This section is for serious discussions only. Debate the meaning of life, the origins of the universe, or talk about anything that needs serious discussion. Message Lifetime: 60 days Each Forum consists of a message database with attached files. There are eight basic levels of user access: Zero, Read, Download, Write, Upload, Co-Op, Forum-Op, and Sysop. "Read" access means that you can read messages only; "Download" access means you can also download files; "Write" access allows you to write (or post) messages; "Upload" access means that you can also upload attachments, but that the Forum-Op must approve them for download; "Co-Op" uploads are "pre-approved". You have "Sysop" access to this Forum. Your Forum-Op is "Slope Hope". Please note: your account is charged 60 credits for each minute you spend in this Forum. In addition, you are given 300 credits each time you write a message, given 300 credits for each file uploaded, and not charged for each file downloaded. If a file you upload is approved for download, the Forum-Op might arrange for you to receive a bonus. All messages posted to this Forum are preserved indefinitely, until erased by the Forum-Op. Welcome, Sysop, to Reality: Life, the Universe,and Everything R ... Read messages W ... Write a message F ... Find messages T ... Teleconference S ... Select a new Forum ? ... Description of this Forum M ... Modify a message E ... Erase a message A ... Approve files (0 waiting) O ... Operations menu Select a letter from this list, or X to exit: flfff Date: Sunday, January 5, 1992 9:25pm Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 128552 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Evilmony.txt File: EVILMONY.TXT Is money really the root of all evil? Download this and find out! This is an excerpt from _Atlas_Shrugged_ by Ayn Rand. TANSTAAFL, Rand Date: Thursday, January 9, 1992 9:07pm Forum: Reality From: Enchanter Msg#: 129907 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Brainwsh.txt File: BRAINWSH.TXT (Fw by Lythande, Fw by Lythande, Fw *) This is the Brainwashing text file, in ASCII format. Have fun. Date: Tuesday, January 7, 1992 12:18am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 191772 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Aidsrep.Txt File: AIDSREP.TXT (Fw by Lythande) (1 reply) Here is yet another attempt at jamming in the file containing my paper on HIV origins. Let us pray it goes well... Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1992 7:00pm Forum: Reality From: Phoenix Msg#: 191774 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #131050,*) (4 replies) Why aren't condoms (WITH non-oxynol-9) on your list? Washing your privates is nice, but not likely to prevent AIDS. Air and light are irrelevant in blood-transmittable viruses. 1. Abstinence 2. Condoms WITH non-oynol-9 3. Don't share needles. 4. Wash your works in bleach. 5. KNOW your sex partners, and limit your exposure! In a nutshell, that's about it! (PS: LATEX condoms! Lambskin is useless...) Date: Friday, January 24, 1992 8:53am Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 191775 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Living Wills (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #134307,*) (2 replies) 518 341-2000 is the State Attorney General's office -- if there is a pre-approved legal form of Living Will calling them may be a first step in identifying the form. Date: Sunday, May 10, 1992 5:54am Forum: Reality From: Rpm Msg#: 192180 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: AIDS (Reply to #187437, Reply to #174743,*) (1 reply) A recent study has shown that with men and women living together and having sexual relations on a regular, not extraordinary in either direction, basis after a time period ( was that one yrar or less? I forget this piece of data) 20% of the owmen had contractd HIV infection from their mates, and 1% of the males had. As for oral sex, I've had people ask me about his on the air. No one has done a study on this alone. I can tell you that there is at least one gay activist who has only had oral sex in his life, and he's HIV+. On average, oral sex doesn't seem to be a very efficient means to transmission >to the male<. For women, and we're just talking heterosexually here, there's more of a likelihood of trnasmission for obvious reasons. However, I always tell people to consider that there is some danger of infection via oral sex, and that they could become a statistic if they're not careful. Probably the 1% risk for a male, and the 20% risk for a female is close enough to figure the odds. This, unfortunately, will have the effect of getting some males to take a chance on that "99 to 1" chance. These are usually people who don't understand statistics, and who think that it's always a 99 to 1 chance. They don't realize that on repeated encounters the odds get worse and worse. The odds get to 50/50 pretty quickly, and after that the odds are against you. When you bring in the fact that teeth are involved you can see that microscopic cuts are quite a possibility. People need to be real damned careful, is the bottom line here. It's important to establish the HIV status of any sex partner, and realize that any encounter could cause infection. As for men performing oral sex on women, it's not a highly efficient transfer method for either side, but I know of lesbians who have gottn infected from each other this way. I of course agree with you about the government's disgusting behavior in the face of this crisis. R. Paul Martin Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1992 2:30pm Forum: Reality From: Lockesley Msg#: 193156 To: Lockesley *EXEMPT* Re: LiveWill.txt File: LIVEWILL.TXT (Reply to #193027, Reply to #192845,*) (3 replies) Oh what the hell, here it is Date: Monday, June 1, 1992 6:43pm Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 202218 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: ULTIGEO.ZIP File: ULTIGEO.ZIP A very polished and quite fun graphically oriented package containing reams of facts about all fifty states - largely gleaned from 1990 census data as well as traditional "what are the capitals?" quiz modules. Date: Tuesday, June 2, 1992 12:07am Forum: Reality From: Ace Msg#: 206039 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Health.txt File: HEALTH.TXT (Copy by Lythande) (1 reply) Kali, here's the info on the Living Will and Health Care Proxy. All: there's a lot of very useful info in this file, along with the forms themselves, d/l it... Date: Monday, June 8, 1992 1:44pm Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 206100 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Genius and Insanity File: 206100.ATT (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #204326,*) (1 reply) Take the attached IQ test, for for starters. Date: Thursday, June 11, 1992 2:52pm Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 206180 To: Ace *EXEMPT* Re: Genius (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #204960, R*) (1 reply) I do not have the exact numbers because my files are in disarray, at least with respect to that one piece of paper, but here is their telephone and address so you can give them a ring; they will send you certain printed info in the mail gratis: American MENSA, Ltd. 2628 East 14th Street Brooklyn, NY 11235-3992 718 934-3700 Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1992 10:30am Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 206469 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Religion Illuminated (3 replies) This has been floating around (pardon . . .) and seems to be an elaboration of the work Kali and Ace have carefully scraped together over the past few months: ______________________________________________________________________ WORLD RELIGIONS (AND PHILOSOPHIES) SIMPLIFIED, REVISITED AND EXPANDED Buddhism = Shit happens. Paganism = Shit happens. Accept it. Taoism = The shit that happens is not the true shit. Confucianism = Confucius say, "Shit happens." Zen = What is the sound of shit happening? Hinduism = This shit happened before. Judaism = Why does shit always happen to US? Judaism, Reformed = Got any Kaopectate? Islam = If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. Islam, Sunni = Why do Shiites always happen to us? Protestantism = Let shit happen to someone else. Catholicism = If shit happens, you deserved it. Existentialism = Shit doesn't happen; shit just is. Sartrean Existentialism = We are defined by our shit happening. Xeno's paradox = It's logically impossible for shit to happen. Empiricism = Shit only happens if I see it happen. Idealism = That shit's all in your mind. Rousseau = Only natural shit is worth shit. Jehovah's Witnesses = No shit happens until Armageddon. Unitarianism = There's only one shit, but you can have it happen any way you want. Quaker = Mennonite = None of this modern shit now. Baptist Fundamentalism = Shit happens because the Bible says so. Evangelism = You need our shit. TV Evangelism = you need our shit, but it'll cost you. Atheism = I don't believe this shit. Agnosticism = What is this shit? Apathism = I don't give a shit. Altruism = Want some shit? Narcissism = My shit don't stink. Egotism = My shit is the only shit that matters. Secular Humanism = Shit happens, but there's a rational explanation. Illuminism = We make shit happen. Murphism = Shit always happens at the worst possible time and place. Rastafarian = Shit happens, but if it's all right with Jah, it's all right with me. SubGenius = Shit happens -- SO WHAT? GIVE ME SOME SLACK! Ba'hai = All shit is truly shit. Guruism = The master's shit does not stink. Dianetics = Shit your way to a better life. (or) Dianetics = Even shit can make money. Voodooism = Shit doesn't just happen -- somebody dumped it on you. Logical Positivism = Shit = S+H+I+T Skinnerism = If eat then shit. Kierkegaard = This shit is highly improbable; therefore, we should believe it happens. Nietzsche = If you're not Ubermenschen, you're not shit. Utilitarianism = Do that which generates the greatest shit for the greatest number. Contract Theory = If we don't agree to form society, everything will go to shit. Robinism = Holy shit, Batman! Shinto = Shit is everywhere. So as long as you're stepping in it, show it some respect. The Force = Use the shit, Luke. (or) Do not be swayed by the Dark Side of the shit. Hitchhikerism = The answer to all this shit is 42. Mormonism = Your shit is shit, but our shit is the ONE TRUE shit. Dominicans = Belive in shit, or we'll boil you in it. Cartesianism = I shit, therefore I am. Platonism = There is an ideal shit, of which all the shit that happens is but an imperfect image. Solipsism = All this shit is a creation of my imagination. Egoism = I AM the shit! Heisenbergism = Shit happened, we just don't know where. Schrodingerism = Shit does not happen until you smell it. Darwinism = We came up from shit. Evolutionism = Shit is getting better all the time! Creation Science = We have proof that God created all the shit that happens. Classical Marxism = The workers take all the shit, but they're gonna dish it back out again. Stalinism = The state treats you like shit. Communism = It's everybody's shit. Capitalism = How much will this shit cost? (or) Is this shit worth it? Yuppieism = It's my shit! All mine! Nixonism = Shit didn't happen, and if it did, I don't know anything about it. McCarthyism = Are you now, or have you ever been, shit? Hedonism = This shit is fun! Nihilism = Everything is shit. Vandalism = I'm gonna wreck this shit! Libertarianism = Hands off my shit. Marines = It's not just shit, it's an adventure. Momism = You'll eat this shit and like it! Dadism = Your mom knows her shit. Panglossism = This is the best of all possible shits. Dyslexianism = Hits shapnep. Spoonerism = Hit shappens. Dadaism = Blue shit rumage Idaho potato. Surrealism = Shit is shiny and shaped like a Buick. Discordianism = This MIGHT be shit, but is instead a fuzzy 1973 Mustang. Nonsequiturism = Route 176 goes south. And finally, the Argument From Shit: 1. If God were omnibenevolent, he wouldn't want shit to happen. 2. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent shit from happening. 3. Shit Happens. 4. God is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1992 8:28pm Forum: Reality From: Ace Msg#: 209195 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: BIBLEERR.TXT File: BIBLEERR.TXT (2 replies) Since we've been discussing the Bible here so much + it's validity, this file Bibleerr.txt might interest you, it's about errors of logic in the Bible, interesting file... Date: Monday, June 29, 1992 10:49pm Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 211335 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: mensatst.zip File: MENSATST.ZIP (1 reply) At last, especially for Ace, the official Mensa organization fast IQ sample and direction for what else to do to get tested. It includes all the informatio such as what SAT scores are equivalent to their standard, etc. Date: Thursday, July 30, 1992 3:46pm Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 224242 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Federal Benefit Updates (Fw by Lythande) (1 reply) SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI, AND MEDICARE FACTS FOR 1992 by James Gashel The beginning of each year brings with it annual adjustments in Social Security programs. The changes include new tax rates, higher exempt earnings amounts, Social Security and SSI cost-of-living increases, and changes in deductible and co-insurance requirements under Medicare. Here are the new facts for 1992: FICA (Social Security) Tax Rate: The tax rate for employees and their employers remains at 7.65%. This rate includes payments to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund of 6.2% and an additional 1.45% payment to the Health Insurance (HI) Trust Fund. The maximum FICA amount to be paid by an employee during 1992 is $5,584.00, up from $5,123.30 during 1991. Self-employed persons will pay a Social Security tax of 15.3% during 1992, and their maximum Social Security contribution will be $8,491.50. Self-employed persons who earn more than $55,000 will also pay an additional amount into the Health Insurance Trust Fund. Ceiling on Earnings Subject to Tax: During 1991 the ceiling on taxable earnings for contributions to the OASDI trust fund was $53,400. 00, and the ceiling on taxable earnings for contributions to the health insurance trust fund was $125,000. These ceilings have been increased for 1992 to $55,500 for the OASDI trust fund and $130,200 for the health insurance trust fund. Quarters of Coverage: Eligibility for retirement, survivors, and disability insurance benefits is based in large part on the number of quarters of coverage earned by any individual during periods of work. Anyone may earn up to four quarters of coverage during a single year. During 1991 a Social Security quarter of coverage was credited for earnings of $540.00 in any calendar quarter. Anyone who earned $2,160. 00 for the year (regardless of when the earnings occurred during the year) was given four quarters of coverage. In 1992 a Social Security quarter of coverage will be credited for earnings of $570 during a calendar quarter. Four quarters can be earned with annual earnings of $2,280. Exempt Earnings: The earnings exemption for blind people receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits is the same as the exempt amount for individuals age sixty-five through sixty-nine who receive Social Security retirement benefits. The monthly exempt amount in 1991 was $810.00 of gross earned income. During 1992 the exempt amount will be $850.00. Technically, this exemption is referred to as an amount of monthly gross earnings which does not show "substantial gainful activity." Earnings of $850.00 or more per month before taxes for a blind SSDI beneficiary in 1992 will show substantial gainful activity after subtracting any unearned (or subsidy) income and applying any deductions for impairment-related work expenses. Social Security Benefit Amounts for 1992: All Social Security benefits, including retirement, survivors', disability, and dependents' benefits, are increased by 3.7% beginning January, 1992. The exact dollar increase for any individual will depend upon the amount being paid. Standard SSI Benefit Increase: Beginning January, 1992, the federal payment amounts for SSI individuals and couples are as follows: individuals, $422.00 per month; couples, $633.00 per month. These amounts are increased from: individuals, $407.00 per month; couples, $610.00 per month. Medicare Deductibles and Co-insurance: Medicare Part A coverage provides hospital insurance to most Social Security beneficiaries. The co-insurance payment is the charge that the hosital makes to a Medicare beneficiary for any hospital stay. Medicare then pays the hospital charges above the beneficiary's co-insurance amount. The Part A co-insurance amount charged for a hospital stay of not longer than sixty days was $628.00 during 1991 and is increased to $652.00 during 1992. Beginning with the sixty-first day through the ninety-first day there is a daily co-insurance amount of $163.00 per day, up from $157. 00 in 1991. Each Medicare beneficiary has sixty "reserve days" for hospital stays longer than ninety days. The co-insurance amount to be paid during each reserve day is $326.00, up from $314.00 in 1991. The Medicare Part B (medical insurance) deductible remains at $100.00 in 1992. This is not an annual deductible amount. A new benefit period can begin sixty days after discharge from a hospital or skilled nursing facility. The Medicare Part B basic monthly premium rate will increase from $29.90 charged to each beneficiary during 1991 to $31.80 per month during 1992. Date: Friday, August 7, 1992 10:30am Forum: Reality From: Magus Msg#: 226662 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: HIVINFO.TXT File: HIVINFO.TXT (Copy by Lythande) (1 reply) The following file was taken from a RIME conference on HIV-AIDS. Hope you find it informative. Date: Monday, January 18, 1993 8:41pm Forum: Reality From: Slope Hope Msg#: 290724 To: Drpax *EXEMPT* Re: /Theology (Reply to #289410, Reply to #289207, Reply to #289168) DR>What are we supposed to be talking about in here? It would be nice i DR>we could drop the posing that happens on BBSs and just discuss life : I agree. I just became the sigop here a couple of weeks ago, and have been basically seeking to make this forum as lively and interesting as I found the /CurEvent one to be. I see this pas a place to have full-blown discussions about any aspect of life. For some this will mean very pragmatic concerns, for others more philosophical. I think I particularly hope people here express *themselves*, as opposed to either acting as repositories of factual info or self-appointed spokespeople of any particular religous or political persuasion. I will always try to get participants here to think things through, confront differing but reasonable (I hope) views and explain the underpinings of their positions. So let's just discuss life! Chris Date: Tuesday, January 19, 1993 8:56pm Forum: Reality From: Drpax Msg#: 291699 To: Paladin *EXEMPT* Re: Intimacy (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #290931, Reply to #290726, R*) (7 replies) I still toy with my theory that explains a lot of the differences between men and women when it comes to this topic. I am restricting the discussion to people who actually have some HONOR to them. Briefly, the theory I have is that MEN view sex as a way of achieving intimacy with someone they care about while WOMEN view sex as a means of expressing intimacy already achieved. Taking the logical extensions of this explain a lot of the breakdowns in communication. Men have a lot of trouble expressing their emotions--not because we aren't equipped for it, but because men usually do not concentrate on their emotions and have not developed an appreciate for nuance. When hit by emotion, men try to "figure it out" rather than just "feel" them. Men also are very self-conscious about their "performances" as a lover (now, guys, don't go denying this, you KNOW it's true) and the first time you make love to your lover at least at some level men have an anxiety about how "well" they perform. During the act of love, the man becomes in a very real sense "naked" for the first time: his flaws and whatever self-perceived or real inadequacies he may have are "exposed." Afterwards, when a man receives that certain loving look from his partner that she is happy with him his ego soars and he feels incredibly comfortable with is lover. Comfortability goes a long way to achieving intimacy for a man and once he has "exposed" himself physically, it makes it easier for him to expose the more intricate emotional side of himself. He is a little leary at first because, as I stated above, he hasn't mapped out his emotions and has a hard time just accepting them without figuring them out. Once the exposure of making love has taken place, however, he feels less self-conscious about revealing his fears and dreams and in that revelation comes the intimacy that men really DO crave. Date: Saturday, January 30, 1993 2:45pm Forum: Reality From: Lythande Msg#: 298765 To: Slope Hope *EXEMPT* Re: Love at first sight (Reply to #298520, Reply to #298172, Reply to #297876) (4 replies) "Love" is a word - a label - a sound used with a commonly accepted and understood meaning like all other word/sounds. Love is many things to many people. Some find "love" in sexual attraction. Some find it in common interests. Some find it simply inbeing comfortable without those common interests or the sexual attraction. As far as I'm concerned, love is fine in any way, shape or form that anyone wants/needs it. BTW, another facet of the word/label "love". There are many forms of love. Romantic love. Parent/child love. Love of platonic friends, etc. I love many people in many ways.......... Another point - I long ago realized that there was a differnce (a vast difference) between "loving someone" and being "in love" with someone. I am in love with Ed. I love many people. Some mistake like for love and lust for being in love........ Anything I've learned about "love" has come through my friends, various relationships - both extant and failed........no reading except maybe a binge of psychology and sociology when I was first divorced about 13 years ago. People can read till they die and never understand without experiences and people to show them the /Reality of the words. Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1993 12:29pm Forum: Reality From: Lythande Msg#: 307064 To: Slope Hope *EXEMPT* Re: Response to those who think BBSs are evil (Reply to #306707, Reply to #306481, Reply to #306328, R*) (1 reply) I know! The first night they made NO connection between the video and the trial and the bbs. The second night, unfortunately, they did. I remembered last night that Andrew Vachss had mentioned computer nets that specialized in pedophelia, but I forgot - it was mainly for GIF's, etc. What pisses me off is that WE HERE will pay the price for this bs! Do me a favor, Chris - you and anyone else who writes to them - DO NOT mention After Hours. After what you just saw, maybe you understand what I was telling you a few weeks ago about the witch hunters and bookburners turning to bbs's........ Tell those nincompoops about the time someone here (who shall remain nameless since she's still a member) was saved from suicide by someone online at the time. Tell them about us all meeting Dave Tyack and how he'd be isolated in his hospital room with that almost total paralysis but was able to meet us via computer and then in person. Tell them about Dave's story of how he became paralyzed as a result of drunk driving and that it's here *EXEMPT*. Tell them that if even ONE person reads it and doesn't get in the car with a drunk driver they may not suffer the same fate - 12 years of paralysis. Tell them about people who meet and get married. Tell them about the fact that wediscuss Theology and Politics. Tell them that a woman I met on the bus just yesterday told me the AARP has a bbs, as does Fordham Jesuit and the Lubavitchers as well as the NYC Board of Ed. Tell them how all of us from different places and backgrounds and colors and religions and ethnicities are getting to know each other and not hate as all too many in this city and country do. THAT is what bbsing is! We only have a couple of kids here and they have very restricted accesss, we dont' have pirated software and we don't have kiddie porn or anything else illegal. But, Ch 4 is trying to paint all bbs's with the same brush. Date: Friday, February 12, 1993 1:18am Forum: Reality From: Slope Hope Msg#: 308597 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: My letter to WNBC-TV (5 replies) February 10, 1993 Mr. Bret Marcus Senior Producer News Department WNBC-TV 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Dear Mr. Marcus, It is with anger and outrage that I write to you with regard to the "Software, Hard Porn" series of reports WNBC has been running this week on its 11:00 newscasts. These reports are doing a terrible disservice to both the system operators of and many thousands of participants in computer bulletin boards throughout our area and across the country. You have grossly over-exaggerated the degree to which BBS users view or download sexually-explicit material. Contrary to your reports, the vast majority of BBS's and their users are focused on legitimate communication and entertainment. And your implication that there are numerous pedophiles among the users of bulletin boards is astoundingly inaccurate and insulting. How you can take 1 or 2 cases and exaggerate this as you have is bizarre - are you really so desperate to boost your ratings that you will resort to this nonsense? I have personally participated in at least 10 different local bulletin boards between October 1992 and January 1993, and without exception, the system operators on each board have not allowed me to access any message forums or files, adult or otherwise, until they verified me over the phone. Further, I have discussed the procedures involved with several of these operators, and they all confirmed that if they have any doubt about a prospective new user's age, they require a copy of the drivers license. So Perri Peltz's statements to the effect that adult material on computer bulletin boards is available to anyone, including children, are flat out wrong! The misleading nature of these reports is not only offensive, it is also damaging to this growing and positive forum for computer users. BBS's are more than a source of information and entertainment; they have become a medium for important interpersonal communication. They encourage friendships and emotionally supportive relationships. They give disabled people a way to communicate with a wide variety of people on a completely equal basis. On one particular BBS I regularly log on to, not too long ago one user was particularly depressed and contemplating suicide, and another user essentially talked this person back from the edge - through the BBS! Another user on this board is paralyzed because he had an accident while driving drunk, and this user posted his story on the board, where it has been made exempt (i.e. it will always be there) and serves as an extremely powerful and personal educational piece. I could go on for pages about the positive and beneficial uses of computer bulletin boards, which is why I am outraged - many people viewing your reports will be afraid to explore this growing arena, which will be their loss, and many more will spread the absurd disinformation you have spawned. Thus, I feel strongly that you owe it to all the legitimate BBS users, and to your audience in general, to broadcast in the very near future a series as long and as aggressively promoted as "Software, Hard Porn" which shows all the benefits which computer bulletin boards provide, to offset the injustice perpetrated by your reports this week. Sincerely, Chris ********* ****************************** (The ******* were inserted by me, Lythande - Chris had signed his name, but there is no reason for it to be public. Chris, as ForumOp you can put your name back in if you chose - I won't re-change it.) Date: Monday, March 1, 1993 4:37am Forum: Reality From: La Gringa Msg#: 319749 To: Slope Hope *EXEMPT* Re: You wanted it!! (4 replies) I just finished my paper it is 4:22 a.m I have cheated a little because I am convinced that the person that told me the topic gave me the 2 listings as one. I cannot continue to write anymore on abstract stuff. The primary and secondary qualities of the paper have inflamed me therefore I hope deeply that we actually had 2 papers to chooose from if not I am going to have to make up quite a story. Anyway as per your last message and request I will provide you with what you wished to know. I realized when I was 17 that I was a Lesbian. I knew much earlier in my life that I was different, but did not know how or why. When I was growing up they only spoke about John and Jane never about Jane and Sue, or Adam and Steve. So feeling differently and being different I devoted myself to music, sports, and friends. I tryed boyfriends but they seemed more like brothers to me, and I felt nothing when they would grope, which teenage boys do a lot of. I grew up in group homes and it was ther that I met my first lover. I hated her and we fought all the time. Then one day I realized that what I was feeling was love, and lust, and I was acting out because I di not understand it. I went and told her how I felt, and it was the most freeing moment of my life. I finally knew who I was. Later that night I held her in my arms for the first time, and I cannot describe how wonderful that was. Of course there's more but that's another story set in another place. Those feelings were so powerful, and for the first time I knew what everyone was making a big deal about. I loved that woman and we were together for 3 years. She was young and so was I, and for reasons of surviva; we had to split up. I immediately told all my family, and allmy friends. I was flying high. I have not had the experience of losing a family member because of my identity, but I have seen many people who have suffered tremendous losses, and it burns me up. I did lose a lover to he own homophobia, and I will always love her, and ina way i will always be in love with her. She could not handle being gay in this world or being bisexual and living her life as a lesbian. The pressures of he family, society, and her own religous upbringings got in the way. I nener loved anyone more than she, and I doubt I ever will. So while I escaped persecution in some ways, I have had to deal wit it in others. In the beginning I did tell my family and friends, but I was really scared to tell strangers. Ihated lying about my "friend" always using non - descriptive terms to describe our times together. And of course there existed always someone who wanted to know when I was geting married. These people were very frightening because I felt like if I told them I was infinging on their I don't even know what anymore. Then one day after feeling extrememly uncomfortable in such a social situation, I decided enough was enough and that I would never hid it again to anyone ever. That does not mean I should not be cautious, or that everyone has the right to know my private self. I give to whom I choose and I tell when I choose. Mt writing this ismy choice, and in a sense I see it as my gift. I live my life as Lori, amd I am a Lesbian,or otherwise known as a womyn identified womyn. Nevertheless, I am not a sepratist I have many male friends, and love many men just not sexually. So there you have it. I would like to hear from the bi = sexuals. I think they have it really rough. Gays are on one end, and heteros are on the other with the bi's in the middle. If a bi - sexual woman is with a man, the the lesbiansd feel betrayed. If a bisexual woman is with a woman then the heteros feel betrayed. Either way they turn they feel the heat. They are identified not by their own sexuality, but by their partners. I look foward to the responses. Peace La Gringa Lori Date: Friday, March 12, 1993 6:43pm Forum: Reality From: Slope Hope Msg#: 326778 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: The Homeless woman (Reply to #326097, Reply to #323436) (1 reply) LY>That's great, Chris. You'r lucky. I never saw those two people I LY>mentioned again. LY>Can you post that number of the homeless shelter and *EXEMPT* it, LY>please? I'll copy it to a few Forums. What exactly do they do? Here are the resources I've come up with so far: We Can - a nonprofit organization which runs bottle and can redemption centers and works with the homeless. They tell me that they are busy mostly in the warmer months. And for '93, they're going to be working with young people due to be released from Rikers - trying to help them gain work experience and self-esteem, so they won't end up homeless upon release. (212) 262-2222 Partnership For The Homeless: (212) 645-3444 The Dwelling Place (West 40th St, near 9th Ave) - a shelter for women over 30 which helps them gain work and life skills. (212) 564-7887 Coalition for the Homeless (check directory assistance for the #) I'm continuing to look into this... Date: Thursday, May 27, 1993 3:21am Forum: Reality From: Nightblades Msg#: 365533 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Safe Sex. (Copy by Lythande) (2 replies) I heard something tonight on Z100 that bothered me...It seems that there are people that think that safe sex only involves intercourse...well it doesn't...ANY TIME that bodily fluids are exchanged (semen or vanginal fluids and blood) ANY Diasese is transmittable..What touched me off was that this girl thought that it was Okay to give falaccio with out a condom...she now might have herpes because of that error..Anytime that a penis enters you body make sure it is wearing a condom....any orfices..(uhh hole) Make sure it is cover in LATEX...NOT LAMBSKIN Lamskin will not protect against diaseses. Date: Monday, July 5, 1993 4:31pm Forum: Reality From: Walts Msg#: 375157 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: ...Stick To Your Own Kind... (2 replies) ...a long time ago, in a land far, far away... It was '65 or '66 and we were a group of Hofstra students. Our group was as mixed as you could get -- using what ever definition you want. In fact one of our group, Joe Morton the actor, eventually became known... But at that time, many of us were having parent problems. The following was written, and then sung many times in the Rathskeller by all of us -- guitar, harmonica and bongos were the instruments of the day. We made our point in number ten... One day I'll have to write Joe, he might have even authored this... Regards, WaltS "Stick To Your Own Kind" I Betty won't be seeing John anymore Her father politely showed him to the door Saying daughter I fear I must tell you leave him behind He's a very nice boy but stick to your own kind II His folks have always been very nice to me So why can't you treat him half decently He's a very nice boy I'm sure he's quite refined But that's how things are so stick to your own kind III Then an angry flush came redding to his face Saying give them an inch and they'll take the whole dame place I've known his lot for a very long time And if your smart you'll stick to your own kind IV You say your liberal through and through But father the Klu Klux Klan has got nothing on you You act you talk you live as a bigot would Why not go all the way and buy yourself a hood V Daughter your cruel and you know that it's a shame To call your father such terrible names You say I'm a bigot you know that it is a lie I'm every bit as liberal as any other guy VI Why some of my best friends are of that religion too I seek out brotherhood that's something I always do But we must all be realistic some time And when it comes to my own daughter I draw the line VII Father your thoughts are of another day Such vicious hate should be long laid away What you don't know what you cannot seem to see Is that his religion does not matter to me VIII Daughter why can't you do like you should What I'm doing I'm doing for your own good Besides the world has many nice Jewish boys And no daughter of mine will be seen dating any Goys IX Then with a fatherly hand on her should he did say It can only lead to trouble you'll thank me some day You'll look back on your trouble and laugh some time So be a good girl and stick to your won kind X In tortured dreams he was taken from his bed By eight million corpses who vengefully said May the shame for our cruel fate rest forever on you For we died at the hands of a land that thought as you do XI Betty won't be seeing John anymore Her father politely showed him to the door Saying daughter your moral platitudes are fine But be a good girl and stick to your own kind Date: Friday, September 24, 1993 3:01pm Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 395093 To: Editor *EXEMPT* Re: Anti Semitism File: 395093.ATT (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #395000, Reply to #394664, Reply *) (1 reply) ED>Thanks - that's the kind of stuff I find really interesting. My parents ED>tended to see any negative outcome as personal and/or anti-semitic. Not ED>unusual considering their background. It is interesting to find some ED>hard evidence on this type of stuff. OK- here's the text. This is from a reader I compiled on anti-semitism, so it includes a commentary on the text written by me. It's easier to U/L this for me. If people want, I'll enter it as a message, so please reply and tell me to if thats what you want. -Rand Date: Saturday, December 18, 1993 6:22pm Forum: Reality From: Lythande Msg#: 428353 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Operation Santa Claus - PLEASE READ! (Copy by Lythande) It's late (I procrastinated, as usual, but I'd like to tell everyone about Operation Santa since you can still do it. Post offices all across the country take all letters addressed to Santa and keep them at the main branch in each city or borough. You can go to the post office and look through the letters and then send a kid whatever you can afford. I've been doing it every year since I heard of it on Johnny Carson. The main branch at 8th Avenue and 33rd Street has bunches - I was there today and they said they might be open later than 4:30 starting on Monday. To find out, just call 330-3084. Or, go to the main post office in your city or borough. BTW, like everyone else there (I think), I look for the letters that are *not* asking for Super Nintendo's! Wish I had posted this earlier - would've been a great hang. Date: Tuesday, January 18, 1994 12:24am Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 439001 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Objectivism FAQ (2 replies) This is excerpted from the Objectvism FAQ from the Internet. I just took the parts I thought people would be most interested in. I'll post it and I'll attach it as a file as well so you guys can D/L it at leisure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. What is Objectivism? Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Though there are others schools of thought which might use this name, in general, any discussion of Objectivism with a capital 'O' is of Ayn Rnd's ideas. The essentials of her philosophy are: 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality 2. Epistemology: Reason 3. Ethics: Self Interest 4. Politics: Laissez-faire capitalism Ayn Rand summarized her philosophy in "The Objectivist Newsletter" in 1962 as 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral pupose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and nly against those who initiate its use, such as crimials and foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but historically has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separate of state and church." The Ayn Rand Lexicon (HC) p344 quoted from "Introducing Objectivism," TON, Aug. 1962, 35. II. Who is Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a Russian-born American writer. She grew up in St. Petersburg during the Russian Revolution and graduated from the University of Petrograd in 1924. As a child at the age of nine, she had decided that she would become a writer. Being directly exposed to the Soviet system, she rebelled even as a child against the doctrines and practices of that oppressive culture. In 1926, at the age of 21, she went tothe United States to become a Holywood screen writer and maried in 1931. She went on to write not only several screen plays but eventually several novels including the "We the Living" (1936), the best-selling "The Fountainhead (1943)" and "Atlas Shrugged (1957)". Ayn Rand considered hernovels to belong to the school of art known as Romanticism as opposed to Naturalism. From the ARI biography: "'The Fountainhead', the story of an intransigent creator who refuses to surrender his integrity or his intellectual independence to a world of second-handers was published in 1943--after having been rejected by twelve publishers. It brought Ayn Rand international fame. With the publication of 'Atlas Shrugged' in 1957, Ayn Rand's position in history -- both as novelist and philosopher -- was established. 'Atlas Shrugged' tells the story of what happens to the world when its most intelligent and productive members, the men of the mind, go on strike against the creed of self-immolation. This novel challenges at the root the altruist and philosophical ideas of the 2000-year-old Judeo-Christian tradition." Subsequent to "Atlas Shrugged", she published several newsletters including "The Objectivist Newsletter (1962-1965)","The Objectivist (1966-1971)", and "The Ayn Rand Letter (1971-1976)" All of these newsletters are still available in print. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just for the record, while I will be happy to answer any questions about Objectivism, I do not consider myself a "Big O" Objectivist, though I have been greatly influenced by the philosophy. -Rand Date: Tuesday, January 18, 1994 9:20am Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 439126 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Innocently Offensive Statements (1 reply) I found this in a magazine and thought it might shed some light on some of the absurdities which occur as a result of "sensitivity training" at Universities today. The following is a list of things you never knew were offensive (until now). Innocuously Offensive Statements (Courtesy of "The Primary Source" at Tufts University) Statement Group It Offends Classification of Offense ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our sex life is dead. Necrophiliacs Mortophobia My sex life is dead. Masturbatory Necrophiliacs Automortophobia I've been workin' like a dog. Canine Americans Animalism What's new? Chronologically challenged Temporalism/Ageism O, say can you see? The visually impaired Sightism Be there or be square. The rectangular Geometrism Let's do lunch. Vegisexuals Animal Supremicism No way, Jose. People named Jose Appelism Break a leg. The orthopedically challenged Orthopedism A penny saved is a penny earned. Quarters Currencism Have a nice day. The chronically depressed Happyism Do you have the time? The terminally ill. Temporalism What's up? Dwarves and the impotent Heightism/ Flaccidophobia You're skirting the issue. Scotsmen Nessiphobia I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. Tall Polish people Reverse Heigtism ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TANSTAAFL, Rand Date: Friday, February 11, 1994 4:37pm Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 447021 To: Lythande *EXEMPT* Re: Cultures - East and West (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #444987, Reply to #444482, Reply *) (2 replies) LY>Don't you think it's possible that you think that Western culture's LY>"rights and wrongs" are the correct ones since you were brough up in LY>Western Culture? It's possible. However, Ayn Rand once developed a "proof" that determines what would be a good and what would be a bad, objectively. People, including myself, quibble at times with it, but it's a decent start. I think this thread might be good in /reality, by the way. (Of course, I spend so much damn time in curevent, I can never get to any other forum!) I'll post the "proof." Hang on (rummaging through my old papers)... OK, found it. BTW, this is copyright 1992 the author (me). She begins with the principle of existence. The Cartesian principle, "I think, therefore I am," is, to her, self-evident. The realm of non-existence is not to be considered, since by it's very term, it doesn't exist. Since only existence exists, it is the fundamental starting point in every branch of philosophy. The question of life or death is the logical extension. A living organism is that organism only when alive. A dead squirrel is no longer a squirrel. It has lost that quality which makes it a squirrel - its life. When dead, it is only a collection of chemicals in the shape of a squirrel. Ethics must concern itself with preserving existence that can be destroyed, i.e. life. To a non-living entity, there can be no values. "Only the alternative of life vs. death creates the context for value-oriented action, and it does so only if the entity's end is to preserve its life." A stone does not require values or action. A stone merelyexists. Ayn Rand writes in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism[Dails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil." A good action is conducive to an individual's life; an evil action is one which destroys or reduces life. Remaining alive, therefore, must be the goal of values and of proper action. This is one of the main premises of Objectivism, Rand's name for her philosophy. Most living organisms automatically initiate the actions that are conducive to their life. They may fail in these actions. For instance, in adrought, the lack of water may hamper a plant's ability to synthesize sugar to the point of the plant's death. An animal's knowledge may be insufficient to surmount obstacles. Lemmings, for example, swim out too far and drown. Nevertheless, the aim of every action of an animal is conducive to its individual life. They are "programmed" so to speak, to act toward the good, to have life as their standard of value. Man, on the other hand, possesses a volitional, conceptual consciousness. He does not possess a programmed goal, he follows no automatic course of action. He does not automatically value self-preservation. "For a human being, the desire to live and the knowledge of what life requires are an achievement, not a biological gift." The actions to preserve life must be learned by man. He must "hold his life as a value--by choice; he has to earn to sustain it--by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues--by choice." The role of ethics and morality is to help him discover these things. "Moral laws, in this view, are principles that define how to nourish and sustain human life; they are no more than this and no less." One of Rand's accomplishments was that she logically justified her ethics. Ethics, to Rand, are the instructions that cause life to exist. "Man ought to do certain things, because theyare necessary in order for him to be." A summary of the structure of her argument could be as follows: I. Only living beings have values II. Man, the only volitional, conceptual, being, must choose his values, as opposed to other living beings, which are "programmed." III. Values must lead to a definite, ultimate end. An infinite chain of means would be useless. IV. Life is the only possible end, as it is the oly thing that can truly "destroyed." V. Therefore, the only justifiable values are those that sustain a man's life. The proper beneficiary of all moral action, to Rand, is the individual. The principle of ethics, as explained earlier, is man's survival as man, ng his rationality as his guide. "The task of applying this principle to concrete, specific purpose--the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being--belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own." Objectivism is therefore fundamentally egoist. --------- I think this post is going on unnecessarily long, but I guess the upshot, to me, is that there are universal goods and bads. The purpose of ethics and philosophy is to help us to determine the good and bad, but it applies to all humans at all times. The same action cannot be good in one place and bad in another. its Date: Thursday, February 17, 1994 10:18am Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 447992 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: From Wired Magazine... (3 replies) I'm reprinting this from the Feb. issue of Wired magazine. I'm typing it verbatim - so if you don't like it, don't complain to me. I just thought some people here would be interested: "Support Apple: Apple is under attack for its policy supporting gay rights in the workplace. Thanks to the hate-mongering but organized religious right, Apple's anti-gay mail outnumbers supporting mail 500 to 1. Change the odds: email Keith Sullivan, Human Resources Director, at sullivan6@applelink.apple.com" I also thought this was kinda relevant: "Jargon Watch" "Holy wars - Perpetual BBS discussions that never die, the arguments never change, and no one's opinions ever budge one iota. Holy wars are fought over abortion, gun control, Mac versus IBM, Windows versus DOS, and how much nudity to allow in the image areas of online services." -Rand Date: Sunday, February 20, 1994 11:07pm Forum: Reality From: Vibrantm Msg#: 452464 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: ANGST124.FAQ Information File on Angst File: ANGST124.FAQ (Copy by Lythande) (2 replies) Fresh from the Internet, the Angst Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file. To get a fix on the tenor of the contents, consider that the authors state that "this post is about angst, and why your life is so pathetic." Date: Sunday, April 3, 1994 2:55pm Forum: Reality From: Quincy Msg#: 465343 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Creation of a Race (5 replies) We, human begins, are quickly reaching the level of technology where it will soon be possible to determine everything about a fetus before it is six days old. We can let the fetus die if it has diseases we don't want. How long until we start not only choosing our offspring for most desirable characteristics, but actually EDITING them? And is this moral? --- þ SLMR 2.0 þ Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 10:21pm Forum: Reality From: Mike Byrne Msg#: 559003 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: FLASHER.ZIP File: FLASHER.ZIP OOOPS! Exited the last msg w/o uploading the file FLASHER.ZIP Here it is. Enjoy and Happy GAMMA Waves! Mike Getting error msg when attempting to upload. Says the file is too large! Will try again later - sorry. Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 10:35pm Forum: Reality From: Mike Byrne Msg#: 559009 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: HELPER.ZIP File: HELPER.ZIP Think I now know the politically correct method of uploading files! Have you ever wanted to break a habit (i.e. smoking, biting your nails etc.), lose weight, be a better lover, etc? The power of the mind can overcome/correct almost anything. How? With self-hypnosis. The attached file - HELPER.ZIP can be setup to help you help yourself. It will put you in a hypnotic trance, display on the screen the suggestions you want to use improve yourself, then wake you up after the session is over. The DOC file is easy to understand and is important, so READ IT before using the program. Let me know what you think of it! Mike Date: Wednesday, February 8, 1995 10:45pm Forum: Reality From: Mike Byrne Msg#: 559014 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: esptest.zip File: ESPTEST.ZIP Have you ever known what people were going to say before they said it? That is ESP! The attached program - ESPTEST lets you test your ESP power/potential. It's fun and easy to use. Recommend you eliminate any distractions, i.e. TV, music, etc before using it so you can maximize your concentration. Mike Date: Tuesday, May 2, 1995 5:36pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 588921 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: The Key to Your Sexual Life (6 replies) Another post from an e mail list which I am passing along. I thought it was amusing. Key to Your Sexual Life The clothers you wear, your home furnishings and the car you drive all give clues to yoru sexual personality. The key is the colors you select for your possessions. Most peopl claim they haven't a favorite color. But look around you, and you'll notice a pattern, especially in your clothing and home decor. The predominant color for you is the one that appears most frequently--it's the one that mirrors the sexual you. A panel of psychologists, speaking at the 1975 Home Interior Design Forum, explained the association between color and sexual patterns. RED: People who like red tend to be tigers in the sack. They aer easily arounsed and enjoy sex in every way imaginable. Once the sexual spark is ignitied, it may take hours to extinguish. When two reds get together, the ensuing erotica could make Lady Chatterly blush. Lovers tend to be aggressors and weaker colors should be aware. YELLOW: If you tend to favor yellow, your sexual drives are complex and turn toeard the adaptable. The favorite color of homosexuals is yellow. But don't panic--not everyone who wear yellow is queer. In most cases the person will consent to the stronger partner's desires in a passive manner. You will never enjoy sex to the fullest, but you will never turn down an invitation from somebody you enjoy or admire. PINK: Persons who like pink show a reluctance to mature in sexual matters: women tend to tease, to promise more than they intend to deliever. In some cases they flaunt their feminity--but because they secretly hate men. A great percentage of prostitutes boast entire wardrobes in pink. Men who like pink are the philanderers and flirts. They are the type who will make three dates for the same evening and not keep one, perfering to pick up a dish in some bar instead. Women whose husbands like pink should keep a secret nest egg. PURPLE: Lovers of purple frequently consider themselves to be too sophisicated for a fun romp in the sack. Women sometimes are the type who hate to mess their hair. Men are business-like in their approach to lovemaking. In both sexes purple partners are more concerned with their fulfillment than anyone else's gratification. BLACK: Black color preferences point to black sex (not necessarily meaning black partners). These people are the misfits of the sex world and seek out each other in kinship. They tend to prefer perverted sex and are usually masochistic or sadistic in nature. They are moody people and often perform at their peak when under stress or during unhappy times. Police psychiatrists claim that sex offenders perfer the color black. And it is no coincidence that the uniform of monsters and teenage gangs is black atttire. GREEN: Those who prefer green are fresh and innocent in their approach to sex. Women who love green will always make love like virgins all their life. And a man may always be a triffle clumsy and awkward, but in a charming and endearing sort of way. Green lovers are gentle, but not passionate. If chosen as a mate, one will never need worry about infidelity. ORANGE: Lovers of the color orange lean toward sexual fantasies. The sex act is regarded as a dramatic one-act play in which they are the star. Foreplay is as important as the act of love. They whisper sweet nothings, meaningless dialogue; they feel it is their image. Orange people often do not experience orgasm--but they put on a darn good act. Men tend to pull their partner's hair, and women leave red welts on the sex partner's back. BROWN: If you love brown, you're a real treasure for the lucky mate. Brown lovers tend to be warm and deep, senstive to the needs and desires of their partners. Sex is a 24 hour a day thing. While you can't say "I love you" often enough. Snuggling by the fire, walking i in the rain or catching snowflakes on their tongue is a turn-on to a lover of brown. They need lots of time and privacy to make lov. But their emotions are such that one harsh word could end the affair. GRAY: The color grey is preferred by people who are indecisive. They can't get excited about anything--including color--so they choose a noncommittal shade. Men who perfer grey look at sex as a way of relieving tension--but nothing more, nothing less. It's wham, bam, thank you ma'am. Women don't make love, they have intercourse. And for one of two reasons only: to acomodate their mate, or to become pregnant. They count the cracks in the bedroom until the sex act is over with and done. But when teamed with another color, the grey spouse considers the other's infidelity a blessing. When a grey marries another grey, the marriage is made in heaven. BLUE: Lovers of blue are wonderful sex partners. They are sinners, affectionate and senstive to their partner's needs. They consider love making a fine art and theri approach is elegant. Men who love blue are like concert painists, delicately ravaging their parner like they would play a baby grand. Women in the blue category enjoy sex to the fullest. They are exciting partners but their passion may be compared to a tidal wave rather than firery aggression. Both men and women enjoy foreplay and the aftemath of lovemaking, as much as they sex itself. In marriage a blue person is a womnderful mate and never seeks outside interests. WHITE: If a person is inftuated with white, sex often seems filthy. These people are puritantical in nature. French kissing is obsene and to make love in the daylight is unheard of. Women who love white will undress beneath the covers. Men will shower before and after the sex act. These people still use pet names for their genitals. Which one are you my love??????? Date: Tuesday, September 12, 1995 9:28pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 633912 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: National ID cards? (4 replies) I found this article on the internet tonight. It was really scarry, scarry stuff. I know this is somewhat political in nature, and I am sorry to disturb those of you who don't want to read anything related to politics. But this is just so scary in its implications that I wanted to post it here rather than on CurrentEvents because I believe (erroneously?) that this sig has bigger readership. Anyway, here it goes folks. Sender: LEFTNEWS - Left News and Events From: Nathan Newman ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 17:59:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Jonathan Prince Subject: news:4320jl$dfa@news.missouri.edu PROPOSED FEDERAL WORKER REGISTRY THREATENS BUSINESS AND LABOR, SAYS REASON MAGAZINE From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Reply to: Nigel Allen Date: 11 Sep 1995 18:53:41 GMT Organization: Internex Online (Data: 363-3783/Telnet: io.org) Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Reply to: newsgroup(s) Here is a press release from the Reason Foundation. I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in Maryland at (410) 363-0834. I do not work for or belong to the Reason Foundation. Federal Worker Registry Threatens Business, Labor Says Article in October Issue of Reason Magazine Contact: Rich Phillips, 310-391-2245, or Rick Henderson, 202-457-8577, both of Reason Foundation WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 -- Federal legislation aimed at creating a national ID card and requiring all U.S. workers to register their name and thumbprint with the federal government to obtain permission to work could jeopardize employment for millions of U.S. citizens and punish small- to medium-size businesses with burdensome regulations, according to "Identity Crisis: The Border War Comes Home," by Glenn Garvin, in the October 1995 issue of Reason magazine. Attempting to curtail illegal immigration, many on Capitol Hill are turning to the national ID card as a proposed solution to register all U.S. citizens. Similar to a credit card, a strip of magnetic tape across the back would be encoded with each citizen's Social Security number and thumbprint. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) one of the proposal's leading advocates, describes it as a "machine-readable card that all job and benefits applicants would be required to present to verify their work or eligibility." Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) would add a photograph, hologram, and a biometric identifier, according to an amendment offered in a House version of the bill. Card scanners (currently priced at about $2,000 apiece) would call Washington, D.C., and verify eligibility. According to Garvin, the campaign for a national ID card is not new. It first got serious consideration early in the Reagan administration, when Attorney General William French Smith suggested it during a Cabinet meeting. At first there were murmurs of assent. But when then presidential assistant Martin Anderson spoke up and wryly suggested an even cheaper alternative to a card -- an identification number tatooed on the inside of every American's arm -- Reagan sarcastically replied, "Maybe we should just brand all the babies." The controversial cover of Reason magazine's October 1995 issue no doubt gets its inspiration from this story, with an eerie photo depicting a worker stamped with a bar code granting U.S. citizenship and permission to work -- sure to stir up both memories of Nazi Germany and apocalyptic fears of the end of the world. The proponents of the card resent the implication that there's anything sinister about the idea. "It is not carried on the person, it is not an internal passport, it is not used for law enforcement," says worker-registry advocate Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.). "It is presented at the time of a new hire, and not just by people who look foreign, but by everyone. And it will say on it, I'm authorized to work in the United States of America -- that's it." But Garvin disagrees, "At the very least, it will put every American's right to earn a living at the mercy of the federal government's whimsical computers. And at the very worst, it will be a brutally effective tool for the surveillance, manipulation, and punishment of anyone who runs afoul of Washington's imperious corps of social engineers." A GAO study in 1988 showed that about 65 million people in the United States change jobs or enter the workforce each year. Assuming a 1 percent error rate in identifying legal workers, 650,000 people would be mistakenly thrown out of work each year. "The really horrible thing about this is that...650,000 is an unrealistically optimistic scenario," says John Miller of the Center for Equal Opportunity. "Imagine a 5 percent scenario and you're up to 3.24 million people thrown out of work. The vast majority of them are bound to be U.S. citizens, native-born and bred." Recent experiments by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with computerized verification systems have resulted in error rates as high as 19 percent, resulting in long delays for employment applicants. "The only ones likely to find a national ID card an obstacle to working will be honest people who become accidentally snarled in red tape," says Garvin. "The card will depend on INS records to establish worker eligibility -- records that are incorrect 17 percent of the time. While the unlucky victim of the computer is waiting, who will pay for rent and groceries?" "And because the card will double as a work permit, how long before Janet Reno proposes two years without the right to work for anyone convicted of wife beating? or 'hate speech?' or owning an 'assault weapon?' The government, with a single key stroke, could destroy anyone's ability to earn a living." Garvin is co-author of "Diary of a Survivor: Nineteen Years in a Cuban Women's Prison" and an editor at the Miami Herald. Copies of "Identity Crisis: The Border War Comes Home" by Glenn Garvin in the October 1995 issue of Reason magazine may be obtained by calling the Reason Foundation at 310-391-2245. Reason is a leading social and political commentary magazine that goes beyond the news to deliver insightful and distinctive information and analysis. For over a quarter of a century, Reason magazine has gone beyond Beltway politics, challenged conventional wisdom, and offered a refreshing alternative to Washington-based opinion. Reason is published by the Reason Foundation, a national, think tank based in Los Angeles. -30- -- Nigel Allen ndallen@io.org . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ End of forwarded message I just want to add, that of course, I disagree that the potential for abuse would come from Janet Reno wanting to deny the right to work to a wife beater or a person who owned the assault weapon. I think it is much more likely that it would be used by someone like Pat Robertson to deny the right to work to any doctor who performed an abortion. But in any case, I do agree that the potential for government abuse for this proposal is very great. And on this point, those on the left and the right can unite to oppose this idea--even if we disagree on who will do the abusing and for what reasons the abusing would be done. Date: Tuesday, January 2, 1996 11:56pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 662595 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: As for death itself (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #656273, Reply to #655998, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Faz ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- While we're on the subject of death & existence... I thought I'd share my thoughts... :) Not to sound morbid, but I think about this stuff a lot... :) Like Faz, I'm pretty aware of my own mortality... with every passing year the realization hits me harder & harder that life is really INCREDIBLY short... so these past few years I've been trying hard to "pack it all in", do as much stuff as possible... there are so many things in life that I really want to accomplish... Maybe we live multiple lives, but for the moment, I'm trying to make as much out of this one as I can... As for death itself, my main thought regarding it is that I am REALLY REALLY REALLY CURIOUS... I'm dying to know what happens (pun intended) :) but I know I'll definately find out someday, so I can wait :) I don't really have any belief OR disbelief in fate, higher power, or whatever else... they are all possiblities, but nothing is for sure. There are only TWO things that I'm sure of in this life: 1) That I exist, and 2) That I have NO IDEA WHY I exist. Or what existence really is, for that matter. So all I can do is live life as happily as humanly possible (or TRY, anyway), and entertain my brain by trying to figure out this existence thing... :) until I die - then maybe I'll know a little more... or maybe not! Date: Saturday, January 13, 1996 10:30am Forum: Reality From: Walts Msg#: 666141 To: Kkid *EXEMPT* Re: Are all human beings equal? (Reply to #664413, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #663639, Rep*) (2 replies) KK>LY>What's the current American view that doesn't make sense to you? KK>That all human beings are equal. ...all human beings deserve to be treated equally - YES ...all human beings desire equality - YES ...all human beings are equal in the eyes of a suprem being - Probably ...all human beings are equal - tough one... REgards, WaltS Date: Wednesday, January 31, 1996 12:18am Forum: Reality From: Faz Msg#: 675820 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: life (Copy by Lythande) (1 reply) As i write this im getting ready to go to sleep. It is during this time i feel happiest, for i know that if i dont wake up the next day, all my affairs are in order. i have provided for all my family and no one shall ever want. In this past week i have bitched to myself about the homeless and all these other detritus of society. these are people i would like to look away from, and possibly sweep under the table. However all this has changed. I have a very close friend who over the years has gone through severe renal failure(he has lost one kidney already, and the other one has complications with it). Here is what irks me most. He is the most productive person society has ever created. He is almost 35 and has accomplished more than most will their entire lives. He is wealthy, and made all his money himself. He was at one time a great athlete who taught me golf and Basketball. Yet all the money in the world can do no more than minimize his suffering and sustain his life on this earth. I know he has been a fair person and will be looked on favorably when he passes away. It brings me to this conclusion, life is not only more precious than anything we can grasp or label, it is a fleeting moment. Life passes before your eyes. Everyday we should give thanks that we awoke from our slumber,can rise on our feet and go about our tasks. My friend has told me that the ability to help is within us, not through contributions but through giving of ourselves. Whether it be through blood or an organ donation, or even something simple as a smile and a kind word to someone who has nothing but could really use it. I would gladly give one of my kidneys to sustain him, but so far the results say i am unsuitable as a donor. He says its not even important if he lives, that if he as at least changed my way of thinking than he has accomplished the greatest thing in the world. So to those hear who may feel that my opinions are demeaning to them or that i take light of something they take serious..i am sorry. I was honest in my opinions before but now i see there are otherthings more important than my disdain of politics,religion,etc. Never before have i seen things in this light, and never will i forget it. If there is a creator i am sure he/she has their reasons for what they are doing, and i think it has helped me understand that the sanctity of life is something that cannot be taken for granted. I try so hard everyday to exist in this harsh world,and never took the time to look at all around me more objectively. i hope i can change whatever damage i might have done. To start again is better tha to have never started at all. Thank you for letting me vent here, i feel very happy to have all of you as my friends. :) Faz. Date: Wednesday, October 30, 1996 8:53pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 721757 To: Vida Re: What sex are you? (Reply to #720059, Reply to #720041, Reply to #719708, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Now....how does one misbehave in real VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>That depends on who or what is misbehavi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Answered as a lawyer, revealing nothing. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course, naturalement! :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>OY! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>I would have responded in more French but any remnan VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>School French are being rapidly erased as I learn He VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>Sounds like when my Hebrew sneeks in when I am speaking VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>visa versa. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Not exactly. My French is almost all gone. Which is very VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>at one time I could read 'L'Express" and Simone's mysterie VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>original French. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I tried to read Simone deBeauvoir's "The Second Sex" in th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>French, but that was too difficult for me! :) (BTW--In c VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>know "The Second Sex" is a feminist classic. And it is di VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>read, even in translation, because deBeauvoir was a genius VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>deBeauvoir's Second Sex, I read part of that. The part that s VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>in my mind is that "woman as Other" concept... she had some i VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>ideas there. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>That's her fundamental thesis. So the right part stuck out. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Okay, that's good, I got the general gist of her ideas then :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Btw, I was told that the reason deBeauvoir's work is hard to read i VI>TE>VI>TE>because she wrote it on speed :) VI>TE>VI>I never heard that. I thought it was the influence of Jean Paul Satre VI>TE>VI>and all that existentialism that made her work so difficult. :) VI>TE>My former philosophy professor told me about deBeauvoir writing all her VI>TE>work on speed, so I figured it must be true :) VI>TE>Hey, existentialism is wonderful! Hmmm... I've read some Sartre as well, VI>TE>but it didn't really seem to me like one influenced the other very much, VI>TE>in terms of writing. VI>I think they clearly influenced each other very strongly. :) Didn't find that at all! Date: Friday, November 1, 1996 4:23am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 721928 To: Tempest Re: What sex are you? (Reply to #721757, Reply to #720059, Reply to #720041, R*) (1 reply) TE>Didn't find that at all! I guess it's all just a matter of perception then. :) Date: Tuesday, December 24, 1996 2:42am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 724557 To: Vida Re: What sex are you? (Reply to #721928, Reply to #721757, Reply to #720059, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>Didn't find that at all! VI>I guess it's all just a matter of perception then. :) Yup! Perception is as much an influence in what is read as is what is written. Date: Tuesday, December 24, 1996 4:52pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 724603 To: Tempest Re: What sex are you? (Reply to #724557, Reply to #721928, Reply to #721757, R*) TE>VI>TE>Didn't find that at all! TE>VI>I guess it's all just a matter of perception then. :) TE>Yup! Perception is as much an influence in what is read as is what is TE>written. I guess so. :) Date: Monday, November 25, 1996 12:56am Forum: Reality From: Faz Msg#: 726000 To: ** ALL ** Re: Thats Anzac, not Prozac (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #723076, Reply to #722159, R*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- TE>Why is Metaphysics not grounded in logic? Logic is subjective, it's TE>logical to some, illogical to others. That is the problem with logic TE>itself - we as human beings may think logic is our most sensible tool, TE>but that does NOT mean that it is an accurate portrayal of the universe. The higher a science becomes the more universal its principles. Such principles cannot be based on physical laws. TE>What?! Philosophy and Metaphysics are not sciences. Science and TE>philosophy are 2 different things, albeit related. Philosophy does deal TE>with primary causes, but science attempts to get to primary causes in TE>increments, by figuring out one thing at a time, instead of going TE>straight to the root. Psychology, as a "soft science", has definite TE>roots in philosophy, it's sort of half philosophy half science. "Hard TE>sciences" like chemistry and physics, on the other hand, are much more TE>detached from philosophy, they mostly involve straight experimentation. they are sciences....what do you think the first philosophers(Thales,Anaximander,Anaximenes) were? All the Ionians were considered physicists by Aristotle and the other greeks. The reason being was that they tried to attribute physical causes to existence. Chemistry and physics are not detached, they are attached....the fact that they involve straight experimentation means they rely on physical explanations, those which philosophy gives such as substance,matter,form,etc TE>That does not make any sense! A science like physics starts out with TE>theory, but goes on to try to prove or disprove the theory, for example TE>by testing whatever atomic collisions and making sense of the effects. TE>The "lower sciences" (I assume you mean physics, etc.?) cannot TE>contradict the "higher sciences" (I assume philosophy, etc.?)????? TE>How is that so?! If philosophy could not be contradicted, then it would TE>in effect be religion, and there would be no point in science! TE>Philosophy is just ideas, science is what can tell you whether those TE>ideas are probably true or not. are you saying the Laws in physics(lower science) can contradict the Higher laws of metaphysics?!(Law of Existence) if thats the case then soem studies of physics would be far from theoretical, they would prove a lot more than they do now. i dont see that. TE>What law of existence and free will?! There are only ideas about TE>existence and free will, no laws! We really have no idea whether we have TE>free will or not, or even if we exist in the way that we think we do! Or TE>if we do at all, for that matter. Like I said, psychology is not a hard TE>science - in fact psychology grew right out of philosophy. Studying the TE>chemical makeup of beings is not the field of psychology anyway - that TE>is the realm of biochemistry. Are you so sure that we have free will? If TE>so, then why is it that simple alterations of neurotransmitter levels in TE>our brain can make us act and percieve in such bizarre ways? We all seem TE>to be slaves of chemicals. We dont have free will?!!!!!!!! What seperates us from plants and animals? animals can move like we do and have the same bodily functions that must be done in order to live...so you tell me what seperates us from the lower orders. incidently biochemistry is a misnomer....psychology that deals directly with chemistry is called psychiatry. Psychiatrists can prescribe drugs. Emotions are a lot worse than any chemicals out there. If you look at Aristotles work on the soul, you would see the correlations. TE>Different direction?? What do u mean?? Tell me exactly, i'm no good with TE>metaphors! :) physics: study of physical being.Tries to find out what is essential for object to exist. Metaphysics: Highest form of human knowing. the very EXISTENCE of being. This is the study of Being. physics is lower because it only knows cursory aspects of being,existence,matter from what it can pull from Metaphysics. If you have the time, read "Nature of Philosophy" by Jacques Maritain. He was consdered to be one of the greatest minds of our time. The examples he uses are a little more clearer than mine. ...if i can find my copy i will write them down here. Date: Monday, November 25, 1996 8:27pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 726001 To: ** ALL ** Re: Thats Anzac, not Prozac (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #723376, Reply to #723076, R*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Faz ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- FFA>The higher a science becomes the more universal its principles. Such FA>principles cannot be based on physical laws. What do you mean by universal, exactly? How can something that is merely a result of pure, human, unproven thought be closer to the truth than that which has been observed, proven, practiced by science? FA>they are sciences....what do you think the first FA>philosophers(Thales,Anaximander,Anaximenes) were? All the Ionians were FA>considered physicists by Aristotle and the other greeks. The reason FA>being was that they tried to attribute physical causes to existence. FA>Chemistry and physics are not detached, they are attached....the fact FA>that they involve straight experimentation means they rely on physical FA>explanations, those which philosophy gives such as FA>substance,matter,form,etc The entire concepts of philosophy and science have changed over the past couple thousand years! True, the Ionians were considered scientists during their time, because they tried to explain the world around them in a more physical sense than everyone else. They were not the same as the scientists of today, however, simply because the experimental techniques we have now did not exist back then. Today, we think of the Ionians as philosophers, because the scientists of today are much further away from philosophy than they were a long time ago. FA>are you saying the Laws in physics(lower science) can contradict the FA>Higher laws of metaphysics?!(Law of Existence) if thats the case then FA>soem studies of physics would be far from theoretical, they would prove FA>a lot more than they do now. i dont see that. Of COURSE the laws of Physics can contradict the laws of Metaphysics! Who do you think made up the laws of metaphysics?! Human beings, of course! Are human beings not prone to error? If the physical sciences can directly PROVE that a metaphysical law is wrong, then it points to an error made by the human being who created that metaphysical law! Of course, theoretical physics is still theoretical. The branch of physics which is basically attempting to explain the universe - Quantum Physics - is still extremely new and I doubt that we are gonna see any direct proof of anything in our lifetimes! But just because you don't see proof now, doesn't mean it won't happen. Science has been proving laws of nature for centuries, and it will continue to do so. FA>We dont have free will?!!!!!!!! FA>What seperates us from plants and animals? animals can move like we do FA>and have the same bodily functions that must be done in order to FA>live...so you tell me what seperates us from the lower orders. FA>incidently biochemistry is a misnomer....psychology that deals directly FA>with chemistry is called psychiatry. Psychiatrists can prescribe drugs. FA>Emotions are a lot worse than any chemicals out there. FA>If you look at Aristotles work on the soul, you would see the FA>correlations. I don't know if we have a free will, but it sure is not looking like we do. What separates us from the animals is Cognition. Our Frontal Lobes. Or simply, our ability to reason. Reason does not necessarily imply free will. Biochemistry isn't a misnomer! Biochemistry is short for Biological Chemistry, or the chemical processes that occur in an organic being. Psychiatry is not exactly psychology that deals with chemistry. Psychiatrists can prescribe drugs because they are M.D.'s, not because they are chemists. Emotions are a lot worse than chemicals?! You gotta realize that emotions ARE chemicals, Faz. That is all they are. Emotions are nothing more than actions of serotonin, dopamine, endorphins, norepinepherine, and other such chemicals. It almost hurts to accept it, but those are the facts. If only Aristotle knew what we know now, he may have changed his mind. FA>TE>Different direction?? What do u mean?? Tell me exactly, i'm no good with FA>TE>metaphors! :) FA>physics: study of physical being.Tries to find out what is essential for FA>object to exist. FA>Metaphysics: Highest form of human knowing. the very EXISTENCE of being. FA>This is the study of Being. FA>physics is lower because it only knows cursory aspects of FA>being,existence,matter from what it can pull from Metaphysics. Physics does not really "pull" anything from Metaphysics, it is a separate entity. Both Physics and Metaphysics are studies of Being, but each goes about it in a different way. One is not "higher" than the other. FA>If you have the time, read "Nature of Philosophy" by Jacques Maritain. FA>He was consdered to be one of the greatest minds of our time. The FA>examples he uses are a little more clearer than mine. FA>...if i can find my copy i will write them down here. Wrote it down on one of my many scrap envelopes here :) I'll pick it up when I got time! Date: Monday, January 20, 1997 3:26pm Forum: Reality From: Enchanter Msg#: 727151 To: ** ALL ** Re: USED to be a philosopher (1 reply) When I was in college, I USED to be into philosophy. My major involved a considerable amount of study in it (ancient history), so I got to know it pretty well. But after some years of study, especially towards the end, I realized philosophy for what it is -- bs. The whole idea is that one could argue the inherent truth about anything. Unfortunately, it is all too easily demonstrated that one could quite logically argue anything in any direction. This is what led the ancients on their wild goose chase for hundreds of years, and held back real science, until people like Copernicus and Galileo showed that all that arguing amounted to no conclusion but the false one. Another thing that turned my opinion was study into a certain school of thought of history called Materialism. This says that all historical events and progress is solely based on material objects. It deconstructs all of history based on economics, politics, and other similar concrete issues. This put philosophy and religion in its proper light, for me, and showed me that they are all derivatives of more material things. Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 7:04pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 731606 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: What would you do? (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #464172) (2 replies) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Demon Lord ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- DL>What would you do if you found out that you only had a week to live? Wow, what a great question I missed! Old date, but great topic of discussion... Off the top of my head, I think I would just take as many drugs as possible, have sex with as many people as possible, and die a happy death... >:) Date: Friday, March 21, 1997 5:53pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 731610 To: Tempest Re: What would you do? (Reply to #731606, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #464172) TE>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>TO: Demon Lord TE>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>DL>What would you do if you found out that you only had a week to live? TE>Wow, what a great question I missed! Old date, but great topic of TE>discussion... TE>Off the top of my head, I think I would just take as many drugs as TE>possible, have sex with as many people as possible, and die a TE>happy death... >:) I would do all of the above....PLUS I would as much chocolate and sweets as I could stuff down my face! :) Date: Sunday, March 23, 1997 8:07am Forum: Reality From: Trapper Msg#: 731633 To: Tempest Re: What would you do? (Reply to #731606, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #464172) (1 reply) This is a tough question to answer. After picking myself up off the floor from getting the news. I would probably cram as much things into that week to do that I haven't done already. I hope that this doesn't happen to me in the near future. Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 7:08pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 731661 To: ** ALL ** Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #730543, Reply to #730539, R*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Nightbird ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- NI>TE>I>TE>I ain't a teenager anymore (I don't know whether to sob or say thank NI>TE>NI>TE>God) NI>TE>NI>THANK GOD! NI>TE>I suppose... but I do get real nostalgic for those good old carefree NI>TE>do-whatever-the-hell-I-want days... :) NI>Not me, live is pretty good for me right the way it is! NI>But that's me, I'm not trying to tell anyboby else how to run their NI>lives. Well, I'm not saying that life is bad now... it's pretty good in many respects, but it still feels like there's something missing now... Date: Sunday, March 23, 1997 1:36pm Forum: Reality From: Nightbird Msg#: 731681 To: ** ALL ** Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #731568, Reply to #730543, Rep*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>NI>TE>I>TE>I ain't a teenager anymore (I don't know whether to sob or say th TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>God) TE>NI>TE>NI>THANK GOD! TE>NI>TE>I suppose... but I do get real nostalgic for those good old carefree TE>NI>TE>do-whatever-the-hell-I-want days... :) TE>NI>Not me, live is pretty good for me right the way it is! TE>NI>But that's me, I'm not trying to tell anyboby else how to run their TE>NI>lives. TE>Well, I'm not saying that life is bad now... it's pretty good in TE>many respects, but it still feels like there's something missing now... Actully, my life is better now than when I was younger. Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Synne Msg#: 731704 To: Tempest Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #731661, Copy by Lythande, Reply to #730543, R*) (2 replies) I wonder if there is ever a point when there is "nothing missing" in ones life... Wouldnt that be nice? Date: Tuesday, March 25, 1997 6:39pm Forum: Reality From: Trapper Msg#: 731858 To: Synne Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #731704, Reply to #731661, Copy by Lythande, R*) (1 reply) SY>I wonder if there is ever a point when there is "nothing missing" in SY>ones life... SY>Wouldnt that be nice? Yes that would be very nice. But we all know that will never happen. Date: Tuesday, March 25, 1997 8:59pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 731922 To: ** ALL ** Re: Prejudice and race (Fw by Calvin, Reply to #731809, Reply to #731413, Reply*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Lythande ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- LY>VI>LY>YOu're saying that we all have racist attitudes as if that is proof of LY>VI>LY>fact! LY>VI>We are ALL racists because we live in a racist society. You can't LY>VI>completely escape from it. It posions the very air we breath. LY>Again, circular logic! We are racists because we live in a racist LY>society. The society is racist because we are racists! Sheesh! Look, LY>if you want to label yourself a racist, fine, but leave me out of it! LY>I'm not racist in any way, shape or form. LY>VI>LY>There's not a racist bone in my body. I like/love/hate people for WHO LY>VI>LY>they are, not what amount of melanin they have! LY>VI>You have never once in your life seen a black kid on the subway and LY>VI>have LY>VI>walked into another car????? Be honest with yourself Deb. LY>I've actually thought about that very scenario. And, realized that I'd LY>leave a subway car for a black kid. BUT, depending on what the kid was LY>wearing, how they were acting, etc. I'd leave the car because of a LY>white kid dressed and acting in a threatening way too. LY>BTW, any objections to moving this to /Reality? You're the sysop. If you want to move it, use your sysop powers. And back to the discussion at hand, I have no reason to doubt your good intentions. Nor do I doubt that you might not conciously perceive yourself as racist. I just don't think that it is possible to be white in America without internalizing racism. There internalized racism, sexism and homophobia in this society. And before you tell me you are not homophobic, think about why you wouldn't go to the Gay Pride dinner with me last year at BJ. Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 4:24pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733687 To: Enchanter Re: USED to be a philosopher (Reply to #727151) You miss the point of philosophy. Obviously, it's "pointless" in that it will not lead anyone to any "true answers," and yes one can easily argue anything they want quite logically. However - the point of philosophy - is that's it's FUN!! Philosophical discussion is very engaging and entertaining, plus it exercises your mind, expands the way in which you think, and helps you grow new interneural connections. Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 4:29pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733688 To: Trapper Re: What would you do? (Reply to #731633, Reply to #731606, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) TR>This is a tough question to answer. After picking myself up off the TR>floor from getting the news. I would probably cram as much things into TR>that week to do that I haven't done already. I hope that this doesn't TR>happen to me in the near future. What KINDS of things, though? There's not much you could do in a week! Hey, I don't hope this happens to any of us in the near future, but it's an interesting question to think about. Another interesting one (and more different from the first one than it seems, once you think about it) is what would you do if you found out you only had, say, a couple of hours to live? Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 4:30pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733689 To: Synne Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #731704, Reply to #731661, Copy by Lythande, R*) (1 reply) SY>I wonder if there is ever a point when there is "nothing missing" in SY>ones life... Hmmm... good question... funny thing is, the thing that's missing constantly changes, but it's always persistently there! SY>Wouldnt that be nice? Hehehh "nice" is an understatement! Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 4:31pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733690 To: Trapper Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #731858, Reply to #731704, Reply to #731661, C*) TR>SY>I wonder if there is ever a point when there is "nothing missing" in TR>SY>ones life... TR>SY>Wouldnt that be nice? TR>Yes that would be very nice. But we all know that will never happen. Optimistic, aren't we? Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 9:40pm Forum: Reality From: Synne Msg#: 733744 To: Tempest Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #733689, Reply to #731704, Reply to #731661, C*) (1 reply) Its the Black Hole caused by being human... We're never satisfied... even if we had everything we could ever want I bet we would each be able to come up with something that was missing... Date: Friday, April 18, 1997 1:54pm Forum: Reality From: Sheena Msg#: 733775 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Heaven's Gate Question (4 replies) I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate thingamajingee... Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? Date: Friday, April 18, 1997 2:49pm Forum: Reality From: Steve Flur Msg#: 733780 To: Sheena Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #733775) SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate SH>thingamajingee... SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? To hide? Date: Saturday, April 19, 1997 10:37am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 733840 To: Sheena Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #733775) (1 reply) SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate SH>thingamajingee... SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? Maybe Hale-Bopp wasn't really a comet but a spaceship in disguise? :) Date: Saturday, April 19, 1997 12:19pm Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 733856 To: *ALL* *EXEMPT* Re: Imponderable... (2 replies) I was doing my laundry last night, and I had a question. Not the overdiscussed sock escape issue, though that has bothered me for years. No, I need to know.... Where the hell does lint come from? I mean, I cleaned out the lint trap in the dryer, and there was this giant gray mass. Why don't I have huge holes in my clothes where the fibers have transmuted into lint? And why, no matter what I have in the dryer, is my lint gray? Huh? Not important practically, but I thought it might be a good philosophical issue. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * I'm pro-choice on everything! Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 5:42pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733922 To: Synne Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #733744, Reply to #733689, Reply to #731704, R*) (1 reply) SY>Its the Black Hole caused by being human... SY>We're never satisfied... even if we had everything we could ever want SY>financially.. etc> I bet we would each be able to come up with something SY>that was missing... You think so? Perhaps this dissatisfaction thing is a western phenomenon; i.e. maybe, for example, monks from the far east who are highly advanced spiritually do not have a problem with dissatisfaction. Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 5:48pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733923 To: Sheena Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #733775) (1 reply) SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate SH>thingamajingee... SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? So that it could get close enough to earth but yet still not be visible to earth by hiding behind the comet... Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:00pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 733924 To: Rand *EXEMPT* Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #733856) (2 replies) You know that is an excellent question, I've wondered that myself... And you know what? Lint comes from those very SOCKS that you lose... Here's how: I think that what happens is, there are secret voids in the washers and dryers - the same voids, in fact, that eat up your socks (and only one at a time, never a pair at once). So, the socks get sucked up through these voids and into the eleventh dimension, where they get chewed up by positrons and leptons and neutrinos and all sorts of other eleventh-dimension particles, because three-dimensional socks do not belong in the eleventh dimension. So, the product of all this subatomic particle activity on your socks turns them into LINT - each subatomic particle ends up with a tiny fiber from your sock, and due to some kind of weird quantum activity, the little fiber gets transformed into a lint ball by the particle. The reason all the lint balls are grey is because on that small a scale, there is no such thing as color - color only happens on the macromolecular level, not the subatomic level. You know how if you look at an electron microscope micrograph, everything looks grey? Well, same thing with the lint. So then, after the lint is all transformed, it's rejected by its particle and is spit back out through the void, and back into our dimension, where because of the subatomic particle residue, it proceeds to get stuck on your clothes. Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:01am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 734024 To: Sheena Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #733775) SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate SH>thingamajingee... SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? To get to the apple sauce, obviously. --- * SLMR 2.0 * Am I REALLY responsible for someone who refuses to eat? Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:02am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 734025 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #733924, Reply to #733856) (1 reply) TE>You know that is an excellent question, I've wondered that myself... TE>And you know what? Lint comes from those very SOCKS that you lose... TE>Here's how: TE>I think that what happens is, there are secret voids in the washers and TE>dryers - the same voids, in fact, that eat up your socks (and only one TE>at a time, never a pair at once). So, the socks get sucked up through TE>these voids and into the eleventh dimension, where they get chewed up by TE>positrons and leptons and neutrinos and all sorts of other TE>eleventh-dimension particles, because three-dimensional socks do not TE>belong in the eleventh dimension. So, the product of all this subatomic TE>particle activity on your socks turns them into LINT - each subatomic TE>particle ends up with a tiny fiber from your sock, and due to some kind TE>of weird quantum activity, the little fiber gets transformed into a lint TE>ball by the particle. The reason all the lint balls are grey is because TE>on that small a scale, there is no such thing as color - color only TE>happens on the macromolecular level, not the subatomic level. You know TE>how if you look at an electron microscope micrograph, everything looks TE>grey? Well, same thing with the lint. So then, after the lint is all TE>transformed, it's rejected by its particle and is spit back out through TE>the void, and back into our dimension, where because of the subatomic TE>particle residue, it proceeds to get stuck on your clothes. ED! DEB! Goddammit somebody ***EXEMPT*** this, it splains everything, and in concepts that made my brain waver on the pin, gonna hafta install more dampers in there soon... >0# --- * SLMR 2.0 * Less is More. Death is the Answer. Life is the Question. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 1:13am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 734208 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #734025, Reply to #733924, Reply to #733856) (1 reply) DDT> ED! DT> DEB! DT> Goddammit somebody ***EXEMPT*** this, it splains everything, and in DT>concepts that made my brain waver on the pin, gonna hafta install more DT>dampers in there soon... >0# Ooh! It's good to make your brain waver, u so sweet! Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 11:18pm Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 734310 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #733924, Reply to #733856) (1 reply) In a message dated 04-20-97 Tempest wrote to Rand : T> You know that is an excellent question, I've wondered that myself... T> And you know what? Lint comes from those very SOCKS that you lose... T> Here's how: T> I think that what happens is, there are secret voids in the washers and T> dryers - the same voids, in fact, that eat up your socks (and only one T> at a time, never a pair at once). So, the socks get sucked up through T> these voids and into the eleventh dimension, where they get chewed up by T> positrons and leptons and neutrinos and all sorts of other T> eleventh-dimension particles, because three-dimensional socks do not T> belong in the eleventh dimension. So, the product of all this subatomic T> particle activity on your socks turns them into LINT - each subatomic T> particle ends up with a tiny fiber from your sock, and due to some kind T> of weird quantum activity, the little fiber gets transformed into a lint T> ball by the particle. The reason all the lint balls are grey is because T> on that small a scale, there is no such thing as color - color only T> happens on the macromolecular level, not the subatomic level. You know T> how if you look at an electron microscope micrograph, everything looks T> grey? Well, same thing with the lint. So then, after the lint is all T> transformed, it's rejected by its particle and is spit back out through T> the void, and back into our dimension, where because of the subatomic T> particle residue, it proceeds to get stuck on your clothes. Thank you so much! I have been asking everyone this question, and I get one of two responses: 1) "Huh?" (accompanied by blank, drooling stare) or 2) "Don't you have something you should be doing instead of bothering me with this crap?" (accompanied by a prompt turning of the back) So I turned to my real friends, the guys from AH. And you came through for me -- Thanks! TANSTAAFL, Rand (who is proud that he has contributed to the quantity of eleventh dimension particles) --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 1:43am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 734344 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #734208, Reply to #734025, Reply to #733924, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> Goddammit somebody ***EXEMPT*** this, it splains everything, and in TE>DT>concepts that made my brain waver on the pin, gonna hafta install more TE>DT>dampers in there soon... >0# TE>Ooh! It's good to make your brain waver, u so sweet! Sweets, yr brain is hands down the best part of you... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * if men concieved, abortion would be a sacrament Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 3:40am Forum: Reality From: Synne Msg#: 734392 To: Tempest Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #733922, Reply to #733744, Reply to #733689, R*) (1 reply) Maybe... ask 'em! :-) btw... "highly advanced spiritually"? that term kind of made me squirm. Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 1:42am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 734858 To: ** ALL ** Re: Mid-life crisis (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #731842, Reply to #717691, Rep*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Lythande ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- LY>TE>When I've ventured to do certain things over the past few months - the LY>TE>things that I used to do back in my "wild years", I still enjoy them but LY>TE>I feel out of place - like I'm too old to be doing this stuff. But at LY>TE>the same time I get really nostalgic and kind of yearning to be able to LY>TE>freely do that stuff again. It's weird. LY>What kind of things? Eh, can't really go into that in detail! That's classified information :> LY>Anyway, it's not wierd at all - everyone feels like that. Why do you LY>think men go through mid-life crises? Hehehheh this is true... but I ain't a man and I ain't in mid-life yet! LY>TE>Hmmm... I think it's a little different with me. My ideas about what I LY>TE>need out of life have never really changed. The only things that have LY>TE>changed are the ways in which I have been fulfilling those needs, but LY>TE>the basic needs are the same. LY>What needs are those? Intensity! A sense that I am DOING something interesting with life, not just living it mechanically. Purposefulness would be great too, but it just takes too much :( LY>TE>Btw, you need more??? Hmmm, I'm gonna have to have a talk with Ed :) LY>Be my guest! He'll probably ask you to help! ROFL! Hehehehh knowing him, yeah :) Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 7:10am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735025 To: Rand Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #734310, Reply to #733924, Reply to #733856) RRA>Thank you so much! I have been asking everyone this question, and I get one RA>of two responses: RA>1) "Huh?" (accompanied by blank, drooling stare) RA> or RA>2) "Don't you have something you should be doing instead of bothering me wit RA>this crap?" (accompanied by a prompt turning of the back) That's terrible!! How mean! RA>So I turned to my real friends, the guys from AH. And you came through for Awww :) RA>-- Thanks! You are very much welcome! Always feel free to come to me for pseudo-scientific-philosophical ramblings, and for answers to any such esoteric abstract questions about life and its puzzles that you may have :) RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> Rand RA>(who is proud that he has contributed to the quantity of eleventh dimension RA>particles) And the eleventh dimension particle collective is happy to recieve your contribution, and always appreciates further donations! For further information, send a SASE to: The Sock-Lint Regeneration Program 900000 to 26th power Neutrino Flux Eleventh Dimension Further donations entitle you to numerous benefits... Okay okay I'm getting ridiculous, it's 7 AM and I haven't slept in two days forgive me :) RA>--- RA> * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 7:13am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735026 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #734344, Reply to #734208, Reply to #734025, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> Goddammit somebody ***EXEMPT*** this, it splains everything, and in DT>TE>DT>concepts that made my brain waver on the pin, gonna hafta install more DT>TE>DT>dampers in there soon... >0# DT>TE>Ooh! It's good to make your brain waver, u so sweet! DT> Sweets, yr brain is hands down the best part of you... >9# Fried or over-easy? Heh just kidding YOU ARE SO GODDAMN SWEET!!! ;* Thank You!!! :) Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 7:14am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735027 To: Synne Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #734392, Reply to #733922, Reply to #733744, R*) (1 reply) SY>Maybe... ask 'em! :-) Well as soon as I git to travel halfway around the world I will! :) SY>btw... "highly advanced spiritually"? that term kind of made me squirm. Why is that?? Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 2:40pm Forum: Reality From: Steve Flur Msg#: 735071 To: Rand Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #733856) RA>I was doing my laundry last night, and I had a question. Not the RA>overdiscussed sock escape issue, though that has bothered me for years. No, RA>need to know.... RA>Where the hell does lint come from? RA>I mean, I cleaned out the lint trap in the dryer, and there was this giant RA>gray mass. Why don't I have huge holes in my clothes where the fibers have RA>transmuted into lint? RA>And why, no matter what I have in the dryer, is my lint gray? Huh? RA>Not important practically, but I thought it might be a good philosophical RA>issue. RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> Rand RA>--- RA> * TIMM 1.3 * I'm pro-choice on everything! Actually I have not done laundry in over 15 years, since Stanley moved in, so I guess I could ask him. Date: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 12:28am Forum: Reality From: Sheena Msg#: 735113 To: Vida Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #733840, Reply to #733775) (1 reply) VI>SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate VI>SH>thingamajingee... VI>SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? VI>Maybe Hale-Bopp wasn't really a comet but a spaceship in disguise? :) Hey Vida...long time. Nice to see you're still here. Mmmmm...I think I'll pass on flying on THAT ship ;-) Date: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 12:29am Forum: Reality From: Sheena Msg#: 735114 To: Tempest Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #733923, Reply to #733775) (1 reply) TE>SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate TE>SH>thingamajingee... TE>SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? TE>So that it could get close enough to earth but yet still not be visible TE>to earth by hiding behind the comet... Uh-huh...and the comet was it's shield, right? ;) Date: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 7:08am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 735123 To: Sheena Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #735113, Reply to #733840, Reply to #733775) SH>VI>SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate SH>VI>SH>thingamajingee... SH>VI>SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? SH>VI>Maybe Hale-Bopp wasn't really a comet but a spaceship in disguise? :) SH>Hey Vida...long time. Nice to see you're still here. SH>Mmmmm...I think I'll pass on flying on THAT ship ;-) Good to hear from you too Sheena! :) Yeah, that's one trip I DEFINITELY wouldn't want to take! :) Date: Thursday, May 8, 1997 1:39am Forum: Reality From: Synne Msg#: 735184 To: Tempest Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #735027, Reply to #734392, Reply to #733922, R*) (1 reply) Because.. people have different ideas of what that means... It scares me when people think that because certain people live a religious lifestyle that means they are "spiritually advanced"... Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 3:55am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 735348 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #735026, Reply to #734344, Reply to #734208, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> Sweets, yr brain is hands down the best part of you... >9# TE>Fried or over-easy? Heh just kidding YOU ARE SO GODDAMN SWEET!!! ;* TE>Thank You!!! Fried, with cayenne liberally applied. Especially the charry bits... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 1:48am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735463 To: Sheena Re: Heaven's Gate Question (Reply to #735114, Reply to #733923, Reply to #733775) SH>TE>SH>I have a very simple question regarding this whole Heaven's Gate SH>TE>SH>thingamajingee... SH>TE>SH>Why the hell would a spaceship be following a burning comet??? SH>TE>So that it could get close enough to earth but yet still not be visible SH>TE>to earth by hiding behind the comet... SH>Uh-huh...and the comet was it's shield, right? ;) Exactly! That's why u can't see the spaceship through a telescope, no matter how powerful it is :) Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 1:50am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735464 To: Synne Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #735184, Reply to #735027, Reply to #734392, R*) (1 reply) SY>Because.. people have different ideas of what that means... It scares me SY>when people think that because certain people live a SY>religious lifestyle that means they are "spiritually advanced"... Ahhh, in that case, I see your point. Although when I think of "spiritually advanced," I don't think of religion at all; I think of meditation, being at peace with oneself. Has nothing to do with religion, morality, etc. nothing of the sort. Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 1:52am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735465 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #735348, Reply to #735026, Reply to #734344, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> Sweets, yr brain is hands down the best part of you... >9# DT>TE>Fried or over-easy? Heh just kidding YOU ARE SO GODDAMN SWEET!!! ;* DT>TE>Thank You!!! DT> Fried, with cayenne liberally applied. Especially the charry bits... DT> >9# My brain is your pepper steak sweetheart!! Bon Appetite!! >:) (It's raw, just the way u like it >:) ) Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 8:48pm Forum: Reality From: Synne Msg#: 735499 To: Tempest Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #735464, Reply to #735184, Reply to #735027, R*) (1 reply) Amen. Date: Monday, October 21, 1996 8:42pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735655 To: ** ALL ** Re: Prejudice and race (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #720740, Reply to #720724, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>TE>VI>"Birth of a Nation" is a silent movie. VI>TE>VI> It is a classic. It is an exremely effective, extremely well put VI>TE>VI>together movie which was directed by DW Griffith and made in 1919 if I VI>TE>VI>remember correctly. Bob is a silent movie buff so he has shown me a lo VI>TE>VI>of silent movies in our time together. VI>TE>Well since this movie was made in 1919, then I do not think that it is VI>TE>an accurate portrayal of our culture NOW. Times have changed since 1919! VI>I don't think we can discount 1919 so quickly. I think you are VI>generally overly optimistic over the progress we have made since that VI>time. I don't think I'm overly optimistic. Just think about it - we have made so much progress in all planes of life over the past century, it is unbelievable. Think about it in terms of how long humanity has been around, and how much our civilization has changed in only ONE CENTURY. For several MILLENIA, racism and sexism have been normal parts of humanity all over the world to a ridiculous extent. For those several millenia, there were practically no changes in attitude whatsoever. In just this one century, we managed to produce positive and effective changes in attitude in many parts of the world. It takes many generations to produce changes in human attitude that has been embedded in society for thousands of years; the changes we have made in the 20th century are incredible. VI>TE>VI>"Birth of a Nation" is also, unfortunately an extremely racist movie. VI>TE>VI>In fact, the Klu Klux Klan is portrayed in a sympathetic fashion in th VI>TE>VI>movie as the "saviours" of the good, white Southern people. VI>TE>The KKK may have been sympathetically looked upon at the beginning of VI>TE>the century, but it sure is not looked upon sympathetically by the VI>TE>majority of the population nowadays. VI>I agree with you that the KKK would probably not be sympathically VI>portrayed in any modern movie. But I think that racist attitudes still VI>persist. They still persist in a few various secluded rural parts of the United States, FAR from the majority. And far less than they persisted just few decades ago. VI>TE>VI>What I was trying to drive home is that black males have been portraye VI>TE>VI>as sexual predators since the earliest, earliest days of the movies. VI>TE>VI>Think of all the "black exploitation" movies of the 70's and the VI>TE>VI>"gansta" movies of the 90's if you want more recent examples. VI>TE>I don't know what "black exploitation" movies from the 70's you are VI>TE>talking about, but as for the gangsta movies of this decade - they are VI>TE>made by black males, so if these movies portray black males in a VI>TE>negative fashion, then they are doing it to themselves. VI>We gay people refer to "internalized homophobia". It's the same thing VI>with black males. The fact that SOME of the gangsta movies have been VI>made by black males does not negate my observation. I don't know of ANY gangsta movies made by white people. They are basically made BY black males, FOR black males. Please, do tell me about "black exploitation" movies from the 70's, btw. VI>I have no first hand experience with racism. However, I have first VI>hand experience with homophobia and anti-semitism. And I can tell you, VI>from my first hand experience, that members of oppressed groups VI>internalize the sterotypes that the "mainstream" culture perpetuate VI>against them. This internalization process leads members of oppressed VI>groups to BELIEVE the sterotypes generated by the mainstream culture VI>and to ACCEPT these sterotypes as being true. I'm not sure I can make sense of that. If this is true, then why don't I, as a female, internalize the stereotypes made against women? And relating this to the "gangsta" movie question - are you trying to say that, because there is a stereotype about young black males being in gangs, then that is why they portray themselves that way in movies? This is a chicken-or-egg question. I think that the REASON there ARE stereotypes about young black males in gangs, is because there HAVE been quite a few young black male gang members for quite some time now. It is the truth. Why deny it? VI>TE>VI>Everything is the world. VI>TE>VI>The black female jury wanted to protect one of their men from being VI>TE>VI>"falsely accused" of ravaging a white woman--even though in this case VI>TE>VI>believe the black male in question was NOT falsely accused. VI>TE>How do you know what the psychology is behind their decision? I think VI>TE>that if, for example, the perp was white, the victim was black, and the VI>TE>jury were made up of white females, then the jury would vote innocent as VI>TE>well. Psychologically speaking, members of a particular race will VI>TE>usually be inclined toward making their own race look better, even if it VI>TE>is a subconscious process (no matter what race it is). That is what VI>TE>causes the bias, which is the reasoning behind trying to make a jury as VI>TE>diverse as possible. VI>I agree that the psychological process which you speak about operates. VI>But the question is: Why? Why do we even consider race to be a VI>relevant to our identity? I have wondered about that myself. The only explanation is that it is just simply embedded in humanity. Remember that for thousands of years, human beings lived in secluded little clumps where seeing someone of a different race was quite simply a SHOCK. Mixed-race society is a relatively new thing. It takes humanity, as a WHOLE, a long time to get used to this. Identifying with your own race/appearance is a biological reflex. It is the same reason that, for example, grey pigeons will cluster together and outcast a black or white pigeon. Our intelligence is the only thing that can make us overcome this biological reflex, and it will take many generations for the human race as a whole to overcome this impediment. VI>I think the answer to this question is the racism that pervades our VI>society. When racism disappears then this psychological process which VI>you discribe will become much, much weaker--if not disappear totally. See above - racism is inherent in humanity. But see what I wrote at the beginning of this post - it does NOT pervade our society to the extent that it did just 100 years ago. We ARE making progress. We will probably not see racism (along with that psychological process) disappear within our lifetimes, but if we keep up our progress, perhaps a few generations into the future it might happen. Date: Wednesday, October 23, 1996 9:10pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735658 To: ** ALL ** Re: Prejudice and race (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #721147, Reply to #721115, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>TE>I don't think I'm overly optimistic. Just think about it - we have made VI>TE>so much progress in all planes of life over the past century, it is VI>TE>unbelievable. Think about it in terms of how long humanity has been VI>TE>around, and how much our civilization has changed in only ONE VI>TE>CENTURY. VI>TE>For several MILLENIA, racism and sexism have been normal parts of VI>TE>humanity all over the world to a ridiculous extent. For those VI>TE>several millenia, there were practically no changes in attitude whatsoeve VI>TE>In just this one century, we managed to produce positive and effective VI>TE>changes in attitude in many parts of the world. It takes many VI>TE>generations to produce changes in human attitude that has been VI>TE>embedded in society for thousands of years; the changes we have made in t VI>TE>20th century are incredible. VI>It is hard for me to feel very upbeat about human progress in this VI>regard. We also had the Holocaust in this century. And "ethic VI>cleansing" in Bosnia. "Ethnic cleansing" and Holocaust type of activities are not new to humanity. Societies throughout the world have had histories of trying to eliminate those unlike them throughout history. I'm not trying to downplay the horror of the Holocaust, but very similar types of systematic extermination have occured in other parts of the world which are simply not as well-known. I'm not saying that human society is near perfection now, not at all, but I do have to feel grateful that we no longer live in a time where people commonly got burned alive at a stake, crucified, tortured with racks, etc. VI>TE>VI>TE>The KKK may have been sympathetically looked upon at the beginning VI>TE>VI>TE>the century, but it sure is not looked upon sympathetically by the VI>TE>VI>TE>majority of the population nowadays. VI>TE>VI>I agree with you that the KKK would probably not be sympathically VI>TE>VI>portrayed in any modern movie. But I think that racist attitudes stil VI>TE>VI>persist. VI>TE>They still persist in a few various secluded rural parts of the United VI>TE>States, FAR from the majority. And far less than they persisted just VI>TE>few decades ago. VI>I think racist attitudes still presist in urban areas. It is just no VI>longer politically correct to say them out loud. VI>Now I will admit that it IS progress that it is no longer ok in polite VI>society to state racist attitudes out loud. Yes, it is progress. And, pragmatically speaking, if a person has racist thoughts and feelings but does not state them or take any kind of racist action, then this person's racism is really not a problem. Besides, a person's thoughts cannot be controlled or suppressed, no matter how much one tries, so trying to change peoples' THOUGHTS on the issue is a pointless endeavour. The point is to try and make it unacceptable in society, so that people would keep it to themselves and not act on it - and in many parts of this country, we have achieved that. VI>TE>VI>TE>I don't know what "black exploitation" movies from the 70's you are VI>TE>VI>TE>talking about, but as for the gangsta movies of this decade - they VI>TE>VI>TE>made by black males, so if these movies portray black males in a VI>TE>VI>TE>negative fashion, then they are doing it to themselves. VI>TE>VI>We gay people refer to "internalized homophobia". It's the same thing VI>TE>VI>with black males. The fact that SOME of the gangsta movies have been VI>TE>VI>made by black males does not negate my observation. VI>TE>I don't know of ANY gangsta movies made by white people. They are VI>TE>basically made BY black males, FOR black males. VI>TE>Please, do tell me about "black exploitation" movies from the 70's, VI>TE>btw. VI>My memory is fading with time. I remember "Shaft", that's it. But VI>there were a whole slew of similiar movies which were basically VI>directed to the black community. Who made them, what were they about? What did they depict? VI>BTW, are you really so sure that the gansta movies are ALL written and VI>produced by black males? They are directed at the black audience for VI>sure. But are they ALL produced by black males? I cannot think of any that were written/produced by any whites. As far as I know they are all made by black males, along with gangsta rap. It's this whole black urban culture thing. They're PROUD of their image. And this image is so popular that many white and hispanic young males are copying their style. VI>And you still did not address the issue of "internalized racism", which VI>is a very, very important concept to comprehend IMHO. I addressed it below. VI>TE>VI>I have no first hand experience with racism. However, I have first VI>TE>VI>hand experience with homophobia and anti-semitism. And I can tell you VI>TE>VI>from my first hand experience, that members of oppressed groups VI>TE>VI>internalize the sterotypes that the "mainstream" culture perpetuate VI>TE>VI>against them. This internalization process leads members of oppressed VI>TE>VI>groups to BELIEVE the sterotypes generated by the mainstream culture VI>TE>VI>and to ACCEPT these sterotypes as being true. VI>TE>I'm not sure I can make sense of that. If this is true, then why don't VI>TE>I, as a female, internalize the stereotypes made against women? And VI>TE>relating this to the "gangsta" movie question - are you trying to say VI>TE>that, because there is a stereotype about young black males being in VI>TE>gangs, then that is why they portray themselves that way in movies? This VI>TE>is a chicken-or-egg question. I think that the REASON there ARE VI>TE>stereotypes about young black males in gangs, is because there HAVE been VI>TE>quite a few young black male gang members for quite some time now. It is VI>TE>the truth. Why deny it? VI>I think to a certain extent, as a female, you DO internalize sterotypes VI>about feminity and gender role identity. Which is why it is so VI>important to have feminist conciousness to combat it. I really, honestly, don't think so. Maybe it's true for other women, but I can only speak for myself, and it's not true for me. I have never fit in with any stereotypes about gender roles or femininity. These stereotypes have never made any sense to me. Examples - among my biggest interests in life are the hard sciences, like chemistry and physics - the fact that these are male-dominated fields has never stopped me from pursuing them. I don't do any typically "female" things - I can't cook, I don't do housework, etc. Nor am I the epitome of femininity - I carry around bleeding people at my job along with the "guys", I lift weights, I wear skirts once in a blue moon. What I'm trying to say is that I have never had any inner struggles with gender roles or femininity. I've always just been the way I am, and never gave gender roles much thought. AND, I don't need a "feminist consciousness" to do this. I don't feel a need to be above OR below men, I simply am who I am. I LIKE men, most of my friends are guys in fact, and I don't feel a need to downplay or bash them in order to get myself to the top. Am I making sense here? VI>I don't deny that there are black males in gangs. But I think the VI>glorification of gangsta culture that we have seen is very much part of VI>the problem that we have. But the black males are the ones that glorify gangsta culture! VI>TE>VI>I agree that the psychological process which you speak about operates. VI>TE>VI>But the question is: Why? Why do we even consider race to be a VI>TE>VI>relevant to our identity? VI>TE>I have wondered about that myself. The only explanation is that it is VI>TE>just simply embedded in humanity. Remember that for thousands of years, VI>TE>human beings lived in secluded little clumps where seeing someone of a VI>TE>different race was quite simply a SHOCK. Mixed-race society is a VI>TE>relatively new thing. It takes humanity, as a WHOLE, a long time to get VI>TE>used to this. Identifying with your own race/appearance is a biological VI>TE>reflex. It is the same reason that, for example, grey pigeons will VI>TE>cluster together and outcast a black or white pigeon. Our intelligence VI>TE>is the only thing that can make us overcome this biological reflex, and VI>TE>it will take many generations for the human race as a whole to overcome VI>TE>this impediment. VI>I think what you are saying is partially true. But it also makes me VI>think of one of my favorite movie lines--which Katherine Hepburn says VI>to Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen": "Nature, Mr. Arnaut, is VI>what we were put on the earth to rise above." Welll... that's a matter of subjective opinion... VI>TE>VI>I think the answer to this question is the racism that pervades our VI>TE>VI>society. When racism disappears then this psychological process which VI>TE>VI>you discribe will become much, much weaker--if not disappear totally. VI>TE>See above - racism is inherent in humanity. But see what I wrote at the VI>TE>beginning of this post - it does NOT pervade our society to the extent VI>TE>that it did just 100 years ago. We ARE making progress. We will probably VI>TE>not see racism (along with that psychological process) disappear within VI>TE>our lifetimes, but if we keep up our progress, perhaps a few generations VI>TE>into the future it might happen. VI>I do not think that racism is inherent in humanity. If it was inherent VI>than you would NOT be able to change it. That makes no sense. How can racism not be inherent in humanity if 1) other creatures of nature act in ways that are equivalent to racism (see pigeon example above) and 2) human beings have been racist since the dawn of time. If racism wasn't inherent in humanity, then we wouldn't be racist. Simply put. Or more technically, it is not exactly racism that is inherent, but a fear of the unknown or that which is different from us. Regular people fear other people who look different from them, or act different from them, etc. It is a natural response. Same reason why, if we were to suddenly come in contact with aliens, we would fear and be "racist" against them, no matter how nice they might be in reality. Changing that which is inherent is very difficult, but over large amounts of time, it is possible. It's called evolution. Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 9:54am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 735787 To: Tempest Re: Prejudice and race (Reply to #735655, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #720740, Rep*) TE>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>TO: Vida TE>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>TE>VI>"Birth of a Nation" is a silent movie. TE>VI>TE>VI> It is a classic. It is an exremely effective, extremely well put TE>VI>TE>VI>together movie which was directed by DW Griffith and made in 1919 i TE>VI>TE>VI>remember correctly. Bob is a silent movie buff so he has shown me a TE>VI>TE>VI>of silent movies in our time together. TE>VI>TE>Well since this movie was made in 1919, then I do not think that it is TE>VI>TE>an accurate portrayal of our culture NOW. Times have changed since 191 TE>VI>I don't think we can discount 1919 so quickly. I think you are TE>VI>generally overly optimistic over the progress we have made since that TE>VI>time. TE>I don't think I'm overly optimistic. Just think about it - we have made TE>so much progress in all planes of life over the past century, it is TE>unbelievable. Think about it in terms of how long humanity has been TE>around, and how much our civilization has changed in only ONE TE>CENTURY. TE>For several MILLENIA, racism and sexism have been normal parts of TE>humanity all over the world to a ridiculous extent. For those TE>several millenia, there were practically no changes in attitude whatsoever. TE>In just this one century, we managed to produce positive and effective TE>changes in attitude in many parts of the world. It takes many TE>generations to produce changes in human attitude that has been TE>embedded in society for thousands of years; the changes we have made in the TE>20th century are incredible. Racism and sexism are STILL very much alive and kicking, unfortunately. :( TE>VI>TE>VI>"Birth of a Nation" is also, unfortunately an extremely racist movi TE>VI>TE>VI>In fact, the Klu Klux Klan is portrayed in a sympathetic fashion in TE>VI>TE>VI>movie as the "saviours" of the good, white Southern people. TE>VI>TE>The KKK may have been sympathetically looked upon at the beginning of TE>VI>TE>the century, but it sure is not looked upon sympathetically by the TE>VI>TE>majority of the population nowadays. TE>VI>I agree with you that the KKK would probably not be sympathically TE>VI>portrayed in any modern movie. But I think that racist attitudes still TE>VI>persist. TE>They still persist in a few various secluded rural parts of the United TE>States, FAR from the majority. And far less than they persisted just TE>few decades ago. Nonsense. Those seculded rural parts of the US are just more upfront and honest. NY is an extremely racist and racially divided city. TE>VI>TE>VI>What I was trying to drive home is that black males have been portr TE>VI>TE>VI>as sexual predators since the earliest, earliest days of the movies TE>VI>TE>VI>Think of all the "black exploitation" movies of the 70's and the TE>VI>TE>VI>"gansta" movies of the 90's if you want more recent examples. TE>VI>TE>I don't know what "black exploitation" movies from the 70's you are TE>VI>TE>talking about, but as for the gangsta movies of this decade - they are TE>VI>TE>made by black males, so if these movies portray black males in a TE>VI>TE>negative fashion, then they are doing it to themselves. TE>VI>We gay people refer to "internalized homophobia". It's the same thing TE>VI>with black males. The fact that SOME of the gangsta movies have been TE>VI>made by black males does not negate my observation. TE>I don't know of ANY gangsta movies made by white people. They are TE>basically made BY black males, FOR black males. TE>Please, do tell me about "black exploitation" movies from the 70's, TE>btw. TE>VI>I have no first hand experience with racism. However, I have first TE>VI>hand experience with homophobia and anti-semitism. And I can tell you, TE>VI>from my first hand experience, that members of oppressed groups TE>VI>internalize the sterotypes that the "mainstream" culture perpetuate TE>VI>against them. This internalization process leads members of oppressed TE>VI>groups to BELIEVE the sterotypes generated by the mainstream culture TE>VI>and to ACCEPT these sterotypes as being true. TE>I'm not sure I can make sense of that. If this is true, then why don't TE>I, as a female, internalize the stereotypes made against women? And TE>relating this to the "gangsta" movie question - are you trying to say TE>that, because there is a stereotype about young black males being in TE>gangs, then that is why they portray themselves that way in movies? This TE>is a chicken-or-egg question. I think that the REASON there ARE TE>stereotypes about young black males in gangs, is because there HAVE been TE>quite a few young black male gang members for quite some time now. It is TE>the truth. Why deny it? Of course there is a gang problem among black males. The question is why? TE>VI>TE>VI>Everything is the world. TE>VI>TE>VI>The black female jury wanted to protect one of their men from being TE>VI>TE>VI>"falsely accused" of ravaging a white woman--even though in this ca TE>VI>TE>VI>believe the black male in question was NOT falsely accused. TE>VI>TE>How do you know what the psychology is behind their decision? I think TE>VI>TE>that if, for example, the perp was white, the victim was black, and th TE>VI>TE>jury were made up of white females, then the jury would vote innocent TE>VI>TE>well. Psychologically speaking, members of a particular race will TE>VI>TE>usually be inclined toward making their own race look better, even if TE>VI>TE>is a subconscious process (no matter what race it is). That is what TE>VI>TE>causes the bias, which is the reasoning behind trying to make a jury a TE>VI>TE>diverse as possible. TE>VI>I agree that the psychological process which you speak about operates. TE>VI>But the question is: Why? Why do we even consider race to be a TE>VI>relevant to our identity? TE>I have wondered about that myself. The only explanation is that it is TE>just simply embedded in humanity. Remember that for thousands of years, TE>human beings lived in secluded little clumps where seeing someone of a TE>different race was quite simply a SHOCK. Mixed-race society is a TE>relatively new thing. It takes humanity, as a WHOLE, a long time to get TE>used to this. Identifying with your own race/appearance is a biological TE>reflex. It is the same reason that, for example, grey pigeons will TE>cluster together and outcast a black or white pigeon. Our intelligence TE>is the only thing that can make us overcome this biological reflex, and TE>it will take many generations for the human race as a whole to overcome TE>this impediment. TE>VI>I think the answer to this question is the racism that pervades our TE>VI>society. When racism disappears then this psychological process which TE>VI>you discribe will become much, much weaker--if not disappear totally. TE>See above - racism is inherent in humanity. But see what I wrote at the TE>beginning of this post - it does NOT pervade our society to the extent TE>that it did just 100 years ago. We ARE making progress. We will probably TE>not see racism (along with that psychological process) disappear within TE>our lifetimes, but if we keep up our progress, perhaps a few generations TE>into the future it might happen. Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 10:01am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 735788 To: Tempest Re: Prejudice and race (Reply to #735658, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #721147, Rep*) TE>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>TO: Vida TE>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>TE>I don't think I'm overly optimistic. Just think about it - we have mad TE>VI>TE>so much progress in all planes of life over the past century, it is TE>VI>TE>unbelievable. Think about it in terms of how long humanity has been TE>VI>TE>around, and how much our civilization has changed in only ONE TE>VI>TE>CENTURY. TE>VI>TE>For several MILLENIA, racism and sexism have been normal parts of TE>VI>TE>humanity all over the world to a ridiculous extent. For those TE>VI>TE>several millenia, there were practically no changes in attitude whatso TE>VI>TE>In just this one century, we managed to produce positive and effective TE>VI>TE>changes in attitude in many parts of the world. It takes many TE>VI>TE>generations to produce changes in human attitude that has been TE>VI>TE>embedded in society for thousands of years; the changes we have made i TE>VI>TE>20th century are incredible. TE>VI>It is hard for me to feel very upbeat about human progress in this TE>VI>regard. We also had the Holocaust in this century. And "ethic TE>VI>cleansing" in Bosnia. TE>"Ethnic cleansing" and Holocaust type of activities are not new to TE>humanity. Societies throughout the world have had histories of trying to TE>eliminate those unlike them throughout history. I'm not trying to TE>downplay the horror of the Holocaust, but very similar types of TE>systematic extermination have occured in other parts of the world which TE>are simply not as well-known. I'm not saying that human society is near TE>perfection now, not at all, but I do have to feel grateful that we no TE>longer live in a time where people commonly got burned alive at a stake, TE>crucified, tortured with racks, etc. There is plenty of places where people are tortured. I think you are way too optimestmic about the amount of progresss we have made. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>The KKK may have been sympathetically looked upon at the beginni TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the century, but it sure is not looked upon sympathetically by t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>majority of the population nowadays. TE>VI>TE>VI>I agree with you that the KKK would probably not be sympathically TE>VI>TE>VI>portrayed in any modern movie. But I think that racist attitudes s TE>VI>TE>VI>persist. TE>VI>TE>They still persist in a few various secluded rural parts of the United TE>VI>TE>States, FAR from the majority. And far less than they persisted just TE>VI>TE>few decades ago. TE>VI>I think racist attitudes still presist in urban areas. It is just no TE>VI>longer politically correct to say them out loud. TE>VI>Now I will admit that it IS progress that it is no longer ok in polite TE>VI>society to state racist attitudes out loud. TE>Yes, it is progress. And, pragmatically speaking, if a person has racist TE>thoughts and feelings but does not state them or take any kind of racist TE>action, then this person's racism is really not a problem. Besides, a TE>person's thoughts cannot be controlled or suppressed, no matter how much TE>one tries, so trying to change peoples' THOUGHTS on the issue is a TE>pointless endeavour. The point is to try and make it unacceptable in TE>society, so that people would keep it to themselves and not act on it - TE>and in many parts of this country, we have achieved that. No one can control another's persons thoughts. It is only behavior that can and should be controlled. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I don't know what "black exploitation" movies from the 70's you TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>talking about, but as for the gangsta movies of this decade - th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>made by black males, so if these movies portray black males in a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>negative fashion, then they are doing it to themselves. TE>VI>TE>VI>We gay people refer to "internalized homophobia". It's the same th TE>VI>TE>VI>with black males. The fact that SOME of the gangsta movies have be TE>VI>TE>VI>made by black males does not negate my observation. TE>VI>TE>I don't know of ANY gangsta movies made by white people. They are TE>VI>TE>basically made BY black males, FOR black males. TE>VI>TE>Please, do tell me about "black exploitation" movies from the 70's, TE>VI>TE>btw. TE>VI>My memory is fading with time. I remember "Shaft", that's it. But TE>VI>there were a whole slew of similiar movies which were basically TE>VI>directed to the black community. TE>Who made them, what were they about? What did they depict? If you trace the money, it will end up white, I can almost guarantee it! TE>VI>BTW, are you really so sure that the gansta movies are ALL written and TE>VI>produced by black males? They are directed at the black audience for TE>VI>sure. But are they ALL produced by black males? TE>I cannot think of any that were written/produced by any whites. As far TE>as I know they are all made by black males, along with gangsta rap. It's TE>this whole black urban culture thing. They're PROUD of their image. And TE>this image is so popular that many white and hispanic young males are TE>copying their style. TE>VI>And you still did not address the issue of "internalized racism", which TE>VI>is a very, very important concept to comprehend IMHO. TE>I addressed it below. Not really! TE>VI>TE>VI>I have no first hand experience with racism. However, I have first TE>VI>TE>VI>hand experience with homophobia and anti-semitism. And I can tell TE>VI>TE>VI>from my first hand experience, that members of oppressed groups TE>VI>TE>VI>internalize the sterotypes that the "mainstream" culture perpetuate TE>VI>TE>VI>against them. This internalization process leads members of oppres TE>VI>TE>VI>groups to BELIEVE the sterotypes generated by the mainstream cultur TE>VI>TE>VI>and to ACCEPT these sterotypes as being true. TE>VI>TE>I'm not sure I can make sense of that. If this is true, then why don't TE>VI>TE>I, as a female, internalize the stereotypes made against women? And TE>VI>TE>relating this to the "gangsta" movie question - are you trying to say TE>VI>TE>that, because there is a stereotype about young black males being in TE>VI>TE>gangs, then that is why they portray themselves that way in movies? Th TE>VI>TE>is a chicken-or-egg question. I think that the REASON there ARE TE>VI>TE>stereotypes about young black males in gangs, is because there HAVE be TE>VI>TE>quite a few young black male gang members for quite some time now. It TE>VI>TE>the truth. Why deny it? TE>VI>I think to a certain extent, as a female, you DO internalize sterotypes TE>VI>about feminity and gender role identity. Which is why it is so TE>VI>important to have feminist conciousness to combat it. TE>I really, honestly, don't think so. Maybe it's true for other women, but TE>I can only speak for myself, and it's not true for me. I have never fit TE>in with any stereotypes about gender roles or femininity. These TE>stereotypes have never made any sense to me. Examples - among my biggest TE>interests in life are the hard sciences, like chemistry and physics - TE>the fact that these are male-dominated fields has never stopped me from TE>pursuing them. I don't do any typically "female" things - I can't cook, TE>I don't do housework, etc. Nor am I the epitome of femininity - I carry TE>around bleeding people at my job along with the "guys", I lift weights, TE>I wear skirts once in a blue moon. What I'm trying to say is that I have TE>never had any inner struggles with gender roles or femininity. I've TE>always just been the way I am, and never gave gender roles much thought. TE>AND, I don't need a "feminist consciousness" to do this. I don't feel a TE>need to be above OR below men, I simply am who I am. I LIKE men, most of TE>my friends are guys in fact, and I don't feel a need to downplay or bash TE>them in order to get myself to the top. Am I making sense here? Who ever said anything about downplaying or bashing men? Where in the earth did you dig that one out from? TE>VI>I don't deny that there are black males in gangs. But I think the TE>VI>glorification of gangsta culture that we have seen is very much part of TE>VI>the problem that we have. TE>But the black males are the ones that glorify gangsta culture! But why? TE>VI>TE>VI>I agree that the psychological process which you speak about operat TE>VI>TE>VI>But the question is: Why? Why do we even consider race to be a TE>VI>TE>VI>relevant to our identity? TE>VI>TE>I have wondered about that myself. The only explanation is that it is TE>VI>TE>just simply embedded in humanity. Remember that for thousands of years TE>VI>TE>human beings lived in secluded little clumps where seeing someone of a TE>VI>TE>different race was quite simply a SHOCK. Mixed-race society is a TE>VI>TE>relatively new thing. It takes humanity, as a WHOLE, a long time to ge TE>VI>TE>used to this. Identifying with your own race/appearance is a biologica TE>VI>TE>reflex. It is the same reason that, for example, grey pigeons will TE>VI>TE>cluster together and outcast a black or white pigeon. Our intelligence TE>VI>TE>is the only thing that can make us overcome this biological reflex, an TE>VI>TE>it will take many generations for the human race as a whole to overcom TE>VI>TE>this impediment. TE>VI>I think what you are saying is partially true. But it also makes me TE>VI>think of one of my favorite movie lines--which Katherine Hepburn says TE>VI>to Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen": "Nature, Mr. Arnaut, is TE>VI>what we were put on the earth to rise above." TE>Welll... that's a matter of subjective opinion... More like objective fact! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>I think the answer to this question is the racism that pervades our TE>VI>TE>VI>society. When racism disappears then this psychological process wh TE>VI>TE>VI>you discribe will become much, much weaker--if not disappear totall TE>VI>TE>See above - racism is inherent in humanity. But see what I wrote at th TE>VI>TE>beginning of this post - it does NOT pervade our society to the extent TE>VI>TE>that it did just 100 years ago. We ARE making progress. We will probab TE>VI>TE>not see racism (along with that psychological process) disappear withi TE>VI>TE>our lifetimes, but if we keep up our progress, perhaps a few generatio TE>VI>TE>into the future it might happen. TE>VI>I do not think that racism is inherent in humanity. If it was inherent TE>VI>than you would NOT be able to change it. TE>That makes no sense. How can racism not be inherent in humanity if TE>1) other creatures of nature act in ways that are equivalent to racism TE>(see pigeon example above) and TE>2) human beings have been racist since the dawn of time. TE>If racism wasn't inherent in humanity, then we wouldn't be racist. TE>Simply put. Or more technically, it is not exactly racism that is TE>inherent, but a fear of the unknown or that which is different from us. TE>Regular people fear other people who look different from them, or act TE>different from them, etc. It is a natural response. Same reason why, if TE>we were to suddenly come in contact with aliens, we would fear and be TE>"racist" against them, no matter how nice they might be in reality. TE>Changing that which is inherent is very difficult, but over large TE>amounts of time, it is possible. It's called evolution. Boy, do you contradict yourself!!!! Than how do you reconcile this with the pheonmenal changes in racial attitudes that you claim has occurred in the last 70 years or so? Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 12:10am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 735841 To: Synne Re: The Next Gathering-it ain't Magic (Reply to #735499, Reply to #735464, Reply to #735184, R*) SY>Amen. Wow, I'm glad that you agree on that! Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 3:30am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 736097 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #735465, Reply to #735348, Reply to #735026, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> Fried, with cayenne liberally applied. Especially the charry bits... TE>DT> >9# TE>My brain is your pepper steak sweetheart!! Bon Appetite!! >:) TE>(It's raw, just the way u like it >:) ) Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * so cold its hot so fine everything fire and me still dead Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 2:13am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 736352 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736097, Reply to #735465, Reply to #735348, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> Fried, with cayenne liberally applied. Especially the charry bits.. DT>TE>DT> >9# DT>TE>My brain is your pepper steak sweetheart!! Bon Appetite!! >:) DT>TE>(It's raw, just the way u like it >:) ) DT> Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... >9# Don't want rice with my brain?? How about spaghetti? :) Date: Tuesday, June 3, 1997 3:28am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 736679 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736352, Reply to #736097, Reply to #735465, R*) (1 reply) TE>T>TE>DT> Fried, with cayenne liberally applied. Especially the charry bits TE>DT>TE>DT> >9# TE>DT>TE>My brain is your pepper steak sweetheart!! Bon Appetite!! >:) TE>DT>TE>(It's raw, just the way u like it >:) ) TE>DT> Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... >9# TE>Don't want rice with my brain?? How about spaghetti? :) Angelhair pasta, with light machine oil and raw garlic, yes... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Tuesday, June 3, 1997 4:31am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 736689 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736679, Reply to #736352, Reply to #736097, R*) (2 replies) DT>TE>T>TE>DT> Fried, with cayenne liberally applied. Especially the charry b DT>TE>DT>TE>DT> >9# DT>TE>DT>TE>My brain is your pepper steak sweetheart!! Bon Appetite!! >:) DT>TE>DT>TE>(It's raw, just the way u like it >:) ) DT>TE>DT> Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... >9# DT>TE>Don't want rice with my brain?? How about spaghetti? :) DT> Angelhair pasta, with light machine oil and raw garlic, yes... >9# Ah! I will marinate my brains in motor oil for you... just pour it in my ears... Date: Sunday, June 1, 1997 10:58pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 736708 To: ** ALL ** Re: Masculinity and femininity (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736438, Reply to #736349, Rep*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It's still all about vanity. Same reason why women shave the i VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Not the same thing. As you suggested, hair is considered mascul VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>virile. So when women shave their legs they are trying to dimin VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>their strength. VI>TE>VI>TE>Hair is considered masculine. You say that when women shave their l VI>TE>VI>TE>they are trying to diminish their strength. Does that mean that, by VI>TE>VI>TE>definition, strenth is a masculine trait, and not a feminine one?! VI>TE>VI>TE>is not something I would expect to hear from a feminist!! VI>TE>VI>And why not? Feminism 101 says that our definitions of masculinity an VI>TE>VI>feminity have nothing to do with actual sexual differences. Our VI>TE>VI>definitions of masculinity and feminity are cultural constructs and VI>TE>VI>totally artificial. VI>TE>And since when is body hair a cultural construct?! Biology 101 also VI>TE>defines differences between masculine and feminine, which have nothing VI>TE>to do with cultural constructs. Like body hair. Strength, on the other VI>TE>hand, depends on the individual, and the type of strength you're talking VI>TE>about. (Physical? Upper body? Lower body? Emotional strength?) Strength VI>TE>has nothing to do with body hair. So when a woman shaves her legs, it VI>TE>has nothing to do with diminishing strength, but rather she is making VI>TE>herself more feminine as defined biologically. VI>TE>(Let's face it now, women have less body hair than men!) VI>Biology creates certain differences between a male body and a female VI>body, but there are wide variations among individual men and individual VI>women. But there is a big difference between these biologically VI>defined differences and masculinity and feminity. Masculinity and VI>feminity are purely cultural constraints which change over time and VI>among cultures. Actually, masculinity and femininity are NOT purely cultural constraints. They ARE, to a great extent, defined biologically. It has to do with the amount of androgens a fetus is exposed to at a certain time of development, which dictates more "masculine" or more "feminine" behavior in adulthood. VI>The type of strength that I was talking about was both physical and VI>emotional strength. And of course hair has nothing to do with actual VI>physical and emotional strength. However, it has functioned as a VI>cultural marker for both physical and emotional strength. Think of the VI>story of Samson and Deliah for example. I've never thought of hair as having anything to do with strength. And Samson and Delilah is just a Biblical story, it is not the basis for any kind of widespread cultural belief. Besides, isn't the "traditional" belief that men are stronger? Then why do women traditionally have longer hair? Date: Monday, June 2, 1997 7:21am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 736709 To: ** ALL ** Re: Strap on's (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736600, Reply to #736428, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>The reason why I believe that humans will never be able to o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>full picture is largely religious. I believe there is a 'hig TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>in the universe that humans can not possibly completely compr TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>also believe that humans are by our very nature limited in ou TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>abilities and that the universe is so complex that our unders TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>can never be complete. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That is possible, but as I am not particularly religious, I tend TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>think that over thousands of years evolution might eventually ex TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>intellectual capabilities to a point where we might possibly be TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>comprehend the complexities of the universe. WE are a part of th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>universe, and if we can someday understand ourselves (and even n TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>are working on this very intensely) then that will bring us clos TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>understanding existence in general. TE>VI>TE>VI>Human capacity is much too limited to ever permit this kind of TE>VI>TE>VI>understanding. TE>VI>TE>VI>Even if somehow we learned to use the 90% of our brain that we do n TE>VI>TE>VI>now currently utilize I don't think that we will ever to penetrate TE>VI>TE>VI>secrets of the universe. But then again, I don't think that it is TE>VI>TE>VI>necessarily bad that we are not able to do so--I don't trust that TE>VI>TE>VI>humans would use this kind of ultimate knowledge wisely. TE>VI>TE>Umm, about the human brain - it is much more complicated than that. We TE>VI>TE>do in fact utilize the entire 100% of it - this whole 10% thing is a TE>VI>TE>myth. However, the brain has a function called plasticity. Plasticity TE>VI>TE>makes the brain capable, basically, of expanding in function TE>VI>TE>indefinately. Especially in early childhood - if one raises a kid the TE>VI>TE>right way (intellectually), any kid could potentially become an TE>VI>TE>Einstein, although genetics has something to do with it as well. TE>VI>TE>Anyway, because of brain plasticity, people potentially have a much TE>VI>TE>higher capacity for mental function. Also, like I said, I am not sayin TE>VI>TE>that NOW people have the capacity to understand the universe - however TE>VI>TE>sometime in the distant future they might. Remember, humans were not TE>VI>TE>always like this. I know you're religious, so I suppose you lean towar TE>VI>TE>the Adam&Eve theory rather than the evolution theory - but from the TE>VI>TE>evolutionary perspective - people came from apes which had a much TE>VI>TE>smaller brain capacity than humans do now. Their brains basically grew TE>VI>TE>into what we have now because they were USING their brains. And we are TE>VI>TE>using our brains more than ever, so in the distant future our brains TE>VI>TE>will continue to grow to expand into our increased mental activity, an TE>VI>TE>thereby someday we may have the capacity to understand the universe, a TE>VI>TE>perhaps we will have the intelligence to use the knowledge wisely to g TE>VI>TE>along with that. TE>VI>I am not that religious that I disbelieve Darwin's theory of evolution! TE>VI> Although I think there is probably a way to reconcile Darwin with the TE>VI>account of creation as set forth in Tenakh (the Jewish Bible). For TE>VI>example, who says the 'seven days' of creation are seven days as we now TE>VI>understand it as opposed to seven thousand years? TE>True, I've heard that argument before, and it does make sense. Is the TE>Tenakh anything like the Old Testament? The Tenakh IS what Christians call the Old Testament. Jews, however, don't use the terminology "Old Testament" because that terminology assumes there is a newer testament. Jews don't believe there is any newer scripture than Tenakh. TE>VI>As for your belief that humans might ultimately be able to understand TE>VI>the universe in the entirety I think that you will agree that this will TE>VI>not happen in our lifetime. And it probably won't happen in the TE>VI>lifetime of anyone who is currently alive. So ultimately the two of us TE>VI>will never know who is right or who is wrong on this point--the answer TE>VI>will not be revealed for a long, long time! :) TE>VI> TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lifetimes! TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, then I think TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even then, only if the TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will be) and only TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another stone age. TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that humanity will blow itself up into another stone age. Did you hear the news accounts about an Isreali book called "The Bible Code"? This Isreali guy claims that he ran a computer program which shows that the Tenakh (in the original Hebrew, that is !) has a code implanted in it. If you run a certain computer program to decode the Tenakh he claims that the Hebrew bible predicts the Holocaust and the JFK assination. Anyway, this same guy claims that the Bible also predicts that Israel will be destroyed by an atomic bomb in 2001 and that the entire world will be destroyed by an atomic bomb in 2006. I don't believe there is such a code in the Bible. But I definitely fear that his predictions may be true. :( TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I think my point of view is a very optimestic point of view-- TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that humans will always be learning, always be growing, alway TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>striving. I wouldn't want to live in a world where humans ha TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>understanding of the COMPLETE picture. Life would be very du TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>would be no incentive for any future research or inventions i TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>were so. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE> TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's a good point... but perhaps if we have an understanding o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>full picture, then life will just be completely different from h TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>know it now, and perhaps we won't NEED research or inventions or TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>learning to make us happy, maybe we will have discovered a compl TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>different, currently unimaginable way of making us feel fulfille TE>VI>TE>VI>I think that humans are animals that have an initate NEED to learn TE>VI>TE>VI>to grow. I don't think it would be possible for us to feel fulfill TE>VI>TE>VI>if we didn't have something new to discover. TE>VI>TE>For now. But who knows what will become of us in a few thousand years? TE>VI>Exactly, who knows? Diffently not me! :) TE>I don't know either! I'm just speculating :) Nothing wrong with doing that. :) Date: Wednesday, June 4, 1997 3:38am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 736749 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736689, Reply to #736679, Reply to #736352, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT>TE>DT> Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... >9# TE>DT>TE>Don't want rice with my brain?? How about spaghetti? :) TE>DT> Angelhair pasta, with light machine oil and raw garlic, yes... >9# TE>Ah! I will marinate my brains in motor oil for you... just pour it in my TE>ears... Not motor oil bebedoll, machine oil. Its different. Machine oil is thinner, and you can ask for it by name: Three - In - One heh heh heh... --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Thursday, June 5, 1997 5:12am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 736813 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #736709, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736600, Rep*) (1 reply) VI>TE>True, I've heard that argument before, and it does make sense. Is the VI>TE>Tenakh anything like the Old Testament? VI>The Tenakh IS what Christians call the Old Testament. VI>Jews, however, don't use the terminology "Old Testament" because that VI>terminology assumes there is a newer testament. Jews don't believe VI>there is any newer scripture than Tenakh. Ok, I gotcha. VI>TE>VI>As for your belief that humans might ultimately be able to understand VI>TE>VI>the universe in the entirety I think that you will agree that this wil VI>TE>VI>not happen in our lifetime. And it probably won't happen in the VI>TE>VI>lifetime of anyone who is currently alive. So ultimately the two of u VI>TE>VI>will never know who is right or who is wrong on this point--the answer VI>TE>VI>will not be revealed for a long, long time! :) VI>TE>VI> VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lifetimes! VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, then I think VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even then, only if the VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will be) and only VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another stone age. VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that humanity will VI>blow itself up into another stone age. I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't know one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's out of our hands. VI>Did you hear the news accounts about an Isreali book called "The Bible VI>Code"? This Isreali guy claims that he ran a computer program which VI>shows that the Tenakh (in the original Hebrew, that is !) has a code VI>implanted in it. If you run a certain computer program to decode the VI>Tenakh he claims that the Hebrew bible predicts the Holocaust and the VI>JFK assination. Anyway, this same guy claims that the Bible also VI>predicts that Israel will be destroyed by an atomic bomb in 2001 and VI>that the entire world will be destroyed by an atomic bomb in 2006. Hmmm, that's pretty interesting... I guess we'll find out in 4 years, eh? VI>I don't believe there is such a code in the Bible. But I definitely VI>fear that his predictions may be true. :( Well, it is possible that an entire small country may be destroyed by an atomic bomb. But a destruction like that is not likely to send humanity into another stone age, provided that the whole world doesn't start throwing bombs at each other. Japan recovered quite nicely from Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and there was no further destruction after that, fortunately, so there's no reason to believe that another bombing like that will devastate the entire world... A bomb that can destroy the entire planet, now that is a different story... from what I've been told (although I don't know if it's accurate) there is no bomb in existence that can do that kind of damage. However, specs do exist for this kind of bomb (cobalt bomb), which if built CAN supposedly destroy the actual planet, well, all we can do is sit and pray that it never gets built, cause again it's not in our hands... Date: Thursday, June 5, 1997 5:13am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 736814 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736749, Reply to #736689, Reply to #736679, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>TE>DT> Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... > DT>TE>DT>TE>Don't want rice with my brain?? How about spaghetti? :) DT>TE>DT> Angelhair pasta, with light machine oil and raw garlic, yes... >9# DT>TE>Ah! I will marinate my brains in motor oil for you... just pour it in my DT>TE>ears... DT> Not motor oil bebedoll, machine oil. Its different. Machine oil is DT>thinner, and you can ask for it by name: DT> Three - In - One DT> heh heh heh... Three In One?!?! Wow, that's a tight fit... YOW >:) Date: Thursday, June 5, 1997 6:35am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 736822 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #736813, Reply to #736709, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>True, I've heard that argument before, and it does make sense. Is the TE>VI>TE>Tenakh anything like the Old Testament? TE>VI>The Tenakh IS what Christians call the Old Testament. TE>VI>Jews, however, don't use the terminology "Old Testament" because that TE>VI>terminology assumes there is a newer testament. Jews don't believe TE>VI>there is any newer scripture than Tenakh. TE>Ok, I gotcha. I figurred you would. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>As for your belief that humans might ultimately be able to understa TE>VI>TE>VI>the universe in the entirety I think that you will agree that this TE>VI>TE>VI>not happen in our lifetime. And it probably won't happen in the TE>VI>TE>VI>lifetime of anyone who is currently alive. So ultimately the two o TE>VI>TE>VI>will never know who is right or who is wrong on this point--the ans TE>VI>TE>VI>will not be revealed for a long, long time! :) TE>VI>TE>VI> TE>VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lifetimes! TE>VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, then I think TE>VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even then, only if t TE>VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will be) and only TE>VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another stone age. TE>VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! TE>VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that humanity will TE>VI>blow itself up into another stone age. TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't know TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's out TE>of our hands. No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that this does not happen. TE>VI>Did you hear the news accounts about an Isreali book called "The Bible TE>VI>Code"? This Isreali guy claims that he ran a computer program which TE>VI>shows that the Tenakh (in the original Hebrew, that is !) has a code TE>VI>implanted in it. If you run a certain computer program to decode the TE>VI>Tenakh he claims that the Hebrew bible predicts the Holocaust and the TE>VI>JFK assination. Anyway, this same guy claims that the Bible also TE>VI>predicts that Israel will be destroyed by an atomic bomb in 2001 and TE>VI>that the entire world will be destroyed by an atomic bomb in 2006. TE>Hmmm, that's pretty interesting... I guess we'll find out in 4 years, eh? TE>VI>I don't believe there is such a code in the Bible. But I definitely TE>VI>fear that his predictions may be true. :( TE>Well, it is possible that an entire small country may be destroyed by an TE>atomic bomb. But a destruction like that is not likely to send humanity TE>into another stone age, provided that the whole world doesn't start TE>throwing bombs at each other. Japan recovered quite nicely from TE>Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and there was no further destruction after that, TE>fortunately, so there's no reason to believe that another bombing like TE>that will devastate the entire world... TE>A bomb that can destroy the entire planet, now that is a different TE>story... from what I've been told (although I don't know if it's TE>accurate) there is no bomb in existence that can do that kind of damage. TE>However, specs do exist for this kind of bomb (cobalt bomb), which if TE>built CAN supposedly destroy the actual planet, well, all we can do is TE>sit and pray that it never gets built, cause again it's not in our TE>hands... Date: Friday, June 6, 1997 3:17am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 736871 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736689, Reply to #736679, Reply to #736352, R*) TE>DT>TE>DT> Brain sushi, nah, brain sashimi, leave the rice alone... >9# TE>DT>TE>Don't want rice with my brain?? How about spaghetti? :) TE>DT> Angelhair pasta, with light machine oil and raw garlic, yes... >9# TE>Ah! I will marinate my brains in motor oil for you... just pour it in my TE>ears... Not motor oil bebedoll, machine oil. Its different. Machine oil is thinner, and you can ask for it by name: Three - In - One heh heh heh... --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Saturday, June 7, 1997 6:46am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 736992 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #736822, Reply to #736813, Reply to #736709, C*) (2 replies) VVI>TE>VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lifetimes! VI>TE>VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, then I th VI>TE>VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even then, only i VI>TE>VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will be) and o VI>TE>VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another stone age VI>TE>VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that humanity wil VI>TE>VI>blow itself up into another stone age. VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't know VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's out VI>TE>of our hands. VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that this VI>does not happen. Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not in power. Date: Saturday, June 7, 1997 9:37am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737033 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #736992, Reply to #736822, Reply to #736813, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lifetimes TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, then I TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even then, onl TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will be) an TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another stone TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that humanity TE>VI>TE>VI>blow itself up into another stone age. TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't kno TE>VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's ou TE>VI>TE>of our hands. TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that this TE>VI>does not happen. TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing we TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not TE>in power. That's just passing the buck, IMHO. Date: Saturday, June 7, 1997 10:16am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737046 To: ** ALL ** Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736991, Reply to #736697, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>Previous exchanges omitted) TE>VI>TE>VI>Biology creates certain differences between a male body and a femal TE>VI>TE>VI>body, but there are wide variations among individual men and indivi TE>VI>TE>VI>women. But there is a big difference between these biologically TE>VI>TE>VI>defined differences and masculinity and feminity. Masculinity and TE>VI>TE>VI>feminity are purely cultural constraints which change over time and TE>VI>TE>VI>among cultures. TE>VI>TE>Actually, masculinity and femininity are NOT purely cultural TE>VI>TE>constraints. They ARE, to a great extent, defined biologically. It has TE>VI>TE>to do with the amount of androgens a fetus is exposed to at a certain TE>VI>TE>time of development, which dictates more "masculine" or more "feminine TE>VI>TE>behavior in adulthood. TE>VI>I respectfully disagree. I accept the fact that biology has a great TE>VI>deal with how our bodies look. Certainly the secondary sexual TE>VI>characteristics that our bodies display are normally determined SOLELY TE>VI>by biology. (I say normally because people have the ability to modify TE>VI>these secondary sexual characteristics by surgical means and by TE>VI>ingesting hormomes.) TE>VI>However, I think that the BEHAVIOR which people display is not TE>VI>biologically determined. Additionally, I believe that which behaviors TE>VI>are considered masculine and which behaviors are considered feminine IS TE>VI>a cultural construct--it varies from culture to culture, in different TE>VI>historical epochs. TE>From culture to culture, the idea of masculine vs. feminine behaviors TE>vary in small details, but the basic idea is the same everywhere. For TE>example females are more emotional, males are more aggressive, etc. TE>Besides, you are disagreeing with proven biological facts. Although TE>admittedly it has not been proven in humans; it HAS however been proven TE>in animals, that male vs. female behavior in animals IS directly related TE>to hormonal activity. And yes, animals display differences in behavior TE>between males and females as well; is THAT a cultural construct too? Animals don't have culture, only people do. And the main difference between humans and animals is our ability to transcend nature--if we didn't have that ability we would still be living in caves, hunting and gathering for our survival. I totally disagree with your statement that the differences between and among cultures is small and insiginficant. I also take exception to your statement that in human beings behavior can in any way be directly correlated to hormonal levels. Human beings function on a much higher cognitive level than animals--our behavior is always dictated by our rational ability to reason, think and plan. TE>VI>TE>VI>The type of strength that I was talking about was both physical and TE>VI>TE>VI>emotional strength. And of course hair has nothing to do with actu TE>VI>TE>VI>physical and emotional strength. However, it has functioned as a TE>VI>TE>VI>cultural marker for both physical and emotional strength. Think of TE>VI>TE>VI>story of Samson and Deliah for example. TE>VI>TE>I've never thought of hair as having anything to do with strength. And TE>VI>TE>Samson and Delilah is just a Biblical story, it is not the basis for a TE>VI>TE>kind of widespread cultural belief. TE>VI>Au contraire! The Bible reflects widespread cultural beliefs in our TE>VI>western culture. TE>So are you saying that the idea that body hair is a sign of strength is TE>found in western culture, but not anywhere else?? The correlation of body hair with strength is present in Western civilization. It may or may not be present in other civilizations. Since Oriental people tend to have less body hair than whites I would expect that Eastern civilization don't have this same correlation. But I honestly haven't studied Eastern civiliztions well enough to see if my suspicion is true. TE>VI>TE>Besides, isn't the "traditional" belief that men are stronger? Then wh TE>VI>TE>do women traditionally have longer hair? TE>VI>It depends upon where the hair is. The hairstyles which women wear on TE>VI>their heads is traditionally considered to be sexually aluring to men. TE>VI>Think of how both traditional Orthodox Jews and religiously observant TE>VI>Muslim women cover their hair in an attempt to preserve sexual modesty. TE>Well then why did Delilah cut Samson's hair off his head, instead of TE>shaving his body? :) Good question. You would have to ask the author of Tenakh. :) Date: Sunday, June 8, 1997 3:46am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737065 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #736814, Reply to #736749, Reply to #736689, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> Not motor oil bebedoll, machine oil. Its different. Machine oil is TE>DT>thinner, and you can ask for it by name: TE>DT> Three - In - One TE>DT> heh heh heh... TE>Three In One?!?! Wow, that's a tight fit... YOW >:) Depends, could be Nine In One. Let me count the ways... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Sunday, June 8, 1997 11:55am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737077 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (2 replies) I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors of the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the flyer re: the Tatoo contest. The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No details are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that it started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way cool. :) Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 4:51am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737109 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #736992, Reply to #736822, Reply to #736813, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't kno TE>VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's ou TE>VI>TE>of our hands. TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that this TE>VI>does not happen. TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing we TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not TE>in power. I vote for YOU to be Sigop of /Reality, you just unloaded a loverly succinct gem of fact up there... --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Thursday, June 12, 1997 4:36am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737287 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737077) (2 replies) VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors of VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No details VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that it VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way VI>cool. :) Holy Shit!! The Coney Island Tattoo Thing is actually going to be A> in Coney Island and B> before deep Autumn this year? Shitfire, last time I noted the event, it was gonna be at Amazon < think thats the name, a place way westside on the river below Houston St in Manhattan > in late October... That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up when they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere else, actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year the way it was going... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Famous Last Words: ahhh shit whats wrong with my legs Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 3:27am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737290 To: ** ALL ** Re: The chicken or the egg? (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #737122, Reply to #737030, R*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- TE>VVI>TE>VI>Language is a very important part of culture. TE>VI>TE>VI>I believe that each language has its own "mind map", an individual TE>VI>TE>VI>of looking at the world. And as for your statement that culture do TE>VI>TE>VI>not embed itself upon the mind, we just don't know what other parts TE>VI>TE>VI>culture other than language are as deeply embedded on the subconcio TE>VI>TE>VI>as language. My feeling is that there is a lot of cultural languag TE>VI>TE>VI>that gets emplanted during early childhood. TE>VI>TE>Culture creates it's own unique language, not the other way around. TE>VI>TE>Besides, a person can escape from his/her culture by learning about TE>VI>TE>another culture and adapting to the new culture; however a person cann TE>VI>TE>forget a language, no matter how many other languages he/she learns. TE>VI>TE>True, each language has different ways of expressing ideas, but it is TE>VI>TE>only a small part of what dictates that person's lifestyle (which is TE>VI>TE>essentially what culture is). TE>VI>But what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the culture create TE>VI>the language or did the language create the culture? Where does one TE>VI>begin and the other end? TE>Language came first, I think that's pretty obvious. After all, animals TE>have a form of language but I don't consider these animals (like chimps TE>or dolphins) to have any form of culture, by any definition. However, TE>culture shapes the actual language; i.e. the French culture shaped Latin TE>into French, the Spanish culture shaped Latin into Spanish, etc. The TE>Brooklyn culture shaped English into Brooklynese :) No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my discusssion of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulimately possible for us to say in a historical context whether culture shaped languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shape and continue to shape each other. :) TE>VI>I agree that people can learn about other cultures, but I disagree that TE>VI>anyone can totally ESCAPE the culture to which they were born. Just TE>VI>the fact that it is impossible to totally forget your native tongue, TE>VI>even if you become proficient in another language, is just ONE REASON TE>VI>why you can never totally escape from the culture you were born. TE>This is actually a tough argument because we haven't even defined TE>exactly what is meant by "culture" and "escaping from one's culture" TE>come to think of it! Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched that it would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>For example, did you realize for example that the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>China shows a circle with a line drawn down the m TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>symbolizes that China is the center of the world. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, everybody thinks that they're the center of th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>racism, that's simple human egotism. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The line between that kind of egotism and racism is ver TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Not really. NYC thinks it's the center of the world too, b TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>races are incorporated here, then there's no one else to b TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>against, so THAT's not because of racism! TE>VI>TE>VI>Touche! In the modern cosmolopitan world there is a lot of racial TE>VI>TE>VI>mixing in a lot of places. :) TE>VI>TE>Well, not really! Just mostly in the big cities! TE>VI>But in big cities throughout the world this is true...at this point in TE>VI>our history no one culture is truly an island. TE>That's not true! Big cities comprise such a tiny area of the total TE>populated land mass of the world! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Memories of books, if the books are big enough bestsell TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>part of the collective cosciousness. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>No they're not! They're only in the collective consciousne TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>who READ them! TE>VI>TE>VI>If enough people READ the book it becomes part of the collective TE>VI>TE>VI>consciousness. Certainly the Bible is part of the collective TE>VI>TE>VI>consciousness, for example. TE>VI>TE>Only for those who have actually read it! TE>VI>Not true. Even if you have never read the Bible, it shapes your world TE>VI>in subtle and not so subtle ways. TE>What if I was from China and had practiced Buddhism my entire life? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It's impossible to evaluate how you unconcious operates TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that your real life experience has a greater impact tha TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The reality may be a different thing altogether. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Eh, I dunno... I just think that real life experiences lea TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impact than does a movie or a book. I mean, for example - TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impact you more: getting robbed, or watching someone get r TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>movie? TE>VI>TE>VI>In this example, getting robbed obviously. But watching a film can TE>VI>TE>VI>still have a strong impact. TE>VI>TE>It has an impact, but still, in any example, the real life version of TE>VI>TE>the experience has MUCH more impact. TE>VI>Depends upon the robbery. You can have your pocket picked and not even TE>VI>be aware of it. :) TE>But when you dig into your pockets later for that missing cash you'll TE>sure as hell be aware of it! :) You will be aware that you are missing money, but not of the robbery. After all, there are other ways you can loss money--ie. I have been known to accidentially give merchants a ten dollar bill, rather than a five dollar bill and not notice when they only give me change for a five. But the main point is that in a case where your pocket has been picked without your knowledge you haven't directly experienced a violent assault on your bodily integrity. So it is possible that seeing some of the grusome TV and movie depicitions of violence might have a greater impact on you than the experience of being pickpocketed. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You can't possibly evaluate the effect on our unc TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>unconcious is unconcious. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It comes out through dreams, though. You're a fan of TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Not exactly. Feminists have pretty well slammed Freud TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>psychology. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Then why were you telling me to "read Freud if I don't bel TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that conversation in /Xrated?! TE>VI>TE>VI>I pick and choose from Frued. I think that he has some points wher TE>VI>TE>VI>is 100% right and points where he is 100% wrong. TE>VI>TE>VI>When he talks about how humans are naturally "polymoriously pervers TE>VI>TE>VI>(the thread from /Xrated) he is 100% right. When he talks about ho TE>VI>TE>VI>women suffer from penis envy, he is 100% wrong. :) TE>VI>TE>Well, Freud-interpretation is all a matter of opinion! I believe he is TE>VI>TE>100% wrong in both the "polymoriously perverse" and "penis envy" TE>VI>TE>theories. Although in the latter case, I do sometimes wish I had a pen TE>VI>TE>when I REALLY have to pee and there's no bathroom around, only trees : TE>VI>Me too! :) TE>Wow! I'm actually surprised that you share my sentiments on that one :) Well I used to go camping quite a bit when I was with Gerri. So let's just say I have been in situations where I had to take a squat in the woods. :) TE>VI>TE>But seriously, I do think he's 100% right about the above discussion; TE>VI>TE>do think that the unconscious mind manifests itself in dreams. Althoug TE>VI>TE>how exactly it manifests itself is subject to individual interpretatio TE>VI>That goes without saying. :) TE>Well, you WERE saying before that the unconscious is unreachable! :) The unconsious is not normally reachable to the consious mind. This doesn't mean it doesn't manifest itself in the things we do. :) Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 3:10am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737292 To: ** ALL ** Re: Sociological reality (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #737121, Reply to #737029, R*) (2 replies) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>My explanation is quite simple: All of the factors you TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the product of the patriachy. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Can you tell me HOW these factors are the products of patr TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>exactly? I'm not getting your reasoning here at all! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Patriachy is just a word feminists use to describe our curren TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>set up. So when I say patriachy causes the conditions which TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>describe what I am saying is that the factors you mentioned a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>innante to human nature--they are the product of the society TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>live in. In other words, in the nature vs. nurture debate I TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>heavily fall on the nurture side of the debate. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Is that reasonable clear enough? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, that is much more clear. But now I see why Deb was telling TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>you are using circular logic! You're saying that these factors c TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>patriarchy, and patriarchy causes these factors! It makes no sen TE>VI>TE>VI>Not if you think about it further. TE>VI>TE>VI>These factors are the products of patriachy but they also reinforce TE>VI>TE>VI>existence of patriachy--helping to perpetuate its existence. TE>VI>TE>That's still circular logic. That's like saying that a mother gave bir TE>VI>TE>to a baby, but the baby gave birth to the mother in the first place. TE>VI>TE>Makes no sense! TE>VI>Makes sense to me, is all I can say. :) TE>Well you have a strange brain then :) TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above (to me TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's either TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are dealing with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy when you are dealing with a sociological reality. In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemenom and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. Date: Thursday, June 12, 1997 5:53am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737293 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737033, Reply to #736992, Reply to #736822, R*) (2 replies) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lifeti VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, the VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even then, VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will be) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another sto VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that humani VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>blow itself up into another stone age. VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't VI>TE>VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's VI>TE>VI>TE>of our hands. VI>TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that this VI>TE>VI>does not happen. VI>TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing we VI>TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not VI>TE>in power. VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. Date: Thursday, June 12, 1997 7:25am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737299 To: Dti Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737287, Reply to #737077) (2 replies) DT>VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors of DT>VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the DT>VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. DT>VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No details DT>VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that it DT>VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. DT>VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at DT>VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way DT>VI>cool. :) DT> Holy Shit!! DT> The Coney Island Tattoo Thing is actually going to be A> in Coney DT>Island and B> before deep Autumn this year? Shitfire, last time I noted DT>the event, it was gonna be at Amazon < think thats the name, a place way DT>westside on the river below Houston St in Manhattan > in late October... DT>That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up when DT>they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere else, DT>actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year DT>the way it was going... DT>--- That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year they held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move it to warmer weather. :) Date: Thursday, June 12, 1997 7:28am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737300 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737293, Reply to #737033, Reply to #736992, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our lif TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happen, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it will TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into another TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that hum TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>blow itself up into another stone age. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since i TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>of our hands. TE>VI>TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that th TE>VI>TE>VI>does not happen. TE>VI>TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing TE>VI>TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not TE>VI>TE>in power. TE>VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople and our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. There's lots we could do. Date: Friday, June 13, 1997 6:47pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737384 To: ** ALL ** Re: Admission charge? Another post courtesy of Deb: *** Canterbury Cathedral to charge Sunday admission Canterbury Cathedral, spiritual home of the worldwide Anglican church, is to charge entrance fees to Sunday visitors. Cathedral authorities said their concerns were prompted by safety and not economics. They are keen to avoid what was described as "disruptive and dangerous crowding" in the cathedral, which attracts more than 1.7 million visitors a year. The cathedral, which brought in a weekday admission fee two years ago, is this year celebrating the 1,500th anniversary of the arrival in Canterbury of St. Augustine, who brought Christianity to Britain. A sharp increase in pilgrims is expected. Date: Friday, June 13, 1997 6:58pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737387 To: ** ALL ** Re: Roach text (1 reply) At the request of Deb, here's the following: *** More than 75,000 roaches in Georgia woman's home A Georgia woman whose apartment was infested with more than 75,000 cockroaches won free insecticide and a cash prize this week after her problem was judged one of the worst in the country. Mary Esposito said roaches lived in her dishwasher, refrigerator, oven, coffee-maker, VCR, wallpaper, dresser drawers and bathtub faucet. Entomologist Austin Frishman visited the suburban Atlanta home Tuesday, setting up 72 bait stations and using six tubes of gel as part of a free treatment offered by Combat, a cockroach bait maker. Date: Sunday, June 15, 1997 6:46pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737458 To: ** ALL ** Re: Chocolate ritual (1 reply) For those who, like me, worship chocolate (this is supposed to be humorous folks, so don't get offended by this one) from the Abigails-L feminist e mail list: THE CHOCOLATE RITUAL Materials required: On the altar are brown candles, a Tootsie Roll (the great big one- as the athame), a large glass with milk in it (the chalice), a small dish of Hershey's Syrup and a spoon, a small dish of chocolate sprinkles, a plate of cupcakes, some Yoo-Hoo along with a goblet, and small dish of chocolate ice cream. The Celebrants Handmaiden (Henceforth known as Swiss Miss) High Priestess (Henceforth known as Betty Crocker) Page (Henceforth known as Pillsbury Dough Boy) High Priest (Henceforth known as Mr. Goodbar) Cleanse the Sacred Space Pillsbury Dough Boy take the small dish of chocolate sprinkles Chocolate sprinkles where thou art cast No calories in thy presence last. Let no harm adhere to me And as I will so mote it be! Swiss Miss take the small dish of Hershey's Syrup, spoon and large glass with milk Hershey's Syrup where thou art cast Turn this milk to chocolate, fast. Let all good things come unto me, and make my milk all chocolatey! Cast The Circle Betty Crocker using a tootsie roll as athame walks around the circle three times Mr. Goodbar intones the invocation In the beginning, there was the word. And the word was Chocolate. And it was good. Confections: 1.5 oz., 240 cal. Call the Quarters Betty Crocker Mousse of the East, Fluffy one! Great princess of the palace of dessert! Be present we pray thee, and guard this circle from all moochers approaching from the East. Pillsbury Dough Boy Fondue of the South, Molten one! Great prince of the palace decadence! Be present we pray thee, and guard this circle from all diets approaching from the South. Swiss Miss Cocoa of the West, Satisfying one! Great princess of the palace of thirst quenchers! Be present we pray thee, and guard this circle from all carob approaching from the West. Mr. Goodbar Rocky Road of the North, Cold one! Great prince of the palace of crunchy comfort food! Be present we pray thee, and guard this circle from all cheap imitations approaching from the North. MAIN RITUAL Pillsbury Dough Boy Listen to the words of the Mother of Chocolate, who was of old called: Godiva, Suzi Q, Little Debbie, Dolly Madison, Fanny Farmer, Sara Lee, and by many other names: Swiss Miss Whenever you have one of those cravings, once in a while and better it be when your checkbook is full, then shall you assemble in a great public place and bring offerings of money to the spirit of Me, who is Queen of all Goodies. In the mall shall you assemble, you who have eaten all of your chocolate and are hungry for more. To you I shall bring Good Things for your tongue. And you shall be free from depression. And as a sign that you are truly free, you shall have chocolate smears on your cheeks, and you shall munch, nosh, snack, feast, and make yummy noises all in my presence. or mine is the ecstasy of theobromine, and mine is also the joy on earth, yea, even into high orbit for my law is "melts in your mouth, not in your hand". Keep clean your fingers, carry Wet Ones always, let none keep you from Me. For Mine is the secret that opens your mouth, and Mine is the taste that puts a smile on your lips and comfy padding pounds on your hips. I am the gracious Goddess who gives the gift of joy onto the tummies of women and men. Upon earth, I give knowledge of all things delicious, and beyond death well, I can't do much there. Sorry about that. I demand only your money in sacrifice, for behold, chocolate is a business, and you have to pay for those truffles before you eat them. Pillsbury Dough Boy Hear now the words of the Goodie Goddess, she in the dust of whose feet are the cheap imitations, whose body graces candy racks and finer stores everywhere: Betty Crocker I, who am the beauty of chocolate chips, and the satisfying softness of big bars, the mystery of how they get the filling inside truffles, and fill the hearts of all but Philistines with desire, call unto thy soul to arise and come unto Me. For I am the soul of candy, from Me do all confections spring, and unto Me all of you shall return, again.... and again... and again.... and again. Before My smeared face, beloved of women and men, thine innermost divine self shall be enfolded in the rapture of overdose. Let My taste be within thy mouth that rejoices. For behold, all acts of yumminess and pleasure are My rituals. Therefore let there be gooeyness and mess, crispness and crackling, big slabs and bite size pieces, peanut butter and chocolate covered cherries all within you. And you who think to seek Me, know that your seeking and yearning shall avail you not unless you know the Mystery: "We shall sell no chocolate until you pay for it" For behold: I have been with you since you were just a baby, and I am that which is attained at nearly any shop in the land. Messed be. Pillsbury Dough Boy Hear now the words of the Chocolate God, who was of old called: Milton Snavely Hershey, 3 Muskateers, Fudgesicle, Devil Dog, Mars, Willy Wonka and by many other names: Mr. Goodbar I am the strength of the candy rack, and the piece that fell on the floor but looks like it may not have gotten too dirty, and the deepest bitterness of dark chocolate. No matter how you try to resist the call of chocolate, I will hunt you out, and I will become your sacred prey. I am warmth of hot cocoa in the dead of winter, and the call of the road that leads you to that really expensive Godiva store downtown. I give you My creatures, the fire of love of chocolate, the power of jaw strength to bite off a piece of that frozen Milky Way bar and the shelter of Haagen Dazs when that big date didn't work out. You are dear to Me, and I instill in you the power of a piece of chocolate that you had forgotten you had hidden, and the power of vision and magickal sight with which you can spot a candy counter a mile away. By the powers of the half melted bar in the glorious sun, I charge you, by the darkest depths of the bottom of the cocoa pot and lingering smell of bittersweet chocolate, I charge you, and by the beauty of a perfectly formed Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, I charge you. Follow your heart and your instinct, wherever they lead you. The wealth in your pocket can buy you treats that a Mayan king would envy. Take joy in that first bite of lecithin emulsified cocoa, and in the last satisfying slurp of Yoo-Hoo. Yet you must be wary of deceit. Eat not of that which is called "baking chocolate", for it is vile and bitter. Lastly, always remember to leave some chocolate behind you. Be not greedy, but let yourself be known as a connoisseur. Leave a little for someone else. I am with you always, just over your shoulder, or around the next corner. I am the Lord of Chocolate, and when you have reached the end of you hoard, I will never be further away from you than that 7-Eleven on the corner. I am the spirit of the wild child, the inner child who can never get quite enough. If you are a true chocolate lover, then your soul and mine are intertwined. Cupcakes and Yoo-Hoo Blessing of the Yoo-Hoo Mr. Goodbar Be it known that milk chocolate is not better than dark chocolate Betty Crocker Nor is dark chocolate better than milk chocolate Pillsbury Dough Boy For both are better than the falsely named "white chocolate" Swiss Miss And neither one is carob Mr. Goodbar As the frosting is to the cupcake Betty Crocker So the creamy nougat is to the Milky Way bar Pillsbury Dough Boy And when they are eaten, they are yummy in truth, Swiss Miss for there is no greater snack in all the world than one made of chocolate. blessing of the cupcakes Mr. Goodbar & Pillsbury Dough Boy Frosting is keen Betty Crocker & Swiss Miss And frosting is neat Mr. Goodbar, Pillsbury Dough Boy, Betty Crocker & Swiss Miss Great Goddess! Let's eat! Feasting and Drinking Dismiss Quarters Betty Crocker Oh, ye mighty goodies of the East, we thank you for attending our rites and guarding our circle, and ere you depart for your sweet and sticky realms, we say unto you, All participants "Choooooooc-laaaaate" Pillsbury Dough Boy Oh, ye mighty goodies of the South, we thank you for attending our rites and guarding our circle, and ere you depart for your sweet and sticky realms, we say unto you, All participants "Choooooooc-laaaaate" Swiss Miss Oh, ye mighty goodies of the West, we thank you for attending our rites and guarding our circle, and ere you depart for your sweet and sticky realms, we say unto you, All participants "Choooooooc-laaaaate" Mr. Goodbar Oh, ye mighty goodies of the North, we thank you for attending our rites and guarding our circle, and ere you depart for your sweet and sticky realms, we say unto you, All participants "Choooooooc-laaaaate" Mr. Goodbar: After all quarters have been dismissed, give a final satisfying belch at the east Open Circle Pillsbury Dough Boy Go now in perfect love, perfect trust, and perfect chocolate Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 3:41am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737476 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737299, Reply to #737287, Reply to #737077) (1 reply) VI>That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year they VI>held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move it to VI>warmer weather. :) It is About Time. So this year the Coney Island Tattoo Festival will be run in Coney Island at a time of the year when reasonable human beings can actually sport about half or more nekkid to show the ink? Well alright: its about fucking time actually, they screwed this one up for some time running and gone already... thanks for the tip, V... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 3:41am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737478 To: Vida Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737292, Copy by Lythande, Reply to #737121, R*) (2 replies) VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above (to me VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's either VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are dealing VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy when VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemenom VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. If I think of this sort of thing makes any sense, then I wish we all lived in a loose enough world to allow such things to actually make sense and to be arguable in the first place. yr last trump card, the 'it makes a lot of sense that a socioligical reality can both cause certain phenom and be the cause of certain phenom.' is a master stroke of redundant illiterate smokeword dogshit. I know you can do better than that. You disappoint me with this drivel --- * SLMR 2.0 * THEY DONT WANT MY MONEY Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 3:41am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737479 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737293, Reply to #737033, Reply to #736992, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that th TE>VI>TE>VI>does not happen. TE>VI>TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing TE>VI>TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not TE>VI>TE>in power. TE>VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. Me too. I want to learn how, in simple A, B, C type steps, how to do something about the government in some way that is both effective and legal. Heh heh heh, I will goto the doc now to have my nerves removed so I can jerk off in the meantime waiting for result without spewing jizm for any possible reason ar ar heh yeh suuuure... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Nothing Exists Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 3:41am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 737480 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737300, Reply to #737293, Reply to #737033, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople and VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. VI>There's lots we could do. We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent information so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats to their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shred them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of the US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we can do... --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:22am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737482 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #737046, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736991, Rep*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Biology creates certain differences between a male body and a fe VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>body, but there are wide variations among individual men and ind VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>women. But there is a big difference between these biologically VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>defined differences and masculinity and feminity. Masculinity a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>feminity are purely cultural constraints which change over time VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>among cultures. VI>TE>VI>TE>Actually, masculinity and femininity are NOT purely cultural VI>TE>VI>TE>constraints. They ARE, to a great extent, defined biologically. It VI>TE>VI>TE>to do with the amount of androgens a fetus is exposed to at a certa VI>TE>VI>TE>time of development, which dictates more "masculine" or more "femin VI>TE>VI>TE>behavior in adulthood. VI>TE>VI>I respectfully disagree. I accept the fact that biology has a great VI>TE>VI>deal with how our bodies look. Certainly the secondary sexual VI>TE>VI>characteristics that our bodies display are normally determined SOLELY VI>TE>VI>by biology. (I say normally because people have the ability to modify VI>TE>VI>these secondary sexual characteristics by surgical means and by VI>TE>VI>ingesting hormomes.) VI>TE>VI>However, I think that the BEHAVIOR which people display is not VI>TE>VI>biologically determined. Additionally, I believe that which behaviors VI>TE>VI>are considered masculine and which behaviors are considered feminine I VI>TE>VI>a cultural construct--it varies from culture to culture, in different VI>TE>VI>historical epochs. VI>TE>From culture to culture, the idea of masculine vs. feminine behaviors VI>TE>vary in small details, but the basic idea is the same everywhere. For VI>TE>example females are more emotional, males are more aggressive, etc. VI>TE>Besides, you are disagreeing with proven biological facts. Although VI>TE>admittedly it has not been proven in humans; it HAS however been proven VI>TE>in animals, that male vs. female behavior in animals IS directly related VI>TE>to hormonal activity. And yes, animals display differences in behavior VI>TE>between males and females as well; is THAT a cultural construct too? VI>Animals don't have culture, only people do. And the main difference VI>between humans and animals is our ability to transcend nature--if we VI>didn't have that ability we would still be living in caves, hunting and VI>gathering for our survival. No, we don't transcend nature, we just use what nature has given us to make our lives easier and more interesting. The animals do that too, but to a lesser extent, because nature didn't give them the same resources it gave us. And yes, so you agree with me, animals do not have culture; only people do. So, I ask again: if animals don't have culture, and masculinity vs. femininity is a cultural construct, then WHY do animals display masculine vs. feminine differences as well? VI>I totally disagree with your statement that the differences between and VI>among cultures is small and insiginficant. I also take exception to VI>your statement that in human beings behavior can in any way be directly VI>correlated to hormonal levels. Human beings function on a much higher VI>cognitive level than animals--our behavior is always dictated by our VI>rational ability to reason, think and plan. First, I didn't say that the differences between cultures are small and insignificant in general; I was only referring to the differences in cultural views of masculinity and femininity. Also, I didn't say these differences were insignificant, I said that they varied in small details (please don't put words in my mouth!) Second, although human behavior is PARTIALLY dictated by our ability to think, reason, and plan, it is also VERY heavily influenced by levels of hormones and neurotransmitters. By disagreeing with this fact you are disagreeing with that which already has been proven to a great extent. Our behavior is largely the product of internal chemical activity, like it or not. That is why taking a psychoactive drug, for example, can change a person's behavior around so drastically; because it is chemically active in the brain, and chemical and electrical activity in the brain is that which makes us who we are. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The type of strength that I was talking about was both physical VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>emotional strength. And of course hair has nothing to do with a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>physical and emotional strength. However, it has functioned as VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>cultural marker for both physical and emotional strength. Think VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>story of Samson and Deliah for example. VI>TE>VI>TE>I've never thought of hair as having anything to do with strength. VI>TE>VI>TE>Samson and Delilah is just a Biblical story, it is not the basis fo VI>TE>VI>TE>kind of widespread cultural belief. VI>TE>VI>Au contraire! The Bible reflects widespread cultural beliefs in our VI>TE>VI>western culture. VI>TE>So are you saying that the idea that body hair is a sign of strength is VI>TE>found in western culture, but not anywhere else?? VI>The correlation of body hair with strength is present in Western VI>civilization. It may or may not be present in other civilizations. VI>Since Oriental people tend to have less body hair than whites I would VI>expect that Eastern civilization don't have this same correlation. But VI>I honestly haven't studied Eastern civiliztions well enough to see if VI>my suspicion is true. So, if an American woman shaves her legs she is downgrading her strength, but if an Asian woman shaves her legs she is not doing so? Doesn't make much sense. VI>TE>VI>TE>Besides, isn't the "traditional" belief that men are stronger? Then VI>TE>VI>TE>do women traditionally have longer hair? VI>TE>VI>It depends upon where the hair is. The hairstyles which women wear on VI>TE>VI>their heads is traditionally considered to be sexually aluring to men. VI>TE>VI>Think of how both traditional Orthodox Jews and religiously observant VI>TE>VI>Muslim women cover their hair in an attempt to preserve sexual modesty VI>TE>Well then why did Delilah cut Samson's hair off his head, instead of VI>TE>shaving his body? :) VI>Good question. You would have to ask the author of Tenakh. :) Well, I would but he's probably dead by now and I don't know how to conduct a seance! But my query throws your hair theory a little off, don't you think? Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:23am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737483 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #737065, Reply to #736814, Reply to #736749, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> Not motor oil bebedoll, machine oil. Its different. Machine oil is DT>TE>DT>thinner, and you can ask for it by name: DT>TE>DT> Three - In - One DT>TE>DT> heh heh heh... DT>TE>Three In One?!?! Wow, that's a tight fit... YOW >:) DT> Depends, could be Nine In One. Let me count the ways... >9# Ohhh, I don't think Nine would fit in One, no matter how much you pushed and coaxed and rammed... Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:26am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737484 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737077) (1 reply) VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors of VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No details VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that it VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way VI>cool. :) Oh, GREAT!!! Thanx a LOT!!!!! Awww, you remembered :) And thanx for the website, I will check it out, oh and speaking of websites I finally was able to hit the heartless bitch site (I think it WAS you who mentioned it, right?) that site is great!!! :) Thanx! :) Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:31am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737485 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737109, Reply to #736992, Reply to #736822, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really don't DT>TE>VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it since it's DT>TE>VI>TE>of our hands. DT>TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that this DT>TE>VI>does not happen. DT>TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothing we DT>TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are not DT>TE>in power. DT> I vote for YOU to be Sigop of /Reality, you just DT>unloaded a loverly succinct gem of fact up there... Thank you, thank you!! Hey, reality is what it is. Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:34am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737486 To: Dti Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737287, Reply to #737077) (1 reply) DT>VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors of DT>VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the DT>VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. DT>VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No details DT>VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that it DT>VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. DT>VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at DT>VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way DT>VI>cool. :) DT> Holy Shit!! DT> The Coney Island Tattoo Thing is actually going to be A> in Coney DT>Island and B> before deep Autumn this year? Shitfire, last time I noted DT>the event, it was gonna be at Amazon < think thats the name, a place way DT>westside on the river below Houston St in Manhattan > in late October... DT>That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up when DT>they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere else, DT>actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year DT>the way it was going... Well, looks like it ain't, we gonna be there or what? :) And are you going to work on some more of my skin for the occasion? :) Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:45am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737487 To: Vida Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #737290, Copy by Lythande, Reply to #737122, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>Culture creates it's own unique language, not the other way around. VI>TE>VI>TE>Besides, a person can escape from his/her culture by learning about VI>TE>VI>TE>another culture and adapting to the new culture; however a person c VI>TE>VI>TE>forget a language, no matter how many other languages he/she learns VI>TE>VI>TE>True, each language has different ways of expressing ideas, but it VI>TE>VI>TE>only a small part of what dictates that person's lifestyle (which i VI>TE>VI>TE>essentially what culture is). VI>TE>VI>But what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the culture create VI>TE>VI>the language or did the language create the culture? Where does one VI>TE>VI>begin and the other end? VI>TE>Language came first, I think that's pretty obvious. After all, animals VI>TE>have a form of language but I don't consider these animals (like chimps VI>TE>or dolphins) to have any form of culture, by any definition. However, VI>TE>culture shapes the actual language; i.e. the French culture shaped Latin VI>TE>into French, the Spanish culture shaped Latin into Spanish, etc. The VI>TE>Brooklyn culture shaped English into Brooklynese :) VI>No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my discusssion VI>of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulimately VI>possible for us to say in a historical context whether culture shaped VI>languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shape and VI>continue to shape each other. :) Yeah, they continue to shape each other now, at this point, since both culture and language already exist in full swing. But think about my point above, IMHO it's pretty obvious that language got the first start! VI>TE>VI>I agree that people can learn about other cultures, but I disagree tha VI>TE>VI>anyone can totally ESCAPE the culture to which they were born. Just VI>TE>VI>the fact that it is impossible to totally forget your native tongue, VI>TE>VI>even if you become proficient in another language, is just ONE REASON VI>TE>VI>why you can never totally escape from the culture you were born. VI>TE>This is actually a tough argument because we haven't even defined VI>TE>exactly what is meant by "culture" and "escaping from one's culture" VI>TE>come to think of it! VI>Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched that it VI>would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. Maybe we oughtta drop this one then :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It's impossible to evaluate how you unconcious opera VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that your real life experience has a greater impact VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The reality may be a different thing altogether. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Eh, I dunno... I just think that real life experiences VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impact than does a movie or a book. I mean, for example VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impact you more: getting robbed, or watching someone ge VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>movie? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>In this example, getting robbed obviously. But watching a film VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>still have a strong impact. VI>TE>VI>TE>It has an impact, but still, in any example, the real life version VI>TE>VI>TE>the experience has MUCH more impact. VI>TE>VI>Depends upon the robbery. You can have your pocket picked and not eve VI>TE>VI>be aware of it. :) VI>TE>But when you dig into your pockets later for that missing cash you'll VI>TE>sure as hell be aware of it! :) VI>You will be aware that you are missing money, but not of the robbery. VI>After all, there are other ways you can loss money--ie. I have been VI>known to accidentially give merchants a ten dollar bill, rather than a VI>five dollar bill and not notice when they only give me change for a VI>five. Good point! Missing money for me is very traumatic anyway, no matter how it got missing :) VI>But the main point is that in a case where your pocket has been picked VI>without your knowledge you haven't directly experienced a violent VI>assault on your bodily integrity. So it is possible that seeing some of VI>the grusome TV and movie depicitions of violence might have a greater VI>impact on you than the experience of being pickpocketed. Nah, I still say losing money, no matter by what method, is still much worse and has a much greater impact than watching gruesome violence on a screen, although the amount of money lost also would have a lot to do with it. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You can't possibly evaluate the effect on our VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>unconcious is unconcious. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It comes out through dreams, though. You're a fan VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Not exactly. Feminists have pretty well slammed Fre VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>psychology. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Then why were you telling me to "read Freud if I don't VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that conversation in /Xrated?! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I pick and choose from Frued. I think that he has some points w VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>is 100% right and points where he is 100% wrong. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>When he talks about how humans are naturally "polymoriously perv VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>(the thread from /Xrated) he is 100% right. When he talks about VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>women suffer from penis envy, he is 100% wrong. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, Freud-interpretation is all a matter of opinion! I believe he VI>TE>VI>TE>100% wrong in both the "polymoriously perverse" and "penis envy" VI>TE>VI>TE>theories. Although in the latter case, I do sometimes wish I had a VI>TE>VI>TE>when I REALLY have to pee and there's no bathroom around, only tree VI>TE>VI>Me too! :) VI>TE>Wow! I'm actually surprised that you share my sentiments on that one :) VI>Well I used to go camping quite a bit when I was with Gerri. So let's VI>just say I have been in situations where I had to take a squat in the VI>woods. :) Ah! So have I, it sucks doesn't it? VI>TE>VI>TE>But seriously, I do think he's 100% right about the above discussio VI>TE>VI>TE>do think that the unconscious mind manifests itself in dreams. Alth VI>TE>VI>TE>how exactly it manifests itself is subject to individual interpreta VI>TE>VI>That goes without saying. :) VI>TE>Well, you WERE saying before that the unconscious is unreachable! :) VI>The unconsious is not normally reachable to the consious mind. This VI>doesn't mean it doesn't manifest itself in the things we do. :) Well, the unconscious mind is supposedly reachable to the conscious mind via various methods such as psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc. Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:49am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737488 To: Vida Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737292, Copy by Lythande, Reply to #737121, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>My explanation is quite simple: All of the factors VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the product of the patriachy. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Can you tell me HOW these factors are the products of p VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>exactly? I'm not getting your reasoning here at all! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Patriachy is just a word feminists use to describe our cur VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>set up. So when I say patriachy causes the conditions whi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>describe what I am saying is that the factors you mentione VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>innante to human nature--they are the product of the socie VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>live in. In other words, in the nature vs. nurture debate VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>heavily fall on the nurture side of the debate. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Is that reasonable clear enough? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, that is much more clear. But now I see why Deb was telli VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>you are using circular logic! You're saying that these factor VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>patriarchy, and patriarchy causes these factors! It makes no VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Not if you think about it further. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>These factors are the products of patriachy but they also reinfo VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>existence of patriachy--helping to perpetuate its existence. VI>TE>VI>TE>That's still circular logic. That's like saying that a mother gave VI>TE>VI>TE>to a baby, but the baby gave birth to the mother in the first place VI>TE>VI>TE>Makes no sense! VI>TE>VI>Makes sense to me, is all I can say. :) VI>TE>Well you have a strange brain then :) VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above (to me VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's either VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are dealing VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy when VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. The chicken and egg analogy is merely a form of logic, and logic can be applied to anything. VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemenom VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. Yes, the two sociological realities above can perpetuate each other ONCE THEY ARE BOTH IN EXISTENCE, but in the beginning, one HAD to be the cause of the other, not at the same time. Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:55am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737489 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737300, Reply to #737293, Reply to #737033, R*) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>Of course, I don't think that this will happen in our VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Evolution doesn't happen that quickly! If it does happe VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it would take at least a few thousand years!! And even VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>human species is still around then (which I think it wi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>if the human species does not blow itself up into anoth VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>All I'm really saying is that it's not impossible! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than me. I am really afraid that VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>blow itself up into another stone age. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that it won't, or that it will, I just really VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>one way or the other, and it's useless to worry about it sinc VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>of our hands. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>does not happen. VI>TE>VI>TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothi VI>TE>VI>TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are VI>TE>VI>TE>in power. VI>TE>VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople and VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. This would not work. EVEN IF we all got together and convinced the President AND the entire membership of congress that nuclear weapons must all be disarmed, it still would not work for two reasons: One, the military is in control of this matter, not the congress or the president, and convincing the military to give up their toys is a useless and impossible venture. Two, who says the United States would be the cause of end of the humanity? Even if the U.S. disarmed all its nuclear weapons, we would still have quite a few other governments to deal with (friends like Saddam Hussein and his kin), and convincing THEM to disarm all their weapons is an almost laughable concept. VI>There's lots we could do. Any suggestions for the above obstacles? Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 5:59am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737490 To: Vida Re: Roach text (Reply to #737387) Wow! Holy shit! And I thought we New Yawkaz had it bad! Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 1:44am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737520 To: Vida Re: Chocolate ritual (Reply to #737458) (1 reply) Wow! Nice. So elaborate! Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 1:48am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737521 To: Dti Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737478, Reply to #737292, Copy by Lythande, R*) (1 reply) DDT> yr last trump card, the 'it makes a lot of sense that a socioligical DT>reality can both cause certain phenom and be the cause of certain DT>phenom.' is a master stroke of redundant illiterate smokeword dogshit. I DT>know you can do better than that. You disappoint me with this drivel I caught that one too, but I know what she was trying to say, even though it's STILL illogical. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 1:50am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 737522 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737479, Reply to #737293, Reply to #737033, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, it is ulitimately in ALL of our hands to work to insure that DT>TE>VI>TE>VI>does not happen. DT>TE>VI>TE>Now, let's be realistic. It is NOT in our hands, and there is nothi DT>TE>VI>TE>can do to stop it. It's in the hands of those in power, and we are DT>TE>VI>TE>in power. DT>TE>VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. DT>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done DT>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. DT> Me too. I want to learn how, in simple A, B, C type steps, how to do DT>something about the government in some way that is both effective and DT>legal. Heh heh heh, I will goto the doc now to have my nerves removed so DT>I can jerk off in the meantime waiting for result without spewing jizm DT>for any possible reason ar ar heh yeh suuuure... Fuck legal, there isn't even any ILLEGAL way that any of this can be done effectively, let alone legal! Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:12am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737562 To: Dti Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737476, Reply to #737299, Reply to #737287, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year they DT>VI>held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move it to DT>VI>warmer weather. :) DT> It is About Time. So this year the Coney Island Tattoo Festival will DT>be run in Coney Island at a time of the year when reasonable human DT>beings can actually sport about half or more nekkid to show the ink? DT>Well alright: its about fucking time actually, they screwed this one up DT>for some time running and gone already... thanks for the tip, V... DT>--- You're welcome. :) Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:14am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737563 To: Dti Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737478, Reply to #737292, Copy by Lythande, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above (to me DT>VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's either DT>VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! DT>VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are dealing DT>VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy when DT>VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. DT>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things DT>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. DT>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a DT>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemenom DT>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a DT>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves DT>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. DT> If I think of this sort of thing because it is accepted to exist in the first place and thus is subject DT>to a further manipulation that allows it to replicate itself even tho we DT>generally agree that some time in history matriarchy was the game and DT>thus where is the egg to make the chicken or the chicken to make the DT>egg; one has to accept a similar construct to fake the rest of a DT>homogenous history from the gitgo startpoint anyway> makes any sense, DT>then I wish we all lived in a loose enough world to allow such things to DT>actually make sense and to be arguable in the first place. DT> yr last trump card, the 'it makes a lot of sense that a socioligical DT>reality can both cause certain phenom and be the cause of certain DT>phenom.' is a master stroke of redundant illiterate smokeword dogshit. I DT>know you can do better than that. You disappoint me with this drivel DT>--- Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not drivel, or a smokescreen or dogshit. It's real. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:15am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737564 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737480, Reply to #737300, Reply to #737293, R*) (2 replies) DT>VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done DT>VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople and DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. DT>VI>There's lots we could do. DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent information DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats to DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shred DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of the DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we can DT>do... DT>--- If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spying on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as to what's the greater threat. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:39am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737565 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #737482, Reply to #737046, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (1 reply) (Previous exchanges ommitted) TE>No, we don't transcend nature, we just use what nature has given us TE>to make our lives easier and more interesting. The animals do that too, TE>but to a lesser extent, because nature didn't give them the same TE>resources it gave us. What are vacinations if not transcending nature? Animals are trapped by biology. Humans can and do use their technology to manipulate biology. TE>And yes, so you agree with me, animals do not have culture; only TE>people do. So, I ask again: if animals don't have culture, and TE>masculinity vs. femininity is a cultural construct, then WHY do TE>animals display masculine vs. feminine differences as well? Animals don't display masculine and feminine differences because animals don't have culture. It is human beings, who observe animal behavior who label the animal behavior as masculine or feminine. As far as the animal is concerned, the animal is only doing what comes naturally. Animals don't conceptualize, people do. TE>VI>I totally disagree with your statement that the differences between and TE>VI>among cultures is small and insiginficant. I also take exception to TE>VI>your statement that in human beings behavior can in any way be directly TE>VI>correlated to hormonal levels. Human beings function on a much higher TE>VI>cognitive level than animals--our behavior is always dictated by our TE>VI>rational ability to reason, think and plan. TE>First, I didn't say that the differences between cultures are small and TE>insignificant in general; I was only referring to the differences in TE>cultural views of masculinity and femininity. Also, I didn't say these TE>differences were insignificant, I said that they varied in small TE>details (please don't put words in my mouth!) Sorry about that! Didn't mean to step on your toes. TE>Second, although human behavior is PARTIALLY dictated by our ability TE>to think, reason, and plan, it is also VERY heavily influenced by TE>levels of hormones and neurotransmitters. By disagreeing with this TE>fact you are disagreeing with that which already has been proven TE>to a great extent. Our behavior is largely the product of internal TE>chemical activity, like it or not. That is why taking a psychoactive TE>drug, for example, can change a person's behavior around so drastically; TE>because it is chemically active in the brain, and chemical and TE>electrical activity in the brain is that which makes us who we are. Of course our biology effects our behavior! I am female and I menstruate so I have experienced PMS craziness from time to time. But I still have my brain function to help me compensate for PMS--even if it is just to warn Bob to lay low and give me lots and lots of space. Likewise, I also had a female lover who was going through menopause and who had the worse case of raging hormones imaginable. But she still was able to get herself to a doctor who eventually found the right hormone combination to make her a lot less crazy! :) So the bottom line is that as humans we are not trapped by our biology--we have the resources that enable us to, a great extent, escape from the effects of our biological systems. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The type of strength that I was talking about was both physic TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>emotional strength. And of course hair has nothing to do wit TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>physical and emotional strength. However, it has functioned TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>cultural marker for both physical and emotional strength. Th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>story of Samson and Deliah for example. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I've never thought of hair as having anything to do with strengt TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Samson and Delilah is just a Biblical story, it is not the basis TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>kind of widespread cultural belief. TE>VI>TE>VI>Au contraire! The Bible reflects widespread cultural beliefs in ou TE>VI>TE>VI>western culture. TE>VI>TE>So are you saying that the idea that body hair is a sign of strength i TE>VI>TE>found in western culture, but not anywhere else?? TE>VI>The correlation of body hair with strength is present in Western TE>VI>civilization. It may or may not be present in other civilizations. TE>VI>Since Oriental people tend to have less body hair than whites I would TE>VI>expect that Eastern civilization don't have this same correlation. But TE>VI>I honestly haven't studied Eastern civiliztions well enough to see if TE>VI>my suspicion is true. TE>So, if an American woman shaves her legs she is downgrading her TE>strength, but if an Asian woman shaves her legs she is not doing so? TE>Doesn't make much sense. Unless you are dealing with actual physical violence you have to judge whether an act is masochistic in accordance with cultural standards. What is beign in one cultural setting may be symbolic violence in another. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Besides, isn't the "traditional" belief that men are stronger? T TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do women traditionally have longer hair? TE>VI>TE>VI>It depends upon where the hair is. The hairstyles which women wear TE>VI>TE>VI>their heads is traditionally considered to be sexually aluring to m TE>VI>TE>VI>Think of how both traditional Orthodox Jews and religiously observa TE>VI>TE>VI>Muslim women cover their hair in an attempt to preserve sexual mode TE>VI>TE>Well then why did Delilah cut Samson's hair off his head, instead of TE>VI>TE>shaving his body? :) TE>VI>Good question. You would have to ask the author of Tenakh. :) TE>Well, I would but he's probably dead by now and I don't know how to TE>conduct a seance! But my query throws your hair theory a little off, TE>don't you think? Nope. Actually, I think I have the answer for you as to why Delilah shaved Samson's hair on his head. Samson was a Nazene. I was just reading about this in the last Parasha (Torah portion of the week). It seems that Nazenes devote themselves for a period of time to G-d's service. They are supposed to be celebate, but only for their period of service, not for their entire life. And during their period of service they are not supposed to get a hair cut. After their period of service they cut their hair, so by cutting Samson's hair Delilah was making Samson break his Nazene oath and putting him out of G-d's favor. And see the connection again to hair sytle and G-dliness? :) Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:50am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737566 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737484, Reply to #737077) (1 reply) TE>VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors of TE>VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the TE>VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. TE>VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No details TE>VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that it TE>VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. TE>VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at TE>VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way TE>VI>cool. :) TE>Oh, GREAT!!! Thanx a LOT!!!!! Awww, you remembered :) TE>And thanx for the website, I will check it out, oh and speaking of TE>websites I finally was able to hit the heartless bitch site (I think TE>it WAS you who mentioned it, right?) that site is great!!! :) TE>Thanx! :) You are quite welcome...yeah it was me who mentioned the heartless bitch site. :) Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:53am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737567 To: Tempest Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #737487, Reply to #737290, Copy by Lythande, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Culture creates it's own unique language, not the other way arou TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Besides, a person can escape from his/her culture by learning ab TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>another culture and adapting to the new culture; however a perso TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>forget a language, no matter how many other languages he/she lea TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, each language has different ways of expressing ideas, but TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>only a small part of what dictates that person's lifestyle (whic TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>essentially what culture is). TE>VI>TE>VI>But what came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the culture creat TE>VI>TE>VI>the language or did the language create the culture? Where does on TE>VI>TE>VI>begin and the other end? TE>VI>TE>Language came first, I think that's pretty obvious. After all, animals TE>VI>TE>have a form of language but I don't consider these animals (like chimp TE>VI>TE>or dolphins) to have any form of culture, by any definition. However, TE>VI>TE>culture shapes the actual language; i.e. the French culture shaped Lat TE>VI>TE>into French, the Spanish culture shaped Latin into Spanish, etc. The TE>VI>TE>Brooklyn culture shaped English into Brooklynese :) TE>VI>No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my discusssion TE>VI>of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulimately TE>VI>possible for us to say in a historical context whether culture shaped TE>VI>languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shape and TE>VI>continue to shape each other. :) TE>Yeah, they continue to shape each other now, at this point, since both TE>culture and language already exist in full swing. But think about my TE>point above, IMHO it's pretty obvious that language got the first start! Obvious to you, but not at all to me. Language was shaped by cultural forces. And in turn, as language developed it shaped the culture. TE>VI>TE>VI>I agree that people can learn about other cultures, but I disagree TE>VI>TE>VI>anyone can totally ESCAPE the culture to which they were born. Jus TE>VI>TE>VI>the fact that it is impossible to totally forget your native tongue TE>VI>TE>VI>even if you become proficient in another language, is just ONE REAS TE>VI>TE>VI>why you can never totally escape from the culture you were born. TE>VI>TE>This is actually a tough argument because we haven't even defined TE>VI>TE>exactly what is meant by "culture" and "escaping from one's culture" TE>VI>TE>come to think of it! TE>VI>Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched that it TE>VI>would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. TE>Maybe we oughtta drop this one then :) That's purely up to you--I can talk about something without necesarily knowing what I'm talking about. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It's impossible to evaluate how you unconcious op TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that your real life experience has a greater impa TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The reality may be a different thing altogether. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Eh, I dunno... I just think that real life experienc TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impact than does a movie or a book. I mean, for exam TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impact you more: getting robbed, or watching someone TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>movie? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>In this example, getting robbed obviously. But watching a fi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>still have a strong impact. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It has an impact, but still, in any example, the real life versi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the experience has MUCH more impact. TE>VI>TE>VI>Depends upon the robbery. You can have your pocket picked and not TE>VI>TE>VI>be aware of it. :) TE>VI>TE>But when you dig into your pockets later for that missing cash you'll TE>VI>TE>sure as hell be aware of it! :) TE>VI>You will be aware that you are missing money, but not of the robbery. TE>VI>After all, there are other ways you can loss money--ie. I have been TE>VI>known to accidentially give merchants a ten dollar bill, rather than a TE>VI>five dollar bill and not notice when they only give me change for a TE>VI>five. TE>Good point! Missing money for me is very traumatic anyway, no matter how TE>it got missing :) TE>VI>But the main point is that in a case where your pocket has been picked TE>VI>without your knowledge you haven't directly experienced a violent TE>VI>assault on your bodily integrity. So it is possible that seeing some of TE>VI>the grusome TV and movie depicitions of violence might have a greater TE>VI>impact on you than the experience of being pickpocketed. TE>Nah, I still say losing money, no matter by what method, is still much TE>worse and has a much greater impact than watching gruesome violence on a TE>screen, although the amount of money lost also would have a lot to do TE>with it. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You can't possibly evaluate the effect on o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>unconcious is unconcious. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It comes out through dreams, though. You're a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Not exactly. Feminists have pretty well slammed TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>psychology. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Then why were you telling me to "read Freud if I don TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that conversation in /Xrated?! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I pick and choose from Frued. I think that he has some point TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>is 100% right and points where he is 100% wrong. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>When he talks about how humans are naturally "polymoriously p TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>(the thread from /Xrated) he is 100% right. When he talks ab TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>women suffer from penis envy, he is 100% wrong. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, Freud-interpretation is all a matter of opinion! I believe TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>100% wrong in both the "polymoriously perverse" and "penis envy" TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>theories. Although in the latter case, I do sometimes wish I had TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>when I REALLY have to pee and there's no bathroom around, only t TE>VI>TE>VI>Me too! :) TE>VI>TE>Wow! I'm actually surprised that you share my sentiments on that one : TE>VI>Well I used to go camping quite a bit when I was with Gerri. So let's TE>VI>just say I have been in situations where I had to take a squat in the TE>VI>woods. :) TE>Ah! So have I, it sucks doesn't it? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>But seriously, I do think he's 100% right about the above discus TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do think that the unconscious mind manifests itself in dreams. A TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>how exactly it manifests itself is subject to individual interpr TE>VI>TE>VI>That goes without saying. :) TE>VI>TE>Well, you WERE saying before that the unconscious is unreachable! :) TE>VI>The unconsious is not normally reachable to the consious mind. This TE>VI>doesn't mean it doesn't manifest itself in the things we do. :) TE>Well, the unconscious mind is supposedly reachable to the conscious mind TE>via various methods such as psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 7:59am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737568 To: Tempest Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737488, Reply to #737292, Copy by Lythande, R*) (1 reply) (Previous exchanges ommitted) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's still circular logic. That's like saying that a mother ga TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to a baby, but the baby gave birth to the mother in the first pl TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Makes no sense! TE>VI>TE>VI>Makes sense to me, is all I can say. :) TE>VI>TE>Well you have a strange brain then :) Strangeness is in the eye of the beholder. :) TE>VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above (to me TE>VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's either TE>VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! TE>VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are dealing TE>VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy when TE>VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. TE>The chicken and egg analogy is merely a form of logic, and logic can be TE>applied to anything. No, I don't believe that the logic which you using is applicable to sociological reality. Sociological reality is NOT scientific or necessarily logical. TE>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things TE>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. TE>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a TE>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemenom TE>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a TE>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves TE>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. TE>Yes, the two sociological realities above can perpetuate each other ONCE TE>THEY ARE BOTH IN EXISTENCE, but in the beginning, one HAD to be the TE>cause of the other, not at the same time. Why? Who said so? Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 8:00am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737569 To: Tempest Re: Chocolate ritual (Reply to #737520, Reply to #737458) TE>Wow! Nice. So elaborate! Yah, I thought it was cool. :) Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 4:20pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 737607 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737299, Reply to #737287, Reply to #737077) (1 reply) DT> The Coney Island Tattoo Thing is actually going to be A> in Coney VI>DT>Island and B> before deep Autumn this year? Shitfire, last time I noted VI>DT>the event, it was gonna be at Amazon < think thats the name, a place way VI>DT>westside on the river below Houston St in Manhattan > in late October... VI>DT>That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up when VI>DT>they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere else, VI>DT>actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year VI>DT>the way it was going... VI>DT>--- VI>That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year they VI>held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move it to VI>warmer weather. :) I beg to differ :) Although it is normally held in October, Last year it was in August. Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 7:08am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737637 To: Steve C Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737607, Reply to #737299, Reply to #737287, R*) (1 reply) SC>DT> The Coney Island Tattoo Thing is actually going to be A> in Coney SC>VI>DT>Island and B> before deep Autumn this year? Shitfire, last time I note SC>VI>DT>the event, it was gonna be at Amazon < think thats the name, a place w SC>VI>DT>westside on the river below Houston St in Manhattan > in late October. SC>VI>DT>That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up whe SC>VI>DT>they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere els SC>VI>DT>actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year SC>VI>DT>the way it was going... SC>VI>DT>--- SC>VI>That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year they SC>VI>held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move it to SC>VI>warmer weather. :) SC>I beg to differ :) SC>Although it is normally held in October, Last year it was in August. I was there last year. But now you are saying it was August maybe my memory off as to which month the competition was held. :) Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 10:09am Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 737656 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737637, Reply to #737607, Reply to #737299, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year they VI>SC>VI>held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move it t VI>SC>VI>warmer weather. :) VI>SC>I beg to differ :) VI>SC>Although it is normally held in October, Last year it was in August. VI>I was there last year. But now you are saying it was August maybe my VI>memory off as to which month the competition was held. :) I only remember it because there was a summer concert at Asser Levy Park that same day and went from the concert to the tattoo competition. It was held on previous years in October/November so I can see why that would stick in your mind Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 6:25pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737672 To: Steve C Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737656, Reply to #737637, Reply to #737607, R*) (1 reply) SC>VI>SC>VI>That's the info in the mailing. And yeah, my memory is last year t SC>VI>SC>VI>held in at Coney Island in October. I guess they decided to move i SC>VI>SC>VI>warmer weather. :) SC>VI>SC>I beg to differ :) SC>VI>SC>Although it is normally held in October, Last year it was in August. SC>VI>I was there last year. But now you are saying it was August maybe my SC>VI>memory off as to which month the competition was held. :) SC>I only remember it because there was a summer concert at Asser Levy SC>Park that same day and went from the concert to the tattoo competition. SC>It was held on previous years in October/November so I can see why that SC>would stick in your mind Ok. I just remember taking the subway to Coney Island and falling asleep leaning on Bob's shoulder on the way home. :) Date: Thursday, June 19, 1997 12:48pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 737694 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737672, Reply to #737656, Reply to #737637, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>I only remember it because there was a summer concert at Asser Levy VI>SC>Park that same day and went from the concert to the tattoo competition. VI>SC>It was held on previous years in October/November so I can see why that VI>SC>would stick in your mind VI>Ok. I just remember taking the subway to Coney Island and falling VI>asleep leaning on Bob's shoulder on the way home. :) Thats understandable, with last years competition being on a Thursday, I was too tired to stay for the whole thing myself, otherwise I would have been half asleep myself :) Date: Thursday, June 19, 1997 10:17pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737704 To: Steve C Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737694, Reply to #737672, Reply to #737656, R*) SC>VI>SC>I only remember it because there was a summer concert at Asser Levy SC>VI>SC>Park that same day and went from the concert to the tattoo competition SC>VI>SC>It was held on previous years in October/November so I can see why tha SC>VI>SC>would stick in your mind SC>VI>Ok. I just remember taking the subway to Coney Island and falling SC>VI>asleep leaning on Bob's shoulder on the way home. :) SC>Thats understandable, with last years competition being on a Thursday, SC>I was too tired to stay for the whole thing myself, otherwise I would SC>have been half asleep myself :) I don't need much of an excuse to fall asleep, especially after 9 PM. :) Date: Saturday, June 21, 1997 7:18am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737756 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Hacker Barbie Found this on the Abaigails-l feminist e mail list: Mattel Releases "Hacker Barbie" (LA, California) Mattel announces their new line of Barbie products, the Hacker Barbie. These new dolls will be released next month. The aim of these dolls is to reverse the stereotype that women are numerophobic and computer-illiterate. This new line of Barbie dolls comes equipped with Barbie's very own X-terminal and UNIX documentation as well as ORA's "In a Nutshell" series. The Barbie is robed in a dirty button-up shirt and a pair of worn-out jeans with Casio all-purpose watches and thick glasses that can set ants on fire. Pocket protectors and HP calculators optional. The new Barbie has the incredible ability to stare at the screen without blinking her eyes, and to go without eating or drinking for 12 hours straight. Her vocabulary mainly consists of technical terms such as "IP address," "TCP/IP," "kernel," "NP-complete," and "Alpha AXP's." "We are very excited about this product," said John Olson, Marketing Executive, " and we hope that the Hacker Barbie will offset the damage incurred by the math-phobic Barbie." A year ago, Mattel released Barbie dolls that say, "Math is hard," with condescending companion Ken. The Hacker Barbie's Ken is an incompetent consultant who frequently asks Barbie for help. Leading feminists are equally excited about this new line of Barbie dolls. Naomi Wolf says, "I believe that these new dolls will finally terminate the notion that women are inherently inferior when it comes to mathematics and the sciences. However, I feel that Ken's hierarchical superiority as her occasional employer continues to reinforce patriarchal values." Mattel made no comment. Parents, however, are worried that they will become technologically unsavvy in comparison to their children when the Hacker Barbie comes out. "My daughter Jenny played with the Hacker Barbie prototype for just two days," says Mrs. Mary Carlson of Oxford, Indiana, "and now suddenly all our credit card bills are being paid. I have no idea how she does it. I could never make ends meet, and I'm an adult. Perhaps I'm just an idiot." Mattel will be offering free training courses for parents purchasing Hacker Barbie. The future Hacker Barbie will include several variations to deal with the complex aspects of Barbie. "Hacker Barbie Goes to Jail" will teach computer ethics to youngsters, while "BARB1E R1TES L1KE B1FF!!!" will serve as an introduction to expository writing. ---End of forwarded mail -- "Do not offer your heart to someone who eats hearts." --alice walker --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 6:05pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737880 To: ** ALL ** Re: More on Disney boycott (1 reply) I found this on the Queerpolitics list, and thought it was funny. > T H E T O P F I V E L I S T > Fortified with 8 essential vitamins and minerals >================================================================ > Sponsored by Windows Sources > > The Great Chip Challenge > Fast new chips from AMD, Cyrix, and Intel > http://www.winsources.com >================================================================ > > > June 23, 1997 > > > The Top 15 Other Boycotts of the Southern Baptists > > > >15> Christmas carols, for promoting gay apparel > >14> The Food Channel, because of repeated use of the terms "Beef > Tenderloins" and "Chicken Breast" > >13> Devils Food Chocolate Birthday Cakes--oh, what the heck, > birthdays, too! > >12> Richard Simmons, because "There's something just not quite > right about that man." > >11> McDonald's, because "They're Irish." > >10> "Poblec Skools" > > 9> No more Marilyn Manson concerts performed in Disney-owned > venues > > 8> Pink Panther - gay or communist, hard to tell, doesn't > matter > > 7> Warner Brothers for putting a talking, naked-from-the-waist- > down pig in their cartoons > > 6> Ben-Gay Ointment > > 5> Marvin Gaye records > > 4> The Smithsonian's Homo Erectus exhibit > > 3> Mentos? The *Devil's* candy! > > 2> Federal Express - no respectable company says "package" in > public > > > and the Number 1 Other Boycott of the Southern Baptists... > > > 1> The New York Yankees, because George Steinbrenner is an > assho -- Uh, a wretched sinner > > >[ This list copyright 1997 by Chris White and Ziff Davis, Inc. ] >[ The Top Five List top5@walrus.com http://www.topfive.com ] >[ To forward or repost, please include this section. ] > > >Selected from 81 submissions from 31 contributors. >Today's Top Five List authors are: >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Ed Smith, Chattanooga, TN -- 1, 6, Topic (4th #1) >David W. James, Los Angeles, CA -- 2, 8 >Kevin Freels, Sun Valley, CA -- 3 >Bob Mader, Knoxville, TN -- 4 >Dave George, Arlington, VA -- 4, 9 >John Hering, Alexandria, VA -- 5 (Hall of Famer) >Rob Seulowitz, New York, NY -- 5, 10 >Barbara Rush, Tulsa, OK -- 7 >Martell Stroup, Reno, NV -- 7 >Gregory Swarthout, Murray, UT -- 7 >Lev L. Spiro, Los Angeles, CA -- 11, 14 >R.M. Weiner, Brighton, MA -- 12 >Jennifer Ritzinger, Seattle, WA -- 13 >Doug Johnson, Santa Cruz, CA -- 15 >Peter Perkowski, Los Angeles, CA -- Witty banner tag >Chris White, New York, NY -- List owner/editor >---------------------------------------------------------------- > Today's Runners Up list, "The Immoral Minority", > can be found at our website: http://www.topfive.com >================================================================ > T H E T O P F I V E L I S T >To subscribe: Send mail to top5-on@lists.zdnet.com >To unsubscribe: Send mail to top5-off@lists.zdnet.com >For more information: Send mail to top5@walrus.com > with "INFO" in the *subject* line of the message. >To report a sighting of a Top Five List in other media: > Send mail to top5@walrus.com with "BINGO!" in the *subject*. >================================================================ > > Ruminations & Ponderances > > One of my favorite things to do when I was > a kid was to watch TV. I know it sounds > funny, but it's true. Ah, reckless youth. > > (Thanks to R. M. Weiner) > >================================================================ Date: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 12:18pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 737901 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737880) (1 reply) VI>> T H E T O P F I V E L I S T VI>> Fortified with 8 essential vitamins and minerals VI>>================================================================ VI>> Sponsored by Windows Sources VI>> VI>> The Great Chip Challenge VI>> Fast new chips from AMD, Cyrix, and Intel VI>> http://www.winsources.com VI>>================================================================ VI>> VI>> VI>> June 23, 1997 VI>> VI>> VI>> The Top 15 Other Boycotts of the Southern Baptists VI>> LOL :) Date: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 5:49pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737906 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737901, Reply to #737880) (2 replies) SC>VI>> T H E T O P F I V E L I S T SC>VI>> Fortified with 8 essential vitamins and minerals SC>VI>>================================================================ SC>VI>> Sponsored by Windows Sources SC>VI>> SC>VI>> The Great Chip Challenge SC>VI>> Fast new chips from AMD, Cyrix, and Intel SC>VI>> http://www.winsources.com SC>VI>>================================================================ SC>VI>> SC>VI>> SC>VI>> June 23, 1997 SC>VI>> SC>VI>> SC>VI>> The Top 15 Other Boycotts of the Southern Baptists SC>VI>> SC>LOL :) Glad you enjoyed it. I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer hats singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) Date: Wednesday, June 25, 1997 9:26pm Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 737912 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737906, Reply to #737901, Reply to #737880) (1 reply) V >I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News V >last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer hats V >singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) ROTFL!!! Very good. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 6:57am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737920 To: Editor Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737912, Reply to #737906, Reply to #737901, R*) ED>V >I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News ED>V >last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer hats ED>V >singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) ED>ROTFL!!! Very good. Yeah, I thought so. :) Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 6:32pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 737945 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737906, Reply to #737901, Reply to #737880) (1 reply) VI>I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News VI>last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer hats VI>singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) I agree. I saw that one and thought it was hillarious. Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 7:33am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 737964 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737945, Reply to #737906, Reply to #737901, R*) (1 reply) SC>VI>I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News SC>VI>last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer hats SC>VI>singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) SC>I agree. I saw that one and thought it was hillarious. Well the Southern Baptists have historically been wrong about a lot. Don't forget this denomination started off during the Civil War. They split off from the Baptists because the Baptists were abolotionists. They started off supporting slavery and the Confederacy during the Civil War. Then during the 1950's and the 1960's they opposed the Civil Rights movement and integration. And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have marked Jews as special targets for conversion. Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 4:28pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 738004 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #737964, Reply to #737945, Reply to #737906, R*) (2 replies) VI>SC>VI>I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News VI>SC>VI>last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer hats VI>SC>VI>singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) VI>SC>I agree. I saw that one and thought it was hillarious. VI>Well the Southern Baptists have historically been wrong about a lot. VI>Don't forget this denomination started off during the Civil War. They VI>split off from the Baptists because the Baptists were abolotionists. VI>They started off supporting slavery and the Confederacy during the VI>Civil War. VI>Then during the 1950's and the 1960's they opposed the Civil Rights VI>movement and integration. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a fair number of Black Protestants in the new york area? I wonder if they know about their own faiths dirty little secrets? VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individual to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true believers anyway. Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. Date: Saturday, June 28, 1997 8:19am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738028 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738004, Reply to #737964, Reply to #737945, R*) (2 replies) SC>VI>SC>VI>I wish I could have posted the great carton I saw in the Daily News SC>VI>SC>VI>last week. It had a group of Southern Baptists wearing mousketer h SC>VI>SC>VI>singing "It's a Small Mind After All. ". :) SC>VI>SC>I agree. I saw that one and thought it was hillarious. SC>VI>Well the Southern Baptists have historically been wrong about a lot. SC>VI>Don't forget this denomination started off during the Civil War. They SC>VI>split off from the Baptists because the Baptists were abolotionists. SC>VI>They started off supporting slavery and the Confederacy during the SC>VI>Civil War. SC>VI>Then during the 1950's and the 1960's they opposed the Civil Rights SC>VI>movement and integration. SC>Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a fair number of Black SC>Protestants in the new york area? Absoultely!!!! I would bet dollars to donuts that Sharpton might have originally received his ordination from the Southern Baptists...which would explain why he might have switched from one Protestant sect to another. :) SC>I wonder if they know about their own faiths dirty little secrets? But the Southern Baptists were also always very racially segregregrated. So the BLACK southern Baptists were very active in the civil rights struggle. Unless I am grossly mistaken I think ML King was a Baptist preacher. SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individual SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true SC>believers anyway. SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. That's my belief. :) Date: Monday, June 30, 1997 12:59pm Forum: Reality From: Sam Beckett Msg#: 738102 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738028, Reply to #738004, Reply to #737964, R*) (1 reply) If I may use a religious term to answer, "Hallelujah!" As a person who was raised in a fairly religious area, I have to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly. I never remember reading ANYWHERE in the Bible of Jesus or God saying that "Thou shalt go out and rap people smartly on the heads with thy Bible, for thou art perfect and shalt convert them." Anyone remember the Crusades? I can't imagine God sanctioning Christianity by the sword. Granted, you may get believers, but I will be dubious as to WHY they converted. The bottom line is this:If you look through the Bible(and no, I am not intentionally excluding other beliefs--The Bible happens to be the Word I read), you will never find Christians FORCING people to chane their beliefs. Even Christ, the Son of God, made it clear that it was the choice of the individual to believe and follow, or not to. When you get right down to it, all this bickering about these matters which should rightly be left to God to deal with with each individual(this whole Disney thing, for example), only serves to keep us at each others' throats--and to me, that seems like a prime way for Satan to keep Christians from doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is being a light to the world(a.k.a. living by example) It is the intent of the heart of the individual that makes what they do right or wrong--it is the individual's choice to do what God says or not to. I would welcom any input anyone else may have on this. :) Date: Monday, June 30, 1997 3:21pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 738127 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738028, Reply to #738004, Reply to #737964, R*) (2 replies) VI>SC>VI>Then during the 1950's and the 1960's they opposed the Civil Rights VI>SC>VI>movement and integration. VI>SC>Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a fair number of Black VI>SC>Protestants in the new york area? VI>Absoultely!!!! VI>I would bet dollars to donuts that Sharpton might have originally VI>received his ordination from the Southern Baptists...which would VI>explain why he might have switched from one Protestant sect to another. VI> :) Thanks for the info, I didn't know that VI>SC>I wonder if they know about their own faiths dirty little secrets? VI>But the Southern Baptists were also always very racially VI>segregregrated. So the BLACK southern Baptists were very active in the VI>civil rights struggle. Unless I am grossly mistaken I think ML King VI>was a Baptist preacher. So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney haters in name only , I guess. VI>SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have VI>SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have VI>SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. VI>SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individual VI>SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true VI>SC>believers anyway. VI>SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as VI>SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. VI>That's my belief. :) And mine also. Date: Tuesday, July 1, 1997 7:17am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738179 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738127, Reply to #738028, Reply to #738004, R*) SC>VI>SC>VI>Then during the 1950's and the 1960's they opposed the Civil Rights SC>VI>SC>VI>movement and integration. SC>VI>SC>Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there a fair number of Black SC>VI>SC>Protestants in the new york area? SC>VI>Absoultely!!!! SC>VI>I would bet dollars to donuts that Sharpton might have originally SC>VI>received his ordination from the Southern Baptists...which would SC>VI>explain why he might have switched from one Protestant sect to another. SC>VI> :) SC>Thanks for the info, I didn't know that I don't know if it's true...it's just semi-educated guesswork on my part. :) SC>VI>SC>I wonder if they know about their own faiths dirty little secrets? SC>VI>But the Southern Baptists were also always very racially SC>VI>segregregrated. So the BLACK southern Baptists were very active in the SC>VI>civil rights struggle. Unless I am grossly mistaken I think ML King SC>VI>was a Baptist preacher. SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney SC>haters in name only , I guess. I think it's a little more complicated than that. There's connections. And there's points of disconnection. SC>VI>SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have SC>VI>SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they ha SC>VI>SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. SC>VI>SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individua SC>VI>SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true SC>VI>SC>believers anyway. SC>VI>SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as SC>VI>SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. SC>VI>That's my belief. :) SC>And mine also. Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738290 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737485, Reply to #737109, Reply to #736992, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> I vote for YOU to be Sigop of /Reality, you just TE>DT>unloaded a loverly succinct gem of fact up there... TE>Thank you, thank you!! Hey, reality is what it is. ...and if we lived there, we would be home now... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * if men concieved, abortion would be a sacrament Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738291 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737486, Reply to #737287, Reply to #737077) (1 reply) TE>DT>That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up when TE>DT>they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere else, TE>DT>actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year TE>DT>the way it was going... TE>Well, looks like it ain't, we gonna be there or what? :) TE>And are you going to work on some more of my skin for the occasion? TE> :) Sure, what the fuck: I'll be on vacay in the middle of August this year, we can ride up onto the boardwalk on the Duk so's you can hop off the back and show off yr PROPERTY OF JEEZIZ H KHRIST tat, the one that is about to magically appear on the right cheek of your lovely ass... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738292 To: Tempest Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737521, Reply to #737478, Reply to #737292, C*) (1 reply) TE>DT> yr last trump card, the 'it makes a lot of sense that a socioligical TE>DT>reality can both cause certain phenom and be the cause of certain TE>DT>phenom.' is a master stroke of redundant illiterate smokeword dogshit. I TE>DT>know you can do better than that. You disappoint me with this drivel TE>I caught that one too, but I know what she was trying to say, even TE>though it's STILL illogical. I am gonna save this slimer packet for when I can get properly intox and deal with it in random DTIverse, as it begs to be dealt with, most especially in this sig. So far the last few weeks I havent seen alla that much reality in here, plenny theory and scows groaning under the tonnage of various hopeful fictions tho... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Am I REALLY responsible for someone who refuses to eat? Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738293 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737522, Reply to #737479, Reply to #737293, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT>TE>VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. TE>DT>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be done TE>DT>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. TE>DT> Me too. I want to learn how, in simple A, B, C type steps, how to do TE>DT>something about the government in some way that is both effective and TE>DT>legal. Heh heh heh, I will goto the doc now to have my nerves removed so TE>DT>I can jerk off in the meantime waiting for result without spewing jizm TE>DT>for any possible reason ar ar heh yeh suuuure... TE>Fuck legal, there isn't even any ILLEGAL way that any of this can be TE>done effectively, let alone legal! Well, hmm. Eh, but it's a real helluva lot of assassinations, and not a realistic option. The entire population of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, plus the semisovereign replicants at state level. This would take serious man hours to accomplish. What's the People's Liberation Army doing after they drive tanks over everyone with a brain in Hong Kong next week? Could be a help and they prolly work for cash like everyone else on the face of the earth... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Less is More. Death is the Answer. Life is the Question. Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738294 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737562, Reply to #737476, Reply to #737299, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT> It is About Time. So this year the Coney Island Tattoo Festival will VI>DT>be run in Coney Island at a time of the year when reasonable human VI>DT>beings can actually sport about half or more nekkid to show the ink? VI>DT>Well alright: its about fucking time actually, they screwed this one up VI>DT>for some time running and gone already... thanks for the tip, V... VI>You're welcome. :) Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we might be living in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are shall we say, in flux this summer heh... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738295 To: Vida Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737563, Reply to #737478, Reply to #737292, C*) VI>DT>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things VI>DT>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. VI>DT>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a VI>DT>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemen VI>DT>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a VI>DT>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves VI>DT>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. VI>DT> If I think of this sort of thing DT>because it is accepted to exist in the first place and thus is subject VI>DT>to a further manipulation that allows it to replicate itself even tho we VI>DT>generally agree that some time in history matriarchy was the game and VI>DT>thus where is the egg to make the chicken or the chicken to make the VI>DT>egg; one has to accept a similar construct to fake the rest of a VI>DT>homogenous history from the gitgo startpoint anyway> makes any sense, VI>DT>then I wish we all lived in a loose enough world to allow such things to VI>DT>actually make sense and to be arguable in the first place. VI>DT> yr last trump card, the 'it makes a lot of sense that a socioligical VI>DT>reality can both cause certain phenom and be the cause of certain VI>DT>phenom.' is a master stroke of redundant illiterate smokeword dogshit. I VI>DT>know you can do better than that. You disappoint me with this drivel VI>Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not drivel, or a smokescreen or VI>dogshit. It's real. Okay. --- * SLMR 2.0 * To reply press Ctrl/Alt/Del and wait for a bit Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738296 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737564, Reply to #737480, Reply to #737300, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople and VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent information VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats to VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shred VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of the VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we can VI>DT>do... VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spying VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as to VI>what's the greater threat. The only nukes that could pose a threat to me are supposedly mine in the first place and as time goes by they degrade anyway. No one else has reliable enough delivery systems to get warheads from distant lands to the Bronx, as if it were a target in the first place. The suitcase nuke is a different matter, but one that has absolutely nothing to do with pleading to national rulers as it is a simple delivery method that can be used by individuals or small groups once they get past the hurdle of obtaining weapons grade material and design a proper detonator. Its harder than filling a rental truck with fertilizer and truck fuel, admittedly, but it does not require the combined services of General Electric, Westinghouse, and Los Alamos National Labs. I dont worry about assholes spying on me, btw. I assume they do because they can, easily. I still do not think that it is a really good idea to hop up and down screaming MAKE A FILE ON ME PLEASE by uttering pointless statements to the Feds. Why? Finally: yes: we will all be dead. Thats a gimme and requires no particular point of view to appreciate, really.... --- * SLMR 2.0 * THEY DONT WANT MY MONEY Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:13am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 738313 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #737483, Reply to #737065, Reply to #736814, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT>TE>DT> Three - In - One TE>DT>TE>DT> heh heh heh... TE>DT>TE>Three In One?!?! Wow, that's a tight fit... YOW >:) TE>DT> Depends, could be Nine In One. Let me count the ways... >9# TE>Ohhh, I don't think Nine would fit in One, no matter how much you TE>pushed and coaxed and rammed... Sure. Nine in One is the same thing as 3 in One spread across the normally understood three holes is all. Say to yrself: I think I can I think I can I think I can... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * HEY ARE YOU OKAY? guess not O well what the hell Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:20am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738438 To: Dti Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #738294, Reply to #737562, Reply to #737476, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>DT> It is About Time. So this year the Coney Island Tattoo Festival wil DT>VI>DT>be run in Coney Island at a time of the year when reasonable human DT>VI>DT>beings can actually sport about half or more nekkid to show the ink? DT>VI>DT>Well alright: its about fucking time actually, they screwed this one u DT>VI>DT>for some time running and gone already... thanks for the tip, V... DT>VI>You're welcome. :) DT> Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we might be living DT>in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are shall we DT>say, in flux this summer heh... DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Gosh, I hope and pray that things are not that much in flex for you!!!! And hopefully, if all goes well, Bob and I will be there that night. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:22am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738439 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738296, Reply to #737564, Reply to #737480, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople DT>VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. DT>VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. DT>VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent information DT>VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats to DT>VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be DT>VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shred DT>VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of the DT>VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we can DT>VI>DT>do... DT>VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spying DT>VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as to DT>VI>what's the greater threat. DT> The only nukes that could pose a threat to me are supposedly mine in DT>the first place and as time goes by they degrade anyway. No one else has DT>reliable enough delivery systems to get warheads from distant lands to DT>the Bronx, as if it were a target in the first place. The suitcase nuke DT>is a different matter, but one that has absolutely nothing to do with DT>pleading to national rulers as it is a simple delivery method that can DT>be used by individuals or small groups once they get past the hurdle of DT>obtaining weapons grade material and design a proper detonator. Its DT>harder than filling a rental truck with fertilizer and truck fuel, DT>admittedly, but it does not require the combined services of General DT>Electric, Westinghouse, and Los Alamos National Labs. DT> I dont worry about assholes spying on me, btw. I assume they do DT>because they can, easily. I still do not think that it is a really good DT>idea to hop up and down screaming MAKE A FILE ON ME PLEASE by uttering DT>pointless statements to the Feds. Why? DT> Finally: yes: we will all be dead. Thats a gimme and requires no DT>particular point of view to appreciate, really.... DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * THEY DONT WANT MY MONEY You are quite right, in the event of nuke war we will probably be bit in the ass by our own nukes. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:34am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738445 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #737564, Reply to #737480, Reply to #737300, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be do VI>DT>VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople and VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent information VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats to VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shred VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of the VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we can VI>DT>do... VI>DT>--- VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spying VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as to VI>what's the greater threat. We won't all be dead, death isn't the major problem of nuclear weapons. It's the aftereffects that suck. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:48am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738450 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #737565, Reply to #737482, Reply to #737046, C*) (1 reply) VI>(Previous exchanges ommitted) VI>TE>No, we don't transcend nature, we just use what nature has given us VI>TE>to make our lives easier and more interesting. The animals do that too, VI>TE>but to a lesser extent, because nature didn't give them the same VI>TE>resources it gave us. VI>What are vacinations if not transcending nature? Animals are trapped VI>by biology. Humans can and do use their technology to manipulate VI>biology. And why do we have biotechnology? Because of the incredible Frontal Lobes that NATURE has given us. VI>TE>And yes, so you agree with me, animals do not have culture; only VI>TE>people do. So, I ask again: if animals don't have culture, and VI>TE>masculinity vs. femininity is a cultural construct, then WHY do VI>TE>animals display masculine vs. feminine differences as well? VI>Animals don't display masculine and feminine differences because VI>animals don't have culture. It is human beings, who observe animal VI>behavior who label the animal behavior as masculine or feminine. As VI>far as the animal is concerned, the animal is only doing what comes VI>naturally. Animals don't conceptualize, people do. There are OBVIOUS differences between male and female animals. It has nothing to do with conceptualization. Male and female animals behave differently, because by nature, males and females are different. We simply label the differences in behavior as masculine or feminine, but our labeling does not negate the differences that are there. VI>TE>VI>I totally disagree with your statement that the differences between an VI>TE>VI>among cultures is small and insiginficant. I also take exception to VI>TE>VI>your statement that in human beings behavior can in any way be directl VI>TE>VI>correlated to hormonal levels. Human beings function on a much higher VI>TE>VI>cognitive level than animals--our behavior is always dictated by our VI>TE>VI>rational ability to reason, think and plan. VI>TE>First, I didn't say that the differences between cultures are small and VI>TE>insignificant in general; I was only referring to the differences in VI>TE>cultural views of masculinity and femininity. Also, I didn't say these VI>TE>differences were insignificant, I said that they varied in small VI>TE>details (please don't put words in my mouth!) VI>Sorry about that! Didn't mean to step on your toes. S'okay! :) VI>TE>Second, although human behavior is PARTIALLY dictated by our ability VI>TE>to think, reason, and plan, it is also VERY heavily influenced by VI>TE>levels of hormones and neurotransmitters. By disagreeing with this VI>TE>fact you are disagreeing with that which already has been proven VI>TE>to a great extent. Our behavior is largely the product of internal VI>TE>chemical activity, like it or not. That is why taking a psychoactive VI>TE>drug, for example, can change a person's behavior around so drastically; VI>TE>because it is chemically active in the brain, and chemical and VI>TE>electrical activity in the brain is that which makes us who we are. VI>Of course our biology effects our behavior! But you were saying before that it didn't! VI>I am female and I menstruate so I have experienced PMS craziness from VI>time to time. But I still have my brain function to help me compensate VI>for PMS--even if it is just to warn Bob to lay low and give me lots and VI>lots of space. Heheh, I know the feeling! VI>Likewise, I also had a female lover who was going through menopause VI>and who had the worse case of raging hormones imaginable. But she VI>still was able to get herself to a doctor who eventually found the VI>right hormone combination to make her a lot less crazy! :) VI>So the bottom line is that as humans we are not trapped by our VI>biology--we have the resources that enable us to, a great extent, VI>escape from the effects of our biological systems. To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly trapped by our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things as genetic manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will be to a great extent trapped by our biology. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>western culture. VI>TE>VI>TE>So are you saying that the idea that body hair is a sign of strengt VI>TE>VI>TE>found in western culture, but not anywhere else?? VI>TE>VI>The correlation of body hair with strength is present in Western VI>TE>VI>civilization. It may or may not be present in other civilizations. VI>TE>VI>Since Oriental people tend to have less body hair than whites I would VI>TE>VI>expect that Eastern civilization don't have this same correlation. Bu VI>TE>VI>I honestly haven't studied Eastern civiliztions well enough to see if VI>TE>VI>my suspicion is true. VI>TE>So, if an American woman shaves her legs she is downgrading her VI>TE>strength, but if an Asian woman shaves her legs she is not doing so? VI>TE>Doesn't make much sense. VI>Unless you are dealing with actual physical violence you have to judge VI>whether an act is masochistic in accordance with cultural standards. VI>What is beign in one cultural setting may be symbolic violence in VI>another. Well, I have NEVER, EVER heard of leg-shaving as symbolic violence! That is simply too strange of a concept! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Besides, isn't the "traditional" belief that men are stronger VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do women traditionally have longer hair? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It depends upon where the hair is. The hairstyles which women w VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>their heads is traditionally considered to be sexually aluring t VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Think of how both traditional Orthodox Jews and religiously obse VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Muslim women cover their hair in an attempt to preserve sexual m VI>TE>VI>TE>Well then why did Delilah cut Samson's hair off his head, instead o VI>TE>VI>TE>shaving his body? :) VI>TE>VI>Good question. You would have to ask the author of Tenakh. :) VI>TE>Well, I would but he's probably dead by now and I don't know how to VI>TE>conduct a seance! But my query throws your hair theory a little off, VI>TE>don't you think? VI>Nope. VI>Actually, I think I have the answer for you as to why Delilah shaved VI>Samson's hair on his head. Samson was a Nazene. I was just reading VI>about this in the last Parasha (Torah portion of the week). VI>It seems that Nazenes devote themselves for a period of time to G-d's VI>service. They are supposed to be celebate, but only for their period VI>of service, not for their entire life. And during their period of VI>service they are not supposed to get a hair cut. After their period of VI>service they cut their hair, so by cutting Samson's hair Delilah was VI>making Samson break his Nazene oath and putting him out of G-d's favor. VI> What a bitch! :) That's interesting, thanks :) VI>And see the connection again to hair sytle and G-dliness? :) Okay, in this case, yeah. :) But it still doesn't explain the connection of body hair to strength! Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:49am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738451 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #737566, Reply to #737484, Reply to #737077) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsors o VI>TE>VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in the VI>TE>VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. VI>TE>VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No detail VI>TE>VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is that i VI>TE>VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. VI>TE>VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at VI>TE>VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks way VI>TE>VI>cool. :) VI>TE>Oh, GREAT!!! Thanx a LOT!!!!! Awww, you remembered :) VI>TE>And thanx for the website, I will check it out, oh and speaking of VI>TE>websites I finally was able to hit the heartless bitch site (I think VI>TE>it WAS you who mentioned it, right?) that site is great!!! :) VI>TE>Thanx! :) VI>You are quite welcome...yeah it was me who mentioned the heartless VI>bitch site. :) Are you a member? :) I was wondering if I should apply for membership, but I don't really think that I'm a heartless bitch, although I admire heartless bitches :) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:56am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738454 To: Vida Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #737567, Reply to #737487, Reply to #737290, C*) (1 reply) V VI>TE>VI>No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my discusssion VI>TE>VI>of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulimately VI>TE>VI>possible for us to say in a historical context whether culture shaped VI>TE>VI>languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shape and VI>TE>VI>continue to shape each other. :) VI>TE>Yeah, they continue to shape each other now, at this point, since both VI>TE>culture and language already exist in full swing. But think about my VI>TE>point above, IMHO it's pretty obvious that language got the first start! VI>Obvious to you, but not at all to me. Language was shaped by cultural VI>forces. VI>And in turn, as language developed it shaped the culture. Then explain to me this: You agreed with me before that animals do not have culture. Then how is it, if culture is what shaped language, that animals have language? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I agree that people can learn about other cultures, but I disagr VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>anyone can totally ESCAPE the culture to which they were born. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the fact that it is impossible to totally forget your native ton VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>even if you become proficient in another language, is just ONE R VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>why you can never totally escape from the culture you were born. VI>TE>VI>TE>This is actually a tough argument because we haven't even defined VI>TE>VI>TE>exactly what is meant by "culture" and "escaping from one's culture VI>TE>VI>TE>come to think of it! VI>TE>VI>Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched that it VI>TE>VI>would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. VI>TE>Maybe we oughtta drop this one then :) VI>That's purely up to you--I can talk about something without necesarily VI>knowing what I'm talking about. :) ROTFLMAO!! Same here, I do it all the time :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It has an impact, but still, in any example, the real life ve VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the experience has MUCH more impact. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Depends upon the robbery. You can have your pocket picked and n VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>be aware of it. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>But when you dig into your pockets later for that missing cash you' VI>TE>VI>TE>sure as hell be aware of it! :) VI>TE>VI>You will be aware that you are missing money, but not of the robbery. VI>TE>VI>After all, there are other ways you can loss money--ie. I have been VI>TE>VI>known to accidentially give merchants a ten dollar bill, rather than a VI>TE>VI>five dollar bill and not notice when they only give me change for a VI>TE>VI>five. VI>TE>Good point! Missing money for me is very traumatic anyway, no matter how VI>TE>it got missing :) VI>TE>VI>But the main point is that in a case where your pocket has been picked VI>TE>VI>without your knowledge you haven't directly experienced a violent VI>TE>VI>assault on your bodily integrity. So it is possible that seeing some VI>TE>VI>the grusome TV and movie depicitions of violence might have a greater VI>TE>VI>impact on you than the experience of being pickpocketed. VI>TE>Nah, I still say losing money, no matter by what method, is still much VI>TE>worse and has a much greater impact than watching gruesome violence on a VI>TE>screen, although the amount of money lost also would have a lot to do VI>TE>with it. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Me too! :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Wow! I'm actually surprised that you share my sentiments on that on VI>TE>VI>Well I used to go camping quite a bit when I was with Gerri. So let's VI>TE>VI>just say I have been in situations where I had to take a squat in the VI>TE>VI>woods. :) VI>TE>Ah! So have I, it sucks doesn't it? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>But seriously, I do think he's 100% right about the above dis VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do think that the unconscious mind manifests itself in dreams VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>how exactly it manifests itself is subject to individual inte VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>That goes without saying. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, you WERE saying before that the unconscious is unreachable! : VI>TE>VI>The unconsious is not normally reachable to the consious mind. This VI>TE>VI>doesn't mean it doesn't manifest itself in the things we do. :) VI>TE>Well, the unconscious mind is supposedly reachable to the conscious mind VI>TE>via various methods such as psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:03am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738455 To: Vida Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #737568, Reply to #737488, Reply to #737292, C*) (1 reply) VI>(Previous exchanges ommitted) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's still circular logic. That's like saying that a mother VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to a baby, but the baby gave birth to the mother in the first VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Makes no sense! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Makes sense to me, is all I can say. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Well you have a strange brain then :) VI>Strangeness is in the eye of the beholder. :) True :) VI> VI>TE>VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above (to VI>TE>VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's eit VI>TE>VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! VI>TE>VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are deali VI>TE>VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy wh VI>TE>VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. VI>TE>The chicken and egg analogy is merely a form of logic, and logic can be VI>TE>applied to anything. VI>No, I don't believe that the logic which you using is applicable to VI>sociological reality. Sociological reality is NOT scientific or VI>necessarily logical. Sure it is. That's why it's called "social SCIENCE." And logic is universal, it is applicable to any situation. (Jeez, I sound like Spock! :) ) VI>TE>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality things VI>TE>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. VI>TE>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it makes a VI>TE>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phemen VI>TE>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a VI>TE>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themselves VI>TE>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. VI>TE>Yes, the two sociological realities above can perpetuate each other ONCE VI>TE>THEY ARE BOTH IN EXISTENCE, but in the beginning, one HAD to be the VI>TE>cause of the other, not at the same time. VI>Why? Who said so? Well, specifically in this case, patriarchy could not have started out being the cause of male/female psychology as it is now; there had to be a REASON for patriarchy to begin in the first place. A concept like that does not arise out of nowhere, especially considering that patriarchy (or matriarchy, for that matter) only exists in the higher mammals, not in the lower animals; so that shows that there HAD to be SOME kind of starting point to it. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:19am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738456 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738004, Reply to #737964, Reply to #737945, R*) (2 replies) SSC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individual SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true SC>believers anyway. SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. It's like the old rhetorical question says, "what religion is God?" Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:24am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738457 To: Sam Beckett Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738102, Reply to #738028, Reply to #738004, R*) (1 reply) SB>If I may use a religious term to answer, "Hallelujah!" SB> As a person who was raised in a fairly religious area, I have to SB>say that I agree with you wholeheartedly. I never remember reading SB>ANYWHERE in the Bible of Jesus or God saying that "Thou shalt go out and SB>rap people smartly on the heads with thy Bible, for thou art perfect and SB>shalt convert them." Anyone remember the Crusades? I can't imagine God SB>sanctioning Christianity by the sword. Granted, you may get believers, SB>but I will be dubious as to WHY they converted. SB> The bottom line is this:If you look through the Bible(and no, I SB>am not intentionally excluding other beliefs--The Bible happens to be SB>the Word I read), you will never find Christians FORCING people to chane SB>their beliefs. Even Christ, the Son of God, made it clear that it was SB>the choice of the individual to believe and follow, or not to. When you SB>get right down to it, all this bickering about these matters which SB>should rightly be left to God to deal with with each individual(this SB>whole Disney thing, for example), only serves to keep us at each others' SB>throats--and to me, that seems like a prime way for Satan to keep SB>Christians from doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is being SB>a light to the world(a.k.a. living by example) It is the intent of the SB>heart of the individual that makes what they do right or wrong--it is SB>the individual's choice to do what God says or not to. SB> I would welcom any input anyone else may have on this. :) Actually, I don't understand religion in general, at all. I really don't see what going to church and praying has to do with being a good person. Or even believing in God, for that matter. I try to be a good person, do good things, not hurt anybody, etc. but I am not religious, I don't go to church, and I'm agnostic (I don't know whether there is a God or not.) Does that make all my efforts to do good things and do no harm naught? Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:26am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738458 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738127, Reply to #738028, Reply to #738004, R*) (2 replies) SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney SC>haters in name only , I guess. What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:30am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738459 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738290, Reply to #737485, Reply to #737109, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> I vote for YOU to be Sigop of /Reality, you just DT>TE>DT>unloaded a loverly succinct gem of fact up there... DT>TE>Thank you, thank you!! Hey, reality is what it is. DT> ...and if we lived there, we would be home now... >9# But we are home now, so I guess we live in reality... and when we are not home, then we are not home, so I guess when we're not home then we are not living in reality... right? Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:33am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738460 To: Dti Re: a (Reply to #738291, Reply to #737486, Reply to #737287, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>That was a couple or three years ago tho, not last year. I gave up whe DT>TE>DT>they moved it from early winter at Coney to early winter somewhere els DT>TE>DT>actually figured they were having it in Manitoba in February this year DT>TE>DT>the way it was going... DT>TE>Well, looks like it ain't, we gonna be there or what? :) DT>TE>And are you going to work on some more of my skin for the occasion? DT>TE> :) DT> Sure, what the fuck: I'll be on vacay in the middle of August this DT>year, we can ride up onto the boardwalk on the Duk so's you can hop off DT>the back and show off yr PROPERTY OF JEEZIZ H KHRIST tat, the one that DT>is about to magically appear on the right cheek of your lovely ass... DT>>9# OH!!! Oh, Shit! Stoppit, you are making me leak >:) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:41am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738461 To: Dti Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #738292, Reply to #737521, Reply to #737478, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> yr last trump card, the 'it makes a lot of sense that a socioligica DT>TE>DT>reality can both cause certain phenom and be the cause of certain DT>TE>DT>phenom.' is a master stroke of redundant illiterate smokeword dogshit. DT>TE>DT>know you can do better than that. You disappoint me with this drivel DT>TE>I caught that one too, but I know what she was trying to say, even DT>TE>though it's STILL illogical. DT> I am gonna save this slimer packet for when I can get properly intox DT>and deal with it in random DTIverse, as it begs to be dealt with, most DT>especially in this sig. So far the last few weeks I havent seen alla DT>that much reality in here, plenny theory and scows groaning under the DT>tonnage of various hopeful fictions tho... Okay then, let's talk about Reality, my favorite topic. What the fuck IS reality?! I oughtta send that paper I wrote up here, the one about reality that I wrote for philosophy class, that the professor said was ingenious :) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:43am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738462 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738293, Reply to #737522, Reply to #737479, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>TE>VI>That's just passing the buck, IMHO. DT>TE>DT>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be do DT>TE>DT>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I. DT>TE>DT> Me too. I want to learn how, in simple A, B, C type steps, how to DT>TE>DT>something about the government in some way that is both effective and DT>TE>DT>legal. Heh heh heh, I will goto the doc now to have my nerves removed DT>TE>DT>I can jerk off in the meantime waiting for result without spewing jizm DT>TE>DT>for any possible reason ar ar heh yeh suuuure... DT>TE>Fuck legal, there isn't even any ILLEGAL way that any of this can be DT>TE>done effectively, let alone legal! DT> Well, hmm. Eh, but it's a real helluva lot of assassinations, and not DT>a realistic option. The entire population of the executive, legislative DT>and judicial branches, plus the semisovereign replicants DT>at state level. This would take serious man hours to accomplish. What's DT>the People's Liberation Army doing after they drive tanks over everyone DT>with a brain in Hong Kong next week? Could be a help and they prolly DT>work for cash like everyone else on the face of the earth... Not only would you have to assassinate the entire population of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, but also the entire population of the U.S. military, as well as the heads of many major corporations. Me thinks that this would be too much even for the People's Liberation Army... Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 2:49am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738463 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #738313, Reply to #737483, Reply to #737065, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>TE>DT> Three - In - One DT>TE>DT>TE>DT> heh heh heh... DT>TE>DT>TE>Three In One?!?! Wow, that's a tight fit... YOW >:) DT>TE>DT> Depends, could be Nine In One. Let me count the ways... >9# DT>TE>Ohhh, I don't think Nine would fit in One, no matter how much you DT>TE>pushed and coaxed and rammed... DT> Sure. Nine in One is the same thing as 3 in One spread across the DT>normally understood three holes is all. Say to yrself: I think I can I DT>think I can I think I can... DT>>9# Bahahahahhaahhhahhaahhhhh shit! Okay, so it's Nine in Three, not Nine in One, and Nine in Three is the same thing as Three in One. I think I can, but it would be some pretty interesting painnnn... >:) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:13am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738482 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738445, Reply to #737564, Reply to #737480, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly be TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you or I TE>VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeople TE>VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. TE>VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. TE>VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent information TE>VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats to TE>VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be TE>VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shred TE>VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of the TE>VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we can TE>VI>DT>do... TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spying TE>VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as to TE>VI>what's the greater threat. TE>We won't all be dead, death isn't the major problem of nuclear weapons. TE>It's the aftereffects that suck. For some of these aftereffects we would probably just be better off being dead. :( Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:24am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738483 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #738450, Reply to #737565, Reply to #737482, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>(Previous exchanges ommitted) TE>VI>TE>No, we don't transcend nature, we just use what nature has given us TE>VI>TE>to make our lives easier and more interesting. The animals do that too TE>VI>TE>but to a lesser extent, because nature didn't give them the same TE>VI>TE>resources it gave us. TE>VI>What are vacinations if not transcending nature? Animals are trapped TE>VI>by biology. Humans can and do use their technology to manipulate TE>VI>biology. TE>And why do we have biotechnology? Because of the incredible Frontal TE>Lobes that NATURE has given us. Yes, but we use those frontal lobes to transcend the limits of biology. And as our technology increases we increase our ability to transcend the limits of biology, for better or worse. TE>VI>TE>And yes, so you agree with me, animals do not have culture; only TE>VI>TE>people do. So, I ask again: if animals don't have culture, and TE>VI>TE>masculinity vs. femininity is a cultural construct, then WHY do TE>VI>TE>animals display masculine vs. feminine differences as well? TE>VI>Animals don't display masculine and feminine differences because TE>VI>animals don't have culture. It is human beings, who observe animal TE>VI>behavior who label the animal behavior as masculine or feminine. As TE>VI>far as the animal is concerned, the animal is only doing what comes TE>VI>naturally. Animals don't conceptualize, people do. TE>There are OBVIOUS differences between male and female animals. It has TE>nothing to do with conceptualization. Male and female animals behave TE>differently, because by nature, males and females are different. We TE>simply label the differences in behavior as masculine or feminine, but TE>our labeling does not negate the differences that are there. But male and female animals don't have the conciousness that they are acting in a masculine or feminine fashion. It is people who observe animal behavior that slap the labels on the animal behavior. TE>VI>TE>VI>I totally disagree with your statement that the differences between TE>VI>TE>VI>among cultures is small and insiginficant. I also take exception t TE>VI>TE>VI>your statement that in human beings behavior can in any way be dire TE>VI>TE>VI>correlated to hormonal levels. Human beings function on a much hig TE>VI>TE>VI>cognitive level than animals--our behavior is always dictated by ou TE>VI>TE>VI>rational ability to reason, think and plan. TE>VI>TE>First, I didn't say that the differences between cultures are small an TE>VI>TE>insignificant in general; I was only referring to the differences in TE>VI>TE>cultural views of masculinity and femininity. Also, I didn't say these TE>VI>TE>differences were insignificant, I said that they varied in small TE>VI>TE>details (please don't put words in my mouth!) TE>VI>Sorry about that! Didn't mean to step on your toes. TE>S'okay! :) TE>VI>TE>Second, although human behavior is PARTIALLY dictated by our ability TE>VI>TE>to think, reason, and plan, it is also VERY heavily influenced by TE>VI>TE>levels of hormones and neurotransmitters. By disagreeing with this TE>VI>TE>fact you are disagreeing with that which already has been proven TE>VI>TE>to a great extent. Our behavior is largely the product of internal TE>VI>TE>chemical activity, like it or not. That is why taking a psychoactive TE>VI>TE>drug, for example, can change a person's behavior around so drasticall TE>VI>TE>because it is chemically active in the brain, and chemical and TE>VI>TE>electrical activity in the brain is that which makes us who we are. TE>VI>Of course our biology effects our behavior! TE>But you were saying before that it didn't! I don't think I ever said that biology has no effect on human behavior. We are first and primarily animals. However, our higher cognitive abilities means that we are not solely directed by biological urges. TE>VI>I am female and I menstruate so I have experienced PMS craziness from TE>VI>time to time. But I still have my brain function to help me compensate TE>VI>for PMS--even if it is just to warn Bob to lay low and give me lots and TE>VI>lots of space. TE>Heheh, I know the feeling! I think every menstruating female knows the feeling! :) TE>VI>Likewise, I also had a female lover who was going through menopause TE>VI>and who had the worse case of raging hormones imaginable. But she TE>VI>still was able to get herself to a doctor who eventually found the TE>VI>right hormone combination to make her a lot less crazy! :) TE>VI>So the bottom line is that as humans we are not trapped by our TE>VI>biology--we have the resources that enable us to, a great extent, TE>VI>escape from the effects of our biological systems. TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly trapped by TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things as genetic TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will be to a TE>great extent trapped by our biology. On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current ability to raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponentally. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>western culture. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>So are you saying that the idea that body hair is a sign of stre TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>found in western culture, but not anywhere else?? TE>VI>TE>VI>The correlation of body hair with strength is present in Western TE>VI>TE>VI>civilization. It may or may not be present in other civilizations. TE>VI>TE>VI>Since Oriental people tend to have less body hair than whites I wou TE>VI>TE>VI>expect that Eastern civilization don't have this same correlation. TE>VI>TE>VI>I honestly haven't studied Eastern civiliztions well enough to see TE>VI>TE>VI>my suspicion is true. TE>VI>TE>So, if an American woman shaves her legs she is downgrading her TE>VI>TE>strength, but if an Asian woman shaves her legs she is not doing so? TE>VI>TE>Doesn't make much sense. TE>VI>Unless you are dealing with actual physical violence you have to judge TE>VI>whether an act is masochistic in accordance with cultural standards. TE>VI>What is beign in one cultural setting may be symbolic violence in TE>VI>another. TE>Well, I have NEVER, EVER heard of leg-shaving as symbolic violence! That TE>is simply too strange of a concept! Within Western culture, I submit it is an act of symbolic female castration. If you want to label that as symbolic violence, then you may. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Besides, isn't the "traditional" belief that men are stron TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do women traditionally have longer hair? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It depends upon where the hair is. The hairstyles which wome TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>their heads is traditionally considered to be sexually alurin TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Think of how both traditional Orthodox Jews and religiously o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Muslim women cover their hair in an attempt to preserve sexua TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well then why did Delilah cut Samson's hair off his head, instea TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>shaving his body? :) TE>VI>TE>VI>Good question. You would have to ask the author of Tenakh. :) TE>VI>TE>Well, I would but he's probably dead by now and I don't know how to TE>VI>TE>conduct a seance! But my query throws your hair theory a little off, TE>VI>TE>don't you think? TE>VI>Nope. TE>VI>Actually, I think I have the answer for you as to why Delilah shaved TE>VI>Samson's hair on his head. Samson was a Nazene. I was just reading TE>VI>about this in the last Parasha (Torah portion of the week). TE>VI>It seems that Nazenes devote themselves for a period of time to G-d's TE>VI>service. They are supposed to be celebate, but only for their period TE>VI>of service, not for their entire life. And during their period of TE>VI>service they are not supposed to get a hair cut. After their period of TE>VI>service they cut their hair, so by cutting Samson's hair Delilah was TE>VI>making Samson break his Nazene oath and putting him out of G-d's favor. TE>VI> TE>What a bitch! :) That's interesting, thanks :) Thanks. See I do pick up some interesting tid bits from reading the weekly parsha and the commentaries. :) TE>VI>And see the connection again to hair sytle and G-dliness? :) TE>Okay, in this case, yeah. :) But it still doesn't explain the TE>connection of body hair to strength! Samson was strong so long as he did not shave his hair. That's the connection. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:26am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738484 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #738451, Reply to #737566, Reply to #737484, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>I got a mailing yesterday from Coney Island USA, one of the sponsor TE>VI>TE>VI>the Coney Island Tattoo Contest. There is a short announcement in TE>VI>TE>VI>flyer re: the Tatoo contest. TE>VI>TE>VI>The tattoo competition will be August 17 at Astroland Park. No det TE>VI>TE>VI>are given as to the time, but my recollection from last year is tha TE>VI>TE>VI>started after dark, around 9 PM. But that's just my memory. TE>VI>TE>VI>You may want to check out the Coney Island USA website at TE>VI>TE>VI>http://www.coneyislandusa.com. I think you would find these folks TE>VI>TE>VI>cool. :) TE>VI>TE>Oh, GREAT!!! Thanx a LOT!!!!! Awww, you remembered :) TE>VI>TE>And thanx for the website, I will check it out, oh and speaking of TE>VI>TE>websites I finally was able to hit the heartless bitch site (I think TE>VI>TE>it WAS you who mentioned it, right?) that site is great!!! :) TE>VI>TE>Thanx! :) TE>VI>You are quite welcome...yeah it was me who mentioned the heartless TE>VI>bitch site. :) TE>Are you a member? :) Are you trying to suggest I'm a heartless bitch? :) Actually, my problem is that I tend to wear my heart on my sleve, if you know what I mean. TE>I was wondering if I should apply for membership, but I don't really TE>think that I'm a heartless bitch, although I admire heartless bitches :) I must admit that there are times when I wish I could be a heartless bitch. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:28am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738485 To: Tempest Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #738454, Reply to #737567, Reply to #737487, R*) (1 reply) TE>V TE>VI>TE>VI>No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my discusss TE>VI>TE>VI>of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulimately TE>VI>TE>VI>possible for us to say in a historical context whether culture shap TE>VI>TE>VI>languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shape and TE>VI>TE>VI>continue to shape each other. :) TE>VI>TE>Yeah, they continue to shape each other now, at this point, since both TE>VI>TE>culture and language already exist in full swing. But think about my TE>VI>TE>point above, IMHO it's pretty obvious that language got the first star TE>VI>Obvious to you, but not at all to me. Language was shaped by cultural TE>VI>forces. TE>VI>And in turn, as language developed it shaped the culture. TE>Then explain to me this: You agreed with me before that animals do not TE>have culture. Then how is it, if culture is what shaped language, that TE>animals have language? I am confused by your question. Did you write it correctly? Your question really does not make sense to me. Try to restate the question and I will try to answer you, ok? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I agree that people can learn about other cultures, but I dis TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>anyone can totally ESCAPE the culture to which they were born TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the fact that it is impossible to totally forget your native TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>even if you become proficient in another language, is just ON TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>why you can never totally escape from the culture you were bo TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>This is actually a tough argument because we haven't even define TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>exactly what is meant by "culture" and "escaping from one's cult TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>come to think of it! TE>VI>TE>VI>Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched that it TE>VI>TE>VI>would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. TE>VI>TE>Maybe we oughtta drop this one then :) TE>VI>That's purely up to you--I can talk about something without necesarily TE>VI>knowing what I'm talking about. :) TE>ROTFLMAO!! Same here, I do it all the time :) Exactly! Me too! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It has an impact, but still, in any example, the real life TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the experience has MUCH more impact. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Depends upon the robbery. You can have your pocket picked an TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>be aware of it. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>But when you dig into your pockets later for that missing cash y TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>sure as hell be aware of it! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>You will be aware that you are missing money, but not of the robber TE>VI>TE>VI>After all, there are other ways you can loss money--ie. I have been TE>VI>TE>VI>known to accidentially give merchants a ten dollar bill, rather tha TE>VI>TE>VI>five dollar bill and not notice when they only give me change for a TE>VI>TE>VI>five. TE>VI>TE>Good point! Missing money for me is very traumatic anyway, no matter h TE>VI>TE>it got missing :) TE>VI>TE>VI>But the main point is that in a case where your pocket has been pic TE>VI>TE>VI>without your knowledge you haven't directly experienced a violent TE>VI>TE>VI>assault on your bodily integrity. So it is possible that seeing so TE>VI>TE>VI>the grusome TV and movie depicitions of violence might have a great TE>VI>TE>VI>impact on you than the experience of being pickpocketed. TE>VI>TE>Nah, I still say losing money, no matter by what method, is still much TE>VI>TE>worse and has a much greater impact than watching gruesome violence on TE>VI>TE>screen, although the amount of money lost also would have a lot to do TE>VI>TE>with it. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Me too! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Wow! I'm actually surprised that you share my sentiments on that TE>VI>TE>VI>Well I used to go camping quite a bit when I was with Gerri. So le TE>VI>TE>VI>just say I have been in situations where I had to take a squat in t TE>VI>TE>VI>woods. :) TE>VI>TE>Ah! So have I, it sucks doesn't it? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>But seriously, I do think he's 100% right about the above TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do think that the unconscious mind manifests itself in dre TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>how exactly it manifests itself is subject to individual i TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>That goes without saying. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, you WERE saying before that the unconscious is unreachable TE>VI>TE>VI>The unconsious is not normally reachable to the consious mind. Thi TE>VI>TE>VI>doesn't mean it doesn't manifest itself in the things we do. :) TE>VI>TE>Well, the unconscious mind is supposedly reachable to the conscious mi TE>VI>TE>via various methods such as psychotherapy, hypnosis, etc. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:39am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738486 To: Tempest Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #738455, Reply to #737568, Reply to #737488, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>(Previous exchanges ommitted) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's still circular logic. That's like saying that a mot TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to a baby, but the baby gave birth to the mother in the fi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Makes no sense! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Makes sense to me, is all I can say. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well you have a strange brain then :) TE>VI>Strangeness is in the eye of the beholder. :) TE>True :) TE>VI> TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy above ( TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It's TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! TE>VI>TE>VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are de TE>VI>TE>VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good analogy TE>VI>TE>VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. TE>VI>TE>The chicken and egg analogy is merely a form of logic, and logic can b TE>VI>TE>applied to anything. TE>VI>No, I don't believe that the logic which you using is applicable to TE>VI>sociological reality. Sociological reality is NOT scientific or TE>VI>necessarily logical. TE>Sure it is. That's why it's called "social SCIENCE." And logic is TE>universal, it is applicable to any situation. (Jeez, I sound like TE>Spock! :) ) Yes, you do sound like Mr. Spock. Maybe I should say to you: "Live long and prosper." :) Actually, I am not sure that the title "social science" is accurate. I think that much of so called "social science" is an ATTEMPT to apply scientific reasoning to a realm where science can not apply. Which explains why so much of "social science" is grade A bs! :) Nor do I think logic applies to every situation. Much of the "real world" is much too wierd to be logical. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality thi TE>VI>TE>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matter. TE>VI>TE>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it make TE>VI>TE>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain phe TE>VI>TE>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a TE>VI>TE>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching themsel TE>VI>TE>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense. TE>VI>TE>Yes, the two sociological realities above can perpetuate each other ON TE>VI>TE>THEY ARE BOTH IN EXISTENCE, but in the beginning, one HAD to be the TE>VI>TE>cause of the other, not at the same time. TE>VI>Why? Who said so? TE>Well, specifically in this case, patriarchy could not have started out TE>being the cause of male/female psychology as it is now; there had to be TE>a REASON for patriarchy to begin in the first place. A concept like that TE>does not arise out of nowhere, especially considering that patriarchy TE>(or matriarchy, for that matter) only exists in the higher mammals, not TE>in the lower animals; so that shows that there HAD to be SOME kind of TE>starting point to it. I think that patriachy came about because of certain biology differences--specifically the greater physical strength of males vs. females. I think that patriachy was a necessary stage of human development but that it has long ago grown stale and has outsurvived its usefullness. At this point, indeed, it does more harm than good to human development--especially in the post industrial late stage capitalist stage of development that we currently occupy. BTW, I am not so certain that there ever was a stage of development called "matriachy". I tend to think there was no such stage. I tend to think that patriachy was the first "archy" and that the first class division was between males and females. None other than Frederick Engels (the co author of the "Communist Manifesto" with Karl Marx) says the same thing! Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 8:21am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738495 To: ** ALL ** Re: Bubbe's web (1 reply) In the Summer 1997 issue of "Lilith" magazine there is an article about a wonderful, wonderful web site to check out. The web site is called "Bubbe's Web". (For those who don't know "bubbe" is Yiddish for grandmother.) It's at http://www.bubbe.com. Definitely worth the trip folks! And while you are at it, you should pick up the Summer 1997 issue of "Lilith" just to see the wonderful ad the Body Shop ran in the magazine. It's in the centerfold of the magazine. It features a naked overweight Barbie lounging on a sofa. The copy reads: "There are 3 billion women who don't look like supermodels and only 8 who do. Love your body.". I wish I had a scanner just so I could u/l the ad here, I really, really love it! Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 9:02am Forum: Reality From: Sam Beckett Msg#: 738501 To: Tempest Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738457, Reply to #738102, Reply to #738028, R*) (1 reply) Not at all. I think the main idea in believeing in God is twofold. One, since He created us, serving Him is giving Him the respect He deserves.(If you do not believe He created us, then this is a moot point) More importantly, when God is entered into the picture, all of reality takes on a different color, if you will. For one, God doesnt desert you--EVER. This allows for a "cushion," if you will, during those times when it seems like all the world is against you. It also gives us a role model to emulate. I mean, it's a lot harder to do anything when you have no idea how to do it. God has laid out his plan for our lives fairly clearly. However, unlike a lot of other beliefs, He didnt outline every single thing that could ever happen--He allowed us the ability to choose, and the ability to decide what we would do with our lives. The question I usually ask others, and ask myself, is what do you have to lose? If you serve God, and live a life of love, and helping others, and making the world a better place, and then it turns out God isn't there, what have you lost? If He IS there, which I believe He is, you have gained an eternity. That may sound simplistic, but that usually puts things back into perspective for me. As far as your last question, NOTHING negates a Good deed, save when it is done for either self-gain or from a motive of selfishess. Yes, you could argue technically that bettering the world is a selfish motive since you live here, but if you think about it, I dont think you'll argue that point for very long. :) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 12:23pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 738524 To: Tempest Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738456, Reply to #738004, Reply to #737964, R*) (1 reply) TE>SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have TE>SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have TE>SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. TE>SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individual TE>SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true TE>SC>believers anyway. TE>SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as TE>SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. TE>It's like the old rhetorical question says, "what religion is God?" Can you give me an Amen sister! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Reincarnation: remove tsr's and rebirth. - Graig Strahl Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 12:23pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 738525 To: Tempest Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738458, Reply to #738127, Reply to #738028, R*) (2 replies) TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? A group of leaders from the southern Baptist church wants to boycott Disney and all of its products because they don't like the fact that Disney offers its employees things like same sex spousal benefits. (I don't know all the details myself so if some one else wants to join in ,it would be appreciated) --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I survived the Michaela *)_%^$*))*&^)*(*&*%%$&%^# Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 12:23pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 738527 To: Tempest Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738456, Reply to #738004, Reply to #737964, R*) (1 reply) TE>SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have TE>SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they have TE>SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. TE>SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individual TE>SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true TE>SC>believers anyway. TE>SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as TE>SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. TE>It's like the old rhetorical question says, "what religion is God?" Simple answer. All of them. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I never had trouble with Connecticit. - Sammy Finkelman Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 1:36am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738568 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738482, Reply to #738445, Reply to #737564, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possibly VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like you o VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congresspeop VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. VI>TE>VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent informat VI>TE>VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated threats VI>TE>VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to be VI>TE>VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and shre VI>TE>VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part of VI>TE>VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we ca VI>TE>VI>DT>do... VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spying VI>TE>VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as to VI>TE>VI>what's the greater threat. VI>TE>We won't all be dead, death isn't the major problem of nuclear weapons. VI>TE>It's the aftereffects that suck. VI>For some of these aftereffects we would probably just be better off VI>being dead. :( There is always the option of going away to another part of the world that is unaffected. Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:02am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738569 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #738483, Reply to #738450, Reply to #737565, R*) (3 replies) VI>TE>VI>What are vacinations if not transcending nature? Animals are trapped VI>TE>VI>by biology. Humans can and do use their technology to manipulate VI>TE>VI>biology. VI>TE>And why do we have biotechnology? Because of the incredible Frontal VI>TE>Lobes that NATURE has given us. VI>Yes, but we use those frontal lobes to transcend the limits of biology. VI> And as our technology increases we increase our ability to transcend VI>the limits of biology, for better or worse. But in any case, though, it is natural for us to use our frontal lobes to manipulate biology, because if it wasn't natural, then we wouldn't have this incredible brain power in the first place. Same as us walking upright because we are bipedal, us picking things up because we have opposable thumbs, etc. It's all due to nature, including our brain. VI>TE>There are OBVIOUS differences between male and female animals. It has VI>TE>nothing to do with conceptualization. Male and female animals behave VI>TE>differently, because by nature, males and females are different. We VI>TE>simply label the differences in behavior as masculine or feminine, but VI>TE>our labeling does not negate the differences that are there. VI>But male and female animals don't have the conciousness that they are VI>acting in a masculine or feminine fashion. It is people who observe VI>animal behavior that slap the labels on the animal behavior. Exactly, they don't have the consciousness that they are acting in a masculine or feminine fashion, yet they do so anyway. Which proves that it is biological, not social. Again, just because we label it does not negate it; labeling is purely a matter of linguistics. VI>TE>VI>Of course our biology effects our behavior! VI>TE>But you were saying before that it didn't! VI>I don't think I ever said that biology has no effect on human behavior. VI> We are first and primarily animals. However, our higher cognitive VI>abilities means that we are not solely directed by biological urges. Yes, I am in agreement with you there. However, when I say that we are dictated by biology (actually, chemistry), I do not mean just biological urges. I basically mean that the way our brain operates dictates our behavior, whether we are aware of it or not; and this does not necessarily involve urges of any sort. VI>TE>VI>I am female and I menstruate so I have experienced PMS craziness from VI>TE>VI>time to time. But I still have my brain function to help me compensat VI>TE>VI>for PMS--even if it is just to warn Bob to lay low and give me lots an VI>TE>VI>lots of space. VI>TE>Heheh, I know the feeling! VI>I think every menstruating female knows the feeling! :) This is true! Ooh, female bonding :) VI>TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly trapped by VI>TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things as genetic VI>TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will be to a VI>TE>great extent trapped by our biology. VI>On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current ability to VI>raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology VI>increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponentally. Why do you think that our current ability to rise above our biology is so great? Did you know that common emotional processes, such as getting angry/hostile, falling in love, and feeling depressed have all been traced down to specific chemical reactions in the brain? Knowing that, how can you still think that we are so detached from our own biology? VI>TE>VI>Unless you are dealing with actual physical violence you have to judge VI>TE>VI>whether an act is masochistic in accordance with cultural standards. VI>TE>VI>What is beign in one cultural setting may be symbolic violence in VI>TE>VI>another. VI>TE>Well, I have NEVER, EVER heard of leg-shaving as symbolic violence! That VI>TE>is simply too strange of a concept! VI>Within Western culture, I submit it is an act of symbolic female VI>castration. If you want to label that as symbolic violence, then you VI>may. Leg-shaving is SYMBOLIC FEMALE CASTRATION?!?!?! Are you serious??? I can't even argue against this concept, because it is simply too damn strange!!! I don't want to be offensive, but this concept is simply ludicrous, shaving body hair off is not even in the same realm as castration of any sort! VI>TE>VI>Actually, I think I have the answer for you as to why Delilah shaved VI>TE>VI>Samson's hair on his head. Samson was a Nazene. I was just reading VI>TE>VI>about this in the last Parasha (Torah portion of the week). VI>TE>VI>It seems that Nazenes devote themselves for a period of time to G-d's VI>TE>VI>service. They are supposed to be celebate, but only for their period VI>TE>VI>of service, not for their entire life. And during their period of VI>TE>VI>service they are not supposed to get a hair cut. After their period o VI>TE>VI>service they cut their hair, so by cutting Samson's hair Delilah was VI>TE>VI>making Samson break his Nazene oath and putting him out of G-d's favor VI>TE>VI> VI>TE>What a bitch! :) That's interesting, thanks :) VI>Thanks. See I do pick up some interesting tid bits from reading the VI>weekly parsha and the commentaries. :) I've never even heard of this thing! :) VI>TE>VI>And see the connection again to hair sytle and G-dliness? :) VI>TE>Okay, in this case, yeah. :) But it still doesn't explain the VI>TE>connection of body hair to strength! VI>Samson was strong so long as he did not shave his hair. That's the VI>connection. Samson was strong so long as he did not shave the hair on his HEAD. And the connection to body hair here is...? Since you're using the Samson and Delilah story to illustrate whatever connection there is between hair and strength in our culture, then it looks like women are stronger than men, and hippies are stronger than any of us! Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:05am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738570 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #738484, Reply to #738451, Reply to #737566, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>Oh, GREAT!!! Thanx a LOT!!!!! Awww, you remembered :) VI>TE>VI>TE>And thanx for the website, I will check it out, oh and speaking of VI>TE>VI>TE>websites I finally was able to hit the heartless bitch site (I thin VI>TE>VI>TE>it WAS you who mentioned it, right?) that site is great!!! :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Thanx! :) VI>TE>VI>You are quite welcome...yeah it was me who mentioned the heartless VI>TE>VI>bitch site. :) VI>TE>Are you a member? :) VI>Are you trying to suggest I'm a heartless bitch? :) Not at all, you don't seem like a heartless bitch to me! I was just wondering :) VI>Actually, my problem is that I tend to wear my heart on my sleve, if VI>you know what I mean. Yeah, I think I know what you mean. VI>TE>I was wondering if I should apply for membership, but I don't really VI>TE>think that I'm a heartless bitch, although I admire heartless bitches :) VI>I must admit that there are times when I wish I could be a heartless VI>bitch. Yup... I know if I was a heartless bitch, it would have saved me quite a bit of agony in the past... Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:13am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738571 To: Vida Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #738485, Reply to #738454, Reply to #737567, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>V VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my discu VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulimatel VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>possible for us to say in a historical context whether culture s VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shape a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>continue to shape each other. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Yeah, they continue to shape each other now, at this point, since b VI>TE>VI>TE>culture and language already exist in full swing. But think about m VI>TE>VI>TE>point above, IMHO it's pretty obvious that language got the first s VI>TE>VI>Obvious to you, but not at all to me. Language was shaped by cultural VI>TE>VI>forces. VI>TE>VI>And in turn, as language developed it shaped the culture. VI>TE>Then explain to me this: You agreed with me before that animals do not VI>TE>have culture. Then how is it, if culture is what shaped language, that VI>TE>animals have language? VI>I am confused by your question. VI>Did you write it correctly? Your question really does not make sense VI>to me. Try to restate the question and I will try to answer you, ok? I wrote it correctly, but I'll try to state it differently. GIVEN: Animals do not have culture. GIVEN: Animals possess language. YOUR STATEMENT: Language was shaped by cultural forces, which I interpret to mean that culture created language. MY QUESTION: The two givens are facts. Given that they are facts, how can your statement be possible? In other words: you are saying that language exists because of cultural forces. But animals HAVE NO cultural forces, so how is it possible that they have language? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched that VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. VI>TE>VI>TE>Maybe we oughtta drop this one then :) VI>TE>VI>That's purely up to you--I can talk about something without necesarily VI>TE>VI>knowing what I'm talking about. :) VI>TE>ROTFLMAO!! Same here, I do it all the time :) VI>Exactly! Me too! :) No wonder we have these interesting conversations, neither of us knows what we're talking about :) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:29am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738572 To: Vida Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #738486, Reply to #738455, Reply to #737568, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy abov VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! It VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you are VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good anal VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. VI>TE>VI>TE>The chicken and egg analogy is merely a form of logic, and logic ca VI>TE>VI>TE>applied to anything. VI>TE>VI>No, I don't believe that the logic which you using is applicable to VI>TE>VI>sociological reality. Sociological reality is NOT scientific or VI>TE>VI>necessarily logical. VI>TE>Sure it is. That's why it's called "social SCIENCE." And logic is VI>TE>universal, it is applicable to any situation. (Jeez, I sound like VI>TE>Spock! :) ) VI>Yes, you do sound like Mr. Spock. Maybe I should say to you: "Live VI>long and prosper." :) Well thank you! :) VI>Actually, I am not sure that the title "social science" is accurate. VI>I think that much of so called "social science" is an ATTEMPT to apply VI>scientific reasoning to a realm where science can not apply. Which VI>explains why so much of "social science" is grade A bs! :) "Scientific reasoning" is a misnomer. Scientific reasoning is not necessarily a method of reasoning used for the hard sciences; it is simply a logical, clear-minded way of thinking through a problem or obstacle. And that kind of thinking can be used for any situation. VI>Nor do I think logic applies to every situation. Much of the "real VI>world" is much too wierd to be logical. :) I don't think so! The only thing that I think is really weird and unexplainable is simply, our existence; reality. But once I accept reality and our existence, then everything else, the world, makes sense and is pretty logical. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reality VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that matte VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So it m VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certain VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms of a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching them VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of sense VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, the two sociological realities above can perpetuate each other VI>TE>VI>TE>THEY ARE BOTH IN EXISTENCE, but in the beginning, one HAD to be the VI>TE>VI>TE>cause of the other, not at the same time. VI>TE>VI>Why? Who said so? VI>TE>Well, specifically in this case, patriarchy could not have started out VI>TE>being the cause of male/female psychology as it is now; there had to be VI>TE>a REASON for patriarchy to begin in the first place. A concept like that VI>TE>does not arise out of nowhere, especially considering that patriarchy VI>TE>(or matriarchy, for that matter) only exists in the higher mammals, not VI>TE>in the lower animals; so that shows that there HAD to be SOME kind of VI>TE>starting point to it. VI>I think that patriachy came about because of certain biology VI>differences--specifically the greater physical strength of males vs. VI>females. Yes, I agree 100% with that. VI>I think that patriachy was a necessary stage of human development but VI>that it has long ago grown stale and has outsurvived its usefullness. VI>At this point, indeed, it does more harm than good to human VI>development--especially in the post industrial late stage capitalist VI>stage of development that we currently occupy. I really don't think that patriarchy was ever useful for anything, but that's besides the point. I never said that patriarchy was harmless; we kind of went off the topic. If you TP back, the original thing I said was basically this: patriarchy is not what it used to be. The only form of patriarchy that still exists is the male-dominated government. The REASON for this is NOT because women are kept from being in high places, but rather the reason lies in the psychology of men vs. women. Men WANT to be in power, they get off on it (testosterone, natural aggression, etc.) Women do not get off on it like men do, and therefore do not shoot for power as much as men. The difference is in PSYCHOLOGY. And the roots of this psychology lie in biology, not in patriarchy itself. VI>BTW, I am not so certain that there ever was a stage of development VI>called "matriachy". I tend to think there was no such stage. I tend VI>to think that patriachy was the first "archy" and that the first class VI>division was between males and females. None other than Frederick VI>Engels (the co author of the "Communist Manifesto" with Karl Marx) says VI>the same thing! There was no matriarchial stage of development in our culture, but I believe that there are some aboriginal societies that have, or had, a matriarchial societal structure. There are also certain types of primates who have matriarchies, and there are other types that have patriarchies (they exhibit matriarchy/patriarchy much as humans do.) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:48am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738573 To: Sam Beckett *EXEMPT* Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738501, Reply to #738457, Reply to #738102, R*) This is a really difficult thing for me that I think about all the time. I never said that God DIDN'T create us, I simply don't know, there is no way of knowing unless he comes out and says so! One thing you said is that God never deserts you, which allows for a "cushion." But how do you know this? I have never felt this. Even when I was a kid - I went to church and believed in God then - I never felt it then either. So how can you be so sure? Also, you said that "God laid out his plan for our lives fairly clearly" - this I don't understand as well! If this is so, then why is it that no one, including myself, seems to know what to do with their lives? As for the thing about self-gain or selfish motives negating good deeds: this is really the thing that bothers me the most. Bettering the world is easier said than done. It does not seem to me that one person has enough power to really do anything to better the world. When I think about what I do - I don't do anything bad, but I really don't do anything good either. I do things that I like, as long as they don't harm anyone else, and I figure that's good, but if better the world is what we're supposed to do, then I'm not as good a person as I thought I was! I have this thought loop all the time, but simply, I can't THINK of anything to do that's truly Good! And that makes things seem pretty bleak, overall. Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:49am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738574 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738524, Reply to #738456, Reply to #738004, R*) SC>TE>SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have SC>TE>SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they ha SC>TE>SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. SC>TE>SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individua SC>TE>SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true SC>TE>SC>believers anyway. SC>TE>SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as SC>TE>SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. SC>TE>It's like the old rhetorical question says, "what religion is God?" SC>Can you give me an Amen sister! Amen, brother! :) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:51am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738575 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738525, Reply to #738458, Reply to #738127, R*) SC>TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney SC>TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. SC>TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is SC>TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? SC>A group of leaders from the southern Baptist church wants to boycott SC>Disney and all of its products because they don't like the fact that SC>Disney offers its employees things like same sex spousal benefits. SC>(I don't know all the details myself so if some one else wants to join SC>in ,it would be appreciated) ARGH! Jeez, more ridiculous bullshit (rolling eyes.) Thanks for the information!! (And yeah if anyone else has any more info, please say so so I can roll my eyes again :) ) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 2:53am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 738576 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738527, Reply to #738456, Reply to #738004, R*) SC>TE>SC>VI>And of course Jews aren't happy with the fact that they have SC>TE>SC>VI>continuously tried to convert Jews to Christianity and that they ha SC>TE>SC>VI>marked Jews as special targets for conversion. SC>TE>SC>I have never understood this heavy campaigning to convert an individua SC>TE>SC>to another faith. If they feel coereced into it, they will not be true SC>TE>SC>believers anyway. SC>TE>SC>Besides I don't think HE cares what denomination we follow as long as SC>TE>SC>we follow his laws to the best of our abilities. SC>TE>It's like the old rhetorical question says, "what religion is God?" SC>Simple answer. All of them. Must be pretty confusing for God :) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 7:41am Forum: Reality From: Calvin Msg#: 738595 To: Vida Re: Bubbe's web (Reply to #738495) (1 reply) VI>In the Summer 1997 issue of "Lilith" magazine there is an article about VI>a wonderful, wonderful web site to check out. The web site is called VI>"Bubbe's Web". (For those who don't know "bubbe" is Yiddish for VI>grandmother.) VI>It's at http://www.bubbe.com. Definitely worth the trip folks! VI>And while you are at it, you should pick up the Summer 1997 issue of VI>"Lilith" just to see the wonderful ad the Body Shop ran in the VI>magazine. It's in the centerfold of the magazine. It features a naked VI>overweight Barbie lounging on a sofa. The copy reads: "There are 3 VI>billion women who don't look like supermodels and only 8 who do. Love VI>your body.". VI> I wish I had a scanner just so I could u/l the ad here, I really, VI>really love it! MAIL IT HERE FOR US TO SCAN! LOLOLOL! Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 10:38am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738606 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738525, Reply to #738458, Reply to #738127, R*) (1 reply) SC>TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney SC>TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. SC>TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is SC>TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? SC>A group of leaders from the southern Baptist church wants to boycott SC>Disney and all of its products because they don't like the fact that SC>Disney offers its employees things like same sex spousal benefits. SC>(I don't know all the details myself so if some one else wants to join SC>in ,it would be appreciated) SC>--- The main thing that prompted this action, I believe was "Ellen" coming out as a lesbian. "Ellen" is on ABC, which is now owned by Disney. Additionally, they are upset at Disney because of the movie "Priest" which was put out on Mirmax, another Disney subsidiary. Perhaps Steve Flur can mention other elements which prompted the Baptist boycot of Disney. Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 10:40am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738607 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738568, Reply to #738482, Reply to #738445, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can possi TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like yo TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congressp TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons. TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent infor TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated thre TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better to b TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper and s TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the part TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things we TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>do... TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>TE>VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them spy TE>VI>TE>VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view as TE>VI>TE>VI>what's the greater threat. TE>VI>TE>We won't all be dead, death isn't the major problem of nuclear weapons TE>VI>TE>It's the aftereffects that suck. TE>VI>For some of these aftereffects we would probably just be better off TE>VI>being dead. :( TE>There is always the option of going away to another part of the world TE>that is unaffected. Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen it yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a massive nuke war. Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 10:50am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738608 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #738569, Reply to #738483, Reply to #738450, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>What are vacinations if not transcending nature? Animals are trapp TE>VI>TE>VI>by biology. Humans can and do use their technology to manipulate TE>VI>TE>VI>biology. TE>VI>TE>And why do we have biotechnology? Because of the incredible Frontal TE>VI>TE>Lobes that NATURE has given us. TE>VI>Yes, but we use those frontal lobes to transcend the limits of biology. TE>VI> And as our technology increases we increase our ability to transcend TE>VI>the limits of biology, for better or worse. TE>But in any case, though, it is natural for us to use our frontal lobes TE>to manipulate biology, because if it wasn't natural, then we wouldn't TE>have this incredible brain power in the first place. Same as us walking TE>upright because we are bipedal, us picking things up because we have TE>opposable thumbs, etc. It's all due to nature, including our brain. But then we use your brains to make permanent and lasting changes to the natural environment...some to ourselves, some to the world. TE>VI>TE>There are OBVIOUS differences between male and female animals. It has TE>VI>TE>nothing to do with conceptualization. Male and female animals behave TE>VI>TE>differently, because by nature, males and females are different. We TE>VI>TE>simply label the differences in behavior as masculine or feminine, but TE>VI>TE>our labeling does not negate the differences that are there. TE>VI>But male and female animals don't have the conciousness that they are TE>VI>acting in a masculine or feminine fashion. It is people who observe TE>VI>animal behavior that slap the labels on the animal behavior. TE>Exactly, they don't have the consciousness that they are acting in a TE>masculine or feminine fashion, yet they do so anyway. Which proves that TE>it is biological, not social. Again, just because we label it does not TE>negate it; labeling is purely a matter of linguistics. TE>VI>TE>VI>Of course our biology effects our behavior! TE>VI>TE>But you were saying before that it didn't! TE>VI>I don't think I ever said that biology has no effect on human behavior. TE>VI> We are first and primarily animals. However, our higher cognitive TE>VI>abilities means that we are not solely directed by biological urges. TE>Yes, I am in agreement with you there. However, when I say that we are TE>dictated by biology (actually, chemistry), I do not mean just biological TE>urges. I basically mean that the way our brain operates dictates our TE>behavior, whether we are aware of it or not; and this does not TE>necessarily involve urges of any sort. Well, of course that's true! But so what! TE>VI>TE>VI>I am female and I menstruate so I have experienced PMS craziness fr TE>VI>TE>VI>time to time. But I still have my brain function to help me compen TE>VI>TE>VI>for PMS--even if it is just to warn Bob to lay low and give me lots TE>VI>TE>VI>lots of space. TE>VI>TE>Heheh, I know the feeling! TE>VI>I think every menstruating female knows the feeling! :) TE>This is true! Ooh, female bonding :) For a change. :) TE>VI>TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly trapped by TE>VI>TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things as genetic TE>VI>TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will be to a TE>VI>TE>great extent trapped by our biology. TE>VI>On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current ability to TE>VI>raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology TE>VI>increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponentally. TE>Why do you think that our current ability to rise above our biology is TE>so great? Did you know that common emotional processes, such as getting TE>angry/hostile, falling in love, and feeling depressed have all been TE>traced down to specific chemical reactions in the brain? Knowing that, TE>how can you still think that we are so detached from our own biology? Look at biofeedback then. And mediation. We humans can and do manipulate our emotional processes and effect our own biochemistry in the process. TE>VI>TE>VI>Unless you are dealing with actual physical violence you have to ju TE>VI>TE>VI>whether an act is masochistic in accordance with cultural standards TE>VI>TE>VI>What is beign in one cultural setting may be symbolic violence in TE>VI>TE>VI>another. TE>VI>TE>Well, I have NEVER, EVER heard of leg-shaving as symbolic violence! Th TE>VI>TE>is simply too strange of a concept! TE>VI>Within Western culture, I submit it is an act of symbolic female TE>VI>castration. If you want to label that as symbolic violence, then you TE>VI>may. TE>Leg-shaving is SYMBOLIC FEMALE CASTRATION?!?!?! Are you serious??? TE>I can't even argue against this concept, because it is simply too damn TE>strange!!! I don't want to be offensive, but this concept is simply TE>ludicrous, shaving body hair off is not even in the same realm as TE>castration of any sort! Yes, I am serious. And I use the term "castration" to refer to the loss of power, strength, sexuality, adulthood. TE>VI>TE>VI>Actually, I think I have the answer for you as to why Delilah shave TE>VI>TE>VI>Samson's hair on his head. Samson was a Nazene. I was just readin TE>VI>TE>VI>about this in the last Parasha (Torah portion of the week). TE>VI>TE>VI>It seems that Nazenes devote themselves for a period of time to G-d TE>VI>TE>VI>service. They are supposed to be celebate, but only for their peri TE>VI>TE>VI>of service, not for their entire life. And during their period of TE>VI>TE>VI>service they are not supposed to get a hair cut. After their perio TE>VI>TE>VI>service they cut their hair, so by cutting Samson's hair Delilah wa TE>VI>TE>VI>making Samson break his Nazene oath and putting him out of G-d's fa TE>VI>TE>VI> TE>VI>TE>What a bitch! :) That's interesting, thanks :) TE>VI>Thanks. See I do pick up some interesting tid bits from reading the TE>VI>weekly parsha and the commentaries. :) TE>I've never even heard of this thing! :) If you want me to give you the biblical reference, I will. But the Samson being a nazene came from the commentaries I read, not directly from the Hebrew bible. TE>VI>TE>VI>And see the connection again to hair sytle and G-dliness? :) TE>VI>TE>Okay, in this case, yeah. :) But it still doesn't explain the TE>VI>TE>connection of body hair to strength! TE>VI>Samson was strong so long as he did not shave his hair. That's the TE>VI>connection. TE>Samson was strong so long as he did not shave the hair on his HEAD. And TE>the connection to body hair here is...? Actually I am not so sure if it his strength came specifically from not shaving the hair on his head. It could have been not shaving period. TE>Since you're using the Samson and Delilah story to illustrate whatever TE>connection there is between hair and strength in our culture, then it TE>looks like women are stronger than men, and hippies are stronger than TE>any of us! Now you are the one who is being silly, silly, silly! Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 10:52am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738609 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #738570, Reply to #738484, Reply to #738451, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>Oh, GREAT!!! Thanx a LOT!!!!! Awww, you remembered :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>And thanx for the website, I will check it out, oh and speaking TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>websites I finally was able to hit the heartless bitch site (I t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it WAS you who mentioned it, right?) that site is great!!! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Thanx! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>You are quite welcome...yeah it was me who mentioned the heartless TE>VI>TE>VI>bitch site. :) TE>VI>TE>Are you a member? :) TE>VI>Are you trying to suggest I'm a heartless bitch? :) TE>Not at all, you don't seem like a heartless bitch to me! I was just TE>wondering :) I answered you below. :) TE>VI>Actually, my problem is that I tend to wear my heart on my sleve, if TE>VI>you know what I mean. TE>Yeah, I think I know what you mean. TE>VI>TE>I was wondering if I should apply for membership, but I don't really TE>VI>TE>think that I'm a heartless bitch, although I admire heartless bitches TE>VI>I must admit that there are times when I wish I could be a heartless TE>VI>bitch. TE>Yup... I know if I was a heartless bitch, it would have saved me quite a TE>bit of agony in the past... And probably a lot of agony in the future. :( Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 10:57am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738610 To: Tempest Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #738571, Reply to #738485, Reply to #738454, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>V TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, the more I think about this, the more I get back to my di TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>of the chicken and egg thing. I don't think that it is ulima TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>possible for us to say in a historical context whether cultur TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>languague or language shaped culture. I think they both shap TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>continue to shape each other. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yeah, they continue to shape each other now, at this point, sinc TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>culture and language already exist in full swing. But think abou TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>point above, IMHO it's pretty obvious that language got the firs TE>VI>TE>VI>Obvious to you, but not at all to me. Language was shaped by cultu TE>VI>TE>VI>forces. TE>VI>TE>VI>And in turn, as language developed it shaped the culture. TE>VI>TE>Then explain to me this: You agreed with me before that animals do not TE>VI>TE>have culture. Then how is it, if culture is what shaped language, that TE>VI>TE>animals have language? TE>VI>I am confused by your question. TE>VI>Did you write it correctly? Your question really does not make sense TE>VI>to me. Try to restate the question and I will try to answer you, ok? TE>I wrote it correctly, but I'll try to state it differently. TE>GIVEN: Animals do not have culture. TE>GIVEN: Animals possess language. TE>YOUR STATEMENT: Language was shaped by cultural forces, which I TE>interpret to mean that culture created language. TE>MY QUESTION: The two givens are facts. Given that they are facts, how TE>can your statement be possible? In other words: you are saying that TE>language exists because of cultural forces. But animals HAVE NO cultural TE>forces, so how is it possible that they have language? Simple, I do not believe that animals have language in the same sense that humans have language. Only humans have great enough of a cognitive capacity to write literature, formulate laws, sing songs. Animal communication is much more rudimentary than human language--indeed, I would submit that it is gross inaccuracy to refer to animal language. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Excellent point! And these concepts are so well entrenched t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>would be difficult for me to define them in a meaningful way. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Maybe we oughtta drop this one then :) TE>VI>TE>VI>That's purely up to you--I can talk about something without necesar TE>VI>TE>VI>knowing what I'm talking about. :) TE>VI>TE>ROTFLMAO!! Same here, I do it all the time :) TE>VI>Exactly! Me too! :) TE>No wonder we have these interesting conversations, neither of us knows TE>what we're talking about :) It happens all the time. :) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 11:00am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738611 To: Tempest Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #738572, Reply to #738486, Reply to #738455, R*) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I WISH it could make sense to me! But look at my analogy TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it's a good analogy) - HOW could that POSSIBLY make sense! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>chicken or egg, but you can't have both at the same time! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The chicken and egg analogy might be a good example when you TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>with a biological reality, but it is not necessarily a good a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>you are dealing with a sociological reality. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>The chicken and egg analogy is merely a form of logic, and logic TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>applied to anything. TE>VI>TE>VI>No, I don't believe that the logic which you using is applicable to TE>VI>TE>VI>sociological reality. Sociological reality is NOT scientific or TE>VI>TE>VI>necessarily logical. TE>VI>TE>Sure it is. That's why it's called "social SCIENCE." And logic is TE>VI>TE>universal, it is applicable to any situation. (Jeez, I sound like TE>VI>TE>Spock! :) ) TE>VI>Yes, you do sound like Mr. Spock. Maybe I should say to you: "Live TE>VI>long and prosper." :) TE>Well thank you! :) TE>VI>Actually, I am not sure that the title "social science" is accurate. TE>VI>I think that much of so called "social science" is an ATTEMPT to apply TE>VI>scientific reasoning to a realm where science can not apply. Which TE>VI>explains why so much of "social science" is grade A bs! :) TE>"Scientific reasoning" is a misnomer. Scientific reasoning is not TE>necessarily a method of reasoning used for the hard sciences; it is TE>simply a logical, clear-minded way of thinking through a problem or TE>obstacle. And that kind of thinking can be used for any situation. I submit that that kind of thinking only works in a logical, clear minded universe such as mathethics or the hard science. Social reality is much too strange and unpredictable for that kind of thinking to work. TE>VI>Nor do I think logic applies to every situation. Much of the "real TE>VI>world" is much too wierd to be logical. :) TE>I don't think so! The only thing that I think is really weird and TE>unexplainable is simply, our existence; reality. But once I accept TE>reality and our existence, then everything else, the world, makes sense TE>and is pretty logical. Then you and I really live in two differenct worlds, my friend. :) I see queerness all around me! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>In my opinion, when you are dealing with a sociological reali TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>are very rarely black or white, or chicken or egg for that ma TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Sociological realities are much more complex than that. So i TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>lot of sense that a sociological reality can both cause certa TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>and be the cause of certain phemenon. Think of it in terms o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>sociological realities perpetuating themselves, entrenching t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>and reinforcing themselves and it makes a heck of a lot of se TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, the two sociological realities above can perpetuate each ot TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>THEY ARE BOTH IN EXISTENCE, but in the beginning, one HAD to be TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>cause of the other, not at the same time. TE>VI>TE>VI>Why? Who said so? TE>VI>TE>Well, specifically in this case, patriarchy could not have started out TE>VI>TE>being the cause of male/female psychology as it is now; there had to b TE>VI>TE>a REASON for patriarchy to begin in the first place. A concept like th TE>VI>TE>does not arise out of nowhere, especially considering that patriarchy TE>VI>TE>(or matriarchy, for that matter) only exists in the higher mammals, no TE>VI>TE>in the lower animals; so that shows that there HAD to be SOME kind of TE>VI>TE>starting point to it. TE>VI>I think that patriachy came about because of certain biology TE>VI>differences--specifically the greater physical strength of males vs. TE>VI>females. TE>Yes, I agree 100% with that. TE>VI>I think that patriachy was a necessary stage of human development but TE>VI>that it has long ago grown stale and has outsurvived its usefullness. TE>VI>At this point, indeed, it does more harm than good to human TE>VI>development--especially in the post industrial late stage capitalist TE>VI>stage of development that we currently occupy. TE>I really don't think that patriarchy was ever useful for anything, but TE>that's besides the point. I never said that patriarchy was harmless; we TE>kind of went off the topic. If you TP back, the original thing I said TE>was basically this: patriarchy is not what it used to be. The only form TE>of patriarchy that still exists is the male-dominated government. The TE>REASON for this is NOT because women are kept from being in high places, TE>but rather the reason lies in the psychology of men vs. women. Men WANT TE>to be in power, they get off on it (testosterone, natural aggression, TE>etc.) Women do not get off on it like men do, and therefore do not shoot TE>for power as much as men. The difference is in PSYCHOLOGY. And the roots TE>of this psychology lie in biology, not in patriarchy itself. TE>VI>BTW, I am not so certain that there ever was a stage of development TE>VI>called "matriachy". I tend to think there was no such stage. I tend TE>VI>to think that patriachy was the first "archy" and that the first class TE>VI>division was between males and females. None other than Frederick TE>VI>Engels (the co author of the "Communist Manifesto" with Karl Marx) says TE>VI>the same thing! TE>There was no matriarchial stage of development in our culture, but I TE>believe that there are some aboriginal societies that have, or had, a TE>matriarchial societal structure. There are also certain types of TE>primates who have matriarchies, and there are other types that have TE>patriarchies (they exhibit matriarchy/patriarchy much as humans do.) Date: Friday, July 4, 1997 11:02am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738612 To: Calvin Re: Bubbe's web (Reply to #738595, Reply to #738495) CA>VI>In the Summer 1997 issue of "Lilith" magazine there is an article about CA>VI>a wonderful, wonderful web site to check out. The web site is called CA>VI>"Bubbe's Web". (For those who don't know "bubbe" is Yiddish for CA>VI>grandmother.) CA>VI>It's at http://www.bubbe.com. Definitely worth the trip folks! CA>VI>And while you are at it, you should pick up the Summer 1997 issue of CA>VI>"Lilith" just to see the wonderful ad the Body Shop ran in the CA>VI>magazine. It's in the centerfold of the magazine. It features a naked CA>VI>overweight Barbie lounging on a sofa. The copy reads: "There are 3 CA>VI>billion women who don't look like supermodels and only 8 who do. Love CA>VI>your body.". CA>VI> I wish I had a scanner just so I could u/l the ad here, I really, CA>VI>really love it! CA>MAIL IT HERE FOR US TO SCAN! CA>LOLOLOL! How about I give you the issue when we next go to BJ ? Maybe next Friday??? Date: Sunday, July 6, 1997 1:21pm Forum: Reality From: Steve C Msg#: 738669 To: Vida Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738606, Reply to #738525, Reply to #738458, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney VI>SC>TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. VI>SC>TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is VI>SC>TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? VI>SC>A group of leaders from the southern Baptist church wants to boycott VI>SC>Disney and all of its products because they don't like the fact that VI>SC>Disney offers its employees things like same sex spousal benefits. VI>SC>(I don't know all the details myself so if some one else wants to join VI>SC>in ,it would be appreciated) VI>SC>--- VI>The main thing that prompted this action, I believe was "Ellen" coming VI>out as a lesbian. "Ellen" is on ABC, which is now owned by Disney. VI>Additionally, they are upset at Disney because of the movie "Priest" VI>which was put out on Mirmax, another Disney subsidiary. < < Steve C rolling his eyes in unison with Tempest > > Thanks! VI>Perhaps Steve Flur can mention other elements which prompted the VI>Baptist boycot of Disney. * OLX 2.1 TD * Beam me up Scotty...This isn't the Ladies room!!! Date: Monday, July 7, 1997 6:31am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738715 To: ** ALL ** Re: Fear technology? Saw this one on one of my e mail lists and thought it was cute. >********************************** > >Reason #173 to Fear Technology: > > o o o o o o > ^|\ ^|^ v|^ v|v |/v |X| \| | > /\ >\ /< >\ /< >\ /< >\ > > o> o o o o o o o > \ x <\> <)> |\ > /< >\ /< >\ /< >\ >> L > > Mr. E-Mail does the Macarena. > >************************************************ > Date: Monday, July 7, 1997 3:40pm Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 738744 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #738569, Reply to #738483, Reply to #738450, R*) In a message dated 07-04-97 Tempest wrote to Vida : VI>TE>VI>Actually, I think I have the answer for you as to why Delilah shaved VI>TE>VI>Samson's hair on his head. Samson was a Nazene. I was just reading VI>TE>VI>about this in the last Parasha (Torah portion of the week). VI>TE>VI>It seems that Nazenes devote themselves for a period of time to G-d's VI>TE>VI>service. They are supposed to be celebate, but only for their period VI>TE>VI>of service, not for their entire life. And during their period of VI>TE>VI>service they are not supposed to get a hair cut. After their period VI>o VI>TE>VI>service they cut their hair, so by cutting Samson's hair Delilah was VI>TE>VI>making Samson break his Nazene oath and putting him out of G-d's VI>favor VI>TE>VI> Actually, you read it in the Haftorah. (Picking nits since Parshat Naso was my Bar Mitzvah parsha.) TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Tuesday, July 8, 1997 6:49am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738760 To: ** ALL ** Re: Precious text (1 reply) Found this on one of my e mail lists, and thought it was cute. >SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, July 6, 1997 >Tykes on dykes >EXAMINER EDITORIAL WRITER > DYKES ON BIKES thrummed slowly down Market Street last Sunday past >the curb-side perch of a 6-year-old girl. > The first grader, who recently learned to ride a bicycle without >training wheels, was fascinated by the squadrons of Harleys and Hondas that >launched San Francisco's 27th annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender >Pride Parade. > Out-of-towners must have been amused, or scandalized, or both, at the >costumery. Miles of leather. Two bridal gowns. One torso clothed in blue >paint. Nighties. A tuxedo. Cowboy chaps. Creative tattoos. Bare breasts. Bare >skulls. Bare buttocks. It wasn't Kansas. > The little girl from San Francisco was staring. > "Mommy," she said. "They're not wearing helmets!" > > Date: Tuesday, July 8, 1997 6:51am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738761 To: ** ALL ** Re: Affirmation text Another goodie from the world of my e mail lists. :) >INEFFECTIVE DAILY AFFIRMATIONS: > >- As I let go of my feelings of guilt, I can get in touch with my Inner >Sociopath. > >- I have the power to channel my imagination into ever-soaring levels of >suspicion and paranoia. > >- I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are >someone else's fault. > >- I no longer need to punish, deceive or compromise myself. Unless, of >course, I want to stay employed. > >- In some cultures what I do would be considered normal. > >- Having control over myself is nearly as good as having control over >others. > >- My intuition nearly makes up for my lack of good judgment. > >- I can change any thought that hurts into a reality that hurts even more. > >- I honor my personality flaws, for without them I would have no >personality at all. > >- Joan of Arc heard voices too. > >- I am grateful that I am not as judgmental as all those censorious, >self-righteous people around me. > >- I need not suffer in silence while I can still moan, whimper and >complain. > >- As I learn the innermost secrets of the people around me, they reward me >in many ways to keep me quiet. > >- When someone hurts me, forgiveness is cheaper than a lawsuit. But not >nearly as gratifying. > >- The first step is to say nice things about myself. The second, to do nice >things for myself. The third, to find someone to buy me nice things. > >- As I learn to trust the universe, I no longer need to carry a gun. > >- All of me is beautiful and valuable, even the ugly, stupid, and >disgusting parts. > >- I am at one with my duality. > >- Blessed are the flexible, for they can tie themselves into knots. > >- I will strive to live each day as if it were my 40th birthday. > >- Only a lack of imagination saves me from immobilizing myself with >imaginary fears. > >- Does my quiet self-pity get to me? Yes? Or should I move up to incessant >nagging? > >- I honor and express all facets of my being, regardless of state and local >laws. > >- Today I will gladly share my experience and advice, for there are no >sweeter words than "I told you so." > >- False hope is nicer than no hope at all. > >- A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem. > >- Just for today, I will not sit in my living room all day watching TV. >Instead I will move my TV into the bedroom. > > - Who can I blame for my own problems? Give me just a minute...I'll find >someone. > >- Why should I waste my time reliving the past when I can spend it worrying >about the future? > >- The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is >working. > >- I am learning that criticism is not nearly as effective as sabotage. > >- Becoming aware of my character defects leads me to the next step -- >blaming my parents. > >- To understand all is to fear all. > >- I will find humor in my everyday life by looking for people I can laugh >at. > >- The next time the universe knocks on my door, I will pretend I am not >home. > >- When I dance through life I do the Texas Two-Step. > >- My body is a temple. Do you want to come over for midnight mass? > >- To have a successful relationship I must learn to make it look like I'm >giving as much as I'm getting. > >- I am willing to make the mistakes if someone else is willing to learn >from them. > > > > > Date: Saturday, July 12, 1997 8:11am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 738892 To: ** ALL ** Re: Frustration text I think we can all sympatheize with this guy. Story from the net: Washington computer user shoots PC in frustration Copyright ) 1997 Nando.net Copyright ) 1997 The Associated Press ISSAQUAH, Wash. (July 11, 1997 8:45 p.m. EDT) -- A man was coaxed out of his home by police after he pulled a gun and shot his personal computer, apparently in frustration. "We don't know if it wouldn't boot up or what," Sgt. Keith Moon said Thursday. The computer, in a home office on the second floor of the townhouse, had four bullet holes in the hard drive and one in the monitor. One bullet struck a filing cabinet, while another made it through a wall and into a neighboring unit. No one was hurt. Police evacuated the complex, contacted the 43-year-old man by telephone and got him to come out. He was taken to a hospital for a mental evaluation. Date: Monday, July 14, 1997 1:55pm Forum: Reality From: Steve Flur Msg#: 738947 To: Steve C Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738669, Reply to #738606, Reply to #738525, R*) SC>VI>SC>TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disne SC>VI>SC>TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. SC>VI>SC>TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This i SC>VI>SC>TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? SC>VI>SC>A group of leaders from the southern Baptist church wants to boycott SC>VI>SC>Disney and all of its products because they don't like the fact that SC>VI>SC>Disney offers its employees things like same sex spousal benefits. SC>VI>SC>(I don't know all the details myself so if some one else wants to join SC>VI>SC>in ,it would be appreciated) SC>VI>SC>--- SC>VI>The main thing that prompted this action, I believe was "Ellen" coming SC>VI>out as a lesbian. "Ellen" is on ABC, which is now owned by Disney. SC>VI>Additionally, they are upset at Disney because of the movie "Priest" SC>VI>which was put out on Mirmax, another Disney subsidiary. SC> < < Steve C rolling his eyes in unison with Tempest > > SC>Thanks! SC>VI>Perhaps Steve Flur can mention other elements which prompted the SC>VI>Baptist boycot of Disney. SC> * OLX 2.1 TD * Beam me up Scotty...This isn't the Ladies room!!! They also objected to Disneys condoning Gay Days at all their theme parks. Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 12:59am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739065 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #738438, Reply to #738294, Reply to #737562, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT> Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we might be living VI>DT>in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are shall we VI>DT>say, in flux this summer heh... VI>Gosh, I hope and pray that things are not that much in flex for you!!!! VI>And hopefully, if all goes well, Bob and I will be there that night. O it is not some evil arghful shitthing, it is a Good Thing indeed actually, just the details to be worked out in regards to where we live together. The Parachute Jump in Coney is prolly too far out by MTA or actual roads to be a real contender but there are lotsa possibilities open as of this time long as we got lotsa room and m/c access and a subway fairly close by pretty much... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Nothing Exists Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 12:59am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739066 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738439, Reply to #738296, Reply to #737564, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT> Finally: yes: we will all be dead. Thats a gimme and requires no VI>DT>particular point of view to appreciate, really.... VI>You are quite right, in the event of nuke war we will probably be bit in VI>the ass by our own nukes. This country is after all the only one with a really coherent nukewar threat in place since the CCCP went tits up a few years ago. France and England only count as supplementary forces, and places like India and Israel only have the delivery range to piss off and/or scare immediate neighbors. Plus: no nation compares with the USA in terms of structural paranoia in modern times anyway, thus the above. Thanks! --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 12:59am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739067 To: Tempest Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #738458, Reply to #738127, Reply to #738028, R*) (1 reply) TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? This year, the Southern Baptists, at their annual convention, resolved to boycott the commercial enterprises associated with the Disney conglomerate due to offense they took at such things Disney wa sassociated with as Ellen Degeneres portraying a lesbian character on a network television show who came out as a part of the serial plotline. This action on the part of the Official Southern Baptist Convention resulted in newsmen making treks to Disney World and EPCOT Center and doing man inna street routines asking people who admitted to being associated with Southern Baptist religion questions about how this essentially pompous and ignored pronouncement on the part of the headmen of the cult wer effecting their vacations in Disney operated leisure environments. Most said things that seemed to show their disregard of the Word From On High, as Disney runs some places that people just really like to go to, even if the committee that deigns to interpret god for them says that Disney is specifically engaged in conduct deemed to be offensive to their religion's official interpretation of what god thinks about such things... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 12:59am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739068 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738459, Reply to #738290, Reply to #737485, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT>TE>Thank you, thank you!! Hey, reality is what it is. TE>DT> ...and if we lived there, we would be home now... >9# TE>But we are home now, so I guess we live in reality... and when we are TE>not home, then we are not home, so I guess when we're not home then we TE>are not living in reality... right? Nah, reality usually is something that one only faintly glimpses over a long distance separated by property lines because most of the time the reality on this side of the fence is unbelievable and at times repulsive. That is the real basic reason why the chicken crossed the road, and why I want you to cross the road with me once one of us manages to suss out which road to cross and in what direction. Everything else is deniable unless its good... >9* --- * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is nonexistent and cannot be read by people Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739069 To: Tempest Re: a (Reply to #738460, Reply to #738291, Reply to #737486, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT>TE>And are you going to work on some more of my skin for the occasion? TE>DT>TE> :) TE>DT> Sure, what the fuck: I'll be on vacay in the middle of August this TE>DT>year, we can ride up onto the boardwalk on the Duk so's you can hop off TE>DT>the back and show off yr PROPERTY OF JEEZIZ H KHRIST tat, the one that TE>DT>is about to magically appear on the right cheek of your lovely ass... TE>DT>>9# TE>OH!!! Oh, Shit! Stoppit, you are making me leak >:) Leak?! Save that fluid, it may come in handy later on. Pure bodily fluids are increasingly rare in these late 20th century times ya know, you could originate a new flavour for Arizona now that they have gotten away from the basic Iced Tea Concept >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * HEY ARE YOU OKAY? guess not O well what the hell Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739070 To: Tempest Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #738461, Reply to #738292, Reply to #737521, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> I am gonna save this slimer packet for when I can get properly intox TE>DT>and deal with it in random DTIverse, as it begs to be dealt with, most TE>DT>especially in this sig. So far the last few weeks I havent seen alla TE>DT>that much reality in here, plenny theory and scows groaning under the TE>DT>tonnage of various hopeful fictions tho... TE>Okay then, let's talk about Reality, my favorite topic. TE>What the fuck IS reality?! TE>I oughtta send that paper I wrote up here, the one about reality that I TE>wrote for philosophy class, that the professor said was ingenious :) Reality is at best an agreed upon plot or storyform which in some instances may even be supported by the testaments and stated theories of uninterested witnesses. All else is hearsay at the most, and bald horseshit at some lower level of discourse. In the middle, where the vast majority of reality work occurs, reality is simply what you, the believer, thinks has happened or is happening, without interference of agreed story line or base obvious horseshit. --- * SLMR 2.0 * Cshy mnopoey? Dlmnwyt pysaklcko qizmplrinjrtgny! Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739071 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738462, Reply to #738293, Reply to #737522, R*) TE>DT>TE>Fuck legal, there isn't even any ILLEGAL way that any of this can be TE>DT>TE>done effectively, let alone legal! TE>DT> Well, hmm. Eh, but it's a real helluva lot of assassinations, and not TE>DT>a realistic option. The entire population of the executive, legislative TE>DT>and judicial branches, plus the semisovereign replicants TE>DT>at state level. This would take serious man hours to accomplish. What's TE>DT>the People's Liberation Army doing after they drive tanks over everyone TE>DT>with a brain in Hong Kong next week? Could be a help and they prolly TE>DT>work for cash like everyone else on the face of the earth... TE>Not only would you have to assassinate the entire population of the TE>executive, legislative, and judicial branches, but also the entire TE>population of the U.S. military, as well as the heads of many major TE>corporations. Me thinks that this would be too much even for the TE>People's Liberation Army... The PLA is manpower, and sheer manpower is a lovely thing when yr detail requires the cessation of the heads of states both imagined and real . 200 million people with rifles is a resource to be considered, whatever the Large Plan. Beat three dollars a day on the pay and food/lodgings, and deny you will eradicate their loved ones, and you got the world if you can deal with what to do with 200 million armed killers once you have spoiled them to that extent. Cheap thinkers would figure to set other continental masses of armed men against the PLA to clean up, but that would only set up the next barrier in terms of a large infantry to convince that suicide was the best option for action as prescribed by whatever god you could con them into falling for... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Sleep is Not Legal Geneva Convention plus Other Laws Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739072 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #738463, Reply to #738313, Reply to #737483, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> Sure. Nine in One is the same thing as 3 in One spread across the TE>DT>normally understood three holes is all. Say to yrself: I think I can I TE>DT>think I can I think I can... TE>Bahahahahhaahhhahhaahhhhh shit! Okay, so it's Nine in Three, not Nine in TE>One, and Nine in Three is the same thing as Three in One. I think I can, TE>but it would be some pretty interesting painnnn... >:) You would recover, I would make goddamn sure you would... >9* --- * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is yr brain on Drugs hear it move? Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 2:49am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 739116 To: Vida Re: Precious text (Reply to #738760) (2 replies) VI>Found this on one of my e mail lists, and thought it was cute. VI>>SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, July 6, 1997 VI>>Tykes on dykes VI>>EXAMINER EDITORIAL WRITER VI>> DYKES ON BIKES thrummed slowly down Market Street last Sunday VI>past VI>>the curb-side perch of a 6-year-old girl. VI>> The first grader, who recently learned to ride a bicycle VI>without VI>>training wheels, was fascinated by the squadrons of Harleys and Hondas VI>that VI>>launched San Francisco's 27th annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, VI>Transgender VI>>Pride Parade. VI>> Out-of-towners must have been amused, or scandalized, or both, VI>at the VI>>costumery. Miles of leather. Two bridal gowns. One torso clothed in VI>blue VI>>paint. Nighties. A tuxedo. Cowboy chaps. Creative tattoos. Bare VI>breasts. Bare VI>>skulls. Bare buttocks. It wasn't Kansas. VI>> The little girl from San Francisco was staring. VI>> "Mommy," she said. "They're not wearing helmets!" Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left there... --- * SLMR 2.0 * To speak to an actual human being press 1 and hang up... Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:37am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739120 To: Dti Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #739065, Reply to #738438, Reply to #738294, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>DT> Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we might be livi DT>VI>DT>in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are shall we DT>VI>DT>say, in flux this summer heh... DT>VI>Gosh, I hope and pray that things are not that much in flex for you!!!! DT>VI>And hopefully, if all goes well, Bob and I will be there that night. DT> O it is not some evil arghful shitthing, it is a Good Thing indeed DT>actually, just the details to be worked out in regards to where we live DT>together. The Parachute Jump in Coney is prolly too far out by MTA or DT>actual roads to be a real contender but there are lotsa possibilities DT>open as of this time long as we got lotsa room and m/c access and a DT>subway fairly close by pretty much... DT>--- Does this mean that you are planning to move in with Tempest? If so, I wish you both well? :) Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:39am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739121 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #739066, Reply to #738439, Reply to #738296, R*) DT>VI>DT> Finally: yes: we will all be dead. Thats a gimme and requires no DT>VI>DT>particular point of view to appreciate, really.... DT>VI>You are quite right, in the event of nuke war we will probably be bit in DT>VI>the ass by our own nukes. DT> This country is after all the only one with a really coherent nukewar DT>threat in place since the CCCP went tits up a few years ago. France and DT>England only count as supplementary forces, and places like India and DT>Israel only have the delivery range to piss off and/or scare immediate DT>neighbors. Plus: no nation compares with the USA in terms of structural DT>paranoia in modern times anyway, thus the above. Thanks! DT>--- Actually, I worry about the mid east as being the possible flashpoint for a nuke war. I am convinced the Isrealis have the bomb. Possibly the Iranians and Iraqis have the bomb too. Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:40am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739122 To: Dti Re: More on Disney boycott (Reply to #739067, Reply to #738458, Reply to #738127, R*) DT>TE>SC>So basically the Black Southern Baptists are linked to the Disney DT>TE>SC>haters in name only , I guess. DT>TE>What is all this about "the Disney thing" and Disney haters? This is DT>TE>something I am totally unaware of, can you explain this to me? DT> This year, the Southern Baptists, at their annual convention, DT>resolved to boycott the commercial enterprises associated with the DT>Disney conglomerate due to offense they took at such things Disney wa DT>sassociated with as Ellen Degeneres portraying a lesbian character on a DT>network television show who came out as a part of the serial plotline. DT>This action on the part of the Official Southern Baptist Convention DT>resulted in newsmen making treks to Disney World and EPCOT Center and DT>doing man inna street routines asking people who admitted to being DT>associated with Southern Baptist religion questions about how this DT>essentially pompous and ignored pronouncement on the part of the headmen DT>of the cult wer effecting their vacations in Disney operated leisure DT>environments. Most said things that seemed to show their disregard of DT>the Word From On High, as Disney runs some places that people just DT>really like to go to, even if the committee that deigns to interpret god DT>for them says that Disney is specifically engaged in conduct deemed to DT>be offensive to their religion's official interpretation of what god DT>thinks about such things... DT>--- Ellen DeGeneres not only plays a lesbian character on TV. She is a lesbian in real life. And you can bet, that unlike the "Ellen" character on the TV show, she is not a lesbian virgin! :) Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:41am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739123 To: Dti Re: Precious text (Reply to #739116, Reply to #738760) (1 reply) DT>VI>Found this on one of my e mail lists, and thought it was cute. DT>VI>>SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, July 6, 1997 DT>VI>>Tykes on dykes DT>VI>>EXAMINER EDITORIAL WRITER DT>VI>> DYKES ON BIKES thrummed slowly down Market Street last Sunday DT>VI>past DT>VI>>the curb-side perch of a 6-year-old girl. DT>VI>> The first grader, who recently learned to ride a bicycle DT>VI>without DT>VI>>training wheels, was fascinated by the squadrons of Harleys and Hondas DT>VI>that DT>VI>>launched San Francisco's 27th annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, DT>VI>Transgender DT>VI>>Pride Parade. DT>VI>> Out-of-towners must have been amused, or scandalized, or both, DT>VI>at the DT>VI>>costumery. Miles of leather. Two bridal gowns. One torso clothed in DT>VI>blue DT>VI>>paint. Nighties. A tuxedo. Cowboy chaps. Creative tattoos. Bare DT>VI>breasts. Bare DT>VI>>skulls. Bare buttocks. It wasn't Kansas. DT>VI>> The little girl from San Francisco was staring. DT>VI>> "Mommy," she said. "They're not wearing helmets!" DT> Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left there... DT>--- And it's a good thing. :) Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:53pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739187 To: ** ALL ** Re: Lawyer jokes and more Deb forwarded these jokes to me. So blame her if you don't like them, not me. :) Subj:More stupid Top 10 lists (fwd) =================================================================== Top Ten Things That Sound Dirty In Law But Aren't: 10. Have you looked through her briefs? 9. He is one hard judge! 8. Counselor, let's do it in chambers. 7. His attorney withdrew at the last minute. 6. Is it a penal offense? 5. Better leave the handcuffs on. 4. For $200 an hour, she better be good! 3. Can you get him to drop his suit? 2. The judge gave her the stiffest one he could. 1. Think you can get me off? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Ten Things That Sound Dirty At The Office But Aren't: 10. I need to whip it out by 5. 9. Mind if I use your laptop? 8. Just stick it in my box. 7. If I have to lick one more, I'll gag! 6. I want it on my desk, NOW!!! 5. HMMMMMMMM....I think it's out of fluid! 4. My equipment is so old, it takes forever to finish. 3. It's an entry-level position. 2. When do you think you'll be getting off today? 1. It's not fair...I do all the work while he just sits there! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Top ten things that sound dirty in golf but aren't: 10. Nuts...my shaft is bent 9. After 18 holes I can barely walk 8. You really whacked the hell out of that sucker 7. Look at the size of his putter 6. Keep your head down and spread your legs a bit more 5. Mind if I join your threesome? 4. Stand with your back turned and drop it 3. My hands are so sweaty I can't get a good grip 2. Nice stroke, but your follow through has a lot to be desired 1. Hold up...I need to wash my balls first Date: Friday, July 18, 1997 8:14am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739305 To: ** ALL ** Re: Internet glitch Found this story surfing the net and thought it might be of general interest here. Database problem slows some Internet traffic Copyright ) 1997 Nando.net Copyright ) 1997 The Associated Press (July 18, 1997 06:45 a.m. EDT) -- A human error slowed the flow of electronic information and showed the vulnerability of the Internet. E-mail delivery was disrupted and Web sites were inaccessible because of the error early Thursday at the company that assigns the widely used "dot-com" Internet addresses. The problem was compounded hours later by an accident near Laurel, Md., when a backhoe operator cut a fiber optic cable, forcing Internet traffic and long distance telephone calls to be rerouted. Both problems appeared to be resolved by midafternoon. The trouble began at 2:45 a.m. EDT when Network Solutions Inc., which runs the main registry of Internet addresses in the United States, began its daily routine of updating files. Two of those files somehow became corrupted, setting off error alarms. The system administrator on duty chose to release the files anyway, which caused chaos at computers nationwide as many Web sites effectively blinked out of existence, at least in the eyes of browsers. "The big effect was that our site became invisible," said Chris Caldwell, chief engineer at NDA, a Web site design company in Woburn, Mass. A user seeking an address ending in .com, for example, would have received an error message that read "Could not resolve DNS," said Aggie Nteta, a spokeswoman for Network Solutions. The files were corrected and re-released about four hours later, although it may have taken several more hours for the corrected information to spread throughout the network, Nteta said. Network Solutions is under an arrangement with the U.S. government to assign the "domain" names, as the suffix addresses are known. Critics have complained that Network Solutions has an unfair monopoly that has led to a high registration price -- $100 -- and poor service. Thursday's problem is the latest in a series of recent addressing glitches. Last weekend rival AlterNIC briefly took over the registry's Web address to protest the monopoly distribution of Internet addresses. The registry has also encountered numerous problems with bad information on its database. Some businesses have been double billed, while others have had their Web sites dropped from the address lists by mistake. "The fact that they are growing quickly is not an excuse for this," said Dave Crocker, a computer consultant and the founder of the Internet Mail Consortium. "The rate of errors they are having would not be tolerable for any other professional organization doing a technical task." Earlier this month, the Justice Department said it was investigating whether Network Solutions has an illegal monopoly. Date: Wednesday, July 30, 1997 7:41pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739753 To: Nightbird Re: Stop apologizing! (1 reply) I have been reading this wonderful, marvelous book called "Succulent Wild Woman:Dancing with Your Wonder-full Self!" by SARK. I highly, highly recommend this book to you and to all here, even the guys. I thought of you when I read the following passage from page 22 of the book: Stop apologizing and saying, "I'm sorry" so much. Women have a terrible habit of apologizing for everything (even their own existence). One time, I bumped into a woman--hard--and she said automatically, "I'm sorry.". I had bumped into her! Sorry in the dictionary says this: wretched, miserable, inferior in worth or quality. We are NOT this! We have a right to live wild, succulent lives. Right now. Open your window and yell at the top of your lungs:" I'm here! I'm wild! I will live a daring and remarkable life!" (End of quote from the book) I hope you realize I am sharing this with you out of love. You are a really good person Marie! Never forget it! :) Date: Wednesday, July 30, 1997 8:44pm Forum: Reality From: Nightbird Msg#: 739763 To: Vida Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739753) (1 reply) VI>I hope you realize I am sharing this with you out of love. You are a VI>really good person Marie! Never forget it! :) Thanks alot Vida, I have been trying to break myself of the habit for years & I've never quite done it! * OLX 2.1 TD * Sane is a four letter word. Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 7:17am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739765 To: ** ALL ** Re: Technology taken over? Found this on one of my e mail lists. > Some Ways to Know That Technology Has Taken Over > Your Life > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > 1.Your stationery is more cluttered than Warren Beatty's address > book. The letterhead lists a fax number, e-mail addresses > for two on-line services, and your Internet address, which spreads > across the breadth of the letterhead and continues to > the back. In essence, you have conceded that the first page of any letter you write *is* letterhead. > 2.You have never sat through an entire movie without having at least one device on your body beep or buzz. > 3.You need to fill out a form that must be typewritten, but you can't > because there isn't one typewriter in your house-only > computers with laser printers. > 4.You think of the gadgets in your office as "friends," but you > forget to send your father a birthday card. > 5.You disdain people who use low baud rates. > 6.When you go into a computer store, you eavesdrop on a salesperson > talking with customers-and you butt in to correct > him and spend the next twenty minutes answering the customers' > questions, while the salesperson stands by silently, > nodding his head. > 7.You use the phrase "digital compression" in a conversation without > thinking how strange your mouth feels when you say > it. > 8.You constantly find yourself in groups of people to whom you say > the phrase "digital compression." Everyone > understands what you mean, and you are not surprised or disappointed that you don't have to explain it. > 9.You know Bill Gates' e-mail address, but you have to look up your own social security number. > 10.You stop saying "phone number" and replace it with "voice number", > since we all know the majority of phone lines in any > house are plugged into contraptions that talk to other contraptions. > 11.You sign Christmas cards by putting :-) next to your signature. > 12.Off the top of your head, you can think of nineteen keystroke > symbols that are far more clever than :-) > 13.You back up your data every day. > 14.Your wife asks you to pick up some minipads for her at the store > and you return with a rest for your mouse. > 15.You think jokes about being unable to program a VCR are stupid. > 16.On vacation, you are reading a computer manual and turning the > pages faster than everyone else who is reading John > Grisham novels. > 17.The thought that a CD could refer to finance or music rarely enters > your mind. > 18.You are able to argue persuasively the Ross Perot's phrase > "electronic town hall" makes more sense than the term > "information superhighway," but you don't because, after all, the man still uses hand-drawn pie charts. > 19.You go to computer trade shows and map out your path of the exhibit > hall in advance. But you cannot give someone > directions to your house without looking up the street names. > 20.You would rather get more dots per inch than miles per gallon. > 21.You become upset when a person calls you on the phone to sell you > something, but you think it's okay for a computer to > call and demand that you start pushing buttons on your telephone to > receive more information about the product it is > selling. > 22.You know without a doubt that disks come in five-and-a- quarter-and > three-and-a-half-inch sizes. > 23.You own a set of itty-bitty screw-drivers and you actually know > where they are. > 24.While contemporaries swap stories about their recent hernia > surgeries, you compare mouse-induced index-finger strain > with a nine-year-old. > 25.You are so knowledgeable about technology that you feel secure > enough to say "I don't know" when someone asks you > a technology question instead of feeling compelled to make something up. > 26.You rotate your screen savers more frequently than your automobile > tires. > 27.You have a functioning home copier machine, but every toaster you > own turns bread into charcoal. > 28.You have ended friendships because of irreconcilably different > opinions about which is better-the track ball or the > track *pad*. > 29.You understand all the jokes in this message. If so, my friend, > technology has taken over your life. We suggest, for your > own good, that you go lie under a tree and write a haiku. And don't use a laptop. > 30.You e-mail this message to your friends over the net. You'd never > get around to showing it to them in person or reading it > to them on the phone. In fact, you have probably never met most of these people face-to-face. Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 7:20am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739766 To: Nightbird Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739763, Reply to #739753) (1 reply) NI>VI>I hope you realize I am sharing this with you out of love. You are a NI>VI>really good person Marie! Never forget it! :) NI>Thanks alot Vida, I have been trying to break myself of the habit for NI>years & I've never quite done it! Just don't start beating up on yourself for your inability to break yourself of this habit!! Be gentle and loving with yourself--something that I am struggling to do with myself also, btw. Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 7:42pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739777 To: ** ALL ** Re: Internet buyer beware This appeared on one of my legal e mail lists. Internet Buyer, Beware! (07/30/97; 9:30 a.m. EDT) By David Braun, TechWire http://192.215.107.71/wire/news/jul/0730fraud.html WASHINGTON -- As the Internet moves toward becoming a mass medium, the con artists are taking advantage. Cybercrooks know their marks, and they are carefully targeting their scams. This warning was made by Linda Golodner, president of the National Consumers League, at the annual summit of the Interactive Services Association, held here Tuesday. The NCL collects complaints from the public and passes them on to the Federal Trade Commission and 160 other law enforcement authorities in the United States for investigation. "A sucker is born every minute, and there are certainly a lot of suckers online," Golodner said. >From the 300 to 400 complaints received by the NCL every day, the group has found 10 common scams on the Net. Topping the list are pyramids and bogus multilevel marketing schemes, followed by sales of computer equipment and software that are either never delivered or are defective. "Like legitimate businesses, cybercrooks know their target markets," Golodner said. The other scams are: Sales of Internet services and products that are never performed or are misrepresented; Business opportunities and franchises that don't generate the promised profits; Work-at-home schemes, where consumers buy a starter kit, but no work or payment is delivered; Club memberships and buyer clubs with no goods or services; Magazine subscriptions wherein no magazines are received; Investments with profits misrepresented; Scholarship services that offer no real assistance; and Sweepstakes and prize offers that offer empty promises of cash or prizes requiring up-front fees or "taxes." The National Consumers League , the oldest nonprofit consumer organization in the United States, has set up a special National Fraud Information Center on the Internet for online users to get advice and to report rip-offs. Consumers can also call the NCL at 1-800-876-7060. Links: National Consumers League: http://www.natlconsumersleague.org/ National Fraud Information Center: http://www.fraud.org/ ------------------ Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~-.____ For subscription details email / | ' \ jwalker@tor.hookup.net with ( ) 0 SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----' subject line. ==== // / \-'~; /~~(O) "On the Internet no one / __/| / | nows you're a dog" =( _____| (_________| ------------------------------- Date: Thursday, July 31, 1997 10:57pm Forum: Reality From: Nightbird Msg#: 739784 To: Vida Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739766, Reply to #739763, Reply to #739753) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>I hope you realize I am sharing this with you out of love. You are a VI>NI>VI>really good person Marie! Never forget it! :) VI>NI>Thanks alot Vida, I have been trying to break myself of the habit for VI>NI>years & I've never quite done it! VI>Just don't start beating up on yourself for your inability to break VI>yourself of this habit!! Be gentle and loving with yourself--something VI>that I am struggling to do with myself also, btw. Thanks once again. * OLX 2.1 TD * "Mulder!FBI! Drop thar sword, McCloud-I have questions!" Date: Friday, August 1, 1997 6:35am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739786 To: ** ALL ** Re: Yemen claims Mars! [Bund this on one of my e mail lists. >Collage 366 H u m o u r N e t 01 Aug 1997 > >This one was simply too good to pass up ... > > > >AP Headline: "Yemenis, Claiming Ownership Of Mars, Sue NASA" > >(My Headline: "Men Are From Mars, Lawsuits Are From Yemen") > >SAN`A, Yemen -- Three Yemeni men claiming ownership of Mars have >filed a lawsuit against NASA for landing on the red planet, a >newspaper reported today. > >(Well, the suit already makes no sense. *JPL* landed on the planet; >NASA merely got them there.) > >Adam Ismail, Mustafa Khalil and Abdullah al-Umari have filed >documents to a Yemeni court that they say prove their claim, the >weekly Al-Thawri newspaper said. > >(Character witnesses for these guys: The Psychic Friends Hotline.) > >"We inherited the planet from our ancestors 3,000 years ago," the >Arabic-language paper quoted the men as saying in one of the >documents. > >(Well, *that* certainly explains the camel droppings that Soujourner >found next to the lander, doesn't it?) > >[...] "Sojourner and Pathfinder ... began exploring it without >informing us or seeking our approval," the men said. > >(Ah. And three years' worth of NASA "We're going to Mars" hype >didn't get their attention. Note to self: Plaintiffs are idiots.) > >The plaintiffs demanded the immediate suspension of all operations >on Mars until the Yemeni court delivers a verdict. They also asked >that the court order NASA to refrain from disclosing any information >pertaining to Mars' atmosphere, surface or gravity before receiving >approval from them or until a verdict is reached. > >("No problem, sirs. The OFF switch is located on the left side of >the lander; just have one of your ancestors stroll over and shut it >off.") > >Asked for comment, Richard Cook, Pathfinder mission manager at >NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said, "It's >everybody's. Mars is for the whole world to explore and to >understand." > >(That's clearly a fabricated response. When asked for comment, >Richard Cook's *actual* response would have landed him in a >basement room next to Salman Rushdie.) > > > Date: Friday, August 1, 1997 6:43am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739788 To: Nightbird Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739784, Reply to #739766, Reply to #739763, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>I hope you realize I am sharing this with you out of love. You are NI>VI>NI>VI>really good person Marie! Never forget it! :) NI>VI>NI>Thanks alot Vida, I have been trying to break myself of the habit for NI>VI>NI>years & I've never quite done it! NI>VI>Just don't start beating up on yourself for your inability to break NI>VI>yourself of this habit!! Be gentle and loving with yourself--something NI>VI>that I am struggling to do with myself also, btw. NI>Thanks once again. You're more than welcome my friend. :) Date: Saturday, August 2, 1997 12:15pm Forum: Reality From: Nightbird Msg#: 739795 To: Vida Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739788, Reply to #739784, Reply to #739766, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>I hope you realize I am sharing this with you out of love. You VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>really good person Marie! Never forget it! :) VI>NI>VI>NI>Thanks alot Vida, I have been trying to break myself of the habit f VI>NI>VI>NI>years & I've never quite done it! VI>NI>VI>Just don't start beating up on yourself for your inability to break VI>NI>VI>yourself of this habit!! Be gentle and loving with yourself--somethin VI>NI>VI>that I am struggling to do with myself also, btw. VI>NI>Thanks once again. VI>You're more than welcome my friend. :) Thanks, I'm glad to have you for a friend * OLX 2.1 TD * "I'm a doctor, not a botanist"--Bashir Date: Sunday, August 3, 1997 7:26am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 739804 To: Nightbird Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739795, Reply to #739788, Reply to #739784, R*) (1 reply) Same here! :) Date: Sunday, August 3, 1997 2:01pm Forum: Reality From: Nightbird Msg#: 739816 To: Vida Re: Stop apologizing! (Reply to #739804, Reply to #739795, Reply to #739788, R*) VI>Same here! :) YEP!! * OLX 2.1 TD * "Who ARE you!!!" "I'm Yakko!" "I'm Wakko!" "And I'm CUTE! Date: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 8:29am Forum: Reality From: Sam Beckett Msg#: 739906 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #738569, Reply to #738483, Reply to #738450, R*) (1 reply) Here's a question for all you reality people out there... Why is it that with all of the racial/sexual tensions in the world, we still laugh at and encourage outdated stereotypes on TV and in the movies? Dont you think by now we would have learned that they are not appropriate? For examples I point to Urkel on "Family Matters" and the daughter and mother on Married with Children. Any ideas? Date: Sunday, August 10, 1997 8:15am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 740067 To: ** ALL ** Re: Every go see "On the Town"! Vida and Dr. Pax went to see "On the Town" last night at the Delacorte theatre. And Vida gives it four stars! The play is prefectly described as "the classic musical valentine to New York City"--presented with the prefect backdrop--the REAL NYC! (The Delacorte is an outdoors theatre.) With music by Leonard Bernstein, and book and lyrics by Betty Comden and Adolph Green PLUS cherography by Jerome Robins, you can't ask for a better combination. The play's scenes are clasic pieces of NY--The Brooklyn Navy Yard, a subway train in motion, a taxicab, The Museum of Natural History, Canegie Hall, Central Park, Times Square, The Congacabana, and of course, Coney Island!!! It's an ensemble cast of unknowns--the only person I ever heard of in the cast is Lea DeLaria, who is absoultely marevelous as the taxi driver Hildy Esterhazy. What a marvelous evening! And the price is right-FREE! Just take Vida's advice and do as Bob and I did--get to the Public Theatre really early (we got there by 10 AM) and bring folding chairs. They give out tickets at 1 PM. But hanging out reading in a folding chair wasn't so bad--especially since the weather was so wonderful yesterday! :) Date: Monday, August 18, 1997 6:55am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 740321 To: ** ALL ** Re: Fridge text (1 reply) Remember this is from a survey of BRITISH women folks. :) LONDON, Aug 14 (AFP) - An overwhelming majority of British women believe a refrigerator is more useful than the man in their lives, according to a survey published Thursday. A massive 87 percent of women interviewed for the survey, which was carried out on behalf of the country's frozen food industry, reckoned their fridge was more indispensable than their partner. The survey of 1,000 British women also found that they make unconventional use of their fridges. While in general the majority use it to store bread, vegetables, potato crisps and such-like, some of those questioned admitted keeping tights, compact discs, candles and even money there. The cold is reputed to increase the quality of compact discs, prevent runs in tights and increase the burning time of candles. Date: Monday, August 18, 1997 10:22am Forum: Reality From: Rand Msg#: 740348 To: Vida Re: Fridge text (Reply to #740321) (1 reply) In a message dated 08-18-97 Vida wrote to ** ALL: V> LONDON, Aug 14 (AFP) - An overwhelming majority of British women V> believe a refrigerator is more useful than the man in their lives, V> according to a survey published Thursday. V> A massive 87 percent of women interviewed for the survey, which V> was carried out on behalf of the country's frozen food industry, V> reckoned their fridge was more indispensable than their partner. V> The survey of 1,000 British women also found that they make V> unconventional use of their fridges. V> While in general the majority use it to store bread, vegetables, V> potato crisps and such-like, some of those questioned admitted V> keeping tights, compact discs, candles and even money there. V> The cold is reputed to increase the quality of compact discs, V> prevent runs in tights and increase the burning time of candles. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * I'm Pro-Choice on Everything! Date: Monday, August 18, 1997 8:43pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 740370 To: Rand Re: Fridge text (Reply to #740348, Reply to #740321) (1 reply) RA>In a message dated 08-18-97 Vida wrote to ** ALL: RA>V> LONDON, Aug 14 (AFP) - An overwhelming majority of British women RA>V> believe a refrigerator is more useful than the man in their lives, RA>V> according to a survey published Thursday. RA>V> A massive 87 percent of women interviewed for the survey, which RA>V> was carried out on behalf of the country's frozen food industry, RA>V> reckoned their fridge was more indispensable than their partner. RA>V> The survey of 1,000 British women also found that they make RA>V> unconventional use of their fridges. RA>V> While in general the majority use it to store bread, vegetables, RA>V> potato crisps and such-like, some of those questioned admitted RA>V> keeping tights, compact discs, candles and even money there. RA>V> The cold is reputed to increase the quality of compact discs, RA>V> prevent runs in tights and increase the burning time of candles. RA> Don't refrain! :) Date: Thursday, August 21, 1997 3:23am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 740436 To: Vida Re: Fridge text (Reply to #740370, Reply to #740348, Reply to #740321) VI>RA>In a message dated 08-18-97 Vida wrote to ** ALL: VI>RA>V> LONDON, Aug 14 (AFP) - An overwhelming majority of British women VI>RA>V> believe a refrigerator is more useful than the man in their lives, VI>RA>V> according to a survey published Thursday. VI>RA>V> A massive 87 percent of women interviewed for the survey, which VI>RA>V> was carried out on behalf of the country's frozen food industry, VI>RA>V> reckoned their fridge was more indispensable than their partner. VI>RA>V> The survey of 1,000 British women also found that they make VI>RA>V> unconventional use of their fridges. VI>RA>V> While in general the majority use it to store bread, vegetables, VI>RA>V> potato crisps and such-like, some of those questioned admitted VI>RA>V> keeping tights, compact discs, candles and even money there. VI>RA>V> The cold is reputed to increase the quality of compact discs, VI>RA>V> prevent runs in tights and increase the burning time of candles. VI>RA> VI>Don't refrain! :) Did you send me some witty joke or remark? If so, it was missing. Could you please resend it to me? :) Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 11:53pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 741538 To: ** ALL ** Re: The difference between work and play (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #741224, Reply to #741126, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VVI>TE>VI>AH is definetly NOT work!!! It's play!!! I generally don't like to VI>TE>VI>answer legal questions on AH if it would require me to crack open a la VI>TE>VI>book. That would make it work. VI>TE>Play is work too, it's work that is enjoyed. The reason you don't like VI>TE>answering legal questions on AH is because it's work that you *don't VI>TE>like.* VI>The main difference between work and play as I see it is that work is VI>compulsory. You have to do a job function, or you will lose your job, VI>whether you like it or not. With play, you do things you LIKE to do VI>and you REFUSE to do things you don't like to do. It's not that black-and-white. For example: let's say that you really enjoy playing the piano. But the part you hate is trying to learn a new piece. But you drill it for hours, even though you hate doing that, and it gets you frustrated, but nevertheless you do it because you just love to play the piano. So is that work or play? VI>TE>You just contradicted yourself! Above, you stated that you don't wanna VI>TE>answer legal questions on AH because it's *work.* In the second VI>TE>paragraph you define work as being something for which you get rewarded VI>TE>financially. But you don't get rewarded financially for answering legal VI>TE>questions on AH, so by your definition, it's NOT work! It sounds more VI>TE>like you define "work" as being "doing something you don't like." Which VI>TE>is not a proper definition! VI>I don't see that I am contradicting myself. VI>AH is not work because I receive no financial reward for what I write VI>on AH. You are contradicting yourself again, because you keep changing your definition of work. Above, you stated that work is work because it is compulsory. Down here, you state that work is work because you get a financial reward. Those are two different definitions. Compulsion and financial reward are independent of each other. They can occur at the same time, or one without the other. Using examples, this means that: 1) Slavery (an example of compulsion without financial reward) is work by your definition #1 BUT NOT by your definition #2. and 2) Theft (an example of financial reward without compulsion) is work by your definition #2 BUT NOT by your definition #1. Where is the logic in this? And don't tell me that you don't need logic to argue :) VI>I consider AH to be play. I don't want to do legal research for any VI>responses to AH because for me to do so would transform AH into a VI>worklike AND unpleasant activity. And there's nothing wrong with that! Although it's too bad because it sounds like you don't enjoy your work, and that's always a sad thing to hear. I personally enjoy looking up scientific or medical type stuff in reference to things I type here, because I'm also learning in the process. Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 7:18am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 741592 To: Tempest Re: The difference between work and play (Reply to #741538, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #741224, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>VI>The main difference between work and play as I see it is that work is TE>VI>compulsory. You have to do a job function, or you will lose your job, TE>VI>whether you like it or not. With play, you do things you LIKE to do TE>VI>and you REFUSE to do things you don't like to do. TE>It's not that black-and-white. For example: let's say that you really TE>enjoy playing the piano. But the part you hate is trying to learn a new TE>piece. But you drill it for hours, even though you hate doing that, and TE>it gets you frustrated, but nevertheless you do it because you just love to TE>play the piano. So is that work or play? If you are a professional musican, it's work. If you are an ameuter, it is play. TE>VI>TE>You just contradicted yourself! Above, you stated that you don't wanna TE>VI>TE>answer legal questions on AH because it's *work.* In the second TE>VI>TE>paragraph you define work as being something for which you get rewarde TE>VI>TE>financially. But you don't get rewarded financially for answering lega TE>VI>TE>questions on AH, so by your definition, it's NOT work! It sounds more TE>VI>TE>like you define "work" as being "doing something you don't like." Whic TE>VI>TE>is not a proper definition! TE>VI>I don't see that I am contradicting myself. TE>VI>AH is not work because I receive no financial reward for what I write TE>VI>on AH. TE>You are contradicting yourself again, because you keep changing your TE>definition of work. Above, you stated that work is work because it is TE>compulsory. Down here, you state that work is work because you get a TE>financial reward. Those are two different definitions. Compulsion and TE>financial reward are independent of each other. They can occur at the TE>same time, or one without the other. TE>Using examples, this means that: TE>1) Slavery (an example of compulsion without financial reward) is work TE>by your definition #1 BUT NOT by your definition #2. TE>and TE>2) Theft (an example of financial reward without compulsion) is work TE>by your definition #2 BUT NOT by your definition #1. TE>Where is the logic in this? TE>And don't tell me that you don't need logic to argue :) Didn't I answer you on this point earlier? Don't bring slavery into the argument, it's no longer legal so it doesn't really have any relevance. Likewise, stealing isn't legal. TE>VI>I consider AH to be play. I don't want to do legal research for any TE>VI>responses to AH because for me to do so would transform AH into a TE>VI>worklike AND unpleasant activity. TE>And there's nothing wrong with that! Although it's too bad because it TE>sounds like you don't enjoy your work, and that's always a sad thing to TE>hear. I personally enjoy looking up scientific or medical type stuff in TE>reference to things I type here, because I'm also learning in the TE>process. I enjoy some parts of my work and dislike others. Legal research is definetly something I dislike--although I enjoyed doing research in college. Date: Wednesday, January 7, 1998 4:57am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 744393 To: ** ALL ** Re: Bisexuality (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #743498, Reply to #743481, Rep*) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>By the way, I don't agree with Steve on thi SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>us it is more or less choose how we act upo SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Actions and orientations are two seperate issu SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>That goes without saying. I just think it smacks SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>g/l/b people argue that they "can't help being ga SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I never said I can't help being gay, but rather I di SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>it is simply how I am SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I'm sure that's what you believe. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>But I will give you the other reason why I don't like s SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>people don't choose being 'queer". It lets "straight p SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>hook when you do so. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I believe that one of the main origins of homophobia is SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>homoerotic impulses of the homophobe. In every case I SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>if you scractch a homophobe you will find a repressed q SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Conversely, could I be a repressed straight? The advocates SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>therapy would have you believe I was. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Actually, you may be a repressed bi. I think that's the natu SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>for most people. :) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I can honestly say that I absolutely no straight/bi feelings or SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>thoughts. SF>VI>SF>VI>Can you honestly say that you have NEVER been sexually attracted to SF>VI>SF>VI>female once in your life? SF>VI>SF>Wether you wish to believe me or not, the answer is an absolute NEVER. SF>VI>If that's what you say then why should I doubt you? SF>Based upon your statement that you believe that everyone is essentially SF>bisexual. I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If I had to guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is purely gay or lesbian (meaning they are only attracted to members of the same sex), 10% are purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to members of the opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population that feels sexually attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually ACT on those attractions, mainly because of the effects of homophobia. Date: Thursday, January 8, 1998 11:46am Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 744395 To: ** ALL ** Re: So are we equal? (Fw by Calvin, Reply to #743592, Reply to #743563, Reply*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>KK>I think your statement is silly! VI>KK>I guess if one likes having sex with children, or with animals then you VI>KK>claim they were born that way as well? VI>KK>The part I find silly is that you really believe that everyone was VI>KK>created equally. VI>How can you deny that everyone was created equally? Doesn't the Bible VI>say that we are created in G*d's image? What you should have asked first was what I mean by equally :-) Do women have a penis? Do men have a vagina? Is everyone born with two arms, two legs, etc... The above is not open to argument. At least I don't think so. In the same vein, I feel that mentally and emotionally not all people were created equally. By that I mean if you were to select two individual and try your best to raise them the same way and treat them the same way they would not necessarily end up the same way. I am attracted to women. I am not attracted to men. Steve on the other hand mentioned that he was never attracted..don't recall his exact words ...to women. So are we equal? This does in no way necessarily mean that we should be treated differently due to these differences. Date: Friday, January 9, 1998 2:01am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 744396 To: ** ALL ** Re: Kinsey (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #743598, Reply to #743590, Rep*) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>By the way, I don't agree with SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>us it is more or less choose ho SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Actions and orientations are two s SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>That goes without saying. I just thi SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>g/l/b people argue that they "can't h SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I never said I can't help being gay, but SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>it is simply how I am SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I'm sure that's what you believe. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>But I will give you the other reason why I SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>people don't choose being 'queer". It lets SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>hook when you do so. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I believe that one of the main origins of h SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>homoerotic impulses of the homophobe. In e SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>if you scractch a homophobe you will find a SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Conversely, could I be a repressed straight? T SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>therapy would have you believe I was. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Actually, you may be a repressed bi. I think tha SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>for most people. :) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I can honestly say that I absolutely no straight/bi SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>thoughts. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Can you honestly say that you have NEVER been sexually SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>female once in your life? SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Wether you wish to believe me or not, the answer is an abs SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>If that's what you say then why should I doubt you? SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Based upon your statement that you believe that everyone is esse SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>bisexual. SF>VI>SF>VI>I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If I had to SF>VI>SF>VI>guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is purely gay or le SF>VI>SF>VI>(meaning they are only attracted to members of the same sex), 10% a SF>VI>SF>VI>purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to members of the SF>VI>SF>VI>opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population that feels sexual SF>VI>SF>VI>attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually ACT on those SF>VI>SF>VI>attractions, mainly because of the effects of homophobia. SF>VI>SF>Interesting guesstimate, which conforms closely with the Kinsey theory SF>VI>Where do you think I came up with my guessestimate? :) SF>He had a rateing scale of 1-6, with 1 absolute straight and 6 absolute SF>gay. I have always thought of myself as a "Kinsey 6". Yes. And I think the rating scale was pretty acurate. I can't remember the precise breakdown as to what number means what. I figure that I am more lesbian than heteo but that I obviously don't qualify as a Kinsey 6. Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 6:20pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 744405 To: Kkid Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744395, Fw by Calvin, Reply to #743592, Reply*) (1 reply) KK>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- KK>TO: Vida KK>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- KK>VI>KK>I think your statement is silly! KK>VI>KK>I guess if one likes having sex with children, or with animals then yo KK>VI>KK>claim they were born that way as well? KK>VI>KK>The part I find silly is that you really believe that everyone was KK>VI>KK>created equally. KK>VI>How can you deny that everyone was created equally? Doesn't the Bible KK>VI>say that we are created in G*d's image? KK>What you should have asked first was what I mean by equally :-) KK>Do women have a penis? KK>Do men have a vagina? KK>Is everyone born with two arms, two legs, etc... KK>The above is not open to argument. At least I don't think so. KK>In the same vein, I feel that mentally and emotionally not all people KK>were created equally. By that I mean if you were to select two KK>individual and try your best to raise them the same way and treat them KK>the same way they would not necessarily end up the same way. KK>I am attracted to women. I am not attracted to men. Steve on the other KK>hand mentioned that he was never attracted..don't recall his exact words KK>...to women. So are we equal? Of course we are equal! I don't deny that women are born with vaginas and that men are born with penises. That would be denying the obvious. But so what? I think we might be caught up in a semantic argument here. Of course, different individuals have different characteristics and traits. Some people are born more athethetic than others. Try as I might, I could never do what Micheal Jordan does, nor could I do what Martina Navolitova did when she was a younger woman. Some people are born with more artistic talents, some with more intelligence, etc., etc. But I do believe that each human being is born equal in that we are ALL born in the divine image. KK>This does in no way necessarily mean that we should be treated KK>differently due to these differences. That's exactly MY point! :) :) :) Date: Sunday, February 1, 1998 2:08pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 744410 To: Vida Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744405, Reply to #744395, Fw by Calvin, Reply*) (1 reply) VI>people are born more athethetic than others. Try as I might, I could VI>never do what Micheal Jordan does, nor could I do what Martina VI>Navolitova did when she was a younger woman. Some people are born with VI>more artistic talents, some with more intelligence, etc., etc. But I VI>do believe that each human being is born equal in that we are ALL born VI>in the divine image. VI>KK>This does in no way necessarily mean that we should be treated VI>KK>differently due to these differences. VI>That's exactly MY point! :) :) :) Really? You should not be treated differently? You mean they should or they should not sign you up to play opposite Michael Jordan? Sure we were all born in the divine image. So what? That will not get me a job as an astrophysicist! Date: Sunday, February 1, 1998 7:04pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 744413 To: Kkid Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744410, Reply to #744405, Reply to #744395, F*) (1 reply) KK>VI>people are born more athethetic than others. Try as I might, I could KK>VI>never do what Micheal Jordan does, nor could I do what Martina KK>VI>Navolitova did when she was a younger woman. Some people are born with KK>VI>more artistic talents, some with more intelligence, etc., etc. But I KK>VI>do believe that each human being is born equal in that we are ALL born KK>VI>in the divine image. KK>VI>KK>This does in no way necessarily mean that we should be treated KK>VI>KK>differently due to these differences. KK>VI>That's exactly MY point! :) :) :) KK>Really? You should not be treated differently? You mean they should or KK>they should not sign you up to play opposite Michael Jordan? Sure we KK>were all born in the divine image. So what? That will not get me a job KK>as an astrophysicist! In terms of qualification for different jobs, then the job has to go to the most qualified person. What I object to is any "class based" distinction. You can't say that all women are only qualified to do this, all black people are qualified to do that. Each person has to be evaluated as an individual, according to his/her own unique skills, abilities and talents. Date: Monday, February 2, 1998 6:52pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 744435 To: Vida Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744413, Reply to #744410, Reply to #744405, R*) (1 reply) VI>KK>VI>That's exactly MY point! :) :) :) VI>KK>Really? You should not be treated differently? You mean they should or VI>KK>they should not sign you up to play opposite Michael Jordan? Sure we VI>KK>were all born in the divine image. So what? That will not get me a job VI>KK>as an astrophysicist! VI> In terms of qualification for different jobs, then the job has to go VI>to the most qualified person. What I object to is any "class based" VI>distinction. You can't say that all women are only qualified to do VI>this, all black people are qualified to do that. Each person has to be VI>evaluated as an individual, according to his/her own unique skills, VI>abilities and talents. I'd agree with you on that but then you'd come up with the big BUT... and qualify your statement so that it will fit in with affirmative action :-) Date: Tuesday, February 3, 1998 6:41am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 744447 To: Kkid Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744435, Reply to #744413, Reply to #744410, R*) (1 reply) KK>VI>KK>VI>That's exactly MY point! :) :) :) KK>VI>KK>Really? You should not be treated differently? You mean they should or KK>VI>KK>they should not sign you up to play opposite Michael Jordan? Sure we KK>VI>KK>were all born in the divine image. So what? That will not get me a job KK>VI>KK>as an astrophysicist! KK>VI> In terms of qualification for different jobs, then the job has to go KK>VI>to the most qualified person. What I object to is any "class based" KK>VI>distinction. You can't say that all women are only qualified to do KK>VI>this, all black people are qualified to do that. Each person has to be KK>VI>evaluated as an individual, according to his/her own unique skills, KK>VI>abilities and talents. KK>I'd agree with you on that but then you'd come up with the big BUT... KK>and qualify your statement so that it will fit in with affirmative KK>action :-) Of course I support affirmative action may friend. It's call leveling the playing field. Date: Monday, February 9, 1998 8:47pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 744603 To: Vida Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744447, Reply to #744435, Reply to #744413, R*) (1 reply) VI>KK>VI> In terms of qualification for different jobs, then the job has to go VI>KK>VI>to the most qualified person. What I object to is any "class based" VI>KK>VI>distinction. You can't say that all women are only qualified to do VI>KK>VI>this, all black people are qualified to do that. Each person has to b VI>KK>VI>evaluated as an individual, according to his/her own unique skills, VI>KK>VI>abilities and talents. VI>KK>I'd agree with you on that but then you'd come up with the big BUT... VI>KK>and qualify your statement so that it will fit in with affirmative VI>KK>action :-) VI>Of course I support affirmative action may friend. It's call leveling VI>the playing field. And I call it reverse discrimination. Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 6:24am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 744611 To: Kkid Re: So are we equal? (Reply to #744603, Reply to #744447, Reply to #744435, R*) KK>VI>KK>VI> In terms of qualification for different jobs, then the job has to KK>VI>KK>VI>to the most qualified person. What I object to is any "class based KK>VI>KK>VI>distinction. You can't say that all women are only qualified to do KK>VI>KK>VI>this, all black people are qualified to do that. Each person has t KK>VI>KK>VI>evaluated as an individual, according to his/her own unique skills, KK>VI>KK>VI>abilities and talents. KK>VI>KK>I'd agree with you on that but then you'd come up with the big BUT... KK>VI>KK>and qualify your statement so that it will fit in with affirmative KK>VI>KK>action :-) KK>VI>Of course I support affirmative action may friend. It's call leveling KK>VI>the playing field. KK>And I call it reverse discrimination. You say to-mate-toe and I say ta-mat-toe. :) Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 1:57am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745688 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #738607, Reply to #738568, Reply to #738482, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>How is that? Tell me EXACTLY, step by step, what can po VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>about this, to prevent this situation, by a person like VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>We can organize. We can protest. We can write our congre VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>our President demanding that we disarm all nuclear weapons VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>There's lots we could do. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> We can send them our home addresses and other pertinent in VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>so they can more effectively follow our movements as stated t VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>their decrees, sure, and we can mill in groups so as better t VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>arrested easily as well. We can also type letters on paper an VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>them locally and eliminate the waste of diesel fuel on the pa VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>US Postal Service in terms of delivery. There are many things VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>do... VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>If there's a nuclear war then we won't have to worry about them VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>on us. We'll all be dead. So it depends on your point of view VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>what's the greater threat. VI>TE>VI>TE>We won't all be dead, death isn't the major problem of nuclear weap VI>TE>VI>TE>It's the aftereffects that suck. VI>TE>VI>For some of these aftereffects we would probably just be better off VI>TE>VI>being dead. :( VI>TE>There is always the option of going away to another part of the world VI>TE>that is unaffected. VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen it VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a VI>massive nuke war. I've never seen it or even heard of it actually, but either way I wouldn't trust a movie as a source of any kind of facts... Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 2:22am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745689 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #738608, Reply to #738569, Reply to #738483, R*) (2 replies) VVI>TE>But in any case, though, it is natural for us to use our frontal lobes VI>TE>to manipulate biology, because if it wasn't natural, then we wouldn't VI>TE>have this incredible brain power in the first place. Same as us walking VI>TE>upright because we are bipedal, us picking things up because we have VI>TE>opposable thumbs, etc. It's all due to nature, including our brain. VI>But then we use your brains to make permanent and lasting changes to VI>the natural environment...some to ourselves, some to the world. And what's wrong with that? Changes can be good or bad. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's good. VI>TE>VI>TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly trapped VI>TE>VI>TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things as gene VI>TE>VI>TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will be to VI>TE>VI>TE>great extent trapped by our biology. VI>TE>VI>On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current ability to VI>TE>VI>raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology VI>TE>VI>increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponentally. VI>TE>Why do you think that our current ability to rise above our biology is VI>TE>so great? Did you know that common emotional processes, such as getting VI>TE>angry/hostile, falling in love, and feeling depressed have all been VI>TE>traced down to specific chemical reactions in the brain? Knowing that, VI>TE>how can you still think that we are so detached from our own biology? VI>Look at biofeedback then. And mediation. We humans can and do VI>manipulate our emotional processes and effect our own biochemistry in VI>the process. I think that the percentage of people in the world who can manipulate their emotional processes to that large an extent, and that successfully, is very small! Although some people have mastered these things, as a race we humans cannot yet manipulate our emotions very effectively at all. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Unless you are dealing with actual physical violence you have to VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>whether an act is masochistic in accordance with cultural standa VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>What is beign in one cultural setting may be symbolic violence i VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>another. VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, I have NEVER, EVER heard of leg-shaving as symbolic violence! VI>TE>VI>TE>is simply too strange of a concept! VI>TE>VI>Within Western culture, I submit it is an act of symbolic female VI>TE>VI>castration. If you want to label that as symbolic violence, then you VI>TE>VI>may. VI>TE>Leg-shaving is SYMBOLIC FEMALE CASTRATION?!?!?! Are you serious??? VI>TE>I can't even argue against this concept, because it is simply too damn VI>TE>strange!!! I don't want to be offensive, but this concept is simply VI>TE>ludicrous, shaving body hair off is not even in the same realm as VI>TE>castration of any sort! VI>Yes, I am serious. And I use the term "castration" to refer to the VI>loss of power, strength, sexuality, adulthood. Can you please explain to me EXACTLY how shaving one's hair makes one lose power, strength, sexuality, and adulthood? VI>TE>VI>TE>Okay, in this case, yeah. :) But it still doesn't explain the VI>TE>VI>TE>connection of body hair to strength! VI>TE>VI>Samson was strong so long as he did not shave his hair. That's the VI>TE>VI>connection. VI>TE>Samson was strong so long as he did not shave the hair on his HEAD. And VI>TE>the connection to body hair here is...? VI>Actually I am not so sure if it his strength came specifically from not VI>shaving the hair on his head. It could have been not shaving period. Well, in any case, I don't see what a Biblical story has to do with modern-day shaving practices! Furthermore, you seem to be using this story to try and prove that women lose strength, etc. from shaving their legs, etc. However, the most powerful men (company CEO's, etc.) as a rule are clean-shaven. So none of this correlates at all. VI>TE>Since you're using the Samson and Delilah story to illustrate whatever VI>TE>connection there is between hair and strength in our culture, then it VI>TE>looks like women are stronger than men, and hippies are stronger than VI>TE>any of us! VI>Now you are the one who is being silly, silly, silly! Hey, my statement was a logical conclusion from YOUR original statement! If an original statement is silly, so the conclusion will be as well! Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 2:24am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745690 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #738609, Reply to #738570, Reply to #738484, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>I was wondering if I should apply for membership, but I don't reall VI>TE>VI>TE>think that I'm a heartless bitch, although I admire heartless bitch VI>TE>VI>I must admit that there are times when I wish I could be a heartless VI>TE>VI>bitch. VI>TE>Yup... I know if I was a heartless bitch, it would have saved me quite a VI>TE>bit of agony in the past... VI>And probably a lot of agony in the future. :( Hopefully not! I seem to have finally found a man who appreciates a non-bitch :) Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 2:35am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745691 To: Vida Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #738610, Reply to #738571, Reply to #738485, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>I wrote it correctly, but I'll try to state it differently. VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals do not have culture. VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals possess language. VI>TE>YOUR STATEMENT: Language was shaped by cultural forces, which I VI>TE>interpret to mean that culture created language. VI>TE>MY QUESTION: The two givens are facts. Given that they are facts, how VI>TE>can your statement be possible? In other words: you are saying that VI>TE>language exists because of cultural forces. But animals HAVE NO cultural VI>TE>forces, so how is it possible that they have language? VI>Simple, I do not believe that animals have language in the same sense VI>that humans have language. VI>Only humans have great enough of a cognitive capacity to write VI>literature, formulate laws, sing songs. Animal communication is much VI>more rudimentary than human language--indeed, I would submit that it VI>is gross inaccuracy to refer to animal language. Then we have very different definitions of language. First of all, our ability to write literature, formulate laws, and sing songs does is NOT purely a result of our cognitive capacity. We can do these things because we have hands to write with, and vocal cords to sing with. Even if animals had the cognitive capacity to do these things (and maybe some do... dolphins maybe?) they would not be able to because they don't have thumbs, etc. Secondly, literature, songs, etc. are not language - they are a RESULT of language. Here's an analogy: language is raw meat, literature is cheeseburgers. So what you're saying is akin to saying that animals don't have food because they don't have the capacity to make cheeseburgers! So, in essence, animal communication may be rudimentary, but it is language nevertheless. After all, we humans communicated just as rudimentarily for 99% of our existence! Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:03am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745692 To: Dti Re: Strap on's (Reply to #739068, Reply to #738459, Reply to #738290, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>TE>Thank you, thank you!! Hey, reality is what it is. DT>TE>DT> ...and if we lived there, we would be home now... >9# DT>TE>But we are home now, so I guess we live in reality... and when we are DT>TE>not home, then we are not home, so I guess when we're not home then we DT>TE>are not living in reality... right? DT> Nah, reality usually is something that one only faintly glimpses over DT>a long distance separated by property lines because most of the time the DT>reality on this side of the fence is unbelievable and at times DT>repulsive. That is the real basic reason why the chicken crossed the DT>road, and why I want you to cross the road with me once one of us DT>manages to suss out which road to cross and in what direction. DT>Everything else is deniable unless its good... >9* Well, we are in a reality now although we hate to admit it because it is a fairly disgusting reality at times... so all we need to do is seek the services of a realitor, to guide us to the proper reality, although there are many different realities in many corners of the world, and after all these months neither of us has yet sussed out in which direction our reality next lies, but whatever the case we need to unglue ourselves from this one... So that we can really krazy glue ourselves together... >:) >;* Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:06am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745693 To: Dti Re: a (Reply to #739069, Reply to #738460, Reply to #738291, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>TE>And are you going to work on some more of my skin for the occasion? DT>TE>DT>TE> :) DT>TE>DT> Sure, what the fuck: I'll be on vacay in the middle of August this DT>TE>DT>year, we can ride up onto the boardwalk on the Duk so's you can hop of DT>TE>DT>the back and show off yr PROPERTY OF JEEZIZ H KHRIST tat, the one that DT>TE>DT>is about to magically appear on the right cheek of your lovely ass... DT>TE>DT>>9# DT>TE>OH!!! Oh, Shit! Stoppit, you are making me leak >:) DT> Leak?! DT> Save that fluid, it may come in handy later on. Pure bodily fluids DT>are increasingly rare in these late 20th century times ya know, you DT>could originate a new flavour for Arizona now that they have gotten away DT>from the basic Iced Tea Concept >9# Arizona Iced Tea is basically what I leak, although I leak Snapple Iced Tea as well... that's why my leakage is so good for you, one lick and you get your Green Tea supplement for the day... >:) Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:12am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745694 To: Dti Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #739070, Reply to #738461, Reply to #738292, R*) (1 reply) DDT>TE>Okay then, let's talk about Reality, my favorite topic. DT>TE>What the fuck IS reality?! DT> Reality is at best an agreed upon plot or storyform which in some DT>instances may even be supported by the testaments and stated theories DT>of uninterested witnesses. All else is hearsay at the most, and bald DT>horseshit at some lower level of discourse. DT> In the middle, where the vast majority of reality work occurs, DT>reality is simply what you, the believer, thinks has happened or is DT>happening, without interference of agreed story line or base obvious you, the judge of yr reality> horseshit. Reality is ONLY what you, the believer, thinks is happening RIGHT NOW. What you, the believer, thinks has happened in the past is no longer reality. The past is merely a memory for said believer; a collection of neurons connected in a specific way, in such a way as to create a memory for the believer to think that it WAS reality at some point... no more real than the memory of a dream. Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:16am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745695 To: Dti Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #739072, Reply to #738463, Reply to #738313, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> Sure. Nine in One is the same thing as 3 in One spread across the DT>TE>DT>normally understood three holes is all. Say to yrself: I think I can I DT>TE>DT>think I can I think I can... DT>TE>Bahahahahhaahhhahhaahhhhh shit! Okay, so it's Nine in Three, not Nine in DT>TE>One, and Nine in Three is the same thing as Three in One. I think I can, DT>TE>but it would be some pretty interesting painnnn... >:) DT> You would recover, I would make goddamn sure you would... >9* I always recover, as long as you're still right there with me throughout and when it's all over, I recover... ;* ;* ;* Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:18am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745696 To: Dti Re: Precious text (Reply to #739116, Reply to #738760) (1 reply) DDT> Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left there... Big deal! They got helmet laws here and no one at the bike/tattoo thing in Coney Island wears helmets! Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:19am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745697 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #739120, Reply to #739065, Reply to #738438, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>DT> Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we might be l VI>DT>VI>DT>in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are shall VI>DT>VI>DT>say, in flux this summer heh... VI>DT>VI>Gosh, I hope and pray that things are not that much in flex for you!!! VI>DT>VI>And hopefully, if all goes well, Bob and I will be there that night. VI>DT> O it is not some evil arghful shitthing, it is a Good Thing indeed VI>DT>actually, just the details to be worked out in regards to where we live VI>DT>together. The Parachute Jump in Coney is prolly too far out by MTA or VI>DT>actual roads to be a real contender but there are lotsa possibilities VI>DT>open as of this time long as we got lotsa room and m/c access and a VI>DT>subway fairly close by pretty much... VI>DT>--- VI>Does this mean that you are planning to move in with Tempest? If so, VI>I wish you both well? :) That is what it means, but we still haven't been able to yet! Argh. Thanks for the good wishes though! Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:21am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745698 To: Vida Re: Precious text (Reply to #739123, Reply to #739116, Reply to #738760) (2 replies) VVI>DT> Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left there... VI>DT>--- VI>And it's a good thing. :) No it's not! Helmets really suck sometimes when it's really hot in the summer... Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:39am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745699 To: Sam Beckett Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #739906, Reply to #738569, Reply to #738483, R*) SB>Here's a question for all you reality people out there... SB>Why is it that with all of the racial/sexual tensions in the world, we SB>still laugh at and encourage outdated stereotypes on TV and in the SB>movies? Dont you think by now we would have learned that they are not SB>appropriate? For examples I point to Urkel on "Family Matters" and the SB>daughter and mother on Married with Children. Any ideas? Because those stereotypes are FUNNY! Why take it seriously? It's humour! Lighten up! Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 3:51am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745700 To: Vida Re: The difference between work and play (Reply to #741592, Reply to #741538, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) VVI>TE>VI>The main difference between work and play as I see it is that work is VI>TE>VI>compulsory. You have to do a job function, or you will lose your job, VI>TE>VI>whether you like it or not. With play, you do things you LIKE to do VI>TE>VI>and you REFUSE to do things you don't like to do. VI>TE>It's not that black-and-white. For example: let's say that you really VI>TE>enjoy playing the piano. But the part you hate is trying to learn a new VI>TE>piece. But you drill it for hours, even though you hate doing that, and VI>TE>it gets you frustrated, but nevertheless you do it because you just love VI>TE>play the piano. So is that work or play? VI>If you are a professional musican, it's work. If you are an ameuter, VI>it is play. How do you figure? Both the professional and the amateur have to work hard to learn a piece. VI>TE>VI>TE>You just contradicted yourself! Above, you stated that you don't wa VI>TE>VI>TE>answer legal questions on AH because it's *work.* In the second VI>TE>VI>TE>paragraph you define work as being something for which you get rewa VI>TE>VI>TE>financially. But you don't get rewarded financially for answering l VI>TE>VI>TE>questions on AH, so by your definition, it's NOT work! It sounds mo VI>TE>VI>TE>like you define "work" as being "doing something you don't like." W VI>TE>VI>TE>is not a proper definition! VI>TE>VI>I don't see that I am contradicting myself. VI>TE>VI>AH is not work because I receive no financial reward for what I write VI>TE>VI>on AH. VI>TE>You are contradicting yourself again, because you keep changing your VI>TE>definition of work. Above, you stated that work is work because it is VI>TE>compulsory. Down here, you state that work is work because you get a VI>TE>financial reward. Those are two different definitions. Compulsion and VI>TE>financial reward are independent of each other. They can occur at the VI>TE>same time, or one without the other. VI>TE>Using examples, this means that: VI>TE>1) Slavery (an example of compulsion without financial reward) is work VI>TE>by your definition #1 BUT NOT by your definition #2. VI>TE>and VI>TE>2) Theft (an example of financial reward without compulsion) is work VI>TE>by your definition #2 BUT NOT by your definition #1. VI>TE>Where is the logic in this? VI>TE>And don't tell me that you don't need logic to argue :) VI>Didn't I answer you on this point earlier? In your answer, you contradicted yourself. That's why I'm asking for you to clear up your previous answer! VI>Don't bring slavery into the argument, it's no longer legal so it VI>doesn't really have any relevance. Likewise, stealing isn't legal. Why shouldn't I use slavery and thievery as examples?! So what if they're illegal?! That doesn't mean they aren't real things out of real life that could be used as examples! I don't see what relevance legality/illegality has to this topic! VI>I enjoy some parts of my work and dislike others. Legal research is VI>definetly something I dislike--although I enjoyed doing research in VI>college. Eh, I always considered research to be a pain in the ass - although by research I mean spending hours/days at the library, etc. It's pleasant for me to simply look something up quickly in one of my books though. Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:25am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745717 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745688, Reply to #738607, Reply to #738568, R*) (2 replies) Tp TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen it TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a TE>VI>massive nuke war. TE>I've never seen it or even heard of it actually, but either way I TE>wouldn't trust a movie as a source of any kind of facts... Of course, movies are not a source of fact. They are fiction. But there are some really good, strong "message movies" that make a political point. If you watch these movies, really watch them, they effect your thinking. They can reach you in a way that just reading about a problem or even listening to a person speak about the problem can never do. "On the Beach" is that kind of movie. It's available on tape and you can get it in any decent video store. And the Jew in me says see "Schneidler's List" to experince the horror of the Holocaust. Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:40am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745718 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745689, Reply to #738608, Reply to #738569, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>But in any case, though, it is natural for us to use our frontal lobe TE>VI>TE>to manipulate biology, because if it wasn't natural, then we wouldn't TE>VI>TE>have this incredible brain power in the first place. Same as us walkin TE>VI>TE>upright because we are bipedal, us picking things up because we have TE>VI>TE>opposable thumbs, etc. It's all due to nature, including our brain. TE>VI>But then we use your brains to make permanent and lasting changes to TE>VI>the natural environment...some to ourselves, some to the world. TE>And what's wrong with that? Changes can be good or bad. Just because TE>something is natural, doesn't mean it's good. That goes without saying. The problem is that we humans are not able to forsee all of the consequences of our technological changes in advance. Every major technological/scientific advance has unforseen consequences. For example, I believe that my computer addiction has reduced my concentration ability--I suffer from information information because of my addiction to internet e mail lists and the WWW. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly trapp TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things as g TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will be TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>great extent trapped by our biology. TE>VI>TE>VI>On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current ability TE>VI>TE>VI>raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology TE>VI>TE>VI>increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponentally. TE>VI>TE>Why do you think that our current ability to rise above our biology is TE>VI>TE>so great? Did you know that common emotional processes, such as gettin TE>VI>TE>angry/hostile, falling in love, and feeling depressed have all been TE>VI>TE>traced down to specific chemical reactions in the brain? Knowing that, TE>VI>TE>how can you still think that we are so detached from our own biology? TE>VI>Look at biofeedback then. And mediation. We humans can and do TE>VI>manipulate our emotional processes and effect our own biochemistry in TE>VI>the process. Good point. I have been thinking that when I start going through menopause (which I anticipate will start to kick in for me within the next 5 years) that I may try biofeedback and/or mediation to help manage the symptoms. I am thicking of trying acunpture and Chinese herbal medicine too. :) TE>I think that the percentage of people in the world who can manipulate TE>their emotional processes to that large an extent, and that TE>successfully, is very small! Although some people have mastered these TE>things, as a race we humans cannot yet manipulate our emotions very TE>effectively at all. That's because most of us don't really try. And most of us don't want to try. If you can manipulate your emotions than you have to take responsibility for being depressed. Speaking strictly for me, sometimes I just wallowing in self pity. Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:43am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745719 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #745690, Reply to #738609, Reply to #738570, R*) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>I was wondering if I should apply for membership, but I don't r TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>think that I'm a heartless bitch, although I admire heartless bi TE>VI>TE>VI>I must admit that there are times when I wish I could be a heartles TE>VI>TE>VI>bitch. TE>VI>TE>Yup... I know if I was a heartless bitch, it would have saved me quite TE>VI>TE>bit of agony in the past... TE>VI>And probably a lot of agony in the future. :( TE>Hopefully not! I seem to have finally found a man who appreciates a TE>non-bitch :) Me too! :) :) :) Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:45am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745720 To: Tempest Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #745691, Reply to #738610, Reply to #738571, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>I wrote it correctly, but I'll try to state it differently. TE>VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals do not have culture. TE>VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals possess language. TE>VI>TE>YOUR STATEMENT: Language was shaped by cultural forces, which I TE>VI>TE>interpret to mean that culture created language. TE>VI>TE>MY QUESTION: The two givens are facts. Given that they are facts, how TE>VI>TE>can your statement be possible? In other words: you are saying that TE>VI>TE>language exists because of cultural forces. But animals HAVE NO cultur TE>VI>TE>forces, so how is it possible that they have language? TE>VI>Simple, I do not believe that animals have language in the same sense TE>VI>that humans have language. TE>VI>Only humans have great enough of a cognitive capacity to write TE>VI>literature, formulate laws, sing songs. Animal communication is much TE>VI>more rudimentary than human language--indeed, I would submit that it TE>VI>is gross inaccuracy to refer to animal language. TE>Then we have very different definitions of language. TE>First of all, our ability to write literature, formulate laws, and sing TE>songs does is NOT purely a result of our cognitive capacity. We can do TE>these things because we have hands to write with, and vocal cords to TE>sing with. Even if animals had the cognitive capacity to do these things TE>(and maybe some do... dolphins maybe?) they would not be able to because TE>they don't have thumbs, etc. TE>Secondly, literature, songs, etc. are not language - they are a RESULT TE>of language. Here's an analogy: language is raw meat, literature is TE>cheeseburgers. So what you're saying is akin to saying that animals TE>don't have food because they don't have the capacity to make TE>cheeseburgers! TE>So, in essence, animal communication may be rudimentary, but it is TE>language nevertheless. After all, we humans communicated just as TE>rudimentarily for 99% of our existence! True enough. And I frequently believe that my dog Sasha understands every word I say and every word Bob says. :) Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:49am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745721 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #745697, Reply to #739120, Reply to #739065, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>DT>VI>DT> Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we might b TE>VI>DT>VI>DT>in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are sh TE>VI>DT>VI>DT>say, in flux this summer heh... TE>VI>DT>VI>Gosh, I hope and pray that things are not that much in flex for you TE>VI>DT>VI>And hopefully, if all goes well, Bob and I will be there that night TE>VI>DT> O it is not some evil arghful shitthing, it is a Good Thing indeed TE>VI>DT>actually, just the details to be worked out in regards to where we liv TE>VI>DT>together. The Parachute Jump in Coney is prolly too far out by MTA or TE>VI>DT>actual roads to be a real contender but there are lotsa possibilities TE>VI>DT>open as of this time long as we got lotsa room and m/c access and a TE>VI>DT>subway fairly close by pretty much... TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>Does this mean that you are planning to move in with Tempest? If so, TE>VI>I wish you both well? :) TE>That is what it means, but we still haven't been able to yet! Argh. TE>Thanks for the good wishes though! Well hopefully soon! :) Be sure to give Adam a hug from me tonite. :) Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:50am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745722 To: Tempest Re: Precious text (Reply to #745698, Reply to #739123, Reply to #739116, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>DT> Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left there... TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>And it's a good thing. :) TE>No it's not! Helmets really suck sometimes when it's really hot in the TE>summer... Yes. But think of how horrible it would be to suffer serious brain injury from NOT wearing a helmet. Date: Tuesday, April 7, 1998 4:00am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745753 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745717, Reply to #745688, Reply to #738607, R*) (1 reply) VI>Tp VI>TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen it VI>TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a VI>TE>VI>massive nuke war. VI>TE>I've never seen it or even heard of it actually, but either way I VI>TE>wouldn't trust a movie as a source of any kind of facts... VI>Of course, movies are not a source of fact. They are fiction. But VI>there are some really good, strong "message movies" that make a VI>political point. If you watch these movies, really watch them, they VI>effect your thinking. They can reach you in a way that just reading VI>about a problem or even listening to a person speak about the problem VI>can never do. VI>"On the Beach" is that kind of movie. It's available on tape and you VI>can get it in any decent video store. And the Jew in me says see VI>"Schneidler's List" to experince the horror of the Holocaust. I would like to see both of those movies. In fact, I have been wanting to see Schindler's List ever since it came out, but haven't gotten around to it yet. However, I consider movies to be pure entertainment. I cannot experience the horror of the Holocaust, EVER, because I wasn't there. No matter how good or factual the movie is. I wasn't there. I don't want movies to affect my thinking. My thinking is my own; not Hollywood's. If I let movies, or TV, or whatever media of that sort affect my thinking, then I will be just like all the other media zombies in this country, and that is something I will never let happen to me. Date: Tuesday, April 7, 1998 6:15am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745757 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745753, Reply to #745717, Reply to #745688, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>Tp TE>VI>TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen i TE>VI>TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a TE>VI>TE>VI>massive nuke war. TE>VI>TE>I've never seen it or even heard of it actually, but either way I TE>VI>TE>wouldn't trust a movie as a source of any kind of facts... TE>VI>Of course, movies are not a source of fact. They are fiction. But TE>VI>there are some really good, strong "message movies" that make a TE>VI>political point. If you watch these movies, really watch them, they TE>VI>effect your thinking. They can reach you in a way that just reading TE>VI>about a problem or even listening to a person speak about the problem TE>VI>can never do. TE>VI>"On the Beach" is that kind of movie. It's available on tape and you TE>VI>can get it in any decent video store. And the Jew in me says see TE>VI>"Schneidler's List" to experince the horror of the Holocaust. TE>I would like to see both of those movies. In fact, I have been wanting TE>to see Schindler's List ever since it came out, but haven't gotten TE>around to it yet. TE>However, I consider movies to be pure entertainment. I cannot experience TE>the horror of the Holocaust, EVER, because I wasn't there. No matter how TE>good or factual the movie is. I wasn't there. TE>I don't want movies to affect my thinking. My thinking is my own; not TE>Hollywood's. If I let movies, or TV, or whatever media of that sort TE>affect my thinking, then I will be just like all the other media zombies TE>in this country, and that is something I will never let happen to me. Rent "Schneidler's List" this weekend and then tell me what you think. And just remember the impact of the movie would have been even stronger if you watch the movie in a movie theater, rather than at home on video. Bob and I watched "A Night to Remember" on Sunday night and I think that this movie really makes you feel the tragedy of the Titanic. In many ways, it is a SUPERIOR movie to "Titanic" with Kate Winset, etc. I thought the whole love story in the new version of "Titanic" was "schmultz". (Literally "Chicken fat". Figuaratively, it means corny. I use the Yiddish term because it is stronger!) Date: Wednesday, April 8, 1998 4:06am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745769 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745718, Reply to #745689, Reply to #738608, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>But in any case, though, it is natural for us to use our frontal l VI>TE>VI>TE>to manipulate biology, because if it wasn't natural, then we wouldn VI>TE>VI>TE>have this incredible brain power in the first place. Same as us wal VI>TE>VI>TE>upright because we are bipedal, us picking things up because we hav VI>TE>VI>TE>opposable thumbs, etc. It's all due to nature, including our brain. VI>TE>VI>But then we use your brains to make permanent and lasting changes to VI>TE>VI>the natural environment...some to ourselves, some to the world. VI>TE>And what's wrong with that? Changes can be good or bad. Just because VI>TE>something is natural, doesn't mean it's good. VI>That goes without saying. VI>The problem is that we humans are not able to forsee all of the VI>consequences of our technological changes in advance. Every major VI>technological/scientific advance has unforseen consequences. For VI>example, I believe that my computer addiction has reduced my VI>concentration ability--I suffer from information information because of VI>my addiction to internet e mail lists and the WWW. VI> So what if we can't forsee the consequences of our technological changes in advance? We'll never know until we try! Until we come up with the technology to forsee the future, anyway... >:) I believe that your example is very poor. Are you saying that because you suffer from computer addiction, computers and the internet should never have been invented? If you are addicted to computers, that is too bad; I know how bad it is because my ex was a computer addict too! However, I don't believe that the rest of the world should suffer because of the addictions of a few (same reasoning goes for drug legalization for that matter). The technology is NOT the cause of your, or anyone else's, addiction. The addiction is purely yours, and for you to deal with, not for the technological innovators to deal with. Don't blame technology for a problem that is yours. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly tr VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such things a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we will VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>great extent trapped by our biology. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current abil VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponentally VI>TE>VI>TE>Why do you think that our current ability to rise above our biology VI>TE>VI>TE>so great? Did you know that common emotional processes, such as get VI>TE>VI>TE>angry/hostile, falling in love, and feeling depressed have all been VI>TE>VI>TE>traced down to specific chemical reactions in the brain? Knowing th VI>TE>VI>TE>how can you still think that we are so detached from our own biolog VI>TE>VI>Look at biofeedback then. And mediation. We humans can and do VI>TE>VI>manipulate our emotional processes and effect our own biochemistry in VI>TE>VI>the process. VI>Good point. I have been thinking that when I start going through VI>menopause (which I anticipate will start to kick in for me within the VI>next 5 years) that I may try biofeedback and/or mediation to help VI>manage the symptoms. I am thicking of trying acunpture and Chinese VI>herbal medicine too. :) Are you answering your own message?! :) I don't know much about biofeedback or acupuncture, however, meditation and herbal medicine are always a boon, no matter what! You don't have to wait for menopause to start those very healthy things! VI>TE>I think that the percentage of people in the world who can manipulate VI>TE>their emotional processes to that large an extent, and that VI>TE>successfully, is very small! Although some people have mastered these VI>TE>things, as a race we humans cannot yet manipulate our emotions very VI>TE>effectively at all. VI>That's because most of us don't really try. And most of us don't want VI>to try. If you can manipulate your emotions than you have to take VI>responsibility for being depressed. Speaking strictly for me, VI>sometimes I just wallowing in self pity. I don't think it's a matter of trying or not trying, or taking responsibility. Perhaps it is an individual thing. Some people tell me they have no problem manipulating their emotions naturally, however, I find it impossible. To tell you the truth, I think that those who say they manipulate their emotions are NOT really manipulating them; I think they're just repressing them. As for taking responsibility for being depressed; I can't see how one could take responsibility for something like that! That's like telling someone who has cancer to take responsibility for their having cancer. Depression is an illness, not a fleeting thought. Date: Wednesday, April 8, 1998 4:07am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745770 To: Vida Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #745720, Reply to #745691, Reply to #738610, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>I wrote it correctly, but I'll try to state it differently. VI>TE>VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals do not have culture. VI>TE>VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals possess language. VI>TE>VI>TE>YOUR STATEMENT: Language was shaped by cultural forces, which I VI>TE>VI>TE>interpret to mean that culture created language. VI>TE>VI>TE>MY QUESTION: The two givens are facts. Given that they are facts, h VI>TE>VI>TE>can your statement be possible? In other words: you are saying that VI>TE>VI>TE>language exists because of cultural forces. But animals HAVE NO cul VI>TE>VI>TE>forces, so how is it possible that they have language? VI>TE>VI>Simple, I do not believe that animals have language in the same sense VI>TE>VI>that humans have language. VI>TE>VI>Only humans have great enough of a cognitive capacity to write VI>TE>VI>literature, formulate laws, sing songs. Animal communication is much VI>TE>VI>more rudimentary than human language--indeed, I would submit that it VI>TE>VI>is gross inaccuracy to refer to animal language. VI>TE>Then we have very different definitions of language. VI>TE>First of all, our ability to write literature, formulate laws, and sing VI>TE>songs does is NOT purely a result of our cognitive capacity. We can do VI>TE>these things because we have hands to write with, and vocal cords to VI>TE>sing with. Even if animals had the cognitive capacity to do these things VI>TE>(and maybe some do... dolphins maybe?) they would not be able to because VI>TE>they don't have thumbs, etc. VI>TE>Secondly, literature, songs, etc. are not language - they are a RESULT VI>TE>of language. Here's an analogy: language is raw meat, literature is VI>TE>cheeseburgers. So what you're saying is akin to saying that animals VI>TE>don't have food because they don't have the capacity to make VI>TE>cheeseburgers! VI>TE>So, in essence, animal communication may be rudimentary, but it is VI>TE>language nevertheless. After all, we humans communicated just as VI>TE>rudimentarily for 99% of our existence! VI>True enough. And I frequently believe that my dog Sasha understands VI>every word I say and every word Bob says. :) Heh, I think the same thing about my cat! Date: Wednesday, April 8, 1998 6:05pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 745774 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745717, Reply to #745688, Reply to #738607, R*) (1 reply) VI>Tp VI>TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen it VI>TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a VI>TE>VI>massive nuke war. Instead of seeing the movie how about reading the book :-) Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 8:51am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745791 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745769, Reply to #745718, Reply to #745689, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>The problem is that we humans are not able to forsee all of the TE>VI>consequences of our technological changes in advance. Every major TE>VI>technological/scientific advance has unforseen consequences. For TE>VI>example, I believe that my computer addiction has reduced my TE>VI>concentration ability--I suffer from information information because of TE>VI>my addiction to internet e mail lists and the WWW. TE>VI> TE>So what if we can't forsee the consequences of our technological changes TE>in advance? We'll never know until we try! Until we come up with the TE>technology to forsee the future, anyway... >:) TE>I believe that your example is very poor. Are you saying that because TE>you suffer from computer addiction, computers and the internet should TE>never have been invented? Not at all. I love my computer addiction. :) All I am saying is that we should proceed with caution. Just remember for every technological improvement we make, there will be costs. And not all of the costs can be known in advance. TE>If you are addicted to computers, that is too bad; I know how bad it is TE>because my ex was a computer addict too! However, I don't believe that TE>the rest of the world should suffer because of the addictions of a few TE>(same reasoning goes for drug legalization for that matter). The TE>technology is NOT the cause of your, or anyone else's, addiction. The TE>addiction is purely yours, and for you to deal with, not for the TE>technological innovators to deal with. TE>Don't blame technology for a problem that is yours. I don't blame the technology. But the technology creates the possibility for my addiction. Nor do I believe that I am the only one who suffers from this problem. I think it is a fairly common one. I would say that most of the users here at AH probably suffer to some extent with computer addiction. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>To SOME extent, not to a great extent. We are still mostly TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>our biology. Until we have the technology to do such thing TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>manipulation, much more advanced brain surgery, etc. we wi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>great extent trapped by our biology. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>On that point you and I disagree. I think that our current a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>raise above our biology is very large. And as our technology TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>increases, our ability to transcend biology expands exponenta TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Why do you think that our current ability to rise above our biol TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>so great? Did you know that common emotional processes, such as TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>angry/hostile, falling in love, and feeling depressed have all b TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>traced down to specific chemical reactions in the brain? Knowing TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>how can you still think that we are so detached from our own bio TE>VI>TE>VI>Look at biofeedback then. And mediation. We humans can and do TE>VI>TE>VI>manipulate our emotional processes and effect our own biochemistry TE>VI>TE>VI>the process. TE>VI>Good point. I have been thinking that when I start going through TE>VI>menopause (which I anticipate will start to kick in for me within the TE>VI>next 5 years) that I may try biofeedback and/or mediation to help TE>VI>manage the symptoms. I am thicking of trying acunpture and Chinese TE>VI>herbal medicine too. :) TE>Are you answering your own message?! :) No I don't think so. I was talking to you. I frequently have beliefs that are not consistent with each other. I'm a complex gal. :) TE>I don't know much about biofeedback or acupuncture, however, meditation TE>and herbal medicine are always a boon, no matter what! You don't have to TE>wait for menopause to start those very healthy things! Yes, but who has the time or the money? Right now I am trying to juggle so much. My financial and time resources are frequently stretched to the outer limits. TE>VI>TE>I think that the percentage of people in the world who can manipulate TE>VI>TE>their emotional processes to that large an extent, and that TE>VI>TE>successfully, is very small! Although some people have mastered these TE>VI>TE>things, as a race we humans cannot yet manipulate our emotions very TE>VI>TE>effectively at all. TE>VI>That's because most of us don't really try. And most of us don't want TE>VI>to try. If you can manipulate your emotions than you have to take TE>VI>responsibility for being depressed. Speaking strictly for me, TE>VI>sometimes I just wallowing in self pity. TE>I don't think it's a matter of trying or not trying, or taking TE>responsibility. Perhaps it is an individual thing. Some people tell me TE>they have no problem manipulating their emotions naturally, however, I TE>find it impossible. To tell you the truth, I think that those who say TE>they manipulate their emotions are NOT really manipulating them; I think TE>they're just repressing them. TE>As for taking responsibility for being depressed; I can't see how one TE>could take responsibility for something like that! That's like telling TE>someone who has cancer to take responsibility for their having cancer. TE>Depression is an illness, not a fleeting thought. I'm not talking about clinical depression. I am talking about feeling bad or blue. And I do believe we have control over our emotions and thoughts. That's why I say my prayers every day. :) Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 8:52am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745792 To: Tempest Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #745770, Reply to #745720, Reply to #745691, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>I wrote it correctly, but I'll try to state it differently. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals do not have culture. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>GIVEN: Animals possess language. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>YOUR STATEMENT: Language was shaped by cultural forces, which I TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>interpret to mean that culture created language. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>MY QUESTION: The two givens are facts. Given that they are facts TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>can your statement be possible? In other words: you are saying t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>language exists because of cultural forces. But animals HAVE NO TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>forces, so how is it possible that they have language? TE>VI>TE>VI>Simple, I do not believe that animals have language in the same sen TE>VI>TE>VI>that humans have language. TE>VI>TE>VI>Only humans have great enough of a cognitive capacity to write TE>VI>TE>VI>literature, formulate laws, sing songs. Animal communication is mu TE>VI>TE>VI>more rudimentary than human language--indeed, I would submit that TE>VI>TE>VI>is gross inaccuracy to refer to animal language. TE>VI>TE>Then we have very different definitions of language. TE>VI>TE>First of all, our ability to write literature, formulate laws, and sin TE>VI>TE>songs does is NOT purely a result of our cognitive capacity. We can do TE>VI>TE>these things because we have hands to write with, and vocal cords to TE>VI>TE>sing with. Even if animals had the cognitive capacity to do these thin TE>VI>TE>(and maybe some do... dolphins maybe?) they would not be able to becau TE>VI>TE>they don't have thumbs, etc. TE>VI>TE>Secondly, literature, songs, etc. are not language - they are a RESULT TE>VI>TE>of language. Here's an analogy: language is raw meat, literature is TE>VI>TE>cheeseburgers. So what you're saying is akin to saying that animals TE>VI>TE>don't have food because they don't have the capacity to make TE>VI>TE>cheeseburgers! TE>VI>TE>So, in essence, animal communication may be rudimentary, but it is TE>VI>TE>language nevertheless. After all, we humans communicated just as TE>VI>TE>rudimentarily for 99% of our existence! TE>VI>True enough. And I frequently believe that my dog Sasha understands TE>VI>every word I say and every word Bob says. :) TE>Heh, I think the same thing about my cat! Maybe we are both right. :) I have a cat also, and she looks at me with the most knowing eyes. :) Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 8:53am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745793 To: Kkid Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745774, Reply to #745717, Reply to #745688, R*) (1 reply) KK>VI>Tp KK>VI>TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't seen i KK>VI>TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by a KK>VI>TE>VI>massive nuke war. KK>Instead of seeing the movie how about reading the book :-) I have done both. Watching the movie for me was the more powerful experience. Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 2:04pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 745798 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745793, Reply to #745774, Reply to #745717, R*) (1 reply) VI>KK>VI>TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't see VI>KK>VI>TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected by VI>KK>VI>TE>VI>massive nuke war. VI>KK>Instead of seeing the movie how about reading the book :-) VI>I have done both. Watching the movie for me was the more powerful VI>experience. I seem to prefer a book to its movie. Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 3:09am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745808 To: Kkid Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745798, Reply to #745793, Reply to #745774, R*) KK>VI>KK>VI>TE>VI>Have you ever seen the movie "On the Beach"? If you haven't KK>VI>KK>VI>TE>VI>yet, then rent it! No part of the world would be uneffected KK>VI>KK>VI>TE>VI>massive nuke war. KK>VI>KK>Instead of seeing the movie how about reading the book :-) KK>VI>I have done both. Watching the movie for me was the more powerful KK>VI>experience. KK>I seem to prefer a book to its movie. Different strokes for different folks. :) Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:56pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745813 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #745721, Reply to #745697, Reply to #739120, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>DT> Well, watch for us in August, then. For all I know we migh VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>DT>in the base of the Parachute Jump by then, certain things are VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>DT>say, in flux this summer heh... VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>Gosh, I hope and pray that things are not that much in flex for VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>And hopefully, if all goes well, Bob and I will be there that ni VI>TE>VI>DT> O it is not some evil arghful shitthing, it is a Good Thing inde VI>TE>VI>DT>actually, just the details to be worked out in regards to where we VI>TE>VI>DT>together. The Parachute Jump in Coney is prolly too far out by MTA VI>TE>VI>DT>actual roads to be a real contender but there are lotsa possibiliti VI>TE>VI>DT>open as of this time long as we got lotsa room and m/c access and a VI>TE>VI>DT>subway fairly close by pretty much... VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>Does this mean that you are planning to move in with Tempest? If so, VI>TE>VI>I wish you both well? :) VI>TE>That is what it means, but we still haven't been able to yet! Argh. VI>TE>Thanks for the good wishes though! VI>Well hopefully soon! :) Be sure to give Adam a hug from me tonite. :) Yeah, hopefully soon. Life has been messy. I'll give him a hug from you :) Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:59pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745814 To: Vida Re: Precious text (Reply to #745722, Reply to #745698, Reply to #739123, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>DT> Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left there VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>And it's a good thing. :) VI>TE>No it's not! Helmets really suck sometimes when it's really hot in the VI>TE>summer... VI>Yes. But think of how horrible it would be to suffer serious brain VI>injury from NOT wearing a helmet. I probably wouldn't even notice, because it would probably kill me. It would be more horrible to suffer C-spine injury and quadriplegia for the rest of my life from wearing a helmet but of course no neck protection... Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 3:04pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745815 To: Vida Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745757, Reply to #745753, Reply to #745717, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>I would like to see both of those movies. In fact, I have been wanting VI>TE>to see Schindler's List ever since it came out, but haven't gotten VI>TE>around to it yet. VI>TE>However, I consider movies to be pure entertainment. I cannot experience VI>TE>the horror of the Holocaust, EVER, because I wasn't there. No matter how VI>TE>good or factual the movie is. I wasn't there. VI>TE>I don't want movies to affect my thinking. My thinking is my own; not VI>TE>Hollywood's. If I let movies, or TV, or whatever media of that sort VI>TE>affect my thinking, then I will be just like all the other media zombies VI>TE>in this country, and that is something I will never let happen to me. VI>Rent "Schneidler's List" this weekend and then tell me what you think. VI>And just remember the impact of the movie would have been even stronger VI>if you watch the movie in a movie theater, rather than at home on video. VI>Bob and I watched "A Night to Remember" on Sunday night and I think VI>that this movie really makes you feel the tragedy of the Titanic. In VI>many ways, it is a SUPERIOR movie to "Titanic" with Kate Winset, etc. VI>I thought the whole love story in the new version of "Titanic" was VI>"schmultz". (Literally "Chicken fat". Figuaratively, it means corny. VI>I use the Yiddish term because it is stronger!) I will rent Schindler's List at some point, I do want to see it. I liked Titanic actually, the love story and all. I liked it a lot. The death scene toward the end was very chilling. Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 3:23pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745816 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745791, Reply to #745769, Reply to #745718, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>The problem is that we humans are not able to forsee all of the VI>TE>VI>consequences of our technological changes in advance. Every major VI>TE>VI>technological/scientific advance has unforseen consequences. For VI>TE>VI>example, I believe that my computer addiction has reduced my VI>TE>VI>concentration ability--I suffer from information information because o VI>TE>VI>my addiction to internet e mail lists and the WWW. VI>TE>VI> VI>TE>So what if we can't forsee the consequences of our technological changes VI>TE>in advance? We'll never know until we try! Until we come up with the VI>TE>technology to forsee the future, anyway... >:) VI>TE>I believe that your example is very poor. Are you saying that because VI>TE>you suffer from computer addiction, computers and the internet should VI>TE>never have been invented? VI>Not at all. I love my computer addiction. :) VI>All I am saying is that we should proceed with caution. Just remember VI>for every technological improvement we make, there will be costs. And VI>not all of the costs can be known in advance. Of course! But we might as well proceed to innovate, if we never made technological innovations due to fear of costs, we would have still been living in caves! VI>TE>If you are addicted to computers, that is too bad; I know how bad it is VI>TE>because my ex was a computer addict too! However, I don't believe that VI>TE>the rest of the world should suffer because of the addictions of a few VI>TE>(same reasoning goes for drug legalization for that matter). The VI>TE>technology is NOT the cause of your, or anyone else's, addiction. The VI>TE>addiction is purely yours, and for you to deal with, not for the VI>TE>technological innovators to deal with. VI>TE>Don't blame technology for a problem that is yours. VI>I don't blame the technology. But the technology creates the VI>possibility for my addiction. Nor do I believe that I am the only one VI>who suffers from this problem. I think it is a fairly common one. I VI>would say that most of the users here at AH probably suffer to some VI>extent with computer addiction. :) VI> There are many things that create possibilities for addictions, whether it be technology or natural things like certain ahem plants, or food, or men, or whatever. The addicted person must deal with his/her own addiction; the object of addiction is not to blame. Yes, there are many computer-addicted people out there. I used to live with one! I've known people who have gotten divorced, lost jobs, and have gotten kicked out of school because of computer addictions. Well, this is a problem for those individuals to deal with, it is not an excuse to stop making+marketing computers! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Look at biofeedback then. And mediation. We humans can and do VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>manipulate our emotional processes and effect our own biochemist VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the process. VI>TE>VI>Good point. I have been thinking that when I start going through VI>TE>VI>menopause (which I anticipate will start to kick in for me within the VI>TE>VI>next 5 years) that I may try biofeedback and/or mediation to help VI>TE>VI>manage the symptoms. I am thicking of trying acunpture and Chinese VI>TE>VI>herbal medicine too. :) VI>TE>Are you answering your own message?! :) VI>No I don't think so. I was talking to you. Well, that message followed right after another message you wrote previously, so I was puzzled! VI>I frequently have beliefs that are not consistent with each other. I'm VI>a complex gal. :) VI>TE>I don't know much about biofeedback or acupuncture, however, meditation VI>TE>and herbal medicine are always a boon, no matter what! You don't have to VI>TE>wait for menopause to start those very healthy things! VI>Yes, but who has the time or the money? Right now I am trying to VI>juggle so much. My financial and time resources are frequently VI>stretched to the outer limits. Herbal medicine and meditation don't take much time or money. Herbs are a little expensive, but affordable, and how much time does it take to pop a few capsules once a day? Meditation is FREE, and does not have to be hours long. You can meditate for 15 minutes and it will be unbelievable relaxing and refreshing. You can meditate right before you go to sleep, as you're falling asleep; it is no skin off your back, and it is very beneficial. VI>TE>VI>TE>I think that the percentage of people in the world who can manipula VI>TE>VI>TE>their emotional processes to that large an extent, and that VI>TE>VI>TE>successfully, is very small! Although some people have mastered the VI>TE>VI>TE>things, as a race we humans cannot yet manipulate our emotions very VI>TE>VI>TE>effectively at all. VI>TE>VI>That's because most of us don't really try. And most of us don't want VI>TE>VI>to try. If you can manipulate your emotions than you have to take VI>TE>VI>responsibility for being depressed. Speaking strictly for me, VI>TE>VI>sometimes I just wallowing in self pity. VI>TE>I don't think it's a matter of trying or not trying, or taking VI>TE>responsibility. Perhaps it is an individual thing. Some people tell me VI>TE>they have no problem manipulating their emotions naturally, however, I VI>TE>find it impossible. To tell you the truth, I think that those who say VI>TE>they manipulate their emotions are NOT really manipulating them; I think VI>TE>they're just repressing them. VI>TE>As for taking responsibility for being depressed; I can't see how one VI>TE>could take responsibility for something like that! That's like telling VI>TE>someone who has cancer to take responsibility for their having cancer. VI>TE>Depression is an illness, not a fleeting thought. VI>I'm not talking about clinical depression. I am talking about feeling VI>bad or blue. And I do believe we have control over our emotions and VI>thoughts. That's why I say my prayers every day. :) I only pray when I'm in a LOT of trouble! heh :) Well, if you know how to control your emotions and thoughts, then please share your techniques with me! For I have no such ability at this point. Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 3:25pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745817 To: Vida Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #745792, Reply to #745770, Reply to #745720, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>True enough. And I frequently believe that my dog Sasha understands VI>TE>VI>every word I say and every word Bob says. :) VI>TE>Heh, I think the same thing about my cat! VI>Maybe we are both right. :) VI>I have a cat also, and she looks at me with the most knowing eyes. :) So does mine! And she answers me when I talk to her, with varying intonations and everything :) Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 6:21am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745826 To: Tempest Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #745813, Reply to #745721, Reply to #745697, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>Does this mean that you are planning to move in with Tempest? If TE>VI>TE>VI>I wish you both well? :) TE>VI>TE>That is what it means, but we still haven't been able to yet! Argh. TE>VI>TE>Thanks for the good wishes though! TE>VI>Well hopefully soon! :) Be sure to give Adam a hug from me tonite. :) TE>Yeah, hopefully soon. Life has been messy. I'll give him a hug from you TE>:) And while I am hugging people, please accept this virtual hug from me to you. :) Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 6:22am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745827 To: Tempest Re: Precious text (Reply to #745814, Reply to #745722, Reply to #745698, R*) TE>VI>TE>VVI>DT> Wow! I know they passed a helmet law in Cali since I left th TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>TE>VI>And it's a good thing. :) TE>VI>TE>No it's not! Helmets really suck sometimes when it's really hot in the TE>VI>TE>summer... TE>VI>Yes. But think of how horrible it would be to suffer serious brain TE>VI>injury from NOT wearing a helmet. TE>I probably wouldn't even notice, because it would probably kill me. It TE>would be more horrible to suffer C-spine injury and quadriplegia for the TE>rest of my life from wearing a helmet but of course no neck TE>protection... I know! Every time I look at poor Chris Reeves, sheesh. ! Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 6:23am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745828 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745815, Reply to #745757, Reply to #745753, R*) TE>VVI>TE>I would like to see both of those movies. In fact, I have been wantin TE>VI>TE>to see Schindler's List ever since it came out, but haven't gotten TE>VI>TE>around to it yet. TE>VI>TE>However, I consider movies to be pure entertainment. I cannot experien TE>VI>TE>the horror of the Holocaust, EVER, because I wasn't there. No matter h TE>VI>TE>good or factual the movie is. I wasn't there. TE>VI>TE>I don't want movies to affect my thinking. My thinking is my own; not TE>VI>TE>Hollywood's. If I let movies, or TV, or whatever media of that sort TE>VI>TE>affect my thinking, then I will be just like all the other media zombi TE>VI>TE>in this country, and that is something I will never let happen to me. TE>VI>Rent "Schneidler's List" this weekend and then tell me what you think. TE>VI>And just remember the impact of the movie would have been even stronger TE>VI>if you watch the movie in a movie theater, rather than at home on video. TE>VI>Bob and I watched "A Night to Remember" on Sunday night and I think TE>VI>that this movie really makes you feel the tragedy of the Titanic. In TE>VI>many ways, it is a SUPERIOR movie to "Titanic" with Kate Winset, etc. TE>VI>I thought the whole love story in the new version of "Titanic" was TE>VI>"schmultz". (Literally "Chicken fat". Figuaratively, it means corny. TE>VI>I use the Yiddish term because it is stronger!) TE>I will rent Schindler's List at some point, I do want to see it. I liked TE>Titanic actually, the love story and all. I liked it a lot. TE>The death scene toward the end was very chilling. The final scene in "A Night to Remember" packed far more punch than anything in "Titantic" in my opinion. Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 6:35am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745829 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745816, Reply to #745791, Reply to #745769, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>So what if we can't forsee the consequences of our technological chang TE>VI>TE>in advance? We'll never know until we try! Until we come up with the TE>VI>TE>technology to forsee the future, anyway... >:) TE>VI>TE>I believe that your example is very poor. Are you saying that because TE>VI>TE>you suffer from computer addiction, computers and the internet should TE>VI>TE>never have been invented? TE>VI>Not at all. I love my computer addiction. :) TE>VI>All I am saying is that we should proceed with caution. Just remember TE>VI>for every technological improvement we make, there will be costs. And TE>VI>not all of the costs can be known in advance. TE>Of course! But we might as well proceed to innovate, if we never made TE>technological innovations due to fear of costs, we would have still been TE>living in caves! Heck, we might as well. Given all the nuclear weapons that are sitting in various places throughout the globe, it will be a miracle if we survive to the year 2025, as it is! TE>VI>TE>If you are addicted to computers, that is too bad; I know how bad it i TE>VI>TE>because my ex was a computer addict too! However, I don't believe that TE>VI>TE>the rest of the world should suffer because of the addictions of a few TE>VI>TE>(same reasoning goes for drug legalization for that matter). The TE>VI>TE>technology is NOT the cause of your, or anyone else's, addiction. The TE>VI>TE>addiction is purely yours, and for you to deal with, not for the TE>VI>TE>technological innovators to deal with. TE>VI>TE>Don't blame technology for a problem that is yours. TE>VI>I don't blame the technology. But the technology creates the TE>VI>possibility for my addiction. Nor do I believe that I am the only one TE>VI>who suffers from this problem. I think it is a fairly common one. I TE>VI>would say that most of the users here at AH probably suffer to some TE>VI>extent with computer addiction. :) TE>VI> TE>There are many things that create possibilities for addictions, whether TE>it be technology or natural things like certain ahem plants, or food, or TE>men, or whatever. The addicted person must deal with his/her own TE>addiction; the object of addiction is not to blame. Yes, there are many TE>computer-addicted people out there. I used to live with one! I've known TE>people who have gotten divorced, lost jobs, and have gotten kicked out TE>of school because of computer addictions. Well, this is a problem for TE>those individuals to deal with, it is not an excuse to stop TE>making+marketing computers! TEVI>TE>Are you answering your own message?! :) (Intermediate exchanges ommitted) TE>VI>TE>I don't know much about biofeedback or acupuncture, however, meditatio TE>VI>TE>and herbal medicine are always a boon, no matter what! You don't have TE>VI>TE>wait for menopause to start those very healthy things! TE>VI>Yes, but who has the time or the money? Right now I am trying to TE>VI>juggle so much. My financial and time resources are frequently TE>VI>stretched to the outer limits. TE>Herbal medicine and meditation don't take much time or money. Herbs are TE>a little expensive, but affordable, and how much time does it take to TE>pop a few capsules once a day? Meditation is FREE, and does not have to TE>be hours long. You can meditate for 15 minutes and it will be TE>unbelievable relaxing and refreshing. You can meditate right before you TE>go to sleep, as you're falling asleep; it is no skin off your back, and TE>it is very beneficial. Yes, but I am already doing 40 minutes on a cross country ski machine each morning. Plus saying my prayers and mediations before running out the door (to help me keep calm throughout the day), plus indulging in my computer addiction. Since I get up at 5:30 AM as it is, I don't see how I could find the time, except by cutting back on my time on the puter. (Intermediate exchanged omitted) TE>VI>TE>VI>If you can manipulate your emotions than you have to take TE>VI>TE>VI>responsibility for being depressed. Speaking strictly for me, TE>VI>TE>VI>sometimes I just wallowing in self pity. TE>VI>TE>I don't think it's a matter of trying or not trying, or taking TE>VI>TE>responsibility. Perhaps it is an individual thing. Some people tell me TE>VI>TE>they have no problem manipulating their emotions naturally, however, I TE>VI>TE>find it impossible. To tell you the truth, I think that those who say TE>VI>TE>they manipulate their emotions are NOT really manipulating them; I thi TE>VI>TE>they're just repressing them. TE>VI>TE>As for taking responsibility for being depressed; I can't see how one TE>VI>TE>could take responsibility for something like that! That's like telling TE>VI>TE>someone who has cancer to take responsibility for their having cancer. TE>VI>TE>Depression is an illness, not a fleeting thought. TE>VI>I'm not talking about clinical depression. I am talking about feeling TE>VI>bad or blue. And I do believe we have control over our emotions and TE>VI>thoughts. That's why I say my prayers every day. :) TE>I only pray when I'm in a LOT of trouble! heh :) Well I try to recite two special prayers every day, plus I try to read one page from two books of affirmations each day. I took up this practice last year for the express purpose of trying to help myself keep "centered" throughout the day. TE>Well, if you know how to control your emotions and thoughts, then please TE>share your techniques with me! For I have no such ability at this point. Reciting my affirmations and my prayers IS the techinque I use. Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 6:36am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745830 To: Tempest Re: The chicken or the egg? (Reply to #745817, Reply to #745792, Reply to #745770, R*) TE>VVI>TE>VI>True enough. And I frequently believe that my dog Sasha understan TE>VI>TE>VI>every word I say and every word Bob says. :) TE>VI>TE>Heh, I think the same thing about my cat! TE>VI>Maybe we are both right. :) TE>VI>I have a cat also, and she looks at me with the most knowing eyes. :) TE>So does mine! And she answers me when I talk to her, with varying TE>intonations and everything :) Ditto for Maggie, my cat. :) Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 1:51am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745839 To: Vida Re: Coney Island Tattoo and Motorcycle Convention (Reply to #745826, Reply to #745813, Reply to #745721, R*) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Does this mean that you are planning to move in with Tempest? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I wish you both well? :) VI>TE>VI>TE>That is what it means, but we still haven't been able to yet! Argh. VI>TE>VI>TE>Thanks for the good wishes though! VI>TE>VI>Well hopefully soon! :) Be sure to give Adam a hug from me tonite. VI>TE>Yeah, hopefully soon. Life has been messy. I'll give him a hug from you VI>TE>:) VI>And while I am hugging people, please accept this virtual hug from me VI>to you. :) Thanks :) :) :) Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 2:01am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745840 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745829, Reply to #745816, Reply to #745791, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>Not at all. I love my computer addiction. :) VI>TE>VI>All I am saying is that we should proceed with caution. Just remember VI>TE>VI>for every technological improvement we make, there will be costs. And VI>TE>VI>not all of the costs can be known in advance. VI>TE>Of course! But we might as well proceed to innovate, if we never made VI>TE>technological innovations due to fear of costs, we would have still been VI>TE>living in caves! VI>Heck, we might as well. Given all the nuclear weapons that are sitting VI>in various places throughout the globe, it will be a miracle if we VI>survive to the year 2025, as it is! We'll survive to 2025, and well beyond. The human race ain't going anywhere. VI>TE>VI>TE>I don't know much about biofeedback or acupuncture, however, medita VI>TE>VI>TE>and herbal medicine are always a boon, no matter what! You don't ha VI>TE>VI>TE>wait for menopause to start those very healthy things! VI>TE>VI>Yes, but who has the time or the money? Right now I am trying to VI>TE>VI>juggle so much. My financial and time resources are frequently VI>TE>VI>stretched to the outer limits. VI>TE>Herbal medicine and meditation don't take much time or money. Herbs are VI>TE>a little expensive, but affordable, and how much time does it take to VI>TE>pop a few capsules once a day? Meditation is FREE, and does not have to VI>TE>be hours long. You can meditate for 15 minutes and it will be VI>TE>unbelievable relaxing and refreshing. You can meditate right before you VI>TE>go to sleep, as you're falling asleep; it is no skin off your back, and VI>TE>it is very beneficial. VI>Yes, but I am already doing 40 minutes on a cross country ski machine VI>each morning. Plus saying my prayers and mediations before running out VI>the door (to help me keep calm throughout the day), plus indulging in VI>my computer addiction. Since I get up at 5:30 AM as it is, I don't see VI>how I could find the time, except by cutting back on my time on the VI>puter. You mentioned the things you do in the morning, what do you do when you get back from work? How much time do you spend on the computer? You might as well cut back computer time, it may be an enjoyable activity, but usually not very productive. (This is the reason why I gave up watching TV!) VI>TE>VI>I'm not talking about clinical depression. I am talking about feeling VI>TE>VI>bad or blue. And I do believe we have control over our emotions and VI>TE>VI>thoughts. That's why I say my prayers every day. :) VI>TE>I only pray when I'm in a LOT of trouble! heh :) VI>Well I try to recite two special prayers every day, plus I try to VI>read one page from two books of affirmations each day. I took up this VI>practice last year for the express purpose of trying to help myself VI>keep "centered" throughout the day. And it helps? VI>TE>Well, if you know how to control your emotions and thoughts, then please VI>TE>share your techniques with me! For I have no such ability at this point. VI>Reciting my affirmations and my prayers IS the techinque I use. And this makes you able to control your thoughts and emotions?! I USED to pray, and that never made me able to control mine. Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 5:52am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745845 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745840, Reply to #745829, Reply to #745816, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI> Just rememember for every technological improvement we make, there will be costs. TE>VI>TE>VI>not all of the costs can be known in advance. TE>VI>TE>Of course! But we might as well proceed to innovate, if we never made TE>VI>TE>technological innovations due to fear of costs, we would have still be TE>VI>TE>living in caves! TE>VI>Heck, we might as well. Given all the nuclear weapons that are sitting TE>VI>in various places throughout the globe, it will be a miracle if we TE>VI>survive to the year 2025, as it is! TE>We'll survive to 2025, and well beyond. The human race ain't going TE>anywhere. You are much more optimistic than I. I think it is a major league miracle we haven't destroyed ourselves and the planet to date. I am afraid that this miracle can't last forever. (Intermediate exchanges omittted) TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, but who has the time or the money? Right now I am trying to TE>VI>TE>VI>juggle so much. My financial and time resources are frequently TE>VI>TE>VI>stretched to the outer limits. TE>VI>TE>Herbal medicine and meditation don't take much time or money. Herbs ar TE>VI>TE>a little expensive, but affordable, and how much time does it take to TE>VI>TE>pop a few capsules once a day? Meditation is FREE, and does not have t TE>VI>TE>be hours long. You can meditate for 15 minutes and it will be TE>VI>TE>unbelievable relaxing and refreshing. You can meditate right before yo TE>VI>TE>go to sleep, as you're falling asleep; it is no skin off your back, an TE>VI>TE>it is very beneficial. TE>VI>Yes, but I am already doing 40 minutes on a cross country ski machine TE>VI>each morning. Plus saying my prayers and mediations before running out TE>VI>the door (to help me keep calm throughout the day), plus indulging in TE>VI>my computer addiction. Since I get up at 5:30 AM as it is, I don't see TE>VI>how I could find the time, except by cutting back on my time on the TE>VI>puter. TE>You mentioned the things you do in the morning, what do you do when you TE>get back from work? How much time do you spend on the computer? You TE>might as well cut back computer time, it may be an enjoyable activity, TE>but usually not very productive. (This is the reason why I gave up TE>watching TV!) Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, except in the middle of the night when I can't sleep. After work, I am pretty hectic. On Monday evenings and Tuesday evenings I usually have dinner with friends other than Bob. Or that's when I schedule my dental or doctor appointments. On Wednesday evenings I go to a support group. Thursday evenings I have to work to 7:30 at my job. By the time I change clothing and walk my dog it's 9 PM when I reach Bob's apartment. Friday evenings I go to synagogue. Saturday and Sundays evenings I spend with Bob. TE>VI>TE>VI>I'm not talking about clinical depression. I am talking about feel TE>VI>TE>VI>bad or blue. And I do believe we have control over our emotions an TE>VI>TE>VI>thoughts. That's why I say my prayers every day. :) TE>VI>TE>I only pray when I'm in a LOT of trouble! heh :) TE>VI>Well I try to recite two special prayers every day, plus I try to TE>VI>read one page from two books of affirmations each day. I took up this TE>VI>practice last year for the express purpose of trying to help myself TE>VI>keep "centered" throughout the day. TE>And it helps? Yes, I believe so. At least for me it helps. TE>VI>TE>Well, if you know how to control your emotions and thoughts, then plea TE>VI>TE>share your techniques with me! For I have no such ability at this poin TE>VI>Reciting my affirmations and my prayers IS the techinque I use. TE>And this makes you able to control your thoughts and emotions?! I USED TE>to pray, and that never made me able to control mine. It depends what you pray and why you pray. :) Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:36am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745893 To: ** ALL ** Re: "The Argument Culture" (2 replies) I am so busy and hectic that I find it difficult to read all the books I would like to read. But I read reviews and find pick up some glipses of the book from the review. There is a review of Deborah Tannen's new book which is entitled "The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue" in the May/June 1988 of "Common Boundary" magazine. Let me start be saying I have read several of Deborah Tannnen's previous books and I like her. I think she makes a lot of sense. She wrote one previous book about the differences in the conversational styles of men and women and how this can lead to break downs in communications. (called, if I remember correctly, "You Just Don't Understand"). She wrote another earlier books about the conversational style of the corporate/business environment (called, if I remember correctly, "Talking Nine to Five". Her latest book is called, "The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to Dialogue". The rest of this post is Vida's synopsis of the review in the May/June 1998 issue of "Common Boundary" magazine. The review was written by Riane Eisler. Tannen, a linguist, poits to familiar phrases such as "the war on drugs" and "the battle of the sexes". Such phrases, she observes, frame things as a battle or a game in which winning or losing is the main conern. This leads to great economic cost (just think of how much money has been spent on the Ken Starr investigation!) But the economic costs pale in comparison to social and human costs. It has lead to an environment were win-at-all costs tatics have been "normal" in public life. In short, the American public discourse has become the arena for increasing belligerance and rancor. Television and other mass media have become a "mean and dangerous place" where violence, cruelty, deceit and other antagonistic behaviors are ubiquitous. What we are seeing in the USA today is a regression to a social structure in which human relations are imaged primarily as a contest between thouse tough enough to win (and thus end up on top) and those who are not (and thus end up on the bottom). For example, our legal system came out of trial by battle, from a time when adversaries hired strong men to fight it out legally. Vida's note--in our current legal environment, while we do not use physical violence to fight it out, things have gotten totally ugly and adversial. In Western society, since the Scientific Revolution there was a general movement away from the "dominator" model of society (heirachies of domination) to a "partnership" model of society (co-opeartation, attempt to resolve difference). But this movement toward a partnership society has not been continous. It has been periodically punctuated by regressions--some of them severe, such as Hitler's Germany. The regression we are seeing in the US culture today is not that severe, but still very dangerous. In her chapter on Gender and Opposition Tannen points to what she calls the "military model", in which tough "masculinity" is the supreme value, and anything associated with women and "feminity" is dispised as "soft" and considered properly subordinate. But there are other forces pushing us backward. Ironically, one of them is the mass media. The mass media is one of the main forces molding how we view the world. The constant modeling in the mass media of violence and cruelity feeds into this regression. Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 6:56pm Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745903 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745893) (1 reply) V >But there are other forces pushing us backward. Ironically, one of V >them is the mass media. The mass media is one of the main forces V >molding how we view the world. The constant modeling in the mass medi V >of violence and cruelity feeds into this regression. I'd like to argue with you, but I can't. The problem as I see it is that different people have different talent, and some people have a talent for manipulation, and, unfortuately, they move into leadership roles. Pressure is by far the best tactic to get results out of a group of people, and efficient leaders know that. Unfortuately, the culprits (IMO) are not the manipulators, but the manipulated. Too many people are JPS (Just Plain Stupid) plus lazy, so the only way to motivate them is through fear and/or pressure situations. Personally, I can't stand it. Which is why I'll never be in elected office. I'm too straight, too blunt, and, horror of horrors, willing to take responsibility for my own mistakes. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 5:57am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745906 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745903, Reply to #745893) (1 reply) ED>V >But there are other forces pushing us backward. Ironically, one of ED>V >them is the mass media. The mass media is one of the main forces ED>V >molding how we view the world. The constant modeling in the mass medi ED>V >of violence and cruelity feeds into this regression. ED>I'd like to argue with you, but I can't. Who could? But from my perspective, LAWYERS are one of the biggest culprits pushing us backwards into "confrontatlism" rather than "dispute resoultion". You know the old joke. One lawyer in a town starves. Two lawyers in a town make each other rich, because their clients all sue each other. ED>The problem as I see it is that different people have different talent, and ED>some people have a talent for manipulation, and, unfortuately, they move ED>into leadership roles. Pressure is by far the best tactic to get results ED>out of a group of people, and efficient leaders know that. Unfortuately, ED>the culprits (IMO) are not the manipulators, but the manipulated. Too many ED>people are JPS (Just Plain Stupid) plus lazy, so the only way to motivate ED>them is through fear and/or pressure situations. Manipulation is a big part of the problem, but not the only part. As I see it, it is the old heirachal way of viewing reality that is the real problem. While media and the legal profession intensify the heirachal way of viewing reality, to a great extent they also REFLECT that modality of perception. ED>Personally, I can't stand it. Which is why I'll never be in elected office. ED>I'm too straight, too blunt, and, horror of horrors, willing to take ED>responsibility for my own mistakes. That's one of my biggest problems too. When I screw up I am the first one to admit it. Meanwhile every one else around me is dodging their responsibility. Or worse, blaming me for things I really can't control or help. :( Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 8:11am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745908 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745906, Reply to #745903, Reply to #745893) (1 reply) V >ED>Personally, I can't stand it. Which is why I'll never be in elected V >ED>I'm too straight, too blunt, and, horror of horrors, willing to tak V >ED>responsibility for my own mistakes. V > V >That's one of my biggest problems too. When I screw up I am the first V >one to admit it. Meanwhile every one else around me is dodging their V >responsibility. Or worse, blaming me for things I really can't contro V >or help. :( Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or whatever) stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthusiasm and works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and winds up with "the promotion of the non-participants". --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 5:49pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745918 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745908, Reply to #745906, Reply to #745903, R*) (2 replies) ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or whatever) ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthusiasm and ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and winds up with ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". Sounds about typical. On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 1:28am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745920 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745845, Reply to #745840, Reply to #745829, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>Heck, we might as well. Given all the nuclear weapons that are sittin VI>TE>VI>in various places throughout the globe, it will be a miracle if we VI>TE>VI>survive to the year 2025, as it is! VI>TE>We'll survive to 2025, and well beyond. The human race ain't going VI>TE>anywhere. VI>You are much more optimistic than I. I think it is a major league VI>miracle we haven't destroyed ourselves and the planet to date. I am VI>afraid that this miracle can't last forever. It's not a matter of optimism, and I don't see our continued existence as a miracle. People are like roaches, we'll survive through anything. Despite all of our efforts to destroy ourselves and nature's efforts to destroy us, we are already pushing 6 billion on this planet and growing rapidly! VI>Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, except in VI>the middle of the night when I can't sleep. Well, you were saying that you're a computer addict! If you don't spend too much time on the computer, then you are by no means an addict, and that's a good thing. VI>After work, I am pretty hectic. VI>On Monday evenings and Tuesday evenings I usually have dinner with VI>friends other than Bob. Or that's when I schedule my dental or doctor VI>appointments. On Wednesday evenings I go to a support group. Thursday VI>evenings I have to work to 7:30 at my job. By the time I change VI>clothing and walk my dog it's 9 PM when I reach Bob's apartment. VI>Friday evenings I go to synagogue. Saturday and Sundays evenings I VI>spend with Bob. Wow, what a full schedule! And so organized, WOW :) VI>TE>VI>Well I try to recite two special prayers every day, plus I try to VI>TE>VI>read one page from two books of affirmations each day. I took up this VI>TE>VI>practice last year for the express purpose of trying to help myself VI>TE>VI>keep "centered" throughout the day. VI>TE>And it helps? VI>Yes, I believe so. At least for me it helps. Hmm... I have a similar habit actually, I've been writing down all the helpful wise little quotes I see on sticky-notes, which I stick on my computer or something and look at, and that actually seems to help a bit in itself. VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, if you know how to control your emotions and thoughts, then p VI>TE>VI>TE>share your techniques with me! For I have no such ability at this p VI>TE>VI>Reciting my affirmations and my prayers IS the techinque I use. VI>TE>And this makes you able to control your thoughts and emotions?! I USED VI>TE>to pray, and that never made me able to control mine. VI>It depends what you pray and why you pray. :) Why would it matter what you pray? Isn't God supposed to know already what you need/want? :) As for why... well, why do YOU pray? Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 1:42am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745921 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745893) (1 reply) There is a simple answer to this problem of mass media - stop paying attention to it!!! Why do people watch TV and read newspapers? It's worthless! TV is a pointless waste of time, and I could never understand why everyone is so concerned with who gave Clinton a blowjob, who shot who last night, ad infinitum, etc. Everyone just reads this stuff and shakes their heads at how sick and violent the world is, and no one does a thing about it. We either do something about it if we care that much, or we ignore it! This is capitalism - if we ignore mass media, they'll go out of business and won't be able to bombard us with this crap anymore! Everyone just whines about it, no one does a thing about it, and everyone just keeps paying attention to this stuff just to whine about it some more! (This is not directed at you Vida, although the message is in reply to yours; this is directed at people in general) Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 1:54am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 745922 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745918, Reply to #745908, Reply to #745906, R*) (2 replies) VI>ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or whatever) VI>ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthusiasm and VI>ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and winds up wi VI>ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". VI>Sounds about typical. VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think that hurt me. IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the problem. Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outside, going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The parents use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO. It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's the problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymore. Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:02am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745933 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745920, Reply to #745845, Reply to #745840, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>Heck, we might as well. Given all the nuclear weapons that are si TE>VI>TE>VI>in various places throughout the globe, it will be a miracle if we TE>It's not a matter of optimism, and I don't see our continued existence TE>as a miracle. People are like roaches, we'll survive through anything. TE>Despite all of our efforts to destroy ourselves and nature's efforts to TE>destroy us, we are already pushing 6 billion on this planet and TE>growing rapidly! That's where you and I totally disagree. I think that humans are much more fragile beings than roaches. If the environment degrades behind a certain point, then we will all die. The roaches, on the other hand, will survive. TE>VI>Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, except in TE>VI>the middle of the night when I can't sleep. TE>Well, you were saying that you're a computer addict! If you don't spend TE>too much time on the computer, then you are by no means an addict, and TE>that's a good thing. I'm an addict because if I don't log in at least once a day I feel deprived. (Except when I am on vacation. I never feel the urge to log on while on vacation). TE>VI>After work, I am pretty hectic. TE>VI>On Monday evenings and Tuesday evenings I usually have dinner with TE>VI>friends other than Bob. Or that's when I schedule my dental or doctor TE>VI>appointments. On Wednesday evenings I go to a support group. Thursday TE>VI>evenings I have to work to 7:30 at my job. By the time I change TE>VI>clothing and walk my dog it's 9 PM when I reach Bob's apartment. TE>VI>Friday evenings I go to synagogue. Saturday and Sundays evenings I TE>VI>spend with Bob. TE>Wow, what a full schedule! And so organized, WOW :) TE>VI>TE>VI>Well I try to recite two special prayers every day, plus I try to TE>VI>TE>VI>read one page from two books of affirmations each day. I took up t TE>VI>TE>VI>practice last year for the express purpose of trying to help myself TE>VI>TE>VI>keep "centered" throughout the day. TE>VI>TE>And it helps? TE>VI>Yes, I believe so. At least for me it helps. TE>Hmm... I have a similar habit actually, I've been writing down all the TE>helpful wise little quotes I see on sticky-notes, which I stick on my TE>computer or something and look at, and that actually seems to help a bit TE>in itself. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, if you know how to control your emotions and thoughts, the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>share your techniques with me! For I have no such ability at thi TE>VI>TE>VI>Reciting my affirmations and my prayers IS the techinque I use. TE>VI>TE>And this makes you able to control your thoughts and emotions?! I USED TE>VI>TE>to pray, and that never made me able to control mine. TE>VI>It depends what you pray and why you pray. :) TE>Why would it matter what you pray? Isn't God supposed to know already TE>what you need/want? :) TE>As for why... well, why do YOU pray? Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:10am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745934 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745921, Reply to #745893) (1 reply) TE>There is a simple answer to this problem of mass media - stop paying TE>attention to it!!! Why do people watch TV and read newspapers? When it comes to TV, you got me beat. :) As for the newspapers, I read the Dialy News on the subway and when hanging out in court waiting for my cases. It's cheap and it keeps my mind distracted. I am also a real "information junkie". I regularly read online newspapers and information sources. And I subscribed to numerous periodicals and magazines--but almost all of my print subscriptions are not "mass media"--they are smaller scale Jewish, feminist, leftist or "health" magazines. (By 'health" magazines I mean such periodicals as "Prevention" and "Nutrition Action".) TV and the mass media will continue to influence society as long as the vast majority of people watch TV and read newspapers. It would take a massive "turn off" for their influence to abate. And especially when it comes to TV, I don't see that happening any time within the forseeable future. Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:18am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745935 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745922, Reply to #745918, Reply to #745908, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or whatever) TE>VI>ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthusiasm TE>VI>ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and winds up TE>VI>ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". TE>VI>Sounds about typical. TE>VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you TE>VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study TE>VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. TE>I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think that TE>hurt me. I think the violence we saw on TV as kids wasn't as severe as what is on TV now. Movies and TV shows have become more and more violent. And I believe this does influence ALL OF US in subtle and not so subtle ways. TE>IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad TE>parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the problem. TE>Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outside, TE>going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The parents TE>use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care TE>enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO. To a certain extent what you say is true. To a certain extent it is not true. Parents have to be responsible for their kids. And have to take the time and effort to parent their children well. But parents are not the only influence on their children's behavior, thoughts and actions. TV and the mass media are a MAJOR influence on kids. So are other kids. So are the schools. So is the society or culture in general. TE>It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of TE>taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's the TE>problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymore. I don't think it is laziness only. People are stressed out from their jobs. With corporate downsizing the people on remain at a company are expected to do the work that used to be performed by two or three other people. And the fear that you may be the next person to be downsized never goes away. TE>Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking TE>about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. That's exactly the point. You don't have any kids. See how easy it is IF and WHEN you become a mommy. :) Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 10:56am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745940 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745918, Reply to #745908, Reply to #745906, R*) (1 reply) V > V > V >ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or whateve V >ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthusia V >ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and winds V >ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". V > V >Sounds about typical. V > V >On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you V >catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study V >which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. Yeah... but look at the shows they are talking about. Stuff that's on pretty late. IMO, its just one more cop out for parents who don't want to do their work. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 10:56am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745941 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745922, Reply to #745918, Reply to #745908, R*) (1 reply) T >VI>ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or what T >VI>ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthu T >VI>ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and wi T >VI>ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". T > T >VI>Sounds about typical. T > T >VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you T >VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study T >VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. T > T >I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think tha T >hurt me. IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad T >parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the problem T >Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outside, T >going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The parents T >use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care T >enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO. T >It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of T >taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's the T >problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymore. T >Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking T >about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. I don't know if you have kids, but IMO you hit that one on the head. Another pet peeve I've got is about clean violence. Violence is messy. The shows that get hit for being most violent are those that show GRAPHIC violence. I think the big time problem is shows where actors get killed, die cleanly, and reappear the next week. They give no indication of the true cost of violence. For example, of all the lists of violent shows I've seen, Star Trek has as yet to appear. Star Trek wiped out whole planets! I think the death toll for ST is moving past 20 million! But since there is a minimum of people thumping each other, and a minimum of gun shots, it doesn't seem to count. That really ticks me off. It makes me think that the real head cases are the body counters who watch Saturday morning cartoons. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 10:56am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745942 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745935, Reply to #745922, Reply to #745918, R*) (1 reply) V >I think the violence we saw on TV as kids wasn't as severe as what is V >on TV now. Movies and TV shows have become more and more violent. An V >I believe this does influence ALL OF US in subtle and not so subtle V >ways. You've got to be kidding. We grew up in the age of the TV Western and the war movie. People getting into fist fights to pass the time. V >TE>IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad V >TE>parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the prob V >TE>Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outsid V >TE>going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The pare V >TE>use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care V >TE>enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO V > V >To a certain extent what you say is true. To a certain extent it is V >not true. V > V >Parents have to be responsible for their kids. And have to take the V >time and effort to parent their children well. But parents are not th V >only influence on their children's behavior, thoughts and actions. Don't believe that for a moment. Parents may not be the only influence, but they are the overriding influence. By a mile and then some. V >TV and the mass media are a MAJOR influence on kids. So are other V >kids. So are the schools. So is the society or culture in general. Baloney.... By the time the media and the schools get hold of kids their attitudes have been predisposed by what has happened at home. The only time kids are truly shaped by outsiders is when parents abandon them emotionally. In my 22+ years of being a parent this is the most consistent thing I've seen, parental attitudes reflected in the behaviour of children. v >TE>It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of V >TE>taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's t V >TE>problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymo V > V > V >I don't think it is laziness only. People are stressed out from their V >jobs. With corporate downsizing the people on remain at a company are V >expected to do the work that used to be performed by two or three othe V >people. And the fear that you may be the next person to be downsized V >never goes away. It is laziness TOTALLY. Trust me, I'm no stranger to 100 hour work weeks and no matter how tired I would be, I had time for the kids. Maybe an hour, maybe 10 mintues, but enough to make my presence known. Laziness is smoking in front of your kid while telling him/her not to smoke. Laziness is preaching Christian virtues while using derogatory racial terms. The greatest laziness in the world is speaking one way and acting another in front of your kids. Many years ago, when I went through my bowling phase, I used to play a little game. At the bowling alley, I'd try to match up kids with parents based on how the kids acted and how the parents acted. It never failed that the loud mouth asshole was the one who's kids were tearing the place up. V >TE>Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking V >TE>about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. V > V >That's exactly the point. You don't have any kids. See how easy it i V >IF and WHEN you become a mommy. :) There are many parts about being a parent that are hard. The sheer number of hours is one. But even tougher is living up to the requirements of a role model. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 7:55am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745955 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745940, Reply to #745918, Reply to #745908, R*) (1 reply) ED>V > ED>V > ED>V >ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or whateve ED>V >ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthusia ED>V >ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and winds ED>V >ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". ED>V > ED>V >Sounds about typical. ED>V > ED>V >On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you ED>V >catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study ED>V >which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. ED>Yeah... but look at the shows they are talking about. Stuff that's on ED>pretty late. IMO, its just one more cop out for parents who don't want to ED>do their work. There is no doubt that some parents don't do their job. But I don't think it is possible for parents to sheild their kids completely from mass media or other cultural forces. Those cultural forces are just too pervasive. Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 7:59am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745956 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745942, Reply to #745935, Reply to #745922, R*) (1 reply) ED>V >I think the violence we saw on TV as kids wasn't as severe as what is ED>V >on TV now. Movies and TV shows have become more and more violent. An ED>V >I believe this does influence ALL OF US in subtle and not so subtle ED>V >ways. ED>You've got to be kidding. We grew up in the age of the TV Western and the ED>war movie. People getting into fist fights to pass the time. The stuff on TV and movies now is still much more gory and graphic than anything we ever saw as kids. And it continues to become more and more gory, graphic and violent because we become more and more exposed to graphic depictions of violence we become jaded--and thus require higher and higher levels of gore to "shock", "excite" and "tiliate" us. ED>V >TE>IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad ED>V >TE>parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the prob ED>V >TE>Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outsid ED>V >TE>going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The pare ED>V >TE>use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care ED>V >TE>enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO ED>V > ED>V >To a certain extent what you say is true. To a certain extent it is ED>V >not true. ED>V > ED>V >Parents have to be responsible for their kids. And have to take the ED>V >time and effort to parent their children well. But parents are not th ED>V >only influence on their children's behavior, thoughts and actions. ED>Don't believe that for a moment. Parents may not be the only influence, but ED>they are the overriding influence. By a mile and then some. That's where you and I respectfully disagree. As I see it, parents have to fight against a flood of other cultural forces. It is a very, very difficult thing to do. ED>V >TV and the mass media are a MAJOR influence on kids. So are other ED>V >kids. So are the schools. So is the society or culture in general. ED>Baloney.... By the time the media and the schools get hold of kids their ED>attitudes have been predisposed by what has happened at home. The only time ED>kids are truly shaped by outsiders is when parents abandon them ED>emotionally. In my 22+ years of being a parent this is the most consistent ED>thing I've seen, parental attitudes reflected in the behaviour of children. ED>v >TE>It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of ED>V >TE>taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's t ED>V >TE>problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymo ED>V > ED>V > ED>V >I don't think it is laziness only. People are stressed out from their ED>V >jobs. With corporate downsizing the people on remain at a company are ED>V >expected to do the work that used to be performed by two or three othe ED>V >people. And the fear that you may be the next person to be downsized ED>V >never goes away. ED>It is laziness TOTALLY. Trust me, I'm no stranger to 100 hour work weeks ED>and no matter how tired I would be, I had time for the kids. Maybe an hour, ED>maybe 10 mintues, but enough to make my presence known. Laziness is smoking ED>in front of your kid while telling him/her not to smoke. Laziness is ED>preaching Christian virtues while using derogatory racial terms. The ED>greatest laziness in the world is speaking one way and acting another in ED>front of your kids. ED>Many years ago, when I went through my bowling phase, I used to play a ED>little game. At the bowling alley, I'd try to match up kids with parents ED>based on how the kids acted and how the parents acted. It never failed that ED>the loud mouth asshole was the one who's kids were tearing the place up. ED>V >TE>Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking ED>V >TE>about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. ED>V > ED>V >That's exactly the point. You don't have any kids. See how easy it i ED>V >IF and WHEN you become a mommy. :) ED>There are many parts about being a parent that are hard. The sheer number ED>of hours is one. But even tougher is living up to the requirements of a ED>role model. ED>--- ED> þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 9:52am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745958 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745955, Reply to #745940, Reply to #745918, R*) (1 reply) V >ED>Yeah... but look at the shows they are talking about. Stuff that's V >ED>pretty late. IMO, its just one more cop out for parents who don't w V >ED>do their work. V > V >There is no doubt that some parents don't do their job. But I don't V >think it is possible for parents to sheild their kids completely from V >mass media or other cultural forces. Those cultural forces are just V >too pervasive. Not only is it not possible, its not desirable. But parents should give children a foundation whereby they can make rational interpretations of what comes their way. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 9:52am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745959 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745956, Reply to #745942, Reply to #745935, R*) (1 reply) V > V >ED>You've got to be kidding. We grew up in the age of the TV Western a V >ED>war movie. People getting into fist fights to pass the time. V > V >The stuff on TV and movies now is still much more gory and graphic tha V >anything we ever saw as kids. And it continues to become more and mor V >gory, graphic and violent because we become more and more exposed to V >graphic depictions of violence we become jaded--and thus require highe V >and higher levels of gore to "shock", "excite" and "tiliate" us. Hardly. The main problem with TV movies is that they show countless killings in an almost sterile atmosphere. I remember a Bond movie, can't remember which. In the movie, Bond kills a bad buy by throwing scalples at him. Lots of blood and an ugly death. When the movie hit TV, you saw the scene, but with absolutely no blood. Violence is ugly and if its portrayed like that its one thing. The sterile zapping of millions is the real crime. V >ED>Don't believe that for a moment. Parents may not be the only influe V >ED>they are the overriding influence. By a mile and then some. V > V >That's where you and I respectfully disagree. As I see it, parents V >have to fight against a flood of other cultural forces. It is a very, V >very difficult thing to do. I never said it was easy. But the fact remains that for the first 4-6 years of your child's life, you are the center of their universe and the influence you have then can stay with them forever. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 5:50am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745969 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745958, Reply to #745955, Reply to #745940, R*) (1 reply) ED>V >ED>Yeah... but look at the shows they are talking about. Stuff that's ED>V >ED>pretty late. IMO, its just one more cop out for parents who don't w ED>V >ED>do their work. ED>V > ED>V >There is no doubt that some parents don't do their job. But I don't ED>V >think it is possible for parents to sheild their kids completely from ED>V >mass media or other cultural forces. Those cultural forces are just ED>V >too pervasive. ED>Not only is it not possible, its not desirable. But parents should give ED>children a foundation whereby they can make rational interpretations of ED>what comes their way. I agree that parents should do their best to give their kids that kind of foundation. I just think it is awfully hard. I am thinking, of course, of Bob and his 11 year old daughter. He sends his kid to Catholic school, in part, to try to shield her from "the bad stuff". But even going to Catholic school she is being bombarded by sexual images, at too young of an age IMHO. Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 5:53am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745970 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745959, Reply to #745956, Reply to #745942, R*) (1 reply) ED>V > ED>V >ED>You've got to be kidding. We grew up in the age of the TV Western a ED>V >ED>war movie. People getting into fist fights to pass the time. ED>V > ED>V >The stuff on TV and movies now is still much more gory and graphic tha ED>V >anything we ever saw as kids. And it continues to become more and mor ED>V >gory, graphic and violent because we become more and more exposed to ED>V >graphic depictions of violence we become jaded--and thus require highe ED>V >and higher levels of gore to "shock", "excite" and "tiliate" us. ED>Hardly. The main problem with TV movies is that they show countless ED>killings in an almost sterile atmosphere. I remember a Bond movie, can't ED>remember which. In the movie, Bond kills a bad buy by throwing scalples at ED>him. Lots of blood and an ugly death. When the movie hit TV, you saw the ED>scene, but with absolutely no blood. Violence is ugly and if its portrayed ED>like that its one thing. The sterile zapping of millions is the real crime. Sure it's a problem. Look at those kids in Arkansas who started shooting up their classmates in absolute cold blood. But I can also remember sitting around a watching "Con Air" with Bob a month or so ago. It was pretty gory stuff. ED>V >ED>Don't believe that for a moment. Parents may not be the only influe ED>V >ED>they are the overriding influence. By a mile and then some. ED>V > ED>V >That's where you and I respectfully disagree. As I see it, parents ED>V >have to fight against a flood of other cultural forces. It is a very, ED>V >very difficult thing to do. ED>I never said it was easy. But the fact remains that for the first 4-6 years ED>of your child's life, you are the center of their universe and the ED>influence you have then can stay with them forever. Absolutely true. But even in that period of time, there's still TV and movies that enter into the kid's consiousness. And definitely once the kid hits his/her teenage years, it's a whole other ball park. ED>--- ED> þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 8:44am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745973 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745969, Reply to #745958, Reply to #745955, R*) (2 replies) V >ED>Not only is it not possible, its not desirable. But parents should V >ED>children a foundation whereby they can make rational interpretation V >ED>what comes their way. V > V >I agree that parents should do their best to give their kids that kind V >of foundation. I just think it is awfully hard. V > V >I am thinking, of course, of Bob and his 11 year old daughter. He V >sends his kid to Catholic school, in part, to try to shield her from V >"the bad stuff". But even going to Catholic school she is being V >bombarded by sexual images, at too young of an age IMHO. Vida... you can't shield kids from the world forever. Its a horrible mistake to even try. The merit of sending a child to a Catholic school is not the "shielding", but, lets call it the "counterweight". They will come out of that school knowing what their parents think is correct, and hopefully having enough respect for their parents to be influenced in that direction. But shielding? Good luck. Maybe if you connect the child to a parent by a tether 24 hours a day. Maybe. Effectively shielding children from "bad media influences" would require a level of censorship that is beyond conception. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 8:44am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745974 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745970, Reply to #745959, Reply to #745956, R*) (1 reply) V >ED>Hardly. The main problem with TV movies is that they show countless V >ED>killings in an almost sterile atmosphere. I remember a Bond movie, V >ED>remember which. In the movie, Bond kills a bad buy by throwing scal V >ED>him. Lots of blood and an ugly death. When the movie hit TV, you sa V >ED>scene, but with absolutely no blood. Violence is ugly and if its po V >ED>like that its one thing. The sterile zapping of millions is the rea V > V >Sure it's a problem. Look at those kids in Arkansas who started V >shooting up their classmates in absolute cold blood. V > V >But I can also remember sitting around a watching "Con Air" with Bob a V >month or so ago. It was pretty gory stuff. And unless I'm mistaken, it was rated R - which means that it again becomes a parental responsibility. V >ED>I never said it was easy. But the fact remains that for the first 4 V >ED>of your child's life, you are the center of their universe and the V >ED>influence you have then can stay with them forever. V > V >Absolutely true. But even in that period of time, there's still TV an V >movies that enter into the kid's consiousness. And definitely once th V >kid hits his/her teenage years, it's a whole other ball park. By the time they are teenagers, its pretty much over, one way or another. A shrink told me that there is a window around 16-17 where you get a brief "second chance", but for the most part, the pattern, be it good or bad is long locked into the mentalities by the time they hit their teens. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 11:41am Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 745976 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745973, Reply to #745969, Reply to #745958, R*) (1 reply) ED>But shielding? Good luck. Maybe if you connect the child to a parent by a ED>tether 24 hours a day. Maybe. Effectively shielding children from "bad ED>media influences" would require a level of censorship that is beyond ED>conception. What about Chassidim who start their own community and have no radio, tv or newspapers? It's not beyond their conception :-) Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 8:45pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745986 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745973, Reply to #745969, Reply to #745958, R*) ED>V >ED>Not only is it not possible, its not desirable. But parents should ED>V >ED>children a foundation whereby they can make rational interpretation ED>V >ED>what comes their way. ED>V > ED>V >I agree that parents should do their best to give their kids that kind ED>V >of foundation. I just think it is awfully hard. ED>V > ED>V >I am thinking, of course, of Bob and his 11 year old daughter. He ED>V >sends his kid to Catholic school, in part, to try to shield her from ED>V >"the bad stuff". But even going to Catholic school she is being ED>V >bombarded by sexual images, at too young of an age IMHO. ED>Vida... you can't shield kids from the world forever. Its a horrible ED>mistake to even try. The merit of sending a child to a Catholic school is ED>not the "shielding", but, lets call it the "counterweight". They will come ED>out of that school knowing what their parents think is correct, and ED>hopefully having enough respect for their parents to be influenced in that ED>direction. I understand you can't shield a kid forever. I was just sharing Bob's frustration with pop culture and his kid. ED>But shielding? Good luck. Maybe if you connect the child to a parent by a ED>tether 24 hours a day. Maybe. Effectively shielding children from "bad ED>media influences" would require a level of censorship that is beyond ED>conception. That was EXACTLY my point buddy! :) ED>--- ED> þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 8:57pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745987 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745974, Reply to #745970, Reply to #745959, R*) (1 reply) ED>V > ED>V >Sure it's a problem. Look at those kids in Arkansas who started ED>V >shooting up their classmates in absolute cold blood. ED>V > ED>V >But I can also remember sitting around a watching "Con Air" with Bob a ED>V >month or so ago. It was pretty gory stuff. ED>And unless I'm mistaken, it was rated R - which means that it again becomes ED>a parental responsibility. There are so few movies that are rated PG and PG 13, it drives me crazy. One of Bob's rules is that when he has custody of his daughter we don't rent anything that is rated "R". And it is damned hard to find a movie that is appropriate for an 11 year old and fits this limitation. Obviously, at this point Bob's daughter is beyond the "Disney stage" and is behind the "little kid" stage of most movies which rated "G" or even "PG". And even when you find a movie that is not rated "R" it's no guarantee. For example, I rented Eddie Murphy's "Absented Minded Professor" when Bob had custody of his kid. (I think that was the title). We were both HORRIFIED by the disgusting "bath room humor" of this movie, which we both felt made it totally inappropriate for an 11 year old kid. And the movie was rated PG 13! Ok, ok, it had Eddie Murphy which should have given me a clue. But still , I stood in the video store pulling out my hair in the frustation of trying to find a non R rated movie. ED>V >ED>I never said it was easy. But the fact remains that for the first 4 ED>V >ED>of your child's life, you are the center of their universe and the ED>V >ED>influence you have then can stay with them forever. ED>V > ED>V >Absolutely true. But even in that period of time, there's still TV an ED>V >movies that enter into the kid's consiousness. And definitely once th ED>V >kid hits his/her teenage years, it's a whole other ball park. ED>By the time they are teenagers, its pretty much over, one way or another. A ED>shrink told me that there is a window around 16-17 where you get a brief ED>"second chance", but for the most part, the pattern, be it good or bad is ED>long locked into the mentalities by the time they hit their teens. I think given the strong cultural forces that are present that a parent only has real control over the kid until he/she is four or five years old. Once the kid starts school or preschool, then other cultural forces definitely come into play. Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 9:01pm Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745988 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745976, Reply to #745973, Reply to #745969, R*) (1 reply) KK>ED>But shielding? Good luck. Maybe if you connect the child to a parent by a KK>ED>tether 24 hours a day. Maybe. Effectively shielding children from "bad KK>ED>media influences" would require a level of censorship that is beyond KK>ED>conception. KK>What about Chassidim who start their own community and have no radio, tv KK>or newspapers? It's not beyond their conception :-) I think that is one of the main reasons that the Chassidim don't have radio, TV and newspapers--they want to totally shield their kids from the culture of the "goyim". But I also wonder how fair this extreme kind of shielding is to the children. By giving the children no exposure to popular culture the Chassidim, in effect, depreive their children of the CHOICE of whether they wish to continue as Chassidim or if they want a more mainstream existence. Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 9:09pm Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 745990 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745987, Reply to #745974, Reply to #745970, R*) (1 reply) V >For example, I rented Eddie Murphy's "Absented Minded Professor" when V >Bob had custody of his kid. (I think that was the title). We were both V >HORRIFIED by the disgusting "bath room humor" of this movie, which we V >both felt made it totally inappropriate for an 11 year old kid. And V >the movie was rated PG 13! Ok, ok, it had Eddie Murphy which should V >have given me a clue. But still , I stood in the video store pulling V >out my hair in the frustation of trying to find a non R rated movie. You remind me of a funny story. When my daughter was spending a few days with her cousin, we found out that his mother had rented Eddie Murphy's Coming to America. This realy startled us since the woman is more than a bit prissy. We later found out that she thought it was a documentary on immigration! What's more shocking about this genius move is that the woman was a high racking manager in the Board of Ed!!! V >ED>By the time they are teenagers, its pretty much over, one way or an V >ED>shrink told me that there is a window around 16-17 where you get a V >ED>"second chance", but for the most part, the pattern, be it good or V >ED>long locked into the mentalities by the time they hit their teens. V > V >I think given the strong cultural forces that are present that a paren V >only has real control over the kid until he/she is four or five years V >old. Once the kid starts school or preschool, then other cultural V >forces definitely come into play. But you had the first shot, and that counts for a helluvalot. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:13am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 745993 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745990, Reply to #745987, Reply to #745974, R*) ED>V >For example, I rented Eddie Murphy's "Absented Minded Professor" when ED>V >Bob had custody of his kid. (I think that was the title). We were both ED>V >HORRIFIED by the disgusting "bath room humor" of this movie, which we ED>V >both felt made it totally inappropriate for an 11 year old kid. And ED>V >the movie was rated PG 13! Ok, ok, it had Eddie Murphy which should ED>V >have given me a clue. But still , I stood in the video store pulling ED>V >out my hair in the frustation of trying to find a non R rated movie. ED>You remind me of a funny story. When my daughter was spending a few days ED>with her cousin, we found out that his mother had rented Eddie Murphy's ED>Coming to America. This realy startled us since the woman is more than a ED>bit prissy. We later found out that she thought it was a documentary on ED>immigration! What's more shocking about this genius move is that the woman ED>was a high racking manager in the Board of Ed!!! ROFTL! I knew I was renting a comedy. I just wasn't expecting it to be so extremely rank! ED>V >ED>By the time they are teenagers, its pretty much over, one way or an ED>V >ED>shrink told me that there is a window around 16-17 where you get a ED>V >ED>"second chance", but for the most part, the pattern, be it good or ED>V >ED>long locked into the mentalities by the time they hit their teens. ED>V > ED>V >I think given the strong cultural forces that are present that a paren ED>V >only has real control over the kid until he/she is four or five years ED>V >old. Once the kid starts school or preschool, then other cultural ED>V >forces definitely come into play. ED>But you had the first shot, and that counts for a helluvalot. I agree on that score. I just keep my eyes firmly planted on the other forces. Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:07pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 745999 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745988, Reply to #745976, Reply to #745973, R*) (1 reply) VI>I think that is one of the main reasons that the Chassidim don't have VI>radio, TV and newspapers--they want to totally shield their kids from VI>the culture of the "goyim". Yep. VI>But I also wonder how fair this extreme kind of shielding is to the VI>children. By giving the children no exposure to popular culture the VI>Chassidim, in effect, depreive their children of the CHOICE of whether VI>they wish to continue as Chassidim or if they want a more mainstream VI>existence. As they would say...so what? As parents we do what we feel is best for our children. We do not expose our children to things we feel may hurt them. Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:56am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746009 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745999, Reply to #745988, Reply to #745976, R*) (1 reply) KK>VI>I think that is one of the main reasons that the Chassidim don't have KK>VI>radio, TV and newspapers--they want to totally shield their kids from KK>VI>the culture of the "goyim". KK>Yep. That's what I figured. I just want to make it clear to any one else who might be reading this that the term "goyim" is not necessarily a put down. It just means "the nations" and refers to all non Jews. KK>VI>But I also wonder how fair this extreme kind of shielding is to the KK>VI>children. By giving the children no exposure to popular culture the KK>VI>Chassidim, in effect, depreive their children of the CHOICE of whether KK>VI>they wish to continue as Chassidim or if they want a more mainstream KK>VI>existence. KK>As they would say...so what? As parents we do what we feel is best for KK>our children. We do not expose our children to things we feel may hurt KK>them. I think free choice is very important for all adults. No child should be coerced into making the same life choice as their parents. Let's face it, all parents want think they have chosen the right life path. And all parents want their kids to choose their life path. For example, I have personally heard lesbian mothers being horrified when their teenaged daughters date MEN. :) On a completely topic, I see you use the term "we" when referring to the chassidim. Do you consider yourself a hasid? I always got the impression that you were very strictly Orthodox but not chassidic. Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:51pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 746015 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746009, Reply to #745999, Reply to #745988, R*) (2 replies) VI>KK>VI>But I also wonder how fair this extreme kind of shielding is to the VI>KK>VI>children. By giving the children no exposure to popular culture the VI>KK>VI>Chassidim, in effect, depreive their children of the CHOICE of whether VI>KK>VI>they wish to continue as Chassidim or if they want a more mainstream VI>KK>VI>existence. [A>KK>As they would say...so what? As parents we do what we feel is best for VI>KK>our children. We do not expose our children to things we feel may hurt VI>KK>them. VI>I think free choice is very important for all adults. No child should VI>be coerced into making the same life choice as their parents. No parent gives their child free choice! The parents who do are probably the ones who have children who now throw their babies out of windows or into garbage cans. Seriously, Vida, EVERY "good" parents does what they think is right. Every religious parent will make sure that their child follows that religion. Some parent will try to shield their children from certain types of movies or records. These chassidic parents ensure it in a more positive way by not letting their children even be exposed to the other ideas. Like anything, it works for some and does not work for others. VI>On a completely topic, I see you use the term "we" when referring to VI>the chassidim. Do you consider yourself a hasid? VI>I always got the impression that you were very strictly Orthodox but VI>not chassidic. I did not put quotes in the sentence where I used the word WE. I was telling you what a chassidic parent would tell you. They would have used No. I do not consider myself a hasid. And I am just a regular guy. Ask Debby :-) Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 6:52am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746020 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746015, Reply to #746009, Reply to #745999, R*) (1 reply) KK>No parent gives their child free choice! The parents who do are probably KK>the ones who have children who now throw their babies out of windows or KK>into garbage cans. KK>Seriously, Vida, EVERY "good" parents does what they think is right. KK>Every religious parent will make sure that their child follows that KK>religion. Some parent will try to shield their children from certain KK>types of movies or records. These chassidic parents ensure it in a more KK>positive way by not letting their children even be exposed to the other KK>ideas. Like anything, it works for some and does not work for others. I guess it's just a matter of the degree of shielding. I quite agree with you that every good parent tries to install their values on their kid. What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping out ALL forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for their kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. KK>VI>On a completely topic, I see you use the term "we" when referring to KK>VI>the chassidim. Do you consider yourself a hasid? KK>VI>I always got the impression that you were very strictly Orthodox but KK>VI>not chassidic. KK>I did not put quotes in the sentence where I used the word WE. I was KK>telling you what a chassidic parent would tell you. They would have used KK>No. I do not consider myself a hasid. KK>And I am just a regular guy. Ask Debby :-) Thanks for the clarification. :) Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 7:28pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 746027 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746020, Reply to #746015, Reply to #746009, R*) (1 reply) VI>I guess it's just a matter of the degree of shielding. I quite agree VI>with you that every good parent tries to install their values on their VI>kid. VI>What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping out ALL VI>forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for their VI>kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. Not impossible but quite difficult. But that is their objective and the objective of their kids when they grow up and become parents. Think of it as a cult. AND not all cults have to be bad :-) Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 6:47am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746032 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746027, Reply to #746020, Reply to #746015, R*) (1 reply) KK>VI>I guess it's just a matter of the degree of shielding. I quite agree KK>VI>with you that every good parent tries to install their values on their KK>VI>kid. KK>VI>What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping out ALL KK>VI>forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for their KK>VI>kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. KK>Not impossible but quite difficult. But that is their objective and the KK>objective of their kids when they grow up and become parents. KK>Think of it as a cult. AND not all cults have to be bad :-) I think you are quite right that it is the objective of the parents to make it virtually impossible for their kids to have join mainstream culture. What I find so disturbing is just that fact--I think there is a coersive element to the extent of the exclusion from popular culture. Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 3:10am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746053 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745933, Reply to #745920, Reply to #745845, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>It's not a matter of optimism, and I don't see our continued existence VI>TE>as a miracle. People are like roaches, we'll survive through anything. VI>TE>Despite all of our efforts to destroy ourselves and nature's efforts to VI>TE>destroy us, we are already pushing 6 billion on this planet and VI>TE>growing rapidly! VI>That's where you and I totally disagree. I think that humans are much VI>more fragile beings than roaches. If the environment degrades behind a VI>certain point, then we will all die. The roaches, on the other hand, VI>will survive. If the environment degrades beyond a certain point, we will have much warning of it long before the entire race dies out. The human race is not going to drop dead all at once, all of a sudden. So far, even with the current degradation, our world-wide population is still growing exponentially. Perhaps a little deadly environmental degradation is what we need, to slow down our insane rate of "being fruitful and multiplying..." what do you think is causing the degradation of this planet? There are way too many of us. And nature has to find a way to cut our numbers down! But by no means would that result in our extinction. That is a LOT easier said than done... there would have to be a really major catastrophe to do that, such as an asteroid slamming into earth, etc. for that to happen, NOT gradual degradation such as it is... VI>TE>VI>Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, except in VI>TE>VI>the middle of the night when I can't sleep. VI>TE>Well, you were saying that you're a computer addict! If you don't spend VI>TE>too much time on the computer, then you are by no means an addict, and VI>TE>that's a good thing. VI>I'm an addict because if I don't log in at least once a day I feel VI>deprived. (Except when I am on vacation. I never feel the urge to log VI>on while on vacation). Well, if you don't log in for too long, then maybe it's not such a bad thing. But then again, dependence on a machine does not sound very healthy... Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 3:18am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746054 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745934, Reply to #745921, Reply to #745893) (1 reply) VI>TE>There is a simple answer to this problem of mass media - stop paying VI>TE>attention to it!!! Why do people watch TV and read newspapers? VI>When it comes to TV, you got me beat. :) VI>As for the newspapers, I read the Dialy News on the subway and when VI>hanging out in court waiting for my cases. It's cheap and it keeps my VI>mind distracted. Why not read a book or a magazine instead? VI> I am also a real "information junkie". I regularly read online VI>newspapers and information sources. And I subscribed to numerous VI>periodicals and magazines--but almost all of my print subscriptions are VI>not "mass media"--they are smaller scale Jewish, feminist, leftist or VI>"health" magazines. (By 'health" magazines I mean such periodicals as VI>"Prevention" and "Nutrition Action".) So that's good, then. Things that are not mass media are generally a little more respectable than mass media. I am an "information junkie" as well, but 90% of what I read is purely science-related. VI>TV and the mass media will continue to influence society as long as the VI>vast majority of people watch TV and read newspapers. It would take a VI>massive "turn off" for their influence to abate. And especially when VI>it comes to TV, I don't see that happening any time within the VI>forseeable future. You are right. And it is a very sad fact, if anything is gonna make modern civilization fall, it will be TV and mass media... I really wish they were more responsible about what they put out... Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 3:44am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746055 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745935, Reply to #745922, Reply to #745918, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you VI>TE>VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study VI>TE>VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. VI>TE>I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think that VI>TE>hurt me. VI>I think the violence we saw on TV as kids wasn't as severe as what is VI>on TV now. Movies and TV shows have become more and more violent. And VI>I believe this does influence ALL OF US in subtle and not so subtle VI>ways. Well, first, what "we" saw on TV as kids is not a good premise because you were a kid a couple of decades before I was, so we have different perspectives. I was a tiny kid in the 70's, and a bigger kid in the 80's. TV/movie violence is more prevalent now, but it was a definite presence in the 70's and 80's already. So I did see my share of violence on TV as a kid, but I knew the difference between TV and reality! Perhaps kids don't know the difference nowadays, I dunno. I just can't see how it influences anyone with a grip on reality; things that happen to me in real life influence me 1000% more than what happens on TV! VI>TE>IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad VI>TE>parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the problem. VI>TE>Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outside, VI>TE>going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The parents VI>TE>use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care VI>TE>enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO. VI>To a certain extent what you say is true. To a certain extent it is VI>not true. VI>Parents have to be responsible for their kids. And have to take the VI>time and effort to parent their children well. But parents are not the VI>only influence on their children's behavior, thoughts and actions. VI>TV and the mass media are a MAJOR influence on kids. So are other VI>kids. So are the schools. So is the society or culture in general. Of course, that's true! But parents are still (or are supposed to be) the primary caretakers, and can influence other factors in the child's life if they want to. TV does not have to be a part of the child's life if the parents don't want it to be. It's pretty easy to unplug a TV or get rid of it entirely (perhaps a shocking thought; however, I don't have a TV and am happy without it.) Parents can talk to their kids about what other kids tell them, or what the schools teach them, etc. VI>TE>It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of VI>TE>taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's the VI>TE>problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymore. VI>I don't think it is laziness only. People are stressed out from their VI>jobs. With corporate downsizing the people on remain at a company are VI>expected to do the work that used to be performed by two or three other VI>people. And the fear that you may be the next person to be downsized VI>never goes away. Perhaps that is a part of it, but the problem of bad parenting extends throughout all members of society, not just those who work in a stressful corporate environment. VI>TE>Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking VI>TE>about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. VI>That's exactly the point. You don't have any kids. See how easy it is VI>IF and WHEN you become a mommy. :) Did I SAY that it is easy to be a mommy?! That's my point, parenting is DIFFICULT, it is a major responsibility, which too many parents neglect. Do you know why I'm not a mommy yet? Because I KNOW that it's not easy! So I have been and still am taking every precaution not to be one right now! That is the problem, people just have all these kids without even thinking about what kind of serious responsibility it is, most people who have kids are not ready for them yet... Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 3:56am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746056 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #745941, Reply to #745922, Reply to #745918, R*) (1 reply) ED>T >VI>ED>Have you ever seen that old joke about the seven (or ten or what ED>T >VI>ED>stages of a project. It starts with a brilliant idea, wild enthu ED>T >VI>ED>works its way throught the ups, the failure and the downs and wi ED>T >VI>ED>"the promotion of the non-participants". ED>T > ED>T >VI>Sounds about typical. ED>T > ED>T >VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you ED>T >VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study ED>T >VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. ED>T > ED>T >I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think tha ED>T >hurt me. IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad ED>T >parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the problem ED>T >Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outside, ED>T >going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The parents ED>T >use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care ED>T >enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO. ED>T >It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of ED>T >taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's the ED>T >problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymore. ED>T >Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking ED>T >about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. ED>I don't know if you have kids, but IMO you hit that one on the head. I don't have any kids, but have observed quite a few parents, and have put in a lot of thought as to how I will raise my kids when I DO have them... ED>Another pet peeve I've got is about clean violence. Violence is messy. The ED>shows that get hit for being most violent are those that show GRAPHIC ED>violence. I think the big time problem is shows where actors get killed, ED>die cleanly, and reappear the next week. They give no indication of the ED>true cost of violence. For example, of all the lists of violent shows I've ED>seen, Star Trek has as yet to appear. Star Trek wiped out whole planets! I ED>think the death toll for ST is moving past 20 million! But since there is a ED>minimum of people thumping each other, and a minimum of gun shots, it ED>doesn't seem to count. ED>That really ticks me off. It makes me think that the real head cases are ED>the body counters who watch Saturday morning cartoons. Actually, I disagree with you on that one. I don't think you give kids enough credit; they know the difference between fantasy and reality. I think shows like Star Trek and most cartoons are pretty safe, because they are obviously fantasy. The shows that I think are real trouble are the ones about realistic violence, such as urban violence, gangs, cop shows, etc. These kids watch shows about street violence and think it's real cool, they wanna be bad-assed lil' gangsters... Prime example: did you know that Mitchell Johnson (Arkansas killer) bragged to his friends that he was a member of the Bloods? Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 4:26am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746057 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746015, Reply to #746009, Reply to #745999, R*) (1 reply) KK>VI>KK>VI>But I also wonder how fair this extreme kind of shielding is to the KK>VI>KK>VI>children. By giving the children no exposure to popular culture th KK>VI>KK>VI>Chassidim, in effect, depreive their children of the CHOICE of whet KK>VI>KK>VI>they wish to continue as Chassidim or if they want a more mainstrea KK>VI>KK>VI>existence. KK>[A>KK>As they would say...so what? As parents we do what we feel is best for KK>VI>KK>our children. We do not expose our children to things we feel may hurt KK>VI>KK>them. KK>VI>I think free choice is very important for all adults. No child should KK>VI>be coerced into making the same life choice as their parents. KK>No parent gives their child free choice! The parents who do are probably KK>the ones who have children who now throw their babies out of windows or KK>into garbage cans. That is not true! My mom was extremely permissive, she trusted me to make my own choices and I am eternally grateful to her for that! Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 8:17am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746061 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746053, Reply to #745933, Reply to #745920, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>That's where you and I totally disagree. I think that humans are much TE>VI>more fragile beings than roaches. If the environment degrades behind a TE>VI>certain point, then we will all die. The roaches, on the other hand, TE>VI>will survive. TE>If the environment degrades beyond a certain point, we will have much TE>warning of it long before the entire race dies out. The human race is TE>not going to drop dead all at once, all of a sudden. What you are saying is more likely true, than not true. But there are also posssiblities where the environmental degragadation could come about very suddenly. These "doomsday" scenerios involve, mainly, the possibility of nuke weapons going off and/or biological weapsons going off. TE>So far, even with TE>the current degradation, our world-wide population is still growing TE>exponentially. Perhaps a little deadly environmental degradation is what TE>we need, to slow down our insane rate of "being fruitful and TE>multiplying..." what do you think is causing the degradation of this TE>planet? There are way too many of us. And nature has to find a way to TE>cut our numbers down! But by no means would that result in our TE>extinction. That is a LOT easier said than done... there would have to TE>be a really major catastrophe to do that, such as an asteroid slamming TE>into earth, etc. for that to happen, NOT gradual degradation such as it TE>is... While human overpopulation is a BIG part of the problem I don't see this is the main CAUSE of the problem. I think the main cause of the problem is our technology. Pollution, global warming, and toxic chemicals is the real danger, IMHO. TE>VI>TE>VI>Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, except TE>VI>TE>VI>the middle of the night when I can't sleep. TE>VI>TE>Well, you were saying that you're a computer addict! If you don't spen TE>VI>TE>too much time on the computer, then you are by no means an addict, and TE>VI>TE>that's a good thing. TE>VI>I'm an addict because if I don't log in at least once a day I feel TE>VI>deprived. (Except when I am on vacation. I never feel the urge to log TE>VI>on while on vacation). TE>Well, if you don't log in for too long, then maybe it's not such a bad TE>thing. But then again, dependence on a machine does not sound very TE>healthy... Hey it's 8:27 AM as I write this and I'm supposed to be out the door by 9 AM. Enough said? :) Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 9:36am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 746066 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746056, Reply to #745941, Reply to #745922, R*) (1 reply) T >ED>That really ticks me off. It makes me think that the real head case T >ED>the body counters who watch Saturday morning cartoons. T > T >Actually, I disagree with you on that one. I don't think you give kids T >enough credit; they know the difference between fantasy and reality. I T >think shows like Star Trek and most cartoons are pretty safe, because T >they are obviously fantasy. T > T >The shows that I think are real trouble are the ones about realistic T >violence, such as urban violence, gangs, cop shows, etc. These kids T >watch shows about street violence and think it's real cool, they wanna T >be bad-assed lil' gangsters... T > T >Prime example: did you know that Mitchell Johnson (Arkansas killer) T >bragged to his friends that he was a member of the Bloods? If you exclude those shows, you are at odds with the primary proponents of the "TV is too violent for children" school of thought. They are forever harping about "bop counts" on the cartoon shows. Personally, I agree about the cartoon shows, but I'm not so sure about some of these other shows... Still.... even if you scale it down to TV drama, the violence is much too clean and painless. The impact is not shown. The emotional pain is non-existent. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 9:36am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 746067 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746061, Reply to #746053, Reply to #745933, R*) (1 reply) V >TE>VI>That's where you and I totally disagree. I think that humans ar V >TE>VI>more fragile beings than roaches. If the environment degrades b V >TE>VI>certain point, then we will all die. The roaches, on the other V >TE>VI>will survive. V > V >TE>If the environment degrades beyond a certain point, we will have mu V >TE>warning of it long before the entire race dies out. The human race V >TE>not going to drop dead all at once, all of a sudden. V > V >What you are saying is more likely true, than not true. But there are V >also posssiblities where the environmental degragadation could come V >about very suddenly. These "doomsday" scenerios involve, mainly, the V >possibility of nuke weapons going off and/or biological weapsons going V >off. True... but technically those aren't environmental, at least in so far as the preventions are not related to classic environmental issues. > --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 2:46pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 746072 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746032, Reply to #746027, Reply to #746020, R*) (1 reply) VI>KK>VI>What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping out ALL VI>KK>VI>forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for their VI>KK>VI>kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. VI>KK>Not impossible but quite difficult. But that is their objective and the VI>KK>objective of their kids when they grow up and become parents. VI>KK>Think of it as a cult. AND not all cults have to be bad :-) VI>I think you are quite right that it is the objective of the parents to VI>make it virtually impossible for their kids to have join mainstream VI>culture. What I find so disturbing is just that fact--I think there is VI>a coersive element to the extent of the exclusion from popular culture. It is not a culture "popular" to them. Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 2:48pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 746073 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746057, Reply to #746015, Reply to #746009, R*) (1 reply) TE>KK>VI>I think free choice is very important for all adults. No child should TE>KK>VI>be coerced into making the same life choice as their parents. TE>KK>No parent gives their child free choice! The parents who do are probably TE>KK>the ones who have children who now throw their babies out of windows or TE>KK>into garbage cans. TE>That is not true! My mom was extremely permissive, she trusted me to TE>make my own choices and I am eternally grateful to her for that! There is a big difference between being permissive or even extremely permissive, and giving the child free choice-- letting the child do WHATEVER the child wants. Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 4:47am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746078 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746061, Reply to #746053, Reply to #745933, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>That's where you and I totally disagree. I think that humans are much VI>TE>VI>more fragile beings than roaches. If the environment degrades behind VI>TE>VI>certain point, then we will all die. The roaches, on the other hand, VI>TE>VI>will survive. VI>TE>If the environment degrades beyond a certain point, we will have much VI>TE>warning of it long before the entire race dies out. The human race is VI>TE>not going to drop dead all at once, all of a sudden. VI>What you are saying is more likely true, than not true. But there are VI>also posssiblities where the environmental degragadation could come VI>about very suddenly. These "doomsday" scenerios involve, mainly, the VI>possibility of nuke weapons going off and/or biological weapsons going VI>off. There are probably no existing nukes or biological weapons that can actually destroy the ENTIRE population. Such a scenario may decimate our population, but even then we will still have PLENTY of people left... VI>TE>So far, even with VI>TE>the current degradation, our world-wide population is still growing VI>TE>exponentially. Perhaps a little deadly environmental degradation is what VI>TE>we need, to slow down our insane rate of "being fruitful and VI>TE>multiplying..." what do you think is causing the degradation of this VI>TE>planet? There are way too many of us. And nature has to find a way to VI>TE>cut our numbers down! But by no means would that result in our VI>TE>extinction. That is a LOT easier said than done... there would have to VI>TE>be a really major catastrophe to do that, such as an asteroid slamming VI>TE>into earth, etc. for that to happen, NOT gradual degradation such as it VI>TE>is... VI>While human overpopulation is a BIG part of the problem I don't see VI>this is the main CAUSE of the problem. I think the main cause of the VI>problem is our technology. Pollution, global warming, and toxic VI>chemicals is the real danger, IMHO. This is true. Both technology wastes and overpopulation are major components of the problem. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, exc VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the middle of the night when I can't sleep. VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, you were saying that you're a computer addict! If you don't s VI>TE>VI>TE>too much time on the computer, then you are by no means an addict, VI>TE>VI>TE>that's a good thing. VI>TE>VI>I'm an addict because if I don't log in at least once a day I feel VI>TE>VI>deprived. (Except when I am on vacation. I never feel the urge to log VI>TE>VI>on while on vacation). VI>TE>Well, if you don't log in for too long, then maybe it's not such a bad VI>TE>thing. But then again, dependence on a machine does not sound very VI>TE>healthy... VI>Hey it's 8:27 AM as I write this and I'm supposed to be out the door by VI>9 AM. Enough said? :) Get to work, you addict! :) Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 4:57am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746079 To: Editor Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746066, Reply to #746056, Reply to #745941, R*) (1 reply) ED>T >ED>That really ticks me off. It makes me think that the real head case ED>T >ED>the body counters who watch Saturday morning cartoons. ED>T > ED>T >Actually, I disagree with you on that one. I don't think you give kids ED>T >enough credit; they know the difference between fantasy and reality. I ED>T >think shows like Star Trek and most cartoons are pretty safe, because ED>T >they are obviously fantasy. ED>T > ED>T >The shows that I think are real trouble are the ones about realistic ED>T >violence, such as urban violence, gangs, cop shows, etc. These kids ED>T >watch shows about street violence and think it's real cool, they wanna ED>T >be bad-assed lil' gangsters... ED>T > ED>T >Prime example: did you know that Mitchell Johnson (Arkansas killer) ED>T >bragged to his friends that he was a member of the Bloods? ED>If you exclude those shows, you are at odds with the primary proponents of ED>the "TV is too violent for children" school of thought. They are forever ED>harping about "bop counts" on the cartoon shows. Personally, I agree about ED>the cartoon shows, but I'm not so sure about some of these other shows... Then I disagree with the typical "bop count" cartoon show school of thought. Bugs Bunny and company, Tom & Jerry, etc. have been on forever. Several generations of kids have been watching Jerry the mouse beat on Tom the cat, Tweety Bird beat up on Sylvester, and Wile Coyote fall over a cliff countless times. (In real life all these things would result in devastating injuries, of course.) However, despite the fact that kids have been watching this stuff for decades, the child violence problem has not grown to really major proportions until very recently. ED>Still.... even if you scale it down to TV drama, the violence is much too ED>clean and painless. The impact is not shown. The emotional pain is ED>non-existent. I don't think showing the impact/emotional pain would do any good. No matter how well it's portrayed, it is NO WHERE NEAR experiencing it in real life. Besides, do you really think that kids are naive enough to think that a gunshot/stab wound/etc. isn't bloody and painful? Do you think that they shoot and stab because they think it's not that bad? I seriously doubt it. IMHO, the kids who commit such violence simply DO NOT CARE about the pain they are inflicting. Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 4:59am Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746080 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746073, Reply to #746057, Reply to #746015, R*) (1 reply) KK>TE>KK>VI>I think free choice is very important for all adults. No child sho KK>TE>KK>VI>be coerced into making the same life choice as their parents. KK>TE>KK>No parent gives their child free choice! The parents who do are probab KK>TE>KK>the ones who have children who now throw their babies out of windows o KK>TE>KK>into garbage cans. KK>TE>That is not true! My mom was extremely permissive, she trusted me to KK>TE>make my own choices and I am eternally grateful to her for that! KK>There is a big difference between being permissive or even extremely KK>permissive, and giving the child free choice-- letting the child do KK>WHATEVER the child wants. What is the difference? Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:42am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746100 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746054, Reply to #745934, Reply to #745921, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>There is a simple answer to this problem of mass media - stop paying TE>VI>TE>attention to it!!! Why do people watch TV and read newspapers? TE>VI>When it comes to TV, you got me beat. :) TE>VI>As for the newspapers, I read the Dialy News on the subway and when TE>VI>hanging out in court waiting for my cases. It's cheap and it keeps my TE>VI>mind distracted. TE>Why not read a book or a magazine instead? I read plenty of magazines. But I like to get my hit of the Dialy News every day, just to keep track of what's going on in the city. Besides, it's one of the two newspapers that most jurors read. So from a professional point of view, I really ought to read it/ TE>VI> I am also a real "information junkie". I regularly read online TE>VI>newspapers and information sources. And I subscribed to numerous TE>VI>periodicals and magazines--but almost all of my print subscriptions are TE>VI>not "mass media"--they are smaller scale Jewish, feminist, leftist or TE>VI>"health" magazines. (By 'health" magazines I mean such periodicals as TE>VI>"Prevention" and "Nutrition Action".) TE>So that's good, then. Things that are not mass media are generally a TE>little more respectable than mass media. I am an "information junkie" as TE>well, but 90% of what I read is purely science-related. Some how that doesn't surprise me. :) I don't know if the stuff I read is more or less respectable than mass media. It's from a different perspective and a different point of view, that's for sure! :) TE>VI>TV and the mass media will continue to influence society as long as the TE>VI>vast majority of people watch TV and read newspapers. It would take a TE>VI>massive "turn off" for their influence to abate. And especially when TE>VI>it comes to TV, I don't see that happening any time within the TE>VI>forseeable future. TE>You are right. And it is a very sad fact, if anything is gonna make TE>modern civilization fall, it will be TV and mass media... I really wish TE>they were more responsible about what they put out... Ha! Ha! All they care about is the bottom line! Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:46am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746101 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746055, Reply to #745935, Reply to #745922, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did you TE>VI>TE>VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the study TE>VI>TE>VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. TE>VI>TE>I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think tha TE>VI>TE>hurt me. TE>VI>I think the violence we saw on TV as kids wasn't as severe as what is TE>VI>on TV now. Movies and TV shows have become more and more violent. And TE>VI>I believe this does influence ALL OF US in subtle and not so subtle TE>VI>ways. TE>Well, first, what "we" saw on TV as kids is not a good premise because TE>you were a kid a couple of decades before I was, so we have different TE>perspectives. I was a tiny kid in the 70's, and a bigger kid in the TE>80's. Sigh! Why don't you just rob in the fact that I'm an old lady? I was in high school in the 1970's. And an attorney in the 1980's! TE>TV/movie violence is more prevalent now, but it was a definite TE>presence in the 70's and 80's already. So I did see my share of violence TE>on TV as a kid, but I knew the difference between TV and reality! TE>Perhaps kids don't know the difference nowadays, I dunno. I just can't TE>see how it influences anyone with a grip on reality; things that happen TE>to me in real life influence me 1000% more than what happens on TV! That's because you see much more gore than the average person! You're a paramedic/EMT type person! :) TE>VI>TE>IMHO violence on TV hurting children is an excuse for bad TE>VI>TE>parenting. Violence on TV is not the problem; TV itself is the problem TE>VI>TE>Kids spend hours watching TV after school instead of playing outside, TE>VI>TE>going to the park, etc. It makes them overweight and lazy. The parents TE>VI>TE>use TV as a babysitter because they're too lazy, or they don't care TE>VI>TE>enough to play with their kids themselves. THAT'S the problem, IMHO. TE>VI>To a certain extent what you say is true. To a certain extent it is TE>VI>not true. TE>VI>Parents have to be responsible for their kids. And have to take the TE>VI>time and effort to parent their children well. But parents are not the TE>VI>only influence on their children's behavior, thoughts and actions. TE>VI>TV and the mass media are a MAJOR influence on kids. So are other TE>VI>kids. So are the schools. So is the society or culture in general. TE>Of course, that's true! But parents are still (or are supposed to be) TE>the primary caretakers, and can influence other factors in the child's TE>life if they want to. TV does not have to be a part of the child's life TE>if the parents don't want it to be. It's pretty easy to unplug a TV or TE>get rid of it entirely (perhaps a shocking thought; however, I don't TE>have a TV and am happy without it.) Parents can talk to their kids about TE>what other kids tell them, or what the schools teach them, etc. TE>VI>TE>It's much easier to sit your kid down in front of the TV instead of TE>VI>TE>taking him/her to the park, playground, zoo, library, etc. That's the TE>VI>TE>problem; parents don't take responsibility for their children anymore. TE>VI>I don't think it is laziness only. People are stressed out from their TE>VI>jobs. With corporate downsizing the people on remain at a company are TE>VI>expected to do the work that used to be performed by two or three other TE>VI>people. And the fear that you may be the next person to be downsized TE>VI>never goes away. TE>Perhaps that is a part of it, but the problem of bad parenting extends TE>throughout all members of society, not just those who work in a TE>stressful corporate environment. TE>VI>TE>Now, I don't have any kids, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking TE>VI>TE>about; but this is based on what I have observed in others. TE>VI>That's exactly the point. You don't have any kids. See how easy it is TE>VI>IF and WHEN you become a mommy. :) TE>Did I SAY that it is easy to be a mommy?! That's my point, parenting is TE>DIFFICULT, it is a major responsibility, which too many parents neglect. TE>Do you know why I'm not a mommy yet? Because I KNOW that it's not easy! TE>So I have been and still am taking every precaution not to be one right TE>now! That is the problem, people just have all these kids without even TE>thinking about what kind of serious responsibility it is, most people TE>who have kids are not ready for them yet... Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:47am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746102 To: Editor Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746067, Reply to #746061, Reply to #746053, R*) (1 reply) ED>V >TE>VI>That's where you and I totally disagree. I think that humans ar ED>V >TE>VI>more fragile beings than roaches. If the environment degrades b ED>V >TE>VI>certain point, then we will all die. The roaches, on the other ED>V >TE>VI>will survive. ED>V > ED>V >TE>If the environment degrades beyond a certain point, we will have mu ED>V >TE>warning of it long before the entire race dies out. The human race ED>V >TE>not going to drop dead all at once, all of a sudden. ED>V > ED>V >What you are saying is more likely true, than not true. But there are ED>V >also posssiblities where the environmental degragadation could come ED>V >about very suddenly. These "doomsday" scenerios involve, mainly, the ED>V >possibility of nuke weapons going off and/or biological weapsons going ED>V >off. ED>True... but technically those aren't environmental, at least in so far as ED>the preventions are not related to classic environmental issues. No, but they are very much related to our technological knowledge and the dangers of our technology. Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:47am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746103 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746072, Reply to #746032, Reply to #746027, R*) (1 reply) KK>VI>KK>VI>What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping out ALL KK>VI>KK>VI>forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for thei KK>VI>KK>VI>kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. KK>VI>KK>Not impossible but quite difficult. But that is their objective and th KK>VI>KK>objective of their kids when they grow up and become parents. KK>VI>KK>Think of it as a cult. AND not all cults have to be bad :-) KK>VI>I think you are quite right that it is the objective of the parents to KK>VI>make it virtually impossible for their kids to have join mainstream KK>VI>culture. What I find so disturbing is just that fact--I think there is KK>VI>a coersive element to the extent of the exclusion from popular culture. KK>It is not a culture "popular" to them. Quite the reverse! :) Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:50am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746104 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746078, Reply to #746061, Reply to #746053, R*) TE>VI>TE>If the environment degrades beyond a certain point, we will have much TE>VI>TE>warning of it long before the entire race dies out. The human race is TE>VI>TE>not going to drop dead all at once, all of a sudden. TE>VI>What you are saying is more likely true, than not true. But there are TE>VI>also posssiblities where the environmental degragadation could come TE>VI>about very suddenly. These "doomsday" scenerios involve, mainly, the TE>VI>possibility of nuke weapons going off and/or biological weapsons going TE>VI>off. TE>There are probably no existing nukes or biological weapons that can TE>actually destroy the ENTIRE population. Such a scenario may decimate our TE>population, but even then we will still have PLENTY of people left... That's one theorem I would rather not have to test! TE>VI>TE>So far, even with TE>VI>TE>the current degradation, our world-wide population is still growing TE>VI>TE>exponentially. Perhaps a little deadly environmental degradation is wh TE>VI>TE>we need, to slow down our insane rate of "being fruitful and TE>VI>TE>multiplying..." what do you think is causing the degradation of this TE>VI>TE>planet? There are way too many of us. And nature has to find a way to TE>VI>TE>cut our numbers down! But by no means would that result in our TE>VI>TE>extinction. That is a LOT easier said than done... there would have to TE>VI>TE>be a really major catastrophe to do that, such as an asteroid slamming TE>VI>TE>into earth, etc. for that to happen, NOT gradual degradation such as i TE>VI>TE>is... TE>VI>While human overpopulation is a BIG part of the problem I don't see TE>VI>this is the main CAUSE of the problem. I think the main cause of the TE>VI>problem is our technology. Pollution, global warming, and toxic TE>VI>chemicals is the real danger, IMHO. TE>This is true. Both technology wastes and overpopulation are major TE>components of the problem. Overpopulation wouldn't be such a problem if people used the available resources in a more cost effective manner. It is the fact that we in the West and especially in the US are such HOGS that is the real problem. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Actually, I do not spend much time on the computer at night, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the middle of the night when I can't sleep. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, you were saying that you're a computer addict! If you don' TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>too much time on the computer, then you are by no means an addic TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that's a good thing. TE>VI>TE>VI>I'm an addict because if I don't log in at least once a day I feel TE>VI>TE>VI>deprived. (Except when I am on vacation. I never feel the urge to TE>VI>TE>VI>on while on vacation). TE>VI>TE>Well, if you don't log in for too long, then maybe it's not such a bad TE>VI>TE>thing. But then again, dependence on a machine does not sound very TE>VI>TE>healthy... TE>VI>Hey it's 8:27 AM as I write this and I'm supposed to be out the door by TE>VI>9 AM. Enough said? :) TE>Get to work, you addict! :) Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 8:34am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 746110 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746079, Reply to #746066, Reply to #746056, R*) T >ED>If you exclude those shows, you are at odds with the primary propon T >ED>the "TV is too violent for children" school of thought. They are fo T >ED>harping about "bop counts" on the cartoon shows. Personally, I agre T >ED>the cartoon shows, but I'm not so sure about some of these other sh T > T >Then I disagree with the typical "bop count" cartoon show school of T >thought. Bugs Bunny and company, Tom & Jerry, etc. have been on foreve T >Several generations of kids have been watching Jerry the mouse beat on T >Tom the cat, Tweety Bird beat up on Sylvester, and Wile Coyote fall ov T >a cliff countless times. (In real life all these things would result i T >devastating injuries, of course.) However, despite the fact that kids T >have been watching this stuff for decades, the child violence problem T >has not grown to really major proportions until very recently. Has it? Have you ever seen an early Brando movie called "The Wild One"? One of a long list of movies on the topic of "juvenile deliquency". Just to hit the high points, West Side Story, Blackboard Jungle, To Sir With Love, and so on. The topic of violence in children is hardly new. T >ED>Still.... even if you scale it down to TV drama, the violence is mu T >ED>clean and painless. The impact is not shown. The emotional pain is T >ED>non-existent. T > T >I don't think showing the impact/emotional pain would do any good. No T >matter how well it's portrayed, it is NO WHERE NEAR experiencing it in T >real life. Besides, do you really think that kids are naive enough to T >think that a gunshot/stab wound/etc. isn't bloody and painful? Do you T >think that they shoot and stab because they think it's not that bad? I T >seriously doubt it. IMHO, the kids who commit such violence simply DO T >NOT CARE about the pain they are inflicting. Yes, children know factually that it is not good to be stabbed, but when you roll to the commercial so quickly after the event, and then its gone in just a few minutes, they lose it. There was a great Doonesbury some years back, in which a teacher asks to a class of college students "why is it that in a James Bond movie we cheer whenever Felix Leiter saves James Bond and makes problems go away, but in real life we are always screaming about CIA coverups?". One student raises his hand and says "because in the Bond movie its always followed by a good sex scene". Same thing as when the shuttle blew up. McCauliff's (sp?) studens said they couldn't believe it. They went home expecting her to reappear after a commercial. Do you think BEFORE the launch even one of them would have considered the risks involved? No... because the risks, and the possibility of death had been all but eliminated from their emotional thinking. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 8:34am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 746111 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746102, Reply to #746067, Reply to #746061, R*) (1 reply) V >ED>True... but technically those aren't environmental, at least in so V >ED>the preventions are not related to classic environmental issues. V > V >No, but they are very much related to our technological knowledge and V >the dangers of our technology. No.... what I am saying is that when you talk about environmental disasters caused by nuclear or biological weapons that is in a different category than things like global warming, or running out of oil, etc. With a bio warfare disaster, that is about as enviromental as operating a defective space heater. Its more like an accident than environment damage. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 6:19am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746133 To: Editor Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746111, Reply to #746102, Reply to #746067, R*) (1 reply) ED>V >ED>True... but technically those aren't environmental, at least in so ED>V >ED>the preventions are not related to classic environmental issues. ED>V > ED>V >No, but they are very much related to our technological knowledge and ED>V >the dangers of our technology. ED>No.... what I am saying is that when you talk about environmental disasters ED>caused by nuclear or biological weapons that is in a different category ED>than things like global warming, or running out of oil, etc. With a bio ED>warfare disaster, that is about as enviromental as operating a defective ED>space heater. Its more like an accident than environment damage. You seem to be making a distinction that is virtually meaningless to me. In any event, it would be our technology that would render us dead. Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 8:37am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 746137 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746133, Reply to #746111, Reply to #746102, R*) (1 reply) V >ED>V >ED>True... but technically those aren't environmental, at least V >ED>V >ED>the preventions are not related to classic environmental issu V >ED>V > V >ED>V >No, but they are very much related to our technological knowledg V >ED>V >the dangers of our technology. V > V >ED>No.... what I am saying is that when you talk about environmental d V >ED>caused by nuclear or biological weapons that is in a different cate V >ED>than things like global warming, or running out of oil, etc. With a V >ED>warfare disaster, that is about as enviromental as operating a defe V >ED>space heater. Its more like an accident than environment damage. V > V >You seem to be making a distinction that is virtually meaningless to V >me. In any event, it would be our technology that would render us V >dead. I just don't like the point of view that technology is dangerous. Technology is always neutral. The same technology that Sadaam is using to build bio weapons is producing these new cancer breakthroughs. The technology that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki has saved more lives than it has taken by several orders of magnitude. And on, and on, and on. I am distinguishing between people being inattentive to the environment on an individual scale, something which requires that awareness be raised more than legislation, and people building ever larger explosives and then being surprised when they go off. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 6:59pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 746145 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746080, Reply to #746073, Reply to #746057, R*) TE>KK>There is a big difference between being permissive or even extremely TE>KK>permissive, and giving the child free choice-- letting the child do TE>KK>WHATEVER the child wants. TE>What is the difference? The difference to me is whether or not the parent would allow the child to something harmful. Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:01pm Forum: Reality From: Kkid Msg#: 746146 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746103, Reply to #746072, Reply to #746032, R*) (1 reply) VI>KK>VI>KK>VI>What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping out VI>KK>VI>KK>VI>forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for t VI>KK>VI>KK>VI>kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. VI>KK>VI>KK>Not impossible but quite difficult. But that is their objective and VI>KK>VI>KK>objective of their kids when they grow up and become parents. VI>KK>VI>KK>Think of it as a cult. AND not all cults have to be bad :-) VI>KK>VI>I think you are quite right that it is the objective of the parents to VI>KK>VI>make it virtually impossible for their kids to have join mainstream VI>KK>VI>culture. What I find so disturbing is just that fact--I think there i VI>KK>VI>a coersive element to the extent of the exclusion from popular culture VI>KK>It is not a culture "popular" to them. VI>Quite the reverse! :) I don't know what you are trying to say in the above line. Date: Friday, May 1, 1998 7:07am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746164 To: Editor Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746137, Reply to #746133, Reply to #746111, R*) (1 reply) ED>I just don't like the point of view that technology is dangerous. ED>Technology is always neutral. The same technology that Sadaam is using to ED>build bio weapons is producing these new cancer breakthroughs. The ED>technology that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki has saved more lives than ED>it has taken by several orders of magnitude. And on, and on, and on. ED>I am distinguishing between people being inattentive to the environment on ED>an individual scale, something which requires that awareness be raised more ED>than legislation, and people building ever larger explosives and then being ED>surprised when they go off. I can't accept the position that technology is not dangerous, only neutral. I believe that some technological changes are dangerous. The N bomb and the H bomb are prime examples of technological innovations that are by their very nature dangerous. However, I am not a luddite and do not advocate destroying our current technology and trying to revert to a pre-technological state of existence. For one thing, I am not about to give up my computer addiction. :) Date: Friday, May 1, 1998 7:08am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746165 To: Kkid Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746146, Reply to #746103, Reply to #746072, R*) KK>VI>KK>VI>KK>VI>What I find disturbing about the Hasidim is that by keeping o KK>VI>KK>VI>KK>VI>forms of popular culture they make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE fo KK>VI>KK>VI>KK>VI>kids to ever integreate with mainstream culture. KK>VI>KK>VI>KK>Not impossible but quite difficult. But that is their objective KK>VI>KK>VI>KK>objective of their kids when they grow up and become parents. KK>VI>KK>VI>KK>Think of it as a cult. AND not all cults have to be bad :-) KK>VI>KK>VI>I think you are quite right that it is the objective of the parents KK>VI>KK>VI>make it virtually impossible for their kids to have join mainstream KK>VI>KK>VI>culture. What I find so disturbing is just that fact--I think ther KK>VI>KK>VI>a coersive element to the extent of the exclusion from popular cult KK>VI>KK>It is not a culture "popular" to them. KK>VI>Quite the reverse! :) KK>I don't know what you are trying to say in the above line. I am agreeing with you Sheldon. I understand that mainstream culture is not popular with the Hasidim. :) Date: Friday, May 1, 1998 8:46am Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 746170 To: Vida Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746164, Reply to #746137, Reply to #746133, R*) (1 reply) V > V > V >ED>I just don't like the point of view that technology is dangerous. V >ED>Technology is always neutral. The same technology that Sadaam is us V >ED>build bio weapons is producing these new cancer breakthroughs. The V >ED>technology that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki has saved more liv V >ED>it has taken by several orders of magnitude. And on, and on, and on V > V >ED>I am distinguishing between people being inattentive to the environ V >ED>an individual scale, something which requires that awareness be rai V >ED>than legislation, and people building ever larger explosives and th V >ED>surprised when they go off. V > V >I can't accept the position that technology is not dangerous, only V >neutral. I believe that some technological changes are dangerous. Th V >N bomb and the H bomb are prime examples of technological innovations V >that are by their very nature dangerous. The H bomb may yet save the world. In about 50 years I think we are going to start seeing true fusion reactors, which will probably deliver on the high hopes once held for the nuclear power industry with none of the risks. The fossil fuel pollution and the oil wars would be gone. However, I can't see a good use for the N bomb other than as a weapon, but I'm don't know too much about the underlying technology. All technology is dangerous. ALL technology. Including fire and the lever. Technology by definition increases an individual's ability to effect the environment. Our problem is not technology, but selecting a leadership totally devoid of any value system that doesn't line their personal pockets. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Saturday, May 2, 1998 8:25am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746194 To: Editor Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #746170, Reply to #746164, Reply to #746137, R*) ED>V > ED>V > ED>V >ED>I just don't like the point of view that technology is dangerous. ED>V >ED>Technology is always neutral. The same technology that Sadaam is us ED>V >ED>build bio weapons is producing these new cancer breakthroughs. The ED>V >ED>technology that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki has saved more liv ED>V >ED>it has taken by several orders of magnitude. And on, and on, and on ED>V > ED>V >ED>I am distinguishing between people being inattentive to the environ ED>V >ED>an individual scale, something which requires that awareness be rai ED>V >ED>than legislation, and people building ever larger explosives and th ED>V >ED>surprised when they go off. ED>V > ED>V >I can't accept the position that technology is not dangerous, only ED>V >neutral. I believe that some technological changes are dangerous. Th ED>V >N bomb and the H bomb are prime examples of technological innovations ED>V >that are by their very nature dangerous. ED>The H bomb may yet save the world. Not if an H bomb is ever actually detonated! Then it's sayarona, baby! >In about 50 years I think we are going ED>to start seeing true fusion reactors, which will probably deliver on the ED>high hopes once held for the nuclear power industry with none of the risks. ED>The fossil fuel pollution and the oil wars would be gone. However, I can't ED>see a good use for the N bomb other than as a weapon, but I'm don't know ED>too much about the underlying technology. It's impossible to predict what kind of negative side effects might arise from true fusion reactors. You don't know what technology will do until you start utilizing it. And then it probably takes a last a century or two to see the long terms effects! ED>All technology is dangerous. ALL technology. Including fire and the lever. ED>Technology by definition increases an individual's ability to effect the ED>environment. Our problem is not technology, but selecting a leadership ED>totally devoid of any value system that doesn't line their personal ED>pockets. I agree with everything you say. However, from my prospective, the deeper problem is that WE are without values! ED>--- ED> þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:55pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746326 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746100, Reply to #746054, Reply to #745934, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI> I am also a real "information junkie". I regularly read online VI>TE>VI>newspapers and information sources. And I subscribed to numerous VI>TE>VI>periodicals and magazines--but almost all of my print subscriptions ar VI>TE>VI>not "mass media"--they are smaller scale Jewish, feminist, leftist or VI>TE>VI>"health" magazines. (By 'health" magazines I mean such periodicals as VI>TE>VI>"Prevention" and "Nutrition Action".) VI>TE>So that's good, then. Things that are not mass media are generally a VI>TE>little more respectable than mass media. I am an "information junkie" as VI>TE>well, but 90% of what I read is purely science-related. VI>Some how that doesn't surprise me. :) VI>I don't know if the stuff I read is more or less respectable than mass VI>media. It's from a different perspective and a different point of VI>view, that's for sure! :) Well, what makes me think that those things are more respectable is that they are written to put out if not facts, then people's real opinions, unlike the mass media which only attempts to shock and cause controversy. Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:03pm Forum: Reality From: Tempest Msg#: 746327 To: Vida Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746101, Reply to #746055, Reply to #745935, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>On the subject of media encouraging "The Argument Culture" did VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>catch today's "Daily News" headline and the stories re: the stu VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>which finds violence on TV hurts children. Well duh. VI>TE>VI>TE>I dunno, I saw violence on TV when I was a child and I don't think VI>TE>VI>TE>hurt me. VI>TE>VI>I think the violence we saw on TV as kids wasn't as severe as what is VI>TE>VI>on TV now. Movies and TV shows have become more and more violent. An VI>TE>VI>I believe this does influence ALL OF US in subtle and not so subtle VI>TE>VI>ways. VI>TE>Well, first, what "we" saw on TV as kids is not a good premise because VI>TE>you were a kid a couple of decades before I was, so we have different VI>TE>perspectives. I was a tiny kid in the 70's, and a bigger kid in the VI>TE>80's. VI>Sigh! VI>Why don't you just rob in the fact that I'm an old lady? I was in high VI>school in the 1970's. And an attorney in the 1980's! Aww, you're not an old lady! If you were in high school in the 1930's you'd be an old lady! VI>TE>TV/movie violence is more prevalent now, but it was a definite VI>TE>presence in the 70's and 80's already. So I did see my share of violence VI>TE>on TV as a kid, but I knew the difference between TV and reality! VI>TE>Perhaps kids don't know the difference nowadays, I dunno. I just can't VI>TE>see how it influences anyone with a grip on reality; things that happen VI>TE>to me in real life influence me 1000% more than what happens on TV! VI>That's because you see much more gore than the average person! You're VI>a paramedic/EMT type person! :) This is true... so perhaps I can't be objective about it. But most gore isn't even as bad as everyone thinks it is! Believe it or not, the bloodiest call I ever had was a childbirth; much worse in terms of gore/blood than your average gunshot wound or stabbing! Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:19am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746330 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746326, Reply to #746100, Reply to #746054, R*) TE>VVI>TE>VI> I am also a real "information junkie". I regularly read online TE>VI>TE>VI>newspapers and information sources. And I subscribed to numerous TE>VI>TE>VI>periodicals and magazines--but almost all of my print subscriptions TE>VI>TE>VI>not "mass media"--they are smaller scale Jewish, feminist, leftist TE>VI>TE>VI>"health" magazines. (By 'health" magazines I mean such periodicals TE>VI>TE>VI>"Prevention" and "Nutrition Action".) TE>VI>TE>So that's good, then. Things that are not mass media are generally a TE>VI>TE>little more respectable than mass media. I am an "information junkie" TE>VI>TE>well, but 90% of what I read is purely science-related. TE>VI>Some how that doesn't surprise me. :) TE>VI>I don't know if the stuff I read is more or less respectable than mass TE>VI>media. It's from a different perspective and a different point of TE>VI>view, that's for sure! :) TE>Well, what makes me think that those things are more respectable is TE>that they are written to put out if not facts, then people's real TE>opinions, unlike the mass media which only attempts to shock and cause TE>controversy. Well other than the "health" periodicals the stuff that I read is most definitely out to put out the real opinions of the editors and the writers. The problem with the mass media is that it only has one interest at heart--the bottom line. If it seeks to shock and cause controversy that is because that's what sells the most. Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:22am Forum: Reality From: Vida Msg#: 746331 To: Tempest Re: "The Argument Culture" (Reply to #746327, Reply to #746101, Reply to #746055, R*) TE>VI>Sigh! TE>VI>Why don't you just rob in the fact that I'm an old lady? I was in high TE>VI>school in the 1970's. And an attorney in the 1980's! TE>Aww, you're not an old lady! If you were in high school in the 1930's TE>you'd be an old lady! I'd be a very old lady if I was in high school in the 1930's. My mom graduated in high school in 1937. She would be 80 years old if she were still alive. TE>VI>TE>TV/movie violence is more prevalent now, but it was a definite TE>VI>TE>presence in the 70's and 80's already. So I did see my share of violen TE>VI>TE>on TV as a kid, but I knew the difference between TV and reality! TE>VI>TE>Perhaps kids don't know the difference nowadays, I dunno. I just can't TE>VI>TE>see how it influences anyone with a grip on reality; things that happe TE>VI>TE>to me in real life influence me 1000% more than what happens on TV! TE>VI>That's because you see much more gore than the average person! You're TE>VI>a paramedic/EMT type person! :) TE>This is true... so perhaps I can't be objective about it. But most gore TE>isn't even as bad as everyone thinks it is! Believe it or not, the TE>bloodiest call I ever had was a childbirth; much worse in terms of TE>gore/blood than your average gunshot wound or stabbing! I can believe it. But as long as both the mom and the baby made it through ok, every one was smiling in the end. :) Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:21am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746352 To: Tempest Re: Culture, m vs. f strength, etc.! (Reply to #745689, Reply to #738608, Reply to #738569, R*) TE>VI>TE>Since you're using the Samson and Delilah story to illustrate whatever TE>VI>TE>connection there is between hair and strength in our culture, then it TE>VI>TE>looks like women are stronger than men, and hippies are stronger than TE>VI>TE>any of us! TE>VI>Now you are the one who is being silly, silly, silly! Silly? How so? If this shaving = weakness routine is to be a workable construct for actual life, I want to know why the Women of France are not apparently in control of the controllable World, with the remaining hippie wimmin of Vermont etc posited as the various Ministers of Defence et cetera. If this is all about body hair means real power. If this is some theory bullshit you can shine this post off wholly or emit a placeholding response, of course. --- * SLMR 2.0 * Sleep is Not Legal Geneva Convention plus Other Laws Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:21am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746353 To: Tempest Re: Precious text (Reply to #745698, Reply to #739123, Reply to #739116, R*) TE>VI>And it's a good thing. :) TE>No it's not! Helmets really suck sometimes when it's really hot in the TE>summer... This is to V: If I want to risk contrecoup as well as rapid tortional brain trauma while operating a motor vehicle I own and am licensed to operate, what the fuck is it the business of anyone else, including the masturbating bystanders and the State Legislature? I am the one who is hurt if Shit Happens, I am the one who is vegetative and silently imploring my love to deliver the coup de grace to let me out of the resulting unfunctional body. Me. Not you. I dare you to bring up Greater Social Good as a defense of helmet laws or seatbelt laws here, we already established a long time ago that you want everyone to help feed and house people who decline to make effort to help themselves. If I fuck up on the road and catch a C1 transsection I would only silently pray for a quickening of my death; I decline to be a drag on the social system. Of course I speak for me as always, and do limit your reply argument to terms that deal with my reply... --- * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is yr brain on Drugs hear it move? Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:22am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746362 To: Tempest Re: Sociological reality (Reply to #745694, Reply to #739070, Reply to #738461, R*) TE>DT> In the middle, where the vast majority of reality work occurs, TE>DT>reality is simply what you, the believer, thinks has happened or is TE>DT>happening, without interference of agreed story line or base obvious DT>you, the judge of yr reality> horseshit. TE>Reality is ONLY what you, the believer, thinks is happening RIGHT NOW. TE>What you, the believer, thinks has happened in the past is no longer TE>reality. The past is merely a memory for said believer; a collection of TE>neurons connected in a specific way, in such a way as to create a memory TE>for the believer to think that it WAS reality at some point... no more TE>real than the memory of a dream. That's what I said up there pretty much... --- * SLMR 2.0 * To reply press Ctrl/Alt/Del and wait for a bit Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:22am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746363 To: Tempest Re: Imponderable... (Reply to #745695, Reply to #739072, Reply to #738463, R*) TE>DT> You would recover, I would make goddamn sure you would... >9* TE>I always recover, as long as you're still right there with me throughout TE>and when it's all over, I recover... ;* ;* ;* I kiss your eyes and trace yr nerves from cranium down out making smooth just for the joy of yr smile; I am Here like Air for as long as you continue to want me... --- * SLMR 2.0 * THEY DONT WANT MY MONEY Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:22am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746365 To: Tempest Re: Strap on's (Reply to #745692, Reply to #739068, Reply to #738459, R*) TE>Well, we are in a reality now although we hate to admit it because it is TE>a fairly disgusting reality at times... so all we need to do is seek the TE>services of a realitor, to guide us to the proper reality, although TE>there are many different realities in many corners of the world, and TE>after all these months neither of us has yet sussed out in which TE>direction our reality next lies, but whatever the case we need to TE>unglue ourselves from this one... TE>So that we can really krazy glue ourselves together... >:) >;* If I give my stupid walls up to the coroner to die trying to make it mutilating humans running under Hit Squad Tattoo, will you give that enterprise what it needs in assistance to work properly? I got a job and you are about to have a job, both pay. That is far from the question --- * SLMR 2.0 * To reply press Ctrl/Alt/Del and wait for a bit Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:22am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746366 To: Tempest Re: a (Reply to #745693, Reply to #739069, Reply to #738460, R*) TE>Arizona Iced Tea is basically what I leak, although I leak Snapple Iced TE>Tea as well... that's why my leakage is so good for you, one lick and TE>you get your Green Tea supplement for the day... >:) You spew 'Zona Green Ginseng tea: if you were here, I wouldnt have to make it to the store... >9* --- * SLMR 2.0 * THEY DONT WANT MY MONEY Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 4:22am Forum: Reality From: Dti Msg#: 746367 To: Tempest Re: Precious text (Reply to #745696, Reply to #739116, Reply to #738760) TE>Big deal! They got helmet laws here and no one at the bike/tattoo thing TE>in Coney Island wears helmets! There being prolly no more than seventy MOS on duty during precinct time while the Late Fall Tattoo Bike Fest runs, how would it even be minimally practical to enforce the lidlaw or any of the similar chickenshit non victim statutes during the event? We saw at least 40 skulled rapists of the Vehicle and Traffic Law last time without making notes, and that already would destroy the local pct wholly merely with reasonable expected levels of undeleted eyeballs. Bklyn South Task Force would be required, and that would result in the whole place being in the can and several million large cash in lawsuits for dogshit fake collars the next maarning. Lots of laws are merely minimally sensible and not in any way imaginably enforceable... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Nothing Exists Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 7:24pm Forum: Reality From: Renegade Msg#: 747777 To: ** ALL ** Re: More Kennedy / Lincoln Stuff (1 reply) Lincoln and Kennedy Facts: > >>> Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. > >>> John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. > >>> Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. > >>> John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. > >>> The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters. > >>> Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. > >>> Both wives lost their children while living in the White House. > >>> Both Presidents were shot on a Friday. > >>> Both were shot in the head. > >>> Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy. > >>> Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln. > >>> Both were assassinated by Southerners. > >>> Both were succeeded by Southerners. > >>> Both successors were named Johnson. > >>> Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. > >>> Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908. > >>> John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839. > >>> Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939. > >>> Both assassins were known by their three names. > >>> Both names comprise fifteen letters. > >>> Booth ran from the theatre and was caught in a warehouse. > >>> Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theatre. > >>> Booth and Oswald were both assassinated before their trials. > >>> And here's the kicker: > >>> > >>> A week before Lincoln was shot he was in Monroe, Maryland. > >>> A week before Kennedy was shot he was in Marilyn Monroe. > >>> Spooky isn't it? Date: Thursday, October 1, 1998 2:10pm Forum: Reality From: Editor Msg#: 747793 To: Renegade Re: More Kennedy / Lincoln Stuff (Reply to #747777) R >Lincoln and Kennedy Facts: R > R >> >>> Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. R >> >>> John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. ---------------------------------- R > R >> >>> Spooky isn't it? Not even slightly.... if you take a few Probability courses. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy End of list! Select a Sysop option (R,W,F,T,S,M,E,A,O,X to exit or ? for menu):