hendrix,
Joplin, Morrison, Lennon, Marley, Tosh, etc. Mostly ska beat jah-know!
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)
Reply-To: rfox@charlie.usd.edu
<1993Apr7.073926.9874@engage.pko.dec.com>
<1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
<1993Apr11.162936.18734@zeus.franklin.edu>,<1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.
Nntp-Posting-Host: charlie
Lines: 71
In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> >|>
>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally
>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more
>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature
>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of
>|> guano...
>
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.
Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere
in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which
it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.
Until you can demonstrate how and why the scholarly community is wrong about
the Josephus insert, your "proof" is meaningless and it should not be repeated
here.  What's more, even if Josephus happened to be legitimate, it would "prove"
nothing.  Scholars speak of the "weight of evidence."  Far more independent
evidence would be required to validate your claim.  Until forthcoming, your
belief is based on faith.  That's OK, but you exceed your rights when you pass
faith off as fact.
As for the gospels, there are parallels, but there are also glaring
inconsistencies and contradictions.  Shouldn't a perfect canon be perfect?
Shouldn't there be absolutely no room for debate?  I suggest you read _Gospel
Fictions_ by Randel Helms, and _The Unauthorized Version_ by Robin Fox (for
Herb Huston, no known kinship or familial relationship, but we do indeed share
an evolutionary ancestry).
The fact that there are inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions does not deny
your position.  On the other hand, neither do the gospels "prove" your faith.
Independent evidence is necessary, and I know of none (which we have already
discussed, and so far you have not provided any).  Until then, its faith.
Moreover, you have committed a fundamental error in logic.  You have attempted
to "prove" your claim with that which you want to prove.  Its no different than
saying "I am right because I say so."
Your logic is full of circles.  It reminds me a bit of the 1910 Presbyterian
General Assembly.  The assembly defined five fundamentals (this is where
"fundamentalist" came from) of orthodox Protestant Christianity, to wit: 1)
Jesus performed miracles, 2) Jesus was born of a virgin, 3) Jesus was bodily
resurrected, 4) Jesus' crucifixion atoned for human sin, and - here is the
clincher - 5) the bible is the inerrant word of God.  Presbyterians construe
"inerrant" broadly as spritually inerrant.  Fundamentalists take the
first four as literally true, and then validate them with a literally inerrant
bible, which contains the first four, and which is the only thing known to
contain the first four.
Smoke and mirrors and wands and hand waving if ever there was!
Its faith, Bill.  You don't have any more or better truths than anyone else.
Whatever works for you.  Just don't foist it on others.
Regards,
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 17
In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Ignorance is not bliss!
> Ignorance is STRENGTH!
> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!
Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece
of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Who, me???
Lines: 41
In article <1qme79$c0k@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
>>#not.
>>
>>O.K., which DES?  The abstract function DES? that stops working in any
>>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,
>>meaning, information, etc.  A DES chip or DES s/w?  That stops working in any
>>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc.   DES
>>does not work in a value vacuum.  Nothing else does, either.
>
>This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
>seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
>accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
>It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
>is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..
If no-one looks at the results, or acknowledges their correctness, in what
meaningful sense can the chip be said to "work"?? Does flibozity exist?
By "flibozity", I mean a particular, extremely complex configuration of
physical phenomena, which no-one, absolutely NO-ONE cares about in the
slightest. Does it exist, Eric?
Getting back to the question of whether the DES chip "works", doesn't "work"
mean something like "achieving the desired/expected effect"? Note the way
intentionality subtly underlies that definition. Even if we take the
definition as "expected", instead of "desired", can you deny that conformance
to expectations is itself a value of sorts, namely the scientific values of
accuracy-of-prediction and reproducibility-of-results?
The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as
measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.
- Kevin
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: Who, me???
Lines: 15
In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]
>
>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact
>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?
>
>Please define this "objective morality".
>
>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.
Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.
Slimy tactic.
- Kevin
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: sgi
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qlvh1$fh0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>
|> #Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
|> #the use of force?
|>
|> With a few provisos, yes.  Minimum force, for a start. And, it
|> depends on what is being forced (on either side).
|>
|> #Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
|> #people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
|> #that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
|>
|> My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be
|> immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.
|> Again, there many caveats and provisios.
|>
|> Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock
|> on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.
You're admitting a lot more than that.  You are admitting that
your morals are situational.   You are admitting that the actions
of other people and the situation you are in help to determine
how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.
If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ
X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree
of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.
This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
For what it's worth - and yes, I know you claim to be an agnostic -
it's this ability to re-label things from "immoral" to "moral"
that I find one of the *least* attractive qualities of the religious
mind.
jon.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: sgi
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com
In article <1qm069$fm8@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkndq$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #|> In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> #|> #	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define
|> #|> #what "objective values" are.
|> #|>
|> #|> Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
|> #|> of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
|> #|> sound like a good deal?
|> #
|> #You mean that if you can find a ridiculous price, the rest of
|> #us are supposed to conclude that an objectively correct price
|> #exists?
|>
|> I said nothing about the price.  I asked if the deal was good.  It isn't.
So it was a complete non-sequitur, is that it?     How does coming
up with a derisory deal tell us anything about the existence of
"objective" values.
You're asking us to accept that the deal you offered would be turned
down, and we believe that, not because we appeal to objective values
but becasue we know, or think we know, something about people.
All the people we know exhibit *subjective* values that would lead
them to reject a deal of $1 for all of the land in America.
Great.   Now, so what?
jon.
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The bad press Islam has recieved.
Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project
Lines: 34
In article <buddha.735157446@du248-07.cc.iastate.edu> buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann) writes:
>
>	I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic
>  person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media.
>  When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played
>  up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks
>  the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist.
>	I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe
>  the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear
>  things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on.
>  I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can
>  change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just
>  hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail,
>  and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.
Very easily. Show them pictures of crime scenes perpetrated by Christian
terrorists in this country, if that doesn't convince them have them talk
to the victims of Christian terrorism.
A brutal act of terrorism inspired by Christian propoganda was recently
commited on your very campus.
Its very simple religious extremists of all religions put no value on
human life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalists put advancing there
religion above all else, even if doing so violates the religion itself.
P.S. I'm not saying all Christians are terrorists, I'm using "Christian
terrorist" in the same way the media uses Islamic terrorist.
--
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
\  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
\/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 41
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
Kent: With all due respect, how can I take you seriously, when you have
the NAMES wrong in the 1st place? E.g.:
>
>The San Jose RC (Ordo Rosae Crucis)
There is no such thing. The correct name is Ancient & Mystical
Order Rosae Crucis, abbreviated AMORC.
>...and the Rocicrusian
>order created by Max Heindel.
There is no such thing either. It's the Rosicrucian Fellowship.
And they clearly state that they DO NOT pretend to descend from the
Order of the Fama Fraternitatis.
>In addition there are many splinter groups
>all around Europe that all claim some connection with the original
>group supposedly founded in the middle ages.
The Lectorium? And who else?
>Some Freemason groups
>also have Rosicrucian-like separate groups, even if they are far
>from the ideologies the RC groups have somehow in common.
These are NOT Rosicrucian "orders". They are Masonic study groups, none
of which *claims* to be descendant of the original Order.
>
>We might compete about how much time we have spent with this :-). Let
>me start, I was part of the ORC for about 8 years.
>Kent
>
What is ORC? If you mean AMORC, you didn't even learn the correct
name?!
Tony
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615
Lines: 32
alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!)) writes:
> In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
> >
> >     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
> >probably spent more time than you doing the same.
> >
> >     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
> >case.
>
> Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
> AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
> off of AMORC??
> i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
> claim.
>
>
Well, there is a fair amount of evidence floating around that indicates
that OTO has been around since at least the late 1800s, long before
Crowley ever heard of it, how long has AMORC been around? (yes, I know
that they claim to have existed as an organization clear into prehistory,
but I doubt that they have any organizational paperwork
as a non-profit that can be carbon-dated to 20,000 BC)
A.Lizard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 21
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid y!)) says:
>
>Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
>AMORC is not a spin off of OTO?
Absolutely. Lewis didn't care for the 1921 O.T.O. charter from Reuss. He had
in mind something completely diferent. Crowley and Lewis were very
different persons, as you probably know.
>.. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
>off of AMORC??
No. My overstatement, sorry :-)
>>Study Harder,
>Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)
>
I ALWAYS DO.
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 13
ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  That's Ruby Rose and Gold Cross, in rough
translation.  The G.'.D.'. is a Rosicrucian order, as are all derivative
groups.  Of course, real Rosicrucians never admit to being Rosicrucian.
Enjoy the journey!
--Br'anArthur
Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
******************************************************************************
Closed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 22
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:
>
>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.
>
Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
Golden Dawn are you talking about?
Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,
Any takers? :-)
Fraternally,
Tony
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-2
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; Electrical & Computer Engineering
Distribution: usa
Lines: 125
The following is an introduction as to who is Muhammad SAW
as will be covered with this treatise.
MUHAMMAD peace and blessings of Allah be upon him (SAW)
is the last prophet of Islam.  He is the Prophet who is revealed
the last Holy Scripture, Qur'an, by Allah SWA (all praise be to Him)
through the Arch Angel Gabriel.  He is the seal of all prophets
till the day of judgement as stated in the Qur'an by Allah
SWA (all praise be to Him).  Muhammad SAW lived between
571-632 AC.  All other prophethoods claimed after Muhammad SAW,
is a treason against Islam, against Qur'an, against the message
of Allah SWA.  Muhammad SAW is from the seed of Ishmael, another
messenger of Allah and son of Abraham also a messenger of Allah.
He is the Messenger that previous holy scriptures foretold his
coming.  The above mentioned verse from the Qur'an is from
Chapter 33, Verse 40 whose rough translation is as follows:
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal
of the prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of
all things.
---------------------
Commentary on the above verse:  When a document is sealed,
it is complete, and there can be no further addition.  The
Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW closed the long line of Messengers.
Allah's teaching is and will always be continuous, but there
has been and will be NO Prophet after Muhammad SAW.  The later
ages will want thinkers, and revivers, not Prophets.  This is not
an arbitrary matter.  It is a decree full of knowledge and wisdom,
"for Allah has full knowledge of all things."
----------------------
DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 2
A   D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an
Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor
VOL 1, No 11, Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
NINETEENTH LETTER
MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI
(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW)
(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 1)
SECOND  SIGN:   The  Noble  Messenger  (SAW)
declared His prophethood, and presented to humanity a
decree as the Glorious Qur'an and manifest miracles
which number, according to the scholars, one thousand.
The occurrence of those miracles in their entirety is as
certain as the fact that He declared himself prophet.  In
fact, as a shown by the words of the  most obstinate
unbelievers quoted in various places of the Wise
Our'an, even they could not deny the occurrence of His
miracles, but only called them -hasha wa kella!-(Allah forbids)
sorcery, in order to satisfy themselves, or to deceive their
followers.  The miracles of Muhammad (SAW) have the
certainty of confirmation by consensus of Ulema (scholars
of Islam) to the hundreth degree.
The Miracle is the conformation by the CREATOR of
the universe of His declaration of Prophethood; it has the
effect of the words,'You have indeed spoken the truth !'
Suppose that you said in the assembly of a ruler,
while being observed by Him, 'The true ruler has
appointed me to such and such position.  'At a time when
you were asked to prove your claim, the word 'Yes'
uttered by the ruler would sufficiently support you.  Or, if
the ruler changed his usual practice and attitude at your
request, this would confirm your claim even more soundly
and more definitely than would the word 'Yes.'
In the same way, ALLAH's Most Noble Messenger
claimed: 'I am the envoy of the CREATOR of this
universe.  My proof is that He will change His unbroken
order at my request and my prayer.  Now look at my
fingers:  He makes them run like a fountain with five
spigots.  Look at the moon: by a gesture of my finger, He
splits it in two.  Look at that tree: to affirm me, and to bear
witness to me, it moves and comes near to me.  Look at
this food: although it is barely enough for two or three
men, it satisfies two or three hundred.  'Further he shows
hundreds of similar miracles.  However, the evidences  of
the veracity of this high being and the proofs of his
prophethood are not restricted to his miracles.  All his
deeds and acts, his words and behavior, his moral
conduct and manners, his character and appearance
prove to the attentive his truthfulness and seriousness.
Indeed, many people  such  as  Abdullah  b. Salam,  the
famous scholar of the Children of Israel, came to belief
merely by seeing him, and said, 'No lie can hide in this
face, nor can any fraud be found in it!'
Although many of the  researchers have concluded
that the proofs of the prophethood of Muhammad and his
miracles number about one thousand, there are
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of proofs  of
his prophethood.  And hundreds of thousands of
truth-seeking men (muhakkikiin) with varying opinions
have affirmed his prophethood in an equal number of
ways.
The Wise Our'an alone demonstrates thousands of
the proofs of his prophethood, in addition to its own forty
aspects of miraculousness.  Since prophethood is as a
phenomenon of humanity, and hundreds of thousands of
individuals who claimed prophethood and performed
miracles have lived and passed away; then, the
prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) is of a certanity
superior to that of the prophethood of all the others.  For
whatever evidences, qualities  and attributes  became the
means of the prophethood and messengership of all the
messengers such as Jesus (AS) and Moses (AS), they
are all owned in a more perfect and comprehensive
fashion by Muhammad (SAW).  And since the causes and
means of prophetic authority exist more perfectly in the
person of Muhammad (SAW), this authority is to be found
in him with more certanity than all the other prophets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.
From: magney@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Agney)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: lloyd.caltech.edu
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]
>>
>>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact
>>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?
>>
>>Please define this "objective morality".
>>
>>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.
>Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.
>Slimy tactic.
>								- Kevin
Well, when you crosspost to talk.origins, what do you expect?
--
| Michael Agney          | Just because you're paranoid |
|                        | doesn't mean they're not out |
|                        | to get you.                  |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |                              |
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Lines: 53
In article <C5p660.36t@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>>|> >|>
>>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally
>>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
>>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more
>>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature
>>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
>>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of
>>|> guano...
>>
>>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>>        are very much in harmony.
>
>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
>
>Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
>out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere
>in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which
>it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.
I think this is a weak argument.  The fact is, there are *two* references to
Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_, one of which has unquestionably at least
been altered by Christians.  Origen wrote, in the third century, that
Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while the long passage
says the opposite.  There is an Arabic manuscript of _Antiquities of the
Jews_ which contains a version of the passage which is much less gung-ho
for Jesus and may be authentic.
There is no question that Origen, in the third century, saw a reference
to Jesus in Josephus.  There are no manuscripts of _Antiquities_ which
lack the references.
It is possible that it was fabricated out of whole cloth and inserted, but
I don't think it's very likely--nor do I think there is a consensus in
the scholarly community that this is the case. (I know G.A. Wells takes
this position, but that's because he takes the very small minority view
that Jesus never existed.  And he is a professor of German, not of
biblical history or New Testament or anything directly relevant to
the historicity of Jesus.)
Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 39
ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:
>>
>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.
>>
>	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
>Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
>Golden Dawn are you talking about?
No, I don't mean the LR, whatever that is.  As for which GD, I'm using _The
Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic_ as my source, so (unless Regardie is
lying) I'm pulling the name out the the original order's rituals.  The
multiple modern groups are part of why I through in the comment about all
the "spin-offs".
>	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,
As a member of the Religious Society of Friends (my membership is in the
Urbana-Champaign (IL) Friends Meeting) I find that amusingly ironic. :)
>	Any takers? :-)
Not me--I don't want to belong to *anything* which runs around claiming to
be the TRUE whatever.  I find that disgusting. :(
Enjoy the journey!
--Br'anArthur
Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
******************************************************************************
Closed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
Lines: 21
judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:
>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:
>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"
>and
>"Values are subjective?"
>I don't see any.
The first means that some aspect of reality contains objective values.
The second means that values are a reference to some preference of the
individual.  In the first case, it is possible that some future discovery
might invalidate certain views re what objective values are.
--
Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis
Reply-To: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Lines: 94
In article <1qsami$3h7@access.digex.net>, dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
writes:
>The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
>buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
>Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
>were purged.
Stop! Hold it! You have a few problems here. Official history says that
the first accusations of homosexuality in the SA came from OUTSIDE of the Nazi
party, long BEFORE the Nazis ever came to power. So this objection is a red
herring, even if established history is wrong on this point. Moreover, none of
the histories I've read ever made mention of Hitler or anyone else ever using
homosexuality as a pretext for purging Roehm. A point I saw reiterated was that
Hitler and the party covered up these accusations. If you are going to accuse
official history of being a fabrication, you should at least get your facts
right. The pretext for purging Roehm was that he was planning to use the SA in
a coup against Hitler. Nowhere is there mention of using allegations of
homosexuality as a pretext for the purge, nor as a justification afterwards (it
is possible that the histories I've read have not mentioned this, but I doubt
it - would it be in Hitler's best interest to admit to the world that his
former right hand man was a homosexual?).
Anyway, as I said before, it is always possible that I have missed references
to the Nazis making use of charges of homosexuality against the SA after the
night of the long knives - but this does not prove that they were false. Even
the Nazis could tell the truth when it was to their advantage. In any case,
this does not deal with accusations of homosexuality in the SA during the
1920's.
>Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
>anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
>tainted evidence.
Ah, yes. I forgot this was being posted to alt.conspiracy. I can smell the
paranoia from here. Since the Nazis never officially charged Roehm with
homosexuality (at least, not according to what I've read), I'd like to know
what tainted "evidence" you are talking about. Since the accusations were made
by persons outside of the Nazi party, long before it came to power, and those
accusations were common knowledge to journalists and others in Germany in the
1920's and 30's, just how would it be possible for the Nazis to go back in
time and plant "tainted" evidence? How exactly does one doctor newspapers
which were circulated around the world, without the discrepancies being
obvious? What actual incidences of Nazi doctoring evidence on this matter
do you know about? And what about the testimony of people who were involved in
these matters, some of whom were not Nazis? And what is the point of making a
false accusation of homosexuality if you do not publicize it? Since the point
here seems to be to discredit established history, then the burden of proof
falls on the revisionist. The revisionists had better do their homework
before making accusations. Otherwise they simply look like conspiracy nuts.
>The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
>the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
>place when they departed,
This is just about the *only* thing we agree on.
I suspect that the notion that there might have been bad people - Roehm and
his SA buddies - who were homosexuals must disturb some people. The feeling
seems to be that if a nasty individual is accused of homosexuality, that this
must be an attempt to bash homosexuals. This fear - often justified - is what
lies behind this distrust of official history, or so it seems to me. But this
is not a good justification for trashing accepted accounts of this subject. If
you really think that historians are so incompetent, why don't you write them
and ask where they got their sources on this subject, if you can't tell from
their footnotes? I'm a graduate student in history. Writing to professors and
tracking down sources is old hat. But my time is limited and this is not my
specialty - and neither you nor anyone else have said anything that would
cast one shred of doubt on existing evidence. I'm not going to waste my time
trying to debunk someone's paranoia. Do the research yourself.
>but concrete particulars are still no more than
>more or less shrewd guesses.
>-- Diccon Frankborn
Given that you already consider all evidence "tainted", what on earth would
constitute concrete particulars? And since when have concrete particulars been
considered "shrewd guesses"?
I suggest that those who do not trust popular historians (Irving et al) -
historians writing for a popular audience do not, as a rule, provide copious
footnotes - should try instead reading academic historians, who usually
provide footnotes to all their sources in immmense detail. This is the place
to start looking. Assuming that one really wants to know the truth.
I'll bet the folks on alt.pagan are tired of this subject already. My
apologies - we seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I forget which gods
are responsible for keeping strings within appropriate newsgroup subject
boundaries...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly
of us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position (Jesus and the Law)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 98
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
>time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
>states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
>words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
>as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.
I think the passage you're looking for is the following.
Matthew 5:17    "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
Matthew 5:18   For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away,
not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Matthew 5:19   Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments
and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.
Matthew 5:20   For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of
the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
There are several problems with this.  The most serious is that the
Law was regarded by Jews at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but
not on Gentiles.  There are rules that were binding on all human
beings (the so-called Noachic laws), but they are quite minimal.  The
issue that the Church had to face after Jesus' death was what to do
about Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ.  The decision not to
impose the Law on them didn't say that the Law was abolished.  It
simply acknowledged that fact that it didn't apply to Gentiles.  This
is a simple answer, which I think just about everyone can agree to.
(A discussion of the issue in more or less these terms is recorded
in Acts 15.)
However there's more involved.  In order to get a full picture of the
role of the Law, we have to come to grips with Paul's apparent
rejection of the Law, and how that relates to Jesus' commendation of
the Law.  At least as I read Paul, he says that the Law serves a
purpose that has been in a certain sense superceded.  Again, this
issue isn't one of the abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his
discussion, Paul notes that he might be understood this way, and
assures us that that's not what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees
the Law as primarily being present to convict people of their
sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an impossible standard, and one that
has been superceded by Christ.  Paul's comments are not the world's
clearest here, and not everyone agrees with my reading.  But the
interesting thing to notice is that even this radical position does
not entail an abolition of the Law.  It still remains as an
uncompromising standard, from which not an iota or dot may be removed.
For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's important that it not be
relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not the end -- ultimately we
live in faith, not Law.
While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.
The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.
It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values.
From: mimir@stein.u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In article <1qsqar$n8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:
>
>>
>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.
>>
>
>	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
>Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
>Golden Dawn are you talking about?
Which Golden Dawn? How about the original from 100 years ago?
>	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,
>
>	Any takers? :-)
No. No Rosicrucian would ever admit or deny being such.
Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson
From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: Home Office in Vienna, Austria
X-Newsreader: rusnews v1.01
Lines: 28
kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
> I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
> with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
> rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
> related to the Mithras cult?
Yes, this is certainly one of the traditional ideas about the Mithraic
cult (although not the only one.)  It had many elements that seem
to have been borrowed by Catholicism (e.g. the Mass, communion, the
sharing of a sacred meal, consecration of bread and wine, etc.)
For quite an amusing novel that uses this same idea, check out:
The Covenant of the Flame
by David Morrell.
It has some quite interesting occult bits, and lots of killing.
I won't spoil it by revealing the ending, but I will say that it
is relevant to Mithraism.
--
paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)
Home Office in Vienna, Austria
** If you read news with rn or trn, ask me about EEP! the .newsrc editor!
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)
Lines: 114
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>
Tony-
I read your post, it was nothing new, I had seen much the same in other
typical"Christian" anti-gay sentimental literature.  Gay people are and will
con- tinue to be persecuted as long as such propaganda petpetuates.  You may
be unaware of all the statistica "findings" concerning African-Americans that
have been published and used by various groups to re-enforce their own bias
against African-Americans.  We usually think of the KKK in these instances,
but there are many other groups.  Of course, the vast majority of the public
scoff at such findings and documents today, but that was not always the case.
Fortunately African-Americans had "whites" who supported their 'cause' and
public sentiment was eventually (if not entirely) turned around.  There was
even a Civil War, and anti-negro sentiment increased.  In fact, until laws
were put in place to protect the inalienable rights of Blacks it was pretty
much legal to discriminate against them.
I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
form discrimination.  You may think that I have been deceived or something,
that is your perogative.  My church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
openly affirms the rights of oppressed people of all segments of society,
including gays.  We believe the Gospel message of preaching to all creation
and making disciples.  We believe in the Lord's great commandment to Love,
and we beleive in standing up for the oppressed, even if it is not popular
to do so.  I really like my church for last reason the most.  I can find a
church almost anywhere in the valley that stands for the Gospel and believes
in the commandment of Love (though I'm hard-pressed to find many who actually
sho Love), but not many are willing to champion the oppressed, especially
within their own community.  I may have lost face with the greater Christian
community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and
treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've
decided the challenge is worth it.
In my talks with gay men and women I have heard tragic story after tragic
story centering around failed marriages, wives and husbands who are straight
who have been hurt in the process, etc.  Funny thing is, I don't know of one
case where the parents, ex-wives, or even children have continued to reject
their gay family member (son, daughter, ex-husband, father, etc.) after they
began to take part in some form of support group, like PFLAG.
I'm apalled by the legislation which passed in Colorado, and am equally out0
raged that such slimey people as Louis Sheldon (from the Tradition Values
Coalition) have been actively working in the Christian underground to garner
support within several (8 I believe) states this coming November for more
oppressive legisation against gays.
Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
in witch hunts and inquisitions.
The message that comes through, loud and clear, by proponents against gay
rights and against gays in general, is that there is a strong dislike, even
hatred for gays, whether you want to call it such or not (it doesn't change
the results).  The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
love, one that calls people "just as they are."  Sure there are things that
will 'naturally' change, and habits (like alcoholism, wife beating, etc.) that
need to be changed through some sort of therapy.  But then there are things
like left-handedness, etc. that no amount of beating it out of people, is
going to result in anything more than an outward conforminty to "other
people's expectations." In the process this coerced conformity causes many
people a great deal of harm, especially when it is caused by people who have
nothing more to gain from it that to become even more puffed up about their
own sense of pseuper-spirituality.
This is sad, but I thoroughly believe that one day it will change.  It may be
unpopular to cry for justice and equality when the basis has to do with
something very personal like 'sexuality' (a taboo subject even today), but I
firmly believe in the rights of individuals to be free from impose regulation
on thier bedrooms.  It's funny that most straight people have successfully
removed restrictive and oppressive legislation against invasive legislation,
but we like to maintain this little chestnut of repression...as though it
helps us maintain a sense of superiority over at least one segment of society.
Gay people are not criminals.
Another interesting thing happened recently.  A very prominent charismatic
church in the Silicon Valley (here) had two of it's pastors arrested for self-
admitted charges of pederasty (men having sex with boys).  This had apparently
been going on for some time (a couple years?), but since the charges were
voluntary, and the church worked closely with the police, so I imagine that
was how they managed to downplay it in the media.  How could such a thing
happen when the church, itself, has an ex-gay ministry?  One of my friends
recently told me he was "approached" by someone who is going through the
reparitive therapy there, and he was thoroughly convinced that the request for
dinner was not an invitation to attend the ministry.
These are difficult times we live in, but providing hostile environments and
creating and perpetuating an atmosphere that breed hate and violence is not
the call of the Christian community.  The results of the passing amendment in
Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
embracing.
We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
towards those we feel don't 'measure up', and constant beratement from
organizations like The Christian Research Institute, while they do have a good
purpose also, their major work seems to be finding new and better ways of
excluding people.
The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
people.  I have several of Dr. Martin's books and find them quite helpful,
especially concerning 'cults.' But it seems that CRI, has become a cult unto
itself.  Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?
Whatever
Rich :-(
Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the u
From: stigaard@mhd.moorhead.msus.edu
Reply-To: stigaard@mhd.moorhead.msus.edu
Organization: Moorhead State University, Moorhead, MN
Nntp-Posting-Host: 134.29.97.2
Lines: 23
>>>667
>>>the neighbor of the beast
>>
>>No, 667 is across the street from the beast.  664 and 668 are the
>>neighbors of the beast.
>
>I think some people are still not clear on this:
>667 is *not* the neighbor of the beast, but, rather, across the
>street. It is, in fact, 668 which is the neighbor of the beast.
no, sheesh, didn't you know 666 is the beast's apartment?  667 is across the
hall from the beast, and is his neighbor along with the rest of the 6th floor.
>Justin (still trying to figure out what this has to do with alt.discordia)
This doesn't seem discordant to you?
-----------------------     ----------------------     -----------------------
-Paul W. Stigaard, Lokean Discordian Libertarian
!XOA!		internet:  stigaard@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
(fnord)       Episkopos and Chair, Moorhead State University Campus Discordians
Rectal neufotomist at large
"If I left a quote here, someone would think it meant something."
From: rkwmo@pukrs3.puk.ac.za (MNR M OOSTHUYSEN)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: PU vir CHO/PU for CHE
Lines: 33
In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org> jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:
>Leviticus 21:9
>And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
>whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
>Deuteronomy 22:20-21
>...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
>bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
>city shall stone her with stones that she die...
>Deuteronomy  22:22
>If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
>both of them die...
>Deuteronomy 22:23-24
>If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
>in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
>gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...
>Deuteronomy 22:25
>BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
>and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
IF it were'nt for the sin of men, none of this killing would have been
necesarry, He is KIND and LOVING, but also RIGHTEOUS,
SIN MUST BE PUNISHED.
Before Jesus, man had to take the sins on himself.
But Jesus died and took it all upon Him, so now we also have a FORGIVING GOD.
If He were not KIND and LOVING, there wouldn't have been any people left.
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Lines: 51
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com
rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>
> The results of the passing amendment in
> Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
> Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
> but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
> is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
I live in Colorado, and have never heard of such a group.  Obviously claims
that their posters are appearing "all over Colorado" are a tad overdone...
> This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
> embracing.
Hardly.  Saying that homosexuality is a sin is a far cry from
"Working for a fag-free America".  Saying that I wouldn't want
a homosexual babysitting for my kids doesnt mean I endorse
"Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash".
> We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
> towards those we feel don't 'measure up',
And now we have homosexual advocates telling us that if we don't teach
our kids that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable
alternative lifestyle, then they will have it done for us.  No, thanks.
> The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
> people.
Absolutely.  And the message is always, "go and sin no more".  Not,
Go and do whatever "feels good".
One question, at the start of your post, you wrote:
> I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
> form discrimination...I may have lost face with the greater Christian
> community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
> against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and
> treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've
> decided the challenge is worth it.
This sounds real nice, but struck me as a little odd.  You're
presenting yourself as if you were a straight Xian, who is sticking
his neck out and taking on the challenge of speaking out in support
of gays in the church.  But I was under the impression that you
yourself are gay.  That's all well and fine, but presenting yourself
as sticking out your neck to help "repressed others" seems a bit
untruthful under the circumstances....
Walter
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com>
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>	But if we walk in the light,
>>>	as he is in the light,
>>>	we have fellowship one with another,
>>>	and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son
>>>	cleanseth us from all sin.
>>	It can not be a light which cleanses
>>	if it is tainted with the blood
>>	of an innocent man.
>
>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?
Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
on the Endangered Species List.
Thank you.
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list
Organization: Utah State University
Lines: 12
In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
> Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of
> christian-owned corporations and companies?  One that I know of
> is WordPerfect.
Naw, the owners of WordPerfect are Mormons, and by Tony Rose's
and Robert Weiss' standards, Mormons aren't Christians.  :-)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker),  Logan, Utah
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: Walter?
Lines: 15
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>
Walter-
I tried several times in the past to communicate with you and Susan, but
you ignored me, and I don't honestly believe my letters were mean.  Rather
I thought they were thoughtful and compassionate, but I see now what I should
have seen then.  Call me naive.
I give up on this group.  As my Lord advised, that if you are unwelcome in
a city then brush the dust of your feet and go on.
If anyone cares about the topic they write to me direct, if not, well,
may God bless you as well.
Bye to this group.
PAX
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Lines: 41
In article <8968@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}>}(a) out of context;
}>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}>}
}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}>
}>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
}
}(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
}(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
}     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
}(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
}     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
Excellent.  Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
than a direct assertion by his part.  For instance, am I to assume that
you have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said
your position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.
}(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
}     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
}     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.
}Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
}explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
}may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."
Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
logical).
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 38
In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org>, jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:
|> Leviticus 21:9
|> And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
|> whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
|>
|> Deuteronomy 22:20-21
|> ...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
|> bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
|> city shall stone her with stones that she die...
|>
|> Deuteronomy  22:22
|> If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
|> both of them die...
|>
|> Deuteronomy 22:23-24
|> If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
|> in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
|> gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...
|>
|> Deuteronomy 22:25
|> BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
|> and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
alike.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 66
Brian Kendig writes:
>  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
>  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
>  the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
>
>The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It
>makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
>moral wrongdoing.
Brian K., guess what?  You missed the point.  On a scale from cold to
hot, you are at 0 degrees Kelvin.
>I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday
>school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all
>that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
>or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.
Then as you understand it, what is it?
>From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
>man is wrong.
Yes.  I agree with that.  But what does that have to do with Jesus?
Punishment you say?  Jesus did not regard his death as punishment.
>I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
>to accept it, but I just can't.
Good.  I wouldn't either--not the way you understand it.
>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>before, and they just don't convince me.
Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It
isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your
question.
Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
and my faith would be vanity.
Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus
says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The
world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation
of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
need a Saviour.
And why can't you, Brian K., accept this?  How can you?  "The
world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
him."  (John 14:17).   The animosity and the lack of knowledge
that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.
I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
knowledge. I am not perfect either.  But regardless of that, I thank
God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
Person who created me and who loves me.
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 16
In article <bskendigC5I9yH.ICp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>before, and they just don't convince me.
Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of
the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only
here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am
"out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I
indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.
-------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 46
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
>}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
>Excellent. Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
>than a direct assertion by his part.
Replace "Stephen" with "David Joslin," since you directed the same
accusation of hypocrisy at me.  In e-mail to me you wrote:
In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!
As you may recall, you mailed me six mail messages quoting articles by
Robert Weiss, all sent within a few minutes of each other.  You added:
Naturally, I await your arguments against this out-of-context
translation.  But I shall not await holding my breath...
and
Wonder when you get to sleep, disputing all these out-of-context
extracted translations!
and other similar comments.
Perhaps you could explain why you ever thought that I might have a
reason to read all of these articles you pulled off of t.r.m, much
less write responses to them?
>Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
>demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
>logical).
I am familiar with inductive logic.  Go ahead and give me the details
of the "logic" that led you to conclude, incorrectly, that I would
condone Robert Weiss taking verses out of context.  Your conclusion was
wrong, of course, since I agree that both you and Robert Weiss were
guity of taking verses out of context.  Nothing hypocritical about
that, is there?
Since you reached a false conclusion, you made some mistake in your
"logic."  The only question is where.  Did you think that it would
be hypocritical for me not to post a reply to Robert Weiss' articles?
Did you make the common creationist error of confusing a lack of
evidence for X with evidence for the lack of X?   Is your grasp of
inductive logic not quite as firm as you think? See if you can figure
out what your mistake was, and learn from it.
dj
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In article <1qe8qk$58t@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>
>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important
>to me.  My personal relationship wife the Lord is first, my wife is second, and
>my ministry at church is third.  (Not to mention my job!)
Have you informed your wife of this prioritization?
This board will have
>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping
>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.
Thou hast used my name in vain!  I never coerce.  Ridicule, maybe, but
never coerce.  Please take responsibility for your actions.
(deletia)
>I'm history.
>Frank
I appreciate your efforts.  Good luck.
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS and Archer
Nntp-Posting-Host: bass.pace.medtronic.com
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 27
Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:
: medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous
: posting, in which I wrote:
: : firmly on the western coast of the Med.  You can bet IUm gonna keep this
: baby
: >My my my, such double standards.  You neglected to give any primary sources
: >for your book,  _Encyclopedia of the Bible_.  Are we to expect that source
: >to be as unbiased as the other sources...  MR. Butler *DID* give at least
: >one source, you have given none.
: REPLY
: It was a JOKE.  The Readers digest _Encyclopedia of the Bible_ was the most
: outrageously bogus *authority* I could dredge from my shelves.
: I was trying to point out that going to some encyclopedia, rather than
:  original or scholarly sources is a BIG MISTAKE in procedure.  I am glad
: to note that Butler and DeCesno are arguing about substance now,
: rather than about arguing.
I guess the joke was on me...  I am so used to seeing bogus stuff
posted here that I assumed that yours was necessarily the same.
--
Dale Skiba
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS and Archer
Nntp-Posting-Host: bass.pace.medtronic.com
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 41
Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:
: medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous
: posting, in which I wrote:
: COMMENT:
: Shortly after that post, I realized two things:  I was running a fever of
: over 102, and that I probably should not have gone directly from reading
: alt.slack to posting on this august newsgroup.
: >: >it is not ad hominen to point out that Mr Archer willingly prints blatant
: >: lies
: >: >in defense of Bible inerrancy, and thus is worthless as an expert witness.
: >: Okay, Im game, give us a listing of blatant lies from _Encyclopedia of
: >: Biblical Difficulties_ or other Archer writings.
: >That would be interesting.  If only a very short list can be generated,
: >I think it is more likely that Mr. Archer, with his inerancy mindset is
: >not always impartial and made a doozy of a mistake.  (IMHO I also think
: >that this mindset tends to generate these sorts of mistakes...)
: >On the other hand, if a long list can be generated, it is more likely
: >that Mr. Archer intentionally uses deception in hs books. (Why should
: >he be deceptive just with Tyre?)
: So, Archer is just sitting around, rubbing his hands and plotting how next
: to deceive?  OK, lets _see_ the list...
This was an open question.  I assumed that if Mr. Archer is a chronic
liar, someone whould have documented it.   This assumption is based on
how talk.origins regulars have documented numerous cases of Creationist
deceptions (such as Duane Guish and his friends).
No long list of Archer mistakes has yet been given, so this may be just
an isolated incident...
--
Dale Skiba
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 19
I must correct the following in my previous posting:
: If you are trying to be objective, you must also recognise that
:
: 1) the gospels are not independent sources, on the contrary, they
: share much of the same material
I should have been a bit more careful here - the gospels not only
tell us about the same events, they usually use the same wordings.
Textual analyses show that Matthew and Luke probably had a common
source, which may have influenced Mark, too.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
*'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.
From: foster@mtechca.maintech.com
Subject: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.
Organization: MAINTECH, A division of Volt Delta Resources,Inc. Orange, CA.
Lines: 64
In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
(Dennis Kriz) writes:
[ a lot of religious opinions and quotations from the Bible and from
many Catholic theologians and Papal Bulls ]
[ which, although introduced with a smiley, was not as funny as it
might have been (notable exception: subject headers such as "ONE'S
DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION." ]
[ and indeed, the posting seemed to be more a vehicle for the
religious text than for any "literary/moral analysis" ]
I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought
that Catholics behaved better than this.
Friend Dennis, I urge you to follow the example of your fellow
Catholics, of who I count many dozens as my friends, and practice
your faith through good example and decent living and respect
for the common humanity of others. Please do not stoop to the
level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.
The imagery in the Song of Solomon is a little bit dated (get it?
Middle East - date palms - oh, never mind) but apparently acceptable,
on a steaminess level, to be accepted as part of the canon. From
this fact I derive that erotica itself is not incompatible with
Catholic doctrine.
Is there such a thing as Catholic erotica? Not necessarily a love
story between people of that faith, but a love story that is not
exploitative, does not seek redemption through penis size, pays
proper respect to the dignity of each partner, and is still erotic
enough to have a place on a.s.s.
I would submit that the _Darknites_ series of stories qualify, also
most of the _Journal Entries_, and _Rings I and II_.
I would guess that your aim is to cut down on the pornography and
increase the erotica. I actually agree with you that nearly all of
the "I've got an enormous dick, and I shot my wad all over her face"
stories are crap. I count them as noise, which makes my take on the
signal-to-noise ration much lower than many other people's.
Since you are one of the few posters here who can actually write
decent prose, could you write a few stories for us instead of
overwhelming us with commentary?
> Anyway, this is a big subject.  PLEASE add your comments,
> additions and observations.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> dennis
> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
>
--
Thank you.
Jeff
foster@mtechca.maintech.com
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 25
In article <1993Apr15.202729.6649@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
> why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
> his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
> we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
> that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
> from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
> Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
> and my faith would be vanity.
Glad to hear this, just a note, Osiris, Mithras and many other
cult gods resurrected as well, so there's a good chance for all of
us to maybe end up in a virtual reality simulator, and live forever,
hurrah!
Sorry, this was a joke, some sort of one anyway. I'm the first
that connected Osiris with a virtual reality personality database.
Time to write a book.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 17
In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu>, > Christian:  washed in
the blood of the lamb.
> Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
>
> If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
> do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
> reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
> on the Endangered Species List.
This will be a hard task, because most cultures used most animals
for blood sacrifices. It has to be something related to our current
post-modernism state. Hmm, what about used computers?
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 19
In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
> expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
> direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
> is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
> God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
> age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
> repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
> for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
> alike.
Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Comments on the Koresh 3-02 Transcript
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 102
In article <1993Apr14.200259.20419@microsoft.com>,
iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes...
(stephen) wrote:
>>Correction to my prior post, proper citation is:
>>
>>	Isaiah 30:26 -- Moreover the light of the moon shall
>>	   be as the light of the sun, and the light of the
>>	   sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,
>>	   in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of
>>	   his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
>
>So we have to wait for the sun to nova?
More along the lines of Hebrews 12:25-29, I reckon...
See that you refuse not him that speaks. For if they
escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much
more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that
speaks from heaven:
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised,
saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also
heaven.
And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of
those things that are shaken, as of things that are made,
that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved,
let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably
with reverence and godly fear:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Or 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-10...
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
admired in all them that believe (because our testimony
among you was believed) in that day.
Kinda gives Flaming a whole new meaning, I reckon.
- < > -
The impression I got from talking with Livingston was that the coming
of the Lord, power-wise, is going to be something that those who are
unprepared can't handle -- kinda like overloading a fuse -- due to
guilt. Somehow it seems to also apply to the entire physical world as
we know it. LF suggests that God doesn't want that and has sent Koresh
as a reminder.
Seems that those who have been purified through salvation, or that those
protected by the Seals, will be the ones who survive. And no -- I don't
have a good idea yet what "being shielded by the seals" actually involves
or how exactly it relates to salvation. (Other than it involves the
marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride... for those of you Biblical
well versed.)
- < > -
Me personally, I'm totally 100% dependent on God through Christ, so
if God wants me to understand, good. If not, also good. If God wants
to save me, or dispose of me, that's great either way. Being born in
the Spirit, means being part of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 2), so
who and what I was, matters little. * What's important is loving GOD *
Come Nova, Nuke, or Apocalypse -- who cares? Satan might even be able
to pull off a pretty convincing fake. Big deal. Not worth fearing or
worrying about though, not before:
-* The Greater Glory of GOD *-
Maybe Koresh is right, maybe he isn't, and it should be interesting to
see the new message (or prophecy). The tour of the Bible I've taken in
studying the passages he points to in the 3-02 text, has been most re-
warding. But the test of prophecy is still the fruit it bears -- which
is not yet clear.
Much much more important is "Charity" -- which by definition *is* --
Love for GOD
(I hope Dear Reader, you've taken all this as an expression of faith,
and not a statement of mere fact. Seems many folks get real upset at
reminders. ;-)
|
-- J --
|
| stephen
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Reply-To: starowl@rahul.net
Organization: Southeast Alabama Society of Warm and Fuzzy Star Worshippers
Lines: 14
Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
On 15 Apr 1993 22:34:40 GMT, Eric Sieferman observed:
: Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
: Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
: If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
: do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
: reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
: on the Endangered Species List.
How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)
--
Michael D. Adams  (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian M
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)
<kmr4.1587.734911207@po.CWRU.edu> <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> <1qksc2$2mr@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Harding University, Searcy, AR
Nntp-Posting-Host: acs.harding.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24In-Reply-To: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com's message of 15 Apr 93 23:50:26 GMTLines: 67
Lines: 67
In <1qksc2$2mr@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com writes:
> In article <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> |>
> |> Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world
> |> with falsehood.  A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am
> |> holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit
> |> down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives
> |> you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems
> |> to be to lie.  That's because other values are involved, such as life.
> |> Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality
> |> exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'.
>
> I think that at this point it would actually be quite easy to
> confuse objective morality with relative morality.
>
> jon.
Actually, jon, that is quite true.  Christian people have caused
"objective morality" to look very "relative."  After all, that was the
point of the original question in this thread, i.e. can we toss out
Christianity because it is so obviously inconsistent with its own
principles?  If you will bear with me, I will attempt to explain this
apparent inconsistency from at least one Christian's viewpoint:
If God exists and is the creator of mankind as the Bible claims, then
He has a pretty well-defined concept of what makes people tick
physically, emotionally, etc.  GOD has an "objective" morality for us.
That is to say, He has no trouble understanding what is good for (or
detrimental to) the creature He created.
Galatians 2:10-- For we [mankind] are His workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works [a morality], which God prepared
beforehand [a well-defined design], that we might walk in them.
However, contrary to what many people assume (including the Pharasees
of the Bible,) God's morality cannot be completely codified in a list
of rules and regulations.  To some extent, every activity of a
person's life creates a new situation to which morality must be
applied.  There never could be enough volumes to codify God's
"objective" morality for us.
Throughout history, mankind has tried to reduce morality to a list of
rules (objectivity, if you please.)  In the Old Testament, we have
both principles and specific rules.  By the time of Jesus, most of the
principles were obscured by the emphasis men had placed on the rules.
Volumes of additional rules had been made to try to codify the
application of the principles.  We [mankind] weren't comfortable with
the "subjectivity" of principles.
For reference see Matthew 5 where Jesus explains the difference
between the Law and the principles of the Law.  For example, in
verses 21-22:  "You have heard that the ancients were told,
'You shall not commit murder'...and 'Whoever commits murder shall
be liable to the court.'  But I say to you that everyone who is
angry with his brother shall be liable to the court..."
The "objective morality" of God gets blurred by our inept
interpretation of it.  We [Christians] have made our biggest errors
when we have allowed any one person or group of people decide EXACTLY
what God intended for us.  If we [Christians] would stay committed to
seeking God's will instead of trying to prove we already had it all
figured out, we might do a better job of allowing others to find God's
"objective morality" for themselves.  If Jesus is who he said he
was/is (and that's the fundamental question,) then HE IS "objective
morality."
John Nunnally
From: dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee)
Subject: Federal Hearing
Originator: dmcgee@uluhe
Organization: School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
Distribution: usa
Lines: 10
Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the
use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now
going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the
Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove
Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true
then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC
20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number
2493.
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Catholic Right & Pat Robertson
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 18
In <93105.093812KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
>executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
>that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
>our constitution."
blechhhh.  Gimme that ole' time Inquisition ...
>Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
>Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.
It figures, doesn't it?
--
Michael L. Siemon		We must know the truth, and we must
mls@ulysses.att.com		love the truth we know, and we must
- or -			act according to the measure of our love.
mls@panix.com		  				-- Thomas Merton
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 176
In <lsjc8cINNmc1@saltillo.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:
>In article <C554F5.3GF@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>
>> The issue, then, is this:
>>
>>	Christian A says, "Behavior such-and-such is sinful."  What is
>>	Christian B supposed to *do* with such a statement?
>>
>> One possibility *always* exists:  A may be able to persuade B that the
>> behavior in question *does* exhibit a failure in loving God or neighbor.
>
>Michael, modern liberal that he is, reads a fairly benign meaning
>into this word.  He then constructs his religious beliefs around
>this understanding, reading *other* scripture in the context of
>these commandments, with "love" benignly understood.
I regard love as no more or less "benign" than any other Christian does.
You are merely expressing "approval" of the consequences I find therein.
Which says more about our politics and cultural trappings than about my
(or any) religion.  "Love" is a highly ambiguous word, of which Christians
can write both the "gentle" words Paul uses of it in 1 Corinthians -- in
a passage that even the "conservatives" will quote at you :-) -- and the
words of T. S. Eliot in his Pentacost Hymn, "Love is the unfamiliar Name
that wove the intolerable shirt of flame ..."
This is in any case rather to the side of what I was attempting to raise
in my note, as will become more evident below.
>As a non-believer, I find Michael's Christianity kinder and gentler.
blechhh.  I think you are misreading me, rather seriously.  Though,
given my principle that one CANNOT force one's own notion of "sin" on
another, and my unshakeable "disestablishmentarianism", Russel Turpin
and others (believers and unbelievers alike) are under no threat of my
legislating my own understanding of Christian love.
>If I take him at
>his word, he cannot condemn the Inquisitors, because they were
>also following these commandments as *they* understood them.  If
You misread.  I can do (and have repeatedly done) a complete bill of
accusation against the Inquisition by exhibiting in as thorough a form
as anyone might want a demonstration of the harm it has done to human
beings (in the first place) and to respect for (let alone love of) "God"
in near succession.  Please go back to my quoted words above:
The "possibility that always exists" is that I (or, to revert to proper
time sequence, my predecessors over the last several centuries) could
persuade "Christian B" of my case that the Inquisition *does* indeed
constitute an egregious violation of the Law of Love.  I must also note
that the majority of Christians HAVE been so persuaded.  By Christian
argumentation, as well as by secular [both Christian and non-Christian]
prohibitions.
What Mr. Turpin alludes to is a trickier point:
A.  I demonstrate the human pain and violation of love involved
in the Inquisition.
B.  The Inquisitor responds that Mother Church must, however
painful this *seems*, "discipline" her children for their
own good -- in this case the salvation of their souls (or
if the tortured heretic will not recant, than by bad example
"deterring" others from the same loss-of-soul.)
A.  I point out that this "justification" of a failure in love
depends on a highly speculative construal of texts and of
philosophical assertions that are quite undemonstrable.
B.  Burns me at the stake.
My rhetoric has failed, but the point I am making is sustained.  What is
going on here has a *lot* to do with "cultural baggage."  In this case,
the baggage includes a (nearly universal, and absolutely secular) belief
that an accused person must prove innocence and that testimony is most
believable if taken under torture.  The elimination of Inqisitorial
practice (in those places where it *has* been eliminated, or at least
greatly reduced) has very little, if anything, to do with the discussion
of sin in the exchange between A and B.
Mr. Turpin is pointing out that, if I am A versus the Grand Inquisitor's B,
then my persuasion is not very likely to work.  I know this; and in what-
ever personal agony, I consign the issue to God and my ghostly defense
attorney.  So, "one possibility" fails in this case -- as it will fail in
may others.  At the other extreme, the "persuasion" will succeed when it
properly SHOULD not, if it entails mistaken assumptions I share with the
Inquisitor.  And that is potentially an even more troubling case, in that
many of the victims of Inquisition will have "accepted" that they were in
fact sinful (in such random cases as they may actually have been guilty
of charges brought against them.)
The point is that the "persuasion" breaks down when the parties do NOT
share enough to agree on all the cultural baggage -- and given the main
thrust of the Inquisition, against "heresy", it is *bound* to break down
in precisely the "worst" cases.  The "conservative" (I don't think that
is the right word, BTW) will take refuge in what I attribute to B above,
that he is "justified" in causing harm because he *thinks* that works to
a "greater good."  But this is a violent and extravagant REFUSAL to follow
the gospel, as if one's theories about "sin" entitled one to cast aside
Jesus' words on dealing with sinners (cf. Matthew 5:39ff).
I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.
>(Or, for that matter, what does it mean to love one's fellow
>man?) And what is the "right thing"?  And how does one go about
>loving god?
Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a
law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful
to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions.  The Great
Commandment is, more than anything else, a call to act *as if you were
God and accepting ultimate responsibility* in your every action.  A
demand that I, like most, would rather *not* hear, but it keeps popping
up nonetheless (along with the reassurance that it is more important
that I be open to trying this, than succeeding at it).  "Conservatives"
may twist this "act as if you were God" to mean "lay down rules for other
people and be as nasty to them as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."
They are so insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such idiocy
IS how God acts.  That, after all, is the standard accusation "against
God" by the atheists here and elsewhere.  That the "conservatives" have
confused THEIR manipulative, hoop-jumping notions of coercing other
people with the Nature of God is almost the entire content of standard
American atheism -- and I quite agree with it on this point.
>Ethical systems are not differentiated by the nice sounding goo
>up front, much of which sounds pretty much the same, but by the
>*specific* acts, procedures, and arguments that they recommend.
And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
*different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result,
it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
(or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very
little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
them with almost no support (and thus almost no obvious limitation :-))
for their efforts.  The one, single, thing in the gospels which Jesus
specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love one another."
[I will be expanding on this point in a reply to Paul Hudson
that I hope to get to in a day or so -- it is quite true that
SOME Christians infer LOTS of commandments from the NT; I'll
point out what has to be going on in these inferences, and why
there is a huge amount of "cultural baggage" involved.]
You are quite right that this is "goo" if one is looking for an ethical
system.
But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It
may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
-- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.
>I am glad that a few Christians,
>such as Michael, find a benign meaning for the goo, and then
>interpret the usually ugly specifics in a more constructive
>fashion.  On the other hand, I do think that this tells us more
>about Michael and Christians like him that it tells us about
>Christianity.
I think you are begging the question. Why don't I and the (myriads
of) other Christians like me tell you something about Christianity?
[Nor is this very new in Christianity -- you might want to look up
the origins and fundamental doctrines of the Quakers, from the 17th
century onwards, and they are not at all the first to understand the
gospel in a manner that is congenial to my case.]
--
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
- or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 16 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 32:8
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 6
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
I will instruct thee and teach thee
in the way which thou shalt go:
I will guide thee with mine eye.
Psalm 32:8
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...
Nntp-Posting-Host: bass.pace.medtronic.com
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 43
David Joslin (joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu) wrote:
: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
: >Based on the amount of E-Mail from fellow Christians who have read the
: >posts and told me I was wasting my time with Butler and Joslin, I told
: >them I wasn't doing it for DB or  DJ but for other Christians.  They
: >have told me that DB's and DJ's arguments won't convince most Bible
: >studying Christians.  So I have reevaluated my purpose here and it's
: >also contributed to my decision.
: So most Bible-studying Christians won't be convinced by my arguments?
: And this is supposed to be a Good Thing, I presume?
Where does this "Most Bible studying Christians think as Frank
does" come from.  And what implied "good" are you doing for other
Christians?
At least some of what you are teaching has been demonstrated as
wrong.  Has it ever occured to you that you may be doing more harm
than good to your fellow Christians?
BTW, I used to think like Frank does.  I went to a fundamentalist
church for a while.  I didn't start to really think about what
they were saying until I noticed a "God's Science" phamphlet
there.  I read it and noticed that the authors of it knew virtually
nothing about Science.  I asked church members some questions about
"theories" from the phamphlet and got only deceptive answers.  I
began to notice a very similar style of "answers" for theological
questions as well.  The only conclusion I could reach was that
these peoples' beliefs about the Bible were about as valid as
their beliefs in their God's Science phamphlet.
: If there are still people out there who think that my purpose here
: is to "attack the Bible," (an accusation Frank once made) I would point
: out that I have also criticized people who have posted "bible
: contradictions" that turn out to be silly, out of context, or easily
: (and legitimately) reconciled.  I'm not attacking the Bible, but
: intellectual dishonesty *about* the Bible, from either side.
If one of the primary purposes of Christians is to seek out truth,
how can people condemn you for doing this?
--
Dale Skiba
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Rick's reply
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 201
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
ra>
ra> >     Well, Jason, it's heretical in a few ways. The first point is that
ra> >     this equates Lucifer and Jesus as being the same type of being.
ra> >     However, Lucifer is a created being: "Thou [wast] perfect in thy
ra> >     ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in
ra> >     thee." (Ezekiel 28:15). While Jesus is uncreated, and the Creator of
ra> >     all things: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
ra> >     God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.
ra> >     All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
ra> >     that was made." (John 1:1-3) "And he is before all things, and by
ra> >     him all things consist." (Colossians 1:17)
ra>
ra>    Your inference from the Ezekiel and John passages that Lucifer was
ra> "created" and that Jesus was not depends on a particular interpetation of
ra> the word "create" -- one with which many Christians may not agree.
ra> Granted the Mormon belief that all of God's children (including Christ
ra> and Lucifer) are eternally existent intelligences which were "organized"
ra> into spirit children by God, the term "creation" can apply equally well
ra> to both of those passages.
Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.
Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
conclusion that you grant.
The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.
ra> >     Your point that we all are brothers of Jesus and Lucifer is also
ra> >     heretical, since we are not innately brothers and sisters of Christ.
ra> >     We are adopted, "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
ra> >     again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby
ra> >     we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15); and not the natural children
ra> >     of God. It is only through faith that we even enter the family of
ra> >     God; "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
ra> >     (Galatians 3:26). And it is only through the manifestation of this
ra> >     faith in receiving Jesus that we are become the sons of God.  "But
ra> >     as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
ra> >     God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not
ra> >     of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
ra> >     of God." (John 1:12-13)
ra>
ra>    Has it occured to you, Robert, that being "born of" someone or being
ra> of that person (or Person)'s "family" may be a symbolic term in the New
ra> Testament?  Mormons believe that we are "adopted" into the House of
ra> Israel through baptism and faith in Christ, although some have expressed
ra> belief that this does evince a physical change in our bodies.
The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];
(Matthew 13:38)
I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which
ye have seen with your father. (John 8:38)
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not
born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.  Jesus said
unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he
sent me.  Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye
cannot hear my word.  Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the
lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it. (John 8:41-44)
And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of
the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease
to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (Acts 13:10)
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this
world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Ephesians 2:2)
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he
that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)
One becomes a child of God...
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us
not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God,
and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when
he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he
is. (1 John 3:1-2)
...when he is born again through faith in Jesus Christ:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(Ephesians 1:5)
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should
be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;
but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we
are the children of God: (Romans 8:14-16)
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (1 John 4:7)
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and
every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:26)
ra> >     We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
ra> >     thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
ra> >     (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
ra> >     doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
ra> >     different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
ra> >     the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim
ra> >     one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
ra> >     Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
ra> >     not the construct of imagination.
ra>
ra>
ra>    Robert, with all due respect, who died and left you Chief Arbiter of
ra> Correct Biblical Interpretation?  I don't mean to be snotty about this,
ra> but the fact is that the Bible is so differently interpreted by different
ra> groups of Biblical scholars (what do you think of the Jehovah's
ra> Witnesses, for example?) that to make reference to the "Jesus of the
ra> Bible" is simply ridiculous.  Whose "Jesus of the Bible" do you mean?
This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For
example, the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ
does not alter what the Bible teaches [ "Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ;" (Titus 2:13),"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus
Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through
the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" (2 Peter 1:1)]
on the Deity of Christ.
We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not
even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that
have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches,
you have to look at the Bible.
ra> >     "Our Lord's mortality was essential to his own salvation" (_The
ra> >     Promised Messiah_, p. 456), "He had to work out his own salvation by
ra> >     doing the will of the Father in all things" (ibid., p.54), "he had
ra> >     to be baptized to gain admission to the celestial kingdom" (_Mormon
ra> >     Doctrine_, p.71).
ra>
ra>    Welcome to the wonderful world of Mormon paradoctrine, Robert.  The
ra> above books are by the late Bruce R. McConkie, a former general authority
ra> of the LDS Church.  Those books were not published by the Church, nor do
ra> they constitute "offical doctrine."  They consist of his opinions.  Now,
ra> does that mean that what he says is not true?  Not at all; I'll have to
ra> think about the idea of Christ's personal salvation before I come to any
ra> conclusions myself.  The conclusions I come to may seem "heretical" to
ra> you, but I'm prepared to accept that.
I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is
that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late
apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the
issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I
have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.
Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
certainly be.
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
<1993Apr14.130150.28931@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
Lines: 68
93!04.16 e.v.  After the Glorious Eve of Taxation
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
"To all whom it may concern -
...
"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
guided.
"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover
The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the
One Hermetic Truth.
"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.
"It is a Modern School of Magic.  And, like the ancient schools
of magic, it derived its knowledge from the East.  This Knowledge
was never its possessors.[sic] It was recorded in symbol, parable
and allegory, requiring a Key for its interpretation....
"This key can be placed within the reach of all those who... apply
for membership to the Oriental Templars (O.T.O.).
"The O.T.O.... is a body of Initiates in whose hands are
concentrated the secret knowledge of all Oriental Orders and of all
existing Masonic Degrees....
"The O.T.O., although an Academia Masonica, is not a Masonic Body,
so far as the Craft degrees are concerned in the sense in which that
expression is usually understood in England, and therefore in no way
conflicts with or infringes the just priveleges of the United Lodge
of England.  English Master Masons in good standing, by arrangement,
on affiliation, are admitted at reduced charges.  Members of the IX
degree become part-proprietors of the Estates and Goods of the Order.
For further information see the publications of the O.T.O., and the
synopsis of the degrees of the O.T.O."
'Constitution of the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars,
Ordo Templi Orientis',
by Frater Superior Merlin Peregrinus X Degree,
Past Grand Master Albert Karl Theodor Reuss
Taken from _Equinox III: 10_,
Edited by Frater Superior Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
United States Caliph of Ordo Templi Orientis
Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.
I am I!
Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) (CCCXXXIII)
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: Rice University
Lines: 33
In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>"To all whom it may concern -
>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover
>The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the
>One Hermetic Truth.
>
>"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
>Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
>The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.
Up to this point, I was kinda hoping that this was a joke. Still,
it would make a great premise for a bad syndicated TV show- "These
are the adventures of the Oriental Templars... dedicated to truth,
justice, and good karma! (Dramatic music in the background.)"
No doubt I've just horribly offended someone.
--
Mike Swaim            |Whenever the soft drink  machine needs to be
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |restocked, rather than getting angry,
Disclamer: I lie      |meditate on the impermanence of all things
|and the emptiness of coke.
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Subject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.45
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA
Lines: 62
TEXT 45
trai-gunya-visaya veda
nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna
nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
niryoga-ksema atmavan
trai-gunya--pertaining to the three modes of material nature;
visayah--on the subject matter; vedah--Vedic literatures;
nistrai-gunyah--transcendental to the three modes of material nature;
bhava--be; arjuna--O Arjuna; nirdvandvah--without duality;
nitya-sattva-sthah--in a pure state of spiritual existence;
niryoga-ksemah--free from ideas of gain and protection;
atma-van--established in the self.
TRANSLATION
The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material
nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free
from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be
established in the self.
PURPORT
All material activities involve actions and reactions in the three
modes of material nature. They are meant for fruitive results, which
cause bondage in the material world. The Vedas deal mostly with fruitive
activities to gradually elevate the general public from the field of
sense gratification to a position on the transcendental plane. Arjuna,
as a student and friend of Lord Krsna, is advised to raise himself to
the transcendental position of Vedanta philosophy where, in the
beginning, there is brahma-jijnasa, or questions on the supreme
transcendence. All the living entities who are in the material world are
struggling very hard for existence. For them the Lord, after creation of
the material world, gave the Vedic wisdom advising how to live and get
rid of the material entanglement. When the activities for sense
gratification, namely the karma-kanda chapter, are finished, then the
chance for spiritual realization is offered in the form of the
Upanisads, which are part of different Vedas, as the Bhagavad-gita is a
part of the fifth Veda, namely the Mahabharata. The Upanisads mark the
beginning of transcendental life.
As long as the material body exists, there are actions and reactions in
the material modes. One has to learn tolerance in the face of dualities
such as happiness and distress, or cold and warmth, and by tolerating
such dualities become free from anxieties regarding gain and loss. This
transcendental position is achieved in full Krsna consciousness when one
is fully dependent on the good will of Krsna.
Bhagavad-Gita As It is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
---------------------------------------------------------
|                Don't forget to chant:                   |
|                                                         |
|  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
|       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
|                                                         |
|    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
|          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
---------------------------------------------------------
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 20
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) says:
>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>
Up to that point I thought you were talking about the
Rosicrucian Order... :-)  [No offense intended!]
Tony
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Lines: 9
Long time, no see.
Andreas
--
Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Idaho River Country, The Salmon, Payette, Clearwater, Boise, Selway, Priest
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]
Lines: 35
Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
:
: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that
: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact
: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?
:
: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very
: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing
: on my own personal day-to-day life?
Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
events surrounding Jesus' life?
2Pe 1 16 � We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you
about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the
voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom
I love; with him I am well pleased."�
2Pe 1 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we
were with him on the sacred mountain.
2Pe 1 19 � And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and
you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark
place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
This is a documented testimony. Perhaps further research on your part is
warranted before making more statements. There is considerably more to study
in Peters' two books of testimony regarding the Messiah. It is well worth
your time, Mr. Brian.
Jim Burrill
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 58
In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
|> on their house, killing most of the people inside.
|>
I would hardly consider the BD's to be Christian.  They were acting in
direct contradiction to scripture.  Jesus' Second Coming is something
that everyone will know of.  Jesus also predicted that there will be
false Messiahs who will use His name.  His prophecy has been fulfilled.
|> I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
|> they were doing, and it's their own actions.
|>
|> What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
|> including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
|> conditions.
|>
I agree with you there.
|> If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
|> that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
|>
Me too.  I have already given my life to God.  If God tells me to lay
down my life, it will be to save another life.
|> You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
|> the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
|>
|> I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
|> knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think
|> the actions today would produce a good picture of your
|> religion?
|>
Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
further ties with this cult, which was what they were.
Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a
supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using
the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee   :)
|>
|> Kent
|>
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 39
In article <sandvik-190493200858@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> >
|> > It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to
|> > everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but
|> > not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just
|> > Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would
|> > hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel
|> > any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his
|> > disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything,
|> > I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and
|> > so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even
|> > before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love
|> > for us.
|>
|> Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the
|> children who died today at the Davidian complex.
|>
|> Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering
|> organized religion.
|>
I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
Jesus Christ as he claimed.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 34
In article <sandvik-200493000159@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <93Apr20.011634edt.47719@neat.cs.toronto.edu>,
|> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) wrote:
|> > In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
|> >    sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> > | I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
|> > | knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think
|> > | the actions today would produce a good picture of your
|> > | religion?
|> > Clearly all people considering themselves Christians are all alike,
|> > and support one another in everything they do.  In particular, it
|> > follows that they certainly will support all the actions of any
|> > other person calling himself a Christian...  NOT.
|>
|> I see, there are Christians, and there are Christians. No wonder
|> the Christian world is in shambles, you can't even agree who
|> is a rightful one and a wrong one.
|>
If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.
Too easy?
|> Please, I would like to hear your comments about a supposed
|> Christian leader that makes sure that children are burnt to
|> death.
|>
Would you say all Muslims are like Saddam Hussein?  I wouldn't make
such a blanket judgement, why do you?
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 32
In article <1r0ejoINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
|> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation
|> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of
|> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all
|> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism
|> : bandwagon.)
|>
|> Do you even have anecdotal evidence to back this up?  The most blatent
|> persecution of the Jews in history was of course done by the Nazis before
|> and during World War II, a predominately Lutheran crowd.  Sure, many
|> Muslims in the Middle East consider the Israelites to be a thorn in their
|> side, but the most of the modern persecution of Jews has been at the hands
|> of Christians (at least as far as I'm aware).
|>
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu
Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly
classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love
one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus
Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating
all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of
the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders
of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their
sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else.
The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
From: netd@susie.sbc.com ()
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 62
NNTP-Posting-Host: susie.sbc.com
In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not
>inspired.
>
>Though I differ in part on some of his conclusions, the argument
>he presents is well backed -- which is why it's taken me this long
>to work through -- still ongoing.
>
>If you thought it was rambling -- that says far more about you than
>it does Koresh. There is a very definite relationship between the
You've made me curious.  What does this say about me?
>First Seal in Revelation 6, the entirety of Psalms 45, and the
>most of Revelation 19 -- which demonstrated one of his major points
>about how the writings in the Prophets (including David), and in
>the Psalms, and in Revelation are all telling the same story when
>you understand how they're related (ie have the key). The largely
>explain each other.
Charles Manson used revelation as well.  Do we see a pattern here?
I wonder of Koresh liked the Beatles?
>
>The sequence following is keyed to the Koresh tape, should you care
>to check it out. You can almost see the note cards he used when
>doing the analysis.
>
[long list of Biblical references which
impressed me tremendously but were deleted
in the interests of common sense.]
Koresh was a nut, okay?  Just because he found ways for the Bible
to backup his rantings does not make him any less of a kook.
>
>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>for the message he carried.
I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.
>
>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
>
The evil was inside the compound.  All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.
>Oh yeah, one last point for the believers -- Philippian 2:14-19.
For the rest of us, could you please post the text?
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Lines: 41
In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
>
>
>     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern
>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX
>77706.
>
<much drivel deleted>
>     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His
>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
>Page 30.
>
>     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity
>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen
>in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31.
<more drivel deleted>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
>
>
>Tony
A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that
any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the
future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,
and Charlie Manson.
--Uncle Wolf
--Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)
--Babtized a Southern Babtist
--And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.
>
>
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 21
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>
>I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then,...
^^^^^
>
No: It is old. You said AMORC *IS*, not *was*... :-)
Nothing personal, OK? Good! :-)
Maybe you didn't know that it's over by now. There is no more
pending legal actions from no where, period. So yes, there was a
situation and it has been resolved by BOTH parties. As long as humans
handle anything, it is subjected to "breaking" :-)
BTW, Gary L. Stewart has a P.O. Box in TX calling his org ARC:
Ancient Rosae Crucis. I guess he couldn't take the "MO" from AMORC :-)
Tony
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 26
In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only
>recognized one day of the seven as holy.
Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says
that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.
Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)
>The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"
I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?
Link Hudson.
From: rosst@pogo.wv.tek.com (Ross Taylor)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.
Lines: 9
Is there evidence independent of the FBI that indicates that the Branch
Davidians set the fire?  What have the survivors said?  Did the press see
anything?
There is, unfortunately, precedent for the U.S. government saving children by
roasting them alive.  (There is precedent for religious self-imolation
as well.)
I still wonder why the government couldn't just leave them alone.
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 18
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.
OK: So you were a naive teen.
>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's.
Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.
But he was born LAST century (1883).
>
>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil.
No it isn't.
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 20
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther) says:
John:
It not "good netiquette" to quote a complete article :-) NOTHING
PERSONAL, Please! :-)
>I also appreciate your being amused
>by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away
>from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.
>
This views sadden me too! Don't think that I don't care! Sorry
if it seemed different. It IS serious stuff; but I have a 'sick' sense of
humor though (some say... :-)
Tolerance!
Tony
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 42
jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that
>: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact
>: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?
>:
>: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very
>: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing
>: on my own personal day-to-day life?
>
>Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
>events surrounding Jesus' life?
No.  There are two problems here:
(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could
question him, then this might lend credibility to your claims (but
probably not much, because after all, I've heard people claim with all
sincerity that they've spoken with Elvis recently).  But after his
death, Peter's writings were transcribed by monks for centuries, and I
find it hard to believe that one of them somewhere didn't decide to
change the wording of something to make it (in his opinion) a little
easier to understand.
(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago,
that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God
might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice
guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world
today.
Nice try, but it just isn't enough to convince me, especially since
your wild claims about your deity seem to fly in the face of the way
I've observed the world to work.  Please find something more compelling.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: critus@cwis.unomaha.edu (Michael J. Abboud)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
When we speak of the Bible and its apparant contradictions, we would do well to remember the context in
If we are to accept this line of reason, remembering that it does not
As my study of the Christian Religion has progressed over the years, I have
It matters little to me, as a concession in either serves my purpose
Distribution: usa
Lines: 6
critus
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
<C5HwKA.7AF@unix.portal.com>
<Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bailey.cpac.washington.edu
In-reply-to: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu's message of 15 Apr 1993 20:26:04 GMT
In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu>
Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:
>    Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians brought to
>   the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On the development
>   of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena to the study of Greek
>   religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can easly draw your own
>   conclusions.
perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?
josh
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 11
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says:
>They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS
>address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess
>that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that.
>
......@compuserve.com
Tony
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 111
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>They do not want to know it or be exposed to light
>because their own evil deeds will be uncovered.  And so by their
>own choice, they will remain in darkness.  Sort of like bugs under
>a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
>darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be
>comfortable.  These people will crawl out from under the rock,
>and although blinded at first, will get accustomed to the light
>and enjoy its warm.  And after a while, by virtue of the light,
>they will see the depths of their own shortcomings AND how to correct them.
>And also, they will see that there is much much more to this world
>than just the narrow little experiences under the rock.  They will
>discover that life under a rock was incredibly yukky and that
>life with the Light of the World, is great.  So great, that they
>will want to tell all their friends about it.
And I maintain:
Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  And so, by
their own choice, they will remain in darkness, sort of like bugs
under a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be comfortable.
These people will crawl out from under the rock, and, although blinded
at first, will get accustomed to the light and enjoy its warmth.  And,
after a while, now that they can see things for what they really are,
they will also see the heights which they can reach, and the places
they can go, and they will learn to choose their own paths through the
world, and they will learn from their mistakes and revel in their
successes.
They will see that there is much much more to the world than just the
narrow experiences under the rock.  They will discover that life under
a rock was incredibly yucky, and that life on their own terms is great
-- so great that they will want to tell everyone else about it.
Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
long hike, but it's well worth it!
>Not all people hate light Kent. We all have an adversion to it to some
>extent.  But Brian Kendig who has been replying to this thread certainly likes
>darkness.  Brian K. enjoys stating false concepts and false pressumptions
>about the God of the Bible.  Without checking his own presumptions,
>he compares my God with Odin or Zeus.
Look, you just practically equated Odin and Zeus?  They're as much
different as your god is from them...
Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
*reason* to, don't you?
>Withough checking his own
>presumption, he thinks hell is the equivalent of non-existence.
When did I say that?  I say that I would rather CEASE EXISTING instead
of being subject to the whims of a deity, but that if the deity
decided to toss me into the fiery pits because of who I am, then so be it.
>Do you enjoy darkness?  Most people will honestly admit "yes".  Most people
>are fond of their sexual sins, their hording of money, their
>selfishness, and not to mention, their Biblical ignorance.
Nope -- most people are Christian.  Most people are fond of feeling
that they are imperfect, of believing that the world is an undesirable
place, of reciting magical mystical prayers to make the world nice and
holy again, of doing just as their priests tell them, like good little
sheep.  You enjoy darkness, and you're proud of it.
You may know the Bible well -- but have you read any of the Koran?  Or
Zen writings?  Or Hare Krishna literature?  If you haven't, then how
can you say you have an open mind?
>Sin is fun!  Let's
>admit it.  But a life of sin leads to trouble and death in this
>life, and hell in the next.
Nope.  You make decisions, enjoy your successes, and accept your
failures; then you die.  If you are content with the life you've led
as you reflect back on it in your final moments, then you've led a
good life.
>Come out from under the rock.
Please do.
>    "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
>    that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
>    life."
I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
which case it's not really all that important.
Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 19
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think
>of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father,
>and sexually abused you when you were a kid?
I would just go fetch my parents, and show them to you, and thereby
prove quite definitively that my mother is not named Merlyn, she is
not nine feet tall, and my father is quite alive.
Then I would assert quite simply that your deity does not exist, and
wait for a similar demonstration from you.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero
Organization: a2i network
Lines: 26
In article <1qvibv$b75@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
Alicea) writes:
>
>In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>
>>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.
>
>OK: So you were a naive teen.
>
>>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's.
>
>Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.
>But he was born LAST century (1883).
>
>>
>>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil.
>
>No it isn't.
>
>
I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then, and if so, why is the DA
involved?
--
Christopher D. Colvin <cdcolvin@rahul.net>
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Re: New newsgroup: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?
Nntp-Posting-Host: rintintin.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 68
Mr. Esam Abdel-Rahem writes:
>I urge you all to vote NO to the formation of the news group ''AHMADYA.ISLAM''.
>If they want to have their own group, the word ISLAM shouldnot be attached to
>the name of such group. We don't consider them as Muslims.
Dr. Tahir Ijaz comments on Esam Abdel-Rahem's statement:
>But the problem is We consider ourself to be Muslims, even though you don't.
>Luckily, faith is determined by what one believes and is a personal matter.
>You cannot declare the faith of someone else.
Mr. Jawad Ali then comments on Tahir Ijaz's statement:
>You are not considering the consequences of your argument.  The converse
>would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider Ahmadies to be
>Muslims.  Who one considers to be one's co-believer is also a personal
>matter.  It would be just as wrong to tell the Muslims who should be
>included in their self-defination.
The argument by Jawad Ali is funny, He writes:
"The converse would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider
Ahmadies to be Muslims"
Which is a wrong statement. In the light of Dr. Ijaz's statement, the
above statement should be corrected:
".......................................is that (some) non-Ahmadi Muslims
don't consider Ahmadi-Muslims as Muslims"
So, the problem does not get solved:-) Who is a muslims and who is not?
Humans cannot decide. Humans may not declare others faiths. Its that
simple. I don't understand, why the mere use of the word "ISLAM" is
becomming such a big issue. I have seen numorous postings on the net
on this subject, and all they say, "No, NO, you cannot use ISLAM as
the name of your newsgroup". ??
I haven't seen a single posting stating what right do they have in declaring
the name of other's faiths? Who gives them this authority? Quran? or
Hadith? or something else? I want to know this!
Just a small reminder to all my Muslim Brothers, Did _EVER_ the
Holy Prophet of Islam (Muhammad PBUH), say to anyone who called
himself a Muslim:
No, You are not a Muslim ! ???????
NEVER! I challenge all my Muslim brothers to produce a single
such evidence from the history of Islam!
Hence, if the Prophet Muhammad could never do that to anyone, how
could the Muslims, Mullahs or even Governments of today do
it to anyone. Do you consider yourself above the Holy Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) ??
Sincerely,
Nabeel.
--
||\\  ||         //\\     ||\\         *******************    (Note:
|| \\ ||        //==\\    ||//         * LOVE FOR ALL    *     views
||  \\||abeel  //    \\.  ||\\ana      * HATRED FOR NONE *      are
[e-mail: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu]  *******************     mine)
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 39
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?
>
>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.
Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
of red herrings and smoke screens.
You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.
I'm still not sure why you think I'm a hypocrite.  It's true that I
haven't responded to any of Robert Weiss' articles, which may be due in
part to the fact that I almost never read his articles.  But I have
responded to both you and Frank DeCenso (a fundie/inerrantist.)  Both
you and Frank have taken quotes out of context, and I've objected to
both of you doing so.  I've criticized bad arguments both when they
were yours and I agreed with the conclusion (that the Bible is not
inerrant), and when they were Frank's and I disagreed with the
conclusion.  I've criticized both you and Frank for evading questions,
and for trying to "explain me away" without addressing the objections
I raise (you by accusing me of being hypocritical and irrational, Frank
by accusing me of being motivated by a desire to attack the Bible.) I
don't see that any of this is hypocritical, nor do I apologize for it.
I do apologize, however, for having offended you in any other way.
Happy now?
dj
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 16
In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>on their house, killing most of the people inside.
We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
disinterested observers.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 33
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of
>the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only
>here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am
>"out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I
>indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.
I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me.  I
really wish I could believe in him, 'cos no matter how much confidence
I build up on my own, the universe *is* a big place, and it would be
so nice to know I have someone watching over me in it...
I've gone into this with an open mind.  I've layed my beliefs aside
from time to time when I've had doubt, and I've prayed to see what
good that would do.  I don't see what more I can do to open myself to
your god, short of just deciding to believe for no good reason.  And
if I decide to believe for no good reason, why not believe in some
other god?  Zeus seems like a pretty cool candidate...
All I know is that in all my searching, even though I've set aside my
pride and decided that I want to know the truth no matter how
difficult it may be to accept, I have never had any encounter with any
deity, Christian or otherwise.
Please tell me what more I can do while still remaining true to myself.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 19
COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH writes
>it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the
>shame of capture and persecution.
This group killed itself to fulfill its interpretation of prophecy
and to book a suite in Paradise, taking innocent kids along for the
ride. I hardly think the feds were motivated by persecution. If they
were, all Koresh would have had to do was surrender quietly to the
authorities, without firing a shot, to get the American people behind
him and put the feds in the hot seat. But no, God told him to play
the tough guy. There's great strength in yielding, but few appreciate
this.
--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 16
Bill Gripp writes
>>Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
>>with weapons.
>FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ".  David Koresh was
>their messiah.
ok, but didn't Jesus figure somewhere into their beliefs? Anyway, my
original question regarding christians and weaponry still stands.
--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Lines: 78
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com
In article <1qvh8n$gf4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah
Friedenberg) writes:
> In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John W. Redelfs) writes:
> |>
> |> Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
> |> next?  The Mormons or Jews?
>
> Give me a break.  If the Mormons fortified Utah and armed it to the teeth,
> and were involved in illegal activity, then they deserve whatever they get.
>
Where were you brought up?  In the former USSR?  Is Innocent until proven
guilty by a jury of your peers, NOT Dan Rather, dead in this country?  Seems
so.  Is tax evasion, the only charge brought against the BDs, punishable by
death in this country, now?
> You are making a ludicrous suggestion.
>
Not really.  You are a blind idiot.
> |> We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
> |> their rights to worship and bear arms.  Now we don't.
>
> Does that include the right to murder little children?  How about killing
> ATF officers?  I do not know much about the gun laws in Texas, but
> Koresh's folks claimed to have grenades, grenade launchers, and rocket
> launchers.  I am not sure that the NRA feels that this falls under
> "right to bear arms."
"Not sure", yet you condem them to death for it?  If the BATF had stayed home,
all would be alive, now.  So who murdered who?
>
> |> Of course, to Jews and Mormons this is just a broken record.  It has
> |> happened before.
>
> Please explain.  I do not remember Jews or Mormons (as a group) overtly
> breaking a judicious (a.k.a. non-Nazi) law and being punished for it.
>
You have a short memory.
> |> I'll bet all you cult haters are happy now, right?  Just hope you're not
next.
>
> Followups to /dev/null
>
> Alternative followups set to talk.religion.misc
>
Sleep well, tonite, heartless idiot.  Sleep the sleep of the simple-minded.
I shall weep for my country, myself.
>
> |> ------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
> |> --------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
>
> Gedaliah Friedenberg
> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
> -=-Michigan State University
>
>
>
I'm short of patience tonite, but rabid dogs deserve and get better treatment
than the BDs got.
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
From: jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention
Nntp-Posting-Host: mcs213c.cs.umr.edu
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO
Lines: 80
In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
>
>
>     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern
>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX
>77706.
>
>     The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men,
>Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of
>this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and
>two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions.
>
>     "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv.
>
>     "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God
>and the Devil" Page vi."
>
>     "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public
>school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29.
>
>     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His
>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
>Page 30.
>
>     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity
>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen
>in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31.
>
>     "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible
>faiths." Page 37.
>
>     "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord
>Jesus Christ". Page 40.
>
>     "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its
>cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the
>subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40.
>
>     "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were
>founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the
>Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of
>repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus
>Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the
>dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.
>
>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
>
>
Tony
I appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the view expressed in
the text you quoted.  I also appreciate your being amused
by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away
from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.
I can only hope that that sort of narrow-mindedness will
die with the generations that have promoted it.  Teach
your children well.
<wet blanket mode off>
Pax.
John
>
>
--
* John W. Luther                        |   Anybody who mistakes my *
* jluther@cs.umr.edu   <-Best for Email |   opinions for UMR's just *
* 71140.313@compuserve.com  <-$$$$$!    |   doesn't know UMR.       *
********************************************************************
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 17
Ken Arromdee writes
>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers?
>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?
Yes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If
the BDs didn't know immediately that they were dealing with feds
(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty
short order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready
for having been attacked "without warning".
--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: the Polyhedron Group
Lines: 21
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu
In article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
>
>
> In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu>
> Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:
>
LEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians
brought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On
the LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena
to the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can
easly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.
josh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?
Love to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the
last chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their
views of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly
implyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other
Major cults of the time.
Pegasus
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Identity crisis (God == Satan?)
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 5
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,
and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to
number Israel.
From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality
Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 87
In article 70257, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) writes:
>In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
>(James Owens) writes:
>>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality
>>is unknowable.
>Yep, that's pretty much it.    . . .
>. . .
>As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all
>that was required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern
>Judaism) believed that the Torah was available for interpretation
>to lead to an understanding of the required Morality in all its
>nuances (->Talmud).
>The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an
>interface between Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does
>not necessarily indicate anything about YHWH outside of that
>relationship (although one can speculate).
>. . .
>. . . the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the
>Bible to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess
>this is where Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent
>subjectiveness.
God being unknowable, I can't comment on His motives, but it would be
distressing if He allowed us to misunderstand Him through no fault of
our own.  For sanity's sake we must assume, if we believe in Him at all,
that His message comes through somehow.  The question is whether it comes
through immediately to every individual, or is contained in a complex
canon that must be interpreted by experts in consultation with one another,
or is transmitted directly through appointed representatives who are free
to interpret, extend and modify the canon.  If God's message is indeed
mediated, the further problem arises as to whether the individual under-
stands the mediated message fully and clearly.  Since the responsibility
for understanding lies ultimately with the individual, we must assume that
God in His benevolence guides each individual to the appropriate source
for that individual, whereof the person may or may not drink.
>>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.
>No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
>moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
>code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
>may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
>the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
>the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
>the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
>to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
>animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
>he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
>you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
>as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.
Your example is complicated in our age by the thin line between morality
and politeness.  You might have said "burp", for burping and swearing carry
about the same stigma today.  If you are talking about "taking the Lord's
name in vain" as a serious transgression, then this example is more a case of
hypocrisy than of varying moral codes.
If there is an absolute moral code, propositions or laws in that code apply
absolutely and universally, by definition.  Conceivably some moral codes
could be subsets of the universal code, as you say at the outset.  So, for
example, God's code could include, "Thou shalt not create Beings without
a hospitable planet to live on", but this law would be inapplicable to us.
Nevertheless, we would be entitled to suppose that all laws applicable
to us are also applicable to God.
But when you begin to ask what laws might appear in God's moral code, you have
a sense of the absurdity of the question.  Does God make laws for Himself to
follow?  Perhaps God is not the sort of being to which the category "morality"
can be sensibly applied.
--
James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: cults (who keeps them going ?)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 9
Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the
mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day
adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton
condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"
... bad thoughts these.
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention
Nntp-Posting-Host: zippy.radian.com
Organization: n.o.y.b
Lines: 14
In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
<MUNCH!>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
It would be funny if it wasn't so damn *NASTY*; and as non-xian as I am,
it's hard to believe that someone is pushing black is white and freedom
is slavery so blatantly.
mark
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: O.T.O clarification
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
Lines: 48
930420
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.
Kent (sandvik@newton.apple.com) writes:
Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C,
I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for
but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for
Order of the Rose Cross.
Response:
Yes, very true.  The entire title is 'The Ancient and Mystical Order
Rosae Crucis'.  They are located at 1342 Naglee Avenue, San Jose,
California, 95191-0001, USA.
They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it
is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).
Kent:
Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent
metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.
And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.
Response:
Indeed, and diagonally across the street is another metaphysical
book store called 'Ram Metaphysical', wherein I've purchased some
wonderful works by Crowley and others.  Ram Metaphysical Books,
1749 Park Ave., San Jose, CA.  (408) 294-2651.
Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.
I am I!
Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Lines: 20
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu
muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
>should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
>Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the
>mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day
>adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton
>condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"
A good point.  What helps to keep such things going is the public
attitude that one should have "faith""; that some authority from
on high should not be subjected to mere reason.  Couple this with a
variety of personality quirks, mojor and minor mental illnesses, and
ego of would-be leaders, and you get all the variety of cults and
religions that people subscribe to.
.
Nntp-Posting-Host: dougn.byu.edu
Lines: 24
From: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann)
Subject: Re: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?
Organization: BYU
In article <C5rr9M.LJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
>Subject: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?
>Date: 20 Apr 93 06:29:00 GMT
>
>            IS THE MORMON CHURCH CHRIST'S TRUE CHURCH?
>
[...lots of stuff about intellectual errors deleted...]
This is cute, but I see no statement telling me why your church is the true
church. I do presume that you know or at least believe that yours is true.
Attempting to ream my faith without replacing it with something "better" is
a real good way to loose a person completely from Christ.
This is the greatest reason I see that these attacks are not motivated by
love. They only seek to destroy there is no building or replacing of belief.
This is not something Christ did. He guided and instructed He didn't
seek to destroy the faith He found, He redirected it.
This is what I see when people say they "love" <insert favorite group here>.
And I have to laugh at the irony.
Please excuse the scarcasm but it was nice to say it.
Oh, BTW Robert don't take this personally, your post was merely convinent.
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: See? ( was Re: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Lines: 45
In article <9473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
}>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
}>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?
}>
}>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
}>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.
}
}Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
}of red herrings and smoke screens.
}
}You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
}that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
}that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
}scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
}just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
}for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
}for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
}your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.
How about the following inaccurate, unsubstantiated accusations:
In 8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu
>Jim has been threatening
- but no "threat" produced
>once he realized that
- display of telepathy
>threatening to quote me
- in spite of no "threat" produced, nor forecast ever happening (precognition?)
>responding Jim's threat to quote me
- in spite of claimed threat never being given
>Jim, preparing to...
- in spite of it never happening.  telepathy or precognition?
>Jim again, still mystified
- unsubstantiated and untrue.  more telepathy?  Or maybe telempathy?
>Jim, still scandalized
- unsubstantiated again.  Seems to be a habit...
Having more trouble with reality, it appears.  Why get bothered with the facts when
you appear to have the products of paranatural divination methods?
*yawn*
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 30
I had said:
> Merlyn, you missed the point too.  Christianity is a relationship.  I have
> a relationship with my God.  I <<know>> Him.
>
> Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think
> of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father,
> and sexually abused you when you were a kid?   Would you, who knows your
> mother well, think was a blind arrogant idiot to proclaim such things?
Merlyn LeRoy says:
>This analogy is not good; for example, there are plenty of people who
>"know" god as well as you do, but don't agree on things like:
>
>1) how many children he/she has
>2) whether he/she approves of polygamy
>3) whether Mohammed was one of his/her prophets
>
>Now, if you AND all these other people who ABSOLUTELY KNOW what god is
>like can't agree on basic attributes like these, at least one of you
>who "knows" what this god-thing is like must be wrong; therefore,
>subjective certainty is worthless regarding knowledge of this god.
>
>On the other hand, I don't know any large groups of people who claim
>absolute knowledge of my mother and who disagree about her basic
>attributes.  This is the difference between real people and imaginary friends.
Meryln, therefore by your logic, since your people disagree about
the characteristics of your mother, you mother must be imaginary.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 26
In article <C5sL3z.2B2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
|>
|> Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
|> with weapons.
|>
|> --
|> Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
|> Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
|> University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
|> pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
IMO, a Christian has no need of weapons.  I know it is very contrary to the
American NRA ethos of the right to bear arms, but Christians should rely on
the strength of God to protect them.  Note that I say *should*.  We are
inherently insecure but I feel that that is not proper justification to be
armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
For instance, I have the faith that God will protect me but God also gave
me the intelligence to know not to go walking down that dark alley at night.
To jump off a cliff and say that God will save me would be putting God to the
test.  And who are we to test God?
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
From: xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: Oryx Energy
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: what.oryx.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
: Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
: for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the
: character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
: the rest the hard way.
:
Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Lines: 20
In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the
Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply
another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of
folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim
Jones, circa 1993.
>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption
for centuries.
--
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher
(604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island
with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 138
In article <bskendigC5rBvn.AAI@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>And I maintain:
>
>Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
>they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
>afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  And so, by
>their own choice, they will remain in darkness, sort of like bugs
>under a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
>darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be comfortable.
>These people will crawl out from under the rock, and, although blinded
>at first, will get accustomed to the light and enjoy its warmth.  And,
>after a while, now that they can see things for what they really are,
>they will also see the heights which they can reach, and the places
>they can go, and they will learn to choose their own paths through the
>world, and they will learn from their mistakes and revel in their
>successes.
Are you your own master?  Do you have any habits that you cannot break?
For one, you seem unable to master your lack of desire to understand
even the slightest concept of the Bible.  Seems that ignorance has you
mastered.  How about sexual sins?  Gotta any of those secret desires
in your head that you harbor but can get control of?   Do you dehumanize
women when they walk past you?  Do you degrade them to a sex object in
your head?  Are you the master of that kind of thinking?  Do you insult
people unknowingly, then regret it later.  Yet do it again the next
time opportunity presents itself?  Are you truly the master of yourself?
I have admitted that I am not the master of my thought life at all times.
That I sometimes say things I do want to say, and then repeat my mistake
unwantingly.  I have admitted to myself that I cannot control every aspect
of my being.  There are times I know I shouldn't say something, but
then say it anyway.  There are times I simply forget a lesson.
I, in fact, am not my own master.  I need help.  Jesus promised me
this help.  And I took him up on his offer.  I have willfully let
Jesus be my master because Jesus knows what is better for me than
I myself do.  And why not?  Does not the creator know his creation
better than the creation?  Does Toyota know what's better for the
Corolla than the Corolla?
>Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
>getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
>immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
>a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
>long hike, but it's well worth it!
Then I guess ignorance is bliss for you.  Because Brian, you enjoy
not having a clue about the Bible.
>Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
>with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
>something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
>Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
>*reason* to, don't you?
Can you witness motherly love with your senses?  How does caring and
concern for you register with your senses?  If nothing registers
to you other than what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch,
then you better become a Vulcan and fast.  You better get rid
of your emotions.
And I do have a good reason to believe what I do.
>When did I say that?  I say that I would rather CEASE EXISTING instead
>of being subject to the whims of a deity, but that if the deity
>decided to toss me into the fiery pits because of who I am, then so be it.
The topic was about my God and your lack of knowledge about what my
God says.   My God says that you will not CEASE EXISTING.  You have
life forever.  You can choose to either live it in hell in eternal
torment where there is no communication whatsoever, or can choose to
live it in paradise with God.  That is what my God says.  And that
was the issue.  Your made-up theism is what it is--made up.  It's
wishful thinking.
>Nope -- most people are Christian.  Most people are fond of feeling
>that they are imperfect, of believing that the world is an undesirable
>place, of reciting magical mystical prayers to make the world nice and
>holy again, of doing just as their priests tell them, like good little
>sheep.  You enjoy darkness, and you're proud of it.
Is this the religion of Kendigianism?  Most people are not Christian.  Most
people, including Christians,  are not fond of feeling that they
are imperfect.  Is "the world an undesireable place" a doctrine
of Kendigianism?  It has nothing to do with my God.  Does
Kendigism have magical mystical prayers as a part of its worship?
Mine doesn't.  Does Kendigianism believe that the world will be holy again?
Mine doesn't.  Does Kendigianism also dictate that one must obey what the
priest tells them like good little sheep?  Mine doesn't.  Is this
a bunch of lies you tell yourself so that you can justify being
ignorant of the Bible?
Brian, following Christ has nothing to do with the doctrines of Kendigianism.
You would find any of your doctrines in the Bible.   I don't follow Kendigianism.
I follow Christ.   Also, to try to again show you your ignorance
of Christ and the Bible in regards to "priests",  have you not read about
the sole Melchizedek priest in Hebrews 7 and 8?  Have you not read what the
purpose is of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and why there should
NOT be priests today?  Yes, guess what?  The Catholics messed up.  I do
not follow Catholicism or any "ism."  I follow Christ.
>Nope.  You make decisions, enjoy your successes, and accept your
>failures; then you die.  If you are content with the life you've led
>as you reflect back on it in your final moments, then you've led a
>good life.
Why would you want to live a good life?
To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?
>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>which case it's not really all that important.
Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.
Jesus was sacrified to fufill the Old Testament sacrificial system
in its every detail.  Jesus's death was like a seed.  He needed
to fall to the ground so that many new lives would take root.  Did
you miss the entire John passage as well?
>Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
>who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
>and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.
Forget that I am a person.  Forget that I know how to type.  Forget
that I know how to put a sentence together.  Forget that I know
how to send e-mail.   Forget my existence.  Proove to me that I
exist.  .
Be honest.
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 8
In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not
>inspired.
David Koresh was born in Bethlehem ehh?
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Keep Firm the foundations!
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 6
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
JOB 26:7  He stretcheth out the north over the empty  place,  and
hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4  Where wast thou when I  laid  the  foundations  of  the
earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ
Organization: Idaho River Country, The Salmon, Payette, Clearwater, Boise, Selway, Priest.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]
Lines: 31
John W. Redelfs (cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
:
: I am a Mormon.  I believe in Christ, that he is alive.  He raised himself
: [Text deleted]
:
: I learned that the concept of the Holy Trinity was never taught by Jesus
: Christ, that it was "agreed to" by a council of clergymen long after Christ
: was ascended, men who had no authority to speak for him.
:
If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the
following:
Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in� the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Also Jesus speaking:
Act 1 5 For John baptized with� water, but in a few days you will
be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
I believe that you may have overlooked some key verses, that are crucial to
the Christian faith.
Jim Burrill
jburrill@boi.hp.com
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Silence is concurance
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Lines: 15
Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
may be held responsible for that action?
Example: the driver of a getaway car may be held as an accomplice to murder.
The "I didn't know" defense spawned the "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
When an individual is held as a material witness to a crime, is there a criminal
charge against the individual?  If not, on what grounds is the person imprisoned?
--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Question about Islamic view
Organization: Idaho River Country, The Salmon, Payette, Clearwater, Boise, Selway, Priest.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]
Lines: 8
A question regarding the Islamic view towards homosexuality came up in a
discussion group that I participate in, and I'd like to ask the question here,
"What is the Islamic view towards homosexuality?"
Jim Burrill
jburrill@boi.hp.com
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 22
Reply-To: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:
>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
><
><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a
><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge
><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on
><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
>
>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.
Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer
to John 14:2.
>--
>Tom Albrecht
>
--
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
Subject: Re: [lds] Rick's reply
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 95
In article <C5KDzK.497@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
>     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
>     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
>     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
>     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing heresy.  I assumed that heresy
meant a departure from orthodoxy, in which case generally accepted belief is
indeed an important issue.  In this case, the definition of the word "create"
is of great importance, since creation is the issue being discussed.
>
>     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
>     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
>     belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
>     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
>     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
>     conclusion that you grant.
I should have said "given the Mormon belief."  If you disagree with the
Mormon belief that creation is more a function of organization of eternally
existent substance than one of ex nihilo creation, then that is the important
point.
>     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
>     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
>     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.
Correction: you interpret the Bible to mean something very specific by
such terms.
>     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
>     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
>     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:
>
It always cracks me up when anti-Mormons presume to tell Mormons what they
believe.  Mormons do, in fact, believe that all people, including Christ and
Lucifer, are children of God in the sense that we were all created (or
organized or whatever) by Him.  We also believe that being "offspring" of
God has a symbolic sense when applied to being spiritually "born again" of
Him.  Thus the same word can be used to convey different meanings.  This is
how language works, Robert, and it's why making someone an offender for a
word is dangerous.
>     This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
>     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
>     something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For
<...>
>     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not
>     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that
>     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches,
>     you have to look at the Bible.
On the contrary, Robert, it is not a red herring at all to show that those
who rely wholly on the Bible cannot seem to agree on what it says.  You say
that one must simply "look at the Bible" to see what it teaches, but centuries
of people doing just that have sho0wn that no one is really sure what it says.
Are we to believe that you are the only one who really understands the
scriptures?
>     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is
>     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late
>     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the
>     issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I
>     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.
Let me clarify this one more time.  You did not refer to the Mormon belief
that Jesus needed to be saved, but rather to McConkie's belief in same.  We
keep trying to point out to you that Bruce McConkie is not the source of
Mormon doctrine, and you keep ignoring it. (see below)
>
>     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
>     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
>     think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
>     issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
>     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
>     certainly be.
On the contrary, Robert, if you are quoting McConkie's words as Mormon
canon then the question of whether they are canon or not is of *great*
importance.  The fact is that they are not.  Whether or not they indicate
general Mormon belief would only be ascertainable by interviewing a large
number of Mormons.
>
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 80
In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
>Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
>in witch hunts and inquisitions.
There were many injustices in the middle ages.  And this is truely sad.
I would hate to see a day when churches put people to death or torchured
them for practicing homosexuality, or any other crime.  The church is not
called to take over the governments of the world.  It may be that homosexuals
treated cruelly today, but that does not mean that we should teach
Christians to practice homosexual immorality.  Do you think that we should
also teach Christians to practice divination and channelling because
the witches in the middle ages were persecuted.
>The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
>final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
>"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
>sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
>love, one that calls people "just as they are."
And you accuse me of judging?  When did you look into my heart and see
if I have love.  I have been writing that we should not teach Christians
to practice homosexual immorality, and you pretend to have divine knowledge
to look into my heart.  I can't say that I love homosexuals as I should-
I can't say that I love my neighbor as I should either.  I don't know
very many homosexuals as it is.
But Jesus loves homosexuals, just as He loves everyone else.  If His love
were conditional, I not know Him at all.  Yes.  We should show love to
homosexuals, but it is not love to encourage brothers in the church to
stumble and continue in their sin.  That is a very damaging and dangerous
thing.
>The results of the passing amendment in
>Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
>Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
>but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
>is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
>
>This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
>embracing.
That is slander.   I could just as easily say  that NAMBLA has been able
to implement legislation to make child molesting easier because of
the tearing down of societies morality due to people accepting homosexuality
as normal, and that this is what you are embracing.  I do believe
that homosexual sex is immoral, that does not mean I endorse using violence
against them.  There is a problem of hatred in the church.  But there
is also the problem of what has been called "unsanctified mercy."
Many in the conservative churches have seen the moral breakdown in
this country and the storm on the horizon, and have gotten militant in
the flesh.  This is truely sad.  Yet others in other churches have
embraced immorality in society, and have pointed to the carnality in the
conservative churches to justify their actions.
>Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
>to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?
Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.  Jesus didn't
go out of His way to show only what might be considered positive aspects
to draw people in.  He told one man to sell all He had.  He told
another not to say good bye to His family.  His words were hard at times.
We should present people with the cost of the tower before we allow them
to begin construction.  many people have already been innoculated to the
gospel.
Link Hudson.
>
>Whatever
>
>Rich :-(
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Federal Hearing
In-Reply-To: dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu's message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 04: 21:09 GMT
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Distribution: usa
Lines: 19
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 04:21:09 GMT, dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee) said:
DM> Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the
DM> use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now
DM> going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the
DM> Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove
DM> Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true
DM> then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC
DM> 20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number
DM> 2493.
False.  This story has been going around for years.  There's not a drop of
truth.  Note that I don't care for O'Hare (O'Hair?) myself, but this
is one thing she's not guilty of.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak)
Subject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Lines: 14
(U28698@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:
: Marian CATHOLIC high school, outside of chicago:
:
: 666 south ASHLAND avenue.
:
Actually, Satanism is technically inverted Catholicism.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew Bulhak	     | :plonk: n. The sound of Richard Depew        |
|  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |   hitting the ground after being             |
|  Monash Uni, Clayton,      |   defenestrated by a posse of angry Usenet   |
|  Victoria, Australia       |   posters.                                   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Silence is concurance
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 80
For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out
that he (Jim) had taken a quote out of context:
>In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
>Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
>busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!
He directed a similar accusation of hypocrisy, again based on a lack of
response to an article by Robert Weiss, toward Stephen.
I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
out of context.
I asked Jim the following:
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
Jim replied by saying
>Did I either ask or assert that?
But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject
"Silence is concurrence":
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
>may be held responsible for that action?
Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.
Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.
But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next
gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.
Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help
make it more clear, Jim), titled "Inductive Logic":
>Scenario:
>A white goose waddles past the door
>A white goose waddles past the door
>A white goose waddles past the door
>...( repeat an uncountably large number of times)...
>A black goose waddles past the door.  An individual hits it with an axe.
>
>1. Given that the population of geese is uncountably large, and the size of the
>   confidence interval for the decision is undetermined, under what conditions
>   could a decision upon the behavior of the individual towards white geese
>   be made?
>
>2. If ONLY black geese are observed to be axed, is it not a valid question
>   to be concerned with the different behavior between black and white geese?
More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
number of my articles?  Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
Well, I can't see where he is going with this.
But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80
articles since January.  The vast majority of them are discussions with
Frank DeCenso and other inerrantists, where I take the position that
they are making bad arguments.  Some are discussions with Jim Meritt
where I take the position that he is making bad arguments (a straw man
argument earlier, and taking quotes out of context more recently.)
Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
through your induction engine and see what pops out.
dj
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Lines: 24
I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the
title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread
"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"
both only in talk.abortion, but I am posting its contents into
talk.religion.misc as soon as I exit here.
This should be enough for us to thrash out for the next week or so.  The
second post really grapples with the main bones of contention between us.
The first is more lighthearted and tells about such things as
KaflowitzDebatingPoints [tm], which he continues to rack up on both
talk.abortion and talk.religion.misc, while setting follow-ups to
talk.abortion alone.  His lame excuse for the latter policy is that
he gets a prompt as to where to set follow-ups, and does not follow
talk.religion.misc much; this suggests that he is being hypocritical in not
also setting his Newsgroups line to talk.abortion alone.
Peter Nyikos
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Lines: 146
Most of the key issues in the 284 line post to which I am following up are
dealt with in the following post I made on talk.abortion yesterday,
modified to correct the next to last paragraph.
Message-ID: <nyikos.734890344@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
References: <nyikos.734360987@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <nyikos.734640769@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1993Apr13.122356.3612@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
In <1993Apr13.122356.3612@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <nyikos.734640769@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <CS132073.93Apr9160836@cslab1g.cs.brown.edu> cs132073@cs.brown.edu (John Bates) writes:
>>
>> >In article <nyikos.734360987@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> > perhaps out
>> >of dedication to your convictions. I never, *never*, thought that you
>> >would be consciously intellectually dishonest, though.
>>
>> I am not.  Can you show me anything that would lead you to think
>> otherwise?
>See the "Spreading Christianity" thread, in which he says I
>ignore certain statements that I specifically acknowledged and
Dean did not.  He called them "the Great Commission" but this is NOT
descriptive of Jesus's words in Matt. 10:15.
Matt. 10:14, Jerusalem Bible translation:
"And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have
to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust
from your feet."
Matt. 10:15:
"I tell you solemnly, on the day of Judgment it will not
go as hard with the land of Sodom and Gomorrah as with
that town."
In the post to which Dean is referring above, I said:
"> The above is a good description of Kaflowitz, who keeps harping on
> shaking the dust off the feet but ignoring what Christ said next."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                ^^^^
The highlighted words refer to Matt 10:14 and 10:15 respectively.
And Dean countered:
"Actually, this comment of your's is a perfect example of what an
intellectually dishonest little sparrowfart you are, since I
specifically acknowledged the Great Commission and the entreaty
to spread the word.  In fact, it is the combination of the two
statements I was addressing, and not just the one, and for you to
characterize that as "ignoring" the instruction to spread the
word is a good example of what a dishonest little fellow you are."
Of course, Matt 10:15 [quoted above] makes no mention of "instruction
to spread the word."
All these quotes btw are from:
Message-ID: <1993Apr13.121624.3400@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
>in which, at the end, he claims I did not answer a question
>which I answered, and which he deleted (to get the chronology
>right, he deleted the answer and then said I didn't answer).
And I claim it correctly, because my question went:
"Do you, too, measure
the goodness of a post by its entertainment value, and care not
a whit for such mundane things as truth and falsehood?"
and the closest Dean came to an answer was:
"Peter, Peter, Peter.  You're just so stupid, pretentious, dull,
and generally unworthy of the value you place on yourself that
the sport is all there is."
Of course, this does NOT answer my question, which has to do with posts
in GENERAL and not my posts in particular.  Surely even Dean knows this,
yet he brazenly asserts otherwise, reinforcing his claim with an insult:
"So I now restore the answer to your question
that you deleted.  If you're still unable to figure it out, ask
a nice kid at the local junior high to help you.  It really
doesn't take much sophistication to understand."
On top of which, I doubt that the "answer" is at all representative
of Dean's true frame of mind.  The insults you have seen quoted thus
far are but a small sample of the stream that oozes out of Dean's
mind throughout the 284-line post from which these quotes were taken.
One wonders whether Dean's mind is so warped as to find sport in all
this.
He even dredges up a falsified account of
events that transpired earlier on another thread:
"You made an ass of yourself by claiming that it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
was in the tradition of Lent to make public announcements of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the "sins" of other individuals."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
False.  I said it was the tradition to recall and atone for one's sins.
That I made public announcements of the "sins" of others
--"sins", BTW, that were a matter of public record, documented in
the posts of others-- is a different matter.
Many of the individuals involved are so nearly amoral that
they do not see as sins what morally upright people see as sins, so
I pointed some of them out.  And I expressly set up a whole thread,
YOUR TURN, to let people point out MY sins to me.
Dean again:
"You made an ass of yourself
by saying that my statement of the tradition of tzedukkah was
somehow an attempt to "paint Jews as plaster saints," thereby
revealing your inability to understand the discussion as well
as showing your dislike for people saying positive things
about Jews, and now you show your intellectual dishonesty by
repeatedly ignoring the simple argument being made, and then
claiming I am ignoring the very argument I acknowledge."
Actually, what happened was that Dean made it seem like ANY Jew
who gave alms or did other acts of charity in public was a hypocrite
according to Jewish customs.  In doing so, he was caricaturing
Jewish customs as being almost impossibly demanding, as well as
implicitly slandering all Jews who make public their acts of charity.
I went very easily on Dean for this, giving him the benefit of
the doubt in a post following my initial crack about "plaster saints",
suggesting that he had been merely careless in his wording.
In an astonishing act of ingratitude, Dean now serves up an incredibly
distorted picture of what took place between us, and using it as
the basis of one insult after another.
Peter Nyikos
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>
> >Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
> >to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?
>
> Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
> But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.
Very well put.  And, in the case of someone who calls himself a Christian
brother yet continues in his sin (and claims that his sin is not a sin at
all, but perfectly acceptable), what should be done?  Should Christians
just ignore a sinful lifestyle in order to not offend the person?  By
reaffirming that the lifestyle is sinful according to the Bible, are
they using "a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus"?
Frankly, I find the occurance of a homosexual Christian attempting to
pass himself off as a 'straight' Christian in order to have other
Christians accept his chastisement better a *lot* more serious than
people reaffirming that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.
Walter
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: THE DIVINE MASTERS
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Lines: 208
THE DIVINE MASTERS
Most Christians would agree, and correctly so, that
Jesus Christ was a Divine Master, and a projection of God
into the physical world, God Incarnate.
But there are some very important related facts that
Christians are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of, as are followers of
most other world religions.
First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-
STANDING.  There is ALWAYS at least one such Divine Master
(God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL TIMES,
a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both before and
after the life of Jesus.
The followers of some of these Masters founded the
world's major religions, usually PERVERTING the teachings of
their Master in the process.  Christians, for example, added
THREATS of "ETERNAL DAMNATION" in Hell, and DELETED the
teaching of REincarnation.
Secondly, and more importantly, after a particular
Master physically dies and leaves this world, there is
NOTHING that He can do for ANYbody except for the relatively
few people that He INITIATED while He was still PHYSICALLY
alive.  (THAT IS SIMPLY THE WAY GOD SET THINGS UP IN THE
UNIVERSES.)
Therefore, all those Christians who worship Jesus, and
pray to Jesus, and expect Jesus to return and save them from
their sins, are only KIDDING THEMSELVES, and have allowed
themselves to be DUPED by a religion that was mostly
MANUFACTURED by the Romans.
And emotional "feelings" are a TOTALLY DECEIVING
indicator for religious validity.
These things are similarly true for followers of most
other major world religions, including Islam.
Thirdly, the primary function of each Master is to tune
His Initiates into the "AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM" or "SOUND
CURRENT", (referred to as "THE WORD" in John 1:1-5, and as
"The River of Life" in Revelation 22:1), and to personally
guide each of them thru the upper levels of Heaven while they
are still connected to their living physical bodies by a
"silver cord".
True Salvation, which completes a Soul's cycles of
REincarnation in the physical and psychic planes, is achieved
only by reaching at least the "SOUL PLANE", which is five
levels or universes above the physical universe, and this
canNOT be done without the help of a PHYSICALLY-Living Divine
Master.
One such Divine Master alive today is an American, Sri
Harold Klemp, the Living "Eck" Master or "Mahanta" for the
"Eckankar" organization, now headquartered in Minneapolis,
(P.O. Box 27300;  zip 55427).
Another Divine Master is Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, now
living in Punjab, India, and is associated with the "Sant
Mat" organization.
One of the classic books on this subject is "THE PATH OF
THE MASTERS" (Radha Soami Books, P.O. Box 242, Gardena, CA
90247), written in 1939 by Dr. Julian Johnson, a theologian
and surgeon who spent the last years of his life in India
studying under and closely observing the Sant Mat Master of
that time, Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji.
Several of the Eckankar books, including some authored
by Sri Paul Twitchell or Sri Harold Klemp, can be found in
most public and university libraries and some book stores, or
obtained thru inter-library loan.  The book "ECKANKAR--THE
KEY TO SECRET WORLDS", by Sri Paul Twitchell, is ANOTHER
classic.
Many Christians are likely to confuse the Masters with
the "Anti-Christ", which is or was to be a temporary world
dictator during the so-called "last days".  But the Masters
don't ever rule, even when asked or expected to do so as
Jesus was.
People who continue following Christianity, Islam, or
other orthodox religions with a physically-DEAD Master, will
CONTINUE on their cycles of REincarnation, between the
Psychic Planes and this MISERABLE physical world, until they
finally accept Initiation from a PHYSICALLY-LIVING Divine
Master.
RE-INCARNATION
The book "HERE AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery,
describes several kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation
as a FACT OF LIFE, including HYPNOTIC REGRESSIONS to past
lives [about 50% accurate; the subconscious mind sometimes
makes things up, especially with a bad hypnotist],
SPONTANEOUS RECALL (especially by young children, some of
whom can identify their most recent previous relatives,
homes, possessions, etc.), DREAM RECALL of past life experi-
ences, DEJA VU (familiarity with a far off land while travel-
ing there for the first time on vacation), the psychic read-
ings of the late EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN SUPPORTING STATEMENTS
FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE including Matthew 17:11-13 (John the
Baptist was the REINCARNATION of Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How
can a person POSSIBLY sin before he is born, unless he LIVED
BEFORE?!).  [ ALWAYS use the "KING JAMES VERSION".  Later
versions are PER-VERSIONS! ]
Strong INTERESTS, innate TALENTS, strong PHOBIAS, etc.,
typically originate from a person's PAST LIVES.  For example,
a strong fear of swimming in or traveling over water usually
results from having DROWNED at the end of a PREVIOUS LIFE.
And sometimes a person will take AN IMMEDIATE DISLIKE to
another person being met for the first time in THIS life,
because of a bad encounter with him during a PREVIOUS
INCARNATION.
The teaching of REincarnation also includes the LAW OF
KARMA (Galatians 6:7, Revelation 13:10, etc.).  People would
behave much better toward each other if they knew that their
actions in the present will surely be reaped by them in the
future, or in a FUTURE INCARNATION!
"2nd COMINGS"
If a Divine Master physically dies ("translates")
before a particular Initiate of His does, then when that
Initiate physically dies ("translates"), the Master will meet
him on the Astral level and take him directly to the Soul
Plane.  This is the ONE AND ONLY correct meaning of a 2nd
Coming.  It is an INDIVIDUAL experience, NOT something that
happens for everyone all at once.  People who are still
waiting for Jesus' "2nd Coming" are WAITING IN VAIN.
PLANES OF EXISTENCE
The physical universe is the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN
major levels of existence.  Above the Physical Plane is the
Astral Plane, the Causal Plane, the Mental Plane, the Etheric
Plane (often counted as the upper part of the Mental Plane),
the Soul Plane, and several higher Spiritual Planes.  The
Soul Plane is the FIRST TRUE HEAVEN, (counting upward from
the Physical).  The planes between (but NOT including) the
Physical and Soul Planes are called the Psychic Planes.
It is likely that ESP, telepathy, astrological
influences, radionic effects, biological transmutations [See
the 1972 book with that title.], and other phenomena without
an apparent physical origin, result from INTERACTIONS between
the Psychic Planes and the Physical Plane.
The major planes are also SUB-DIVIDED.  For example, a
sub-plane of the Astral Plane is called "Hades", and the
Christian Hell occupies a SMALL part of it, created there
LESS THAN 2000 YEARS AGO by the EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH by some
kind of black magic or by simply teaching its existence in a
THREATENING manner.  The Christian "Heaven" is located
elsewhere on the Astral Plane.  Good Christians will go there
for a short while and then REincarnate back to Earth.
SOUND CURRENT vs. BLIND FAITH
The Christian religion demands of its followers an
extraordinary amount of BLIND FAITH backed up by little more
than GOOD FEELING (which is TOTALLY DECEIVING).
If a person is not HEARING some form of the "SOUND
CURRENT" ("THE WORD", "THE BANI", "THE AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM"),
then his cycles of REINCARNATION in this MISERABLE world WILL
CONTINUE.
The "SOUND CURRENT" manifests differently for different
Initiates, and can sound like a rushing wind, ocean waves on
the sea shore, buzzing bees, higher-pitched buzzing sound, a
flute, various heavenly music, or other sounds.  In Eckankar,
Members start hearing it near the end of their first year as
a Member.  This and other experiences (such as "SOUL TRAVEL")
REPLACE blind faith.
For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
please consult my CITED SOURCES (3 books, 2 addresses).
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
Robert E. McElwaine
2nd Initiate in Eckankar,
(but not an agent thereof)
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Lines: 29
Distribution: world
<sandvik-170493104312@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
<1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bailey.cpac.washington.edu
In-reply-to: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 17 Apr 1993 20:31:11 GMT
In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Tony Alicea) writes:
>   Kent:
>	You say that
>   >There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
^^^^^^^^^
>   >most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>   >from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
>			    Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
huh? it might be interesting. he is relating the story as I have heard
it, btw.
>   >about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>   >and their conceptual world view systems.
>	Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
>   probably spent more time than you doing the same.
>	None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
>   case.
huh? care to back that up?
josh
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
Lines: 30
Distribution: world
<JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
<Pegasus-200493113800@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bailey.cpac.washington.edu
In-reply-to: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu's message of 20 Apr 1993 18:43:14 GMT
In article <Pegasus-200493113800@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu>
Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus) writes:
>   In article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
>   joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
>   > In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu>
>   > Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:
>   LEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians
>   brought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On
>   the LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena
>   to the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can
>   easly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.
>   josh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?
>   Love to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the
>   last chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their
>   views of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly
>   implyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other
>   Major cults of the time.
I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like
this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details.
have a day,
josh
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 24
In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>>on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
>We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
>the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
>people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
>disinterested observers.
>--
Nor, to point out the obvious, are the deluded, siege-mentality
followers of a religious nut-case who thought he was Jesus Christ or possibly
The Big Guy.
Personally, much as I regard the BATF and FBI as ConDupes, I'll take
their word over a bunch of silly pinks who were stoopid enough to lock
themselves up with a goofball like "David Koresh" in a makeshift arsenal.
************************************************************
*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
************************************************************
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention
Summary: Update on events.
Keywords: update, report, `Woof!'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Disclaimer: Sometime tonight, Brandy the WonderDog will turn 11 years old.
You can e-mail your presents (he likes rawhide chewy toys) to
the address above.
Lines: 73
There were some recent developments in the dispute about Masonry among
Southern Baptists.  I posted a summary over in bit.listserv.christia, and
I suppose that it might be useful here.  Note that I do not necessarily
agree or disagree with any of what follows: I present it as information.
*
For a short summary:  a Southern Baptist named Larry Holly wrote a book
claiming that Freemasonry is a religion incompatible with Christianity.
(Mr Holly's father rejects Christianity, and Mr Holly blames that on the
Masons.)
The SBC's Home Missions Board includes an interfaith witness department,
which studies other religions and how to teach them about Christ.  A few
years ago, they were ordered to produce a report on Masonry: they concluded
that it was not a religion, and therefore was outside their speciality.
However, Mr Holly led a movement of people who oppose Masonry, and
last year the Convention again ordered the HMB to study Masonry.  (I got the
feeling that they were saying "You got the wrong answer last time, try to
do better and get the answer we want.")
Anyway, there's been a bit of infighting and some inappropriate actions, but
the dust has settled and the report is in.  Nobody is entirely happy with it,
but everybody seems willing to live with it.  Both sides are saying things
such as: "This was the best we were going to get in the current environment."
The report commends the Masons for the charity work they do, such as the
hospitals and burn centers they operate, as well as efforts to help the
elderly and prevent drug abuse.  The report acknowledges that many well-
known Christians are and have been Masons, and notes that many teachings
of Masonry are "supportive of Christian faith and practice".  Examples of
the latter include belief in God, emphases on honesty and integrity, and
that some Masonic lodges incorporate explicit Christian beliefs.
On the other hand, they note that some aspects of Masonry are incompatible
with Southern Baptist principles.  These included the use of titles which some
people consider sacrilegious, the taking of certain oaths (even though they
are not meant seriously), the "undeniably pagan and/or occultic" writings of
some Masonic leaders, the implication in some Masonic writings that salvation
can be achieved by good works, and the racial discrimination practiced by many
Masonic lodges.  (I note with some chagrin that Baptist churches as a whole
aren't really in a place to speak on this last point.)
The report concludes that Masonry is not a religion, and says that membership
should not be endorsed or censured, but left to the discretion of individuals.
This was in part because there is variation among different Masonic Lodges,
and while one may include elements strongly against Christianity, another may
not.  Many Southern Baptists have strong convictions about the priesthood of
the believer and the autonomy of the local church, and this history probably
influenced how the report came out.
*
The information above was gleaned from "The Religious Herald", a publication
of the Baptist General Association of Virginia, and "Baptists Today", which
does not have any direct links to a religious organisation.  (Autonomy is a
big issue among some Baptists.  8-)
Because I have neither the report itself, nor whatever Masonic documents are
relevant to these issues, none of the above comes with a guarantee.  Your
mileage may vary.  Void where prohibited.
Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
Milton:  "We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq,
cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then
sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk
chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose."
Praline: "That's as may be, it's still a frog."
From: rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker)
Subject: Odds and Ends
Keywords: Cheap shots a Christianity
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 46
Just a few cheap shots a Christianity:
Riddle: What is the shortest street in Jerusalem?
Answer: The Street of the Righteous Poles.
Limrick:
There was an archeologist Thostle
Who found an amazing fossil
By the way it was bent
And the knot it the end
'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.
Jingle:
Christianity hits the spot
Twelve Apostles thats a lot
Jesus Christ and a Virgin too
Christianity's the faith for you
(with apologies to Pepsi Cola and its famous jingle)
Riddle:
How many Christians does it take to save a light bulb.
Answer: None, only Jesus can save.
Aphorism:
Jesus Saves
Moses Invests
Proof that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He lived at home till he was 33
2. He went into his fathers business
3. He thought he mother was a virgin
4. His mother thought he was God.
QED.
So long you all
Bob Kolker
"I would rather spend eternity in Hell with interesting people
than eternity in Heaven with Christians"
--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Lines: 20
In article <sandvik-180493131125@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
>wrote:
>> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Ignorance is not bliss!
>
>> Ignorance is STRENGTH!
>> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!
>
>Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece
>of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).
>
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
He was quoting Big Brother from Orwell's 1984.
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: The Magi of Matthew was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 238
In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.
Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade
MAGI:
[Sneak Preview: Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
_Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12).]
The Old Persian word magu, rendered in Greek by magos, is of uncertain
etymology. It may originally have meant "member of the tribe," as in the
Avestan compound mogu-tbish ("hostile to a member of the tribe"). This meaning
would have been further resticted, among the Medes, to "member of the priestly
tribe" and perhaps to "priest" (Benveniste, 1938; Boyce, 1982). The term is
probably of Median origin, given that Herodotus mentions the "Magoi" as one of
the six tribes of the Medes.
For a variety of reasons we can consider the Magi to have been members of a
priestly tribe of Median origin in western Iran. Among the Persians, they were
responsible for liturgical functions, as well as for maintaining their
knowledge of the holy and the occult. Most likely, the supremacy of the Median
priesthood in western Iran became established during the time of the Median
monarchy that dominated the Persians from the end of the eighth century
through the first half of the sixth century BCE until the revolt of Cyrus the
Great (550 BCE). The Persians were indebted to the Medes for their political
and civil institutions as well. Even if hypotheses have been advanced
concerning the existence of Magi of Persian origin in the Achaemenid period
(Boyce, 1982), we must still maintain that they were of Median origin. This is
demonstrated by the eposide of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, mentioned by
Darius I (522-486 BCE) in the inscription at Bisutun (Iran), as well as by
Greek sources. Indeed, Herodotus insists on the idea of the usurpatory power of
the Medes against the Persians through the conspiracy of the Magi.
The fact that the Magi may have been members of a tribe that handed down the
sacerdotal arts in a hereditary fashion naturally did not exclude the
possibility that some of them undertook secular prefessions. This seems to be
attested by the Elamite tablets at Persepolis.
There is a theses, put forth by Giuseppe Messina, that denies that the Magi
are members of an ethnic group by suggesting that they are simply members of
the priesthood - a priesthood of purely Zoroastrian origin. This thesis is
untenable; on the other hand, the hypothesis that their name is related to the
Avestan term magavan, derived from the Gathic maga (Vedic, magha, "gift"), is
not without foundation (Mole, 1963). The meaning of maga can probably be found,
in conformity with the Pahlavi tradition, within the context of the concept of
purity, or separation of the "mixture" of the two opposed principles of spirit
and matter. The maga, which has been erroneously interpreted as "chorus," from
the root mangh, which is said to mean "sing the magic song" (Nyberg, 1966) and
has been rendered simply by an expression like unio mystica, seems to be an
ecstatic condition that opens the mind to spiritual vision. In any case, though
there may be a relation between the Old Persian term magu and the Avestan terms
magavan and maga, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Magi and the
Avestan priesthood. The Avesta ignores the Median or Old Persian term, despite
a recent hypothesis proposed by H.W. Bailey; Old Persian inscriptions ignore
the Avestan term for "priest," athravan (Vedic, athravan), even if this is
perhaps present in an Achaeminid setting in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis
(Gershevitch, 1964).
The term magu has been present in Zoroastrianism throughout its history; the
Pahlavi terms mogh-mard and mobad represent its continuation. The latter in
particular derives from an older form, magupati ("head of the Magi"). During
the Sasanid period (third to seventh centuries CE), which saw the formation of
a hierarchically organized church, the title mobadan mobad ("the high priest of
high priests") came to be used to designate the summit of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
The Magi practiced consanguineous marriage, or khvaetvadatha (Av.; Pahl.,
khwedodah). They also performed a characteristic funeral rite: the exposure of
the corpse to animals and vultures to remove the flesh and thereby cleanse it.
The corpse was not supposed to decompose, lest it be contaminated by the demons
of putrefaction. This practice later became typical of the entire Zoroastrian
community and led to the rise of a complex funeral ritual in Iran and among the
Parsis in India. Stone towers, known as dakhmas, were built especially for this
rite. During the time of Herodotus the practice of exposure of the corpse was
in vogue only among the Magi; the Persians generally sprinkled the corpse with
wax, then buried it. The practice was widespread, however, among the peoples
of Central Asia.
The Magi were the technicians of and experts on worship: it was impossible to
offer sacrifices without the presence of a Magus. During the performance of a
ritual sacrifice, the Magus sang of the theogony (the Magi were possibly the
custodians of a tradition of sacred poetry, but we know nothing about the
relationship of this tradition to the various parts of the Avesta) and was
called upon to interpret dreams and to divine the future. The Magi were also
known for the practice of killing harmful, or "Ahrimanical," animals (khrafstra)
such as snakes and ants. They dressed in the Median style, wearing pants,
tunics, and coats with sleeves. They wore a characteristic head covering of
felt (Gr. tiara) with strips on the sides that could be used to cover the nose
and mouth during rituals to avoid contaminating consecrated objects with their
breath (Boyce, 1982). The color of these caps, in conformity with a tradition
that is probably of Indo-European origin, according to Georges Dumezil, was
that of the priesthood: white.
In all likelihood, during the Achaemenid period the Magi were not in
possession of a well-defined body of doctrine, and it is probable that they
gradually adopted Zoroastrianism; they were most likely a clergy consisting of
professional priests who were not tied to a rigid orthodoxy but were naturally
inclined to eclecticism and syncretism. Nonetheless, they must have been
jealous guardians of the patrimony of Zorastrian traditions. By virtue of this
they were the educators of the royal princes. The wisest of them was responsible
for teaching the prince the "magic of Zarathushtra, son of Horomazes" and thus
the "cult of the gods." Magi who excelled in other virtues were entrusted with
the education of the prince so that he would learn to be just, courageous, and
master of himself.
During the Achaemenid period the Magi maintained a position of great
influence, although they were certainly subordinate to the emperor. Despite
several dramatic events such as the massacre they suffered after the death of
Gaumata the Magian - in which, according to Herodotus (who calls himself
Smerdis), the Persians killed a large number of Magi to avenge the usurpation -
the Magi nevertheless managed to maintain their influence at court in Media,
in Persia, and in the various regions of the empire where they were stationed
as a consequence of the Persian civilian and military administration.
No priesthood of antiquity was more famous than that of the Magi. They were
renowned as followers of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster); as the teachers of some of
the greatest Greek thinkers (Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato); as the wise men
who arrived, guided by a star, at the manger of the newborn savior in
Bethlehem; and as the propagators of a cult of the sun in India. But they were
also known as the Chaldeans, the priesthood of Babylon, known for its occultism;
this was perhaps the reason that the term magos had a pejorative sense in Greek,
like "goes," "expert in the magic arts" (Bidez and Cumont, 1938). Indeed, the
Chaldeans were experts in all types of magical arts, especially astrology, and
had a reputation for wisdom as well as knowledge.
To understand the reasons for such various and sometimes discordant views, it
is necessary to distinguish between the Magi of Iran proper and the so-called
western Magi, who were later hellenized. In the Achaemenid period both must
have been at least in part Zoroastrian, but the western Magi (those of the
Iranian diaspora in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), who came in
contact with diverse religious traditions, must have, sooner or later and in
varying degrees, been influenced by syncretic concepts.
The Greeks were familiar with both kinds of Magi and, depending on their
varying concerns, would emphasize one or the other aspect of them. Classical
historians and geographers, including Herodotus and Strabo, document their
customs, while the philosophers dwell above all on their doctrines: dualism,
belief in the hereafter, Magian cosmology and cosmogony, and their theology
and eschatology. Those sources most interested in the doctrines of the Magi
even speak of Zarathushtra as a Magus. In doing so they are repeating what the
Magi themselves said from the Median and Achaemenid periods, when they adopted
Zoroastrianism. At that time they embraced Zarathushtra as one of their own and
placed themselves under his venerable name.
Zoroastrianism had already undergone several profound transformations in the
eastern community by the time of the Acheamenids and was already adapting those
elements of the archaic religion that refused to die. It has been said quite
often, in an attempt to characterize the precise role of the Magi in the
Zoroastrian tradition, that the Vendidad (from vi-daevo-data, "the law-abjuring
daivas"), part of the Avesta, should be attributed to them. (This collection of
texts from various periods is primarily concerned with purificatory rules and
practices.) Nonetheless, the hypothesis is hardly plausible, since the first
chapter of the Vendidad - a list of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the
supreme god of Zoroastrianism, but contaminated by an attack by Ahriman (Pahl.;
Gathic-Avestan, Angra Mainyu), the other supreme god and the ultimate source of
all evil and suffering - does not mention western Iran, Persia, or Media (the
land of Ragha mentioned in the text cannot be Median Raghiana). Furthermore, it
has been noted (Gershevitch, 1964) that if the authors had been Magi the
absence of any reference to western Iranian institutions, including their own
priesthood, would be very strange.
The Magi were above all the means by which the Zoroastrian tradition and the
corpus of the Avesta have been transmitted to us, from the second half of the
first millennium BCE on. This has been their principal merit. We can attribute
directly to the Magi the new formulation that Iranian dualism assumed, known to
us especially from Greek sources and, in part, from the Pahlavi literature of
the ninth and tenth centuries CE. According to this formulation, the two poles
of the dualism are no longer, as in the Gathas, Spenta Mainyu ("beneficent
spirit") and Angra Mainyu ("hostile spirit") but Ahura Mazda himself and Angra
Mainyu (Gershevitch, 1964). [See Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.] This trans-
formation was of immense consequence for the historical development of Zoro-
astrianism and was most likely determined by the contact of the Magi with the
Mesopotamian religious world. In this new dualism - which was that later known
to the Greeks (Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes, Theopompus, and others) - we can
see the affirmation of a new current of thought within Zoroastrianism, to which
we give the name Zurvanism. [See Zurvanism.]
Thanks to their adherence to Zoroastrianism, the Magi played an enormously
important role in the transmission of Zarathushtra's treachings, as well as in
the definition of the new forms that these would assume historically. Their
natural propensity to eclecticism and syncretism also helped the diffusion of
Zoroastrian ideas in the communities of the Iranian diaspora. The Greeks began
to study their doctrines and to take an interest in them (Xanthus of Lydia,
Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Dinon), even writing treatises
on the Persian religion, of which only the titles and a few fragments have
survived. In the Hellenistic period, the Magi were seen as a secular school of
wisdom, and writings on magic, astrology, and alchemy were lent the authority
of such prestigious names as Zarathushtra, Ostanes, and Hystaspes, forming an
abundant apocryphal literature. (Bidez and Cumont, 1938).
Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
_Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12). [See Saoshyant.]
The Sasanid period saw the Magi once again play a determining role in the
religious history of Iran. Concerned to win back the western Magi (de Menasce,
1956), and eager to consolidate Zoroastrianism as the national religion of
Iran, the priests of Iranian sanctuaries in Media and Persia were able to
establish a true state church, strongly hierarchical and endowed with an
orthodoxy based on the formation of a canon of scriptures. The leading figures
in the development of a state religion and of Zoroastrian orthodoxy were Tosar
and Kerder, the persecutors of Mani in the third century.
SAOSHYANT:
The Avestan term saoshyant ("future benefactor"; MPers., soshans) designates
the savior of the world, who will arrive at a future time to redeem humankind.
The concept of the future savior is one of the fundamental notions of Zoro-
astrianism, together with that of dualism; it appears as early as in the Gathas.
Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), as the prophet of the religion, is himself a Sao-
shyant, one who performs his works for the Frashokereti, the end of the present
state of the world, when existence will be "rehabilitated" and "made splendid."
[See Frashokereti]
Later Zoroastrian doctrine developed this notion into a true eschatological
myth and expanded the number of Saoshyants from one to three. All the saviors
are born from the seed of Zarathushtra, which is preserved through the ages in
Lake Kansaoya (identified with present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran),
protected by 99,999 fravashis, or guardian spirits. The greatest of the awaited
Saoshyants, the victorious Astvatereta ("he who embodies truth"), the son of
the Vispataurvairi ("she who conquers all"), is the third, who will make
existence splendid; he appears in Yashts 19. Upon his arrival humankind will
no longer be subject to old age, death, or corruption, and will be granted
unlimited power. At that time the dead will be resurrected, and the living will
be immortal and indestructable. Brandishing the weapon with which he kills the
powerful enemies of the world of truth (that is, the world of the spirit, and
of asha), Astvatereta will look upon the whole of corporeal existence and
render it imperishable. He and his comrades will engage in a great battle with
the forces of evil, which will be destroyed.
The name Astvatereta is clearly the result of theological speculation
(Kellens, 1974), as are those of his two brothers, Ukhshyatereta, "he who makes
truth grow," and Ukhshyatnemah, "he who makes reverence grow"; the names of the
three virgins (Yashts 13) who are impregnated with the seed of Zarathushtra
when they bathe in Lake Kansaoya and give birth to the Saoshyants, are equally
speculative. Each of these Saoshyants will arrive at the beginning of a
millennium, initiating a new age and a new cycle of existence; Astvatereta will
appear in the third and final millennium to save mankind.
The doctrine of the future savior had already taken shape in the Archaemenid
period (sixth to fourth century BCE). It was not, perhaps the principal element
in the formation of the messianic idea, but it was certainly a determining
factor, one that enjoyed great success in the Hellenistic period beyond the
confines of the Iranian world. A similar concept, that of the future Buddha,
Maitreya, was most likely indebted to it, and Christian messianism can trace
its roots to the same source.
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 26
In article <C5rBHt.Fw4@athena.cs.uga.edu>
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only
>>recognized one day of the seven as holy.
>Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says
>that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
>The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
>to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
>keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.
>Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
>(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
>food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)
>>The
>>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"
>I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
>irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
>that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?
Why are you running away from the word of Jesus? Has somebody superseded
the word of Jesus? If you don't follow the morality of the Ten
Commandments and the Law and the Prophets and the word of Jesus, whose
morality do you follow?
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword
Organization: Red Barn Data Center
Lines: 338
In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
>sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
...
>>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>>died today?
It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
One thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
made  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.
I don't know they murdered him; I also don't know
that the Branch Davidians set a fire and suicidede.
It is SICK of BATF or FBI spokepeople to make such
comments in advance of forensic pathology.
Stephen:  thank you.  God speed.
>No. Kinda numb. I thought something like this was going to happen
>over a week ago. One of the things that's been obvious from the
Yah.
>start is that when there are two armed camps, neither of which
>yields, it's usually get slaughtered -- when any little spark
>sets it off.
>
>Which is why Koresh and company shouldn't have stockpiled weapons,
>and why the BATF shouldn't have come primed for a raid.
BINGO.  Am I the only one  to notice:
a)	No peaceful attempt to serve a warrant.
b)	Six months to develop a scene and six days to end it?
c)	.... ah God:
25 children
at least 64 adults
plus 6 at the beginning
and more BATF agents
all dead.
>
>Painful point #1:
>
>	If the Davidians fired first -- why were the BATF
>	on the roof -- rather than taking cover?
Has anyone asked themselves these questions:
1)  Have you seen the ENTIRE video sequences taken during the
opening rounds?  I seem to recall missing several key parts:
a)  The first five minutes of day one; only the shooting
part comes out.
b)  What happened to the Feds video units?  You mean they do
not carry helmet cams?  Wonder why not?
2)   How is it you can have camera crews with live transmission
video present and NOT have an uninterrupted record?
a)  You realize the units carry ittle bitty 8mm backups?
That hold 90 minutes per unit?  And there are
twounits on the professional handhelds (so no
tape turnover gaps)?
b)  Until all views are seen, it is premature to point
fingers in either direction.
As you well point out, Stephen.
>
>	Anyone (BATF, BD, X-BD, Other) could have touched it off,
>	by mistake or maliciously?
More on this below.
>
>	Once Koresh was shot... (disregarding his being a religious
>	leader, and apocalyptically obsessed) most likely the people
>	inside just went on drill. Just like the BATF outside.
>
>Is the lesson that automatic responses are very hazardous last resort
>measures?
Yes.  But it is so hard toremain human under the full
pressure of hazard, game playing, and life.
>
>
>Painful point #2:
>
>	Either side could have backed off, to help defuse the
>	situation.  We see the problem constantly here on the
>	net with flaming.
>
>Ego problems.  Nuff said.
More to the point:  when someone dies (almost like it was intended
that way), both sides will kill to maintain their innocence --
a contradiction in terms.
>
>
>Painful point #3:
>
>	It doesn't help to take sides in such a situation. Just
>	adds fuel to the fire. Better is to let it burn out on
>	it's own.
True.  Usually I pick the unpopular side and point out
from the evidence seen what might have alternatively happened.
>
>Best example I can think of is Christ with the tax coin. He didn't
>have one (and so didn't sanction the Roman authority unduly). When
>they showed it to him, he noted that it was Caesar's minting, and
>so said give it to him, (no waste of time). And then he got back to
>more worthwhile concerns -- God's will.
This requires someone interested in God's Will.  Please note
that the outstanding _overt_ problem in this country today
is one where the Government:
wants Caesar's coin to pay off the debt.
>
>The anti-tax movement of today, and the anti-ssan-as-i.d. groups,
>would do well to note who the issuing authority is. Ditto for those
Yes:  The AMerican People.  Not the Federal Government.
ANd if it is not spent towards that end, _no_one_ deserves
the coin.
>made in the image of God.
Yah.  Fewpeople hear the contradiction:
Money
made
in the image
of God
>
>No need to stir things up in ever larger revo-revo-revolution, as
>governments turn over, and over, and over.
I wish you were wrong.  Many pundits are saying 3 years.
The onyl good thing to come out of my divorce (and my
exposure to the Damned (pardon me) American Divorce Attorney
is:
I have no money left to lose to taxes or inflation.
>
>
>painful point #4:
>
>	For many, this was just entertainment.
>
>	Thumbs-up. Thumbs-down.
>
>	Just another thriller like "Terminator 2,"
>	or a good-old ball game.
>
>Is the lesson that we've become jaded to media reality?
25 children dead.  If anyone thinks blaming Koresh -- or the BATF
helps this any at all, is sick.  and wrong.
The reason you can tell that the BATF may not be entirely
straight on this is that the leaders at press conferences
havew made ANY comments about even the POSSIBILITY that
Koresh or his followers caused this.
The BATF agentss are more concerned with their repuations
and morals ("not my fault, Koresh did it!") than they
are with:
25 dead children.
Same goes for Koresh & his followers - who are all (mostly) dead.
>
>
>
>Painful point #5:
>
>       	LA burned. The Davidians burned. In one case society has
>	abandoned the people -- which has returned to a frontier.
>	In the other -- the outskirts were bumping against the
>	suburbs.
>
>Is the lesson that what's lawful in different areas of society,
>depends more on conditions than laws?
More on power and favoritism.  (My personal opinion).
Look to history:  whenever privilege has replaced whatever
token of objective law and justice a society has had,
Hitlerrs have followed.
>
>
>If we don't learn-the-lessons, or at least make an honest effort,
>the next conflagration will no doubt be closer to home.
>
>Rather than putting out fires, aren't there much more important
>concerns for us to work on??
You do your name sake proud, Stephen.
Its hard, but please keep on keeping on:
each voice in the wilderness now will
save a generation unborn from horror
>
>>Kent
>>....who can't 'cheers' today exactly.
>
>What keeps me from being a bomb-thrower is my loving God (as irra-
>tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to
>keep things in perspective, KS.
The day I _need_ a gun or abomb to protect myself in this
society is the day that society is already beyond redemption
and that aint' redundant, if you have any Christian
belief aytall.
... and the day that I cannot peacefully enjoin others in the
act that Thoreau called Civil Disobedience to rectify the
wrongs that my society practises, without undue harm or
punishment befalling me, is the day that society has ceased to
be a human society, and become a society of animals.
We are _very_ cclose to that.
>
>Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who
>are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
>Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
>
>I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.
Six years fighting an unjust COurt issue:  still struggling to be
patient.
For those who like contrary questions:
NB:  I was not there.  I am not a Branch Davidian nor a     law
official hater.  I do hate liars or the six letter variety of same.
The official side has its advocates already; lets balance the
equation and asj a few questions on the other side, for the sake
of an old saw the BATF abd FBI seem to want to bypass:
innocent until proven guilty.
not
innocent until presumed guilty.
1)  Where are the video tapes from the tanks?  ALL of them.
Don't tell me they do not exist.  They are standard
equipment.
2)  So you think Koresh fired the place, because of the explosion?
a)  Tear gas comes with an aerosol to spread it.  This
aerosol is DELIBERATELY made to be as non-flammable
as possible.  It is as non-flammable as possible.
.... gotcha!
... when in isolation from other substances.
WHy was a pipe deliveryu system used rather than remote
launchers?  WHy did the FBI not announce "this window,
blown in plus tear gas, five minutes; then the wall come
down", and maintain a left to right sequence?
b)  Most aerosols also have a secondary compound, that when
mixed in, becomes a VERY flammable (and difficult to trace)
suspension, with a VERY special property:  exposure to
brief eruptions of high heat (muzzle blasts) or long
exposure to low heat (matches, a stove) will NOT tend
to ignite.
What other chemicals come up in the forensics?
Who else will be allowed to test the site?
c)  After a few minutes to hours (ifdesired, the combnation
rate can be controlled as desired), the mixture can be made
to become veryignitable onb exposure to a temperature
above a certain point (a tracer round) for a certain
heat quantity (a small explosive charge) or for a length
of time (start a wall fire and wait).
Check your military records; look at the tapes.
Why were tanks (large capacity delivey systems),
tear gas (why not somnorifics?), and now (why
the hurry. was there still a comm channel open
to the outside?).
Do you see any trace of fire coming BACK to the
compound in the videos?  ALL the videos?  Which ones
are missing?
Do I sound paranoid?  Maybe.  Am I? Probably not.
You trust the FBI and BATF  to render judgement?
IN advance of a Court?  God help us.
(For we are surely not helping ourselves).
You trut the Federal Gevernment to give us a clean slate?
You are 4.3 trillion (admitted!) down and counting.
Look again.
Did it happen that way?  I do not know.  I was not there.
AND IT SHOULD WAIT FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.
But will that happen?  89 people will NOT have the chance
to tell their side as the BATF leader was, on camera.
No one wins.  Except:  more force next time.
Listen to your hearts, people.
Thanx again Stephen.
>
>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   | stephen
>
roy andrew crabtree
roy:  red haired king
andrew:  the virtuous one
crabtree:  iron workers, ...
From: stevep@Cadence.COM (Steve Peterson)
Subject: Re: Question on Sabbath question; Correction
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Lines: 13
>> There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to
>> worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day
>> Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a
>> regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and
>> that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Christians are required to observe
the Sabbath, whether it is on Saturday or Sunday.  The Sabbath was part
of a Covenent between God and the Israelites and is not required for
Christians.
Steve Peterson
From: donc@microsoft.com (Don Corbitt)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 28
In article <1993Apr16.232149.22105@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu wrote:
> Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.
> >--
> >=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
> >=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
> >="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, =
> >='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=
Sorry, but it doesn't matter what _you_ think, I am a Christian, who happens to
belong to the LDS Church.  [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints].
I don't usually read t.r.m.  It is truly informative to stop by, and see that there
are still people in the world like those that forced my ancestors into the deserts
of Utah, and then out of the country entirely.  (My grandmother was born in Mexico,
where her family had moved to escape religious persecution in the US).  I'm willing
to admit that members of other churches are Christians, if they believe in Christ and
(try to) follow his teachings, even though they have different interpretations of
the bible.  And yet these other churches often go out of their way to define whether
or not I am considered to be Christian.  Could someone mail me a set of rules/beliefs
that must be followed to be a Christian?  Does this set of rules exclude other large
bodies of believers?
I know, this is a waste of everyone's time, this has probably been discussed N times,
etc.  I guess I'm more sensitive to this 'demonization' after what went on in Texas.
--
Don Corbitt, donc@microsoft.com
Mail flames, post apologies.   Support short .sigs, three lines max.
(I consider this a rebuttal, not a flame...)
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 203
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>And I maintain:
>>
>>Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
>>they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
>>afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  ...
>
>Are you your own master?  Do you have any habits that you cannot break?
If I have a habit that I really want to break, and I am willing to
make whatever sacrifice I need to make to break it, then I do so.
There have been bad habits of mine that I've decided to put forth the
effort to break, and I've done so; there have been other bad habits
that I've decided are not worth the effort to break.  It's my choice,
either way.
I am my own master.  I choose what I want to do.  I weigh the benefits
of my actions against their consequences, and I use my experience to
help me deal with the unexpected, which in turn make me more experienced.
I don't always succeed, but I never fail, either -- I learn.
Do *you* have any habits you can't break?  Why not?
>For one, you seem unable to master your lack of desire to understand
>even the slightest concept of the Bible.
I have arrived at my own understanding of Christianity, just as you've
probably arrived at your own understanding of Islam that is most
likely very different from the way a Moslem thinks of his religion.
Are you "unable to master your lack of desire to understand even the
slightest concept of the Quran"?  If that's different, then how is it
different from what you accuse me of?  Can I accuse you of having no
desire to understand even the slightest concept of atheism?
>How about sexual sins?  Gotta any of those secret desires
>in your head that you harbor but can get control of?   Do you dehumanize
>women when they walk past you?  Do you degrade them to a sex object in
>your head?
Of COURSE not.  That's disgusting.  For centuries, religions have been
discriminating on sex and treating women as second-class humans;
that's one of the reasons I renounced my Christianity.
>Do you insult
>people unknowingly, then regret it later.  Yet do it again the next
>time opportunity presents itself?
No.  I don't insult people.  Period.  It's not in my nature, and it's
not something that I want to do, either.
>Are you truly the master of yourself?
Not yet -- but my life is the ground I use to practice on.  The fun is
in the getting there!
>I have admitted that I am not the master of my thought life at all times.
>That I sometimes say things I do want to say, and then repeat my mistake
>unwantingly.  I have admitted to myself that I cannot control every aspect
>of my being.  There are times I know I shouldn't say something, but
>then say it anyway.  There are times I simply forget a lesson.
>I, in fact, am not my own master.
We don't start out perfect; we've got to strive to be something
better.  I know my shortcomings, and I know my strengths, and I live
my life according to the decisions I make, and I am content to abide
with the consequences of my decisions as easily as I'll accept the
praise for them.  There have been times in my life when I've made
mistakes, yes; I try to never make the same mistake twice.
>I need help.  Jesus promised me
>this help.  And I took him up on his offer.  I have willfully let
>Jesus be my master because Jesus knows what is better for me than
>I myself do.
I regard Christ as a myth.  I feel that there are far too many people
offering far too many interpretations of what he supposedly said and
did.  The only person who can really judge me is *me*.  I choose the
roads I travel, and I decide whether or not I want to reach the end of
any given road or turn back -- and as long as I don't *always* turn
back, there's no shame in it.  When I need help, I seek out my friends.
>>Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
>>getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
>>immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
>>a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
>>long hike, but it's well worth it!
>
>Then I guess ignorance is bliss for you.  Because Brian, you enjoy
>not having a clue about the Bible.
And you don't have a clue about what I'm saying, either.  Open your
eyes and SEE; open your ears and LISTEN.  I'm not just spouting off
empty words.  This is my LIFE, this is what gives me MEANING.
>>Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
>>with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
>>something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
>>Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
>>*reason* to, don't you?
>
>Can you witness motherly love with your senses?  How does caring and
>concern for you register with your senses?  If nothing registers
>to you other than what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch,
>then you better become a Vulcan and fast.  You better get rid
>of your emotions.
Huh?  You're going WAY off the track here.
I say my mother loves me.  How do I know, you ask?  I can point to
definite things she's done for me, and I can even just bring her to
you so you can ask her, face-to-face.
You say your deity loves you.  How do you know, I ask?  You can't even
convince me that it exists!
>My God says that you will not CEASE EXISTING.  You have
>life forever.  You can choose to either live it in hell in eternal
>torment where there is no communication whatsoever, or can choose to
>live it in paradise with God.  That is what my God says.  And that
>was the issue.  Your made-up theism is what it is--made up.  It's
>wishful thinking.
If any god dangles 'heaven' before me like a carrot, promising untold
pleasures to me if I'll only suspend my disbelief and ignore my
rationality for just this once, then I would choose 'hell'.  I can
*not* lie to myself to placate another being, no matter how powerful
it is.
Note also that there are several gods trying to lure me this way:
Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra...  Please give me a solid reason to
choose one of them over the others.
[ description of Kendigism deleted -- hee hee! ]
>Why would you want to live a good life?
>To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
>no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
>end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
>everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
>a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?
That paragraph demonstrates that you haven't listened to a single word
I've said.
Have you ever gone to an amusement park?  Why?  I mean, after a few
hours, it closes, and nothing's different except that you're a few
dollars lighter.  Going to the amusement park doesn't do you any good
at all.  Why do you do such a meaningless thing?
The answer is that you think it's fun.  You play the skee-ball over
and over because you'd like to get better at it, even though you're
not going to win anything better than a stuffed animal even if you
blow ten dollars on it.  You ride the roller coaster because it's an
thrilling experience, even though (because?) it scares the dickens out
of you.
In the same way, I think life is fun.  And I don't intend to leave the
amusement park of life until they close down for the night!  :-D
>>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>>which case it's not really all that important.
>
>Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.
So you (and your holy book) say.  By the same token, therefore, Santa
Claus delivers toys every xmas.  Don't you see?  I have NO REASON to
believe that what you say is true.  Please give me some reason that I
can't similarly apply to Santa Claus.
>>Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
>>who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
>>and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.
>
>Forget that I am a person.  Forget that I know how to type.  Forget
>that I know how to put a sentence together.  Forget that I know
>how to send e-mail.   Forget my existence.  Proove to me that I
>exist.  .
I can't do it, because your existence means nothing more to me than
just your communications over the net.  You have no more bearing on
nor importance in my life than that; remove it, and you will cease to
be significant to me.
Are you thereby inferring that your deity is nothing more than a
collection of verses in a book, and cannot be supported without
invoking them?
Or do you mean that the existence of your deity (and, in fact, any
other deity that can be written about) is as real as your own
existence?
Why do you believe what you believe?
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: hating the sin but not the sinner?
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Distribution: usa
Lines: 26
What are the consequences of the homophobic ranting of the
self-righteous?  Well, I just noted this on another group,
and thought I'd pass it along.  The context is talk.origins,
and a report of yet another "debate" that was nothing but an
attempt at mindless bullying and factless assertion by a
standard-issue Creationist.  The writer reflects that the
behavior reported reminds him of some Christian groups he has
known.  I believe that the writer is a (non-homosexual) Christian:
+	There is a very effective technique used to promote
+	unit cohesion among the Soldiers of the Lord.  It is
+	called "witnessing"...  I've seen this process used well
+	and poorly; the near devil worship I mention was a group
+	... that was using the witnessing to get people lathered
+	up to go kill homosexuals or at least terrorize them off
+	campus as it was clearly God's will that they do so.
I have deleted the specifics of the location, as I do not
believe it characteristic of the place (a state in which I
spent my formative first 10 years), though it *does* have,
unfortunately, a subpopulation that this remark fits to a tee.
--
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
- or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 21 Apr 93   God's Promise in 2 Chronicles 15:2
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 10
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
And he went out to meet Asa,
And said unto him,
Hear ye me, Asa,
And all Judah and Benjamin;
The LORD is with you, while ye be with him;
and if ye seek him, he will be found of you;
but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.
2 Chronicles 15:2
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Thief goes to Paradise; Kermit goes off tangent
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 65
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
Kermit Tensmeyer quoted from a few sources and then wrote something.
I will attempt to construct a facsimile of what was previously said, and
then address Kermit's offering.
John Redelfs originally wrote...
jr> I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on his
jr> death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
jr> requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
jr> commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
Tom Albrecht responded...
ta> So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.
John Redelfs wrote back that...
jr> Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.
jr> Refer to John 14:2.
I responded to John that...
rw>    I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.
rw>
rw>    Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved
rw> may enter paradise.
To which Kermit wrote...
kt> Incomplete reference:
kt>
kt> See also the discussion: Did Jesus go into Hell in the BibleStudy group
kt> for the arguments that Paradise and Hell(sheol) are places after death
kt> The discussion (no LDS were involved as far as I could see) argued using
kt> standard Christian argument from the Bible that pretty much support the
kt> LDS position.
kt>
kt>    Christ went to paridise after his death and burial.
kt>
kt>    He taught the prisoners and freed them from Darkness.
kt>
kt>    When he was resurrected, he had not yet ascended to his father.
kt>
kt> The arguement centered around what was or wasn't the proper biblical
kt> terms for those places.
I respond.
The question that was raised was not if Jesus went to infernal Paradise
before entering into heaven. No one has made a point for or against
that issue, nor have they compared the LDS position against orthodox
belief. The infernal paradise is held to be Abraham's bosom (Luke 16),
the place of the righteous dead in sheol (equivalent to hades).
The point that was raised by John was that someone could not repent
on their death bed. Tom Albrecht pointed to a Biblical example that was
contradictory to what John's position put forward. The thief on the
cross was promised by Christ to be with Him in Paradise, the abode of
the righteous dead. John's position possibly needs to be reworked.
Kermit needs to address the topic at hand.
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 29
In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
> association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.
Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,
then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and
make this to a show case. But when we are dealing with a fanatical
Revelation preacher that kills ultimately everyone, including the
innocent children, then it seems that we are dealing with Christians
and christians (note the spelling).
> Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a
> supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using
> the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.
And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order
word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting
their small children burn to ashes while they scream?
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 27
In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
> disinterested observers.
Well, looking at the videos it seems that this fire started in various
places at the same time, which would indicate that this was a planned
action. I'm sure FBI and BATF didn't *deliberately* start a possible
fire, having a sniper kill Korresh would have been a far easier
method. Looking at the careful operation, and use of tear gas
that as I know don't start fires, it is less likely that this
was the case.
Sorry, but my bets are on fanatical people keen to start
Armageddon -- theirs.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 24
In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
> disinterested observers.
There's another point to be made. Those who have been inside burning
houses know that if they want to stay alive, it's better to run out
from the building. We had one case where an FBI agent *had to
drag out a women* from the burning house, she run back in when
she saw the forces arriving. It is a good indication of the fanatical
mind that the followers had -- including having they children burned
instead of saving these innocent victims of the instance.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
> sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
> Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
> cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
> the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
> Jesus Christ as he claimed.
The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never
claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that
he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.
He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,
and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19
children died, and no God saved them.
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 18
In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(stephen) wrote:
> tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to
> keep things in perspective, KS.
>
> Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who
> are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
> Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
>
> I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.
Christians through ages have had to learn to be patient. I do think
it's time to face the reality. The events during the last 52 two
days showed what the world is really like.
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: O.T.O clarification
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 19
In article <79895@cup.portal.com>, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth
NagaSiva) wrote:
> They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
> sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
> of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
> was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it
> is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
> created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).
If anyone is interested in the history of AMORC, I do think Spencer
Lewis published books about the beginning and his mission. The
Alexandria bookstore (that's the name of the book store operated
by AMORC) should have a selection that should provide the interested
reader more insight).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD, PART-3
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; Electrical & Computer Engineering
Distribution: usa
Lines: 87
DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 3
D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an
Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor
VOL 1, No 11, Part 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
NINETEENTH LETTER
MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI
A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW, Part 3
(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 2)
THIRD SIGN:  The miracles of Muhammad (SAW)
are extremely varied.  Because his messengership is
universal, he has been distinguished by  miracles that
relate to almost all species of creation.
Just as the supreme aide of a renowned ruler, arriving
with many gifts in a city where various people live, will be
welcomed by a representative of each people who
acclaims him and bids him welcome in his own language
so, too, when the supreme messenger of the Monarch of
Pre- and  Post-Eternity  (Ezel and Ebed  Sultani) honored the
universe by coming as an envoy to the inhabitants of the
earth, and brought with him the light of truth and spiritual
gifts sent by the Creator of the universe and derived from
the realities of the whole universe, each species of
creation -from water, rocks, trees, animals and human
beings to the moon, sun and stars- welcomed him and
acclaimed his prophethood, each in its own language, and
each bearing one of his miracles.
Now it would require a voluminous work to mention all
his miracles.  As the punctilious scholars have written
many volumes concerning the proofs of His prophethood,
here we will briefly point out only the general category
into which fall fhe miracles that are definite and accepted
as accurate reports.
The evidences of the prophethood of Muhammad
(SAW) fall into two main categories:
The first is called irhasat and includes the paranormal
events that happened at the time of his birth, or before his
declaration of prophethood.
The second group pertains to all the remaining evidences
of the prophethood, and contains two subdivisions:
1) Those wonders that were manifested after
his departure from this world in order to confirm his
prophethood, and
2) Those that he exhibited during the era
of his prophethood.  The latter has also two parts:
2.1) The evidences of his prophethood that became manifest
in his own personality, his inner and outer being, his moral
conduct and perfection, and
2.2) The miracles that: related to substantial matters.
The last part again has two branches:
2.2.1) Those concerning the Qur'an and spirituality, and
2.2.2) Those relating to matter and creation.  This last
branch is again divided into two categories:
2.2.2.1) The first involves the paranormal happenings
that occured during his mission either to break the
stubbornness of the unbelievers, or to augment the
faith of the belivers.  This category has twenty different
sorts, such as the splitting of the moon, the flowing of
water from the fingers, the satisfying of large numbers with
a little food, and the speaking of trees, rocks and animals
Each of these sons has also many instances, and thus
has, in meaning, the strength of confirmation by
consensus.
2.2.2.2)  As for the second category, this
includes events lying in the future that occured as he had
predicted upon Allah (SWT)'s instructions.  Now starting
from the last category, we will summarize a list of them.(1)
(1) Unfonunately, I could not write as I had intended
without choice, I wrote as my head dictated, and I could
not completely conform to the order of this classification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
<1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com>
Lines: 41
In article <1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com>
xzz0280@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (R. J. Traff) writes:
>|> In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
>|> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>|> >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>|>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please
>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't believe most Christians believe they are *above* the Law.  However,
>we are not saved by adherence to the Law.  The Law exists to tell us what
>is sinful.  We all sin.
Hence we are "all" above the Law where "all" in this case refers to
Christians.
>Jews believe that their sins are atoned for with
>blood sacrifice of animals as described in the Old Testament.
When was the last time you heard about a Jewish animal sacrifice?
>Christians
>believe that their sins are atoned for by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.
The blood sacrifice of an innocent man?
>This does not make the Law 'irrelevant'.
Then why don't Christians follow it, why don't they even follow their
own Ten Commandments?
>Breaking the Law *is* sinful,
>and we are to avoid sinful ways, but sinning, by itself, does not jeopardize
>salvation.
So, in short; Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in Hell?
>Note that I'm not a theologian.  But this is the gist of several
>sermons I've heard lately and some Bible studies I've been through.
Did you ever wonder if someone, perhaps a great deceiver, was pulling
your leg?
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: facman
kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
>I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
>which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
>secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
>with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
>the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
>worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
>rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
>related to the Mithras cult?
>
>I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
>The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
>take place are largely based on historical accounts.
There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
_Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think
6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
was being a little eclectic.
>I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
>cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
>Mediterranean cultures.
Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.
--
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Davidians and compassion
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 26
So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
on their house, killing most of the people inside.
I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
they were doing, and it's their own actions.
What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
conditions.
If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think
the actions today would produce a good picture of your
religion?
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Cookamunga Tourist Bureau
Lines: 25
In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>
> It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to
> everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but
> not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just
> Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would
> hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel
> any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his
> disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything,
> I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and
> so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even
> before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love
> for us.
Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the
children who died today at the Davidian complex.
Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering
organized religion.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism
Reply-To: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Organization: Never Had It, Never Will
Lines: 8
Sunlight shining off of the ocean.
--
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: To Rob Lanphier
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 82
Dear Rob,
>When I read Brian K.'s postings, I find someone who is honestly seeking
>the truth.  When I read your response here, I see condescension.  When you
>reply to a post, reply to the post you quote.  This statement undermines
>any good points you might have had (it was enough to make me stop reading).
Sometimes I do come across condesending, and I am sorry I come across that
way at times.  Thank you for the reproach, I really do appreciate it.  I'll
try to get better.
Rob, at the same time, I have also learned that some people respond to the gentle
approach while others respond only at a harsh rebuke.  Brian K., so far,
only responds to the latter.  And I am glad he responds at all.   In both
cases of approach,  my intention is to be loving.  I am making no excuse
for myself if I am coming across condesending.  I apologize for that.
Rob, sometimes Brian K. comes across as honest. I know this.  But Brian K.
vasillates back and forth.  One post looks honest; the next is
an excuse.  Now he wants me to explain the universe in 50 words or less.
I think Brian Kendig is really trying but he is too comfortable with
his set of excuses.
I just want Brian K. to be honest with himself.  If he really wants
to know, he will ask questions and stop asserting irrelevant excuses
which have nothing to do with my God.   I wish Brian would read the
Bible for himself and come to his own decisions without being
sidetracked with the temptation to mock God.
From my perspective Rob, when I look at Brian Kendig, I see a man
standing out in the middle of a highway.  Off into the distance I
see a Mack truck heading right for him, but Brian K. is faced away
from the oncoming truck.  He doesn't see it.   Here's is how I see
the dialog:
Me:  "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over."
BK:  "There is no truck."
Me:  "Turn around at look."
BK:  "No."
Me:  "Look!  You will be healthier if you do take a look at
the oncoming truck."
BK:  "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."
Me:  "Turn around or you will run over."
BK:  "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."
Me:  "You blind fool!  Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing
to lose if you look.  But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."
I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.
BK:  "It is my life to lose.  I rather not look.
Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."
And by the way, I really have an open mind."
So is my motivation to belittle Brian, or to love Brian the best I know how?
I do not wish to single Brian Kendig out.  Because millions if not
billions of people fall into the same category.  Perhaps all people
fall have fallen into this category at one time in their lives.  I have.
I can now see the truck behind Brian.
My hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the
truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance.
Thank you again Rob for your reproach.  I really do appreciate it.  (My
wife tells me the same thing at times.)   :-)   I will try to do better.
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ.
Lines: 69
Jim Burhill writes:
>Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
>events surrounding Jesus' life?
>No.  There are two problems here:
Brian Kendig writes:
>(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
>long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could
Do you question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?   Their documents
have decayed to dust too.  Brian, why another excuse?
>(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago,
>that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God
>might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice
>guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world
>today.
Peter wrote a bit of the Bible.  What Peter says about God is what
the Bible says.
Consider the Bible a court recording.  Over the period of thousands of
years, various people come up and testify of their experience with the
living God.  Up comes Abraham the wealthy rancher.  Up comes Moses,
once the high official of Egypt.  Up comes Elijah, a priest.  Up comes
David, a mere shepherd who became King.  Up comes the pagan King
Nebuchanezzar.  Up comes the pagan King of Persia, Cyrus.  Up comes
Nehemiah, cupbearer to the King of Persia.  Then Matthew, an IRS agent
takes the stand.  Up comes Luke, an M.D.  Then Paul a Jew who use
to kill Christians for fun.  Up comes John, a 17 year old boy.  Up
comes Peter, a fishermen.  Up comes James, the brother of Jesus himself.
Up comes hundreds of others.  You hear testimony from fishermen, IRS
agents, priests, Kings.  The court hearing lasts thousands of years
with people coming up and testifying about the God who calls himself
"I am."
While you are listening to all this stuff, you realize that
King David could have never known John, Solomon could have never known
Matthew, Nehemiah could have never known Peter.  You realize that all these
people are independent witnesses, and so, you rule out collaboration.  Yet
all of the witnesses tell of the same God.   Each testifier tells
of his own experiences with the living God.  Each experience is
different, but each experience has enough cross-over to unmistakenly
reveal that each one of these people is talking about the very same God.
What Daniel did not know about God, the 3rd Highest Official of
Babylon, God revealed to John 600 years later--but with a different
perspective.  No two testimonies are identical.  Each testimony
dares to venture off what is already known.  Yet each witness's
testimony, even though different from those prior, consistently
describes harmoniously fitting facets of the character of the same God.
Now.  As we stare gazing at the computer, you got this seeming fanatic
on the other end of the net, saying, I know this God  "I am".  He has
revealed himself to me too.  He also calls himself Jesus (John 8:58).
Please believe me.  I am telling the truth.  It is wonderful to know him.
Are you going to just pass off all this testimony as fictiousness?
Are you going to call three thousand years worth of testimony from
shepherds to IRS agents to royal officials to kings to computer
programmers, fiction?  With a scoff of your keyboard, with near
complete ignorance of the testimonies, are you going to say that
that is all complete hooey?   Would that not be the most audacious
display of arrogance?  Do you actually think you know better than
King Solomon, King David, or even Abraham Lincolnr?
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 26
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
In article <1qmhp7$33t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes...
>
>In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:
>
>>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>><
>><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a
>><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge
>><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on
>><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
>><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
>><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
>>
>>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.
>
>Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer
>to John 14:2.
I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.
Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved
may enter paradise.
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Organization: City University of New York
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:    re: ABORTION and private health insurance
Lines: 22
>In <1qid8s$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
writes:
>I recently have become aware that my health insurance includes
>coverage for abortion.  I strongly oppose abortion for reasons of
>conscience.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may
>be being used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is
>murder.  I would like to request that I be exempted from abortion
>coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.
I share Dennis's outrage over a similar manner.  I have recently become aware
that my health insurance includes coverage for illness and injuries
suffered by Christians.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums
may be used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is divine
punishment for their sinful conduct.  In addition these folks are able to
avail themselves of such alternative therapies as Lourdes, Fatima,
Morris Cerullo, Benny Hinn, etc.  In any case as "Jesus Saves' I feel
that there is no reason for them to be covering their bets at my
expense.  I would like to request that I be exempted from Christian
coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.
Jack Carroll
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Is it good that Jesus died?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Lines: 114
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>
>>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>>before, and they just don't convince me.
>
>Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It
>isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
>a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your
>question.
John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
produces much grain.
"He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
this world will keep it for eternal life.
"If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."
Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?
If we were created by a deity, why would that deity not wish us to
enjoy what he has given us?
Why would I want to live forever?  The challenge in my life is that I
will die, and that I must give my life the meaning I wish it to have
before that happens.  My time is here and will someday pass; I will be
content to live on in the memories of my friends, and once they too
are dead, then I will no longer have any reason to exist.
In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and
fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.
If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants
my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
does, then they will be very strong and true.
>Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
>why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
>his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
>we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
>that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
>from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
>Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
>and my faith would be vanity.
Jesus wasn't the only one who rose from the dead -- I think it was
Osiris who did the same, as well as a few characters from Greek or
Norse legend, if memory serves.
But still: WHY would I want to rise from the dead?  Why do *you* want to?
>Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus
>says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The
>world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation
>of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
>need a Saviour.
If your god wants to win my devotion, then it knows what it can do --
provide some way for me to believe without having to resort to blind
faith that could be applied equally well to any religion.
>And why can't you, Brian K., accept this?  How can you?  "The
>world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
>him."  (John 14:17).
That's precisely it.  I neither see nor know Zeus either, nor Odin.
Shall I offer them the same devotion I offer Jesus?
>The animosity and the lack of knowledge
>that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
>very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.
You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never
demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of
common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.
But even more than that, even when Christians *do* try to explain the
verses in their own words, they do so from a Christian point of view,
which is that every human being would want to be a Christian if only
he or she understood the Christian message properly, and then all
strife and suffering on the earth would end.  Here's the problem with
that: substitute "Moslem" or "Buddhist" or "Satanist" instead of
"Christian", and it means the same thing.
Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book.  But if
you want to make me believe that it has any bearing on the REAL WORLD,
you've got some convincing to do.
>I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
>knowledge. I am not perfect either.  But regardless of that, I thank
>God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
>bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
>Person who created me and who loves me.
And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to
yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.
--
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Language and agreement
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program
Lines: 59
I responded to Jim's other articles today, but I see that I neglected
to respond to this one.  I wouldn't want him to think me a hypocrite
for not responding to *every* stupid article on t.r.m.
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>From my handy dictionary:
[dictionary definitions of "not" "disagree" and "agree" deleted]
>Please operationally differentiate between "not disagree" and "agree".
Oh, but I'm weary of trying to wade through Jim's repertoire of
red herrings and smoke screens.
Let's see what we get when we run all four articles posted by Jim today
through the 'discord' filter (a Markov chain program that Steve Lamont
was kind enough to send me):
Taking action? A white geese be held
as an accomplice to be held as
a decision upon the door
A black and white goose waddles past
the eyes of the door.
Hits it with the confidence interval for
that individual is held responsible
for that, that individual
may be held as a
getaway car may be held
as an uncountably large number
of the driver of something
and agree.
A black goose
waddles past the person imprisoned?
White goose waddles past the
confidence interval for the population
of geese be axed,
fine.
And white goose
waddles past the door.
Does running Jim's articles through 'discord' make them more
coherent?  Less coherent?
Or has 'discord' turned Jim's articles into an angst-ridden poem
about making choices in a world filled with uncertainty, yet being
held responsible for the choices we make?  Do the geese symbolize
an inner frustration with ambiguity, a desire that everything be
black and white, with no shades of gray?  Does the "getaway car"
tell us that to try to renounce the existential nature of our
being is not to "get away" from responsibility for our actions,
but rather to take the role of the passive accomplice, the
"driver" of the getaway car, as it were?  Does the juxtaposition
of man and machine, car and driver, reveal a subtext: an internal
conflict between determinism and moral responsibility?
Or am I reading too much into a collaboration between Jim and
a random number generator?
dj
From: dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu (Jemaleddin Cole)
Subject: Re: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.
Nntp-Posting-Host: camelot.bradley.edu
Organization: The Society for the Preservation of Cruelty to Homophobes.
Lines: 37
In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:
>I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
>from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
>The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought
>that Catholics behaved better than this.
>                                   Please do not stoop to the
>level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
>that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
>insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.
(Pleading mode on)
Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop
making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't
believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I
don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!
If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling
out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you
compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern
Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!
Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the
same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!
(Pleading mode off.)
God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
--
"Fbzr enval jvagre Fhaqnlf jura gurer'f n yvggyr oberqbz, lbh fubhyq
nyjnlf pneel n tha.  Abg gb fubbg lbhefrys, ohg gb xabj rknpgyl gung lbh'er
nyjnlf znxvat n pubvpr."
--Yvan Jregzhyyre
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jemaleddin Sasha David Cole IV - Chief of Knobbery Research
dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 28
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
Gordon Banks quoted and added...
gb> In article <C50M5p.Eoz@acsu.buffalo.edu>
gb> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
gb>
gb> >
gb> >  Christians have professed for more than 1660 years the Nicene
gb> >Creed, a statement of beliefs drawn from the truths of Scripture
gb> >that was officially accepted by a council of church bishops
gb> >and leaders at Nicea in 325 A.D. Christians still recite
gb> >this creed regularly in public worship.
gb> >
gb>
gb> So prior to 325 AD there were no Christians?  Or all of them really
gb> believed the Nicean creed even before it was formulated?  Do you
gb> really believe such an absurdity?  I'm afraid you do.
No.
I really don't. Honest.
The Nicene Creed, as I mentioned above, is a brief statement of
beliefs that are derived from Scripture. That this certain list
did not exist earlier does not indicate that the beliefs summarized
in in did not exist before the formula was derived.
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: jeffj@yang.earlham.edu (ChaOs)
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)
Organization: Honest Bob's Used Toaster Emporium
Lines: 196
In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.
First off, let me congratulate you for not posting a flame about "You sick
perverts, you are immoral, you are all going to hell.", which seems to be the
usual "religious" post found on the alt.sex.* hierarchy.  Hopefully, you won't
get flamed, either.
You will, however, be argued with.  I personally think that your project is
built on unsteady ground.
First, I do not believe that there is any way to find an "objective morality".
Morality and value are inherently subjective - they represent the beliefs of a
person or a group of people.  They can be widely held, perhaps even
overwhelmingly held, but they are never and _can_ never be objective.
> Assumptions:
>
> (1) A Christian bedrock assumption that all that is True, comes
> Truly from God.
>
> (2) Regarding alt.sex.stories.  While perhaps even from an
> objective standpoint, the majority of its material is indeed
> repugnant (you come to this conclusion quite quickly when you
> start thinking about analyzing its material like this), some of
> it reflects some fairly profound needs in people as well as some
> truths -- and deserve to be pointed out.
Second, I do not accept the assumptions that you make here.  If, as you say,
you are trying to be objective, then why accept a morality to begin with by
using the Christian Bible?  You're defeating your own purpose by doing so.
> In the long run, the advantage of making such a literary/moral
> analysis is that it will save band-width between Christians and
> non mutually flaming each other about the moral acceptability of
> the stuff on these (pornographic) groups.
Third, call me a pessimist, but you won't stop the flamage.  There will always
be people who pop upin alt.sex.* to tell us how sick and twisted and evil we
all are.  Just out of curiosity, do alt.sex readers show up unprovoked in the
religion groups to tell you all that you are narrow-minded, censoring,
overbearing totalitarianists?
> Basically, there should not be a dissonance between a "Christian"
> morality and a "non-Christian" one.  Either there is value in a
> particular work, or there is not whether one is a Christian or
> not.
Hm.  Let me provide an example.  Four people get together over dinner, to
discuss morality: you, me, a rather conservative Moslem, and a sociopath.  I
start off by saying that I think it's immoral to force people to have sex with
you.  You agree, but also say that it is immoral to have sex with someone of
your own gender.  (Just a note: I really don't know your views on
homosexuality, I am just using this as a common view of morality for the
purposes of this example.)  The Moslem says that it is immoral for women to
have their faces uncovered.
The sociopath, who has become bored, kills all three of us and eats us, but
feels no guilt because he has done nothing wrong morally in his own mind.
> In support for the first assumption:
>
> The Christian scriptures say this:
(Evidence deleted)
I'm not going to accept your evidence for this.  You ask us to accept "The Word
of God" that everything good comes from God.  This is only a valid argument for
a person who shares your beliefs.
Still, I must say that cataloging the major themes and motifs in erotica could
be interesting for other reasons than yours, so good luck with this next part.
>
>              **************************************
>
> NOW THEN what are some of the major themes/motifs in the
> pornographic literature on places like alt.sex.stories?  These
> are some that I've been able to identify.  Please add/comment on
> them.
>
>
> Motif #1 -- THE MALE-CINDERELLA.
>
> In so many of the stories there is expressed a feeling of
> alienation and worthlessness on the part of the writer or
> otherwise protagonist of the story with regard to the object (the
> other person) of his/her desire. Often a story involves a
> protagonist who (on the surface) is quite average (but underneath
> usually has an enormous dick), who desires to in some way to gain
> access (in a definitely sexual way) to the other person who
> he/she confesses is far more desireable than he/she is and who
> indeed seems "to walk between the rain-drops."
Hmmm...do I detect just a wee bit of condescence here?
>
> Motif #2 -- A CELEBRATION OF (INDEED PREOCCUPATION WITH) BEAUTY.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not very objective.
> The vast majority of pornographic literature deals with beauty,
> be it innocence (somehow about to be lost), grace, or simply
> physical beauty.  And generally, most people Christian or non
> will say that beauty is good.
One could construe this to mean that beautiful people are better, or "more
good" than non-beautiful people.  I would hope that people relize that this is
not necessarily true.
>
> Motif #3 -- ONE'S DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION.
^^^^
Might I suggest the word "penis"? It seems more in line with the tone of
your post.
>      Blessed are those who are well-hung, for they shall get
>      laid. -- from what would thus be a revised Matthew 5 :-).
>
Bravo!  I respect you and your sense of humor, sir.
>
> Motif #4 -- SEX AS AN EXPRESSION OF SINCERE GIVING.
>
> There is, often enough, a clear desire on the part of the
> protagonist, to give (definitely sexual) pleasure to the object
> (person) of his/her desires.
Yes, and this theme is usually what the better stories are about.  However,
they are not always selfish - I could point to examples in the work of Elf
Sternberg, for example.
>
> Motif #5 -- ALT.SEX.STORIES DESCRIBES A SEX WHICH IS COMPLETELY
> REMOVED FROM THE REALM OF "TRANSMITTING LIFE"
>
> So removed is sex from its procreative dimension on
> alt.sex.stories, that one begins to wonder why sex even involves
> ejaculation, as in the context described in pornography it serves
> then no real purpose.
It serves the same purpose as it does in pornographic movies: it affirms the
virility of the male involved, as well as assuring the reader that he (the
character) has orgasmed.
> The Whole Picture [TM] is probably very well described by the
> Catholic teaching on this: Of the husband and wife, in an act of
> total mutual self-giving in the sexual union, cooperating with
> God in opening themselves up for the transmission of new life
> (cf. Humane Vitae).
Your Whole Picture [TM] unfortunately only applies to people who accept your
church.
In addition, if sex is for procreation, then
1)	Why did God make it pleasurable, so that people would want to do it,
rather than building it in as instinct?
2)	Why did God make it fallible?  Not every sexual encounter results in
pregnancy, even among Catholics.  Does this mean that they have sinned?
> In any case alt.sex.stories and the Catholic teaching will
> probably not see eye to eye on this for a long time.
Granted.
>
> Motif #6 -- SEX USED AS AN INSTRUMENT VIOLENCE, POWER AND
> HUMILIATION.
>
> Why pornography seems to tend in that direction, I really do not
> know.  Probably volumes could be written on the relationships
> between sex and power/humiliation.  But this probably gives good
> reason why traditionally Judeo-Christianity has been so negative
> with regard to sexuality -- it seems to tend to a great moral
> morass.
Pornography would not tend in those directions if there were not a demand for
it.  Many people have violent fantasies that they would never act out in real
life, but will think about and read about and mull over.
Later,
Jeff
--
JeffJ@yang.earlham.edu - Official generic .sig.  Under 4 lines, under 80
columns, no Amiga checks, no witty quotes, no maps of Australia, no asterisks,
no ASCII art, no disclaimers or anti-flame requests, and one spelling errer.
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Lines: 29
In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> These laws written for the Israelites...
>> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We
>> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation
>> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.
>
>Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
Which Jews KS?
(ex. as a people, as a language, religiously, politically, or...)
Do you mean those Jews who are God's chosen?
{And Malcolm, please, if you will, set your word wrap at 75 or less
to avoid clutter?}
|
-- J --
|
| stephen
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 29
In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> > expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> > direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
|> > God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> > age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> > for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> > alike.
|>
|> Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
|>
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
A lot of people won't agree with me.  That's their right and I respect that.
However, to the point, Jews are also covered by the saving grace of Jesus
Christ.  There are Jews who have become Christians.
This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so
much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider
them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Silence is concurance
Nntp-Posting-Host: mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Lines: 76
In article <9157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
}Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out
Hate to shatter your self image of perfection that  you appear to hold, but
your language is wrong: Jim and me.
}I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
}Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
}understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
}have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
}out of context.
Of course not - just the ones you disagree with.  Q.E.D.
}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}
}Jim replied by saying
}>Did I either ask or assert that?
}
}But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject
So?  As of then, and pointing out a specific instance.  Wrongo again.
}>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
}>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
}>may be held responsible for that action?
}
}Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
}context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
}t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.
So?  Check the newsgroups?
}Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
}didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
}out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
}question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.
Telepathy again?  You claim to know what I "want".
}But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next
}gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
}concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
}the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.
No.  YOu asked specifically what was wrong with yours.
}Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help
Maybe to the ignorant.  I accept your classification.
}More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
}number of my articles?
Do you know what "uncountably large" means?  It does not appear so.
}Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
}but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
}Well, I can't see where he is going with this.
I am not suprised.
}But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80
That does not appear to be the case.  The appearance of your "Argument"
is more like that Captain Kirk would have gotten from Mr. Spock - written
by a stagehand at Paramount.
}Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
}through your induction engine and see what pops out.
Of course.  You appear arrogant.  So?  I already had figured that out.
From: elw@mayo.edu
Subject: Re: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed
Reply-To: elw@jaguar.sky2
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Lines: 11
The Nicene Creed
WE BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.  He suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptur
es, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.  And he shall come again with glory to judge  both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.  And we believe in one holy and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 121
NNTP-Posting-Host: saltillo.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: Spit out the lukewarm!
-*----
In article <C5Jzz7.9G7@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
> Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
> they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a
> law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful
> to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
> personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions. ...
The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are
so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.  Michael
Siemon acknowledges this every time he writes that the resolution
of an argument over them turns on secular and cultural
assumptions that are independent of these rules.
> ... The Great  Commandment is, more than anything else, a call
> to act *as if you were God and accepting ultimate responsibility*
> in your every action. ...
The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed,
in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if
he has "ultimate responsibility." Indeed, many traditions present
an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret
loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and
relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely
because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate
responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding
goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean.
> ... "Conservatives" may twist this "act as if you were God" to
> mean "lay down rules for other people and be as nasty to them
> as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."  They are so
> insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
> lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such
> idiocy IS how God acts. ...
And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.
Michael cannot refer to "base" claims or base commandments to
show that such readings are "twisted," because this divergence in
understanding occurs even in trying to interpret the "base"
claims and commandments.  In addressing conservative Christians,
Michael will necessarily draw upon secular and cultural notions
that these conservative Christians will reject.
> But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
> society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It
> may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
> -- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.
But these base commandments are too vague to serve as  "a
principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems." The meaning of
these base commandments for any believer derives from the secular
and cultural notions that the believer brings to them, from how
the believer mixes their demands with straightforward readings of
other Biblical passages, from a particular sectarian tradition,
or from some combination of these things.  These commandments
lack sufficient substance in themself to serve as a basis for
criticizing ethical systems.  What meaning they have comes from
the ethical system the believer brings to these commandments.
> And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
> *different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result,
> it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
> (or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
> It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very
> little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
> the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
> them with almost no support ... The one, single, thing in the gospels
> which Jesus specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love
> one another."
Jesus explicitly states that this summarizes Jewish law, which
would seem to bring in all of it if we properly understand what
it means to love God and love our neighbors.  There are *many*
parables and teachings the gospels attribute to Jesus that are
straightforwardly read as ethical commandments.  The Pauline
epistles are similarly full.  If it is not clear that these all
come together in a sensible understanding of ethical behavior,
the problem is *not* a lack of raw material.
-*----
> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.
No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel
seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
gospel.
> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me
> tell you something about Christianity? ...
In a sense, the wide variety of interpretations does tell us
something about Christianity.  It tells us that the New Testament
authors left a sufficiently vague hodge-podge that it can serve
as the source text for many, vastly different beliefs about the
nature of the Christian god and about what men should and
shouldn't do.
The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per
se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and
gays.  *Every* Christian principle he turns to this cause is
effective only through the extra-Christian principles through
which Michael interprets his religion, and the homophobes apply
the *same* Christian principles, with equal justification, to
their cause.  In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that
make Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
Christian interpretation.
Michael paints a picture of "standard American atheism" as the
rejection of the evil in many conservative Christian
interpretations of the Bible.  But I think it is even more
damaging to Christianity to note that the New Testament presents
such a vague hodge-podge of notions about the nature of God and
the nature of the good (except, of course, when it is ordered by
an interpretation that relies on extraneous principles).  Here, I
think we should apply a Christian parable, where a cold drink can
have its value and a hot drink can have its value, but the
lukewarm we should spit out.
Russell
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword
Organization: sdf public access Unix, Dallas TX 214/436-3281
Lines: 39
In article <19APR199310484591@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>Now that chemical-warfare and the use of juggernauts have been
>used against innocents -- so likewise are those involved subject
>to their own judgments. The same goes for those who lead others
>into captivity -- whether behind strands of barbed-wire, or webs
>of deceit.
>
Yeah. Innocents. People who hoard $250K worth of high-caliber automatic weapons
and kill law-enforcement agents really fit the bill here. The only innocents
were the 20+ children who were prevented from leaving a burning building by
their self-appointed messiah-following parents. A burning STARTED by the
Davidians.
>Such is the patience and faith of the saints.
>
>So let them continue -- for the one-who-rewards them according
>to what their works shall be -- comes quickly.
>
>The evidence continues to mount, which all seems to follow
>step-by-step quite logically to me.
>
>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   | stephen
>
Is this subject line a veiled threat against U.S. Government agents or possibly
Executive office leadership (i.e. Clinton)? I've considered you a bit of a loon,
before, Stephen, I guess this pretty much confirms it.
Nice religion you have there.  The only ones who should be killed are those who
don't agree with us. Sheesh.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 37
Jim Brown wrote :
[ deleted ]
>I feel that those who use the KJV as a basis for arguing Biblical
>contradictions are either being intellectually dishonest (purposefully
>wanting to show the Bible in the worst light possible), or they are
>being mentally lazy and are taking the easy way out.  Either way, they
>leave the theist the option of countering with, "Well, that's just the
>KJV, that's not what my XXX version says."
[ deleted ]
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.  The KJV is preferred by the majority
of fundamentalists (at least here).  The second part of your argument fails
as well, since that statement can be used against any version (not just the
KJV).
[ deleted ]
>I've based my argument on one of the best modern translations
>available which is based on the work of the leading Biblical scholars."
[ deleted ]
I would not find this statement to be very useful since it is an appeal
to authority and the opposition will just claim that their authorities are
"better".  A second tact that local creationists have used is to reply "but
those scholars are atheists and cannot be believed" (they will also use this
phrase to describe any theologians that they don't agree with).
[ deleted ]
>>>/GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth
>>>/cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
[ deleted ]
The verse being discussed clearly claims that sympathetic magic works (i.e.
placing stripped sticks in the cattle breeding grounds causes stripped and
spotted calves to be born) and should be attacked on that basis (no biologist
has ever observed this claimed correlation).
From: porta@wam.umd.edu (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7
Nntp-Posting-Host: rac3.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 23
In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com>
>>
>>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?
>
>Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
>Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
>
>If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
>do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
>reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
>on the Endangered Species List.
>
>
How about Cockroaches?
--
***************************** porta@wam.umd.edu ****************************
What for you say you monkey when you have little fluffy tail
like rabbit, rabbit!
Tazmanian Devil
From: rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Rob Napier)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 21
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: csugrad.cs.vt.edu
In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>
>
>"To all whom it may concern -
>
[constitution sacrificed to the bandwidth gods]
im glad i finally have heard exactly what the OTO is all about.  i finally
know that i can stop looking, content i the knowlege that im not interested.
it's tough enough listening to all the religions who refer to themselves as
"the One Truth".  How can i possibly accept it from a magical order?  "We have
all the Answers and will give them to those who join us (and pay dues)?"
Scary.  Besides, answers are easy.  Questions!  now that's another story...
rintaw
--
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rob Napier - Virginia Tech | There is no gravity, the earth sucks.          |
| rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  | All in all I'm just another Schitz In The Hall |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Subject: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 12
Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?
Just curious,
--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Lines: 38
Organization: University of Massachusetts Lowell
In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>
> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
> Koresh was a nut, okay?
Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
> I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
> the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
> be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.
Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
knocked over a lantern.
> The evil was inside the compound.
Evidence please?
> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.
I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ
translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The
reason why they were stockpiling weapons is because they were afraid the
government would try something.  Their fears were obviously well founded.
--Ray Cote
There's no government like no government.
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Lines: 14
Organization: University of Massachusetts Lowell
In article <1r1u5t$595@lm1.oryx.com>, xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
> : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
> : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the
> : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
> : the rest the hard way.
> :
>
> Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.
I suppose these illegal guns have been found? I suppose he was going to kill a
bunch of people with them?
--Ray Cote
There's no government like no government.
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Subject: Re: [lds] Gordon's Objections
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science
Lines: 38
In article <C5rp8K.Kw2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>Gordon Banks quoted and added...
>
>gb> In article <C53L1s.D61@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>gb>  psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>gb>
>gb> >The Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. That Jesus is God
>gb> >the Father's first born spirit child. That Jesus was begotten on earth
>gb> >through natural means, not by the Holy Ghost. That He sweat His blood
>gb> >for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane. That His blood cannot
>gb> >cleanse from all sin. That He is now among many millions of other
>gb> >gods. That Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim (in the OT
>gb> >Jehovah and Elohim are the same). That He needed to be saved.
>gb>
It is true that Mormons believe that all spirits (including Jesus,
Lucifer, Robert Weiss) are in the same family.  It does not mean
that Jesus was created, but rather that Lucifer and Robert Weiss
were not.  I agree that this is a "heresy".  So what?
The sweating of blood in Gethsemene is
not a basic Mormon doctrine.  Jesus did not perform the atonement
in Getheseme alone, as some anti-Mormons are trying to teach.
As far as the "unpardonable sin" whatever that is, it is Biblical,
and not specifically Mormon.  It is also called the sin against
the Holy Ghost.  Most Bible scholars (other than conservative
ones) do not believe Jehovah and Elohim were always the same.
I'm sure you've heard of the J and the E texts?  I don't
know what you mean by "That He needed to be saved".  Jesus?
Jehovah?  Elohim?  In Mormon doctrine, Jesus was sinless,
and thus did not "need to be saved".
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 9
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>           David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.
Sort of a "Mrs. O'Leary's" tank theory? Moooo.
---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 70
In article <1r0hicINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
|> and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
|> : These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> : expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> : direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> : is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> : Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
|> : God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> : age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> : repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> : for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> : alike.
|>
|> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
|> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10).  In addition, he alludes to it in several
|> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47).  And, just in case it isn't
|> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
|> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
|>
|> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
|> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until
|> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
|> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
|> accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
|> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
|> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
|> great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your
|> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
|> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
|> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
|>
|> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
|> doesn't apply to them.  I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
|> much ;).
|>
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu
I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for
the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
obsolete by Jesus.
If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.  If you'll notice, He
also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived
interpretations.  They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their
heads but not their hearts.  That is why He points out that our righteousness
must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom
of Heaven.  People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their
way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the
letter of the Law but never really believed in it.
I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?
Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.
Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is their
choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Lines: 20
cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
>Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
>commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
>suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.
In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.
Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility
for those deaths lies with Koresh.
P.
--
moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 32
In article <sandvik-200493235610@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
|> (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
|> > sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
|> > Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
|> > cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
|> > the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|> > Jesus Christ as he claimed.
|>
|> The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never
|> claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that
|> he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.
|>
|> He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,
|> and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19
|> children died, and no God saved them.
|>
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee  :)
From: b.liddicott@ic.ac.uk
Subject: Re: He has risen!
Organization: Imperial College Parapsychology Group
Lines: 8
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Just to remark that I have heard that David Koresh has risen from
the dead.  I dont know if it is true or not, but this is what I have
been told.  What do you guys think?
Ben L.
From: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
Organization: Science Applications Int'l, Corp. - Computer systems operation
Lines: 20
caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:
>There evidently was a feast of bread and wine associated with Mithras.  I
>have often wondered if Yeshua intentionally introduced this ritual to
>expand the appeal of his religion, or if it was appropriated by later
>worshipers.
>
You could argue that if you wanted, but I think a more reasonable
argument would point out the fact that the remembrance feast was
very similar to the Pesach (Passover) meal during Seder, a very
Jewish ritual.
The fact that there appears to be an abuse in the early Church of
people eating too much (a very real concern with some Passover meals)
and not treating the meal with respect, shows the simplifying of the
ritual to just bread and wine to be a way of dealing with the
inherent problems of people's human nature, and trying to keep the
essentials of the remembrance aspects.
David (whitten@fwva.saic.com) US:(619)535-7764 [I don't speak as a company rep.]
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: By the sword...
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Deuteronmy 20:13
And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword
Joshua 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 10:32
And the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the
second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 14
John Berryhill, Ph.D. writes
>I don't know who's next, but I hope it's people who pick their noses
>while driving.
umm, please don't lump us all together. It's those blatant,
fundamentalist pickers that give the rest of us a bad name. Some of
us try very hard to be discreet and stay alert.
--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Subject: Re: Religion and history; The real discuss
Organization: N.I.C.E.
Lines: 38
Reply-To: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.82
Matthew Huntbach writes:
sm[?]>a real Christian unless you're born again is a very fundamental biblical
sm[?]>conversion and regeneration are 'probably' part of some small USA-based cult
>the "born-again" tag often use it to mean very specifically
>having undergone some sort of ecstatic experience (which can in
>fact be very easily manufactured with a little psychological manipulation),
>and are often insultingly dismissive of those whose
>Christianity is a little more intellectual, is not the result
Some of these "cults", which seems like a rather dismissive term
to me, are pretty big here in the USA.  Most of them
are quite respectable & neiborly & do not resemble Branch Davidians
in the least; confusing them is a mistake.  What about "live &
let live", folks?  I'm sure we can uncover a few extremist loonies
who are Catholic -- the anti-abortion movement in the USA seems to have a
few hard cases in it, for example.
>I've often heard such people use the line "Catholics aren't
>real Christians". Indeed, anyone sending "missionaries" to
>Ireland must certainly be taking this line, for otherwise why
>would they not be content for Christianity to be maintained in
>Ireland in its traditional Catholic form?
I have to agree Matthew with this; I have certainly encountered a lot
of anti-Catholic-religion propaganda & emotion (& some bigotry) from
members of certain religious groups here.  They also practice their
missionary work with zeal among Catholics in the United States, but to
someone who is or was raised Catholic such rhetoric is pretty
off-putting.  It may work better in an environment where there's a lot
of popular anti-clericalism.
Follow-ups set elsewhere, this no longer seems very relevant to Celtic issues
to me.
--
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: What we learned from the Waco wackos
Keywords: prophet profit
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 32
There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:
3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a
lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:
5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And
most of 'em are better shots than you are.
In short:
- P.T. Barnum was right
and
- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.
************************************************************
*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
************************************************************
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
Nntp-Posting-Host: c.ch.apollo.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 26
In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>>
>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
>
>> Koresh was a nut, okay?
>
>Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.
None of which excuses the gross incompetence and disregard for the
safety of the children displayed by the feds.   As someone else
pointed out, if it had been Chelsea Clinton in there you would
probably have seen more restraint.
---peter
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 13
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) says:
>Well, it depends how you look at it. If you are interested I might
>find out what the latest status is in this legal battle.
>Kent
>
Please do! And if you don't want to post it here, email to me
:-) I don't know how this discussion is appreciated here. I hate
'invading' newsgroups with themes of limited interest :-)
Tony
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 38
In article <1r1et6INNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
:
: pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
:
:::Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly
:::before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the
:::lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")
:
::This from a guy who preached love, deference of power to God and
::renunciation of worldly life in exchange for a life of the spirit? If
::Jesus did in fact command his disciples to arm themselves, I would
::take that as yet another reason to reject Christian doctrine, for
::whatever it's worth.
Like most religions, the doctrine has good and bad in it.  I would
certainly reject the current implementations of the doctrine.
:
:No.  The above is a classic example of taking a scripture out of context.
:It's taken from Luke 22:36.  But note vs 37; "For I tell you that this
:which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, 'and he will be reckoned
:with lawless ones'...".  He then stated that two swords were enough
:for the group to carry to be counted as lawless.
So having more than the politically correct number of weapons was
cause to be arresed and killed even then, huh?
:Jesus' overiding message was one of peace (turn other cheek; live by
:sword die by sword; etc).
Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to
bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
:
RJL
--
Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.
From: cocoa@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Jewish history question
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 60
In article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com (little 'e') writes:
>
[deleted]
>> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated
>> into Greek a long time ago
>
>   Yes, that's a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation
>made by Greek Jews.
>
>> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward.
>
>   I don't know what you're referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was
>destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew
>manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones.  I don't know about any "originals".
The person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks
had a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls
and that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated
(perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just
as part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes
in power groups, he/I dunno).
>> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must
>> have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the
>> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?
>   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah's prophecy about a "young
>woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers
>read it), but not many.
Well, perhaps this is the answer then.
[deleted]
>   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you'll get a Bible translated by Jews, so
>there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they're
>translating *from* is basically the same.
>
>   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That
>contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English
>translation written underneath each word.
>
>   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try
>to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I've never seen one.)  The Samaritans
>(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses.
>They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.
Thanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)
Just me,
little 'e'
(so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this
yourself.)
--
*  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *
*  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *
From: jvp4u@Virginia.EDU (Jeffery Vernon Parks)
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 1
Suggestion: try "Exposing the New Age" by Douglas Groothuis.
Organization: Penn State University
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding
<sandvik-140493233557@sandvik-kent.apple.com> <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu>
<syt5br_@rpi.edu> <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Lines: 41
In article <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
(Peter Nyikos) says:
>
>In <syt5br_@rpi.edu> rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
>writes:
>
>>>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT
>>>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED
>>>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction
>>>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).
>
>>You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health
>>insurance.
>
>Are you any less stunningly ignorant?  Have you ever heard of life
>insurance premiums some companies give in which nonsmokers are charged
>much smaller premiums than smokers?
>
>Not to mention auto insurance being much cheaper for women under 25 than
>for men under 25, because women on the average drive more carefully
>than most men--in fact, almost as carefully as I did before I was 25.
As many people have mentioned, there is no reason why insurers could not
offer a contract without abortion services for a different premium.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that this premium would be
lower for those who chose this type of contract.  Although you are
removing one service, that may have feedbacks into other types of covered
care which results in a net increase in actuarial costs.
For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible
to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you
add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total
premium may fall.
These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
**  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
**      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!
Organization: Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C.
Lines: 99
In article <1r1ma9INNno7@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
|>
|> : Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly
|> : classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love
|> : one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus
|> : Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating
|> : all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of
|> : the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders
|> : of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their
|> : sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else.
|> : The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.
|>
|> In Mark 16:16, Jesus is quoted as saying "Whoever believes and is baptized
|> will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  I
|> consider most Neo-Nazis and White Supremisists to be Christians because:
|> a)  They say they are
|> b)  They feel it necessary to justify their actions with the Bible
|>
Where does it say in the bible that Christians are supposed to persecute
Jews?  Isn't it love your enemies instead?  They may say they are "Christian"