Welcome, Sysop, to Relationships: How's yours? 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: 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 "Sysop". 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. (N)onstop, (Q)uit, or (C)ontinue?  Welcome, Sysop, to Relationships: How's yours? 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: Thursday, November 7, 1996 6:26am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722332 To: ** ALL ** Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722279, Reply to #722234, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Nightbird ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- NI>VI>Yes, but I am also afraid to mess around with a good relationship. NI>VI>Part of the reason why my relationship works with Bob is that we don't NI>VI>live with each other. I have found, in the course of two long term NI>VI>live in relationships (one lasted eight years, the other five years) NI>VI>that eventually, sooner or later you start stepping on the toes of your NI>VI>live in love. NI>Steve & I didn't live together until we were married. We both liked to NI>have our own time alone. Even thought we are married, we still have NI>time for our selves, it's part of what keeps the realationship going NI>strong! How long have you and Steve been married, if you don't mind me asking. Date: Thursday, November 7, 1996 6:31am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722333 To: ** ALL ** Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722300, Reply to #722234, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Steve C ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- SC>VI>Yes, but I am also afraid to mess around with a good relationship. SC>VI>Part of the reason why my relationship works with Bob is that we don't SC>VI>live with each other. I have found, in the course of two long term SC>VI>live in relationships (one lasted eight years, the other five years) SC>VI>that eventually, sooner or later you start stepping on the toes of your SC>VI>live in love. SC>I know that, but if you truely love the other person, you will find a SC>way to get along. SC>Nightbird and i disagree on many things, but we talk about them and SC>respect each others views. Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know from personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and how sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of two egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( Date: Thursday, November 7, 1996 7:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722367 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722332, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722279, Reply *) (1 reply) VI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- VI>To: Nightbird VI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- VI>NI>VI>Yes, but I am also afraid to mess around with a good relationship. VI>NI>VI>Part of the reason why my relationship works with Bob is that we don't VI>NI>VI>live with each other. I have found, in the course of two long term VI>NI>VI>live in relationships (one lasted eight years, the other five years) VI>NI>VI>that eventually, sooner or later you start stepping on the toes of you VI>NI>VI>live in love. VI>NI>Steve & I didn't live together until we were married. We both liked to VI>NI>have our own time alone. Even thought we are married, we still have VI>NI>time for our selves, it's part of what keeps the realationship going VI>NI>strong! VI>How long have you and Steve been married, if you don't mind me asking. Why would I mind? We've been married for six year (as of September 2) Date: Thursday, November 7, 1996 7:04pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722368 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722333, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722300, Reply *) (2 replies) VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know from VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and how VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of two VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until we were husband & wife. Date: Thursday, November 7, 1996 7:34pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722406 To: ** ALL ** Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722345, Reply to #721920, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Steve Flur ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- SF>VI>I still don't understand why morally it should make a difference. How SF>VI>can you say with any degree of certainity that Steve's relationship with SF>VI>Stanley serves G-d any less than your relationship with your Steve? SF>Good question!!! Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to your Steve is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her Steve. :) Date: Thursday, November 7, 1996 7:35pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722407 To: ** ALL ** Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722355, Reply to #722314, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Nightbird ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Truth be told I would like to be married to Bob. But we both NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>suffer from "cold feet" because of our failed previous marria NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Don't push it, if you two are meant to be married, You will be! NI>VI>NI>VI>Yes, I know that. I certainly don't want to go through the mess of NI>VI>NI>VI>another divorce again! :( NI>VI>NI>But, if it's right this time, you won't have to worry about going NI>VI>NI>throught a divorce again! NI>VI>No, but if we ever break up I am sure it will be very, very painful. NI>I gather it would be so I'll pray that that doesn't happen, ok? I sure hope so! :) Date: Friday, November 8, 1996 7:58am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722444 To: Kkid Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #722391, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #716156, Rep*) (1 reply) KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same sex KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know that. Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to hear it. Date: Friday, November 8, 1996 8:01am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722445 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722407, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722355, Reply *) (1 reply) VI>I sure hope so! :) Sure, no problem, I'll be away for the weekend but I'll be back Sunday(I'm going on a retreat). TTYL Nightbird Date: Friday, November 8, 1996 10:29am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 722461 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722406, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722345, Reply *) (1 reply) VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to your Steve VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her Steve. :) Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender marriages? The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding ceremonies, including 1 chupa. Date: Sunday, November 10, 1996 12:45am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722600 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722367, Reply to #722332, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (1 reply) NI>VI>How long have you and Steve been married, if you don't mind me asking. NI>Why would I mind? We've been married for six year (as of September 2) That's a pretty respectable amount of time. :) Date: Sunday, November 10, 1996 12:46am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722601 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722368, Reply to #722333, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (1 reply) NI>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know from NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and how NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of two NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until we NI>were husband & wife. I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not your relationship is successful or not. If anything, I think that living together before you get married is better---this way you will have some idea as to whether you can get along with your spouse before the marriage, rather than after. Date: Sunday, November 10, 1996 12:49am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722602 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722445, Reply to #722407, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (1 reply) NI>VI>I sure hope so! :) NI>Sure, no problem, I'll be away for the weekend but I'll be back NI>Sunday(I'm going on a retreat). TTYL NI>Nightbird When you come back talk about your retreat in an appropriate sig, ok? Date: Sunday, November 10, 1996 12:50am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722603 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722461, Reply to #722406, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (1 reply) SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to your Steve SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her Steve. :) SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender marriages? SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding ceremonies, SF>including 1 chupa. Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjews. :) Date: Monday, November 11, 1996 10:03am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722717 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722600, Reply to #722367, Reply to #722332, F*) VI>NI>VI>How long have you and Steve been married, if you don't mind me asking. VI>NI>Why would I mind? We've been married for six year (as of September 2) VI> That's a pretty respectable amount of time. :) Thank you! Date: Monday, November 11, 1996 10:05am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722718 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722601, Reply to #722368, Reply to #722333, F*) (2 replies) VI>I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not your VI>relationship is successful or not. If anything, I think that living VI>together before you get married is better---this way you will have some VI>idea as to whether you can get along with your spouse before the VI>marriage, rather than after. Personally, I tend to be more old-fashion & that's why I waited until Steve & I were marries to live together. Date: Monday, November 11, 1996 10:05am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 722719 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722602, Reply to #722445, Reply to #722407, F*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>I sure hope so! :) VI>NI>Sure, no problem, I'll be away for the weekend but I'll be back VI>NI>Sunday(I'm going on a retreat). TTYL VI>NI>Nightbird VI>When you come back talk about your retreat in an appropriate sig, ok? Sure, if anybody is interested, why not? Date: Saturday, November 9, 1996 9:03am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 722720 To: ** ALL ** Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722495, Reply to #705441, Reply *) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Headman ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- HE>VI>What woman in her right mind doesn't like receiving oral sex???? HE> Mmmmmm. Another bit that tends to confirm my diagnosis of my HE>soon-to-be-x wife. It was a real tug of war with my morals since I did HE>vow to be faithful "in sickness and in health." I won. My morals HE>lost. If your relationship had deteroiated to such a point that the two of you could no longer love and honor each other than it is more moral to break up then to stay together, IMHO. Date: Friday, November 8, 1996 12:53pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 722721 To: ** ALL ** Re: The online "Al-chet" (Fw by Sysop, Reply to #721937, Reply to #721820, Reply *) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>It is interesting how some of my parents friends who have kno VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley and I have lived together for 14 years in a one bedro VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>apartment fail to add 1+1=2. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>They probably know but are keeping quiet so as not to upset your VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>parents. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>You should have heard my parent's friends whispering about "Milt VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>lesbian daughter" (my dad's name was Milty) when I showed up to VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>dad's funeral with my lover Gerri. VI>SF>VI>SF>Do you mean that their friends think they know something my parents VI>SF>VI>SF>not? VI>SF>VI>First of all I think your parents know on some level, but are in VI>SF>VI>denial. Second, yes, I think their friends probably have figured it VI>SF>VI>out. But keep quiet to spare the feelings of your parents. VI>SF>Denying what? VI>Am I confused? I thought you were saying that your parents still VI>haven't faced the fact that you and Stanley are sexual partners with VI>each other. If that's true, that's denial. They are fully aware, and its more then 10 years since my father got over feeling uncomfortable going into our bedroom. My question was about their friends, especially in shul, who know Stanley and know we have lived together in the one bedroom apartment for 14 years. Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 3:26pm Forum: Relationships From: Headman Msg#: 722844 To: Vida Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #722720, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #722495, Reply *) (1 reply) VI>If your relationship had deteroiated to such a point that the two of VI>you could no longer love and honor each other than it is more moral to VI>break up then to stay together, IMHO. That's the really sad part about my little saga. We still DO love and honor each other. I can say this when I consider the evidence. My wife packed me up as if she were sending me to camp! I make it a point to help her with the heavy lifting stuff and minor repairs... STILL! I'm sure that I could have stayed married... IF I didn't mind living with my sister (and my mother had no girl children, y'all). --hm Date: Friday, November 22, 1996 3:11am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 723244 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722718, Reply to #722601, Reply to #722368, R*) (1 reply) But what if anything does being married have to do with the quality of the relationship? I am sure you have known people who were married and had lousy relationships. I know I sure as hell have known such people. Date: Friday, November 22, 1996 3:12am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 723245 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722719, Reply to #722602, Reply to #722445, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>I sure hope so! :) NI>VI>NI>Sure, no problem, I'll be away for the weekend but I'll be back NI>VI>NI>Sunday(I'm going on a retreat). TTYL NI>VI>NI>Nightbird NI>VI>When you come back talk about your retreat in an appropriate sig, ok? NI>Sure, if anybody is interested, why not? I am always interested in talking to you. :) Date: Friday, November 22, 1996 3:16am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 723246 To: Headman Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #722844, Reply to #722720, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (1 reply) HE>VI>If your relationship had deteroiated to such a point that the two of HE>VI>you could no longer love and honor each other than it is more moral to HE>VI>break up then to stay together, IMHO. HE> That's the really sad part about my little saga. We still DO love HE>and honor each other. I can say this when I consider the evidence. My HE>wife packed me up as if she were sending me to camp! I make it a point HE>to help her with the heavy lifting stuff and minor repairs... STILL! HE> I'm sure that I could have stayed married... IF I didn't mind living HE>with my sister (and my mother had no girl children, y'all). HE>--hm How sad indeed! Any time I have ever broken up with a lover it has always been full of hate and recrimination. I haven't spoken to Gerri for over a year (thank goodness!), and we were "married" for five years. I haven't spoken to Janet for over five years, and we were "married" for eight years. While I am glad to finally have Gerri out of my hair, I am sad that I lost touch with Janet. Date: Sunday, November 24, 1996 4:56pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 723318 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723244, Reply to #722718, Reply to #722601, R*) (1 reply) VI>But what if anything does being married have to do with the quality of VI>the relationship? I am sure you have known people who were married and VI>had lousy relationships. I know I sure as hell have known such people. Do you really?! As for myself & Steve, we worked on our realtionship way before we got married. If you have a good marriage, you will have a good realtionship with the person you have married. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head? Date: Sunday, November 24, 1996 4:56pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 723319 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723245, Reply to #722719, Reply to #722602, R*) (1 reply) VI>I>VI>NI>VI>I sure hope so! :) VI>NI>VI>NI>Sure, no problem, I'll be away for the weekend but I'll be back VI>NI>VI>NI>Sunday(I'm going on a retreat). TTYL VI>NI>VI>NI>Nightbird VI>NI>VI>When you come back talk about your retreat in an appropriate sig, ok? VI>NI>Sure, if anybody is interested, why not? VI>I am always interested in talking to you. :) Thanks alot, if you want me to tell about the retreat, I will, ok? --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ ASCII and ye shall receive. Date: Tuesday, November 26, 1996 5:04am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 723416 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723318, Reply to #723244, Reply to #722718, R*) (2 replies) NI>VI>But what if anything does being married have to do with the quality of NI>VI>the relationship? I am sure you have known people who were married and NI>VI>had lousy relationships. I know I sure as hell have known such people. NI>Do you really?! NI>As for myself & Steve, we worked on our realtionship way before we got NI>married. NI>If you have a good marriage, you will have a good realtionship with the NI>person you have married. NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head? You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don't think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your relationship any better than it would have been if you were not married. Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. Date: Tuesday, November 26, 1996 5:05am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 723417 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723319, Reply to #723245, Reply to #722719, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>I>VI>NI>VI>I sure hope so! :) NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Sure, no problem, I'll be away for the weekend but I'll be back NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Sunday(I'm going on a retreat). TTYL NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Nightbird NI>VI>NI>VI>When you come back talk about your retreat in an appropriate sig, o NI>VI>NI>Sure, if anybody is interested, why not? NI>VI>I am always interested in talking to you. :) NI>Thanks alot, if you want me to tell about the retreat, I will, ok? NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ ASCII and ye shall receive. Do tell! I have been going to retreats at Elat Chayyim, a Jewish renewal retreat for the past two summers. So I would like to compare notes. :) Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 7:10pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 723475 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723416, Reply to #723318, Reply to #723244, R*) (1 reply) VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don't VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not married. VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you're going to go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a good realtionship with the other person. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 7:10pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 723476 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723417, Reply to #723319, Reply to #723245, R*) (2 replies) VI>Do tell! I have been going to retreats at Elat Chayyim, a Jewish VI>renewal retreat for the past two summers. So I would like to compare VI>notes. :) Well, the retreat I went on was an Interfaith retreat based on step 11 of a 12 step program. I usually go on at least two retreats a year, God & I need some time together for just each other! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ COBOL: Completely Obsolete Boring Old Language Date: Sunday, December 1, 1996 10:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 723641 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723476, Reply to #723417, Reply to #723319, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>Do tell! I have been going to retreats at Elat Chayyim, a Jewish NI>VI>renewal retreat for the past two summers. So I would like to compare NI>VI>notes. :) NI>Well, the retreat I went on was an Interfaith retreat based on step 11 NI>of a 12 step program. I usually go on at least two retreats a year, God NI>& I need some time together for just each other! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ COBOL: Completely Obsolete Boring Old Language And steve needs a free weekend once in a while also. :)/s Date: Monday, December 2, 1996 10:20pm Forum: Relationships From: Chilly Willy Msg#: 723668 To: ** ALL ** Re: idea (2 replies) A good idea to get a person to like you is to treat them to a nice evening cruise around manhattan island. not now 'cause the weather is getting bad, but later. Also let the word come from your heart, that way your not stuck having to cover up 4 your lies later... Date: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 7:59pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 723700 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723641, Reply to #723476, Reply to #723417, R*) (1 reply) SC>And steve needs a free weekend once in a while also. :)/s True love & I get some good loving once I'm back! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Nothing in the universe travels faster than a bad check Date: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 9:04pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 723722 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723700, Reply to #723641, Reply to #723476, R*) (1 reply) NI>SC>And steve needs a free weekend once in a while also. :)/s NI>True love & I get some good loving once I'm back! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Nothing in the universe travels faster than a bad check So when do I get another weekend? Date: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 9:29pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 723733 To: Chilly Willy Re: idea (Reply to #723668) CW>A good idea to get a person to like you is to treat them to a nice CW>evening cruise around manhattan island. not now 'cause the weather is CW>getting bad, but later. Also let the word come from your heart, that way CW>your not stuck having to cover up 4 your lies later... Good advice! If more people were honest with each other they would find their relationships lasting. Date: Thursday, December 5, 1996 6:26pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 723824 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723722, Reply to #723700, Reply to #723641, R*) (1 reply) SC>I>SC>And steve needs a free weekend once in a while also. :)/s SC>NI>True love & I get some good loving once I'm back! SC>NI>--- SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Nothing in the universe travels faster than a bad check SC>So when do I get another weekend? Probadly in March, darling! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Saddam Hussein still has his job. Do you? Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 12:31am Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 724026 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723824, Reply to #723722, Reply to #723700, R*) NI>SC>I>SC>And steve needs a free weekend once in a while also. :)/s NI>SC>NI>True love & I get some good loving once I'm back! NI>SC>NI>--- NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Nothing in the universe travels faster than a bad chec NI>SC>So when do I get another weekend? NI>Probadly in March, darling! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Saddam Hussein still has his job. Do you? Thats a deal darling, as I live and breathe (verry Heavilly) Date: Friday, December 20, 1996 4:40am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 724353 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723475, Reply to #723416, Reply to #723318, R*) (2 replies) NI>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don't NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not married. NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you're going to NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a good NI>realtionship with the other person. NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a divorce is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. Date: Friday, December 20, 1996 4:43am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 724354 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723476, Reply to #723417, Reply to #723319, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>Do tell! I have been going to retreats at Elat Chayyim, a Jewish NI>VI>renewal retreat for the past two summers. So I would like to compare NI>VI>notes. :) NI>Well, the retreat I went on was an Interfaith retreat based on step 11 NI>of a 12 step program. I usually go on at least two retreats a year, God NI>& I need some time together for just each other! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ COBOL: Completely Obsolete Boring Old Language I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall which step is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has been very significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alone for G-d and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to spirtual work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone--most of the time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. Date: Saturday, December 21, 1996 6:55am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 724379 To: Vida Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #723246, Reply to #722844, Reply to #722720, F*) (1 reply) Umm..boy this is confusing.. If you broke up with Gerri for a year and that theory about breaking up with a lover was full of hate and recrimination..then how would you feel about her in another year?? As for the married aspect of lovers or galfriends...hmm..what made Janet different now than say if you had broken up with her in a year's time? Date: Saturday, December 21, 1996 6:58am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 724380 To: Chilly Willy Re: idea (Reply to #723668) (1 reply) Boy oh boy..that idea struck me funny..the latter part about letting the words come out of the heart and soul...sometimes when you do pour it all out...you tend to get burned when telling too much to someone.. As for the evening cruise around manhattan...well I think there's a seaport dinner cruise somewhere in the Seaport that takes off at 7pm.. It costs a bit I think 50 or 60 per person but I think for 3 hours eating and watching the lights sparkle the night in buildings is cool.. course circle line sounds better..just BYO.. Date: Thursday, December 26, 1996 11:02am Forum: Relationships From: Headman Msg#: 724703 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724353, Reply to #723475, Reply to #723416, R*) (1 reply) VVI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a divorce VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. Tell me about it! Even with a cooperative woman, it is a royal pain! ==hm Date: Thursday, December 26, 1996 9:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 724783 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724353, Reply to #723475, Reply to #723416, R*) (1 reply) VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don't VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not marrie VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you're going to VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a good VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. VI>NI>--- VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a divorce VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many people in my life get married & then get divorced. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? Date: Thursday, December 26, 1996 9:03pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 724784 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724354, Reply to #723476, Reply to #723417, R*) (1 reply) VI>I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall which step VI>is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has been very VI>significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alone for G-d VI>and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to spirtual VI>work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone--most of the VI>time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. It's the same when I'm on retreat but I try to find some time to spiritually recharge myself. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Dulce et decorum est, pro Gaeia mori. Date: Wednesday, October 30, 1996 7:51pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 724822 To: ** ALL ** Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #721668, Reply to #721621, R*) (1 reply) VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>That coincedes with my understanding of one of the grounds for a VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>annulment so as I suggested, the civil ground derives from the C VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>Church's definition. VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>I hope you are not insulted when I say this but I always thought VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>the whole idea of annulment is pretty silly. Why deny the reali VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>a marriage existed at one time? It's just a ecunemical fiction VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>part of the Church to get around its own probation against divor VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>IMHO. VI>TR>VI>KK>That IS your opinion :-) VI>TR>VI>KK>How about it deriving from its definiton of what the point of marri VI>TR>VI>KK>is? To have children! VI>TR>VI>It is still an ecunemical fiction, any way you slice it. Why not just VI>TR>VI>say that there was a marriage and that the marriage for whatever reaso VI>TR>VI>did not work out? Certainly the Jewish religion, not even the Orthodo VI>TR>VI>branch as far as I know, ever had any illusions that all marriages are VI>TR>VI>for life. VI>TR>The Omish people marry for life. VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we decided to go our separtate ways! Date: Tuesday, December 31, 1996 2:44am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 724990 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722368, Reply to #722333, Fw by Sysop, Reply *) (2 replies) NI>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know from NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and how NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of two NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until we NI>were husband & wife. How would being married and living together make a difference as opposed to being unmarried and living together? Date: Tuesday, December 31, 1996 3:02am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 724991 To: Nightbird Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #722444, Reply to #722391, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) (2 replies) NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same sex NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know that. NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to NI>hear it. Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? Date: Tuesday, December 31, 1996 3:10am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 724992 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #723416, Reply to #723318, Reply to #723244, R*) (1 reply) VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don't VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not married. VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea of committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or bad - good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both of them are scared or not ready for that committment. Date: Tuesday, December 31, 1996 3:18am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 724993 To: Johndrake Re: idea (Reply to #724380, Reply to #723668) (1 reply) JO>Boy oh boy..that idea struck me funny..the latter part about letting the JO>words come out of the heart and soul...sometimes when you do pour it all JO>out...you tend to get burned when telling too much to someone..who supposedly deserves it> Very true. The trick is to get really good at figuring out exactly who it is that deserves to hear it, and won't screw you over afterwards... and to listen to them, as well. Date: Wednesday, January 1, 1997 7:53pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 725063 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724990, Reply to #722368, Reply to #722333, F*) (1 reply) TE>I>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know from TE>NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and how TE>NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of two TE>NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( TE>NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until we TE>NI>were husband & wife. TE>How would being married and living together make a difference as opposed TE>to being unmarried and living together? Actully, Steve & I tend to be from the "old school" which to me means that you don't live with someone until you get married to them. Actully, I don't think there is anything wrong with living with someone that you aren't married to. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ ...I have a 9600 bps modem & 1.5 bps fingers! Date: Wednesday, January 1, 1997 7:54pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 725069 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #724991, Reply to #722444, Reply to #722391, F*) (2 replies) TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same sex TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know that TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to TE>NI>hear it. TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Whoa Frodo, this doesn't look like Middle-Earth anymore Date: Thursday, January 2, 1997 9:45pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725116 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #725063, Reply to #724990, Reply to #722368, R*) (1 reply) NI>TE>I>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know fr NI>TE>NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and h NI>TE>NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of tw NI>TE>NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( NI>TE>NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until w NI>TE>NI>were husband & wife. NI>TE>How would being married and living together make a difference as opposed NI>TE>to being unmarried and living together? NI>Actully, Steve & I tend to be from the "old school" which to me means NI>that you don't live with someone until you get married to them. NI>Actully, I don't think there is anything wrong with living with someone NI>that you aren't married to. I think it's a good idea - I lived with someone for 3 and a half years up until the beginning of 1996, and I'm really glad that we lived together before we even thought of getting married, cuz it would have been a REALLY messy divorce... But, I'm glad that it's working out that way with you and Steve!! Date: Thursday, January 2, 1997 9:47pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725117 To: Nightbird Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725069, Reply to #724991, Reply to #722444, R*) (1 reply) NI>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same s NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know t NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to NI>TE>NI>hear it. NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? No problem, if you OR Kkid have an answer for that, I'd be really interested in hearing it! Date: Friday, January 3, 1997 8:32pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 725176 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #725116, Reply to #725063, Reply to #724990, R*) TE>NI>Actully, Steve & I tend to be from the "old school" which to me means TE>NI>that you don't live with someone until you get married to them. TE>NI>Actully, I don't think there is anything wrong with living with someone TE>NI>that you aren't married to. TE>I think it's a good idea - I lived with someone for 3 and a half years TE>up until the beginning of 1996, and I'm really glad that we lived TE>together before we even thought of getting married, cuz it would have TE>been a REALLY messy divorce... TE>But, I'm glad that it's working out that way with you and Steve!! Thank you. I know my sister was living with at least one boyfriend before she went her husband. I also know my brother lived with his girlfriend before they got married but, that's their lives, not mine! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Mating call of the Mail Duck: "QWK! QWK! QWK!"- G. BAKER Date: Friday, January 3, 1997 8:32pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 725182 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725117, Reply to #725069, Reply to #724991, R*) (1 reply) TE>I>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As suc TE>NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the sam TE>NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You kno TE>NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want t TE>NI>TE>NI>hear it. TE>NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people hav TE>NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other TE>NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? TE>NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really TE>NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? TE>No problem, if you OR Kkid have an answer for that, I'd be really TE>interested in hearing it! Give me a little while, I want to get quotes to prove my postion, ok? --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Time flies when I don't know what I'm doing Date: Monday, January 6, 1997 9:47pm Forum: Relationships From: Kkid Msg#: 725561 To: Nightbird Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725069, Reply to #724991, Reply to #722444, R*) (2 replies) NI>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same s NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know t NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to NI>TE>NI>hear it. NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me but marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are straight from the Bible. Now tell me how do you know that people were getting married before the bible? What year was that? :-) Date: Monday, January 6, 1997 9:47pm Forum: Relationships From: Kkid Msg#: 725628 To: ** ALL ** Re: Romer analysis (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #725069, Reply to #724991, R*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- NI>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same s NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know t NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to NI>TE>NI>hear it. NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me but marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are straight from the Bible. Now tell me how do you know that people were getting married before the bible? What year was that? :-) Date: Tuesday, January 7, 1997 9:55pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 725649 To: Kkid Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725561, Reply to #725069, Reply to #724991, R*) (1 reply) KK>Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? KK>As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me but KK>marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man KK>shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something KK>along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are KK>straight from the Bible. KK>Now tell me how do you know that people were getting married before the KK>bible? What year was that? :-) KKid, I owe you a hug. That happened to be the very quote that was going through me mind. "A man shall leave his mother & a women leave her home, they shal travel on to where the two shall be as one" --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Operation Dessert Storm-all the pies you can throw! Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 4:37am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725700 To: Nightbird Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725182, Reply to #725117, Reply to #725069, R*) (1 reply) NI>TE>I>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't wan NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>hear it. NI>TE>NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people NI>TE>NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in othe NI>TE>NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? NI>TE>NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really NI>TE>NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? NI>TE>No problem, if you OR Kkid have an answer for that, I'd be really NI>TE>interested in hearing it! NI>Give me a little while, I want to get quotes to prove my postion, ok? Sure! Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 4:45am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725701 To: Kkid Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725561, Reply to #725069, Reply to #724991, R*) (1 reply) KK>NI>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As su KK>NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the sam KK>NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You kno KK>NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want t KK>NI>TE>NI>hear it. KK>NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people hav KK>NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other KK>NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? KK>NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I really KK>NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? KK>Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? How about ancient China, before the Europeans got there? KK>As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me but KK>marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man KK>shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something KK>along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are KK>straight from the Bible. I understand, but Jewish people aren't the only ones who get married! KK>Now tell me how do you know that people were getting married before the KK>bible? What year was that? :-) Oh, I dunno, how about the ancient Egyptians, circa 4000 B.C.! Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 12:37pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 725712 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722603, Reply to #722461, Reply to #722406, F*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to your Steve VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her Steve. VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender marriages? VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding ceremonies, VI>SF>including 1 chupa. VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjews. :) And virtually every gay list. Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 12:38pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 725713 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #722718, Reply to #722601, Reply to #722368, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not your NI>VI>relationship is successful or not. If anything, I think that living NI>VI>together before you get married is better---this way you will have some NI>VI>idea as to whether you can get along with your spouse before the NI>VI>marriage, rather than after. NI>Personally, I tend to be more old-fashion & that's why I waited until NI>Steve & I were marries to live together. If Stanley and I waited we would still be waiting! Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 12:43pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 725714 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724990, Reply to #722368, Reply to #722333, F*) (1 reply) TE>NI>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know from TE>NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and how TE>NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of two TE>NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( TE>NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until we TE>NI>were husband & wife. TE>How would being married and living together make a difference as opposed TE>to being unmarried and living together? I will let you know after I/we are allowed to marry. Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 12:44pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 725715 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #724991, Reply to #722444, Reply to #722391, F*) (2 replies) TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same sex TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know that TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to TE>NI>hear it. TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from civil marriage. Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 7:11pm Forum: Relationships From: Kkid Msg#: 725739 To: Nightbird Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725649, Reply to #725561, Reply to #725069, R*) (1 reply) NI>KK>Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? NI>KK>As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me but NI>KK>marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man NI>KK>shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something NI>KK>along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are NI>KK>straight from the Bible. NI>KK>Now tell me how do you know that people were getting married before the NI>KK>bible? What year was that? :-) NI>KKid, I owe you a hug. That happened to be the very quote that was NI>going through me mind. "A man shall leave his mother & a women leave NI>her home, they shal travel on to where the two shall be as one" Oooooh! Hugs are nice! :-) Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 7:15pm Forum: Relationships From: Kkid Msg#: 725740 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725701, Reply to #725561, Reply to #725069, R*) (1 reply) TE>KK>Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? TE>How about ancient China, before the Europeans got there? The Europeans did not introduce Judaism to China! There is evidence of Jews in ancient China as well as in the heart of the African jungles. TE>KK>As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me but TE>KK>marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man TE>KK>shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something TE>KK>along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are TE>KK>straight from the Bible. TE>I understand, but Jewish people aren't the only ones who get married! That does not necessarily negate the fact that Jews may have introduced the concept as a religious rite. Date: Wednesday, January 8, 1997 9:06pm Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 725790 To: Tempest Re: idea (Reply to #724993, Reply to #724380, Reply to #723668) (1 reply) It's just confusing to figure whose gonna take you for granted and whose really genuine..my guesses are as bad to trust whom verus who not to trust..ugh..I guess maybe I'm just a bear...a teddy bear who trusts too many folks.. Date: Thursday, January 9, 1997 1:59am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725817 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #725714, Reply to #724990, Reply to #722368, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>NI>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just know f SF>TE>NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....and h SF>TE>NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of tw SF>TE>NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( SF>TE>NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together until w SF>TE>NI>were husband & wife. SF>TE>How would being married and living together make a difference as opposed SF>TE>to being unmarried and living together? SF>I will let you know after I/we are allowed to marry. Heh, maybe by that time I'll be married myself! Date: Thursday, January 9, 1997 2:01am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725818 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725715, Reply to #724991, Reply to #722444, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As such SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the same s SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You know t SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want to SF>TE>NI>hear it. SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from civil SF>marriage. True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotional marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get married anyway. Date: Thursday, January 9, 1997 2:09am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725819 To: Kkid Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725740, Reply to #725701, Reply to #725561, R*) (1 reply) KK>TE>KK>Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? KK>TE>How about ancient China, before the Europeans got there? KK>The Europeans did not introduce Judaism to China! KK>There is evidence of Jews in ancient China as well as in the heart of KK>the African jungles. That does not mean that the Chinese learned the ritual of marriage from the Jews. And if there were enough Jews in ancient China to influence them that much, then why didn't the Chinese start practicing Judaism? Even if you're right - what about the Native Americans? They have their own marital ceremony. Did the Jews get to the Americas before the Europeans did, as well? KK>TE>KK>As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me bu KK>TE>KK>marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man KK>TE>KK>shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something KK>TE>KK>along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are KK>TE>KK>straight from the Bible. KK>TE>I understand, but Jewish people aren't the only ones who get married! KK>That does not necessarily negate the fact that Jews may have introduced KK>the concept as a religious rite. But it doesn't mean that the Jews introduced the concept either, so there's still no proof whatsoever that marriage comes from the bible. Date: Thursday, January 9, 1997 2:12am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725820 To: Johndrake Re: idea (Reply to #725790, Reply to #724993, Reply to #724380, R*) (1 reply) JO>It's just confusing to figure whose gonna take you for granted and whose JO>really genuine..my guesses are as bad to trust whom verus who not to JO>trust..ugh..I guess maybe I'm just a bear...a teddy bear who trusts too JO>many folks.. JO> Well, maybe you oughtta just give it a little more time till you get to know the person better, until you trust them. Date: Wednesday, November 20, 1996 10:14pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 725999 To: ** ALL ** Re: Happy new year! (Copy by Lythande, Reply to #723092, Reply to #723070, R*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: SteveC ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- SC>TE>SC>TE>SF>Sounds like we should continue the winning course of blaiming th SC>TE>SC>TE>SF>spousessssssss SC>TE>SC>TE>It's always the spouse's fault! No matter what :) SC>TE>SC>Oh Really? SC>TE>Yes, Really! SC>I assume your single. I know from experience that if I made a statement SC>like that, my wife would not let me live it down for quite a while. :) I'm not married technically, but I'm not single. And the concept of everything being the significant other's fault has always been a solid part of all of my long-term relationships :) Date: Friday, January 10, 1997 7:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 726038 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #725713, Reply to #722718, Reply to #722601, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>VI>I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not your SF>NI>VI>relationship is successful or not. If anything, I think that living SF>NI>VI>together before you get married is better---this way you will have som SF>NI>VI>idea as to whether you can get along with your spouse before the SF>NI>VI>marriage, rather than after. SF>NI>Personally, I tend to be more old-fashion & that's why I waited until SF>NI>Steve & I were marries to live together. SF>If Stanley and I waited we would still be waiting! I wish I had a answer for you & Stanley, I really do. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Anything you say will be misquoted & used against you. Date: Friday, January 10, 1997 7:01pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 726051 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725700, Reply to #725182, Reply to #725117, R*) TE>I>TE>I>TE>I>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. A TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of t TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. Y TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>NI>hear it. TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if peop TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in o TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? TE>NI>TE>NI>Tempest, the orignal message was written by kkid, personally I real TE>NI>TE>NI>have to think about this before I can give you a answer, ok? TE>NI>TE>No problem, if you OR Kkid have an answer for that, I'd be really TE>NI>TE>interested in hearing it! TE>NI>Give me a little while, I want to get quotes to prove my postion, ok? TE>Sure! Thank you --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Through a truly open mind can blow a coldly cynical wind. Date: Friday, January 10, 1997 7:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 726052 To: Kkid Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725739, Reply to #725649, Reply to #725561, R*) KK>NI>KK>Tempest...you know a part of the world in which the bible is unknown? KK>NI>KK>As for your other question I do not have the passage in front of me bu KK>NI>KK>marriage is mentioned in the bible...something like "therefore a man KK>NI>KK>shall leave his parents and attatch himself to a wife..." something KK>NI>KK>along those lines. Most of the Jewish laws pertaining to marriage are KK>NI>KK>straight from the Bible. KK>NI>KK>Now tell me how do you know that people were getting married before th KK>NI>KK>bible? What year was that? :-) KK>NI>KKid, I owe you a hug. That happened to be the very quote that was KK>NI>going through me mind. "A man shall leave his mother & a women leave KK>NI>her home, they shal travel on to where the two shall be as one" KK>Oooooh! Hugs are nice! :-) Good, I should give you a big one(A hug that is!) --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Mars wants its rocks back. - Joseph Sullivan Date: Monday, January 13, 1997 10:13pm Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 726359 To: Steve Flur Re: Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725715, Reply to #724991, Reply to #722444, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 01-08-97 Steve Flur wrote to Tempest : TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? SF> Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from civil SF> marriage. Oh, my gosh. I AGREE WITH STEVE!!!! I AGREE WITH STEVE!!!! Wow. TANSTAAFL, RAND --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Monday, January 13, 1997 10:14pm Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 726360 To: Tempest Re: Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725819, Reply to #725740, Reply to #725701, R*) In a message dated 01-09-97 Tempest wrote to Kkid : T> Even if you're right - what about the Native Americans? They have their T> own marital ceremony. Did the Jews get to the Americas before the T> Europeans did, as well? According to the Mormons, yes. TANSTAAFL, RAND --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 2:31pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 726462 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #725817, Reply to #725714, Reply to #724990, R*) TE>SF>TE>NI>VI>Obviously some long term live in realtionships work. I just kno TE>SF>TE>NI>VI>personal experience how hard it is to live with your lover....an TE>SF>TE>NI>VI>sometimes a love relationship breaks up because of the stress of TE>SF>TE>NI>VI>egos living in close proximity, clashing with each other. :( TE>SF>TE>NI>I could understand that, luckly Steve & I didn't live together unti TE>SF>TE>NI>were husband & wife. TE>SF>TE>How would being married and living together make a difference as oppos TE>SF>TE>to being unmarried and living together? TE>SF>I will let you know after I/we are allowed to marry. TE>Heh, maybe by that time I'll be married myself! Be prepared then for a long wait. Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 2:32pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 726463 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #725818, Reply to #725715, Reply to #724991, R*) (1 reply) TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. As s TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the sam TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You kno TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't want t TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people hav TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from civil TE>SF>marriage. TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotional TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get married anyway. Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that piece of paper. Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 2:34pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 726464 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #726038, Reply to #725713, Reply to #722718, R*) NI>SF>I>VI>I don't think that has anything to do with whether or not your NI>SF>NI>VI>relationship is successful or not. If anything, I think that livin NI>SF>NI>VI>together before you get married is better---this way you will have NI>SF>NI>VI>idea as to whether you can get along with your spouse before the NI>SF>NI>VI>marriage, rather than after. NI>SF>NI>Personally, I tend to be more old-fashion & that's why I waited until NI>SF>NI>Steve & I were marries to live together. NI>SF>If Stanley and I waited we would still be waiting! NI>I wish I had a answer for you & Stanley, I really do. NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Anything you say will be misquoted & used against you. You as an individual could let your church officials know how you feel. Date: Tuesday, January 14, 1997 2:35pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 726465 To: Rand Re: Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #726359, Reply to #725715, Reply to #724991, R*) RA>In a message dated 01-08-97 Steve Flur wrote to Tempest : RA>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people have RA>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in other RA>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? RA>SF> Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from civil RA>SF> marriage. RA>Oh, my gosh. I AGREE WITH STEVE!!!! I AGREE WITH STEVE!!!! RA>Wow. RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> RAND RA>--- RA> * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I know it feels odd, doesn't it! Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:22am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 726740 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #726463, Reply to #725818, Reply to #725715, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible. A SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of the SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. You SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't wan SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if people SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in othe SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from civi SF>TE>SF>marriage. SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotional SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get married anyway. SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that piece of SF>paper. That would be the ideal situation! Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:46am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 726751 To: Tempest Re: idea (Reply to #725820, Reply to #725790, Reply to #724993, R*) (1 reply) True but you know me..I got the one foot in the grave and one on something else.. Time is what I have...trust is another story...I think that dept was lost a long time ago Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:54am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 726754 To: Johndrake Re: idea (Reply to #726751, Reply to #725820, Reply to #725790, R*) (1 reply) JO>True but you know me..I got the one foot in the grave and one on JO>something else.. Hmm... on what! JO>Time is what I have...trust is another story...I think that dept was JO>lost a long time ago Eh, don't give up. You'll find the right person to trust eventually, and you'll know when that happens. Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 1:09am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 726780 To: ** ALL ** Re: Friends of both of us (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #726614, Reply to #726544, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Johndrake ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- JO>What makes it a mess....wait..DOn't answer that...better off explaining JO>why in /RELATIONSHIPS... JO> Well, we can continue there when it gets moved. It's a mess now because, now we have all these people who consider themselves friends of both of us, and a lot of times they get forced into choosing between me or him, who to hang out with, etc. because things are still very tense between the two of us. They want me and my ex to be friends so that they could hang out with both of us, but that's easier said than done, so they wind up getting pushed in the middle of our tension, and it's no good. Date: Saturday, January 18, 1997 1:48pm Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 726957 To: Tempest Re: idea (Reply to #726754, Reply to #726751, Reply to #725820, R*) (1 reply) Tell ya the truth I dunno what my other foot has stepped into.. As for finding the right person..this too has to make me wonder...maybe I have and its gone by me..and maybe it's not..and I have to look more deeper .. you know what I wish I had..in some sense...the kind of relationship that I gather Disky/Fozz/Craig has with Mel...that kind where she'll go out of her way to make him feel special and such...Not the heavy duty that sense but the gist of it...fromw hat I had seen last night..that's what it felt from my pov Date: Saturday, January 18, 1997 1:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 726958 To: Tempest Re: Friends of both of us (Reply to #726780, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #726614, Rep*) (1 reply) Wha I don't see is the point of why they want you and the ex to be friends still so everyone could hang... that seems a bit strange...I gather I can understand if one day you and he end up at a party...and what happens then...but I dunno...hang out with friends and their friends regardless of whose on the guest list just seems a bit odd.. Date: Saturday, January 18, 1997 3:36pm Forum: Relationships From: Enchanter Msg#: 726960 To: ** ALL ** Re: What do you think? (2 replies) I suppose it's appropriate for me to mention my current relationship. While it's probably the dumbest thing to do, it is long-distance. My beloved lives in Pennsylvania. We met on the internet about 4 months ago on a website called WBS. It's a chat system with multiple hubs of rooms. I met Lindz in the atheist chat room. We've hit it off so well since that I've found myself in love. This is why I persist although she lives somewhat far away. We've met twice already. Once she came to my birthday last month, the other, I came to visit her in her little town just outside of Harrisburg. She also goes to school in PA, but that's even farther than Harrisburg. I plan on visiting her at school soon. She's also going to visit me here in NY around March for about a week. In total, we've probably seen each other a total of 5 days. I'm not sure where this will go, but I'm hoping it will turn out favorably. I've been involved in relationships before, but they weren't good for long. I was in love with another girl for 2 years and we had the best time together then, but she was so undecisive that she couldn't decide if she wanted to stay with me or not, even though she claimed to love me. I had to break it off. That was followed by 2 superficial "relationships" that are best left unmentioned. Now I'm finding myself in love again when I was sure that wouldn't happen for some time, and it's not easy to give up. Date: Sunday, January 19, 1997 5:00am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 727003 To: Enchanter Re: What do you think? (Reply to #726960) (1 reply) Let's see ...First off..I know WBS..course I haven't been active there but that's another story... Second thought...you mentioned in the latter part of the message about a 2 year relationship that was the best time you had together..but the undecisiveness made you feel pigeon-held that things had to break. SOunds a bit like what I had gone through some months ago myself..but then again that's a story on its own. Last thing...Ok..the long distance situation...you know that long distances relationships don't hold water much...Hell I know those very well.....and what it boils down to is simply this...is this bond that you and the new gal you're seeing strong enough to bridge that large miles gap.. .. You have to ask yourself this much....what are you and she going to do to close the miles gap...are either one of you deemed to move closer to the other?? And as I mentioned before..is the ties strong to bridge the gap? Love is the toughest thing to figure out especially when there's distance and a lot of things that still are a mystery... I know from what I have gone through for 6 or so months I have had a lot of doublechecking and triplechecking myself and asking why I am in what I am in now...there's good and bad..and there's some decent but not enough to really drive me to the extreme... At first there was no foundation...just a lot of intense thoughts...but then the walls came down but I still had to deal with her other problems..and it took some time to figure and understand.. Sure we have the usual fights and arguements but it's only for the fact that both of us are stubborn and we believe in what we think is right or believe is true..but that's stupid shit.. Anyhow...consider this much..with all the stories you've heard with long distance relationships going sour or meeting on the Internet which went good and bad...you have to ask yerself about the ties you and the gal pal have... Date: Monday, January 20, 1997 3:14pm Forum: Relationships From: Enchanter Msg#: 727150 To: Johndrake Re: What do you think? (Reply to #727003, Reply to #726960) (1 reply) JO>Second thought...you mentioned in the latter part of the message about a JO>2 year relationship that was the best time you had together..but the JO>undecisiveness made you feel pigeon-held that things had to break. JO>SOunds a bit like what I had gone through some months ago myself..but JO>then again that's a story on its own. It was the hardest thing for me to do to break it off myself, but I knew that to drag it along longer would've been worse. I guess I was so in love for 2 years that I didn't want to know it wasn't as good as I felt. JO>Last thing...Ok..the long distance situation...you know that long JO>distances relationships don't hold water much...Hell I know those very JO>well.. JO>You have to ask yourself this much....what are you and she going to do JO>to close the miles gap...are either one of you deemed to move closer to JO>the other?? And as I mentioned before..is the ties strong to bridge the JO>gap? I know for a fact that I won't be living in NYC indefinitely, and she doesn't want to live where she lives either. The difference is that she's still got about 2 years of school left while I only have to wait out 5 months or so. See, after I take my boards (and presumably pass), I'll be starting my clinical clerkships. My school is notorious for making students jump from one location to another for every clerkship. I could find myself in Boston for 6 weeks, then in Phoenix for 6 weeks after that. I've requested the northeast area but I doubt it'll make any difference. Perhaps some of those clerkships will be in Phillie or Pittsburg. I guess you can see this isn't exactly well planned out. Date: Monday, January 20, 1997 12:31pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727156 To: ** ALL ** Re: Good guys (gals) finish last? (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727081, Reply to #727005, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Johndrake ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- JO>AH...so in some odd way I shouldn't think of a lover right off the JO>bat..but a confidante...hmm..considering what was spoken about that JO>breakfast situation....it occurs to me that despite the theory about JO>nice guys finishing last...it's when to stop sticking the neck out for JO>people..and thus let them fend for themselves Nice guys don't have to finish last, if(don't be mad at me, johndrake, for saying this)they don't let themselves be stepped on. This is coming from someone who always thought good guys(gals)finished last. The last realtionship I was in before Steve, I tried to change the way I was, I was going out with a man who told me, in on uncertain way that"if I was the last women on this world, he still wouldn't go out with me", well, I tried to be the nice girl(whatever you want honey, you need money for the van/car,etc) I was dumped at his grandmother's funrael. I told you, Steve & I were friends for almost an entire year before we started going out. I was willing to give me up to my best friend because I loved him so much I just wanted him to be happy. Well, that was almost 10 years ago & you see that we are still together. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ He does the work of 3 men... Moe, Larry & Curly Date: Monday, January 20, 1997 6:06pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727196 To: ** ALL ** *EXEMPT* Re: Da Dive Run 97:Drink Till Ya Puke Freeze .... (Fw by Sysop, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #727081, Reply to #7*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Sysop >-------------- To: Johndrake ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Sysop >---------- JO>AH...so in some odd way I shouldn't think of a lover right off the JO>bat..but a confidante...hmm..considering what was spoken about that JO>breakfast situation....it occurs to me that despite the theory about JO>nice guys finishing last...it's when to stop sticking the neck out for JO>people..and thus let them fend for themselves Nice guys don't always finish last. The problem might be that you are too concerned with getting a girlfriend, and are opening up to the wrong girls. I am not trying to say don't try to find a girlfriend, only when you find someone you like, take it slower . Think of the person as a friend. If you can't see yourself being friends with this person then they might not be good lover material either. Good luck Date: Tuesday, January 21, 1997 8:03pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727292 To: ** ALL ** Re: Soulmate (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727212, Reply to #726937, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- TE>O>Ah..this too poses the question of soulmate...just how can one tell TE>JO>whose the soulmate and whose just a poser...ah TE>JO> TE>Oh, believe me, you'll KNOW!!! If it doesn't feel like a soulmate, then TE>it isn't. If it doesn't feel right, it's not a soulmate, I know that for the truth. I'm glad I found my soulmate. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ But, officer, I was only going ONE way! Date: Tuesday, January 21, 1997 9:18pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727293 To: ** ALL ** Re: Relationship counselor (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727209, Reply to #726917, Rep*) (2 replies) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of marriage TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those future TE>SC>JO>arguments...ugh TE>SC>JO> TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should TE>SC>all click for you./s TE>Well put!!! Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) Date: Wednesday, January 22, 1997 8:43pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727322 To: Steve C Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727293, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727209, Rep*) (1 reply) SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- SC>TO: Tempest SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of marri SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those futur SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments...ugh SC>TE>SC>JO> SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s SC>TE>Well put!!! SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer Date: Wednesday, January 22, 1997 9:42pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727333 To: Nightbird Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727322, Reply to #727293, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) (1 reply) NI>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- NI>SC>TO: Tempest NI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of ma NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those fu NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments... NI>SC>TE>SC>JO> NI>SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should NI>SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s NI>SC>TE>Well put!!! NI>SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) NI>How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer Do you think the name will fit on the door? Date: Thursday, January 23, 1997 11:13pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727417 To: Steve C Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727333, Reply to #727322, Reply to #727293, F*) (1 reply) SC>I>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- SC>NI>SC>TO: Tempest SC>NI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments..NI>SC>TE>SC>JO> SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s SC>NI>SC>TE>Well put!!! SC>NI>SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) SC>NI>How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) SC>NI>--- SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer SC>Do you think the name will fit on the door? Sure, one on top & one of the bottom! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Baroque: (def.) When you are out of Monet! Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:07am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727438 To: Johndrake Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #724379, Reply to #723246, Reply to #722844, R*) (1 reply) JO>Umm..boy this is confusing.. JO>If you broke up with Gerri for a year and that theory about breaking up JO>with a lover was full of hate and recrimination..then how would you feel JO>about her in another year?? JO>As for the married aspect of lovers or galfriends...hmm..what made Janet JO>different now than say if you had broken up with her in a year's time? Your question is confusing to me. I was "married" to Janet from aproximately 1980 to aproximately 1989. My relationship with Gerri lasted from aproximately 1989 to 1994. I have been dating Bob since May 1994. You also have to understand that my relationship with Gerri was a horror show. My relationship with Janet, although not without its problems was basically good while it lasted. I also have not seen Janet since 1992. The other big difference is that Janet broke up with me. I broke up with Gerri. Certainly my feelings for Gerri have changed as our relationship becomes more and more of a distant memory. I really was furious with her when I left. I hardly think of her any more. Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:08am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727439 To: Headman Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724703, Reply to #724353, Reply to #723475, R*) And if the ex is NOT cooperative than getting a divorce can be a REAL pain! :( Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:10am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727440 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724783, Reply to #724353, Reply to #723475, R*) (2 replies) NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I do NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not mar NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you're going t NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a good NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a divorce NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many people in NI>my life get married & then get divorced. NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you. Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinking about it, unfortunately. Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:11am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727441 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724784, Reply to #724354, Reply to #723476, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall which step NI>VI>is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has been very NI>VI>significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alone for G-d NI>VI>and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to spirtual NI>VI>work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone--most of the NI>VI>time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. NI>It's the same when I'm on retreat but I try to find some time to NI>spiritually recharge myself. NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Dulce et decorum est, pro Gaeia mori. Yes, but I get recharged from the classes which I take and the activities which I participate in. Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:13am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727442 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724822, Copy by Lythande, Reply to #721668, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>That coincedes with my understanding of one of the grounds fo NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>annulment so as I suggested, the civil ground derives from th NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>Church's definition. NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>I hope you are not insulted when I say this but I always thou NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>the whole idea of annulment is pretty silly. Why deny the re NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>a marriage existed at one time? It's just a ecunemical ficti NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>part of the Church to get around its own probation against di NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>VI>IMHO. NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>That IS your opinion :-) NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>How about it deriving from its definiton of what the point of ma NI>VI>TR>VI>KK>is? To have children! NI>VI>TR>VI>It is still an ecunemical fiction, any way you slice it. Why not ju NI>VI>TR>VI>say that there was a marriage and that the marriage for whatever re NI>VI>TR>VI>did not work out? Certainly the Jewish religion, not even the Orth NI>VI>TR>VI>branch as far as I know, ever had any illusions that all marriages NI>VI>TR>VI>for life. NI>VI>TR>The Omish people marry for life. NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we decided to NI>go our separtate ways! That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But take it from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work out the way you think they will. Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:15am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727443 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #724992, Reply to #723416, Reply to #723318, R*) (2 replies) TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don't TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not married. TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea of TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or bad - TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both of TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is something like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound like marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment to me. :( Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:17am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727444 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #725712, Reply to #722603, Reply to #722461, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to your St SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her Steve SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender marriages SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding ceremonies, SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjews. :) SF>And virtually every gay list. Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e mail list. ? :) Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 3:22am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727445 To: Enchanter Re: What do you think? (Reply to #726960) (1 reply) How do you make your commitment persist if you don't see your love very often? Would she move to NY for you or you move to Pa for her? Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 9:15am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 727453 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #726740, Reply to #726463, Reply to #725818, R*) (1 reply) TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bible TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals of t TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry. Y TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don't TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if peop TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and in o TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate from c TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotional TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get married anywa TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that piece of TE>SF>paper. TE>That would be the ideal situation! Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight couples. Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 9:21am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 727454 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727444, Reply to #725712, Reply to #722603, R*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to your VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her St VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender marria VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding ceremonies VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjews. :) VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e mail list. VI>? :) Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 9:59pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727474 To: Nightbird Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727417, Reply to #727333, Reply to #727322, R*) (1 reply) NI>SC>I>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- NI>SC>NI>SC>TO: Tempest NI>SC>NI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- NI>SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years NI>SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid th NI>SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments..SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>JO> NI>SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should NI>SC>NI>SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s NI>SC>NI>SC>TE>Well put!!! NI>SC>NI>SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) NI>SC>NI>How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) NI>SC>NI>--- NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer NI>SC>Do you think the name will fit on the door? NI>Sure, one on top & one of the bottom! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Baroque: (def.) When you are out of Monet! That sounds perverted!!!!!! Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 10:28pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727483 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727440, Reply to #724783, Reply to #724353, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no les VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you're goin VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a good VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a divor VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many people in VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. VI>NI>--- VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you. VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinking VI>about it, unfortunately. Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) Date: Friday, January 24, 1997 10:29pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727484 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727443, Reply to #724992, Reply to #723416, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not marrie VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea of VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or bad - VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both of VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is something VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound like VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment to VI>me. :( So just because half the people can't get it right, do we condemm the other half. :) Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 8:55am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727519 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727454, Reply to #727444, Reply to #725712, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship to y SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to her SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender mar SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding ceremon SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjews. :) SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e mail list. SF>VI>? :) SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 8:56am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727520 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727483, Reply to #727440, Reply to #724783, R*) (2 replies) SC>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were n SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you're g SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a good SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- SC>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF SC>VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a di SC>VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. SC>VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many people i SC>VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. SC>VI>NI>--- SC>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you. SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinking SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) I hope to be able to do so. :) Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 8:57am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727521 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727484, Reply to #727443, Reply to #724992, R*) (1 reply) SC>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I SC>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your SC>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not mar SC>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. SC>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. SC>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea of SC>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or bad SC>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both of SC>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. SC>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is something SC>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound like SC>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment to SC>VI>me. :( SC>So just because half the people can't get it right, do we condemm the SC>other half. :) I wouldn't dream of it. :) Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 4:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727528 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727440, Reply to #724783, Reply to #724353, R*) (1 reply) VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you. VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinking VI>about it, unfortunately. Steve & I have had some really hard times in the past 6+ years, including losing our daughter. When I decided we decided to get married, we made a decision to work out our problems. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ DANGER DANGER Computer store ahead...hide wallet. Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 4:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727529 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727441, Reply to #724784, Reply to #724354, R*) (1 reply) VI>I>VI>I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall which step VI>NI>VI>is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has been very VI>NI>VI>significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alone for G-d VI>NI>VI>and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to spirtual VI>NI>VI>work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone--most of t VI>NI>VI>time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. VI>NI>It's the same when I'm on retreat but I try to find some time to VI>NI>spiritually recharge myself. VI>NI>--- VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Dulce et decorum est, pro Gaeia mori. VI>Yes, but I get recharged from the classes which I take and the VI>activities which I participate in. I have a women's retreat in March & I am most defentily looking forward to it!!! I really need it! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ del Banquo.* del damnspot.* Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 4:13pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727530 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727442, Reply to #724822, Copy by Lythande, R*) (2 replies) VI>NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? VI>NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we decided to VI>NI>go our separtate ways! VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But take it VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work out VI>the way you think they will. That's not always true! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Denial: Not just a river in Egypt Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 4:13pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727534 To: Steve C Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727474, Reply to #727417, Reply to #727333, R*) (1 reply) SC>NI>SC>NI>How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) SC>NI>SC>NI>--- SC>NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer SC>NI>SC>Do you think the name will fit on the door? SC>NI>Sure, one on top & one of the bottom! SC>NI>--- SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Baroque: (def.) When you are out of Monet! SC>That sounds perverted!!!!!! AND!!!!!!!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Earn cash in your spare time... blackmail your friends. Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 4:14pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727543 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727520, Reply to #727483, Reply to #727440, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationsh VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes yo VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you wer VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, I VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you'r VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a g VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. VI>SC>VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many peopl VI>SC>VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. VI>SC>VI>NI>--- VI>SC>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? VI>SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not VI>SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you VI>SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinki VI>SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) You will be able to, beileve me! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Fer sell cheep: IBM spel chekker. Wurks grate. Date: Sunday, January 26, 1997 4:32pm Forum: Relationships From: Enchanter Msg#: 727544 To: Vida Re: What do you think? (Reply to #727445, Reply to #726960) (1 reply) VI>How do you make your commitment persist if you don't see your love very VI>often? Would she move to NY for you or you move to Pa for her? As I said, this isn't exactly all planned out. She wants to move away. She didn't even like where she lived before she met me and wanted to leave; now there's all the better excuse. As for me moving to PA, it's not really a question of moving since I don't even know where I'll end up working in 2 years from now. I'm living with my parents now. It's really more of a temporary shelter than a permanent home. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 12:18am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 727574 To: Enchanter Re: What do you think? (Reply to #727150, Reply to #727003, Reply to #726960) (1 reply) Nah but you have to think there's a bright side to things..if you end up doing the clerkship in the surrounding Philly area...then hey it's just a rental car away and a weekend trip too :) The schooling part presents a problem..true that education is important just remeber thatn when she finishes her schooling you'll already be established a bit and who knows..maybe you two could end up living together in some oddball town..:) It's a tough decision if things don't go the way you want it...that's the possible thought/downfall if things go amuck... The best thing to do is just take it one day at a time..and then face the shit straight up when the shit hits ..and hit hard it will... Vman..you need to figure what you're goals gonna be for yourself before you can open for someone else to walk into your life... That's the problem I have been facing in the # of years..believe me..you know one or two but I still have yet to figure things for myself still.. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 12:19am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 727575 To: Nightbird Re: Good guys (gals) finish last? (Reply to #727156, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727081, Rep*) (1 reply) Yep...but sometimes when you just feel that instant reaction from meeting someone for the first time you have to ask and wonder.....what if..and if that what if happens..then...ah..chemistry has to be there , that sense of feeling it for the first meeting.. I think I have relationships backwards..you go all out for a great first impresison and then see what happens when you do go out.. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 12:21am Forum: Relationships From: Johndrake Msg#: 727576 To: Steve C Re: Da Dive Run 97:Drink Till Ya Puke Freeze .... (Reply to #727196, Fw by Sysop, Fw by Sysop, Reply to #7*) (1 reply) The brain thinks logically..the heart..you have to beat the crap outta it till it gets it right.. Hard to say about being friends with someone since the heart always has that veto power about writing them off as whatevertobe.. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 6:37pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727622 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727528, Reply to #727440, Reply to #724783, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not NI>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you. NI>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a NI>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinking NI>VI>about it, unfortunately. NI>Steve & I have had some really hard times in the past 6+ years, NI>including losing our daughter. When I decided we decided to get NI>married, we made a decision to work out our problems. NI>--- I have no doubt about your dedication. Or your determinition to work things out. My only point is that one can never know what the future will bring. Goodness knows, however, I hope you guys stick it out forever. :) Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 6:38pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727623 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727529, Reply to #727441, Reply to #724784, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>I>VI>I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall which st NI>VI>NI>VI>is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has been ve NI>VI>NI>VI>significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alone for NI>VI>NI>VI>and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to spirtua NI>VI>NI>VI>work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone--most o NI>VI>NI>VI>time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. NI>VI>NI>It's the same when I'm on retreat but I try to find some time to NI>VI>NI>spiritually recharge myself. NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Dulce et decorum est, pro Gaeia mori. NI>VI>Yes, but I get recharged from the classes which I take and the NI>VI>activities which I participate in. NI>I have a women's retreat in March & I am most defentily looking forward NI>to it!!! NI>I really need it! NI>--- Hope it goes well for you. Give me details in the /Theology sig, s'il vous plait. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 6:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727624 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727530, Reply to #727442, Reply to #724822, C*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? NI>VI>NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we decided t NI>VI>NI>go our separtate ways! NI>VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But take it NI>VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally NI>VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work out NI>VI>the way you think they will. NI>That's not always true! NI>--- What part of my previous statement are you saying is not always true??? You are not clear here. All I can say is that with my two previous marriages I intended both of the marriages to be life partnerships when I commmitted to those relationships. It unfortunately (in one case) and fortunately (in the other case) did not work out that way. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 6:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727625 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727543, Reply to #727520, Reply to #727483, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relatio NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more a NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if yo NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than gettin NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many pe NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. NI>VI>SC>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>SC>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put i NI>VI>SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not NI>VI>SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring NI>VI>SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a NI>VI>SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thi NI>VI>SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. NI>VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) NI>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) NI>You will be able to, beileve me! NI>--- G-d willing. :) Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 6:43pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727626 To: Enchanter Re: What do you think? (Reply to #727544, Reply to #727445, Reply to #726960) EN>VI>How do you make your commitment persist if you don't see your love very EN>VI>often? Would she move to NY for you or you move to Pa for her? EN>As I said, this isn't exactly all planned out. She wants to move away. EN>She didn't even like where she lived before she met me and wanted to EN>leave; now there's all the better excuse. As for me moving to PA, it's EN>not really a question of moving since I don't even know where I'll end EN>up working in 2 years from now. I'm living with my parents now. It's EN>really more of a temporary shelter than a permanent home. Ok, so it sounds like the two of you are not exactly graven in stone where you are currently living. I say, under those circumstances...go for it!! If things work out between you two, one or both of you can always move. :) Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 7:29pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727635 To: Johndrake Re: Good guys (gals) finish last? (Reply to #727575, Reply to #727156, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) JO>Yep...but sometimes when you just feel that instant reaction from JO>meeting someone for the first time you have to ask and wonder.....what JO>if..and if that what if happens..then...ah..chemistry has to be there , JO>that sense of feeling it for the first meeting.. JO>I think I have relationships backwards..you go all out for a great first JO>impresison and then see what happens when you do go out.. Personally, when Steve & I first met(almost 11 years ago) there was something there but I was seeing someone else & I didn't know if he was(Also, he was a manager & I was a outside messenger.) I try to make a good first impresion because if people read my messages & then meet me, I tend to think I can say more in person than in a message(I can't spell for anything & I don't want people to think I'm dumb or something! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Hey! Who uncorked my bottle of lunch? Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 7:30pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727642 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727622, Reply to #727528, Reply to #727440, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not VI>NI>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you VI>NI>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>NI>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinki VI>NI>VI>about it, unfortunately. VI>NI>Steve & I have had some really hard times in the past 6+ years, VI>NI>including losing our daughter. When I decided we decided to get VI>NI>married, we made a decision to work out our problems. VI>NI>--- VI>I have no doubt about your dedication. Or your determinition to work VI>things out. My only point is that one can never know what the future VI>will bring. Goodness knows, however, I hope you guys stick it out VI>forever. :) You are right, I don't know what the future holds but I'm willing be work on my Marriage to make sure it stays great! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I believe in The Divine Right of SysOps. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 7:30pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727643 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727623, Reply to #727529, Reply to #727441, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>I>VI>I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall which VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has been VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alone f VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to spir VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone--mos VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. VI>NI>VI>NI>It's the same when I'm on retreat but I try to find some time to VI>NI>VI>NI>spiritually recharge myself. VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Dulce et decorum est, pro Gaeia mori. VI>NI>VI>Yes, but I get recharged from the classes which I take and the VI>NI>VI>activities which I participate in. VI>NI>I have a women's retreat in March & I am most defentily looking forward VI>NI>to it!!! VI>NI>I really need it! VI>NI>--- VI>Hope it goes well for you. Give me details in the /Theology sig, s'il VI>vous plait. Of course, no problem --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I can't use Windows. My cat ate my mouse. Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 8:45pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727655 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727642, Reply to #727622, Reply to #727528, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not NI>VI>NI>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring NI>VI>NI>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a NI>VI>NI>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thi NI>VI>NI>VI>about it, unfortunately. NI>VI>NI>Steve & I have had some really hard times in the past 6+ years, NI>VI>NI>including losing our daughter. When I decided we decided to get NI>VI>NI>married, we made a decision to work out our problems. NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>I have no doubt about your dedication. Or your determinition to work NI>VI>things out. My only point is that one can never know what the future NI>VI>will bring. Goodness knows, however, I hope you guys stick it out NI>VI>forever. :) NI>You are right, I don't know what the future holds but I'm willing be NI>work on my Marriage to make sure it stays great! NI>--- And if you do so, there's a good chance that you will suceed. :) Date: Monday, January 27, 1997 8:46pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727656 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727643, Reply to #727623, Reply to #727529, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>I am vaguely familiar with the 12 steps, but I can't recall wh NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>is step 11. The time that I have spent in Elat Chayyim has b NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>significant to me, but I would not categorize it as time alon NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>and myself. It is a week where I can devote myself ONLY to s NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>work and no other concerns. It is defintely not time alone-- NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>time is spent in group, in classes or other activities. NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>It's the same when I'm on retreat but I try to find some time to NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>spiritually recharge myself. NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Dulce et decorum est, pro Gaeia mori. NI>VI>NI>VI>Yes, but I get recharged from the classes which I take and the NI>VI>NI>VI>activities which I participate in. NI>VI>NI>I have a women's retreat in March & I am most defentily looking forwar NI>VI>NI>to it!!! NI>VI>NI>I really need it! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>Hope it goes well for you. Give me details in the /Theology sig, s'il NI>VI>vous plait. NI>Of course, no problem NI>--- I look forward to your report. :) Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:24pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727705 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727520, Reply to #727483, Reply to #727440, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationsh VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes yo VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you wer VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, I VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if you'r VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have a g VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than getting a VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. VI>SC>VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many peopl VI>SC>VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. VI>SC>VI>NI>--- VI>SC>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? VI>SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not VI>SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring you VI>SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thinki VI>SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) You've got a deal. In twenty years, if we are still in touch with aech other, I will tell you how happy I am with Nightbird(Marie) and you can do the same for Bob. :) Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:24pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727706 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727521, Reply to #727484, Reply to #727443, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no les VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. VI>SC>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea VI>SC>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or VI>SC>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both VI>SC>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. VI>SC>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is somethi VI>SC>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound li VI>SC>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment VI>SC>VI>me. :( VI>SC>So just because half the people can't get it right, do we condemm the VI>SC>other half. :) VI>I wouldn't dream of it. :) thank you Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727708 To: Nightbird Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727534, Reply to #727474, Reply to #727417, R*) (1 reply) NI>SC>NI>SC>NI>How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) NI>SC>NI>SC>NI>--- NI>SC>NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer NI>SC>NI>SC>Do you think the name will fit on the door? NI>SC>NI>Sure, one on top & one of the bottom! NI>SC>NI>--- NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Baroque: (def.) When you are out of Monet! NI>SC>That sounds perverted!!!!!! NI>AND!!!!!!!!! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Earn cash in your spare time... blackmail your friends. Sex toys at twenty paces!!!!! Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:35pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727714 To: Johndrake Re: Da Dive Run 97:Drink Till Ya Puke Freeze .... (Reply to #727576, Reply to #727196, Fw by Sysop, Fw by *) JO>The brain thinks logically..the heart..you have to beat the crap outta JO>it till it gets it right.. JO>Hard to say about being friends with someone since the heart always has JO>that veto power about writing them off as whatevertobe.. OK. Not everybody finds their soulmate at an early age, or if they find them realize it right away. If you feel really comfortable with a galpal, you may have already found said soulmate.Definitely think about any person you feel strongly about, but if it comes to a fight between your mind and your heart, go with the heart. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:37pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727717 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727705, Reply to #727520, Reply to #727483, R*) (2 replies) SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relatio SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more a SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if yo SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already have SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than gettin SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many pe SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>--- SC>VI>SC>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you put i SC>VI>SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly not SC>VI>SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bring SC>VI>SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a SC>VI>SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start thi SC>VI>SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. SC>VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) SC>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) SC>You've got a deal. In twenty years, if we are still in touch with aech SC>other, I will tell you how happy I am with Nightbird(Marie) and you can SC>do the same for Bob. :) Let's make that a date. :) It will be a perfect excuse to keep in touch. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:38pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727718 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727706, Reply to #727521, Reply to #727484, R*) (2 replies) SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationshi SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were n SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the i SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or bo SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. SC>VI>SC>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is some SC>VI>SC>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound SC>VI>SC>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitme SC>VI>SC>VI>me. :( SC>VI>SC>So just because half the people can't get it right, do we condemm the SC>VI>SC>other half. :) SC>VI>I wouldn't dream of it. :) SC>thank you In fact, quite the opposite. I am a big romantic at heart. I want EVERYONE to be happily married. :) Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727720 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727717, Reply to #727705, Reply to #727520, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>I>VI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good rela VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve ma VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if y VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no mor VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relations VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>I understand that but maybe it's just me but I think if VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>go through the time of a marriage, you shuld already ha VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>realtionship with the other person. VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Choosy modemers choose GIF VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>That goes without saying! If for no other reason than get VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>VI>is an expensive proposition and a legal pain in the ass. VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>That is correct, I would never get one but I've seen too many VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>my life get married & then get divorced. VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI>--- VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can't have everything. Where would you pu VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly n VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bri VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. VI>SC>VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) VI>SC>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) VI>SC>You've got a deal. In twenty years, if we are still in touch with aech VI>SC>other, I will tell you how happy I am with Nightbird(Marie) and you can VI>SC>do the same for Bob. :) VI>Let's make that a date. :) VI>It will be a perfect excuse to keep in touch. That sounds good to me. :) Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:42pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727721 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727718, Reply to #727706, Reply to #727521, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relation VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes yo VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you wer VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, I VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" th VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be go VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is s VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't so VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commi VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>me. :( VI>SC>VI>SC>So just because half the people can't get it right, do we condemm t VI>SC>VI>SC>other half. :) VI>SC>VI>I wouldn't dream of it. :) VI>SC>thank you VI>In fact, quite the opposite. I am a big romantic at heart. I want VI>EVERYONE to be happily married. :) I agree with you. If a couple is truely in love, I feel marriage tends to stregnthen that bond. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:45pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727723 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727720, Reply to #727717, Reply to #727705, R*) (1 reply) SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) SC>VI>SC>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) SC>VI>SC>You've got a deal. In twenty years, if we are still in touch with aech SC>VI>SC>other, I will tell you how happy I am with Nightbird(Marie) and you ca SC>VI>SC>do the same for Bob. :) SC>VI>Let's make that a date. :) SC>VI>It will be a perfect excuse to keep in touch. SC>That sounds good to me. :) So the deal is done. :) Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 727726 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727721, Reply to #727718, Reply to #727706, R*) (3 replies) SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>me. :( SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>So just because half the people can't get it right, do we condem SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>other half. :) SC>VI>SC>VI>I wouldn't dream of it. :) SC>VI>SC>thank you SC>VI>In fact, quite the opposite. I am a big romantic at heart. I want SC>VI>EVERYONE to be happily married. :) SC>I agree with you. If a couple is truely in love, I feel marriage tends SC>to stregnthen that bond. When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship were people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't think I would ever get married without a prenup. Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 6:58pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727728 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727723, Reply to #727720, Reply to #727717, R*) VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) VI>SC>VI>SC>You've got a deal. In twenty years, if we are still in touch with a VI>SC>VI>SC>other, I will tell you how happy I am with Nightbird(Marie) and you VI>SC>VI>SC>do the same for Bob. :) VI>SC>VI>Let's make that a date. :) VI>SC>VI>It will be a perfect excuse to keep in touch. VI>SC>That sounds good to me. :) VI>So the deal is done. :) Agreed! Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 7:04pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 727729 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, Reply to #727718, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>me. :( VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>So just because half the people can't get it right, do we con VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>SC>other half. :) VI>SC>VI>SC>VI>I wouldn't dream of it. :) VI>SC>VI>SC>thank you VI>SC>VI>In fact, quite the opposite. I am a big romantic at heart. I want VI>SC>VI>EVERYONE to be happily married. :) VI>SC>I agree with you. If a couple is truely in love, I feel marriage tends VI>SC>to stregnthen that bond. VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship were VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( I think the reason so many marriages Break up is that people tend to rush into them. Marie and I knew each other for a Year as friends before we started dating, and then wen't steady (I know, its an old phrase) for $ years before actually getting hitched.I know it seems like a long time to see a person before marriage butI think that is why we get along so well together. We knew each others faults before we made the big commitment and felt we could accept each other as we were.BTW the $ should be a 4. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 7:58pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727733 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727624, Reply to #727530, Reply to #727442, R*) (3 replies) VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? VI>NI>VI>NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we decide VI>NI>VI>NI>go our separtate ways! VI>NI>VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But take i VI>NI>VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally VI>NI>VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work out VI>NI>VI>the way you think they will. VI>NI>That's not always true! VI>NI>--- VI>What part of my previous statement are you saying is not always true??? VI> You are not clear here. VI>All I can say is that with my two previous marriages I intended both of VI>the marriages to be life partnerships when I commmitted to those VI>relationships. It unfortunately (in one case) and fortunately (in the VI>other case) did not work out that way. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve & I were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly hope you feel the same way about Bob. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I tried OS/2 once, but I didn't inhale. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 7:59pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727734 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727625, Reply to #727543, Reply to #727520, R*) VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>How can you say you would NEVER get a divorce? I am certainly n VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>wishing you and Steve ill, but you don't know what life will bri VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>Now you marriage is good so NOW you can't imagine ever getting a VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>divorce. But if the marriage turned sour, then you would start VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>about it, unfortunately. VI>NI>VI>SC>Ask us this question in another 20 years. :) VI>NI>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) VI>NI>You will be able to, beileve me! VI>NI>--- VI>G-d willing. :) You've got that right,may the Lord be praised! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I tried to drown my problems but they can swim. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 7:59pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727738 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727655, Reply to #727642, Reply to #727622, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>You are right, I don't know what the future holds but I'm willing be VI>NI>work on my Marriage to make sure it stays great! VI>NI>--- VI>And if you do so, there's a good chance that you will suceed. :) Thanks! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I'm not nearly as think as you confused I am. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 7:59pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727739 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727656, Reply to #727643, Reply to #727623, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>Hope it goes well for you. Give me details in the /Theology sig, s'il VI>NI>VI>vous plait. VI>NI>Of course, no problem VI>NI>--- VI>I look forward to your report. :) Well, I'm not going on the retreat until March 14, I can't wait!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I'm not schizophrenic, I'm "multi-faceted" Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 8:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727744 To: Steve C Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727708, Reply to #727534, Reply to #727474, R*) SC>I>SC>NI>SC>NI>How about we become parters "Casalaspro & Casalaspro"? :) SC>NI>SC>NI>SC>NI>--- SC>NI>SC>NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer SC>NI>SC>NI>SC>Do you think the name will fit on the door? SC>NI>SC>NI>Sure, one on top & one of the bottom! SC>NI>SC>NI>--- SC>NI>SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Baroque: (def.) When you are out of Monet! SC>NI>SC>That sounds perverted!!!!!! SC>NI>AND!!!!!!!!! SC>NI>--- SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Earn cash in your spare time... blackmail your friends. SC>Sex toys at twenty paces!!!!! OH BABY!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ If money talks, Being a SysOp is pretty quiet! Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 8:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727751 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727717, Reply to #727705, Reply to #727520, R*) VI>SC>VI>I hope to be able to do so. :) VI>SC>You've got a deal. In twenty years, if we are still in touch with aech VI>SC>other, I will tell you how happy I am with Nightbird(Marie) and you can VI>SC>do the same for Bob. :) VI>Let's make that a date. :) VI>It will be a perfect excuse to keep in touch. Ok, it's a date! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Iraqi rifle for sale. Never fired. Dropped once. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 8:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727752 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727718, Reply to #727706, Reply to #727521, R*) VI>In fact, quite the opposite. I am a big romantic at heart. I want VI>EVERYONE to be happily married. :) I'm the same way, I hope you find that special someone(if you haven't already!) --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ IRS: Income Reduction Service. Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 8:01pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 727753 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, Reply to #727718, R*) (2 replies) VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship were VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a LAWYER!!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ is OS/2 only half an operating system? Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 11:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 728423 To: Nightbird Re: Re: Common Sense, dead or (Reply to #727753, Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, R*) (2 replies) Subject: Re: Common Sense, dead or not In a message dated 01-28-97 Nightbird wrote to Vida : VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( N> Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a N> LAWYER!!!! Fancy that. Actually, I agree totally with Vida. I'm getting married in September. Hell, if being married is half as complicated as having a wedding, a prenup is a must. TANSTAAFL, RAND --- * TIMM 1.3 * I'm pro-choice on everything! Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 7:16am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 728446 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727729, Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, R*) (2 replies) SC>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I SC>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a SC>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show SC>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, SC>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( SC>I think the reason so many marriages Break up is that people tend to SC>rush into them. Marie and I knew each other for a Year as friends before SC>we started dating, and then wen't steady (I know, its an old phrase) for SC>$ years before actually getting hitched.I know it seems like a long time SC>to see a person before marriage butI think that is why we get along so SC>well together. We knew each others faults before we made the big SC>commitment and felt we could accept each other as we were.BTW the $ SC>should be a 4. Well Janet and I had already lived together in a rental apartment for over five years before we bought our co-op. We drafted the living together agreement before we purchased the co-op. We did so because buying a co-op requires a big financial investment. But you are quite right about the fact that people often rush into 'marriage' how ever it is defined too quickly. This is certainly a frequent problem in the lesbian community. Want to hear a joke from the lesbian community that is on point? Well I will tell you even if you don't want to hear it? :) What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? Answer: A moving van. :) (So they move in together, get it?) Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 7:18am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 728447 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, Reply to #727530, R*) (2 replies) NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we dec NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>go our separtate ways! NI>VI>NI>VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But tak NI>VI>NI>VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally NI>VI>NI>VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work o NI>VI>NI>VI>the way you think they will. NI>VI>NI>That's not always true! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>What part of my previous statement are you saying is not always true??? NI>VI> You are not clear here. NI>VI>All I can say is that with my two previous marriages I intended both of NI>VI>the marriages to be life partnerships when I commmitted to those NI>VI>relationships. It unfortunately (in one case) and fortunately (in the NI>VI>other case) did not work out that way. NI>Sorry if I wasn't clear. NI>I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve & I NI>were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly hope NI>you feel the same way about Bob. NI>--- Bob was definitely a gift to me when he came along. In many ways, our relationship is the best relationship I ever had. Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 7:19am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 728448 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727738, Reply to #727655, Reply to #727642, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>You are right, I don't know what the future holds but I'm willing be NI>VI>NI>work on my Marriage to make sure it stays great! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>And if you do so, there's a good chance that you will suceed. :) NI>Thanks! NI>--- I sure hope you are! :) Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 7:20am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 728449 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727753, Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship were NI>VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of NI>VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write NI>VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't NI>VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. NI>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I NI>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a NI>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show NI>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, NI>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( NI>Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a NI>LAWYER!!!! NI>--- What do you expect from an attorney? :) Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 7:23am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 728450 To: Rand Re: Re: Common Sense, dead or (Reply to #728423, Reply to #727753, Reply to #727726, R*) RA>Subject: Re: Common Sense, dead or not RA>In a message dated 01-28-97 Nightbird wrote to Vida : RA>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I RA>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a RA>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show RA>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, RA>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( RA>N> Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a RA>N> LAWYER!!!! RA>Fancy that. Actually, I agree totally with Vida. I'm getting married in RA>September. Hell, if being married is half as complicated as having a weddin RA>a prenup is a must. Good luck on your upcoming marriage! I also think that writing a prenup is a good idea because it helps you deal with relationship issues ahead of time...and to diffuse a lot of potential areas of conflicts before they arose. Unfortunately, however, if a relationship turns sour, a prenup alone won't guarantee a smooth break up. But I have NEVER had a relationship breakup where the breakup was smooth. :( Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 8:24pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729141 To: Rand Re: Re: Common Sense, dead or (Reply to #728423, Reply to #727753, Reply to #727726, R*) (1 reply) RA>Subject: Re: Common Sense, dead or not RA>In a message dated 01-28-97 Nightbird wrote to Vida : RA>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I RA>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a RA>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show RA>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, RA>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( RA>N> Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a RA>N> LAWYER!!!! RA>Fancy that. Actually, I agree totally with Vida. I'm getting married in RA>September. Hell, if being married is half as complicated as having a weddin RA>a prenup is a must. RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> RAND I can't beileve it!! Well, in September, I'll be married SEVEN years. Trust me, I remember planning my wedding, marriage is alot harder but it's worth it! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ LOTUS - Let Only The Users Suffer Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 8:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729143 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #728447, Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, R*) VI>Bob was definitely a gift to me when he came along. In many ways, our VI>relationship is the best relationship I ever had. I'm really glad yoy feel that way about him! I hope this is the ONE!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 8:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729144 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #728448, Reply to #727738, Reply to #727655, R*) VI>NI>VI>NI>You are right, I don't know what the future holds but I'm willing b VI>NI>VI>NI>work on my Marriage to make sure it stays great! VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>NI>VI>And if you do so, there's a good chance that you will suceed. :) VI>NI>Thanks! VI>NI>--- VI>I sure hope you are! :) You better beileve it!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Math and Alcohol don't mix. Please don't drink & derive. Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 8:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729145 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #728449, Reply to #727753, Reply to #727726, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship wer VI>NI>VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of VI>NI>VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write VI>NI>VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't VI>NI>VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. VI>NI>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I VI>NI>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a VI>NI>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show VI>NI>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, VI>NI>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( VI>NI>Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a VI>NI>LAWYER!!!! VI>NI>--- VI>What do you expect from an attorney? :) I should have know better!!! :) --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Mental Floss prevents Moral Decay. Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 9:43pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 729162 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #729145, Reply to #728449, Reply to #727753, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship NI>VI>NI>VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of NI>VI>NI>VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will writ NI>VI>NI>VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don NI>VI>NI>VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. NI>VI>NI>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and NI>VI>NI>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchase NI>VI>NI>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big s NI>VI>NI>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out NI>VI>NI>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( NI>VI>NI>Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a NI>VI>NI>LAWYER!!!! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>What do you expect from an attorney? :) NI>I should have know better!!! :) NI>--- You should have! :) Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 10:39pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 729170 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #728446, Reply to #727729, Reply to #727726, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and I VI>SC>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchased a VI>SC>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big show VI>SC>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out, VI>SC>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( VI>SC>I think the reason so many marriages Break up is that people tend to VI>SC>rush into them. Marie and I knew each other for a Year as friends before VI>SC>we started dating, and then wen't steady (I know, its an old phrase) for VI>SC>$ years before actually getting hitched.I know it seems like a long time VI>SC>to see a person before marriage butI think that is why we get along so VI>SC>well together. We knew each others faults before we made the big VI>SC>commitment and felt we could accept each other as we were.BTW the $ VI>SC>should be a 4. VI>Well Janet and I had already lived together in a rental apartment for VI>over five years before we bought our co-op. We drafted the living VI>together agreement before we purchased the co-op. We did so because VI>buying a co-op requires a big financial investment. VI>But you are quite right about the fact that people often rush into VI>'marriage' how ever it is defined too quickly. VI>This is certainly a frequent problem in the lesbian community. Want to VI>hear a joke from the lesbian community that is on point? Well I will VI>tell you even if you don't want to hear it? :) VI>What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? VI>Answer: A moving van. :) VI>(So they move in together, get it?) I see from your post that you and Janet moved in to an apartment together years before getting the Co-op. Thats what I meant by rushing into it. And once you are living together, there is always the impulse to stick it out a bit longer when things start going bad.It is the same in Hetero relationships. OTOH, I notice you are not living with Bob yet. I feel that if and when you and Bob decide to move in together or get married, you will know him a lot better than you knew Janet or Jerri, and will have a higherpossibility for it to be a permanent relationship. Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 11:01pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 729174 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727739, Reply to #727656, Reply to #727643, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>Hope it goes well for you. Give me details in the /Theology sig, s NI>VI>NI>VI>vous plait. NI>VI>NI>Of course, no problem NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>I look forward to your report. :) NI>Well, I'm not going on the retreat until March 14, I can't wait!!! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I'm not schizophrenic, I'm "multi-faceted" Neither can I Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 11:04pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 729175 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #728447, Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, R*) VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>go our separtate ways! VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither lega VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always wor VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>the way you think they will. VI>NI>VI>NI>That's not always true! VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>NI>VI>What part of my previous statement are you saying is not always true?? VI>NI>VI> You are not clear here. VI>NI>VI>All I can say is that with my two previous marriages I intended both o VI>NI>VI>the marriages to be life partnerships when I commmitted to those VI>NI>VI>relationships. It unfortunately (in one case) and fortunately (in the VI>NI>VI>other case) did not work out that way. VI>NI>Sorry if I wasn't clear. VI>NI>I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve & I VI>NI>were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly hope VI>NI>you feel the same way about Bob. VI>NI>--- VI>Bob was definitely a gift to me when he came along. In many ways, our VI>relationship is the best relationship I ever had. I am happy for you. :) Date: Thursday, January 30, 1997 1:28am Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 729185 To: Nightbird Re: Re: Common Sense, dead or (Reply to #729141, Reply to #728423, Reply to #727753, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 01-29-97 Nightbird wrote to Rand : RA>Fancy that. Actually, I agree totally with Vida. I'm getting married in RA>September. Hell, if being married is half as complicated as having a RA>weddin RA>a prenup is a must. RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> RAND N> I can't beileve it!! N> Well, in September, I'll be married SEVEN years. Trust me, I remember N> planning my wedding, marriage is alot harder but it's worth it! I know you're right, but right now, I only wish I'd eloped. I have managed to get into fights over wedding stuff with: My fiancee, her parents, my parents, my grandmother, her aunt, and a host of others. Gee, I thought all I had to worry about was the ring! ;) TANSTAAFL, RAND --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Thursday, January 30, 1997 5:44pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 729199 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #729170, Reply to #728446, Reply to #727729, R*) SC>VI>SC>VI>Even having a prenup doesn't guarantee a smooth breakup. Janet and SC>VI>SC>VI>had a living together agreement which we drafted before we purchase SC>VI>SC>VI>co-op together. After the breakup we still ended up having a big s SC>VI>SC>VI>down regarding the co-op, which we eventually were able to work out SC>VI>SC>VI>but only after much wrangling and much agita. :( SC>VI>SC>I think the reason so many marriages Break up is that people tend to SC>VI>SC>rush into them. Marie and I knew each other for a Year as friends befo SC>VI>SC>we started dating, and then wen't steady (I know, its an old phrase) f SC>VI>SC>$ years before actually getting hitched.I know it seems like a long ti SC>VI>SC>to see a person before marriage butI think that is why we get along so SC>VI>SC>well together. We knew each others faults before we made the big SC>VI>SC>commitment and felt we could accept each other as we were.BTW the $ SC>VI>SC>should be a 4. SC>VI>Well Janet and I had already lived together in a rental apartment for SC>VI>over five years before we bought our co-op. We drafted the living SC>VI>together agreement before we purchased the co-op. We did so because SC>VI>buying a co-op requires a big financial investment. SC>VI>But you are quite right about the fact that people often rush into SC>VI>'marriage' how ever it is defined too quickly. SC>VI>This is certainly a frequent problem in the lesbian community. Want to SC>VI>hear a joke from the lesbian community that is on point? Well I will SC>VI>tell you even if you don't want to hear it? :) SC>VI>What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? SC>VI>Answer: A moving van. :) SC>VI>(So they move in together, get it?) SC>I see from your post that you and Janet moved in to an apartment SC>together years before getting the Co-op. Thats what I meant by rushing SC>into it. And once you are living together, there is always the impulse SC>to stick it out a bit longer when things start going bad.It is the same SC>in Hetero relationships. OTOH, I notice you are not living with Bob yet. SC>I feel that if and when you and Bob decide to move in together or get SC>married, you will know him a lot better than you knew Janet or Jerri, SC>and will have a higherpossibility for it to be a permanent relationship. HUH???? I think you are confused. Janet and I lived together in a rental apartment for FIVE years before we purchased the co-op. Then before we purchased the co-op we wrote a living together contract. We then moved into the co-op. We broke up three years later, for reasons I would rather not get into. One of the main reasons why Bob and I don't live together is that we are both survivors of failed previous marriages and are both a little gun shy. Why on earth should Bob and have a higher possiblility of establishing a permanent relationship? Certainly Janet and I had to deal with advertersity many times in our relationship. Ie., I lost my job a number of times while we were together. Date: Thursday, January 30, 1997 7:36pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729211 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #729162, Reply to #729145, Reply to #728449, R*) VI>NI>VI>NI>Forgive me for my next comment But that was written just like a VI>NI>VI>NI>LAWYER!!!! VI>NI>VI>What do you expect from an attorney? :) VI>NI>I should have know better!!! :) VI>You should have! :) But of course! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Noah saved animals from the flood by arcing them! Date: Thursday, January 30, 1997 7:37pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729217 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #729174, Reply to #727739, Reply to #727656, R*) SC>I>VI>NI>VI>Hope it goes well for you. Give me details in the /Theology sig, SC>NI>VI>NI>VI>vous plait. SC>NI>VI>NI>Of course, no problem SC>NI>VI>NI>--- SC>NI>VI>I look forward to your report. :) SC>NI>Well, I'm not going on the retreat until March 14, I can't wait!!! SC>NI>--- SC>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I'm not schizophrenic, I'm "multi-faceted" SC>Neither can I To sleep on the sofa, you mean!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Old MacDonald had a computer, with EIA I/O... Date: Thursday, January 30, 1997 7:37pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729218 To: Rand Re: Re: Common Sense, dead or (Reply to #729185, Reply to #729141, Reply to #728423, R*) RA>N> Well, in September, I'll be married SEVEN years. Trust me, I remember RA>N> planning my wedding, marriage is alot harder but it's worth it! RA>I know you're right, but right now, I only wish I'd eloped. I have managed RA>get into fights over wedding stuff with: My fiancee, her parents, my parents RA>my grandmother, her aunt, and a host of others. RA>Gee, I thought all I had to worry about was the ring! ;) RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> RAND No such luck, as it is, I'm the matron-of-honor in my girlfriend's wedding & someone in the wedding party planned a shower for the bride & then called it off. Tommorrow, we are ALL sitting down to plan this out! I don't remember my wedding being so hard! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ On think we can't use the option 'FILE ENCLOSURE' Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 9:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Don Msg#: 729630 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727530, Reply to #727442, Reply to #724822, C*) (1 reply) ³NN> VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But take³ ³NN> VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally ³ ³NN> VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work ou³ ³NN> VI>the way you think they will. ³ ³NN> ³ ³NN> That's not always true! ³ ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ; You're right. Not always, but most often. --- þ MegaMail 2.10 #0:A closed mouth gathers no feet. Date: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 8:57pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 729731 To: Don Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #729630, Reply to #727530, Reply to #727442, R*) DO>³NN> VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But take DO>³NN> VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally DO>³NN> VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work ou DO>³NN> VI>the way you think they will. DO>³NN> DO>³NN> That's not always true! DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ DO> You're right. Not always, but most often. Thank you!! I know it's not always but hey!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Cat: a small furry beast resembling a meatloaf. Date: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 2:52pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 729957 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727519, Reply to #727454, Reply to #727444, R*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationship t VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship to VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gender VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding cere VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjews. VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e mail lis VI>SF>VI>? :) VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking for any l/g couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marcus. So far I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to tell Stanley the "good" news. Date: Friday, February 21, 1997 7:42am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 730016 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #729957, Reply to #727519, Reply to #727454, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relationshi SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationship SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same gend SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wedding c SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gayjew SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e mail SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking for any l/g SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marcus. So far SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to tell SF>Stanley the "good" news. You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questionaire? Oh boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) Date: Friday, February 21, 1997 2:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730037 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730016, Reply to #729957, Reply to #727519, R*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relation VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relationsh VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about same g VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 weddin VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on gay VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e ma VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) VI>SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics VI>SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), VI>SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. VI>SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking for any l/g VI>SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marcus. So far VI>SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to tell VI>SF>Stanley the "good" news. VI>You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questionaire? Oh VI>boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) I figure, why panic him until we are chosen to be interviewed. Date: Friday, February 21, 1997 6:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 730050 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730037, Reply to #730016, Reply to #729957, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your relat SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's relatio SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about sam SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 wed SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show on SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever gay e SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics SF>VI>SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), SF>VI>SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. SF>VI>SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking for any l SF>VI>SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marcus. So fa SF>VI>SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to tell SF>VI>SF>Stanley the "good" news. SF>VI>You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questionaire? Oh SF>VI>boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) SF>I figure, why panic him until we are chosen to be interviewed. So now you are voluntarily HIM to be interviewed without first clearing it through him? As I said, if I were in Stanley's shoes I would definitely KILL you!!! :) Date: Monday, February 24, 1997 3:05pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730179 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730050, Reply to #730037, Reply to #730016, R*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your re VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's rela VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 about VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the 3 VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the show VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever ga VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. VI>SF>VI>SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking for an VI>SF>VI>SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marcus. So VI>SF>VI>SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to tell VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley the "good" news. VI>SF>VI>You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questionaire? O VI>SF>VI>boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) VI>SF>I figure, why panic him until we are chosen to be interviewed. VI>So now you are voluntarily HIM to be interviewed without first clearing VI>it through him? As I said, if I were in Stanley's shoes I would VI>definitely KILL you!!! :) I asked him!!!!! He is thrilled we might become "famous"! Date: Monday, February 24, 1997 6:40pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 730189 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730179, Reply to #730050, Reply to #730037, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...your SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird's r SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 abo SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with the SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the sh SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY ever SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking for SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marcus. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to tel SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley the "good" news. SF>VI>SF>VI>You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questionaire? SF>VI>SF>VI>boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) SF>VI>SF>I figure, why panic him until we are chosen to be interviewed. SF>VI>So now you are voluntarily HIM to be interviewed without first clearing SF>VI>it through him? As I said, if I were in Stanley's shoes I would SF>VI>definitely KILL you!!! :) SF>I asked him!!!!! He is thrilled we might become "famous"! Great! But next time ask first. :) Date: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 1:38pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730241 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730189, Reply to #730179, Reply to #730050, R*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple...y VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbird' VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11/7 VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended with VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of the VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALLY e VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics), VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists asking VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric Marc VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet to VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley the "good" news. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questionai VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) VI>SF>VI>SF>I figure, why panic him until we are chosen to be interviewed. VI>SF>VI>So now you are voluntarily HIM to be interviewed without first clearin VI>SF>VI>it through him? As I said, if I were in Stanley's shoes I would VI>SF>VI>definitely KILL you!!! :) VI>SF>I asked him!!!!! He is thrilled we might become "famous"! VI>Great! But next time ask first. :) And upset our delicate balance? Date: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 7:08am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 730299 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730241, Reply to #730189, Reply to #730179, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Of course the answer to me is simple. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>is equal in G-d's eye IMHO to Nightbi SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Did you see Turning Point on thursday 11 SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>The show followed 3 couples and ended wi SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>including 1 chupa. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Missed the show, but not the discussion of SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>And virtually every gay list. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Yes, I can imagine! Tell me, are you on VIRTUALL SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>? :) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Only 3 others....Marriage, GGBB, and QueerPolitics SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I am on QueerLaw (a sister e mail list to QueerPolitics SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>QueerPolitics, Politidykes and Gayjews. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I recently responded to a message on one of the lists aski SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>couple in a LTR to be interviewed for a new book by Eric M SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I completed the initial questionaire, however, I have yet SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley the "good" news. SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>You didn't clear it with him BEFORE you completed the questio SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>boy, if I were Stanley I would KILL you! :) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>I figure, why panic him until we are chosen to be interviewed. SF>VI>SF>VI>So now you are voluntarily HIM to be interviewed without first clea SF>VI>SF>VI>it through him? As I said, if I were in Stanley's shoes I would SF>VI>SF>VI>definitely KILL you!!! :) SF>VI>SF>I asked him!!!!! He is thrilled we might become "famous"! SF>VI>Great! But next time ask first. :) SF>And upset our delicate balance? Perish the thought! :) Date: Friday, February 28, 1997 10:54pm Forum: Relationships From: Don Msg#: 730448 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, Reply to #727530, R*) (1 reply) ³NN> I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve & I³ ³NN> were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly hope ³ ³NN> you feel the same way about Bob. ³ ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ; Yeah, God! --- þ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Pray hard! Date: Friday, February 28, 1997 10:54pm Forum: Relationships From: Don Msg#: 730449 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #728446, Reply to #727729, Reply to #727726, R*) (3 replies) ³VV> What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? ³ ³VV> ³ ³VV> Answer: A moving van. :) ³ ³VV> (So they move in together, get it?) ³ ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ; Two days ago, a group of my friends were talking about how they met their lovers and when I mentioned that I moved in with Becky after only a month and a half, my lesbian friend asked me, "Are you sure you're not a lesbian?" ; ) --- þ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Please tell your cat that I'm not a tree. Date: Saturday, March 1, 1997 5:42pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 730491 To: Don Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730449, Reply to #728446, Reply to #727729, R*) DO>³VV> What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? DO>³VV> DO>³VV> Answer: A moving van. :) DO>³VV> (So they move in together, get it?) DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ DO> Two days ago, a group of my friends were talking about how they DO> met their lovers and when I mentioned that I moved in with Becky DO> after only a month and a half, my lesbian friend asked me, "Are DO> you sure you're not a lesbian?" ; ) DO>--- ROFTL! :) Date: Sunday, March 2, 1997 3:46pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 730502 To: Don Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730448, Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, R*) (1 reply) DO>³NN> I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve & I DO>³NN> were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly hope DO>³NN> you feel the same way about Bob. DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ DO> Yeah, God! Damn Straight!!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I am a fugitive from the law of averages. Date: Wednesday, March 5, 1997 12:45pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730673 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730299, Reply to #730241, Reply to #730189, R*) I am glad you see my point. Date: Wednesday, March 5, 1997 12:48pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730674 To: Don Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730449, Reply to #728446, Reply to #727729, R*) (1 reply) DO>³VV> What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? DO>³VV> DO>³VV> Answer: A moving van. :) DO>³VV> (So they move in together, get it?) DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ DO> Two days ago, a group of my friends were talking about how they DO> met their lovers and when I mentioned that I moved in with Becky DO> after only a month and a half, my lesbian friend asked me, "Are DO> you sure you're not a lesbian?" ; ) DO>--- DO> þ MegaMail 2.10 #0:Please tell your cat that I'm not a tree. Stanley had a key within 2 weeks of our meeting in April but did not technically move in until August 1st, although he was practically living in the apartment. One time in this early period I decided to go into Man. after work, not knowing he was waiting for me, unannounced in my place. Date: Wednesday, March 5, 1997 12:49pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730675 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730502, Reply to #730448, Reply to #727733, R*) (1 reply) NI>DO>³NN> I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve NI>DO>³NN> were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly ho NI>DO>³NN> you feel the same way about Bob. NI>DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ NI>DO> Yeah, God! NI>Damn Straight!!!! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I am a fugitive from the law of averages. What does "straight" have to do with this? Date: Wednesday, March 5, 1997 7:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 730685 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730675, Reply to #730502, Reply to #730448, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>DO>³NN> I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Stev SF>NI>DO>³NN> were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly SF>NI>DO>³NN> you feel the same way about Bob. SF>NI>DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! SF>NI>--- SF>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I am a fugitive from the law of averages. SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? I know you're not straight, ok! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I pledge allegiance to the flag as set by 'attrib +a' Date: Thursday, March 6, 1997 1:53pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730692 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730685, Reply to #730675, Reply to #730502, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>DO>³NN> I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that S NI>SF>NI>DO>³NN> were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I tr NI>SF>NI>DO>³NN> you feel the same way about Bob. NI>SF>NI>DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! NI>SF>NI>--- NI>SF>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I am a fugitive from the law of averages. NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? NI>I know you're not straight, ok! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I pledge allegiance to the flag as set by 'attrib +a' ME?????? Date: Thursday, March 6, 1997 7:11pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 730697 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730692, Reply to #730685, Reply to #730675, R*) (1 reply) SF>NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! SF>NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! SF>NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? SF>NI>I know you're not straight, ok! SF>ME?????? Oh please!!!! Give me a break! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. Date: Monday, March 10, 1997 12:54pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 730924 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730697, Reply to #730692, Reply to #730685, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? NI>SF>NI>I know you're not straight, ok! NI>SF>ME?????? NI>Oh please!!!! NI>Give me a break! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. I'll think about it. Date: Sunday, March 23, 1997 1:37pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 731677 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730924, Reply to #730697, Reply to #730692, R*) (1 reply) SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? SF>NI>SF>NI>I know you're not straight, ok! SF>NI>SF>ME?????? SF>NI>Oh please!!!! SF>NI>Give me a break! SF>NI>--- SF>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. SF>I'll think about it. Well DUH! Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 2:47pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 731713 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #731677, Reply to #730924, Reply to #730697, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>I know you're not straight, ok! NI>SF>NI>SF>ME?????? NI>SF>NI>Oh please!!!! NI>SF>NI>Give me a break! NI>SF>NI>--- NI>SF>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. NI>SF>I'll think about it. NI>Well DUH! Give me time, I'm still thinking...... Date: Monday, March 24, 1997 11:29pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 731771 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #731713, Reply to #731677, Reply to #730924, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>I know you're not straight, ok! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>ME?????? SF>NI>SF>NI>Oh please!!!! SF>NI>SF>NI>Give me a break! SF>NI>SF>NI>--- SF>NI>SF>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. SF>NI>SF>I'll think about it. SF>NI>Well DUH! SF>Give me time, I'm still thinking...... Ok, fine! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound? Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 10:06pm Forum: Relationships From: Don Msg#: 732256 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730674, Reply to #730449, Reply to #728446, R*) (1 reply) ³SF> Stanley had a key within 2 weeks of our meeting in April but did not ³ ³SF> technically move in until August 1st, although he was practically livin³ ³SF> in the apartment. One time in this early period I decided to go into ³ ³SF> Man. after work, not knowing he was waiting for me, unannounced in my ³ ³SF> place. ³ ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ; Cool! --- þ MegaMail 2.10 #0:A soldier's a soldier - long as she acts like on Date: Tuesday, April 1, 1997 2:03pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 732646 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #731771, Reply to #731713, Reply to #731677, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>DO> Yeah, God! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Damn Straight!!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>What does "straight" have to do with this? NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>I know you're not straight, ok! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>ME?????? NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Oh please!!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Give me a break! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>--- NI>SF>NI>SF>NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. NI>SF>NI>SF>I'll think about it. NI>SF>NI>Well DUH! NI>SF>Give me time, I'm still thinking...... NI>Ok, fine! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound? You are pressuring me. Date: Tuesday, April 1, 1997 2:04pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 732647 To: Don Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #732256, Reply to #730674, Reply to #730449, R*) DO>³SF> Stanley had a key within 2 weeks of our meeting in April but did not DO>³SF> technically move in until August 1st, although he was practically livin DO>³SF> in the apartment. One time in this early period I decided to go into DO>³SF> Man. after work, not knowing he was waiting for me, unannounced in my DO>³SF> place. DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ DO> Cool! DO>--- DO> þ MegaMail 2.10 #0:A soldier's a soldier - long as she acts like on It wasn't that night! Date: Tuesday, April 1, 1997 7:52pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 732662 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #732646, Reply to #731771, Reply to #731713, R*) (1 reply) SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I'll think about it. SF>NI>SF>NI>Well DUH! SF>NI>SF>Give me time, I'm still thinking...... SF>NI>Ok, fine! SF>You are pressuring me. Sorry, I'll give you some time! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ ...Every morning is the dawn of a new error.... Date: Wednesday, April 2, 1997 11:09am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 732728 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #732662, Reply to #732646, Reply to #731771, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I'll think about it. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Well DUH! NI>SF>NI>SF>Give me time, I'm still thinking...... NI>SF>NI>Ok, fine! NI>SF>You are pressuring me. NI>Sorry, I'll give you some time! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ ...Every morning is the dawn of a new error.... I just love the way guilt works! Date: Thursday, April 3, 1997 7:57pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 732801 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #732728, Reply to #732662, Reply to #732646, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I'll think about it. SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Well DUH! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Give me time, I'm still thinking...... SF>NI>SF>NI>Ok, fine! SF>NI>SF>You are pressuring me. SF>NI>Sorry, I'll give you some time! SF>I just love the way guilt works! I should have known you were using guilt on me!!!! I'll get you back!!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Pray hard! Date: Friday, April 4, 1997 10:23am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 732833 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #732801, Reply to #732728, Reply to #732662, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I'll think about it. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Well DUH! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Give me time, I'm still thinking...... NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Ok, fine! NI>SF>NI>SF>You are pressuring me. NI>SF>NI>Sorry, I'll give you some time! NI>SF>I just love the way guilt works! NI>I should have known you were using guilt on me!!!! NI>I'll get you back!!!! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Pray hard! Is that a promise? Date: Saturday, April 12, 1997 10:20am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 733289 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #732833, Reply to #732801, Reply to #732728, R*) (1 reply) SF>NI>SF>I just love the way guilt works! SF>NI>I should have known you were using guilt on me!!!! SF>NI>I'll get you back!!!! SF>Is that a promise? YES!!!!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ FEMINISM.EXE found: Start whine sequence? (Y) (N) Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 8:28am Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 733418 To: ** ALL ** Re: Interesting (Fw by Calvin, Reply to #733198, Reply to #733186, Reply*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: VIda ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- ED>You obviously never met my late mother in law. VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is so VI>much complexity in that relationship! Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get along with Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying alot ( we are a very tight-knit family) Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 9:06pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 733432 To: Steve C Re: Interesting (Reply to #733418, Fw by Calvin, Reply to #733198, Reply*) (2 replies) SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- SC>TO: VIda SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- SC>ED>You obviously never met my late mother in law. SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is so SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get along SC>with SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying alot ( SC>we are a very tight-knit family) You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' families! :) Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 2:01pm Forum: Relationships From: Editor Msg#: 733476 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #733432, Reply to #733418, Fw by Calvin, Reply*) (2 replies) V >SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is V >SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! V > V >SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get a V >SC>with V >SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying al V >SC>we are a very tight-knit family) V > V >You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' V >families! :) Actually (since I started this discussion), I don't have problems with my inlaws in general (quite the contrary), just my late mother in law. It took me awhile to realize that it wasn't anything personal, she treated everyone that way. I was too fat, enjoyed movies she didn't approve of, wasn't religious enough, worked too hard (there's a new one fer ya), told jokes that were too funny, etc. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 3:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 733487 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733289, Reply to #732833, Reply to #732801, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>NI>SF>I just love the way guilt works! NI>SF>NI>I should have known you were using guilt on me!!!! NI>SF>NI>I'll get you back!!!! NI>SF>Is that a promise? NI>YES!!!!!! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ FEMINISM.EXE found: Start whine sequence? (Y) (N) I'm waiting...... Date: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 6:26pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 733494 To: Editor Re: Interesting (Reply to #733476, Reply to #733432, Reply to #733418, F*) (1 reply) ED>V >SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is ED>V >SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! ED>V > ED>V >SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get a ED>V >SC>with ED>V >SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying al ED>V >SC>we are a very tight-knit family) ED>V > ED>V >You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' ED>V >families! :) ED>Actually (since I started this discussion), I don't have problems with my ED>inlaws in general (quite the contrary), just my late mother in law. It ED>took me awhile to realize that it wasn't anything personal, she treated ED>everyone that way. I was too fat, enjoyed movies she didn't approve of, ED>wasn't religious enough, worked too hard (there's a new one fer ya), told ED>jokes that were too funny, etc. I think what you are discribing is a very common problem among mother-in-laws. It think mothers have a hard time letting go of their children. I certainly struggled with my mother around this issue. I never had an in law problem myself. Only one of my long time lovers had living parents during the life of my various relationships. And in that case it was a "mother-in-law" who was a real, real sweetheart. Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 11:18am Forum: Relationships From: Editor Msg#: 733541 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #733494, Reply to #733476, Reply to #733432, R*) (1 reply) V >ED>Actually (since I started this discussion), I don't have problems w V >ED>inlaws in general (quite the contrary), just my late mother in law. V >ED>took me awhile to realize that it wasn't anything personal, she tre V >ED>everyone that way. I was too fat, enjoyed movies she didn't approve V >ED>wasn't religious enough, worked too hard (there's a new one fer ya) V >ED>jokes that were too funny, etc. V > V >I think what you are discribing is a very common problem among V >mother-in-laws. It think mothers have a hard time letting go of their V >children. I certainly struggled with my mother around this issue. V > V >I never had an in law problem myself. Only one of my long time lovers V >had living parents during the life of my various relationships. And V >in that case it was a "mother-in-law" who was a real, real sweetheart. Possibly, but I really question it here. You have often heard me speak respectfully of people who have overcome physical handicaps. My mother in law was one of the ones who chose to overcome her handicap by becoming a martyr. She had serious vision problems, but not a tenth as bad as some. She was also.... (let's be polite now...) opinionated. I used to say that she practiced equestrian Judiasm. You either agreed with her outlook or she called you a horse's ass. --- þ WinQwk 2.0 a#0 þ Unregistered Evaluation Copy Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 7:39pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 733562 To: Editor Re: Interesting (Reply to #733541, Reply to #733494, Reply to #733476, R*) ED>V >ED>Actually (since I started this discussion), I don't have problems w ED>V >ED>inlaws in general (quite the contrary), just my late mother in law. ED>V >ED>took me awhile to realize that it wasn't anything personal, she tre ED>V >ED>everyone that way. I was too fat, enjoyed movies she didn't approve ED>V >ED>wasn't religious enough, worked too hard (there's a new one fer ya) ED>V >ED>jokes that were too funny, etc. ED>V > ED>V >I think what you are discribing is a very common problem among ED>V >mother-in-laws. It think mothers have a hard time letting go of their ED>V >children. I certainly struggled with my mother around this issue. ED>V > ED>V >I never had an in law problem myself. Only one of my long time lovers ED>V >had living parents during the life of my various relationships. And ED>V >in that case it was a "mother-in-law" who was a real, real sweetheart. ED>Possibly, but I really question it here. You have often heard me speak ED>respectfully of people who have overcome physical handicaps. My mother in ED>law was one of the ones who chose to overcome her handicap by becoming a ED>martyr. She had serious vision problems, but not a tenth as bad as some. ED>She was also.... (let's be polite now...) opinionated. I used to say that ED>she practiced equestrian Judiasm. You either agreed with her outlook or ED>she called you a horse's ass. ROFL! Sounds like the sterotypical Jewish mother. :) Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 7:40pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 733565 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733487, Reply to #733289, Reply to #732833, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I just love the way guilt works! SF>NI>SF>NI>I should have known you were using guilt on me!!!! SF>NI>SF>NI>I'll get you back!!!! SF>NI>SF>Is that a promise? SF>NI>YES!!!!!! SF>NI>--- SF>I'm waiting...... That make two of us! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ On the Internet, nobody knows you're a cyborg. -R.Withers Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 7:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 733573 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #733432, Reply to #733418, Fw by Calvin, Reply*) (1 reply) VI>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- VI>SC>TO: VIda VI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>SC>ED>You obviously never met my late mother in law. VI>SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is so VI>SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! VI>SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get along VI>SC>with VI>SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying alot ( VI>SC>we are a very tight-knit family) VI>You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' VI>families! :) Actully, some women say things about their Mother-in-law's, but actully, I love mine! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Press "+" to see another tagline. Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 7:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 733574 To: Editor Re: Interesting (Reply to #733476, Reply to #733432, Reply to #733418, F*) ED>V >SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is ED>V >SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! ED>V > ED>V >SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get a ED>V >SC>with ED>V >SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying al ED>V >SC>we are a very tight-knit family) ED>V > ED>V >You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' ED>V >families! :) ED>Actually (since I started this discussion), I don't have problems with my ED>inlaws in general (quite the contrary), just my late mother in law. It ED>took me awhile to realize that it wasn't anything personal, she treated ED>everyone that way. I was too fat, enjoyed movies she didn't approve of, ED>wasn't religious enough, worked too hard (there's a new one fer ya), told ED>jokes that were too funny, etc. I love my Mother-in-law, although sometimes she can be a pain! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here. Date: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 9:24pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 733583 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #733573, Reply to #733432, Reply to #733418, F*) (1 reply) NI>VI>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- NI>VI>SC>TO: VIda NI>VI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- NI>VI>SC>ED>You obviously never met my late mother in law. NI>VI>SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is so NI>VI>SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! NI>VI>SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get alon NI>VI>SC>with NI>VI>SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying alot NI>VI>SC>we are a very tight-knit family) NI>VI>You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' NI>VI>families! :) NI>Actully, some women say things about their Mother-in-law's, but actully, NI>I love mine! NI>--- All this family togetherness is going to make me puke. (only kidding) Date: Thursday, April 17, 1997 7:09pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 733708 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #733583, Reply to #733573, Reply to #733432, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- VI>NI>VI>SC>TO: VIda VI>NI>VI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>NI>VI>SC>ED>You obviously never met my late mother in law. VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There is VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! VI>NI>VI>SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I get a VI>NI>VI>SC>with VI>NI>VI>SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying al VI>NI>VI>SC>we are a very tight-knit family) VI>NI>VI>You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives' VI>NI>VI>families! :) VI>NI>Actully, some women say things about their Mother-in-law's, but actully, VI>NI>I love mine! VI>NI>--- VI>All this family togetherness is going to make me puke. (only kidding) Hey, are you jealous? --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Proofread carefully to see if you any words out. Date: Friday, April 18, 1997 7:23am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 733755 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #733708, Reply to #733583, Reply to #733573, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>TO: VIda NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>ED>You obviously never met my late mother in law. NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>Obviously not. But mother-in-laws are a special case. There NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>VI>much complexity in that relationship! NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>Yes, Inlaws are a special case, but the funny thing is that I ge NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>with NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>Marie's parents better than I do my own family, and thats saying NI>VI>NI>VI>SC>we are a very tight-knit family) NI>VI>NI>VI>You are very lucky then! Most men moan and groan about their wives NI>VI>NI>VI>families! :) NI>VI>NI>Actully, some women say things about their Mother-in-law's, but actull NI>VI>NI>I love mine! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>All this family togetherness is going to make me puke. (only kidding) NI>Hey, are you jealous? NI>--- Kinda. My parents are dead and Bob's parents are also deceased. :( Date: Friday, April 18, 1997 2:55pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 733783 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733565, Reply to #733487, Reply to #733289, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I just love the way guilt works! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>I should have known you were using guilt on me!!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>I'll get you back!!!! NI>SF>NI>SF>Is that a promise? NI>SF>NI>YES!!!!!! NI>SF>NI>--- NI>SF>I'm waiting...... NI>That make two of us! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ On the Internet, nobody knows you're a cyborg. -R.Withers Just a couple of waiters. Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:08pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733925 To: Johndrake Re: idea (Reply to #726957, Reply to #726754, Reply to #726751, R*) JO>Tell ya the truth I dunno what my other foot has stepped into.. JO>As for finding the right person..this too has to make me wonder...maybe JO>I have and its gone by me..and maybe it's not..and I have to look more JO>deeper .. That's the thing... don't try to look. When you look, you get nowhere. Just take it easy and it will come to you. JO>you know what I wish I had..in some sense...the kind of relationship JO>that I gather Disky/Fozz/Craig has with Mel...that kind where she'll go JO>out of her way to make him feel special and such...Not the heavy duty JO>that sense but the gist of it...fromw hat I had seen last night..that's JO>what it felt from my pov Uhh, I dunno... I'm kind of confused as to what kind of relationship the two of them have.. I've seen the two of them together a number of times, and I'm not too sure that it's like that. It IS wonderful when the person you're with goes out of his/her way to make you feel special, but remember you gotta do the same thing for them! Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733926 To: Johndrake Re: Friends of both of us (Reply to #726958, Reply to #726780, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) JO>Wha I don't see is the point of why they want you and the ex to be JO>friends still so everyone could hang... JO>that seems a bit strange...I gather I can understand if one day you and JO>he end up at a party...and what happens then...but I dunno...hang out JO>with friends and their friends regardless of whose on the guest list JO>just seems a bit odd.. Well, that's not really it... See, me and him and a number of friends just had our own little group, it was REALLY nice, we would always hang out together and do stuff, go to clubs, etc. Those few years when we were all together were a lot of fun. Well, once me and him broke up then the whole fun little group thing just wasn't the same anymore, the tension between me and my ex just screwed everything up. But I guess times change, eh? Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:22pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733927 To: Nightbird Re: Soulmate (Reply to #727292, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727212, Rep*) (1 reply) NI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- NI>TO: Tempest NI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- NI>TE>O>Ah..this too poses the question of soulmate...just how can one tell NI>TE>JO>whose the soulmate and whose just a poser...ah NI>TE>JO> NI>TE>Oh, believe me, you'll KNOW!!! If it doesn't feel like a soulmate, then NI>TE>it isn't. NI>If it doesn't feel right, it's not a soulmate, I know that for the NI>truth. I'm glad I found my soulmate. I agree 100%, and same here!!! Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:23pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733928 To: Steve C Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #727293, Fw by Lythande, Reply to #727209, Rep*) (1 reply) SC>-------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- SC>TO: Tempest SC>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of marri SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those futur SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments...ugh SC>TE>SC>JO> SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s SC>TE>Well put!!! SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) Heheheh it's easy to counsel other people's relationships, as long as it isn't your own :) Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:33pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733929 To: Vida Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #727438, Reply to #724379, Reply to #723246, R*) (1 reply) VVI>Certainly my feelings for Gerri have changed as our relationship becomes VI>more and more of a distant memory. I really was furious with her when I VI>left. I hardly think of her any more. It's funny the way time has such dramatic effects on emotions for someone, doesn't it? When that last live-in disaster of mine broke it off, I was so broken up about it I was ready to jump in front of a train. Now I certainly know that it is a GOOD thing that he was finally gone!! Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:36pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733930 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727443, Reply to #724992, Reply to #723416, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I don VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not marrie VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. It VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea of VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or bad - VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both of VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is something VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound like VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment to VI>me. :( Well, that's the thing - a lot of people get married when they're not quite ready yet, and in their minds they're not so sure that they want that commitment. Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:39pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733931 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #727453, Reply to #726740, Reply to #726463, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the bi SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividuals o SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex marry SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people don SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, if p SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, and i SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate fro SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. SF>TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotional SF>TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get married an SF>TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that piece of SF>TE>SF>paper. SF>TE>That would be the ideal situation! SF>Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight couples. Well, from the legal aspect, yeah. I don't agree with this, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about it! Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 6:49pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733932 To: Johndrake Re: What do you think? (Reply to #727574, Reply to #727150, Reply to #727003, R*) JJO>Vman..you need to figure what you're goals gonna be for yourself before JO>you can open for someone else to walk into your life... That's easier said than done! Someone can walk into your life at the least expected moment. In fact, that's when it usually happens - NOT when you're looking for it! Hey, you-know-who walked back into my life when I least expected it, and I think is here to stay for good, and I've been agonizing over my goals for myself for quite sometime now! But hey, it happened, he's in my life and I'm not gonna kick him out of my life even temporarily just so I can set the goals for myself first and do this in "the right order"... you know? If someone happens to walk into your life who you are sure is "THE ONE"... you jump on that!! Regardless of other life circumstances! Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 7:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733937 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, Reply to #727530, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>Omish? Is that a typo? Do you mean Amish? NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Hey, when I got married, It was to be for LIFE, not until we dec NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>go our separtate ways! NI>VI>NI>VI>That is ALWAYS a person's intention when one gets married. But tak NI>VI>NI>VI>from someone who went through two busted marriages (neither legally NI>VI>NI>VI>recognized, but marriages just the same) things don't always work o NI>VI>NI>VI>the way you think they will. NI>VI>NI>That's not always true! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>What part of my previous statement are you saying is not always true??? NI>VI> You are not clear here. NI>VI>All I can say is that with my two previous marriages I intended both of NI>VI>the marriages to be life partnerships when I commmitted to those NI>VI>relationships. It unfortunately (in one case) and fortunately (in the NI>VI>other case) did not work out that way. NI>Sorry if I wasn't clear. NI>I'm sorry your marriages didn't last but I truly beileve that Steve & I NI>were brought together by God. I love him sooo very much, I truly hope NI>you feel the same way about Bob. But that's the thing... Vida has a point... when you're IN the relationship, you think you were meant to be together, it'll last forever, etc. When I was living with my last ex, I was insanely in love and I truly thought that it was going to last forever, and that I couldn't live without him. And when he left it was devastating and shocking, but I got over it. And now again, I am insanely in love and I really do think that THIS time it will last forever and I can't live without him. But there is a major and fortunate difference: in the last relationship we had terrible problems, fought all the time, etc. However this one is going absolutely wonderfully. :) Plus there's this extra something, this click, that I didn't quite have before, you know that "soulmate" feeling... which makes all this even more definite in my eyes. :) But, the point is, not only is it different with every person you're involved with but there are changes with time as well... before the live-in one I went out with another guy who initially we clicked well and had no problems, the relationship was very nice and relaxed (as opposed to the intensity of the last one), but eventually the feelings just wore off, the in-love feeling kinda of turned into more of a platonic love feeling.. I'm not even sure why it changed. But the point being, ya never know what will happen. Just live for the day and see what happens, I guess! But anyway I'm rambling now, I'll stop. :) Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 7:30pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733938 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, Reply to #727718, R*) (1 reply) VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship were VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. Wait, what kind of marriage contract does the state write if you don't do a prenup? What are the technical differences between marriage with and without a prenup? Date: Sunday, April 20, 1997 7:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 733939 To: Don Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #730449, Reply to #728446, Reply to #727729, R*) DO>³VV> What does a lesbian give her lover on the second date? DO>³VV> DO>³VV> Answer: A moving van. :) DO>³VV> (So they move in together, get it?) DO>ÔÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ DO> Two days ago, a group of my friends were talking about how they DO> met their lovers and when I mentioned that I moved in with Becky DO> after only a month and a half, my lesbian friend asked me, "Are DO> you sure you're not a lesbian?" ; ) Hehehehe I guess I must be as well! My ex was staying at my place about five days out of the week, oh, well within a month of the beginning of our relationship, and after about 3 months was pretty much there the entire 7 days of every week. Although we couldnt' admit that we were living together until I was forced to get him keys. :) So heheh we didn't even plan to move in together, it just happened! Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 6:19am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734043 To: Tempest Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #733929, Reply to #727438, Reply to #724379, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>Certainly my feelings for Gerri have changed as our relationship becomes TE>VI>more and more of a distant memory. I really was furious with her when I TE>VI>left. I hardly think of her any more. TE>It's funny the way time has such dramatic effects on emotions for TE>someone, doesn't it? When that last live-in disaster of mine broke it TE>off, I was so broken up about it I was ready to jump in front of a TE>train. Now I certainly know that it is a GOOD thing that he was finally TE>gone!! The passage of time always us to come to our sanity. :) Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 6:20am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734044 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733930, Reply to #727443, Reply to #724992, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. I TE>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your TE>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not mar TE>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no less. TE>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. TE>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea of TE>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or bad TE>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both of TE>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. TE>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is something TE>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound like TE>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment to TE>VI>me. :( TE>Well, that's the thing - a lot of people get married when they're not TE>quite ready yet, and in their minds they're not so sure that they want TE>that commitment. I have often thought that the legal system should make it much, much harder for people to get married and much, much easier for people to get divorced. Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 6:49am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734045 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733938, Reply to #727726, Reply to #727721, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>When I say marriage, I mean any committed, monogamous relationship were TE>VI>people live together and share expenses. I actually have a lot of TE>VI>legal objections to the marriage contract which the state will write TE>VI>for you if you don't do a prenuptial agreement. Which is why I don't TE>VI>think I would ever get married without a prenup. TE>Wait, what kind of marriage contract does the state write if you don't TE>do a prenup? What are the technical differences between marriage with and TE>without a prenup? In New York State, it makes a tremendous difference whether you have a prenup or not. New York is not a pure "no fault" divorce state. There is no grounds to obtain divorce for "irreconcible differences" in NY. The only thing that comes close to "no fault" divorce in NY is that you can obtain a divorce if you live seperate and apart from your spouse for a year PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN SEPERATION AGREEMENT. The big problem with this provision, obviously, is that if you wait until the relationship has deterioated to such a point that you want a divorce it is often difficult, if not impossible, to reach an agreement with your spouse on the terms of a written seperation agreement. That's why any decent pre-nup agreement has a CONVERSION CLAUSE which converts the prenup into a seperation agreement if the couple lives seperate and apart for one year and if one member of the couple files for a divorce. The other main reason why people write pre-nup agreements is for property settlements and to try to avoid custody fights. I am not a family law expert but my vague memory is that without a prenup agreement a nonworking spouse (typically the wife) is entitled to one half of assets which were earned by the wage earner (typically the husband) during the life of the marriage. Also if the nonworking spouse quits his/her job to help the wage earning spouse go through a professional school the nonworking spouse can have a claim to a portion of the FUTURE profits which the wage earner earns in his/her career. The nonworking spouse can also make claims for child support and for alimony, based upon the lifestyle which the couple maintained during the course of their marriage. However, if you write a pre-nup agreeement whatever provisions for property disbursements and alimony that you make in the pre-nup will override whatever "common law" property rights that the divorcing spouse may have. As stated previously, per-nup agreements also typically contain provisions awarding custody to either the father or mother in the case of divorce. While the courts can and do ignore these provisions becasue when it comes to children, the courts will always, always, always take a second look to make sure that the best interests of the child are being served. So even if the pre-nup agreeement has a provision awarding custody to one parent, this does not necessarily mean that a custody fight can be avoided. My main political objection to the existing marriage contract, btw, has to do with the persumption that all marriages are for the purpose of bearing children. My memory is that you can obtain an annulment in NYS if the marriage is never consummated. (Which is defined as vaginal intercourse between the spouses.) My memory is also that you can obtain an annulment in NYS if your spouse was inferitle at the time of the marriage. Both of these provisions, I find very, very offensive. Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 734084 To: Tempest Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #733928, Reply to #727293, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of ma TE>SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those fu TE>SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments... TE>SC>TE>SC>JO> TE>SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should TE>SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s TE>SC>TE>Well put!!! TE>SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) TE>Heheheh it's easy to counsel other people's relationships, as long as it TE>isn't your own :) True, Very true. Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 7:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734097 To: Vida Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #734043, Reply to #733929, Reply to #727438, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>Certainly my feelings for Gerri have changed as our relationship beco VI>TE>VI>more and more of a distant memory. I really was furious with her when VI>TE>VI>left. I hardly think of her any more. VI>TE>It's funny the way time has such dramatic effects on emotions for VI>TE>someone, doesn't it? When that last live-in disaster of mine broke it VI>TE>off, I was so broken up about it I was ready to jump in front of a VI>TE>train. Now I certainly know that it is a GOOD thing that he was finally VI>TE>gone!! VI>The passage of time always us to come to our sanity. :) In and out of it! Sanity is an object in constant flux! Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 7:23pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734098 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734044, Reply to #733930, Reply to #727443, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationship. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were not VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no les VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO. VI>TE>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the idea VI>TE>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good or VI>TE>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or both VI>TE>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. VI>TE>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is somethi VI>TE>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound li VI>TE>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitment VI>TE>VI>me. :( VI>TE>Well, that's the thing - a lot of people get married when they're not VI>TE>quite ready yet, and in their minds they're not so sure that they want VI>TE>that commitment. VI>I have often thought that the legal system should make it much, much VI>harder for people to get married and much, much easier for people to VI>get divorced. I don't think the legal system should make it hard for people to get married OR divorced. Making or breaking personal bonds is a personal decision anyway and should involve the gov't/legal system as least as possible... Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 7:34pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734099 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734045, Reply to #733938, Reply to #727726, R*) (1 reply) Hmm, wow, that's quite a bit of info, thanks. I didn't know that pre-nups also involved children, and did not know that they can be turned into separation clauses... ooh, this is complicated! I thought pre-nups were purely for property divisions. I'm not sure if I agree with this whole marriage contract thing anyway... it seems to me that it makes the perfect setup for some sly woman to marry some rich bastard then divorce him in a couple of years and take half his property... I don't really see why you have the objections regarding the purpose of marriage for bearing children, actually... No, I don't think that the actual purpose of marriage is to bear children, however a large amount of marriages DO produce children and therefore provisions for those children must be made in those contracts... and for those marriages that do not produce children, those provision can just be ignored... no? Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 7:35pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734100 To: Steve C Re: Relationship counselor (Reply to #734084, Reply to #733928, Reply to #727293, F*) SC>TE>SC>TE>SC>JO>Hehehe...sounds like solid advice ...at least with 6 years of SC>TE>SC>TE>SC>JO>under your belt you know what to avoid and how to avoid those SC>TE>SC>TE>SC>JO>arguments..TE>SC>TE>SC>JO> SC>TE>SC>TE>SC>Once you meet your "soulmate" it should SC>TE>SC>TE>SC>all click for you./s SC>TE>SC>TE>Well put!!! SC>TE>SC>Thank you, shall I start a side job as a relationship counselor? :) SC>TE>Heheheh it's easy to counsel other people's relationships, as long as it SC>TE>isn't your own :) SC>True, Very true. Yeah, I've always found this to be the case. It's funny how it's so much easier to look at other people's problems objectively than it is to look at your own subjectively... Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 6:35pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734136 To: Tempest Re: 19th Century Marriage advice (Reply to #734097, Reply to #734043, Reply to #733929, R*) TE>VI>TE>VVI>Certainly my feelings for Gerri have changed as our relationship b TE>VI>TE>VI>more and more of a distant memory. I really was furious with her w TE>VI>TE>VI>left. I hardly think of her any more. TE>VI>TE>It's funny the way time has such dramatic effects on emotions for TE>VI>TE>someone, doesn't it? When that last live-in disaster of mine broke it TE>VI>TE>off, I was so broken up about it I was ready to jump in front of a TE>VI>TE>train. Now I certainly know that it is a GOOD thing that he was finall TE>VI>TE>gone!! TE>VI>The passage of time always us to come to our sanity. :) TE>In and out of it! Sanity is an object in constant flux! So it seems. :) Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 6:36pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734137 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734098, Reply to #734044, Reply to #733930, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relationshi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes your TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you were n TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and no TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, IMHO TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" the i TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be good TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or bo TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. TE>VI>TE>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is some TE>VI>TE>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't sound TE>VI>TE>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commitme TE>VI>TE>VI>me. :( TE>VI>TE>Well, that's the thing - a lot of people get married when they're not TE>VI>TE>quite ready yet, and in their minds they're not so sure that they want TE>VI>TE>that commitment. TE>VI>I have often thought that the legal system should make it much, much TE>VI>harder for people to get married and much, much easier for people to TE>VI>get divorced. TE>I don't think the legal system should make it hard for people to get TE>married OR divorced. Making or breaking personal bonds is a personal TE>decision anyway and should involve the gov't/legal system as least as TE>possible... The only reason why I say the legal system shoul make it harder for people to get married is that I think too many people rush into marriage without thinking it through. I just want to try to bring down the horrible divorce rate that we have since I think that divorce is really, really hard on any children that might be effected by the divorce. Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 6:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734138 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734099, Reply to #734045, Reply to #733938, R*) (1 reply) TE>Hmm, wow, that's quite a bit of info, thanks. I didn't know that TE>pre-nups also involved children, and did not know that they can be TE>turned into separation clauses... ooh, this is complicated! I thought TE>pre-nups were purely for property divisions. I'm not sure if I agree TE>with this whole marriage contract thing anyway... it seems to me that it TE>makes the perfect setup for some sly woman to marry some rich bastard TE>then divorce him in a couple of years and take half his property... Any rich bastard would be a fool to marry without a prenup. Don't worry, as a general rule, they don't!!! :) TE>I don't really see why you have the objections regarding the purpose of TE>marriage for bearing children, actually... No, I don't think that the TE>actual purpose of marriage is to bear children, however a large amount TE>of marriages DO produce children and therefore provisions for those TE>children must be made in those contracts... and for those marriages that TE>do not produce children, those provision can just be ignored... no? I object to the assumption that marriage is to bear children because I see this assumption as being one of the obstacles that is blocking g/l marriage. To my way of thinking the ONLY reason why two people should be married is because they love each other, and are willing to make a lifetime commitment to mutually monogamy to each other. In heterosexual couples, most marriages will result in children, but this does not mean that the state should say that a marriage where one member of the couple is sterile can be deemed "void" if the other member of the couple wants out. Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734159 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #733755, Reply to #733708, Reply to #733583, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>Hey, are you jealous? VI>Kinda. My parents are dead and Bob's parents are also deceased. :( Sorry! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Is Dr Dos in the House? Ms Dos is sick and needs help! Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734160 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733783, Reply to #733565, Reply to #733487, R*) (1 reply) SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... SF>NI>That make two of us! SF>Just a couple of waiters. Cute, sweetheart, really cute! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it. Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734161 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #733937, Reply to #727733, Reply to #727624, R*) (2 replies) TE>But that's the thing... Vida has a point... when you're IN the TE>relationship, you think you were meant to be together, it'll last TE>forever, etc. When I was living with my last ex, I was insanely in love TE>and I truly thought that it was going to last forever, and that I TE>couldn't live without him. And when he left it was devastating and TE>shocking, but I got over it. TE>And now again, I am insanely in love and I really do think that THIS TE>time it will last forever and I can't live without him. TE>But there is a major and fortunate difference: in the last relationship we TE>had terrible problems, fought all the time, etc. However this one is TE>going absolutely wonderfully. :) Plus there's this extra something, TE>this click, that I didn't quite have before, you know that "soulmate" TE>feeling... which makes all this even more definite in my eyes. :) TE>But, the point is, not only is it different with every person you're TE>involved with but there are changes with time as well... before the TE>live-in one I went out with another guy who initially we clicked well TE>and had no problems, the relationship was very nice and relaxed (as TE>opposed to the intensity of the last one), but eventually the feelings TE>just wore off, the in-love feeling kinda of turned into more of a TE>platonic love feeling.. I'm not even sure why it changed. But the point TE>being, ya never know what will happen. TE>Just live for the day and see what happens, I guess! TE>But anyway I'm rambling now, I'll stop. :) I know what you mean, my realtionships before Steve were, well hellish, I would only stay with a guy to have someone to be with & then I met Steve, & I'll tell you the truth, I know it was love at first sight. I remember telling the guy I was dating(AP better know as Asshole Pete because of the way he really screwed my life up)all about Steve but I waited almost a whole year & I still couldn't tell him how I felt, my best friend told him I really liked him & the rest is history. Sure our love for each other has changed over the years(hey, we've been together since 1987 & married since 1990)but I would never go for another guy, I'm madly in love with Steve!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ David was a Hebrew king who fought the Philatelists. Date: Tuesday, April 22, 1997 8:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734162 To: Tempest Re: Soulmate (Reply to #733927, Reply to #727292, Fw by Lythande, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>NI>TE>O>Ah..this too poses the question of soulmate...just how can one tell TE>NI>TE>JO>whose the soulmate and whose just a poser...ah TE>NI>TE>JO> TE>NI>TE>Oh, believe me, you'll KNOW!!! If it doesn't feel like a soulmate, the TE>NI>TE>it isn't. TE>NI>If it doesn't feel right, it's not a soulmate, I know that for the TE>NI>truth. I'm glad I found my soulmate. TE>I agree 100%, and same here!!! Great, isn't it?! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Let's have more lotteries. Why tax smart people? Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 12:55am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734200 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734137, Reply to #734098, Reply to #734044, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>You have a good marriage BECAUSE you have a good relation VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>think that the fact that you are married to Steve makes yo VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>relationship any better than it would have been if you wer VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Marriage is more or less a legal arrangement, no more and VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>doesn't effect the quality of the existing relationship, I VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Actually, I think that marriage would tend to "drive home" th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>committment for life into the couples' minds, which can be go VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>good if both WANT that committment for life, or bad if one or VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>them are scared or not ready for that committment. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I am not so sure of that. I think the current divorce rate is s VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>like 50% of all marriages eventually end in divorce. Doesn't so VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>marriage does such a great job of driving home the idea of commi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>me. :( VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, that's the thing - a lot of people get married when they're n VI>TE>VI>TE>quite ready yet, and in their minds they're not so sure that they w VI>TE>VI>TE>that commitment. VI>TE>VI>I have often thought that the legal system should make it much, much VI>TE>VI>harder for people to get married and much, much easier for people to VI>TE>VI>get divorced. VI>TE>I don't think the legal system should make it hard for people to get VI>TE>married OR divorced. Making or breaking personal bonds is a personal VI>TE>decision anyway and should involve the gov't/legal system as least as VI>TE>possible... VI>The only reason why I say the legal system shoul make it harder for VI>people to get married is that I think too many people rush into VI>marriage without thinking it through. I just want to try to bring down VI>the horrible divorce rate that we have since I think that divorce is VI>really, really hard on any children that might be effected by the VI>divorce. Yes, too many people rush into marriage without thinking it through, but that is their decision, and it should not be the responsibility of the government to have any control over a personal decision like that. It is like making the government into a parental role: if I decide to be stupid and get married without thinking about it, it is not the government's place to play my mother or father and prevent me from doing this in any way. I am strongly against the government preventing people from making personal decisions of any sort, in essence playing the parent, as if the public were a bunch of children (but that is another argument all together). True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a personal decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on children as the psychoanalysts like to say it is. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 12:58am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734201 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734138, Reply to #734099, Reply to #734045, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>I don't really see why you have the objections regarding the purpose of VI>TE>marriage for bearing children, actually... No, I don't think that the VI>TE>actual purpose of marriage is to bear children, however a large amount VI>TE>of marriages DO produce children and therefore provisions for those VI>TE>children must be made in those contracts... and for those marriages that VI>TE>do not produce children, those provision can just be ignored... no? VI>I object to the assumption that marriage is to bear children because I VI>see this assumption as being one of the obstacles that is blocking g/l VI>marriage. To my way of thinking the ONLY reason why two people should VI>be married is because they love each other, and are willing to make a VI>lifetime commitment to mutually monogamy to each other. In VI>heterosexual couples, most marriages will result in children, but this VI>does not mean that the state should say that a marriage where one VI>member of the couple is sterile can be deemed "void" if the other VI>member of the couple wants out. That's a good point... however the legal definition of marriage does not seem to involve love, commitment, etc. whatsoever. By their definition not only is the purpose of marriage to bear children, but also to split expenses, etc. I don't know exactly but a lot of it seems to have to do with money... so the way I see it, by the state's definition, children are a commodity much as money is, in terms of marriage. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 1:01am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734202 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734161, Reply to #733937, Reply to #727733, R*) (1 reply) NNI>I know what you mean, my realtionships before Steve were, well hellish, NI>I would only stay with a guy to have someone to be with & then I met NI>Steve, & I'll tell you the truth, I know it was love at first sight. I NI>remember telling the guy I was dating(AP better know as Asshole Pete NI>because of the way he really screwed my life up)all about Steve but I NI>waited almost a whole year & I still couldn't tell him how I felt, my NI>best friend told him I really liked him & the rest is history. Sure our NI>love for each other has changed over the years(hey, we've been together NI>since 1987 & married since 1990)but I would never go for another guy, NI>I'm madly in love with Steve!!! I know how you feel!! It is definately a wonderful thing when that strong love and commitment last!! Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 1:02am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734203 To: Nightbird Re: Soulmate (Reply to #734162, Reply to #733927, Reply to #727292, F*) (1 reply) NI>TE>NI>TE>O>Ah..this too poses the question of soulmate...just how can one te NI>TE>NI>TE>JO>whose the soulmate and whose just a poser...ah NI>TE>NI>TE>JO> NI>TE>NI>TE>Oh, believe me, you'll KNOW!!! If it doesn't feel like a soulmate, NI>TE>NI>TE>it isn't. NI>TE>NI>If it doesn't feel right, it's not a soulmate, I know that for the NI>TE>NI>truth. I'm glad I found my soulmate. NI>TE>I agree 100%, and same here!!! NI>Great, isn't it?! Yeah, it is heaven :) :) :) Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 8:15pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734221 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734202, Reply to #734161, Reply to #733937, R*) TE>NI>I know what you mean, my realtionships before Steve were, well hellish, TE>NI>I would only stay with a guy to have someone to be with & then I met TE>NI>Steve, & I'll tell you the truth, I know it was love at first sight. I TE>NI>remember telling the guy I was dating(AP better know as Asshole Pete TE>NI>because of the way he really screwed my life up)all about Steve but I TE>NI>waited almost a whole year & I still couldn't tell him how I felt, my TE>NI>best friend told him I really liked him & the rest is history. Sure our TE>NI>love for each other has changed over the years(hey, we've been together TE>NI>since 1987 & married since 1990)but I would never go for another guy, TE>NI>I'm madly in love with Steve!!! TE>I know how you feel!! It is definately a wonderful thing when that TE>strong love and commitment last!! YES!!!! I'll second that anyday!!!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Worf, I need quiet. Beam Wesley into that star there. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 8:15pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734222 To: Tempest Re: Soulmate (Reply to #734203, Reply to #734162, Reply to #733927, R*) TE>I>TE>NI>TE>O>Ah..this too poses the question of soulmate...just how can one TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>JO>whose the soulmate and whose just a poser...ah TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>JO> TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>Oh, believe me, you'll KNOW!!! If it doesn't feel like a soulmat TE>NI>TE>NI>TE>it isn't. TE>NI>TE>NI>If it doesn't feel right, it's not a soulmate, I know that for the TE>NI>TE>NI>truth. I'm glad I found my soulmate. TE>NI>TE>I agree 100%, and same here!!! TE>NI>Great, isn't it?! TE>Yeah, it is heaven :) :) :) Yep! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Have a nice day; unless you've made other plans. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 9:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734234 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #734159, Reply to #733755, Reply to #733708, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>Hey, are you jealous? NI>VI>Kinda. My parents are dead and Bob's parents are also deceased. :( NI>Sorry! NI>--- It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is very much a family holiday. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 9:47pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734235 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734200, Reply to #734137, Reply to #734098, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, that's the thing - a lot of people get married when they'r TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>quite ready yet, and in their minds they're not so sure that the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that commitment. TE>VI>TE>VI>I have often thought that the legal system should make it much, muc TE>VI>TE>VI>harder for people to get married and much, much easier for people t TE>VI>TE>VI>get divorced. TE>VI>The only reason why I say the legal system shoul make it harder for TE>VI>people to get married is that I think too many people rush into TE>VI>marriage without thinking it through. I just want to try to bring down TE>VI>the horrible divorce rate that we have since I think that divorce is TE>VI>really, really hard on any children that might be effected by the TE>VI>divorce. TE>Yes, too many people rush into marriage without thinking it through, but TE>that is their decision, and it should not be the responsibility of the TE>government to have any control over a personal decision like that. It is TE>like making the government into a parental role: if I decide to be TE>stupid and get married without thinking about it, it is not the TE>government's place to play my mother or father and prevent me from doing TE>this in any way. I am strongly against the government preventing people TE>from making personal decisions of any sort, in essence playing the TE>parent, as if the public were a bunch of children (but that is another TE>argument all together). But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be so bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a personal TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on children as TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but utterly destructive for children? Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 9:51pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734236 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734201, Reply to #734138, Reply to #734099, R*) TE>VVI>TE>I don't really see why you have the objections regarding the purpose TE>VI>TE>marriage for bearing children, actually... No, I don't think that the TE>VI>TE>actual purpose of marriage is to bear children, however a large amount TE>VI>TE>of marriages DO produce children and therefore provisions for those TE>VI>TE>children must be made in those contracts... and for those marriages th TE>VI>TE>do not produce children, those provision can just be ignored... no? TE>VI>I object to the assumption that marriage is to bear children because I TE>VI>see this assumption as being one of the obstacles that is blocking g/l TE>VI>marriage. To my way of thinking the ONLY reason why two people should TE>VI>be married is because they love each other, and are willing to make a TE>VI>lifetime commitment to mutually monogamy to each other. In TE>VI>heterosexual couples, most marriages will result in children, but this TE>VI>does not mean that the state should say that a marriage where one TE>VI>member of the couple is sterile can be deemed "void" if the other TE>VI>member of the couple wants out. TE>That's a good point... however the legal definition of marriage does not TE>seem to involve love, commitment, etc. whatsoever. By their definition TE>not only is the purpose of marriage to bear children, but also to split TE>expenses, etc. I don't know exactly but a lot of it seems to have to do TE>with money... so the way I see it, by the state's definition, children TE>are a commodity much as money is, in terms of marriage. From the state's defintion the bearing of children is the prime reason for marriage. And you are quite right that love and commitment have nothing at all to do with it. Additionally, you are quite right that establishing property rights is another key element in the state's definition of marriage. Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 11:22pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734269 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734235, Reply to #734200, Reply to #734137, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>Yes, too many people rush into marriage without thinking it through, but VI>TE>that is their decision, and it should not be the responsibility of the VI>TE>government to have any control over a personal decision like that. It is VI>TE>like making the government into a parental role: if I decide to be VI>TE>stupid and get married without thinking about it, it is not the VI>TE>government's place to play my mother or father and prevent me from doing VI>TE>this in any way. I am strongly against the government preventing people VI>TE>from making personal decisions of any sort, in essence playing the VI>TE>parent, as if the public were a bunch of children (but that is another VI>TE>argument all together). VI>But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by VI>promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be so EXACTLY. And that is what pisses me off. Who the hell is the government to tell anyone not to ingest drugs or not to have pre-marital sex?! This is my basic argument/complaint against the fact that recreational drug use is illegal, actually. The government does not seem to believe that people have their own minds. VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a personal VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on children as VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but VI>utterly destructive for children? There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessarily one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think that it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are told truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 6:45am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734270 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734269, Reply to #734235, Reply to #734200, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by TE>VI>promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be so TE>EXACTLY. And that is what pisses me off. Who the hell is the government TE>to tell anyone not to ingest drugs or not to have pre-marital sex?! This TE>is my basic argument/complaint against the fact that recreational drug TE>use is illegal, actually. The government does not seem to believe that TE>people have their own minds. Maybe people don't. :) Seriously, wiht the twin problems of AIDS and drug addiction can the government really afford NOT to try to combat these problems? TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try to avoid human suffering, if I can. TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a personal TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on children a TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessarily TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think that TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are told TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occurs BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children. But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a child. How can it not be so? Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 9:19am Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 734284 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734161, Reply to #733937, Reply to #727733, R*) (1 reply) NI>I know what you mean, my realtionships before Steve were, well hellish, NI>I would only stay with a guy to have someone to be with & then I met NI>Steve, & I'll tell you the truth, I know it was love at first sight. I NI>remember telling the guy I was dating(AP better know as Asshole Pete NI>because of the way he really screwed my life up)all about Steve but I NI>waited almost a whole year & I still couldn't tell him how I felt, my NI>best friend told him I really liked him & the rest is history. Sure our NI>love for each other has changed over the years(hey, we've been together NI>since 1987 & married since 1990)but I would never go for another guy, NI>I'm madly in love with Steve!!! The feeling is mutual Buttercup! Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 7:27pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734302 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #734234, Reply to #734159, Reply to #733755, R*) (1 reply) VI>It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is very much VI>a family holiday. Sounds like me on Mother's Day, I get really depressed because I know I have given birth to a beutiful little girl but she's gone. --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Don't make a baby if you can't be a parent! Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 7:27pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734303 To: Steve C Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734284, Reply to #734161, Reply to #733937, R*) SC>NI>I know what you mean, my realtionships before Steve were, well hellish, SC>NI>I would only stay with a guy to have someone to be with & then I met SC>NI>Steve, & I'll tell you the truth, I know it was love at first sight. I SC>NI>remember telling the guy I was dating(AP better know as Asshole Pete SC>NI>because of the way he really screwed my life up)all about Steve but I SC>NI>waited almost a whole year & I still couldn't tell him how I felt, my SC>NI>best friend told him I really liked him & the rest is history. Sure our SC>NI>love for each other has changed over the years(hey, we've been together SC>NI>since 1987 & married since 1990)but I would never go for another guy, SC>NI>I'm madly in love with Steve!!! SC>The feeling is mutual Buttercup! As you wish! I love you Stephen James! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ FEMINISM.EXE found: Start whine sequence? (Y) (N Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 11:19pm Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 734311 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734270, Reply to #734269, Reply to #734235, R*) (2 replies) In a message dated 04-24-97 Vida wrote to Tempest : TE>VI>But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by TE>VI>promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be so TE>EXACTLY. And that is what pisses me off. Who the hell is the government TE>to tell anyone not to ingest drugs or not to have pre-marital sex?! This TE>is my basic argument/complaint against the fact that recreational drug TE>use is illegal, actually. The government does not seem to believe that TE>people have their own minds. V> Maybe people don't. :) Seriously, wiht the twin problems of AIDS and V> drug addiction can the government really afford NOT to try to combat V> these problems? TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. V> That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many V> lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try to V> avoid human suffering, if I can. TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a personal TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on children TE>iT #þX : a TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessarily TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think that TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are told TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. V> I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the V> children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occurs V> BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children. V> But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a V> child. How can it not be so? V> ;) TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * I'm pro-choice on everything! Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 7:20am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734403 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #734302, Reply to #734234, Reply to #734159, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is very much NI>VI>a family holiday. NI>Sounds like me on Mother's Day, I get really depressed because I know I NI>have given birth to a beutiful little girl but she's gone. NI>--- And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 7:21am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734404 To: Rand Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734311, Reply to #734270, Reply to #734269, R*) RA>In a message dated 04-24-97 Vida wrote to Tempest : RA>TE>VI>But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by RA>TE>VI>promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be so RA>TE>EXACTLY. And that is what pisses me off. Who the hell is the government RA>TE>to tell anyone not to ingest drugs or not to have pre-marital sex?! This RA>TE>is my basic argument/complaint against the fact that recreational drug RA>TE>use is illegal, actually. The government does not seem to believe that RA>TE>people have their own minds. RA>V> Maybe people don't. :) Seriously, wiht the twin problems of AIDS and RA>V> drug addiction can the government really afford NOT to try to combat RA>V> these problems? RA>TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately RA>TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. RA>TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. RA>V> That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many RA>V> lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try to RA>V> avoid human suffering, if I can. RA>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a person RA>TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on childre RA> TE>iT #þX : a RA>TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. RA>TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but RA>TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? RA>TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be RA>TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessarily RA>TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think that RA>TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are told RA>TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. RA>V> I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the RA>V> children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occurs RA>V> BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children. RA>V> But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a RA>V> child. How can it not be so? RA>V> RA> ;) So jump in, you Liberatarian, you! :) Date: Friday, April 25, 1997 6:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734429 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #734403, Reply to #734302, Reply to #734234, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is very muc VI>NI>VI>a family holiday. VI>NI>Sounds like me on Mother's Day, I get really depressed because I know I VI>NI>have given birth to a beutiful little girl but she's gone. VI>NI>--- VI>And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. Sorry :( --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I practice abstinence sometimes but never moderation. -SJ Date: Saturday, April 26, 1997 5:06pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734442 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #734429, Reply to #734403, Reply to #734302, R*) (2 replies) NI>VI>NI>VI>It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is very NI>VI>NI>VI>a family holiday. NI>VI>NI>Sounds like me on Mother's Day, I get really depressed because I know NI>VI>NI>have given birth to a beutiful little girl but she's gone. NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. NI>Sorry :( NI>--- It's been over three years. I still miss her so that it aches. :( Date: Monday, April 28, 1997 9:33pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 734524 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #734442, Reply to #734429, Reply to #734403, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is ve VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>a family holiday. VI>NI>VI>NI>Sounds like me on Mother's Day, I get really depressed because I kn VI>NI>VI>NI>have given birth to a beutiful little girl but she's gone. VI>NI>VI>NI>--- VI>NI>VI>And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. VI>NI>Sorry :( VI>NI>--- VI>It's been over three years. I still miss her so that it aches. :( Sounds familar! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ #30-3771: Shhhh! Listen to the bitstreams . . . Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 8:08am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734558 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #734524, Reply to #734442, Reply to #734429, R*) NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>It's especially hard on me at this time of year...Passover is NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>VI>a family holiday. NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Sounds like me on Mother's Day, I get really depressed because I NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>have given birth to a beutiful little girl but she's gone. NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>NI>VI>And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. NI>VI>NI>Sorry :( NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>It's been over three years. I still miss her so that it aches. :( NI>Sounds familar! NI>--- Yup. I will miss her for the rest of my life. :( Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 9:39am Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 734562 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #734442, Reply to #734429, Reply to #734403, R*) (1 reply) >VI>And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. >NI>Sorry :( >NI>--- VI>It's been over three years. I still miss her so that it aches. :( I wish I could say that the hurting will end at some time in the future , but unfortunately it doesn't. I lost my father 20 years ago and it still hurts. All I can say is that with time the hurting does subside a bit IE: you think about them only on special occasions or when you see or hear something that brings memories of them back to you. All I can recommend is that when the memories do come, talk to a friend about them. I have found that I can deal with the pain much easier if I can talk to someone about it. Marie and I attend a berevement support group once a month, and talking about our loss with other people who are going through similar losses does help heal our own wounds. Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997 5:32pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734833 To: ** ALL ** Re: What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #732345, Reply to #732296, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Lythande ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO> What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? ;) LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO>--- LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>In theory, nothing. I practice, everything in the world. :) LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>I agree with you - it has EVERYTHING to do with it! LY>VI>LY>VI>That's because you experience the most intense sexual pleasure when LY>VI>LY>VI>are both literally and figuratively making love. LY>VI>LY>I know. I think that after someone experiences the synergy of love an LY>VI>LY>lust they could never settle for one without the other again. LY>VI>Why should they? :) LY>Sometimes love doesnt' work out....sometimes love isn't enough to make a LY>relationship last. Yes, that has happened to me, unfortunately. :( Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 1:48am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 734860 To: ** ALL ** Re: Grounds for divorce (Fw by Lythande, Reply to #731845, Reply to #717696, Rep*) -------------< COMMENTS BY Lythande >-------------- TO: Lythande ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Lythande >---------- LY>TE>LY>TE>LY>In NYS? Sheesh - if I'd known that, I could've divorced my ex o LY>TE>LY>TE>LY>another ground. LY>TE>LY>TE>He's right, in NYS that is one of the laws. My parents got divorced LY>TE>LY>TE>those grounds! LY>TE>LY>NOW you tell me! I didn't want to use any of my other grounds, but LY>TE>LY>using that one would've been fun. LY>TE>Well I didn't know u when u got divorced, if I did I would have told u LY>TE>:) LY>TE>In fact, a person can divorce his/her spouse on the grounds that the LY>TE>spouse is refusing to have sex. Those are the grounds my parents used, LY>TE>anyway. LY>Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! LY>Are you sure??? My lawyer never told me that! I was nice and actually LY>let HIM sue ME for divorce since I left. Would've been fun to sue him LY>for the fact that he never wanted sex. I'm positive! Do you wanna see their divorce papers?! Heheh I flipped out when I saw their divorce papers, believe me those ARE grounds!! Date: Monday, May 5, 1997 5:54am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 734957 To: Steve C Re: Interesting (Reply to #734562, Reply to #734442, Reply to #734429, R*) (1 reply) SC>>VI>And I feel pain on Mother's Day because my mother is dead. SC>>NI>Sorry :( SC>>NI>--- SC>VI>It's been over three years. I still miss her so that it aches. :( SC>I wish I could say that the hurting will end at some time in the future SC>, but unfortunately it doesn't. I lost my father 20 years ago and it SC>still hurts. All I can say is that with time the hurting does subside a SC>bit IE: you think about them only on special occasions or when you SC>see or hear something that brings memories of them back to you. SC> All I can recommend is that when the memories do come, talk to a SC>friend about them. I have found that I can deal with the pain much SC>easier if I can talk to someone about it. Marie and I attend a SC>berevement support group once a month, and talking about our loss with SC>other people who are going through similar losses does help heal our SC>own wounds. Thanks for your advice! Actually, Bob and I do share this stuff a lot. :) Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 7:14pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 735085 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #734957, Reply to #734562, Reply to #734442, R*) (1 reply) VI>SC>I wish I could say that the hurting will end at some time in the future VI>SC>, but unfortunately it doesn't. I lost my father 20 years ago and it VI>SC>still hurts. All I can say is that with time the hurting does subside a VI>SC>bit IE: you think about them only on special occasions or when you VI>SC>see or hear something that brings memories of them back to you. VI>SC> All I can recommend is that when the memories do come, talk to a VI>SC>friend about them. I have found that I can deal with the pain much VI>SC>easier if I can talk to someone about it. Marie and I attend a VI>SC>berevement support group once a month, and talking about our loss with VI>SC>other people who are going through similar losses does help heal our VI>SC>own wounds. VI>Thanks for your advice! Actually, Bob and I do share this stuff a lot. VI> :) Beileve me, I know it helps! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Newt happens when 61% of Americans don't vote! Date: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 7:10am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735124 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #735085, Reply to #734957, Reply to #734562, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>SC>I wish I could say that the hurting will end at some time in the futur NI>VI>SC>, but unfortunately it doesn't. I lost my father 20 years ago and it NI>VI>SC>still hurts. All I can say is that with time the hurting does subside NI>VI>SC>bit IE: you think about them only on special occasions or when you NI>VI>SC>see or hear something that brings memories of them back to you. NI>VI>SC> All I can recommend is that when the memories do come, talk to a NI>VI>SC>friend about them. I have found that I can deal with the pain much NI>VI>SC>easier if I can talk to someone about it. Marie and I attend a NI>VI>SC>berevement support group once a month, and talking about our loss with NI>VI>SC>other people who are going through similar losses does help heal our NI>VI>SC>own wounds. NI>VI>Thanks for your advice! Actually, Bob and I do share this stuff a lot. NI>VI> :) NI>Beileve me, I know it helps! NI>--- Yup! It made a real big difference to him in there the first time I recited Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) for my mom. Date: Tuesday, May 6, 1997 11:09pm Forum: Relationships From: Synne Msg#: 735136 To: ** ALL ** Re: To have sex with another female (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #735017, Reply to #735001, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- Agreed. Not just in my relationships... but like just in general... huge houses, money, diamonds bigger than my head... etc.. And I'm NOT a materialistic person... imagine if I was! :-I Date: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 9:05pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 735162 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #735124, Reply to #735085, Reply to #734957, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>Beileve me, I know it helps! VI>Yup! It made a real big difference to him in there the first time I VI>recited Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) for my mom. Hey, if it works, do it! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ I tried to drown my problems but they can swim!!! Date: Thursday, May 8, 1997 6:59am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735190 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #735162, Reply to #735124, Reply to #735085, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>Beileve me, I know it helps! NI>VI>Yup! It made a real big difference to him in there the first time I NI>VI>recited Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) for my mom. NI>Hey, if it works, do it! NI>--- This is a prayer that you are supposed to say every year on the aniversary of the dead person's death. It is a very emotional prayer to say and I needed Bob's support to help me get through it. :( Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 7:53pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 735415 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #735190, Reply to #735162, Reply to #735124, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>Yup! It made a real big difference to him in there the first time I VI>NI>VI>recited Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) for my mom. VI>NI>Hey, if it works, do it! VI>NI>--- VI>This is a prayer that you are supposed to say every year on the VI>aniversary of the dead person's death. It is a very emotional prayer VI>to say and I needed Bob's support to help me get through it. :( Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece actully said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is finally accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Error accessing BRAIN - device not mounted. Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 2:11am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735466 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734270, Reply to #734269, Reply to #734235, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by VI>TE>VI>promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be so VI>TE>EXACTLY. And that is what pisses me off. Who the hell is the government VI>TE>to tell anyone not to ingest drugs or not to have pre-marital sex?! This VI>TE>is my basic argument/complaint against the fact that recreational drug VI>TE>use is illegal, actually. The government does not seem to believe that VI>TE>people have their own minds. VI>Maybe people don't. :) Seriously, wiht the twin problems of AIDS and VI>drug addiction can the government really afford NOT to try to combat VI>these problems? Hey if people don't have minds, then neither do the members of the government! They are people too, remember? I'm not saying that the gov't shouldn't try to combat the problems of AIDS and drug addiction; however, what they are doing NOW is obviously not working. Not only does illegalizing drugs, premarital sex, whatever NOT work (people will do what they do no matter if it's legal or not), but this approach is IMHO unconstitutional (whatever happened to "Pursuit of Happiness"?!) Instead of uselessly overcrowding prisons with small-time drug dealers (and spending at least 30,000 dollars a year on each prisoner; 60,000 a year in a place like Rikers), the gov't should take this money and spend it on AIDS research, research into treatments/possible vaccines, and drug addiction research, to find out if perhaps there is a better way to cure a junky other than methadone, etc. THIS is where the answers lie, NOT in trying to control the public morality, which is wrong and simply DOES NOT WORK. VI>TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately VI>TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. VI>TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. VI>That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many VI>lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try to VI>avoid human suffering, if I can. It may be a cavalier attitude, but it's reality. People simply HAVE to learn to be responsible for their own lives, what I don't understand is this liberal attitude of feeling responsible for the world's problems. Personally, I find it difficult enough living my own life, and I don't have the energy to fix other people's lives as well. If I were to become a drug addict or if I were to get AIDS (God forbid either case!) then I would have no one to blame but myself, and if people had THIS attitude rather than blaming the world for their problems then perhaps they would be more careful about their own lives and we wouldn't even HAVE the serious problems we have. I'm not saying that we should stop AIDS research, drug rehab, etc. - these are very important things that must continue; however, in order for people to take responsibility for their own lives, the government has to stop playing mommy, and has to stop trying to control what people do. VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a person VI>TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on childre VI>TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. VI>TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but VI>TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? VI>TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be VI>TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessarily VI>TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think that VI>TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are told VI>TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. VI>I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the VI>children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occurs VI>BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children. VI>But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a VI>child. How can it not be so? It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the worst thing that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the fighting parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their fights! Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 4:12am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735467 To: Rand Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734311, Reply to #734270, Reply to #734269, R*) (1 reply) R RA> ;) RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> Rand And your position on this matter is...? :) Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 4:15am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735468 To: Vida Re: What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? (Reply to #734833, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #732345, Rep*) (1 reply) VI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- VI>TO: Lythande VI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO> What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? ;) VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO>--- VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>In theory, nothing. I practice, everything in the world. VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>I agree with you - it has EVERYTHING to do with it! VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>That's because you experience the most intense sexual pleasure w VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>are both literally and figuratively making love. VI>LY>VI>LY>I know. I think that after someone experiences the synergy of love VI>LY>VI>LY>lust they could never settle for one without the other again. VI>LY>VI>Why should they? :) VI>LY>Sometimes love doesnt' work out....sometimes love isn't enough to make a VI>LY>relationship last. VI>Yes, that has happened to me, unfortunately. :( Same here. But you know what, sometimes the loss of one love can bring another love sooo much better... Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 4:18am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735469 To: Synne Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #735136, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #735017, Rep*) (1 reply) SY>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- SY>TO: Tempest SY>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- SY>Agreed. Not just in my relationships... but like just in general... huge SY>houses, money, diamonds bigger than my head... etc.. SY>And I'm NOT a materialistic person... imagine if I was! :-I Ahh, I see this thread has been moved... you know, I've thought about this some more, and come to think of it, if I could just have mental peace... if I could be at peace with myself and everything in my life instead of anguishing over little things so much, then it doesn't even matter what I have, I'd be happy... I just wanna fix my brain... Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 9:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Synne Msg#: 735503 To: Tempest Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #735469, Reply to #735136, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (1 reply) I would go for that. I get too worked up about little tiny things... sometimes me and rob jump down each other's throat for stupid things.. i in the end, we both know it doesnt meant anything.. but it would be nice not to even have to deal with it in the first place. The money thing I was talking about would be for comfort... like paying bills and be able to buy shit we need but not even necessarily for things we WANT (although, that would be nice to).. I just want to rid myself of stress and money is a huge part of my stress.. I just want to live and be comfortable.. spiritually, physically and emotionally... "Is that so wrawng?" :-) Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 12:38pm Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 735526 To: Tempest *EXEMPT* Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735467, Reply to #734311, Reply to #734270, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 05-13-97 Tempest wrote to Rand : RA> ;) RA>TANSTAAFL, RA> Rand T> And your position on this matter is...? :) I'm very big on decriminalization of drugs. Primarily because I think that the harm to society caused by the criminalization of drugs; i.e. gang wars, theft to support habits, etc. is far worse than the danger to people who use drugs. In other words, I'm perfectly willing to allow people to fry their own brains. What I'm not prepared to do is give up the streets to the violence created by the criminalization of drug use. Perhaps the best analogy is to Prohibition. The St. Valentine's day Massacre occurred when rival bootleg gangs went to war with Tommy guns. Have you ever heard of rival alcohol distributors committing drive-by shootings? It's not because drugs are "worse." It's because drugs are illegal. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 10:02am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735789 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #735415, Reply to #735190, Reply to #735162, R*) (2 replies) NI>VI>NI>VI>Yup! It made a real big difference to him in there the first time NI>VI>NI>VI>recited Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) for my mom. NI>VI>NI>Hey, if it works, do it! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>This is a prayer that you are supposed to say every year on the NI>VI>aniversary of the dead person's death. It is a very emotional prayer NI>VI>to say and I needed Bob's support to help me get through it. :( NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece actully NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is finally NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! NI>--- Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a living child. Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 10:06am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735790 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735466, Reply to #734270, Reply to #734269, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>But the government is already taking a "loco parentis" role by TE>VI>TE>VI>promoting absenitence in drugs and pre-maritial sex. What would be TE>VI>TE>EXACTLY. And that is what pisses me off. Who the hell is the governmen TE>VI>TE>to tell anyone not to ingest drugs or not to have pre-marital sex?! Th TE>VI>TE>is my basic argument/complaint against the fact that recreational drug TE>VI>TE>use is illegal, actually. The government does not seem to believe that TE>VI>TE>people have their own minds. TE>VI>Maybe people don't. :) Seriously, wiht the twin problems of AIDS and TE>VI>drug addiction can the government really afford NOT to try to combat TE>VI>these problems? TE>Hey if people don't have minds, then neither do the members of the TE>government! They are people too, remember? All too true! :) TE>I'm not saying that the gov't shouldn't try to combat the problems of TE>AIDS and drug addiction; however, what they are doing NOW is obviously TE>not working. Not only does illegalizing drugs, premarital sex, whatever TE>NOT work (people will do what they do no matter if it's legal or not), TE>but this approach is IMHO unconstitutional (whatever happened to TE>"Pursuit of Happiness"?!) IMHO the war against drugs isn't working because it hasn't been seriously persued. It has been a sham, a show. There's too much money and profits involved. Plus, I truly believe that there is a segement of this country that WANTS the underclass to be drugged. TE>Instead of uselessly overcrowding prisons with small-time drug dealers TE>(and spending at least 30,000 dollars a year on each prisoner; 60,000 a TE>year in a place like Rikers), the gov't should take this money and spend TE>it on AIDS research, research into treatments/possible vaccines, and TE>drug addiction research, to find out if perhaps there is a better way to TE>cure a junky other than methadone, etc. THIS is where the answers lie, TE>NOT in trying to control the public morality, which is wrong and simply TE>DOES NOT WORK. It will never happen. We are still stuck in Protestant mentality. TE>VI>TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimately TE>VI>TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. TE>VI>TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. TE>VI>That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many TE>VI>lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try to TE>VI>avoid human suffering, if I can. TE>It may be a cavalier attitude, but it's reality. People simply HAVE to TE>learn to be responsible for their own lives, what I don't understand is TE>this liberal attitude of feeling responsible for the world's problems. TE>Personally, I find it difficult enough living my own life, and I don't TE>have the energy to fix other people's lives as well. If I were to become TE>a drug addict or if I were to get AIDS (God forbid either case!) then I TE>would have no one to blame but myself, and if people had THIS attitude TE>rather than blaming the world for their problems then perhaps they would TE>be more careful about their own lives and we wouldn't even HAVE the TE>serious problems we have. I'm not saying that we should stop AIDS TE>research, drug rehab, etc. - these are very important things that must TE>continue; however, in order for people to take responsibility for their TE>own lives, the government has to stop playing mommy, and has to stop TE>trying to control what people do. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a per TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on chil TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. TE>VI>TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything but TE>VI>TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? TE>VI>TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be TE>VI>TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessarily TE>VI>TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think tha TE>VI>TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are to TE>VI>TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. TE>VI>I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the TE>VI>children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occurs TE>VI>BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children. TE>VI>But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a TE>VI>child. How can it not be so? TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the worst thing TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the fighting TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their fights! You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far from reality. Date: Saturday, May 17, 1997 10:07am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735791 To: Tempest Re: What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? (Reply to #735468, Reply to #734833, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>VI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>VI>TO: Lythande TE>VI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO> What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO>--- TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>In theory, nothing. I practice, everything in the worl TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>I agree with you - it has EVERYTHING to do with it! TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>That's because you experience the most intense sexual pleasur TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>are both literally and figuratively making love. TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>I know. I think that after someone experiences the synergy of l TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>lust they could never settle for one without the other again. TE>VI>LY>VI>Why should they? :) TE>VI>LY>Sometimes love doesnt' work out....sometimes love isn't enough to make TE>VI>LY>relationship last. TE>VI>Yes, that has happened to me, unfortunately. :( TE>Same here. But you know what, sometimes the loss of one love can bring TE>another love sooo much better... In the best of circumstances. :) Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 12:26am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735846 To: Synne Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #735503, Reply to #735469, Reply to #735136, C*) (1 reply) SY>I would go for that. I get too worked up about little tiny things... SY>sometimes me and rob jump down each other's throat for stupid things.. i SY>in the end, we both know it doesnt meant anything.. but it would be nice SY>not to even have to deal with it in the first place. Yeah, I know what you mean. A lot of little things really bug me, and I know mentally that they are unimportant, and I just wish I can get all these unimportant little things that bug me out of my mind! U know? SY>The money thing I was talking about would be for comfort... like paying SY>bills and be able to buy shit we need but not even necessarily for SY>things we WANT (although, that would be nice to).. I just want to rid SY>myself of stress and money is a huge part of my stress.. Same here... I wish I didn't WANT so many things, then I wouldn't care if I didn't have enough money for wants! You know what I mean? I don't even want anything grandiose, I just like stuff like books, cool clothes, etc. But it adds up. SY>I just want to live and be comfortable.. spiritually, physically and SY>emotionally... Same here, exactly!! SY>"Is that so wrawng?" :-) That's what I keep asking :) Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 12:29am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735848 To: Rand Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735526, Reply to #735467, Reply to #734311, R*) RA>In a message dated 05-13-97 Tempest wrote to Rand : RA>RA> ;) RA>RA>TANSTAAFL, RA>RA> Rand RA>T> And your position on this matter is...? :) RA>I'm very big on decriminalization of drugs. Primarily because I think that RA>the harm to society caused by the criminalization of drugs; i.e. gang wars, RA>theft to support habits, etc. is far worse than the danger to people who use RA>drugs. RA>In other words, I'm perfectly willing to allow people to fry their own brain RA>What I'm not prepared to do is give up the streets to the violence created b RA>the criminalization of drug use. RA>Perhaps the best analogy is to Prohibition. The St. Valentine's day Massacr RA>occurred when rival bootleg gangs went to war with Tommy guns. Have you eve RA>heard of rival alcohol distributors committing drive-by shootings? It's not RA>because drugs are "worse." It's because drugs are illegal. RA>TANSTAAFL, Rand Rand, you need not say more, because I agree with you 100%. So we have no argument here. :) In fact, I wrote a big long paper on this once for a social science class, stating exactly the arguments that you put forth and more. Anyone else wanna argue this one? :) Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 12:53am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735849 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735790, Reply to #735466, Reply to #734270, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>I'm not saying that the gov't shouldn't try to combat the problems of VI>TE>AIDS and drug addiction; however, what they are doing NOW is obviously VI>TE>not working. Not only does illegalizing drugs, premarital sex, whatever VI>TE>NOT work (people will do what they do no matter if it's legal or not), VI>TE>but this approach is IMHO unconstitutional (whatever happened to VI>TE>"Pursuit of Happiness"?!) VI>IMHO the war against drugs isn't working because it hasn't been VI>seriously persued. It has been a sham, a show. There's too much money VI>and profits involved. Plus, I truly believe that there is a segement VI>of this country that WANTS the underclass to be drugged. About the war against drugs not working: there are too sides to this. You are right about there being too much money and profits involved; members of the government often get bribed/make deals with those who bring drugs in mass quantities into the country, which certainly puts a damper on the whole war against drugs thing. However: the war against drugs has been OVER-pursued in the following way: the gov't has filled up 22 percent of state prisons (70% of NYS prisons!) and 61 percent of federal prisons with drug-related criminals. Of all imprisoned drug offenders, 25% are dealers and 75% are users. The total cost of the war on drugs is 200 billion dollars per year. (I can get you references for these statistics if you want.) The whole thing is an absolute waste; Of all the drug users in America, only three percent of them are imprisoned. Therefore, if the gov't wants to imprison drug users and do this whole "drug-free america" thing, it would have to imprison the other 97% of users, which is simply impossible in terms of prison space. The gov't has wasted an absolutely RIDICULOUS amount of money and prison space for a completely useless effort. The war against drugs will never work, NOT because it's underpursued (you call 200 billion dollars a year underpursued?!), but because PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT. Even if members of the gov't stopped accepting bribes and somehow completely cut off the import of drugs into the country, american drug users would find other ways of getting drugs. Like, grow or formulate their own, etc. Just like the Prohibition didn't work because when alcohol wasn't sold legally, people made their own alcohol. Same principle. And your other comment about people wanting the underclass to be drugged: this is a very common misconception that drug addiction is an underclass problem. People of ALL classes use drugs equally; it's just that upper class drug users make it less obvious because they have more at stake. Have you forgotten stockbrokers on cocaine, college kids on speed, suburban teens on heroin, etc, etc? VI>TE>Instead of uselessly overcrowding prisons with small-time drug dealers VI>TE>(and spending at least 30,000 dollars a year on each prisoner; 60,000 a VI>TE>year in a place like Rikers), the gov't should take this money and spend VI>TE>it on AIDS research, research into treatments/possible vaccines, and VI>TE>drug addiction research, to find out if perhaps there is a better way to VI>TE>cure a junky other than methadone, etc. THIS is where the answers lie, VI>TE>NOT in trying to control the public morality, which is wrong and simply VI>TE>DOES NOT WORK. VI>It will never happen. We are still stuck in Protestant mentality. True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is simply put really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always say, never say never. History goes through constant radical changes; this condition won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's future... VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultimatel VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. VI>TE>VI>TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. VI>TE>VI>That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many VI>TE>VI>lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try to VI>TE>VI>avoid human suffering, if I can. VI>TE>It may be a cavalier attitude, but it's reality. People simply HAVE to VI>TE>learn to be responsible for their own lives, what I don't understand is VI>TE>this liberal attitude of feeling responsible for the world's problems. VI>TE>Personally, I find it difficult enough living my own life, and I don't VI>TE>have the energy to fix other people's lives as well. If I were to become VI>TE>a drug addict or if I were to get AIDS (God forbid either case!) then I VI>TE>would have no one to blame but myself, and if people had THIS attitude VI>TE>rather than blaming the world for their problems then perhaps they would VI>TE>be more careful about their own lives and we wouldn't even HAVE the VI>TE>serious problems we have. I'm not saying that we should stop AIDS VI>TE>research, drug rehab, etc. - these are very important things that must VI>TE>continue; however, in order for people to take responsibility for their VI>TE>own lives, the government has to stop playing mommy, and has to stop VI>TE>trying to control what people do. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard on c VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anything VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? VI>TE>VI>TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to be VI>TE>VI>TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not necessar VI>TE>VI>TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't think VI>TE>VI>TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they are VI>TE>VI>TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. VI>TE>VI>I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the VI>TE>VI>children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occurs VI>TE>VI>BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children. VI>TE>VI>But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a VI>TE>VI>child. How can it not be so? VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the worst thing VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the fighting VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their fights! VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far from VI>reality. True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/fights about alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see them yell and scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 12:53am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735850 To: Vida Re: What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? (Reply to #735791, Reply to #735468, Reply to #734833, C*) VI>TE>VI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- VI>TE>VI>TO: Lythande VI>TE>VI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO> What does love have to do with sexual pleasure? VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>DO>--- VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>In theory, nothing. I practice, everything in the w VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>LY>I agree with you - it has EVERYTHING to do with it! VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>That's because you experience the most intense sexual plea VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>VI>are both literally and figuratively making love. VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>I know. I think that after someone experiences the synergy o VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>LY>lust they could never settle for one without the other again VI>TE>VI>LY>VI>Why should they? :) VI>TE>VI>LY>Sometimes love doesnt' work out....sometimes love isn't enough to m VI>TE>VI>LY>relationship last. VI>TE>VI>Yes, that has happened to me, unfortunately. :( VI>TE>Same here. But you know what, sometimes the loss of one love can bring VI>TE>another love sooo much better... VI>In the best of circumstances. :) This is true! Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 8:18am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735858 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735849, Reply to #735790, Reply to #735466, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that the gov't shouldn't try to combat the problems of TE>VI>TE>AIDS and drug addiction; however, what they are doing NOW is obviously TE>VI>TE>not working. Not only does illegalizing drugs, premarital sex, whateve TE>VI>TE>NOT work (people will do what they do no matter if it's legal or not), TE>VI>TE>but this approach is IMHO unconstitutional (whatever happened to TE>VI>TE>"Pursuit of Happiness"?!) TE>VI>IMHO the war against drugs isn't working because it hasn't been TE>VI>seriously persued. It has been a sham, a show. There's too much money TE>VI>and profits involved. Plus, I truly believe that there is a segement TE>VI>of this country that WANTS the underclass to be drugged. TE>About the war against drugs not working: there are too sides to this. TE>You are right about there being too much money and profits involved; TE>members of the government often get bribed/make deals with those who TE>bring drugs in mass quantities into the country, which certainly puts a TE>damper on the whole war against drugs thing. TE>However: the war against drugs has been OVER-pursued in the following TE>way: the gov't has filled up 22 percent of state prisons (70% of NYS TE>prisons!) and 61 percent of federal prisons with drug-related criminals. TE>Of all imprisoned drug offenders, 25% are dealers and 75% are users. TE>The total cost of the war on drugs is 200 billion dollars per year. TE>(I can get you references for these statistics if you want.) TE>The whole thing is an absolute waste; Of all the drug users in America, TE>only three percent of them are imprisoned. Therefore, if the gov't wants TE>to imprison drug users and do this whole "drug-free america" thing, it TE>would have to imprison the other 97% of users, which is simply TE>impossible in terms of prison space. The gov't has wasted an absolutely TE>RIDICULOUS amount of money and prison space for a completely useless TE>effort. The drug users and drug pushers that are in jail are overwhelmingly members of the underclass. They are in jail for the reason that the government wants them out of the way, rather than pressing for real jobs and real change. TE>The war against drugs will never work, NOT because it's underpursued TE>(you call 200 billion dollars a year underpursued?!), but because PEOPLE TE>DO WHAT THEY WANT. Even if members of the gov't stopped accepting bribes TE>and somehow completely cut off the import of drugs into the country, TE>american drug users would find other ways of getting drugs. Like, grow TE>or formulate their own, etc. Just like the Prohibition didn't work TE>because when alcohol wasn't sold legally, people made their own alcohol. TE>Same principle. TE>And your other comment about people wanting the underclass to be TE>drugged: this is a very common misconception that drug addiction is an TE>underclass problem. People of ALL classes use drugs equally; it's just TE>that upper class drug users make it less obvious because they have more TE>at stake. Have you forgotten stockbrokers on cocaine, college kids on TE>speed, suburban teens on heroin, etc, etc? I haven't forgotten at all. And that's exactly WHY and WHEN the government becomes concerned and launches it "war on drugs"--when it starts to hit Mr. and Mrs. Average American, the government acts. I also disagree with your statement that if the government succesfully cut off the supply of drugs from foreign countries that this would not have a substantial effect upon the drug problem in the US. It might not erradicate the problem totally, but it would reduce the problem to such a level that drug use would be virtually nil. TE>VI>TE>Instead of uselessly overcrowding prisons with small-time drug dealers TE>VI>TE>(and spending at least 30,000 dollars a year on each prisoner; 60,000 TE>VI>TE>year in a place like Rikers), the gov't should take this money and spe TE>VI>TE>it on AIDS research, research into treatments/possible vaccines, and TE>VI>TE>drug addiction research, to find out if perhaps there is a better way TE>VI>TE>cure a junky other than methadone, etc. THIS is where the answers lie, TE>VI>TE>NOT in trying to control the public morality, which is wrong and simpl TE>VI>TE>DOES NOT WORK. TE>VI>It will never happen. We are still stuck in Protestant mentality. TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is simply put TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always say, never TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; this condition TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's future... You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>bad about the government doing the same in this area? Ultima TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>people will make their own mistakes, anyway, unfortunately. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Then LET them make their own mistakes. That's the way life is. TE>VI>TE>VI>That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude, especially since many TE>VI>TE>VI>lives can be ruined by drug addiction or AIDS. I would rather try TE>VI>TE>VI>avoid human suffering, if I can. TE>VI>TE>It may be a cavalier attitude, but it's reality. People simply HAVE to TE>VI>TE>learn to be responsible for their own lives, what I don't understand i TE>VI>TE>this liberal attitude of feeling responsible for the world's problems. TE>VI>TE>Personally, I find it difficult enough living my own life, and I don't TE>VI>TE>have the energy to fix other people's lives as well. If I were to beco TE>VI>TE>a drug addict or if I were to get AIDS (God forbid either case!) then TE>VI>TE>would have no one to blame but myself, and if people had THIS attitude TE>VI>TE>rather than blaming the world for their problems then perhaps they wou TE>VI>TE>be more careful about their own lives and we wouldn't even HAVE the TE>VI>TE>serious problems we have. I'm not saying that we should stop AIDS TE>VI>TE>research, drug rehab, etc. - these are very important things that must TE>VI>TE>continue; however, in order for people to take responsibility for thei TE>VI>TE>own lives, the government has to stop playing mommy, and has to stop TE>VI>TE>trying to control what people do. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorce rate is awfully high, but divorce too is TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>decision. Plus, I strongly doubt that divorce is as hard o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the psychoanalysts like to say it is. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You've got to be kidding, right?!? How can divorce be anythi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>utterly destructive for children? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>There are many things that are done to children that deserve to TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>called "utterly destructive" and worse, but divorce is not neces TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>one of them. If it is a relatively peaceful divorce, I don't thi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it is that traumatic for them. Children are not stupid. If they TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>truthfully why the divorce is happening, they will understand. TE>VI>TE>VI>I am not saying that people should stay married for the sake of the TE>VI>TE>VI>children. Actually, I think that it is the period of time that occ TE>VI>TE>VI>BEFORE the divorce takes place that is the most harmful to children TE>VI>TE>VI>But even in the best of circumstances, divorce is an upheaval for a TE>VI>TE>VI>child. How can it not be so? TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the worst thing TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the fighting TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their fights! TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far from TE>VI>reality. TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/fights about TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see them yell and TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other each time they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 11:39am Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 735875 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #735789, Reply to #735415, Reply to #735190, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece actully VI>NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is finally VI>NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! VI>Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a VI>living child. Yes & no, to me it meant that Steve's family is finally accepting the fact I had a child & that I AM a mother, whether or not my daughter is with me is not the point, I am a mother! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Hari Kishka: Jewish soul food. - Arnold Asrelsky Date: Monday, May 19, 1997 2:17am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 735889 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735858, Reply to #735849, Reply to #735790, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that the gov't shouldn't try to combat the problems VI>TE>VI>TE>AIDS and drug addiction; however, what they are doing NOW is obviou VI>TE>VI>TE>not working. Not only does illegalizing drugs, premarital sex, what VI>TE>VI>TE>NOT work (people will do what they do no matter if it's legal or no VI>TE>VI>TE>but this approach is IMHO unconstitutional (whatever happened to VI>TE>VI>TE>"Pursuit of Happiness"?!) VI>TE>VI>IMHO the war against drugs isn't working because it hasn't been VI>TE>VI>seriously persued. It has been a sham, a show. There's too much mone VI>TE>VI>and profits involved. Plus, I truly believe that there is a segement VI>TE>VI>of this country that WANTS the underclass to be drugged. VI>TE>About the war against drugs not working: there are too sides to this. VI>TE>You are right about there being too much money and profits involved; VI>TE>members of the government often get bribed/make deals with those who VI>TE>bring drugs in mass quantities into the country, which certainly puts a VI>TE>damper on the whole war against drugs thing. VI>TE>However: the war against drugs has been OVER-pursued in the following VI>TE>way: the gov't has filled up 22 percent of state prisons (70% of NYS VI>TE>prisons!) and 61 percent of federal prisons with drug-related criminals. VI>TE>Of all imprisoned drug offenders, 25% are dealers and 75% are users. VI>TE>The total cost of the war on drugs is 200 billion dollars per year. VI>TE>(I can get you references for these statistics if you want.) VI>TE>The whole thing is an absolute waste; Of all the drug users in America, VI>TE>only three percent of them are imprisoned. Therefore, if the gov't wants VI>TE>to imprison drug users and do this whole "drug-free america" thing, it VI>TE>would have to imprison the other 97% of users, which is simply VI>TE>impossible in terms of prison space. The gov't has wasted an absolutely VI>TE>RIDICULOUS amount of money and prison space for a completely useless VI>TE>effort. VI>The drug users and drug pushers that are in jail are overwhelmingly VI>members of the underclass. They are in jail for the reason that the VI>government wants them out of the way, rather than pressing for real VI>jobs and real change. Nope, they are in jail because like I said, the underclass drug users/pushers are just much more obvious about it than the upper class ones, because those in the upper class have more to lose so they are much more discreet about their use and dealing. The underclass person who uses or pushes in the street is much more likely to get caught than the upperclass person who uses or pushes at home or in the public restroom at work! VI>TE>The war against drugs will never work, NOT because it's underpursued VI>TE>(you call 200 billion dollars a year underpursued?!), but because PEOPLE VI>TE>DO WHAT THEY WANT. Even if members of the gov't stopped accepting bribes VI>TE>and somehow completely cut off the import of drugs into the country, VI>TE>american drug users would find other ways of getting drugs. Like, grow VI>TE>or formulate their own, etc. Just like the Prohibition didn't work VI>TE>because when alcohol wasn't sold legally, people made their own alcohol. VI>TE>Same principle. VI>TE>And your other comment about people wanting the underclass to be VI>TE>drugged: this is a very common misconception that drug addiction is an VI>TE>underclass problem. People of ALL classes use drugs equally; it's just VI>TE>that upper class drug users make it less obvious because they have more VI>TE>at stake. Have you forgotten stockbrokers on cocaine, college kids on VI>TE>speed, suburban teens on heroin, etc, etc? VI>I haven't forgotten at all. And that's exactly WHY and WHEN the VI>government becomes concerned and launches it "war on drugs"--when it VI>starts to hit Mr. and Mrs. Average American, the government acts. But the drug phenomenon has ALWAYS taken place in both the underclass and the upperclass. VI>I also disagree with your statement that if the government succesfully VI>cut off the supply of drugs from foreign countries that this would not VI>have a substantial effect upon the drug problem in the US. It might VI>not erradicate the problem totally, but it would reduce the problem to VI>such a level that drug use would be virtually nil. Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis, coca leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs such as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designer drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So why would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growing more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is simply put VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always say, never VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; this condition VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's future... VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history tends to repeat itself. VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the worst thin VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the fighting VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their fight VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far from VI>TE>VI>reality. VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/fights about VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see them yell and VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other each time VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( At least it's not on a daily basis! Date: Monday, May 19, 1997 9:18am Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 735929 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #735789, Reply to #735415, Reply to #735190, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece actully VI>NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is finally VI>NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! VI>NI>--- VI>Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a VI>living child. Thank you, but trust me on this. It is much better this way. For almost a year, my family didn't even want to acknowledge that we had a baby. At least they are recognizing now that the pain Marie went through was child birth! Date: Tuesday, May 20, 1997 7:22am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735993 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #735875, Reply to #735789, Reply to #735415, R*) (1 reply) NI>VI>NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece actull NI>VI>NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is final NI>VI>NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! NI>VI>Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a NI>VI>living child. NI>Yes & no, to me it meant that Steve's family is finally accepting the NI>fact I had a child & that I AM a mother, whether or not my daughter is NI>with me is not the point, I am a mother! NI>--- Ok. So long as it sounded supportive to you, that's what counts. Date: Tuesday, May 20, 1997 7:28am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 735994 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735889, Reply to #735858, Reply to #735849, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not saying that the gov't shouldn't try to combat the proble TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>AIDS and drug addiction; however, what they are doing NOW is obv TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>not working. Not only does illegalizing drugs, premarital sex, w TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>NOT work (people will do what they do no matter if it's legal or TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>but this approach is IMHO unconstitutional (whatever happened to TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>"Pursuit of Happiness"?!) TE>VI>TE>VI>IMHO the war against drugs isn't working because it hasn't been TE>VI>TE>VI>seriously persued. It has been a sham, a show. There's too much m TE>VI>TE>VI>and profits involved. Plus, I truly believe that there is a segeme TE>VI>TE>VI>of this country that WANTS the underclass to be drugged. TE>VI>TE>About the war against drugs not working: there are too sides to this. TE>VI>TE>You are right about there being too much money and profits involved; TE>VI>TE>members of the government often get bribed/make deals with those who TE>VI>TE>bring drugs in mass quantities into the country, which certainly puts TE>VI>TE>damper on the whole war against drugs thing. TE>VI>TE>However: the war against drugs has been OVER-pursued in the following TE>VI>TE>way: the gov't has filled up 22 percent of state prisons (70% of NYS TE>VI>TE>prisons!) and 61 percent of federal prisons with drug-related criminal TE>VI>TE>Of all imprisoned drug offenders, 25% are dealers and 75% are users. TE>VI>TE>The total cost of the war on drugs is 200 billion dollars per year. TE>VI>TE>(I can get you references for these statistics if you want.) TE>VI>TE>The whole thing is an absolute waste; Of all the drug users in America TE>VI>TE>only three percent of them are imprisoned. Therefore, if the gov't wan TE>VI>TE>to imprison drug users and do this whole "drug-free america" thing, it TE>VI>TE>would have to imprison the other 97% of users, which is simply TE>VI>TE>impossible in terms of prison space. The gov't has wasted an absolutel TE>VI>TE>RIDICULOUS amount of money and prison space for a completely useless TE>VI>TE>effort. TE>VI>The drug users and drug pushers that are in jail are overwhelmingly TE>VI>members of the underclass. They are in jail for the reason that the TE>VI>government wants them out of the way, rather than pressing for real TE>VI>jobs and real change. TE>Nope, they are in jail because like I said, the underclass drug TE>users/pushers are just much more obvious about it than the upper class TE>ones, because those in the upper class have more to lose so they are TE>much more discreet about their use and dealing. The underclass person TE>who uses or pushes in the street is much more likely to get caught than TE>the upperclass person who uses or pushes at home or in the public TE>restroom at work! And let's not forget that the upper class person can afford to pay for a good criminal defense attorney, while a lower class person can not. That's why OJ was set free. He had the best criminal defense that money could buy. TE>VI>TE>The war against drugs will never work, NOT because it's underpursued TE>VI>TE>(you call 200 billion dollars a year underpursued?!), but because PEOP TE>VI>TE>DO WHAT THEY WANT. Even if members of the gov't stopped accepting brib TE>VI>TE>and somehow completely cut off the import of drugs into the country, TE>VI>TE>american drug users would find other ways of getting drugs. Like, grow TE>VI>TE>or formulate their own, etc. Just like the Prohibition didn't work TE>VI>TE>because when alcohol wasn't sold legally, people made their own alcoho TE>VI>TE>Same principle. TE>VI>TE>And your other comment about people wanting the underclass to be TE>VI>TE>drugged: this is a very common misconception that drug addiction is an TE>VI>TE>underclass problem. People of ALL classes use drugs equally; it's just TE>VI>TE>that upper class drug users make it less obvious because they have mor TE>VI>TE>at stake. Have you forgotten stockbrokers on cocaine, college kids on TE>VI>TE>speed, suburban teens on heroin, etc, etc? TE>VI>I haven't forgotten at all. And that's exactly WHY and WHEN the TE>VI>government becomes concerned and launches it "war on drugs"--when it TE>VI>starts to hit Mr. and Mrs. Average American, the government acts. TE>But the drug phenomenon has ALWAYS taken place in both the underclass TE>and the upperclass. There have been different drug problems at different times in the different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country is not being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. TE>VI>I also disagree with your statement that if the government succesfully TE>VI>cut off the supply of drugs from foreign countries that this would not TE>VI>have a substantial effect upon the drug problem in the US. It might TE>VI>not erradicate the problem totally, but it would reduce the problem to TE>VI>such a level that drug use would be virtually nil. TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis, coca TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs such TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designer TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So why TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growing TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there was a good reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported supply that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in general. TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is simply put TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always say, nev TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; this conditi TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's future... TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history tends to TE>repeat itself. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the worst t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the fightin TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their fi TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far from TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/fights abo TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see them yell an TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other each time TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! Date: Tuesday, May 20, 1997 7:58pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 736026 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #735993, Reply to #735875, Reply to #735789, R*) (1 reply) VI>NI>VI>NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece act VI>NI>VI>NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is fi VI>NI>VI>NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! VI>NI>VI>Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a VI>NI>VI>living child. VI>NI>Yes & no, to me it meant that Steve's family is finally accepting the VI>NI>fact I had a child & that I AM a mother, whether or not my daughter is VI>NI>with me is not the point, I am a mother! VI>NI>--- VI>Ok. So long as it sounded supportive to you, that's what counts. Thank you for understanding! --- þ OLX 2.1 TD þ Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 7:05am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736044 To: Steve C Re: Interesting (Reply to #735929, Reply to #735789, Reply to #735415, R*) (1 reply) SC>VI>NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece actull SC>VI>NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is final SC>VI>NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! SC>VI>NI>--- SC>VI>Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a SC>VI>living child. SC>Thank you, but trust me on this. It is much better this way. For almost SC>a year, my family didn't even want to acknowledge that we had a baby. SC>At least they are recognizing now that the pain Marie went through was SC>child birth! Believe me, I know all about denial on the part of family members and how painful it can be. I am glad that your family is finally starting to face a painful truth. Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 7:06am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736045 To: Nightbird Re: Interesting (Reply to #736026, Reply to #735993, Reply to #735875, R*) NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>Well, it's the day after Mother's Day & I'm doing ok. My niece NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>said "Happy Mother's Day" to you, I cryed but hey, his family is NI>VI>NI>VI>NI>accepting the fact the Steve & I had a child!!! NI>VI>NI>VI>Still seems like a horrible thing to say to you if you don't have a NI>VI>NI>VI>living child. NI>VI>NI>Yes & no, to me it meant that Steve's family is finally accepting the NI>VI>NI>fact I had a child & that I AM a mother, whether or not my daughter is NI>VI>NI>with me is not the point, I am a mother! NI>VI>NI>--- NI>VI>Ok. So long as it sounded supportive to you, that's what counts. NI>Thank you for understanding! NI>--- You're welcome. :) Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 9:47am Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 736056 To: Vida Re: Interesting (Reply to #736044, Reply to #735929, Reply to #735789, R*) VI>Believe me, I know all about denial on the part of family members and VI>how painful it can be. I am glad that your family is finally starting VI>to face a painful truth. Thank you. Date: Wednesday, May 21, 1997 6:55pm Forum: Relationships From: Synne Msg#: 736077 To: Tempest Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #735846, Reply to #735503, Reply to #735469, R*) (1 reply) I know exactly what you mean... What to do about it.. I dont know :-I :-) Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 4:47am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 736180 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735858, Reply to #735849, Reply to #735790, R*) (1 reply) VI>The drug users and drug pushers that are in jail are overwhelmingly VI>members of the underclass. They are in jail for the reason that the VI>government wants them out of the way, rather than pressing for real VI>jobs and real change. No. They are in jail, and upon conviction they are in prison, because they are/were convicted of violating laws. Crackheads may posess some form of attractive victim quality under certain points of view, but revolutionary enemies of the state and alla that other romantic bullshit they are not, especially if you actually have to deal with them in any way in real time. VI>I haven't forgotten at all. And that's exactly WHY and WHEN the VI>government becomes concerned and launches it "war on drugs"--when it VI>starts to hit Mr. and Mrs. Average American, the government acts. VI>I also disagree with your statement that if the government succesfully VI>cut off the supply of drugs from foreign countries that this would not VI>have a substantial effect upon the drug problem in the US. It might VI>not erradicate the problem totally, but it would reduce the problem to VI>such a level that drug use would be virtually nil. Cocaine is not readily cultivated in temperate climates, and opium poppies are a difficult proposition altho not as impossible. Marijuana is a trash weed plant and grows anywhere, and most of the rest of the proscribed substances are more or less synthetic in origin thus as easy to generate domestically as anywhere else. That said, crack and junk are the substances of use for the vast majority of the underclass you cite, well, besides alcohol, and alcohol has been there since the day before people imagined god and is still there despite millenia of intervening human difficulty. --- * SLMR 2.0 * This tagline is nonexistent and cannot be read by people Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 7:43am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736185 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736180, Reply to #735858, Reply to #735849, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>The drug users and drug pushers that are in jail are overwhelmingly DT>VI>members of the underclass. They are in jail for the reason that the DT>VI>government wants them out of the way, rather than pressing for real DT>VI>jobs and real change. DT> No. They are in jail, and upon conviction they are in prison, because DT>they are/were convicted of violating laws. Crackheads may posess some DT>form of attractive victim quality under certain points of view, but DT>revolutionary enemies of the state and alla that other romantic bullshit DT>they are not, especially if you actually have to deal with them in any DT>way in real time. You misunderstand my point. I am not suggesting at all that crackheads are revolutionary enemies of the state or any such thing. What I am stating is that the government selectively enforces drug laws to target the poor and underclass. It locks up poor drug users while it generally ignores middle class drug users. For example , I had a job with a law firm that required the lawyers to work incredibily long hours. You had to at work at 8 AM and you worked to 6PM on Monday and Friday. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thrusday you had to work to AT LEAST 8 PM. On Some nights I didn't leave until 10 PM. Anyway, I was just about the only lawyer in the firm who was NOT taking drugs. Every other lawyer was taking uppers, coke, and other illegal drugs in order to work the required hours. I left the job after a year because I couldn't tolerate the hours. But the point is that not one lawyer in that firm was ever busted in the year that I worked in the law firm. And this was a fairly large law firm, with 60 lawyers taking illegal drugs just about every single day, Monday to Friday, and some Saturdays too! DT>VI>I haven't forgotten at all. And that's exactly WHY and WHEN the DT>VI>government becomes concerned and launches it "war on drugs"--when it DT>VI>starts to hit Mr. and Mrs. Average American, the government acts. DT>VI>I also disagree with your statement that if the government succesfully DT>VI>cut off the supply of drugs from foreign countries that this would not DT>VI>have a substantial effect upon the drug problem in the US. It might DT>VI>not erradicate the problem totally, but it would reduce the problem to DT>VI>such a level that drug use would be virtually nil. DT> Cocaine is not readily cultivated in temperate climates, and opium DT>poppies are a difficult proposition altho not as impossible. Marijuana DT>is a trash weed plant and grows anywhere, and most of the rest of the DT>proscribed substances are more or less synthetic in origin thus as easy DT>to generate domestically as anywhere else. That said, crack and junk are DT>the substances of use for the vast majority of the underclass you cite, DT>well, besides alcohol, and alcohol has been there since the day before DT>people imagined god and is still there despite millenia of intervening DT>human difficulty. DT>--- Actually, alcohol is the biggest drug that is abused in our culture. While Prohibition is generally trashed because of the crime problem it generated I can certainly understand what motivated 19th century women to push for Prohibition. You have to remember that under the old Common Law that was in effect in the 19th century a married woman was in a state of 'coverture'--she was legally not permitted to own any property in her own name and had no control over how her husband spent the money that was earned by EITHER ONE of them! So there was tremendous suffering that was endured by women when alcoholic husbands literally drank an entire family into poverty. If you very read the historic accounts, and I have, it is gut wrenching! That being said, I really don't know how effective a REAL drug embargo from foreign sources would be. My gut feeling is that it would have a chilling effect on drug use in this country, but certainly not eliminate the problem. But I could be wrong, dead wrong. Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 2:36pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 736308 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #733931, Reply to #727453, Reply to #726740, R*) (1 reply) TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in the TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidividual TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex ma TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some people TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible, i TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, an TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept seperate TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotional TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get married TE>SF>TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that piece o TE>SF>TE>SF>paper. TE>SF>TE>That would be the ideal situation! TE>SF>Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight couples. TE>Well, from the legal aspect, yeah. I don't agree with this, but TE>unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about it! You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 2:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 736309 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #734160, Reply to #733783, Reply to #733565, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! NI>--- NI> þ OLX 2.1 TD þ You can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it. I know! Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 2:51pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 736310 To: Vida Re: Interview (1 reply) Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcus for his new book on long term gay relationships. Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 10:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Calvin Msg#: 736316 To: Vida Re: Adultery (1 reply) What is the legal definition of adultery, Counsellor? Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 11:00pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 736324 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736309, Reply to #734160, Reply to #733783, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! SF>I know! But of course! * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the way myself. Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 10:10pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736420 To: Steve Flur Re: Interview (Reply to #736310) (1 reply) SF>Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcus for his SF>new book on long term gay relationships. Mazel tov, mazel tov! Let me know when the book comes out and its title. Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 10:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736421 To: Calvin Re: Adultery (Reply to #736316) CA>What is the legal definition of adultery, Counsellor? I will try to get back to you on this one Calvin. I have to look it up in the law books. Never expect me to give you an answer on a legal question without first giving me the chance to look it up, ok? :) Date: Tuesday, June 3, 1997 3:28am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 736680 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736185, Reply to #736180, Reply to #735858, R*) (1 reply) VI>What I am stating is that the government selectively enforces drug laws VI>to target the poor and underclass. It locks up poor drug users while VI>it generally ignores middle class drug users. VI>For example , I had a job with a law firm that required the lawyers to VI>work incredibily long hours. You had to at work at 8 AM and you worked VI>to 6PM on Monday and Friday. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thrusday you VI>had to VI>work to AT LEAST 8 PM. On Some nights I didn't leave until 10 PM. VI>Anyway, I was just about the only lawyer in the firm who was NOT taking VI>drugs. Every other lawyer was taking uppers, coke, and other illegal VI>drugs in order to work the required hours. I left the job after a year VI>because I couldn't tolerate the hours. But the point is that not one VI>lawyer in that firm was ever busted in the year that I worked in the VI>law firm. And this was a fairly large law firm, with 60 lawyers taking VI>illegal drugs just about every single day, Monday to Friday, and some VI>Saturdays too! Wait a minute. You seem to suggest that you may have worked with lawyers who were so siffed with pure lack of simple competence that they were subject to blowing the relatively simple points of avoidance that keep the vast majority of illegal actors safe from prosecution. And this, after lengthy training in the finer professionally applicable points of the very system that would be involved in said prosecution. Excuse me? What does skill and training have to do with social class? These are separate concerns, wholly. Next... VI>You have to remember that under the old Common Law that was in effect VI>in the 19th century a married woman was in a state of 'coverture'--she VI>was legally not permitted to own any property in her own name and had VI>no control over how her husband spent the money that was earned by VI>EITHER ONE of them! So there was tremendous suffering that was endured VI>by women when alcoholic husbands literally drank an entire family into VI>poverty. If you very read the historic accounts, and I have, it is gut VI>wrenching! There are sad and repulsive accounts wallpapering history. I do not see the relationship between 19th century human rights and present time allegations you have made concerning selective enforcement of existing present time drug laws, outside of my impression that both are essentially fucked and atavistic structures. VI>That being said, I really don't know how effective a REAL drug embargo VI>from foreign sources would be. My gut feeling is that it would have a VI>chilling effect on drug use in this country, but certainly not VI>eliminate the problem. But I could be wrong, dead wrong. The basic effect of a genuine border sealing embargo set against proscribed substances would be the invigoration of native talent bent on using local precursors to satisfy what I see as a basic human desire system, and expanded employment for high school grads to patrol the borders six feet apart from each other and about three deep overall. This sort of silliness might have a side effect of helping to control the walkover flood in illegal immigration, but after a couple of weeks people would figure out alternative means for that as well... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Am I REALLY responsible for someone who refuses to eat? Date: Monday, June 2, 1997 7:31am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736713 To: ** ALL ** Re: To have sex with another female (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736604, Reply to #736437, Rep*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Tempest ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>TE>VI>Thank goodness my jealousy doesn't cause me that kind of problem! TE>VI>TE>VI>jealousy is definitely HEALTHY and APPROPRIATE jealousy. TE>VI>TE>That's definately good. I've always tended toward the jealous side, bu TE>VI>TE>it didn't get that bad until experiences with my last ex, that's when TE>VI>TE>jealousy really became problematic. I started feeling intense, awful TE>VI>TE>feelings of jealousy and suspiciousness with this last ex, because wit TE>VI>TE>I had reasons. But the problem is that now, I get these same feelings TE>VI>TE>that I had before, but THIS time I have no real reason for them. They TE>VI>TE>seem to be an emotional residue from my last relationship, and I've be TE>VI>TE>trying to figure out how to fix this, unsuccessfully! :( TE>VI>Hmm. I guess my best suggestion is just communicate your feelings and TE>VI>let your SO reassure you. It's ok to have your feelings, even if they TE>VI>are irrational and have no basis in reality. TE>I suppose, but these feelings cause me additional problems that I don't TE>need, you know what I mean? Our relationship is wonderful (Thank God!) TE>and the only problem I have is not with him, but with myself and these TE>irrational feelings! We've discussed it a bit, I have communicated this TE>to him, and he IS very understanding and reassuring, but I suppose that TE>there is probably only so much of this that he can stand, you know? I TE>don't want to cause any problems or cause him any grief because of this. Then talk about with your girlfriends or other friends! Don't bottle up your feelings because they will only cause you more problems if you do so. Believe me, I speak from personal experience! Date: Wednesday, June 4, 1997 6:33pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736777 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736680, Reply to #736185, Reply to #736180, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>What I am stating is that the government selectively enforces drug laws DT>VI>to target the poor and underclass. It locks up poor drug users while DT>VI>it generally ignores middle class drug users. DT>VI>For example , I had a job with a law firm that required the lawyers to DT>VI>work incredibily long hours. You had to at work at 8 AM and you worked DT>VI>to 6PM on Monday and Friday. On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thrusday you DT>VI>had to DT>VI>work to AT LEAST 8 PM. On Some nights I didn't leave until 10 PM. DT>VI>Anyway, I was just about the only lawyer in the firm who was NOT taking DT>VI>drugs. Every other lawyer was taking uppers, coke, and other illegal DT>VI>drugs in order to work the required hours. I left the job after a year DT>VI>because I couldn't tolerate the hours. But the point is that not one DT>VI>lawyer in that firm was ever busted in the year that I worked in the DT>VI>law firm. And this was a fairly large law firm, with 60 lawyers taking DT>VI>illegal drugs just about every single day, Monday to Friday, and some DT>VI>Saturdays too! DT> Wait a minute. You seem to suggest that you may have worked with DT>lawyers who were so siffed with pure lack of simple competence that they DT>were subject to blowing the relatively simple points of avoidance that DT>keep the vast majority of illegal actors safe from prosecution. And DT>this, after lengthy training in the finer professionally applicable DT>points of the very system that would be involved in said prosecution. DT>Excuse me? What does skill and training have to do with social class? DT>These are separate concerns, wholly. Next... This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civil litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent to handle a criminal case. And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid getting caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not disprove that there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I think no reasonable person can dispute. DT>VI>You have to remember that under the old Common Law that was in effect DT>VI>in the 19th century a married woman was in a state of 'coverture'--she DT>VI>was legally not permitted to own any property in her own name and had DT>VI>no control over how her husband spent the money that was earned by DT>VI>EITHER ONE of them! So there was tremendous suffering that was endured DT>VI>by women when alcoholic husbands literally drank an entire family into DT>VI>poverty. If you very read the historic accounts, and I have, it is gut DT>VI>wrenching! DT> There are sad and repulsive accounts wallpapering history. I do not DT>see the relationship between 19th century human rights and present time DT>allegations you have made concerning selective enforcement of existing DT>present time drug laws, outside of my impression that both are DT>essentially fucked and atavistic structures. I wasn't raising this history in terms of any current situation. I was raising this history because I feel that Prohibitionists have been execessively slammed in the late 20th century. People have to view the 19th century Temperance movement in its historical context. DT>VI>That being said, I really don't know how effective a REAL drug embargo DT>VI>from foreign sources would be. My gut feeling is that it would have a DT>VI>chilling effect on drug use in this country, but certainly not DT>VI>eliminate the problem. But I could be wrong, dead wrong. DT> The basic effect of a genuine border sealing embargo set against DT>proscribed substances would be the invigoration of native talent bent on DT>using local precursors to satisfy what I see as a basic human desire DT>system, and expanded employment for high school grads to patrol the DT>borders six feet apart from each other and about three deep overall. DT>This sort of silliness might have a side effect of helping to control DT>the walkover flood in illegal immigration, but after a couple of weeks DT>people would figure out alternative means for that as well... DT>--- Perhaps. Perhaps not. Date: Thursday, June 5, 1997 7:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 736849 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #735994, Reply to #735889, Reply to #735858, R*) (1 reply) VVI>And let's not forget that the upper class person can afford to pay for VI>a good criminal defense attorney, while a lower class person can not. VI>That's why OJ was set free. He had the best criminal defense that VI>money could buy. Good point! VI>There have been different drug problems at different times in the VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country is not VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than any drug that is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illegalizing drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that they choose the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal. VI>TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis, coca VI>TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on VI>TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs such VI>TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designer VI>TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So why VI>TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growing VI>TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? VI>Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there was a good VI>reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported supply VI>that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in general. There's no reason for that assumption. Drugs are imported from elsewhere because they CAN be. If they weren't imported, then more would be produced here, because the inherent desire for drugs in certain parts of the population would be more than enough to overcome the lack of foreign supply. VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is simply pu VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always say, VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; this cond VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's future.. VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history tends to VI>TE>repeat itself. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the wors VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the figh VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to their VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far fr VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/fights VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see them yell VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other each tim VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! Date: Friday, June 6, 1997 7:01am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 736873 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736849, Reply to #735994, Reply to #735889, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>And let's not forget that the upper class person can afford to pay for TE>VI>a good criminal defense attorney, while a lower class person can not. TE>VI>That's why OJ was set free. He had the best criminal defense that TE>VI>money could buy. TE>Good point! Thank you, thank you! :) TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different times in the TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country is not TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than any drug that TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illegalizing TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that they choose TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal. Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. And because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. It accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized crime. TE>VI>TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis, coca TE>VI>TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on TE>VI>TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs such TE>VI>TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designer TE>VI>TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So why TE>VI>TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growing TE>VI>TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? TE>VI>Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there was a good TE>VI>reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported supply TE>VI>that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in general. TE>There's no reason for that assumption. Drugs are imported from elsewhere TE>because they CAN be. If they weren't imported, then more would be TE>produced here, because the inherent desire for drugs in certain parts of TE>the population would be more than enough to overcome the lack of foreign TE>supply. Perhaps. Perhaps not. There's only one way to test your hypothesis--cut off the foreign supply and see what happens. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is simply TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always sa TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; this c TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's futur TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history tends to TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. So how does that belief apply to this context? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not the w TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if the f TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's far TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/figh TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see them y TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other each TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes can be very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. Date: Friday, June 6, 1997 8:18pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 736971 To: Synne Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #736077, Reply to #735846, Reply to #735503, R*) (1 reply) SY>I know exactly what you mean... SY>What to do about it.. I dont know :-I :-) Become a nun? :) Date: Friday, June 6, 1997 8:25pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 736972 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #736308, Reply to #733931, Reply to #727453, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots in SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidivid SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite sex SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some peop SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bible SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even written, SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept sepera SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emotio SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get marr SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that piec SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>paper. SF>TE>SF>TE>That would be the ideal situation! SF>TE>SF>Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight couples. SF>TE>Well, from the legal aspect, yeah. I don't agree with this, but SF>TE>unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about it! SF>You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. And what good will that do? I'm a nobody, I don't have any influence, they'll just discard my opinion like they discard most other people's opinions and stick with their own. The idea is to elect officials who already HAVE the same opinion as we do. Date: Friday, June 6, 1997 8:34pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 736975 To: Vida Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #736713, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #736604, Rep*) (1 reply) VI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- VI>TO: Tempest VI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Thank goodness my jealousy doesn't cause me that kind of problem VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>jealousy is definitely HEALTHY and APPROPRIATE jealousy. VI>TE>VI>TE>That's definately good. I've always tended toward the jealous side, VI>TE>VI>TE>it didn't get that bad until experiences with my last ex, that's wh VI>TE>VI>TE>jealousy really became problematic. I started feeling intense, awfu VI>TE>VI>TE>feelings of jealousy and suspiciousness with this last ex, because VI>TE>VI>TE>I had reasons. But the problem is that now, I get these same feelin VI>TE>VI>TE>that I had before, but THIS time I have no real reason for them. Th VI>TE>VI>TE>seem to be an emotional residue from my last relationship, and I've VI>TE>VI>TE>trying to figure out how to fix this, unsuccessfully! :( VI>TE>VI>Hmm. I guess my best suggestion is just communicate your feelings and VI>TE>VI>let your SO reassure you. It's ok to have your feelings, even if they VI>TE>VI>are irrational and have no basis in reality. VI>TE>I suppose, but these feelings cause me additional problems that I don't VI>TE>need, you know what I mean? Our relationship is wonderful (Thank God!) VI>TE>and the only problem I have is not with him, but with myself and these VI>TE>irrational feelings! We've discussed it a bit, I have communicated this VI>TE>to him, and he IS very understanding and reassuring, but I suppose that VI>TE>there is probably only so much of this that he can stand, you know? I VI>TE>don't want to cause any problems or cause him any grief because of this. VI>Then talk about with your girlfriends or other friends! Don't bottle VI>up your feelings because they will only cause you more problems if you VI>do so. Believe me, I speak from personal experience! Yeah, I know. Well, I basically talk about it with you guys on here! To tell you the truth, I don't really have any girlfriends, 99% of my friends are guys and most of them aren't really the type to talk about deep feelings with, although there are exceptions. Plus I have this tendency to listen intently to other peoples' problems, but I have a problem discussing things about myself, I feel like I don't want to burden anyone with my problems, you know? But I feel better typing about it here than talking about it, for some reason. Date: Friday, June 6, 1997 8:46pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 736976 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736873, Reply to #736849, Reply to #735994, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different times in the VI>TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country is not VI>TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. VI>TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than any drug that VI>TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illegalizing VI>TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that they choose VI>TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal. VI>Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. And VI>because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. It VI>accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized crime. Exactly, and that is also exactly what the drug prohibition is doing as well: creating profits for organized crime, as well as thousands of small-time dealers. Alcohol may be the most popular drug, but in terms of profit, all drugs are very profitable substances in general. VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis, coca VI>TE>VI>TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on VI>TE>VI>TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs such VI>TE>VI>TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designer VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So why VI>TE>VI>TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growing VI>TE>VI>TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? VI>TE>VI>Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there was a good VI>TE>VI>reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported supply VI>TE>VI>that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in general. VI>TE>There's no reason for that assumption. Drugs are imported from elsewhere VI>TE>because they CAN be. If they weren't imported, then more would be VI>TE>produced here, because the inherent desire for drugs in certain parts of VI>TE>the population would be more than enough to overcome the lack of foreign VI>TE>supply. VI>Perhaps. Perhaps not. There's only one way to test your VI>hypothesis--cut off the foreign supply and see what happens. IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs into the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is sim VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I always VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; thi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's fu VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history tends to VI>TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical changes, so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the question. Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to occur in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Europe I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holland. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child to VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That's VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battles/f VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see the VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other ea VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( VI>TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! VI>But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes can be VI>very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. Bouncing back and forth is not the most terrible or unstable thing that could happen to a child. As long as both parents love the child, it is not that bad of a situation. Besides, children are very adaptable, much more so than adults. Date: Saturday, June 7, 1997 9:39am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737034 To: Tempest Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #736975, Reply to #736713, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>VI>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>VI>TO: Tempest TE>VI>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Thank goodness my jealousy doesn't cause me that kind of prob TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>jealousy is definitely HEALTHY and APPROPRIATE jealousy. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's definately good. I've always tended toward the jealous si TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it didn't get that bad until experiences with my last ex, that's TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>jealousy really became problematic. I started feeling intense, a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>feelings of jealousy and suspiciousness with this last ex, becau TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I had reasons. But the problem is that now, I get these same fee TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that I had before, but THIS time I have no real reason for them. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>seem to be an emotional residue from my last relationship, and I TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>trying to figure out how to fix this, unsuccessfully! :( TE>VI>TE>VI>Hmm. I guess my best suggestion is just communicate your feelings TE>VI>TE>VI>let your SO reassure you. It's ok to have your feelings, even if t TE>VI>TE>VI>are irrational and have no basis in reality. TE>VI>TE>I suppose, but these feelings cause me additional problems that I don' TE>VI>TE>need, you know what I mean? Our relationship is wonderful (Thank God!) TE>VI>TE>and the only problem I have is not with him, but with myself and these TE>VI>TE>irrational feelings! We've discussed it a bit, I have communicated thi TE>VI>TE>to him, and he IS very understanding and reassuring, but I suppose tha TE>VI>TE>there is probably only so much of this that he can stand, you know? I TE>VI>TE>don't want to cause any problems or cause him any grief because of thi TE>VI>Then talk about with your girlfriends or other friends! Don't bottle TE>VI>up your feelings because they will only cause you more problems if you TE>VI>do so. Believe me, I speak from personal experience! TE>Yeah, I know. Well, I basically talk about it with you guys on here! To TE>tell you the truth, I don't really have any girlfriends, 99% of my TE>friends are guys and most of them aren't really the type to talk about TE>deep feelings with, although there are exceptions. Plus I have this TE>tendency to listen intently to other peoples' problems, but I have a TE>problem discussing things about myself, I feel like I don't want to TE>burden anyone with my problems, you know? But I feel better typing about TE>it here than talking about it, for some reason. Than type away here! :) Just get it out, that's the important point! If you bottle things up they will only come back to bite you in the ass. Believe me, I am talking from first hand experience about that! Date: Saturday, June 7, 1997 9:46am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737038 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736976, Reply to #736873, Reply to #736849, R*) (2 replies) TE>VVI>TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different times in the TE>VI>TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country is not TE>VI>TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. TE>VI>TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than any drug th TE>VI>TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illegalizing TE>VI>TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that they choo TE>VI>TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal. TE>VI>Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. And TE>VI>because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. It TE>VI>accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized crime. TE>Exactly, and that is also exactly what the drug prohibition is doing as TE>well: creating profits for organized crime, as well as thousands of TE>small-time dealers. Alcohol may be the most popular drug, but in terms TE>of profit, all drugs are very profitable substances in general. Drugs are not as popular as alcholol and are not as culturally entrenched as alcholol. So I think it is an error to draw an analogy between the drug prohibition and the alcholol prohibition. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis, c TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs su TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designer TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So wh TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growing TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? TE>VI>TE>VI>Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there was a g TE>VI>TE>VI>reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported suppl TE>VI>TE>VI>that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in general. TE>VI>TE>There's no reason for that assumption. Drugs are imported from elsewhe TE>VI>TE>because they CAN be. If they weren't imported, then more would be TE>VI>TE>produced here, because the inherent desire for drugs in certain parts TE>VI>TE>the population would be more than enough to overcome the lack of forei TE>VI>TE>supply. TE>VI>Perhaps. Perhaps not. There's only one way to test your TE>VI>hypothesis--cut off the foreign supply and see what happens. TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs into TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population is TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I alw TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical changes; TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of America's TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history tends TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical changes, TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the question. TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to occur TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Europe TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holland. So is prostitution, no? :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is not TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, if TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the child TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. That TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal battle TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to see TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basis! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each other TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! TE>VI>But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes can be TE>VI>very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. TE>Bouncing back and forth is not the most terrible or unstable thing that TE>could happen to a child. As long as both parents love the child, it is TE>not that bad of a situation. Besides, children are very adaptable, much TE>more so than adults. From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a child in a different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING to a child. I would rather not go into the details because it is far too personal, just trust me on this point, ok? Date: Sunday, June 8, 1997 3:46am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 737064 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736777, Reply to #736680, Reply to #736185, R*) (1 reply) VI>This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civil VI>litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent to handle a VI>criminal case. VI>And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid getting VI>caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not disprove that VI>there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I think no VI>reasonable person can dispute. Drug laws are enforced 90% of the time by collaring street transactors who are either buying or selling. This has more to do with the rules of search and siezure than the race/class/gender/preference/ income level/last grade completed/etcetera of the actor detained. People who are more skilled in basic things like being stealthy while fucking up are going to be missed, unless they tend to be connected to voluminous movements of cash, or some other reasonable indicator of probable illicit activity. Come on, this is Law 101... VI>I wasn't raising this history in terms of any current situation. I was VI>raising this history because I feel that Prohibitionists have been VI>execessively slammed in the late 20th century. People have to view the VI>19th century Temperance movement in its historical context. Prohibition failed. This is no 1997 slam, the Act was repealed quite some decades past. Besides: in present time, one can be afflicted with an alcoholic partner and not be dragged down with said partner, there are still certain support programs extant at this time which were not during the years in which the temperance movement was formed. Yes, these programs seem to be in decline, but they exist now, and I am not typing from the future. VI>DT> The basic effect of a genuine border sealing embargo set against VI>DT>proscribed substances would be the invigoration of native talent bent on VI>DT>using local precursors to satisfy what I see as a basic human desire VI>DT>system, and expanded employment for high school grads to patrol the VI>DT>borders six feet apart from each other and about three deep overall. VI>DT>This sort of silliness might have a side effect of helping to control VI>DT>the walkover flood in illegal immigration, but after a couple of weeks VI>DT>people would figure out alternative means for that as well... VI>Perhaps. Perhaps not. Thank you, Counselor. Reasonable doubt is victory. Heh heh heh... --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Sunday, June 8, 1997 12:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737086 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737064, Reply to #736777, Reply to #736680, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civil DT>VI>litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent to handle a DT>VI>criminal case. DT>VI>And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid getting DT>VI>caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not disprove that DT>VI>there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I think no DT>VI>reasonable person can dispute. DT> Drug laws are enforced 90% of the time by collaring street DT>transactors who are either buying or selling. This has more to do with DT>the rules of search and siezure than the race/class/gender/preference/ DT>income level/last grade completed/etcetera of the actor detained. People DT>who are more skilled in basic things like being stealthy while fucking DT>up are going to be missed, unless they tend to be connected to DT>voluminous movements of cash, or some other reasonable indicator of DT>probable illicit activity. Come on, this is Law 101... I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the time through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. In other words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an excuse to lock up "surplus" people. DT>VI>I wasn't raising this history in terms of any current situation. I was DT>VI>raising this history because I feel that Prohibitionists have been DT>VI>execessively slammed in the late 20th century. People have to view the DT>VI>19th century Temperance movement in its historical context. DT> Prohibition failed. This is no 1997 slam, the Act was repealed quite DT>some decades past. Besides: in present time, one can be afflicted with DT>an alcoholic partner and not be dragged down with said partner, there DT>are still certain support programs extant at this time which were not DT>during the years in which the temperance movement was formed. Yes, these DT>programs seem to be in decline, but they exist now, and I am not typing DT>from the future. Prohibition failed because alcholol use was too widespread and too entrenched to ever be eliminated from US culture. And I am well aware of the existence of Alanon and other similiar types of groups. DT>VI>DT> The basic effect of a genuine border sealing embargo set against DT>VI>DT>proscribed substances would be the invigoration of native talent bent DT>VI>DT>using local precursors to satisfy what I see as a basic human desire DT>VI>DT>system, and expanded employment for high school grads to patrol the DT>VI>DT>borders six feet apart from each other and about three deep overall. DT>VI>DT>This sort of silliness might have a side effect of helping to control DT>VI>DT>the walkover flood in illegal immigration, but after a couple of weeks DT>VI>DT>people would figure out alternative means for that as well... DT>VI>Perhaps. Perhaps not. DT> Thank you, Counselor. Reasonable doubt is victory. Heh heh heh... DT>--- ROFTL. :) Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 4:51am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 737110 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737038, Reply to #736976, Reply to #736873, R*) (2 replies) VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs into VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you passed through the airport gateways... VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical changes, VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the question. VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to occur VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Europe VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holland. VI>So is prostitution, no? :) Now, there is another lovely textbook example of wholly failed religious law or other 'moral' construct pretending to be sufficient cause to ban aspects of human nature, flawed as it is... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 6:49am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737120 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737110, Reply to #737038, Reply to #736976, R*) (2 replies) DT>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs in DT>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who DT>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it DT>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to DT>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you DT>passed through the airport gateways... I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see the bags on the x-rays. And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) DT>VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical change DT>VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the question. DT>VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to occ DT>VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Europ DT>VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holland DT>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) DT> Now, there is another lovely textbook example of wholly failed DT>religious law or other 'moral' construct pretending to be sufficient DT>cause to ban aspects of human nature, flawed as it is... DT>--- Another textbook example of mixed up societal attitudes in my book. :) Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 2:40pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737144 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #736324, Reply to #736309, Reply to #734160, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! NI>SF>I know! NI>But of course! NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the way myself. Have we waited long enough? Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 2:41pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737145 To: Vida Re: Interview (Reply to #736420, Reply to #736310) (1 reply) VI>SF>Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcus for his VI>SF>new book on long term gay relationships. VI>Mazel tov, mazel tov! Let me know when the book comes out and its VI>title. The interview is set for this week so I will ask the author. Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 2:44pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737146 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #736972, Reply to #736308, Reply to #733931, R*) (1 reply) TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roots TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having inidi TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisite TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....some p TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the bi TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even writt TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of? TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept sep TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from emo TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to get m TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for that p TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>paper. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>That would be the ideal situation! TE>SF>TE>SF>Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight couples. TE>SF>TE>Well, from the legal aspect, yeah. I don't agree with this, but TE>SF>TE>unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about it! TE>SF>You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. TE>And what good will that do? I'm a nobody, I don't have any influence, TE>they'll just discard my opinion like they discard most other people's TE>opinions and stick with their own. The idea is to elect officials who TE>already HAVE the same opinion as we do. You have a vote which makes you important to any elected official. Date: Monday, June 9, 1997 8:17pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 737160 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737144, Reply to #736324, Reply to #736309, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. SF>NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! SF>NI>SF>I know! SF>NI>But of course! SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the way myself. SF>Have we waited long enough? Sure. * OLX 2.1 TD * Push red button to test, release to detonate Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 7:05am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737183 To: Steve Flur Re: Interview (Reply to #737145, Reply to #736420, Reply to #736310) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcus for his SF>VI>SF>new book on long term gay relationships. SF>VI>Mazel tov, mazel tov! Let me know when the book comes out and its SF>VI>title. SF>The interview is set for this week so I will ask the author. Please do! :) Date: Friday, June 13, 1997 1:20pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737368 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737160, Reply to #737144, Reply to #736324, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! NI>SF>NI>SF>I know! NI>SF>NI>But of course! NI>SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the way myself. NI>SF>Have we waited long enough? NI>Sure. NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Push red button to test, release to detonate Sounds good to me! Date: Friday, June 13, 1997 1:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737369 To: Vida Re: Interview (Reply to #737183, Reply to #737145, Reply to #736420, R*) (1 reply) VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcus for VI>SF>VI>SF>new book on long term gay relationships. VI>SF>VI>Mazel tov, mazel tov! Let me know when the book comes out and its VI>SF>VI>title. VI>SF>The interview is set for this week so I will ask the author. VI>Please do! :) The interview lasted over 3 hours. We were couple #21 out of 40 scheduled nationwide for interviews. The book has a target publication of June 1998. Date: Friday, June 13, 1997 11:18pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 737391 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737368, Reply to #737160, Reply to #737144, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I know! SF>NI>SF>NI>But of course! SF>NI>SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the way myse SF>NI>SF>Have we waited long enough? SF>NI>Sure. SF>Sounds good to me! So, what are we wait for, Godot? * OLX 2.1 TD * "All these doughnuts & not a cop in sight."-Plucky Duck Date: Saturday, June 14, 1997 8:41am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737405 To: Steve Flur Re: Interview (Reply to #737369, Reply to #737183, Reply to #737145, R*) (1 reply) SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcus f SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>new book on long term gay relationships. SF>VI>SF>VI>Mazel tov, mazel tov! Let me know when the book comes out and its SF>VI>SF>VI>title. SF>VI>SF>The interview is set for this week so I will ask the author. SF>VI>Please do! :) SF>The interview lasted over 3 hours. We were couple #21 out of 40 SF>scheduled nationwide for interviews. The book has a target publication SF>of June 1998. Just don't forget to tell me when it's out. :) Date: Monday, June 16, 1997 2:34am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 737471 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737120, Reply to #737110, Reply to #737038, R*) (1 reply) VI>I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see the VI>bags on the x-rays. VI>And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) Well, christ then, why dont they xray all incoming humans at all ports of entry? Could it be that perhaps the US Customs Dept is not genuinely committed to the imposition of an infallible wall between the local population and the importation of illicit substances? Wouldnt they concentrate on containerized cargo rather than human tourists if they were really serious? Last time I checked, the standard 48' cargo container had a bit more capacity than the average human digestive tract, in terms of how much heroin one could stuff into it... VI>DT>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) VI>DT> Now, there is another lovely textbook example of wholly failed VI>DT>religious law or other 'moral' construct pretending to be sufficient VI>DT>cause to ban aspects of human nature, flawed as it is... VI>Another textbook example of mixed up societal attitudes in my book. :) You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is more a problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... --- * SLMR 2.0 * To reply press Ctrl/Alt/Del and wait for a bit Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 2:27am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 737530 To: Vida Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #737034, Reply to #736975, Reply to #736713, C*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Thank goodness my jealousy doesn't cause me that kind of p VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>jealousy is definitely HEALTHY and APPROPRIATE jealousy. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's definately good. I've always tended toward the jealous VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>it didn't get that bad until experiences with my last ex, tha VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>jealousy really became problematic. I started feeling intense VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>feelings of jealousy and suspiciousness with this last ex, be VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I had reasons. But the problem is that now, I get these same VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that I had before, but THIS time I have no real reason for th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>seem to be an emotional residue from my last relationship, an VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>trying to figure out how to fix this, unsuccessfully! :( VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Hmm. I guess my best suggestion is just communicate your feelin VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>let your SO reassure you. It's ok to have your feelings, even i VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>are irrational and have no basis in reality. VI>TE>VI>TE>I suppose, but these feelings cause me additional problems that I d VI>TE>VI>TE>need, you know what I mean? Our relationship is wonderful (Thank Go VI>TE>VI>TE>and the only problem I have is not with him, but with myself and th VI>TE>VI>TE>irrational feelings! We've discussed it a bit, I have communicated VI>TE>VI>TE>to him, and he IS very understanding and reassuring, but I suppose VI>TE>VI>TE>there is probably only so much of this that he can stand, you know? VI>TE>VI>TE>don't want to cause any problems or cause him any grief because of VI>TE>VI>Then talk about with your girlfriends or other friends! Don't bottle VI>TE>VI>up your feelings because they will only cause you more problems if you VI>TE>VI>do so. Believe me, I speak from personal experience! VI>TE>Yeah, I know. Well, I basically talk about it with you guys on here! To VI>TE>tell you the truth, I don't really have any girlfriends, 99% of my VI>TE>friends are guys and most of them aren't really the type to talk about VI>TE>deep feelings with, although there are exceptions. Plus I have this VI>TE>tendency to listen intently to other peoples' problems, but I have a VI>TE>problem discussing things about myself, I feel like I don't want to VI>TE>burden anyone with my problems, you know? But I feel better typing about VI>TE>it here than talking about it, for some reason. VI>Than type away here! :) I try! VI>Just get it out, that's the important point! If you bottle things up VI>they will only come back to bite you in the ass. Believe me, I am VI>talking from first hand experience about that! Well, I do often get regular nips on the ass, I guess I know why now :) Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 2:36am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 737531 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737038, Reply to #736976, Reply to #736873, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different times in t VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country is VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than any drug VI>TE>VI>TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illegalizing VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that they c VI>TE>VI>TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal. VI>TE>VI>Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. And VI>TE>VI>because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. It VI>TE>VI>accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized crime. VI>TE>Exactly, and that is also exactly what the drug prohibition is doing as VI>TE>well: creating profits for organized crime, as well as thousands of VI>TE>small-time dealers. Alcohol may be the most popular drug, but in terms VI>TE>of profit, all drugs are very profitable substances in general. VI>Drugs are not as popular as alcholol and are not as culturally VI>entrenched as alcholol. So I think it is an error to draw an analogy VI>between the drug prohibition and the alcholol prohibition. I think you are mistaken, drugs ARE as popular and as culturally entrenched as alcohol. Marijuana is definately as popular as Budweiser. Several drugs that are prohibited by the US government are entrenched in other American cultures, most notably mushrooms and peyote, which have been used by Native Americans on a regular basis for religious-type occasions for centuries. Other stuff like opium and coca leaves were as popular as alcohol among many American immigrants until the gov't clamped down. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow cannabis VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii on VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized drugs VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the designe VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. So VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start growi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there was VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported su VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in gener VI>TE>VI>TE>There's no reason for that assumption. Drugs are imported from else VI>TE>VI>TE>because they CAN be. If they weren't imported, then more would be VI>TE>VI>TE>produced here, because the inherent desire for drugs in certain par VI>TE>VI>TE>the population would be more than enough to overcome the lack of fo VI>TE>VI>TE>supply. VI>TE>VI>Perhaps. Perhaps not. There's only one way to test your VI>TE>VI>hypothesis--cut off the foreign supply and see what happens. VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs into VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) I hope you're joking! Not only would that be impractical and extremely expensive, it would also be a serious health risk for those who travel frequently! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA population VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, I VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical change VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of Americ VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history ten VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. VI>TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical changes, VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the question. VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to occur VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Europe VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holland. VI>So is prostitution, no? :) Actually, I don't know! Is it?? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it is VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IMHO, VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the ch VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. T VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal bat VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have to s VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant basi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each ot VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! VI>TE>VI>But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes can be VI>TE>VI>very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. VI>TE>Bouncing back and forth is not the most terrible or unstable thing that VI>TE>could happen to a child. As long as both parents love the child, it is VI>TE>not that bad of a situation. Besides, children are very adaptable, much VI>TE>more so than adults. VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a child in a VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING to a child. VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far too personal, VI>just trust me on this point, ok? I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsetting. It was a HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 2:44am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 737532 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737086, Reply to #737064, Reply to #736777, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civil VI>DT>VI>litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent to handle VI>DT>VI>criminal case. VI>DT>VI>And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid getting VI>DT>VI>caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not disprove tha VI>DT>VI>there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I think no VI>DT>VI>reasonable person can dispute. VI>DT> Drug laws are enforced 90% of the time by collaring street VI>DT>transactors who are either buying or selling. This has more to do with VI>DT>the rules of search and siezure than the race/class/gender/preference/ VI>DT>income level/last grade completed/etcetera of the actor detained. People VI>DT>who are more skilled in basic things like being stealthy while fucking VI>DT>up are going to be missed, unless they tend to be connected to VI>DT>voluminous movements of cash, or some other reasonable indicator of VI>DT>probable illicit activity. Come on, this is Law 101... VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the time VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. In other VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an excuse to VI>lock up "surplus" people. That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough to continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money on keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend if it merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets what, five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 to keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 2:46am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 737533 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737110, Reply to #737038, Reply to #736976, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs in DT>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who DT>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it DT>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to DT>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you DT>passed through the airport gateways... Well, I don't think she meant metal detectors, I think she meant hypothetical x-ray machines installed in airports, which is a pretty ludicrous concept, so I think she was joking... Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 2:49am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 737534 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737120, Reply to #737110, Reply to #737038, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs VI>DT>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who VI>DT>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; VI>DT>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing VI>DT>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! VI>DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) VI>DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other VI>DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would VI>DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you VI>DT>passed through the airport gateways... VI>I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see the VI>bags on the x-rays. No, the machines are there only to detect metal. Which is why the mules get away with it so easily, there is really no way of detecting bags of substances inside a person's intestinal cavity. VI>And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) Ah, I thought so, that's a relief! Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 2:51am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 737535 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #737146, Reply to #736972, Reply to #736308, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its roo SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having in SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppoisi SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but....som SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in the SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even wr SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard of SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be kept SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate from SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to ge SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for tha SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>paper. SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>That would be the ideal situation! SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight coupl SF>TE>SF>TE>Well, from the legal aspect, yeah. I don't agree with this, but SF>TE>SF>TE>unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about it! SF>TE>SF>You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. SF>TE>And what good will that do? I'm a nobody, I don't have any influence, SF>TE>they'll just discard my opinion like they discard most other people's SF>TE>opinions and stick with their own. The idea is to elect officials who SF>TE>already HAVE the same opinion as we do. SF>You have a vote which makes you important to any elected official. Not me, by myself. Only if I gang up with a good 10,000 other voters. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 11:22am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737584 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737391, Reply to #737368, Reply to #737160, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I know! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>But of course! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the way m NI>SF>NI>SF>Have we waited long enough? NI>SF>NI>Sure. NI>SF>Sounds good to me! NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * "All these doughnuts & not a cop in sight."-Plucky Duck That's a possibility. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 11:23am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737585 To: Vida Re: Interview (Reply to #737405, Reply to #737369, Reply to #737183, R*) VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>Stanley and I will be interviewed later in June by Eric Marcu VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>SF>new book on long term gay relationships. VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>Mazel tov, mazel tov! Let me know when the book comes out and i VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>title. VI>SF>VI>SF>The interview is set for this week so I will ask the author. VI>SF>VI>Please do! :) VI>SF>The interview lasted over 3 hours. We were couple #21 out of 40 VI>SF>scheduled nationwide for interviews. The book has a target publication VI>SF>of June 1998. VI>Just don't forget to tell me when it's out. :) You I will! Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 11:25am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737586 To: Tempest Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #737535, Reply to #737146, Reply to #736972, R*) (1 reply) TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>I really do think that marriage has its TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>there is a big difference between having TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>KK>marry and having individuals of the oppo TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>Thank you, that is my arrument also but.... TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>NI>hear it. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Curious - how does marriage have its roots in TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>been getting married before the bible was even TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>parts of the world where the bible was unheard TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Actually biblical/religious marriage should be ke TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>marriage. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>True, and those two types should be kept separate fr TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>marriage, which is IMHO the only important reason to TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Hopefully one has the emotional type when applying for TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>paper. TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>That would be the ideal situation! TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>Unfortunately the ideal appears reserved for only straight co TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>Well, from the legal aspect, yeah. I don't agree with this, but TE>SF>TE>SF>TE>unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about it! TE>SF>TE>SF>You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. TE>SF>TE>And what good will that do? I'm a nobody, I don't have any influence, TE>SF>TE>they'll just discard my opinion like they discard most other people's TE>SF>TE>opinions and stick with their own. The idea is to elect officials who TE>SF>TE>already HAVE the same opinion as we do. TE>SF>You have a vote which makes you important to any elected official. TE>Not me, by myself. Only if I gang up with a good 10,000 other voters. On the local level every vote counts, and every call from a voter voicing their opinion counts. Date: Tuesday, June 17, 1997 8:18pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 737613 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737584, Reply to #737391, Reply to #737368, R*) (1 reply) SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I know! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>But of course! SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the wa SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Have we waited long enough? SF>NI>SF>NI>Sure. SF>NI>SF>Sounds good to me! SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? SF>That's a possibility. Me too!! * OLX 2.1 TD * Madness takes its toll; please have exact change. Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 7:16am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737638 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737471, Reply to #737120, Reply to #737110, R*) (2 replies) DT>VI>I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see the DT>VI>bags on the x-rays. DT>VI>And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) DT> Well, christ then, why dont they xray all incoming humans at all DT>ports of entry? Could it be that perhaps the US Customs Dept is not DT>genuinely committed to the imposition of an infallible wall between the DT>local population and the importation of illicit substances? Wouldnt they DT>concentrate on containerized cargo rather than human tourists if they DT>were really serious? Last time I checked, the standard 48' cargo DT>container had a bit more capacity than the average human digestive DT>tract, in terms of how much heroin one could stuff into it... jest mode as well of course, as always...> Well that's certainly true. I will tell you this, they are keeping pretty tight controls over luggage. When Bob and I went on vacation in December we sat in a plane at the airport for over an hour because some folks checked their luggage onboard the fleight but then failed to actually get on board. Security then had to go through all the luggage in the hold and then physically remove the four bags checked in by the missing people. As I said, it took security over an hour to find the four bags and remove them. But of course, I think their prime concern was not that the bags contained drugs. Their prime concern was that the bags might contain a bomb! DT>VI>DT>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) DT>VI>DT> Now, there is another lovely textbook example of wholly failed DT>VI>DT>religious law or other 'moral' construct pretending to be sufficient DT>VI>DT>cause to ban aspects of human nature, flawed as it is... DT>VI>Another textbook example of mixed up societal attitudes in my book. :) DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is more a DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... DT>--- There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice what they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO something else. Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 7:19am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737639 To: Tempest Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #737530, Reply to #737034, Reply to #736975, R*) (Previous exchanges omitted) TE>VI>TE>Yeah, I know. Well, I basically talk about it with you guys on here! T TE>VI>TE>tell you the truth, I don't really have any girlfriends, 99% of my TE>VI>TE>friends are guys and most of them aren't really the type to talk about TE>VI>TE>deep feelings with, although there are exceptions. Plus I have this TE>VI>TE>tendency to listen intently to other peoples' problems, but I have a TE>VI>TE>problem discussing things about myself, I feel like I don't want to TE>VI>TE>burden anyone with my problems, you know? But I feel better typing abo TE>VI>TE>it here than talking about it, for some reason. TE>VI>Than type away here! :) TE>I try! That's all anyone of us can do, our best. :) TE>VI>Just get it out, that's the important point! If you bottle things up TE>VI>they will only come back to bite you in the ass. Believe me, I am TE>VI>talking from first hand experience about that! TE>Well, I do often get regular nips on the ass, I guess I know why now :) The problem I describe is most definitely one of the reasons for the nips. Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 7:23am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737640 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737531, Reply to #737038, Reply to #736976, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different times i TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this country TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than any d TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illegaliz TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal. TE>VI>TE>VI>Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. And TE>VI>TE>VI>because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. It TE>VI>TE>VI>accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized crime. TE>VI>TE>Exactly, and that is also exactly what the drug prohibition is doing a TE>VI>TE>well: creating profits for organized crime, as well as thousands of TE>VI>TE>small-time dealers. Alcohol may be the most popular drug, but in terms TE>VI>TE>of profit, all drugs are very profitable substances in general. TE>VI>Drugs are not as popular as alcholol and are not as culturally TE>VI>entrenched as alcholol. So I think it is an error to draw an analogy TE>VI>between the drug prohibition and the alcholol prohibition. TE>I think you are mistaken, drugs ARE as popular and as culturally TE>entrenched as alcohol. Marijuana is definately as popular as Budweiser. TE>Several drugs that are prohibited by the US government are entrenched in TE>other American cultures, most notably mushrooms and peyote, which have TE>been used by Native Americans on a regular basis for religious-type TE>occasions for centuries. Other stuff like opium and coca leaves were as TE>popular as alcohol among many American immigrants until the gov't TE>clamped down. There's a lot of drug use, but I don't think it raises to the level of alcholol abuse. I also think there is a strong anti-drug morality stance among certain groups. Only the very strictest Bible Belt Protestant sects take the stance that alcholol use violates some kind of moral code. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would you think that? It is just as easy to grow canna TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>leaves, poppy plants, and psychedelic mushrooms and cactii TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>American soil as it is on foreign soil. And synthesized dr TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, LSD, and the desi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs are already manufactured in the US and not imported. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>would you think that American drug users wouldn't start gr TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>more stuff here if they didn't get it from elsewhere? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Drugs wouldn't be imported from somewhere else unless there w TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reason. So I have to assume that if you cut off the imported TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that this would have a substantial effect on the supply in ge TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>There's no reason for that assumption. Drugs are imported from e TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>because they CAN be. If they weren't imported, then more would b TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>produced here, because the inherent desire for drugs in certain TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the population would be more than enough to overcome the lack of TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>supply. TE>VI>TE>VI>Perhaps. Perhaps not. There's only one way to test your TE>VI>TE>VI>hypothesis--cut off the foreign supply and see what happens. TE>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs in TE>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who TE>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; it TE>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing to TE>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! TE>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) TE>I hope you're joking! Not only would that be impractical and extremely TE>expensive, it would also be a serious health risk for those who travel TE>frequently! Yes, I was joking! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA populati TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. But, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical cha TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of Ame TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that history TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. TE>VI>TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? TE>VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical change TE>VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the question. TE>VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to occ TE>VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Europ TE>VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holland TE>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still it TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, IM TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighting. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in legal TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer have t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constant b TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at each TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! TE>VI>TE>VI>But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes can b TE>VI>TE>VI>very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. TE>VI>TE>Bouncing back and forth is not the most terrible or unstable thing tha TE>VI>TE>could happen to a child. As long as both parents love the child, it is TE>VI>TE>not that bad of a situation. Besides, children are very adaptable, muc TE>VI>TE>more so than adults. TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a child in a TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING to a child. TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far too personal, TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsetting. It was a TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 7:26am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737641 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737532, Reply to #737086, Reply to #737064, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>DT>VI>This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civil TE>VI>DT>VI>litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent to hand TE>VI>DT>VI>criminal case. TE>VI>DT>VI>And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid gettin TE>VI>DT>VI>caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not disprove TE>VI>DT>VI>there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I think TE>VI>DT>VI>reasonable person can dispute. TE>VI>DT> Drug laws are enforced 90% of the time by collaring street TE>VI>DT>transactors who are either buying or selling. This has more to do with TE>VI>DT>the rules of search and siezure than the race/class/gender/preference/ TE>VI>DT>income level/last grade completed/etcetera of the actor detained. Peop TE>VI>DT>who are more skilled in basic things like being stealthy while fucking TE>VI>DT>up are going to be missed, unless they tend to be connected to TE>VI>DT>voluminous movements of cash, or some other reasonable indicator of TE>VI>DT>probable illicit activity. Come on, this is Law 101... TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the time TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. In other TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an excuse to TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough to TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money on TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend if it TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets what, TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 to TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the country. Date: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 7:27am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 737642 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737534, Reply to #737120, Reply to #737110, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling dr TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those wh TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get he TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people will TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! TE>VI>DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) TE>VI>DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other TE>VI>DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would TE>VI>DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you TE>VI>DT>passed through the airport gateways... TE>VI>I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see the TE>VI>bags on the x-rays. TE>No, the machines are there only to detect metal. Which is why the mules TE>get away with it so easily, there is really no way of detecting bags of TE>substances inside a person's intestinal cavity. TE>VI>And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) TE>Ah, I thought so, that's a relief! When you see a smilie face at the end of a sentence that's a pretty good clue that I mean the comment in jest. :) Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 11:45am Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737734 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737613, Reply to #737584, Reply to #737391, R*) (1 reply) NI>SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>I>SF>NI>SF>I'm waiting...... NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>That make two of us! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Just a couple of waiters. NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Cute, sweetheart, really cute! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>I know! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>But of course! NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Lead me not into temtation; I can find the NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>SF>Have we waited long enough? NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>Sure. NI>SF>NI>SF>Sounds good to me! NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? NI>SF>That's a possibility. NI>Me too!! NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * Madness takes its toll; please have exact change. How about the Good Humor man? Date: Sunday, June 22, 1997 2:59pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 737786 To: Steve Flur Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737734, Reply to #737613, Reply to #737584, R*) (2 replies) SF>NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? SF>NI>SF>That's a possibility. SF>NI>Me too!! SF>How about the Good Humor man? How about Mr. Softy? * OLX 2.1 TD * You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. Date: Monday, June 23, 1997 12:54am Forum: Relationships From: Synne Msg#: 737812 To: Tempest Re: To have sex with another female (Reply to #736971, Reply to #736077, Reply to #735846, R*) TE>SY>I know exactly what you mean... TE>SY>What to do about it.. I dont know :-I :-) TE>Become a nun? :) Amen, "Sister"! Date: Monday, June 23, 1997 2:57pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 737847 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737786, Reply to #737734, Reply to #737613, R*) NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? NI>SF>NI>SF>That's a possibility. NI>SF>NI>Me too!! NI>SF>How about the Good Humor man? NI>How about Mr. Softy? NI> * OLX 2.1 TD * You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. Does Carvel deliver? Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:11am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 738297 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737533, Reply to #737110, Reply to #737038, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) TE>DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other TE>DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would TE>DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you TE>DT>passed through the airport gateways... TE>Well, I don't think she meant metal detectors, I think she meant TE>hypothetical x-ray machines installed in airports, which is a pretty TE>ludicrous concept, so I think she was joking... Nah, it would be a beautiful thing if they did it, it would go far to treat and eventually cure many diffs of standard human errant behaviour. Everyone getting xrayed that often, especially the airport staff either directly or by background exposure... imagine: frequent flying execs and JFK security sharing the same vastly expanded wards at Calvary, once Calvary expands to accomodate the influx of terminal cancer patients... lots less people to add to the drug desire mechanism and thus less actual drug importation activity, voila! After the numbers leveled off a bit 2dry to total xray exposure=cancer, the DEA could start shooting antiaircraft missiles at incoming commercial flights from suspect lands; that would certainly be effective as well. Perhaps the third stage could utilize cyanide pumped into municipal drinking water systems. Personally, I can assure that drug use/importation/related criminal issues would go down on the order of 90 percent if the present US population was suddenly reduced to approximately three million. Might even get it lower if we were forced to live in communal arrangements with total surveillance built in. Its for our own good, right? I mean, its bad when people do the wrong thing, leads to all kinds of suffering, best to ensure good behaviour by whatever means. We can start with the universal traveler xray and also get lots more new jobs in the bargain: the sheer need for sworn staff to wait upon the peristalsis of those identified by xray as holding rubbers filled with drugs could be the late 90's son of the WPA.... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Nothing Exists Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:12am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 738298 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #737586, Reply to #737535, Reply to #737146, R*) (1 reply) SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. SF>TE>SF>TE>And what good will that do? I'm a nobody, I don't have any influenc SF>TE>SF>TE>they'll just discard my opinion like they discard most other people SF>TE>SF>TE>opinions and stick with their own. The idea is to elect officials w SF>TE>SF>TE>already HAVE the same opinion as we do. SF>TE>SF>You have a vote which makes you important to any elected official. SF>TE>Not me, by myself. Only if I gang up with a good 10,000 other voters. SF>On the local level every vote counts, and every call from a voter SF>voicing their opinion counts. Then why in the name of any god you care to invoke is Rudy Giuliani still even considered as a viable candidate? Why was there this suspenseful terror period during the recent sham rent control 'battle' while the government pretended to argue the point prior to jamming in a few more coffin nails against what is obviously a 'politically powerful' majority group, i.e. tenants as against landlords? Hmm? --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:12am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 738299 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737638, Reply to #737471, Reply to #737120, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>were really serious? Last time I checked, the standard 48' cargo VI>DT>container had a bit more capacity than the average human digestive VI>DT>tract, in terms of how much heroin one could stuff into it... DT>jest mode as well of course, as always...> VI>Well that's certainly true. VI>I will tell you this, they are keeping pretty tight controls over VI>luggage. VI> When Bob and I went on vacation in December we sat in a plane at the VI>airport for over an hour because some folks checked their luggage VI>onboard the fleight but then failed to actually get on board. Security VI>then had to go through all the luggage in the hold and then physically VI>remove the four bags checked in by the missing people. As I said, it VI>took security over an hour to find the four bags and remove them. But VI>of course, I think their prime concern was not that the bags contained VI>drugs. Their prime concern was that the bags might contain a bomb! And bombs are different from drugs, and I think this was about drugs being imported and how bad that is and something about xraying everyone who flies into the US to assist in the task of reducing the importation of drugs into the US. They fuck with your bags at the airport to make you feel comfortable about flying on commercial airliners. Firearms are detectable by the means used for baggage search. Bombs are not. Neither are drugs, unless they walk the dogs past yr stuff while you wait of course... VI>DT>VI>DT>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) VI>DT>VI>DT> Now, there is another lovely textbook example of wholly failed VI>DT>VI>DT>religious law or other 'moral' construct pretending to be sufficien VI>DT>VI>DT>cause to ban aspects of human nature, flawed as it is... VI>DT>VI>Another textbook example of mixed up societal attitudes in my book. : VI>DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and VI>DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is more a VI>DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... VI>There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice what VI>they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO VI>something else. There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they were only designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered that was reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the case with human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such 'laws' do make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged individual across history, who seeks to impose control over others by implying that he or she is acting for the good of the population on the part of ... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Wednesday, July 2, 1997 2:12am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 738300 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737641, Reply to #737532, Reply to #737086, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough to VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money on VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend if it VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets what, VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 to VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the VI>country. Ummm, Vida? The reaction to the OJ verdict was a picnic. Well, surely some celebrants also danced or drove around laughing their asses off without any form of sandwich/potato salad involvement, but the general reaction was one of joy and vindication. Now, if you were talking about the reaction to the verdict involvong the LAPD personnel involved in beating the catshit out of Rodney King, that would be a different story entirely of course... --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:27am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738440 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738299, Reply to #737638, Reply to #737471, R*) (2 replies) DT>VI>DT>were really serious? Last time I checked, the standard 48' cargo DT>VI>DT>container had a bit more capacity than the average human digestive DT>VI>DT>tract, in terms of how much heroin one could stuff into it... VI>DT>jest mode as well of course, as always...> DT>VI>Well that's certainly true. DT>VI>I will tell you this, they are keeping pretty tight controls over DT>VI>luggage. DT>VI> When Bob and I went on vacation in December we sat in a plane at the DT>VI>airport for over an hour because some folks checked their luggage DT>VI>onboard the fleight but then failed to actually get on board. Security DT>VI>then had to go through all the luggage in the hold and then physically DT>VI>remove the four bags checked in by the missing people. As I said, it DT>VI>took security over an hour to find the four bags and remove them. But DT>VI>of course, I think their prime concern was not that the bags contained DT>VI>drugs. Their prime concern was that the bags might contain a bomb! DT> And bombs are different from drugs, and I think this was about drugs DT>being imported and how bad that is and something about xraying everyone DT>who flies into the US to assist in the task of reducing the importation DT>of drugs into the US. They fuck with your bags at the airport to make DT>you feel comfortable about flying on commercial airliners. Firearms are DT>detectable by the means used for baggage search. Bombs are not. Neither DT>are drugs, unless they walk the dogs past yr stuff while you wait of DT>course... And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage handlers at JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to slip on through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the best of security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that the security measures we have are the best!!!! DT>VI>DT>VI>DT>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) DT>VI>DT>VI>DT> Now, there is another lovely textbook example of wholly faile DT>VI>DT>VI>DT>religious law or other 'moral' construct pretending to be suffic DT>VI>DT>VI>DT>cause to ban aspects of human nature, flawed as it is... DT>VI>DT>VI>Another textbook example of mixed up societal attitudes in my book. DT>VI>DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and DT>VI>DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is more DT>VI>DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... DT>VI>There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice what DT>VI>they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO DT>VI>something else. DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they were only DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered that was DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the case with DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such 'laws' do DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged individual DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by implying that DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the part of DT>... DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 1:29am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738442 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738300, Reply to #737641, Reply to #737532, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough to DT>VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, DT>VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money on DT>VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend if DT>VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets what DT>VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 to DT>VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. DT>VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. DT>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people DT>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that DT>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the DT>VI>country. DT> Ummm, Vida? The reaction to the OJ verdict was a picnic. Well, DT>surely some celebrants also danced or drove around laughing their asses DT>off without any form of sandwich/potato salad involvement, but the DT>general reaction was one of joy and vindication. DT> Now, if you were talking about the reaction to the verdict involvong DT>the LAPD personnel involved in beating the catshit out of Rodney King, DT>that would be a different story entirely of course... DT> locking up slum dwellers simply to maintain control over them. Am I in DT>error on this or am I reading you clearly?> DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... You totally misconstrue me. I am not in favor of locking up slum dwellers merely to control them. I am saying, however, that the primary reason for so many drug arrests is to lock up slum dwellers and to control them. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:22am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738473 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737638, Reply to #737471, Reply to #737120, R*) (1 reply) VVI>DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and VI>DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is more a VI>DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... VI>DT>--- VI>There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice what VI>they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO VI>something else. There IS a big problem with moral law, the problem is this: Moral law is different for each individual, and the problem is that each individual wants to convince everyone else that HIS or HER moral law is the correct version, thereby trying to force everyone else to live by their standards. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:28am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738474 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737640, Reply to #737531, Reply to #737038, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different time VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this count VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than an VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in illega VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting that VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep legal VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. And VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. It VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized crime. VI>TE>VI>TE>Exactly, and that is also exactly what the drug prohibition is doin VI>TE>VI>TE>well: creating profits for organized crime, as well as thousands of VI>TE>VI>TE>small-time dealers. Alcohol may be the most popular drug, but in te VI>TE>VI>TE>of profit, all drugs are very profitable substances in general. VI>TE>VI>Drugs are not as popular as alcholol and are not as culturally VI>TE>VI>entrenched as alcholol. So I think it is an error to draw an analogy VI>TE>VI>between the drug prohibition and the alcholol prohibition. VI>TE>I think you are mistaken, drugs ARE as popular and as culturally VI>TE>entrenched as alcohol. Marijuana is definately as popular as Budweiser. VI>TE>Several drugs that are prohibited by the US government are entrenched in VI>TE>other American cultures, most notably mushrooms and peyote, which have VI>TE>been used by Native Americans on a regular basis for religious-type VI>TE>occasions for centuries. Other stuff like opium and coca leaves were as VI>TE>popular as alcohol among many American immigrants until the gov't VI>TE>clamped down. VI>There's a lot of drug use, but I don't think it raises to the level of VI>alcholol abuse. I also think there is a strong anti-drug morality VI>stance among certain groups. Only the very strictest Bible Belt VI>Protestant sects take the stance that alcholol use violates some kind VI>of moral code. First, there is a big difference between USE and ABUSE. There are plenty of users of both drugs and/or alcohol who don't abuse it. Second, yes there are certain groups with a very strong anti-drug moral stance, but this is only a very recent development when put into a historical context. VI>TE>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling drugs VI>TE>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those who VI>TE>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get here; VI>TE>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people willing VI>TE>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! VI>TE>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) VI>TE>I hope you're joking! Not only would that be impractical and extremely VI>TE>expensive, it would also be a serious health risk for those who travel VI>TE>frequently! VI>Yes, I was joking! :) That's good!! I was worried there for a second :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA popul VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc. B VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radical VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest of VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that histo VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? VI>TE>VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical cha VI>TE>VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the questi VI>TE>VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this to VI>TE>VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In Eu VI>TE>VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in Holl VI>TE>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) VI>TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but still VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the child, VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposing VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fighti VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in leg VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer hav VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a constan VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream at e VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. :( VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes ca VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. VI>TE>VI>TE>Bouncing back and forth is not the most terrible or unstable thing VI>TE>VI>TE>could happen to a child. As long as both parents love the child, it VI>TE>VI>TE>not that bad of a situation. Besides, children are very adaptable, VI>TE>VI>TE>more so than adults. VI>TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a child in a VI>TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING to a child VI>TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far too personal VI>TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? VI>TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsetting. It was a VI>TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:30am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738475 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737641, Reply to #737532, Reply to #737086, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civil VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent to h VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>criminal case. VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid get VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not dispro VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I thi VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>reasonable person can dispute. VI>TE>VI>DT> Drug laws are enforced 90% of the time by collaring street VI>TE>VI>DT>transactors who are either buying or selling. This has more to do w VI>TE>VI>DT>the rules of search and siezure than the race/class/gender/preferen VI>TE>VI>DT>income level/last grade completed/etcetera of the actor detained. P VI>TE>VI>DT>who are more skilled in basic things like being stealthy while fuck VI>TE>VI>DT>up are going to be missed, unless they tend to be connected to VI>TE>VI>DT>voluminous movements of cash, or some other reasonable indicator of VI>TE>VI>DT>probable illicit activity. Come on, this is Law 101... VI>TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the time VI>TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. In other VI>TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an excuse to VI>TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough to VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money on VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend if it VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets what, VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 to VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the VI>country. Rioting because of overpopulation? Why do you say this? Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:31am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738476 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737642, Reply to #737534, Reply to #737120, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people w VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) VI>TE>VI>DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other VI>TE>VI>DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you wou VI>TE>VI>DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when y VI>TE>VI>DT>passed through the airport gateways... VI>TE>VI>I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see the VI>TE>VI>bags on the x-rays. VI>TE>No, the machines are there only to detect metal. Which is why the mules VI>TE>get away with it so easily, there is really no way of detecting bags of VI>TE>substances inside a person's intestinal cavity. VI>TE>VI>And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) VI>TE>Ah, I thought so, that's a relief! VI>When you see a smilie face at the end of a sentence that's a pretty VI>good clue that I mean the comment in jest. :) Very true, my mistake :) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:34am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738477 To: Nightbird Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #737786, Reply to #737734, Reply to #737613, R*) (4 replies) NI>SF>NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? NI>SF>NI>SF>That's a possibility. NI>SF>NI>Me too!! NI>SF>How about the Good Humor man? NI>How about Mr. Softy? ROTFL! "Mr. Softy," makes me wonder what he did, or didn't do, to deserve such a name >:) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:43am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738478 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738297, Reply to #737533, Reply to #737110, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) DT>TE>DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or other DT>TE>DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you would DT>TE>DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer when you DT>TE>DT>passed through the airport gateways... DT>TE>Well, I don't think she meant metal detectors, I think she meant DT>TE>hypothetical x-ray machines installed in airports, which is a pretty DT>TE>ludicrous concept, so I think she was joking... DT> Nah, it would be a beautiful thing if they did it, it would go far to DT>treat and eventually cure many diffs of standard human errant behaviour. DT>Everyone getting xrayed that often, especially the airport staff either DT>directly or by background exposure... imagine: frequent flying execs DT>and JFK security sharing the same vastly expanded wards at Calvary, once DT>Calvary expands to accomodate the influx of terminal cancer patients... DT>lots less people to add to the drug desire mechanism and thus less DT>actual drug importation activity, voila! After the numbers leveled off a DT>bit 2dry to total xray exposure=cancer, the DEA could start shooting DT>antiaircraft missiles at incoming commercial flights from suspect lands; DT>that would certainly be effective as well. Perhaps the third stage could DT>utilize cyanide pumped into municipal drinking water systems. DT>Personally, I can assure that drug use/importation/related criminal DT>issues would go down on the order of 90 percent if the present US DT>population was suddenly reduced to approximately three million. Might DT>even get it lower if we were forced to live in communal arrangements DT>with total surveillance built in. Its for our own good, right? I mean, DT>its bad when people do the wrong thing, leads to all kinds of suffering, DT>best to ensure good behaviour by whatever means. We can start with the DT>universal traveler xray and also get lots more new jobs in the bargain: DT>the sheer need for sworn staff to wait upon the peristalsis of those DT>identified by xray as holding rubbers filled with drugs could be the DT>late 90's son of the WPA.... There is one minor problem with your solution: out of the three million people we would have left in the U.S. population, 99% of them would be the homeless skell junkies. They don't go to airports, so they won't get cancer. They drink cheap liquor, not municipal drinking water, so they won't get killed by cyanide. They don't fly in foreign airplanes, so they won't get shot down by a missile. And they don't live anywhere, so there is nowhere to build surveillance on them. Thus, the homeless skells, the very lowest of the drug user tree, would be all that's left, and everybody else would be dead or in jail... Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 3:58am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 738479 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738440, Reply to #738299, Reply to #737638, R*) (1 reply) VVI>DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they were only VI>DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered that was VI>DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the case with VI>DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such 'laws' do VI>DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged individual VI>DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by implying that VI>DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the part of VI>DT>... VI>DT>--- VI>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. If everyone could possibly AGREE on moral law, then maybe, MAYBE it can be done. But a majority of people agreeing on what is morally correct or not is simply not possible, unless you turn everyone into a zombie. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:44am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738487 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738473, Reply to #737638, Reply to #737471, R*) (2 replies) TE>VVI>DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and TE>VI>DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is more TE>VI>DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice what TE>VI>they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO TE>VI>something else. TE>There IS a big problem with moral law, the problem is this: Moral law is TE>different for each individual, and the problem is that each individual TE>wants to convince everyone else that HIS or HER moral law is the correct TE>version, thereby trying to force everyone else to live by their TE>standards. I believe there is a moral law which a higher power, G-d or the universe sets in place. The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher power which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from the higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the message gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs as the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you stated above. :) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:50am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738488 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738474, Reply to #737640, Reply to #737531, R*) (2 replies) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>There have been different drug problems at different t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different classes. The biggest drug problem in this co TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>being addressed at all--that drug being alcholol. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Yes, alcohol does do a lot more damage (of all sorts) than TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>is illegal. Which always puzzles me, if their point in ill TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>drugs is to "protect the public," then it's interesting th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the most dangerous and toxic one of all of them to keep le TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Because it's an extremely popular and profitable substance. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>because "Prohibition" was such a total and complete failure. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>accomplished nothing, except create profits for organized cri TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Exactly, and that is also exactly what the drug prohibition is d TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>well: creating profits for organized crime, as well as thousands TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>small-time dealers. Alcohol may be the most popular drug, but in TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>of profit, all drugs are very profitable substances in general. TE>VI>TE>VI>Drugs are not as popular as alcholol and are not as culturally TE>VI>TE>VI>entrenched as alcholol. So I think it is an error to draw an analo TE>VI>TE>VI>between the drug prohibition and the alcholol prohibition. TE>VI>TE>I think you are mistaken, drugs ARE as popular and as culturally TE>VI>TE>entrenched as alcohol. Marijuana is definately as popular as Budweiser TE>VI>TE>Several drugs that are prohibited by the US government are entrenched TE>VI>TE>other American cultures, most notably mushrooms and peyote, which have TE>VI>TE>been used by Native Americans on a regular basis for religious-type TE>VI>TE>occasions for centuries. Other stuff like opium and coca leaves were a TE>VI>TE>popular as alcohol among many American immigrants until the gov't TE>VI>TE>clamped down. TE>VI>There's a lot of drug use, but I don't think it raises to the level of TE>VI>alcholol abuse. I also think there is a strong anti-drug morality TE>VI>stance among certain groups. Only the very strictest Bible Belt TE>VI>Protestant sects take the stance that alcholol use violates some kind TE>VI>of moral code. TE>First, there is a big difference between USE and ABUSE. There are plenty TE>of users of both drugs and/or alcohol who don't abuse it. Second, yes TE>there are certain groups with a very strong anti-drug moral stance, but TE>this is only a very recent development when put into a historical TE>context. But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral stance that existsin this country. There is only a very limited group that says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggling dr TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as those wh TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they get he TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of people will TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! TE>VI>TE>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) TE>VI>TE>I hope you're joking! Not only would that be impractical and extremely TE>VI>TE>expensive, it would also be a serious health risk for those who travel TE>VI>TE>frequently! TE>VI>Yes, I was joking! :) TE>That's good!! I was worried there for a second :) Watch for the bouncing smiley face in my posts. If you see a smiley face, you can pretty much assume I mean the statement as a joke or a jest. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, unfortunately the majority of the USA po TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really fucking tight-assed about morality, etc TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>say never. History goes through constant radic TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>won't necessarily stay like this for the rest TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You are more optimestic than I, my dear. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm not necessarily optimistic, I just think that hi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>repeat itself. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radical TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the que TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like this TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. In TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal in H TE>VI>TE>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) TE>VI>TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holland also has legalized euphansia, I believe. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It may be difficult for a child, but sti TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>that can happen. It is worse for the chi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>parents stay married and continue exposi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You seem to think that divorces end the fig TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reality. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>True, the divorcees continue to be engaged in TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>alimony, etc. But at least the kids no longer TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>scream or even hit eachother anymore on a cons TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>No, they only have to hear them yell and scream a TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they get a visit from the noncustodial parent. : TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>At least it's not on a daily basis! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>But bouncing back and forth between two parents and two homes TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>very upsetting for a child. I think children need stability. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Bouncing back and forth is not the most terrible or unstable thi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>could happen to a child. As long as both parents love the child, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>not that bad of a situation. Besides, children are very adaptabl TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>more so than adults. TE>VI>TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a child in TE>VI>TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING to a ch TE>VI>TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far too perso TE>VI>TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? TE>VI>TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsetting. It was TE>VI>TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. Actually, I was not bounced. Someone else in my family was bounced. But it was tremendously upsetting for me to have this person sometimes there, sometimes not there. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:52am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738489 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738475, Reply to #737641, Reply to #737532, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>This law firm was not a criminal defense firm. It was a civi TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>litigation firm. The lawyers there were not very competent t TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>criminal case. TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>And sure, any smart and intelligent person will try to avoid TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>caught doing an illegal activity. However, this does not dis TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>there is selective enforcement of drug laws--a point which I TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>reasonable person can dispute. TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> Drug laws are enforced 90% of the time by collaring street TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>transactors who are either buying or selling. This has more to d TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>the rules of search and siezure than the race/class/gender/prefe TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>income level/last grade completed/etcetera of the actor detained TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>who are more skilled in basic things like being stealthy while f TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>up are going to be missed, unless they tend to be connected to TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>voluminous movements of cash, or some other reasonable indicator TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>probable illicit activity. Come on, this is Law 101... TE>VI>TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the time TE>VI>TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. In othe TE>VI>TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an excuse t TE>VI>TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. TE>VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough to TE>VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, TE>VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money on TE>VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend if TE>VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets what TE>VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 to TE>VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. TE>VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. TE>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people TE>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that TE>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the TE>VI>country. TE>Rioting because of overpopulation? Why do you say this? I believe that overpopulation increases the level of anger and frustration. As overpopulation increases it builds up increasing levels of tension. Eventually the tension has to be released, and in all likelihood that release would be violent like an explosion of a volcano. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:53am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738490 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738476, Reply to #737642, Reply to #737534, R*) TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>IMHO that is close to impossible. There are ways of smuggl TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>the country that are really impossible to stop. Such as th TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>swallow bags of the substance then excrete them when they TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>pays very well, there will always be an abundance of peopl TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>TE>do this, and I can't think of any feasible way to stop it! TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>Except subject all incoming persons to x ray? :) TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> Most drugs of abuse are not made of metallic compounds, or ot TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>similarly radioreflective materials. If this were the case, you TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>have to walk through a flouroscope as well as a magnetometer whe TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>passed through the airport gateways... TE>VI>TE>VI>I do believe that when mules ingest bags of drugs that you can see TE>VI>TE>VI>bags on the x-rays. TE>VI>TE>No, the machines are there only to detect metal. Which is why the mule TE>VI>TE>get away with it so easily, there is really no way of detecting bags o TE>VI>TE>substances inside a person's intestinal cavity. TE>VI>TE>VI>And I remember, I said my previous comment in jest. :) TE>VI>TE>Ah, I thought so, that's a relief! TE>VI>When you see a smilie face at the end of a sentence that's a pretty TE>VI>good clue that I mean the comment in jest. :) TE>Very true, my mistake :) No problem. :) Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 7:55am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738491 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738479, Reply to #738440, Reply to #738299, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they were only TE>VI>DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered that was TE>VI>DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the case with TE>VI>DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such 'laws' do TE>VI>DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged individual TE>VI>DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by implying th TE>VI>DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the part of TE>VI>DT>... TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or TE>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not TE>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. TE>If everyone could possibly AGREE on moral law, then maybe, MAYBE it can TE>be done. But a majority of people agreeing on what is morally correct or TE>not is simply not possible, unless you turn everyone into a zombie. I think eventually it will happen without people turning into zombies. Unfortunately, I think things will get very much uglier before this happens and that we will probably have to come very close to self extinction in order for this to happen. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 11:02am Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 738516 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738477, Reply to #737786, Reply to #737734, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 07-03-97 Tempest wrote to Nightbird : NI>How about Mr. Softy? T> ROTFL! "Mr. Softy," makes me wonder what he did, or didn't do, to T> deserve such a name >:) I always liked "Mr. Salty" pretzels. Every other product on the market says "Low Salt," "No Salt," "LOW IN SODIUM!!!" or something like that. But that brand... SCREW YOU! "MR SALTY!!!!" I just admire their courage. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * I'm Pro-Choice on Everything! Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 11:02am Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 738517 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738488, Reply to #738474, Reply to #737640, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 07-03-97 Vida wrote to Tempest : TE>VI>TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? V> Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holland V> also has legalized euphansia, I believe. It is.... I thought you'd find this news story amusing... ENSCHEDE, Netherlands (Reuter) - A 17-year-old Dutch schoolboy was expelled after continually taking bookings for the escort agency he ran on his mobile phone during lessons, the Dutch ANP news agency reported Thursday. The young entrepreneur's line of work was no problem for the Jacobus College in the eastern town of Enschede, teachers said, but they objected to the disruptions in class. ''What he does in his free time is his own business,'' one told the agency. ''But we did try to make it clear that it couldn't be tolerated during school time.'' They admitted that the boy's extramural activities had not interfered with his schoolwork. ''He passed his year with good marks,'' the teacher said. Escort agencies are big business in the Netherlands, where prostitution is tolerated and closely regulated. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Thursday, July 3, 1997 5:58pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 738542 To: Rand Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738517, Reply to #738488, Reply to #738474, R*) RA>In a message dated 07-03-97 Vida wrote to Tempest : RA>TE>VI>TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? RA>V> Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holland RA>V> also has legalized euphansia, I believe. RA>It is.... I thought you'd find this news story amusing... RA>ENSCHEDE, Netherlands (Reuter) - A 17-year-old Dutch schoolboy was expelled RA>after continually taking bookings for the escort agency he ran on his mobile RA>phone during lessons, the Dutch ANP news agency reported Thursday. RA>The young entrepreneur's line of work was no problem for the Jacobus College RA>in the eastern town of Enschede, teachers said, but they objected to the RA>disruptions in class. RA>''What he does in his free time is his own business,'' one told the agency. RA>''But we did try to make it clear that it couldn't be tolerated during schoo RA>time.'' RA>They admitted that the boy's extramural activities had not interfered with h RA>schoolwork. ''He passed his year with good marks,'' the teacher said. RA>Escort agencies are big business in the Netherlands, where prostitution is RA>tolerated and closely regulated. ROFTL!!! Thank you for sharing that one Rand. :) Date: Sunday, July 6, 1997 1:21pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 738661 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738477, Reply to #737786, Reply to #737734, R*) TE>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? TE>NI>SF>NI>SF>That's a possibility. TE>NI>SF>NI>Me too!! TE>NI>SF>How about the Good Humor man? TE>NI>How about Mr. Softy? TE>ROTFL! "Mr. Softy," makes me wonder what he did, or didn't do, to TE>deserve such a name >:) You & me both!!! * OLX 2.1 TD * We're lost, but we're making good time. Date: Sunday, July 6, 1997 1:45pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve C Msg#: 738676 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738477, Reply to #737786, Reply to #737734, R*) TE>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? TE>NI>SF>NI>SF>That's a possibility. TE>NI>SF>NI>Me too!! TE>NI>SF>How about the Good Humor man? TE>NI>How about Mr. Softy? TE>ROTFL! "Mr. Softy," makes me wonder what he did, or didn't do, to TE>deserve such a name >:) You & me both!!! * OLX 2.1 TD * We're lost, but we're making good time. Date: Sunday, July 6, 1997 2:16pm Forum: Relationships From: Nightbird Msg#: 738692 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738477, Reply to #737786, Reply to #737734, R*) TE>I>SF>NI>SF>NI>So, what are we wait for, Godot? TE>NI>SF>NI>SF>That's a possibility. TE>NI>SF>NI>Me too!! TE>NI>SF>How about the Good Humor man? TE>NI>How about Mr. Softy? TE>ROTFL! "Mr. Softy," makes me wonder what he did, or didn't do, to TE>deserve such a name >:) You & me both!!! * OLX 2.1 TD * We're lost, but we're making good time. Date: Tuesday, July 8, 1997 12:45pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 738775 To: Dti Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #738298, Reply to #737586, Reply to #737535, R*) (1 reply) DT>SF>TE>SF>TE>SF>You can always let your elected officials know your opinion. DT>SF>TE>SF>TE>And what good will that do? I'm a nobody, I don't have any influ DT>SF>TE>SF>TE>they'll just discard my opinion like they discard most other peo DT>SF>TE>SF>TE>opinions and stick with their own. The idea is to elect official DT>SF>TE>SF>TE>already HAVE the same opinion as we do. DT>SF>TE>SF>You have a vote which makes you important to any elected official. DT>SF>TE>Not me, by myself. Only if I gang up with a good 10,000 other voters. DT>SF>On the local level every vote counts, and every call from a voter DT>SF>voicing their opinion counts. DT> Then why in the name of any god you care to invoke is Rudy Giuliani DT>still even considered as a viable candidate? Why was there this DT>suspenseful terror period during the recent sham rent control 'battle' DT>while the government pretended to argue the point prior to jamming in a DT>few more coffin nails against what is obviously a 'politically powerful' DT>majority group, i.e. tenants as against landlords? Hmm? DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible You get no arguement from me since I am supporting and working for Messinger. Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 739073 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738440, Reply to #738299, Reply to #737638, R*) (1 reply) VI>And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage handlers at VI>JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to slip on VI>through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the best of VI>security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that the security VI>measures we have are the best!!!! I do have to wonder why there seems to be so much attention paid to the importation of controlled substances via human mules flying in commercial airliners when 99 percent of the material that is generated outside US borders is actually imported by the ton in shipping containers on cargo ships and over road trucks altho the publicized collars serve to put the Fear into regular assholes who think they might pack a couple keys into personal baggage for personal use... VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. I find moral law to represent an oxymoronic terminology as I find morality to be a thing presented on the part of fictional entities as a control system to benefit kings and presidents, essentially. --- * SLMR 2.0 * It Will All Be Over Soon... Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 739074 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738442, Reply to #738300, Reply to #737641, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people VI>DT>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that VI>DT>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the VI>DT>VI>country. VI>DT> Ummm, Vida? The reaction to the OJ verdict was a picnic. Well, VI>DT>surely some celebrants also danced or drove around laughing their asses VI>DT>off without any form of sandwich/potato salad involvement, but the VI>DT>general reaction was one of joy and vindication. VI>DT> Now, if you were talking about the reaction to the verdict involvong VI>DT>the LAPD personnel involved in beating the catshit out of Rodney King, VI>DT>that would be a different story entirely of course... VI>DT> DT>locking up slum dwellers simply to maintain control over them. Am I in VI>DT>error on this or am I reading you clearly?> VI>You totally misconstrue me. I am not in favor of locking up slum VI>dwellers merely to control them. I am saying, however, that the primary VI>reason for so many drug arrests is to lock up slum dwellers and to VI>control them. Do you still mean to say that there was a non-picnic as a result of the OJ verdict? BTW: in the first paragraph I requoted above, which was the para I reacted to when wondering if you were in fact in favour of locking up slum dwellers for purposes of better control over same, you do sound to me as if you are advocating such a means of social control. Go check it out, perhaps I forgot how to read text... >9# --- * SLMR 2.0 * Am I REALLY responsible for someone who refuses to eat? Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 739075 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738478, Reply to #738297, Reply to #737533, R*) (1 reply) TE>DT> Nah, it would be a beautiful thing if they did it, it would go far to TE>DT>treat and eventually cure many diffs of standard human errant behaviour. TE>DT>Everyone getting xrayed that often, especially the airport staff either TE>DT>directly or by background exposure... imagine: frequent flying execs TE>DT>and JFK security sharing the same vastly expanded wards at Calvary, once TE>DT>Calvary expands to accomodate the influx of terminal cancer patients... TE>DT>lots less people to add to the drug desire mechanism and thus less TE>DT>actual drug importation activity, voila! After the numbers leveled off a TE>DT>bit 2dry to total xray exposure=cancer, the DEA could start shooting TE>DT>antiaircraft missiles at incoming commercial flights from suspect lands; TE>DT>that would certainly be effective as well. Perhaps the third stage could TE>DT>utilize cyanide pumped into municipal drinking water systems. TE>DT>Personally, I can assure that drug use/importation/related criminal TE>DT>issues would go down on the order of 90 percent if the present US TE>DT>population was suddenly reduced to approximately three million. Might TE>DT>even get it lower if we were forced to live in communal arrangements TE>DT>with total surveillance built in. Its for our own good, right? I mean, TE>DT>its bad when people do the wrong thing, leads to all kinds of suffering, TE>DT>best to ensure good behaviour by whatever means. We can start with the TE>DT>universal traveler xray and also get lots more new jobs in the bargain: TE>DT>the sheer need for sworn staff to wait upon the peristalsis of those TE>DT>identified by xray as holding rubbers filled with drugs could be the TE>DT>late 90's son of the WPA.... TE>There is one minor problem with your solution: out of the three million TE>people we would have left in the U.S. population, 99% of them would be TE>the homeless skell junkies. They don't go to airports, so they won't get TE>cancer. They drink cheap liquor, not municipal drinking water, so they TE>won't get killed by cyanide. They don't fly in foreign airplanes, so TE>they won't get shot down by a missile. And they don't live anywhere, so TE>there is nowhere to build surveillance on them. Thus, the homeless TE>skells, the very lowest of the drug user tree, would be all that's left, TE>and everybody else would be dead or in jail... Not a problem minor or otherwise with what I typed out up there, I wasnt proposing to reduce the native population by 90% solely by use of xrays, antiaircraft missiles or cyanide in the water altho the water routine would do plenty anyway, skells do not live exclusively on malt liquor and cyanide is not only effective via ingestion at any rate, and most of the aircraft subject to DEA/Customs air to air missiles are more along the lines of the slender little airframes we have spent airtime in recently: not commercial airliners. Thing is, taking yr translation of my nasty endtime conspiracy, I figure that if the only ones left were homeless junky skels, well, shit then you have five or six years to wait on a 99% local population reduction at the most on average considering the waiting periods for the more popular skell deathcauses... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Less is More. Death is the Answer. Life is the Question. Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:00am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 739076 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738487, Reply to #738473, Reply to #737638, R*) (1 reply) VI>I believe there is a moral law which a higher power, G-d or the VI>universe sets in place. VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher power VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from the VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the message VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs as VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you stated VI>above. :) Ah, V: people do write or transcribe what is purported to be the word of god. God does not write direct, and the accounts of live appearances by god are dated far enough back in history to also be siffed by the intervention of humans who pass the tale from generation to generation until the book gets printed. I would be pleased and relieved if god showed up in such a way that I could be a reliable witness to the event, but as such is not available to my experience I personally deem the books etc to be essentially hearsay. Especially since I have to accept it all at a swallow, including a seven day creation of a universe known and unknown without discernible limits... but thats me... --- * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 2:48am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 739109 To: Steve Flur Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #738775, Reply to #738298, Reply to #737586, R*) (1 reply) SF>DT> Then why in the name of any god you care to invoke is Rudy Giuliani SF>DT>still even considered as a viable candidate? Why was there this SF>DT>suspenseful terror period during the recent sham rent control 'battle' SF>DT>while the government pretended to argue the point prior to jamming in a SF>DT>few more coffin nails against what is obviously a 'politically powerful' SF>DT>majority group, i.e. tenants as against landlords? Hmm? SF>You get no arguement from me since I am supporting and working for SF>Messinger. Steve, dont take this personally, but what the fuck is the difference between Ruth Messinger and Rudy Giuliani? Or Ruth and Al, or Ruth and Sal? Or my cat and any of them, aside from the fact that my cat is neither a lawyer nor a politician by actual trade? This is prolly straying past the context bounds of this sig, although there is certainly a /Relationship between politicians and those they govern. If it gets forwarded to /Currentvents, I will not see it. Deb can check what sigs we both have in the scan and send this to somewhere we both can continue the thread... --- * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:45am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 739124 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #739073, Reply to #738440, Reply to #738299, R*) (1 reply) DT>VI>And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage handlers at DT>VI>JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to slip on DT>VI>through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the best of DT>VI>security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that the security DT>VI>measures we have are the best!!!! DT> I do have to wonder why there seems to be so much attention paid to DT>the importation of controlled substances via human mules flying in DT>commercial airliners when 99 percent of the material that is generated DT>outside US borders is actually imported by the ton in shipping DT>containers on cargo ships and over road trucks altho the publicized DT>collars serve to put the Fear into regular assholes who think they might DT>pack a couple keys into personal baggage for personal use... That just goes to prove my general contention--that the big money bad guys get off scottfree, while the small time operators got bounced on. It is just sound and fury for the masses--to lead them to believe that we are being TOUGH on crime and drugs. DT>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not DT>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. DT> I find moral law to represent an oxymoronic terminology as I find DT>morality to be a thing presented on the part of fictional entities as a DT>control system to benefit kings and presidents, essentially. DT>--- But there has to be some kind of moral code in order to prevent explotiation and harm to others. Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:47am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 739125 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #739074, Reply to #738442, Reply to #738300, R*) DT>VI>DT>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' peo DT>VI>DT>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that DT>VI>DT>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the DT>VI>DT>VI>country. DT>VI>DT> Ummm, Vida? The reaction to the OJ verdict was a picnic. Well, DT>VI>DT>surely some celebrants also danced or drove around laughing their asse DT>VI>DT>off without any form of sandwich/potato salad involvement, but the DT>VI>DT>general reaction was one of joy and vindication. DT>VI>DT> Now, if you were talking about the reaction to the verdict involvon DT>VI>DT>the LAPD personnel involved in beating the catshit out of Rodney King, DT>VI>DT>that would be a different story entirely of course... DT>VI>DT> VI>DT>locking up slum dwellers simply to maintain control over them. Am I in DT>VI>DT>error on this or am I reading you clearly?> DT>VI>You totally misconstrue me. I am not in favor of locking up slum DT>VI>dwellers merely to control them. I am saying, however, that the primary DT>VI>reason for so many drug arrests is to lock up slum dwellers and to DT>VI>control them. DT> Do you still mean to say that there was a non-picnic as a result of DT>the OJ verdict? BTW: in the first paragraph I requoted above, which DT>was the para I reacted to when wondering if you were in fact in favour DT>of locking up slum dwellers for purposes of better control over same, DT>you do sound to me as if you are advocating such a means of social DT>control. Go check it out, perhaps I forgot how to read text... >9# DT>--- More likely I am not expressing myself clearly in enough. I believe that slum dwellers are locked up for purposes of social control. I do not condone this practice. I observe the reality and comment upon it. Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 6:50am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 739126 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #739076, Reply to #738487, Reply to #738473, R*) DT>VI>I believe there is a moral law which a higher power, G-d or the DT>VI>universe sets in place. DT>VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher power DT>VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from the DT>VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the message DT>VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. DT>VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs as DT>VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you stated DT>VI>above. :) DT> Ah, V: people do write or transcribe what is purported to be the DT>word of god. God does not write direct, and the accounts of live DT>appearances by god are dated far enough back in history to also be DT>siffed by the intervention of humans who pass the tale from generation DT>to generation until the book gets printed. I would be pleased and DT>relieved if god showed up in such a way that I could be a reliable DT>witness to the event, but as such is not available to my experience I DT>personally deem the books etc to be essentially hearsay. Especially DT>since I have to accept it all at a swallow, including a seven day DT>creation of a universe known and unknown without discernible limits... DT>but thats me... DT>--- I don't deny that the Bible was physically written by human beings. However, I do believe that Tanakh is divinely inspired. But that's really a discussion we should move into /Theology. :) Date: Wednesday, July 16, 1997 1:09pm Forum: Relationships From: Steve Flur Msg#: 739158 To: Dti Re: Romer analysis (Reply to #739109, Reply to #738775, Reply to #738298, R*) DT>SF>DT> Then why in the name of any god you care to invoke is Rudy Giuliani DT>SF>DT>still even considered as a viable candidate? Why was there this DT>SF>DT>suspenseful terror period during the recent sham rent control 'battle' DT>SF>DT>while the government pretended to argue the point prior to jamming in DT>SF>DT>few more coffin nails against what is obviously a 'politically powerfu DT>SF>DT>majority group, i.e. tenants as against landlords? Hmm? DT>SF>You get no arguement from me since I am supporting and working for DT>SF>Messinger. DT> Steve, dont take this personally, but what the fuck is the difference DT>between Ruth Messinger and Rudy Giuliani? Or Ruth and Al, or Ruth and DT>Sal? Or my cat and any of them, aside from the fact that my cat is DT>neither a lawyer nor a politician by actual trade? DT> This is prolly straying past the context bounds of this sig, although DT>there is certainly a /Relationship between politicians and those they DT>govern. If it gets forwarded to /Currentvents, I will not see it. Deb DT>can check what sigs we both have in the scan and send this to somewhere DT>we both can continue the thread... DT>--- DT> * SLMR 2.0 * If this were an actual tagline, it would be illegible I see the big difference as being Messinger is a person who both cares more and is willing to listen even to differeing points of view. Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 4:10pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740765 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738487, Reply to #738473, Reply to #737638, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory and VI>TE>VI>DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc is m VI>TE>VI>DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely... VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice what VI>TE>VI>they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO VI>TE>VI>something else. VI>TE>There IS a big problem with moral law, the problem is this: Moral law is VI>TE>different for each individual, and the problem is that each individual VI>TE>wants to convince everyone else that HIS or HER moral law is the correct VI>TE>version, thereby trying to force everyone else to live by their VI>TE>standards. VI>I believe there is a moral law which a higher power, G-d or the VI>universe sets in place. See? It's all a matter of personal belief. I believe that "law" moral or otherwise, is a purely human creation and has nothing to do with the universe or any higher power. Considering that not everyone believes like you that there is a moral law which was set in place by a higher power, or the universe, etc. then it would be unfair to use this "moral law" as an ultimate dictum. VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher power VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from the VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the message VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. If this so-called higher power can't even make human beings hear it correctly, then it's not all that powerful, is it? VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs as VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you stated VI>above. :) Exactly, and that is the big problem with this "moral law!" What people should do is, instead of trying to convince everyone else that their law is the highest law, instead they should try to convince everyone else why their law is more REASONABLE, in human terms, than other suggestions, then maybe we can get somewhere. Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 4:28pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740766 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738488, Reply to #738474, Reply to #737640, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>There's a lot of drug use, but I don't think it raises to the level of VI>TE>VI>alcholol abuse. I also think there is a strong anti-drug morality VI>TE>VI>stance among certain groups. Only the very strictest Bible Belt VI>TE>VI>Protestant sects take the stance that alcholol use violates some kind VI>TE>VI>of moral code. VI>TE>First, there is a big difference between USE and ABUSE. There are plenty VI>TE>of users of both drugs and/or alcohol who don't abuse it. Second, yes VI>TE>there are certain groups with a very strong anti-drug moral stance, but VI>TE>this is only a very recent development when put into a historical VI>TE>context. VI>But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral stance VI>that existsin this country. There is only a very limited group that VI>says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. VI> At the current time, yes, you're right. But it's really only been this widespread for the past couple of decades or so. VI>TE>VI>Yes, I was joking! :) VI>TE>That's good!! I was worried there for a second :) VI>Watch for the bouncing smiley face in my posts. If you see a smiley VI>face, you can pretty much assume I mean the statement as a joke or a VI>jest. :) I'll try to remember that! :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very radic VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of the VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitudes. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already legal i VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? VI>Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holland VI>also has legalized euphansia, I believe. You mean euthanasia? Wow, Holland sounds like such a nice, laid-back place to live! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a child VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING to a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far too pe VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? VI>TE>VI>TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsetting. It VI>TE>VI>TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. VI>Actually, I was not bounced. Someone else in my family was bounced. VI>But it was tremendously upsetting for me to have this person sometimes VI>there, sometimes not there. I don't mean to sound harsh, but there are a LOT worse things than that that can happen to a child. Many people believe that a child should be sheltered from all the possible trauma, harm, unhappiness, and disappointment that life can bring; I, however, do not believe that children should be sheltered to that much of an extent. IMHO, children should not be given the false impression that life is nothing but a bowl of cherries. The children who are sheltered like that, who have never had any negative experiences, those are the ones who as teenagers or young adults want to commit suicide because they failed a test or got dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend after two weeks. All of a sudden, the reality of life hits them full in the face, and they are unprepared, they are not used to it. So I think that all in all, over the course of a person's life, this kind of sheltering as a child does a lot more harm than a divorce or something to that effect does during childhood. Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 4:32pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740767 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738489, Reply to #738475, Reply to #737641, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the time VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. In o VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an excus VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. VI>TE>VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enough t VI>TE>VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, VI>TE>VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more money VI>TE>VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spend VI>TE>VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare gets w VI>TE>VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60,000 VI>TE>VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. VI>TE>VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. VI>TE>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' people VI>TE>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that VI>TE>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the VI>TE>VI>country. VI>TE>Rioting because of overpopulation? Why do you say this? VI>I believe that overpopulation increases the level of anger and VI>frustration. As overpopulation increases it builds up increasing VI>levels of tension. Eventually the tension has to be released, and in VI>all likelihood that release would be violent like an explosion of a VI>volcano. It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in prisons simply to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulated either way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwise, to build more housing and spread people out a little more, rather than dump everyone into already overcrowded prisons. Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 4:35pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740768 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738491, Reply to #738479, Reply to #738440, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they were onl VI>TE>VI>DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered that was VI>TE>VI>DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the case with VI>TE>VI>DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such 'laws' VI>TE>VI>DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged individu VI>TE>VI>DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by implying VI>TE>VI>DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the part of VI>TE>VI>DT>... VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or VI>TE>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not VI>TE>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. VI>TE>If everyone could possibly AGREE on moral law, then maybe, MAYBE it can VI>TE>be done. But a majority of people agreeing on what is morally correct or VI>TE>not is simply not possible, unless you turn everyone into a zombie. VI>I think eventually it will happen without people turning into zombies. VI>Unfortunately, I think things will get very much uglier before this VI>happens and that we will probably have to come very close to self VI>extinction in order for this to happen. There is no way that this can ever happen. Perhaps individual countries can come to agreements, but not the entire world; different countries just have way too different ideas on what moral law should be. Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 4:38pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740769 To: Rand Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #738516, Reply to #738477, Reply to #737786, R*) RRA>I always liked "Mr. Salty" pretzels. RA>Every other product on the market says "Low Salt," "No Salt," "LOW IN RA>SODIUM!!!" or something like that. RA>But that brand... SCREW YOU! "MR SALTY!!!!" RA>I just admire their courage. Hehehehhe well it's pretty smart of them, they know that there are at least a few consumers who don't give a shit about "LOW IN SODIUM" in this health-conscious modern world :) Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 5:02pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740771 To: Dti Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #739075, Reply to #738478, Reply to #738297, R*) (1 reply) DT>TE>DT> Nah, it would be a beautiful thing if they did it, it would go far DT>TE>DT>treat and eventually cure many diffs of standard human errant behaviou DT>TE>DT>Everyone getting xrayed that often, especially the airport staff eithe DT>TE>DT>directly or by background exposure... imagine: frequent flying execs DT>TE>DT>and JFK security sharing the same vastly expanded wards at Calvary, on DT>TE>DT>Calvary expands to accomodate the influx of terminal cancer patients.. DT>TE>DT>lots less people to add to the drug desire mechanism and thus less DT>TE>DT>actual drug importation activity, voila! After the numbers leveled off DT>TE>DT>bit 2dry to total xray exposure=cancer, the DEA could start shooting DT>TE>DT>antiaircraft missiles at incoming commercial flights from suspect land DT>TE>DT>that would certainly be effective as well. Perhaps the third stage cou DT>TE>DT>utilize cyanide pumped into municipal drinking water systems. DT>TE>DT>Personally, I can assure that drug use/importation/related criminal DT>TE>DT>issues would go down on the order of 90 percent if the present US DT>TE>DT>population was suddenly reduced to approximately three million. Might DT>TE>DT>even get it lower if we were forced to live in communal arrangements DT>TE>DT>with total surveillance built in. Its for our own good, right? I mean, DT>TE>DT>its bad when people do the wrong thing, leads to all kinds of sufferin DT>TE>DT>best to ensure good behaviour by whatever means. We can start with the DT>TE>DT>universal traveler xray and also get lots more new jobs in the bargain DT>TE>DT>the sheer need for sworn staff to wait upon the peristalsis of those DT>TE>DT>identified by xray as holding rubbers filled with drugs could be the DT>TE>DT>late 90's son of the WPA.... DT>TE>There is one minor problem with your solution: out of the three million DT>TE>people we would have left in the U.S. population, 99% of them would be DT>TE>the homeless skell junkies. They don't go to airports, so they won't get DT>TE>cancer. They drink cheap liquor, not municipal drinking water, so they DT>TE>won't get killed by cyanide. They don't fly in foreign airplanes, so DT>TE>they won't get shot down by a missile. And they don't live anywhere, so DT>TE>there is nowhere to build surveillance on them. Thus, the homeless DT>TE>skells, the very lowest of the drug user tree, would be all that's left, DT>TE>and everybody else would be dead or in jail... DT> Not a problem minor or otherwise with what I typed out up there, I DT>wasnt proposing to reduce the native population by 90% solely by use of DT>xrays, antiaircraft missiles or cyanide in the water altho the water DT>routine would do plenty anyway, skells do not live exclusively on malt DT>liquor and cyanide is not only effective via ingestion at any rate, and DT>most of the aircraft subject to DEA/Customs air to air missiles are more DT>along the lines of the slender little airframes we have spent airtime in DT>recently: not commercial airliners. A helluva great deal of skells live exclusively on malt liquor, and it's not like they ever take baths... DT> Thing is, taking yr translation of my nasty endtime conspiracy, I DT>figure that if the only ones left to the operation, of course> were homeless junky skels, well, shit then DT>you have five or six years to wait on a 99% local population reduction DT>at the most on average considering the waiting periods for the more DT>popular skell deathcauses... But the skells will breed prior to that! Date: Monday, September 1, 1997 5:18pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740772 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #739124, Reply to #739073, Reply to #738440, R*) (1 reply) VI>DT>VI>And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage handlers VI>DT>VI>JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to slip on VI>DT>VI>through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the best of VI>DT>VI>security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that the securit VI>DT>VI>measures we have are the best!!!! VI>DT> I do have to wonder why there seems to be so much attention paid to VI>DT>the importation of controlled substances via human mules flying in VI>DT>commercial airliners when 99 percent of the material that is generated VI>DT>outside US borders is actually imported by the ton in shipping VI>DT>containers on cargo ships and over road trucks altho the publicized VI>DT>collars serve to put the Fear into regular assholes who think they might VI>DT>pack a couple keys into personal baggage for personal use... VI>That just goes to prove my general contention--that the big money bad VI>guys get off scottfree, while the small time operators got bounced on. VI>It is just sound and fury for the masses--to lead them to believe that VI>we are being TOUGH on crime and drugs. For once, Vida, I agree with you. Which is the reason that I consider the whole "War On Drugs" thing to be such foolish nonsense. They spend millions of dollars to give hell to 15-year-olds with dimebags of weed, but they are not going to tackle the source because they have too much money to lose in bribes. The whole thing is a crock of shit. The only reasonable, constitutional solution to this is a combination of decriminalization and legalization combined with close regulation, but who ever said the gov't was reasonable. VI>DT>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do not VI>DT>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law. VI>DT> I find moral law to represent an oxymoronic terminology as I find VI>DT>morality to be a thing presented on the part of fictional entities as a VI>DT>control system to benefit kings and presidents, essentially. VI>DT>--- VI>But there has to be some kind of moral code in order to prevent VI>explotiation and harm to others. That's a given, but the problem comes in when moral law is extended to prevent "harm to oneself," and that's when the gov't starts treating its citizens like naughty children. It's really, really wrong. Date: Tuesday, September 2, 1997 7:12am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 740794 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740765, Reply to #738487, Reply to #738473, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>DT> You betcha it is: I agree that whole garbage scow of theory TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>failed history often commonly referred to as 'moral' 'law' etc i TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>problem than anything resembling a solution. I thank you kinely. TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>TE>VI>There is nothing wrong with 'moral law', if people could practice w TE>VI>TE>VI>they preach. The real problem is that people SAY one thing and DO TE>VI>TE>VI>something else. TE>VI>TE>There IS a big problem with moral law, the problem is this: Moral law TE>VI>TE>different for each individual, and the problem is that each individual TE>VI>TE>wants to convince everyone else that HIS or HER moral law is the corre TE>VI>TE>version, thereby trying to force everyone else to live by their TE>VI>TE>standards. TE>VI>I believe there is a moral law which a higher power, G-d or the TE>VI>universe sets in place. TE>See? It's all a matter of personal belief. I believe that "law" moral or TE>otherwise, is a purely human creation and has nothing to do with the TE>universe or any higher power. Considering that not everyone believes TE>like you that there is a moral law which was set in place by a higher TE>power, or the universe, etc. then it would be unfair to use this "moral TE>law" as an ultimate dictum. Well there is a difference between human law and the "ultimate law". So I would be very, very cautious about trying to pass human legislation based upon my (or anybody else's) interpretation of the "ultimate law". On the other hand, there are certain basics that I think we can all agree upon. "Thou shall not kill." for a start. TE>VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher power TE>VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from the TE>VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the message TE>VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. TE>If this so-called higher power can't even make human beings hear it TE>correctly, then it's not all that powerful, is it? I don't view the short come as being with the higher power. The short come is with people. TE>VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs as TE>VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you stated TE>VI>above. :) Yup. That's why I just wrote above that I would be very cautious about passing legislation based upon the moral law of the universe. TE>Exactly, and that is the big problem with this "moral law!" What people TE>should do is, instead of trying to convince everyone else that their law TE>is the highest law, instead they should try to convince everyone else TE>why their law is more REASONABLE, in human terms, than other TE>suggestions, then maybe we can get somewhere. People will never stop trying to convince others that their law is the highest law. It's just human nature to believe so. :) Date: Tuesday, September 2, 1997 7:16am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 740795 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740766, Reply to #738488, Reply to #738474, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>There's a lot of drug use, but I don't think it raises to the leve TE>VI>TE>VI>alcholol abuse. I also think there is a strong anti-drug morality TE>VI>TE>VI>stance among certain groups. Only the very strictest Bible Belt TE>VI>TE>VI>Protestant sects take the stance that alcholol use violates some ki TE>VI>TE>VI>of moral code. TE>VI>TE>First, there is a big difference between USE and ABUSE. There are plen TE>VI>TE>of users of both drugs and/or alcohol who don't abuse it. Second, yes TE>VI>TE>there are certain groups with a very strong anti-drug moral stance, bu TE>VI>TE>this is only a very recent development when put into a historical TE>VI>TE>context. TE>VI>But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral stance TE>VI>that existsin this country. There is only a very limited group that TE>VI>says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. TE>VI> TE>At the current time, yes, you're right. But it's really only been this TE>widespread for the past couple of decades or so. No, I think you are wrong about that. Historically, the use of alcholic beverages such as wine and beer have been widely tolerated by societies. I won't deny that certain Protestant sects preached that alcohol use was per se morally corrupt. My argument is that OVERALL this was a minority position. TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, I was joking! :) TE>VI>TE>That's good!! I was worried there for a second :) TE>VI>Watch for the bouncing smiley face in my posts. If you see a smiley TE>VI>face, you can pretty much assume I mean the statement as a joke or a TE>VI>jest. :) TE>I'll try to remember that! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>So how does that belief apply to this context? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Simply that history periodically goes through some very ra TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>so a radical change like this one is not entirely out of t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Although it would be much more difficult for a change like TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>in this country, because of this country's overall attitud TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I think it would be more likely; marijuana is already lega TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>So is prostitution, no? :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Actually, I don't know! Is it?? TE>VI>Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holland TE>VI>also has legalized euphansia, I believe. TE>You mean euthanasia? Wow, Holland sounds like such a nice, laid-back TE>place to live! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a chi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTING t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far too TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsetting. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. TE>VI>Actually, I was not bounced. Someone else in my family was bounced. TE>VI>But it was tremendously upsetting for me to have this person sometimes TE>VI>there, sometimes not there. TE>I don't mean to sound harsh, but there are a LOT worse things than that TE>that can happen to a child. Many people believe that a child should be TE>sheltered from all the possible trauma, harm, unhappiness, and TE>disappointment that life can bring; I, however, do not believe that TE>children should be sheltered to that much of an extent. IMHO, children TE>should not be given the false impression that life is nothing but a bowl TE>of cherries. The children who are sheltered like that, who have never TE>had any negative experiences, those are the ones who as teenagers or TE>young adults want to commit suicide because they failed a test or got TE>dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend after two weeks. All of a sudden, TE>the reality of life hits them full in the face, and they are unprepared, TE>they are not used to it. So I think that all in all, over the course of TE>a person's life, this kind of sheltering as a child does a lot more harm TE>than a divorce or something to that effect does during childhood. This bouncing back and forth stuff was very, very disruptive to my childhood. And I was not the person being bounced. Date: Tuesday, September 2, 1997 7:18am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 740796 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740767, Reply to #738489, Reply to #738475, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. I TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an ex TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid enoug TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" people, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more mon TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to spe TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare get TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to 60, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculous. TE>VI>TE>VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. TE>VI>TE>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' peo TE>VI>TE>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale that TE>VI>TE>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in the TE>VI>TE>VI>country. TE>VI>TE>Rioting because of overpopulation? Why do you say this? TE>VI>I believe that overpopulation increases the level of anger and TE>VI>frustration. As overpopulation increases it builds up increasing TE>VI>levels of tension. Eventually the tension has to be released, and in TE>VI>all likelihood that release would be violent like an explosion of a TE>VI>volcano. TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in prisons simply TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulated either TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwise, to TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, rather than dump TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social policy is dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger out there. And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of being "soft on crime". Date: Tuesday, September 2, 1997 7:19am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 740797 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740768, Reply to #738491, Reply to #738479, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they were TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered that TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the case w TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such 'law TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged indiv TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by imply TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the part o TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>... TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do TE>VI>TE>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law TE>VI>TE>If everyone could possibly AGREE on moral law, then maybe, MAYBE it ca TE>VI>TE>be done. But a majority of people agreeing on what is morally correct TE>VI>TE>not is simply not possible, unless you turn everyone into a zombie. TE>VI>I think eventually it will happen without people turning into zombies. TE>VI>Unfortunately, I think things will get very much uglier before this TE>VI>happens and that we will probably have to come very close to self TE>VI>extinction in order for this to happen. TE>There is no way that this can ever happen. Perhaps individual countries TE>can come to agreements, but not the entire world; different countries TE>just have way too different ideas on what moral law should be. Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being any choice in this matter. Date: Tuesday, September 2, 1997 7:21am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 740798 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740772, Reply to #739124, Reply to #739073, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>DT>VI>And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage handle TE>VI>DT>VI>JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to slip TE>VI>DT>VI>through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the best TE>VI>DT>VI>security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that the secu TE>VI>DT>VI>measures we have are the best!!!! TE>VI>DT> I do have to wonder why there seems to be so much attention paid to TE>VI>DT>the importation of controlled substances via human mules flying in TE>VI>DT>commercial airliners when 99 percent of the material that is generated TE>VI>DT>outside US borders is actually imported by the ton in shipping TE>VI>DT>containers on cargo ships and over road trucks altho the publicized TE>VI>DT>collars serve to put the Fear into regular assholes who think they mig TE>VI>DT>pack a couple keys into personal baggage for personal use... TE>VI>That just goes to prove my general contention--that the big money bad TE>VI>guys get off scottfree, while the small time operators got bounced on. TE>VI>It is just sound and fury for the masses--to lead them to believe that TE>VI>we are being TOUGH on crime and drugs. TE>For once, Vida, I agree with you. Which is the reason that I consider TE>the whole "War On Drugs" thing to be such foolish nonsense. They spend TE>millions of dollars to give hell to 15-year-olds with dimebags of weed, TE>but they are not going to tackle the source because they have too much TE>money to lose in bribes. The whole thing is a crock of shit. The only TE>reasonable, constitutional solution to this is a combination of TE>decriminalization and legalization combined with close regulation, but TE>who ever said the gov't was reasonable. I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree that you can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree that the reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem is that they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I would add). TE>VI>DT>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I do TE>VI>DT>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral law TE>VI>DT> I find moral law to represent an oxymoronic terminology as I find TE>VI>DT>morality to be a thing presented on the part of fictional entities as TE>VI>DT>control system to benefit kings and presidents, essentially. TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>But there has to be some kind of moral code in order to prevent TE>VI>explotiation and harm to others. TE>That's a given, but the problem comes in when moral law is extended to TE>prevent "harm to oneself," and that's when the gov't starts treating its TE>citizens like naughty children. It's really, really wrong. Date: Friday, September 5, 1997 3:20am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 740944 To: ** ALL ** Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Fw by Calvin, Reply to #740801, Reply to #740748, Reply*) (1 reply) -------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TO: Vida ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Bob and I are just too wierd to be believed sometimes. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>I could believe that. :) VI>TE>VI>Yes, but somehow or other we have been working together for 3+ years. VI>TE>VI>:) VI>TE>So you and Bob are in a relationship AND you're still working together? VI>TE>Wow. Maintaining a long-term relationship with someone you work with is VI>TE>tough enough, let alone the fact that you are actually a lesbian. I'm VI>TE>impressed :) VI>Sure, we work on our relationship. VI> I don't think it is possible to survive as a couple past the "honey VI>moon stage" (which can last up to two, three months) without working VI>on things. And the sex stuff isn't what we work on. Mostly what we VI>work on is communication and accomodating each other's different needs. Yeah, that's granted. I was thinking that maybe the reason that a lot of my past relationships didn't last long is because I was kind of addicted to the "honey moon stages." The two long-term no shit serious ones I had before this one, well one of them was on-and-off for a number of years, and the other one probably wound up lasting a long time because we wound up living together without actually planning to do so. :) Date: Saturday, September 6, 1997 1:55am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741006 To: Tempest Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #740944, Fw by Calvin, Reply to #740801, Reply*) (1 reply) TE>-------------< COMMENTS BY Calvin >-------------- TE>TO: Vida TE>----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Calvin >---------- TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Bob and I are just too wierd to be believed sometimes. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I could believe that. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, but somehow or other we have been working together for 3+ year TE>VI>TE>VI>:) TE>VI>TE>So you and Bob are in a relationship AND you're still working together TE>VI>TE>Wow. Maintaining a long-term relationship with someone you work with i TE>VI>TE>tough enough, let alone the fact that you are actually a lesbian. I'm TE>VI>TE>impressed :) TE>VI>Sure, we work on our relationship. TE>VI> I don't think it is possible to survive as a couple past the "honey TE>VI>moon stage" (which can last up to two, three months) without working TE>VI>on things. And the sex stuff isn't what we work on. Mostly what we TE>VI>work on is communication and accomodating each other's different needs. TE>Yeah, that's granted. I was thinking that maybe the reason that a lot of TE>my past relationships didn't last long is because I was kind of addicted TE>to the "honey moon stages." The two long-term no shit serious ones I had TE>before this one, well one of them was on-and-off for a number of years, TE>and the other one probably wound up lasting a long time because we wound TE>up living together without actually planning to do so. :) Well, it is understandable that you might be addicted to the "honeymoon stage' relationships. They are so much fun!! During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And you feel such a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfortunately, it never, ever does!! :( Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 2:16am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741129 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740794, Reply to #740765, Reply to #738487, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>There IS a big problem with moral law, the problem is this: Moral l VI>TE>VI>TE>different for each individual, and the problem is that each individ VI>TE>VI>TE>wants to convince everyone else that HIS or HER moral law is the co VI>TE>VI>TE>version, thereby trying to force everyone else to live by their VI>TE>VI>TE>standards. VI>TE>VI>I believe there is a moral law which a higher power, G-d or the VI>TE>VI>universe sets in place. VI>TE>See? It's all a matter of personal belief. I believe that "law" moral or VI>TE>otherwise, is a purely human creation and has nothing to do with the VI>TE>universe or any higher power. Considering that not everyone believes VI>TE>like you that there is a moral law which was set in place by a higher VI>TE>power, or the universe, etc. then it would be unfair to use this "moral VI>TE>law" as an ultimate dictum. VI>Well there is a difference between human law and the "ultimate law". VI>So I would be very, very cautious about trying to pass human VI>legislation based upon my (or anybody else's) interpretation of the VI>"ultimate law". We have no choice but to pass legislation based on laws created by humans, because no one truly knows what the "ultimate law" is, or if there even is one, no matter how much people think they know. VI>On the other hand, there are certain basics that I think we can all VI>agree upon. "Thou shall not kill." for a start. But these basics need to be modified, for example the above really should be something more like "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense" etc... VI>TE>VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher power VI>TE>VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from the VI>TE>VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the message VI>TE>VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. VI>TE>If this so-called higher power can't even make human beings hear it VI>TE>correctly, then it's not all that powerful, is it? VI>I don't view the short come as being with the higher power. The short VI>come is with people. But if the higher power is so powerful, than why can't he/she/it fix people up so that we wouldn't have these short-comings? VI>TE>VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs as VI>TE>VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you state VI>TE>VI>above. :) VI>Yup. That's why I just wrote above that I would be very cautious about VI>passing legislation based upon the moral law of the universe. VI>TE>Exactly, and that is the big problem with this "moral law!" What people VI>TE>should do is, instead of trying to convince everyone else that their law VI>TE>is the highest law, instead they should try to convince everyone else VI>TE>why their law is more REASONABLE, in human terms, than other VI>TE>suggestions, then maybe we can get somewhere. VI>People will never stop trying to convince others that their law is the VI>highest law. It's just human nature to believe so. :) Yeah, I know, and it's quite a major fault with human nature IMHO! Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 2:24am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741130 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740795, Reply to #740766, Reply to #738488, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral stance VI>TE>VI>that existsin this country. There is only a very limited group that VI>TE>VI>says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. VI>TE>VI> VI>TE>At the current time, yes, you're right. But it's really only been this VI>TE>widespread for the past couple of decades or so. VI>No, I think you are wrong about that. Historically, the use of alcholic VI>beverages such as wine and beer have been widely tolerated by VI>societies. VI>I won't deny that certain Protestant sects preached that alcohol use VI>was per se morally corrupt. My argument is that OVERALL this was a VI>minority position. I wasn't referring to the anti-alcohol beliefs, I was talking about the anti-drug moral stance. (sorry, I was being unclear about that). I agree with you that alcohol is for the most part very much accepted! VI>TE>VI>Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holland VI>TE>VI>also has legalized euphansia, I believe. VI>TE>You mean euthanasia? Wow, Holland sounds like such a nice, laid-back VI>TE>place to live! VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as a VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSETTIN VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is far VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upsettin VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. VI>TE>VI>Actually, I was not bounced. Someone else in my family was bounced. VI>TE>VI>But it was tremendously upsetting for me to have this person sometimes VI>TE>VI>there, sometimes not there. VI>TE>I don't mean to sound harsh, but there are a LOT worse things than that VI>TE>that can happen to a child. Many people believe that a child should be VI>TE>sheltered from all the possible trauma, harm, unhappiness, and VI>TE>disappointment that life can bring; I, however, do not believe that VI>TE>children should be sheltered to that much of an extent. IMHO, children VI>TE>should not be given the false impression that life is nothing but a bowl VI>TE>of cherries. The children who are sheltered like that, who have never VI>TE>had any negative experiences, those are the ones who as teenagers or VI>TE>young adults want to commit suicide because they failed a test or got VI>TE>dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend after two weeks. All of a sudden, VI>TE>the reality of life hits them full in the face, and they are unprepared, VI>TE>they are not used to it. So I think that all in all, over the course of VI>TE>a person's life, this kind of sheltering as a child does a lot more harm VI>TE>than a divorce or something to that effect does during childhood. VI>This bouncing back and forth stuff was very, very disruptive to my VI>childhood. And I was not the person being bounced. Everyone has skeletons in their childhood closet that were very, very disruptive. That still doesn't mean that children need to be completely sheltered from any disruption. Life goes on, it's not always easy, and children need to be able to deal with it just like the rest of us. Maybe I'm harsh, but I'm realistic. Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 2:27am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741131 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740796, Reply to #740767, Reply to #738489, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% of t VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bias. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide an VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid en VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" peop VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending more VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have to VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfare VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 to VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridiculou VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social control. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplus' VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic in VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>country. VI>TE>VI>TE>Rioting because of overpopulation? Why do you say this? VI>TE>VI>I believe that overpopulation increases the level of anger and VI>TE>VI>frustration. As overpopulation increases it builds up increasing VI>TE>VI>levels of tension. Eventually the tension has to be released, and in VI>TE>VI>all likelihood that release would be violent like an explosion of a VI>TE>VI>volcano. VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in prisons simply VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulated either VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwise, to VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, rather than dump VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social policy is VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger out there. VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of being "soft VI>on crime". Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But that's just me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 2:28am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741132 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740797, Reply to #740768, Reply to #738491, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they we VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the cas VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, such ' VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged in VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by im VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the par VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>... VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral VI>TE>VI>TE>If everyone could possibly AGREE on moral law, then maybe, MAYBE it VI>TE>VI>TE>be done. But a majority of people agreeing on what is morally corre VI>TE>VI>TE>not is simply not possible, unless you turn everyone into a zombie. VI>TE>VI>I think eventually it will happen without people turning into zombies. VI>TE>VI>Unfortunately, I think things will get very much uglier before this VI>TE>VI>happens and that we will probably have to come very close to self VI>TE>VI>extinction in order for this to happen. VI>TE>There is no way that this can ever happen. Perhaps individual countries VI>TE>can come to agreements, but not the entire world; different countries VI>TE>just have way too different ideas on what moral law should be. VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being any choice VI>in this matter. Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree on laws? That's why there exist separate countries. Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 2:30am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741133 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740798, Reply to #740772, Reply to #739124, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage han VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to sl VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the be VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that the s VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>measures we have are the best!!!! VI>TE>VI>DT> I do have to wonder why there seems to be so much attention paid VI>TE>VI>DT>the importation of controlled substances via human mules flying in VI>TE>VI>DT>commercial airliners when 99 percent of the material that is genera VI>TE>VI>DT>outside US borders is actually imported by the ton in shipping VI>TE>VI>DT>containers on cargo ships and over road trucks altho the publicized VI>TE>VI>DT>collars serve to put the Fear into regular assholes who think they VI>TE>VI>DT>pack a couple keys into personal baggage for personal use... VI>TE>VI>That just goes to prove my general contention--that the big money bad VI>TE>VI>guys get off scottfree, while the small time operators got bounced on. VI>TE>VI>It is just sound and fury for the masses--to lead them to believe that VI>TE>VI>we are being TOUGH on crime and drugs. VI>TE>For once, Vida, I agree with you. Which is the reason that I consider VI>TE>the whole "War On Drugs" thing to be such foolish nonsense. They spend VI>TE>millions of dollars to give hell to 15-year-olds with dimebags of weed, VI>TE>but they are not going to tackle the source because they have too much VI>TE>money to lose in bribes. The whole thing is a crock of shit. The only VI>TE>reasonable, constitutional solution to this is a combination of VI>TE>decriminalization and legalization combined with close regulation, but VI>TE>who ever said the gov't was reasonable. VI>I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree that you VI>can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree that the VI>reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem is that VI>they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I would add). I'm glad you agree on those points, but if you don't agree with my proposed solution, then what solution would YOU propose? VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although I VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following moral VI>TE>VI>DT> I find moral law to represent an oxymoronic terminology as I fin VI>TE>VI>DT>morality to be a thing presented on the part of fictional entities VI>TE>VI>DT>control system to benefit kings and presidents, essentially. VI>TE>VI>DT>--- VI>TE>VI>But there has to be some kind of moral code in order to prevent VI>TE>VI>explotiation and harm to others. VI>TE>That's a given, but the problem comes in when moral law is extended to VI>TE>prevent "harm to oneself," and that's when the gov't starts treating its VI>TE>citizens like naughty children. It's really, really wrong. Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 2:35am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741134 To: Vida Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #741006, Reply to #740944, Fw by Calvin, Reply*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Bob and I are just too wierd to be believed sometimes. : VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I could believe that. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, but somehow or other we have been working together for 3+ y VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>:) VI>TE>VI>TE>So you and Bob are in a relationship AND you're still working toget VI>TE>VI>TE>Wow. Maintaining a long-term relationship with someone you work wit VI>TE>VI>TE>tough enough, let alone the fact that you are actually a lesbian. I VI>TE>VI>TE>impressed :) VI>TE>VI>Sure, we work on our relationship. VI>TE>VI> I don't think it is possible to survive as a couple past the "honey VI>TE>VI>moon stage" (which can last up to two, three months) without working VI>TE>VI>on things. And the sex stuff isn't what we work on. Mostly what we VI>TE>VI>work on is communication and accomodating each other's different needs VI>TE>Yeah, that's granted. I was thinking that maybe the reason that a lot of VI>TE>my past relationships didn't last long is because I was kind of addicted VI>TE>to the "honey moon stages." The two long-term no shit serious ones I had VI>TE>before this one, well one of them was on-and-off for a number of years, VI>TE>and the other one probably wound up lasting a long time because we wound VI>TE>up living together without actually planning to do so. :) VI>Well, it is understandable that you might be addicted to the "honeymoon VI>stage' relationships. They are so much fun!! Yeah, they sure are!! :) VI>During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And you feel such VI>a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfortunately, VI>it never, ever does!! :( Good sex, and nothing BUT sex!! :) But don't say that it never, never lasts. I refuse to believe that. I think that if both partners put a little bit of effort into it, the honeymoon stage can last forever, if not 24/7 then at least with "honeymoon bursts" now and then. :) I think I really need that feeling to continue forever, for me to be really happy in a relationship, so I'm trying to work on that now! Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 7:10am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741216 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741129, Reply to #740794, Reply to #740765, R*) (1 reply) (Previous exchanges omitted) TE>VI>Well there is a difference between human law and the "ultimate law". TE>VI>So I would be very, very cautious about trying to pass human TE>VI>legislation based upon my (or anybody else's) interpretation of the TE>VI>"ultimate law". TE>We have no choice but to pass legislation based on laws created by TE>humans, because no one truly knows what the "ultimate law" is, or if TE>there even is one, no matter how much people think they know. Don't faint, but I think I agree with you on this point. TE>VI>On the other hand, there are certain basics that I think we can all TE>VI>agree upon. "Thou shall not kill." for a start. TE>But these basics need to be modified, for example the above really should TE>be something more like "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense" TE>etc... No, I would say the rule still is "Thou shall not kill, period". Self defense is a justification for violating the rule. I would say that selg defense can only be evokedas a justification in extreme situtations. In other words, you can not killl in self defense unless your life is actually in danger OR if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger. For example, in law school we studied cases of claimed defense where a robber is killed after holding a toy gun to the head of a would be victim. Is there a valid self defense claim in this situation? The answer is, it depends on the appearance of the toy gun. If the toy gun is a bright collar, like a water pistol, the answer is no because a person should know when looking at the object that it is a toy gun and not a real gun. On the other hand, if the toy gun is black or metalic in appearance than there is a valid self defense claim--because a person can reasonably believe when looking at that object that it is a REAL gun and that therefore their life is in danger. TE>VI>TE>VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher pow TE>VI>TE>VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from th TE>VI>TE>VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the messag TE>VI>TE>VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. TE>VI>TE>If this so-called higher power can't even make human beings hear it TE>VI>TE>correctly, then it's not all that powerful, is it? TE>VI>I don't view the short come as being with the higher power. The short TE>VI>come is with people. TE>But if the higher power is so powerful, than why can't he/she/it fix TE>people up so that we wouldn't have these short-comings? TE>VI>TE>VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beliefs TE>VI>TE>VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you st TE>VI>TE>VI>above. :) TE>VI>Yup. That's why I just wrote above that I would be very cautious about TE>VI>passing legislation based upon the moral law of the universe. TE>VI>TE>Exactly, and that is the big problem with this "moral law!" What peopl TE>VI>TE>should do is, instead of trying to convince everyone else that their l TE>VI>TE>is the highest law, instead they should try to convince everyone else TE>VI>TE>why their law is more REASONABLE, in human terms, than other TE>VI>TE>suggestions, then maybe we can get somewhere. TE>VI>People will never stop trying to convince others that their law is the TE>VI>highest law. It's just human nature to believe so. :) TE>Yeah, I know, and it's quite a major fault with human nature IMHO! Perhaps you're right. Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 7:14am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741217 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741130, Reply to #740795, Reply to #740766, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral stanc TE>VI>TE>VI>that existsin this country. There is only a very limited group tha TE>VI>TE>VI>says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. TE>VI>TE>VI> TE>VI>TE>At the current time, yes, you're right. But it's really only been this TE>VI>TE>widespread for the past couple of decades or so. TE>VI>No, I think you are wrong about that. Historically, the use of alcholic TE>VI>beverages such as wine and beer have been widely tolerated by TE>VI>societies. TE>VI>I won't deny that certain Protestant sects preached that alcohol use TE>VI>was per se morally corrupt. My argument is that OVERALL this was a TE>VI>minority position. TE>I wasn't referring to the anti-alcohol beliefs, I was talking about the TE>anti-drug moral stance. (sorry, I was being unclear about that). TE>I agree with you that alcohol is for the most part very much accepted! And now I completely lost your train of thought. Sorry, could you please repeat what you were trying to argue. (I have been on trial this week so I am more than slightly ditzy.) TE>VI>TE>VI>Yup. I am pretty sure that prostitution is legal in Holland. Holl TE>VI>TE>VI>also has legalized euphansia, I believe. TE>VI>TE>You mean euthanasia? Wow, Holland sounds like such a nice, laid-back TE>VI>TE>place to live! TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>From someone who experienced bouncing back and forth as TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>different context, I can tell you that it is very UPSET TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> I would rather not go into the details because it is f TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>just trust me on this point, ok? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I got bounced back and forth as well, and it was not upset TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>HAPPY RELIEF when my parents finally got divorced. TE>VI>TE>VI>Actually, I was not bounced. Someone else in my family was bounced TE>VI>TE>VI>But it was tremendously upsetting for me to have this person someti TE>VI>TE>VI>there, sometimes not there. TE>VI>TE>I don't mean to sound harsh, but there are a LOT worse things than tha TE>VI>TE>that can happen to a child. Many people believe that a child should be TE>VI>TE>sheltered from all the possible trauma, harm, unhappiness, and TE>VI>TE>disappointment that life can bring; I, however, do not believe that TE>VI>TE>children should be sheltered to that much of an extent. IMHO, children TE>VI>TE>should not be given the false impression that life is nothing but a bo TE>VI>TE>of cherries. The children who are sheltered like that, who have never TE>VI>TE>had any negative experiences, those are the ones who as teenagers or TE>VI>TE>young adults want to commit suicide because they failed a test or got TE>VI>TE>dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend after two weeks. All of a sudden, TE>VI>TE>the reality of life hits them full in the face, and they are unprepare TE>VI>TE>they are not used to it. So I think that all in all, over the course o TE>VI>TE>a person's life, this kind of sheltering as a child does a lot more ha TE>VI>TE>than a divorce or something to that effect does during childhood. TE>VI>This bouncing back and forth stuff was very, very disruptive to my TE>VI>childhood. And I was not the person being bounced. TE>Everyone has skeletons in their childhood closet that were very, very TE>disruptive. That still doesn't mean that children need to be TE>completely sheltered from any disruption. Life goes on, it's not always TE>easy, and children need to be able to deal with it just like the rest of TE>us. Maybe I'm harsh, but I'm realistic. It is IMPOSSIBLE to shelter a child completely from disruptions. But I believe that we should try, to the extent humanly possible, to give our children a stable, healthy environment to grow up in. Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 7:15am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741218 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741131, Reply to #740796, Reply to #740767, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>I think the fact that the drug laws are enforced 90% o TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>through busting street sales reflects a class/racial bi TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>words, drug laws are enforced in this manner to provide TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>lock up "surplus" people. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That is ridiculous, even the government wouldn't be stupid TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>continue overflowing its prisons by locking up "surplus" p TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>causing increased spending on new prisons, and spending mo TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>keeping one "surplus" person in prison than it would have TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>merely provided welfare for that person. A person on welfa TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>five grand, ten grand a year at most? And it costs 20,000 TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>keep a person in prison, depending on which prison. Ridicu TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>It's not just money that is involved here. It's social contr TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>If something was not done to reduce the population of 'surplu TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>in the ghettos then there would be massive rioting on a scale TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>would make the reaction to the OJ verdict look like a picnic TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>country. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Rioting because of overpopulation? Why do you say this? TE>VI>TE>VI>I believe that overpopulation increases the level of anger and TE>VI>TE>VI>frustration. As overpopulation increases it builds up increasing TE>VI>TE>VI>levels of tension. Eventually the tension has to be released, and TE>VI>TE>VI>all likelihood that release would be violent like an explosion of a TE>VI>TE>VI>volcano. TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in prisons simp TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulated either TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwise, to TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, rather than du TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. TE>VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social policy is TE>VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger out there. TE>VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of being "soft TE>VI>on crime". TE>Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But that's just TE>me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) You can't help it. You are a scientist at heart. :) Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 7:17am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741219 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741132, Reply to #740797, Reply to #740768, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>DT> There would be nothing wrong with "moral laws" if they TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>designed to be applied to a population as yet undiscovered TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>reliably capable of following such rules. This is not the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>human beings, as history relentlessly proves. However, suc TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>make for vast opportunities for a certain type of deranged TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>across history, who seeks to impose control over others by TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>he or she is acting for the good of the population on the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>... TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>--- TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> * SLMR 2.0 * Press any key to continue or TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, what you describe is unfortunately sadly true...although TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>necessarily agreee that humans are incapable of following mor TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>If everyone could possibly AGREE on moral law, then maybe, MAYBE TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>be done. But a majority of people agreeing on what is morally co TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>not is simply not possible, unless you turn everyone into a zomb TE>VI>TE>VI>I think eventually it will happen without people turning into zombi TE>VI>TE>VI>Unfortunately, I think things will get very much uglier before this TE>VI>TE>VI>happens and that we will probably have to come very close to self TE>VI>TE>VI>extinction in order for this to happen. TE>VI>TE>There is no way that this can ever happen. Perhaps individual countrie TE>VI>TE>can come to agreements, but not the entire world; different countries TE>VI>TE>just have way too different ideas on what moral law should be. TE>VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being any choice TE>VI>in this matter. TE>Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree on laws? TE>That's why there exist separate countries. Because our technology has arrived at the point that we have the MEANS of killing ourselves. Both quickly--with nuclear weapons AND slowly, with pollution and environmental degradation. Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 7:20am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741220 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741133, Reply to #740798, Reply to #740772, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>And then you have situations like the recent bust of buggage TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>JFK that were accepting bribes to allow baggage with drugs to TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>through. Just goes to show that with decent people, even the TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>security measures can fail. And no way am I implying that th TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>VI>measures we have are the best!!!! TE>VI>TE>VI>DT> I do have to wonder why there seems to be so much attention p TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>the importation of controlled substances via human mules flying TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>commercial airliners when 99 percent of the material that is gen TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>outside US borders is actually imported by the ton in shipping TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>containers on cargo ships and over road trucks altho the publici TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>collars serve to put the Fear into regular assholes who think th TE>VI>TE>VI>DT>pack a couple keys into personal baggage for personal use... (Previous exchanges ommitted) TE>VI>I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree that you TE>VI>can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree that the TE>VI>reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem is that TE>VI>they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I would add). TE>I'm glad you agree on those points, but if you don't agree with my TE>proposed solution, then what solution would YOU propose? I'm a social critic. I'm great at point out problems. I'm LOUSY at proposing any solutions. (Subsequent exchanges ommitted) Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 7:24am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741221 To: Tempest Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #741134, Reply to #741006, Reply to #740944, F*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Bob and I are just too wierd to be believed sometimes TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I could believe that. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes, but somehow or other we have been working together for 3 TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>:) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>So you and Bob are in a relationship AND you're still working to TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Wow. Maintaining a long-term relationship with someone you work TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>tough enough, let alone the fact that you are actually a lesbian TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>impressed :) TE>VI>TE>VI>Sure, we work on our relationship. TE>VI>TE>VI> I don't think it is possible to survive as a couple past the "hone TE>VI>TE>VI>moon stage" (which can last up to two, three months) without worki TE>VI>TE>VI>on things. And the sex stuff isn't what we work on. Mostly what w TE>VI>TE>VI>work on is communication and accomodating each other's different ne TE>VI>TE>Yeah, that's granted. I was thinking that maybe the reason that a lot TE>VI>TE>my past relationships didn't last long is because I was kind of addict TE>VI>TE>to the "honey moon stages." The two long-term no shit serious ones I h TE>VI>TE>before this one, well one of them was on-and-off for a number of years TE>VI>TE>and the other one probably wound up lasting a long time because we wou TE>VI>TE>up living together without actually planning to do so. :) TE>VI>Well, it is understandable that you might be addicted to the "honeymoon TE>VI>stage' relationships. They are so much fun!! TE>Yeah, they sure are!! :) I'm getting hot just remembering all of my past "honeymoons". :) TE>VI>During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And you feel such TE>VI>a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfortunately, TE>VI>it never, ever does!! :( TE>Good sex, and nothing BUT sex!! :) But don't say that it never, never TE>lasts. I refuse to believe that. I think that if both partners put a TE>little bit of effort into it, the honeymoon stage can last forever, if TE>not 24/7 then at least with "honeymoon bursts" now and then. :) TE>I think I really need that feeling to continue forever, for me to be TE>really happy in a relationship, so I'm trying to work on that now! Well for me, the honeymoon stage with Bob was good sex AND good talk, communication, sharing. And I don't think that it is possible for the honeymoon to ever last for ever. You mature in a relationship from the infuation stage of honeymoon to a deeper, but more quieter love. Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 12:20am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741421 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741216, Reply to #741129, Reply to #740794, R*) (1 reply) VI>(Previous exchanges omitted) VI>TE>VI>Well there is a difference between human law and the "ultimate law". VI>TE>VI>So I would be very, very cautious about trying to pass human VI>TE>VI>legislation based upon my (or anybody else's) interpretation of the VI>TE>VI>"ultimate law". VI>TE>We have no choice but to pass legislation based on laws created by VI>TE>humans, because no one truly knows what the "ultimate law" is, or if VI>TE>there even is one, no matter how much people think they know. VI>Don't faint, but I think I agree with you on this point. WOW! thanx :) VI>TE>VI>On the other hand, there are certain basics that I think we can all VI>TE>VI>agree upon. "Thou shall not kill." for a start. VI>TE>But these basics need to be modified, for example the above really should VI>TE>be something more like "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense" VI>TE>etc... VI>No, I would say the rule still is "Thou shall not kill, period". VI>Self defense is a justification for violating the rule. Hmmm... I suppose. Although to me it seems like modifying the rule and allowing a justification is basically the same thing, or two different means for the same end. VI>I would say that selg defense can only be evokedas a justification in VI>extreme situtations. In other words, you can not killl in self defense VI>unless your life is actually in danger OR if you reasonably believe VI>that your life is in danger. I don't know about that. That still seems too strict to me, actually, or maybe just too black-and-white. What if it was your mother's life that was in danger, or your child's? What if someone was not trying to kill you, but was trying to poke your eye out or blow your kneecaps off? The possibilities are endless... and I don't think that a person should necessarily be punished for trying to protect their mother, or their child, or their eye or kneecaps. Depending on the situation, of course. VI>For example, in law school we studied cases of claimed defense where a VI>robber is killed after holding a toy gun to the head of a would be VI>victim. Is there a valid self defense claim in this situation? The VI>answer is, it depends on the appearance of the toy gun. If the toy gun VI>is a bright collar, like a water pistol, the answer is no because a VI>person should know when looking at the object that it is a toy gun and VI>not a real gun. On the other hand, if the toy gun is black or metalic VI>in appearance than there is a valid self defense claim--because a VI>person can reasonably believe when looking at that object that it is a VI>REAL gun and that therefore their life is in danger. That sounds reasonable. But again, it's just so black-and-white that these kinds of rules make it hard to judge specific situations on their own merit (which I think is the problem with the way law is dealt with.) What if the gun was pointed to the back of the perp's head and he/she couldn't see it, only feel it? What if the perp was so nervous that he/she didn't realize that it was a toy gun, even if it was obvious? Or didn't notice? Situations like a robbery really get adrenalin going, they are unimaginably strenuous situations, and sometimes people can't think what they're doing and commit rash acts to try to save themselves anyway they can; they might think they're in danger even if technically they're not. Why must a person be punished for something like this, despite the fact that the person was not the one committing the original crime? IMHO if a perp gets killed during a robbery attempt, it ought to be a message to other robbers not to do it! Instead, it's a message that it's okay to rob, because it's basically illegal for the victim to defend him/herself in any way other than if they're sure they're gonna get killed! Btw, sorry, I'm kind of ranting now cause sometimes this subject gets me riled up :) VI> VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the higher VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication from VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the mes VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. VI>TE>VI>TE>If this so-called higher power can't even make human beings hear it VI>TE>VI>TE>correctly, then it's not all that powerful, is it? VI>TE>VI>I don't view the short come as being with the higher power. The short VI>TE>VI>come is with people. VI>TE>But if the higher power is so powerful, than why can't he/she/it fix VI>TE>people up so that we wouldn't have these short-comings? VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own beli VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what you VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>above. :) VI>TE>VI>Yup. That's why I just wrote above that I would be very cautious abou VI>TE>VI>passing legislation based upon the moral law of the universe. VI>TE>VI>TE>Exactly, and that is the big problem with this "moral law!" What pe VI>TE>VI>TE>should do is, instead of trying to convince everyone else that thei VI>TE>VI>TE>is the highest law, instead they should try to convince everyone el VI>TE>VI>TE>why their law is more REASONABLE, in human terms, than other VI>TE>VI>TE>suggestions, then maybe we can get somewhere. VI>TE>VI>People will never stop trying to convince others that their law is the VI>TE>VI>highest law. It's just human nature to believe so. :) VI>TE>Yeah, I know, and it's quite a major fault with human nature IMHO! VI>Perhaps you're right. Well, it's an opinion, I don't know if I'm right or not. Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 12:39am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741422 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741217, Reply to #741130, Reply to #740795, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral st VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that existsin this country. There is only a very limited group VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> VI>TE>VI>TE>At the current time, yes, you're right. But it's really only been t VI>TE>VI>TE>widespread for the past couple of decades or so. VI>TE>VI>No, I think you are wrong about that. Historically, the use of alcholi VI>TE>VI>beverages such as wine and beer have been widely tolerated by VI>TE>VI>societies. VI>TE>VI>I won't deny that certain Protestant sects preached that alcohol use VI>TE>VI>was per se morally corrupt. My argument is that OVERALL this was a VI>TE>VI>minority position. VI>TE>I wasn't referring to the anti-alcohol beliefs, I was talking about the VI>TE>anti-drug moral stance. (sorry, I was being unclear about that). VI>TE>I agree with you that alcohol is for the most part very much accepted! VI>And now I completely lost your train of thought. Sorry, could you VI>please repeat what you were trying to argue. (I have been on trial VI>this week so I am more than slightly ditzy.) Hehehe that's okay :) About the widespread anti-drug moral stance - I was just saying that it's only a very recent thing that's been happening, it hasn't always been this way. But I forget what we were talking about before that I said that and I'm too lazy to TP back right now :) VI>TE>VI>This bouncing back and forth stuff was very, very disruptive to my VI>TE>VI>childhood. And I was not the person being bounced. VI>TE>Everyone has skeletons in their childhood closet that were very, very VI>TE>disruptive. That still doesn't mean that children need to be VI>TE>completely sheltered from any disruption. Life goes on, it's not always VI>TE>easy, and children need to be able to deal with it just like the rest of VI>TE>us. Maybe I'm harsh, but I'm realistic. VI>It is IMPOSSIBLE to shelter a child completely from disruptions. But I VI>believe that we should try, to the extent humanly possible, to give our VI>children a stable, healthy environment to grow up in. Of course! That's granted. But you can't go overboard with this; for example I don't think it's reasonable for two people who don't get along to stay together only because of the child - I think that the arguments and negative vibes between the parents are probably worse for the child than a divorce would be! Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 12:44am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741423 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741218, Reply to #741131, Reply to #740796, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in prisons s VI>TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulated eith VI>TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. VI>TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwise, to VI>TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, rather than VI>TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. VI>TE>VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social policy is VI>TE>VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger out there VI>TE>VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of being "soft VI>TE>VI>on crime". VI>TE>Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But that's just VI>TE>me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) VI>You can't help it. You are a scientist at heart. :) Hmmm... I guess I must be! I suppose it's time I admitted that to myself... thanx :) Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 12:49am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741424 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741219, Reply to #741132, Reply to #740797, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being any choice VI>TE>VI>in this matter. VI>TE>Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree on laws? VI>TE>That's why there exist separate countries. VI>Because our technology has arrived at the point that we have the MEANS VI>of killing ourselves. Both quickly--with nuclear weapons AND slowly, VI>with pollution and environmental degradation. This is true. But it's still not an automatic condemnation; just because we have the technology doesn't mean we'll use it. But you can't really get away from pollution and environmental degradation; it comes with the territory of having, what is it now, 5 billion people on earth... Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 12:51am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741425 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741220, Reply to #741133, Reply to #740798, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree that you VI>TE>VI>can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree that the VI>TE>VI>reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem is that VI>TE>VI>they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I would add). VI>TE>I'm glad you agree on those points, but if you don't agree with my VI>TE>proposed solution, then what solution would YOU propose? VI>I'm a social critic. I'm great at point out problems. I'm LOUSY at VI>proposing any solutions. I guess I won't vote for you for mayor :) Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 12:59am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 741426 To: Vida Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #741221, Reply to #741134, Reply to #741006, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>Well, it is understandable that you might be addicted to the "honeymo o VI>TE>VI>stage' relationships. They are so much fun!! VI>TE>Yeah, they sure are!! :) VI>I'm getting hot just remembering all of my past "honeymoons". :) Hehehehhehe yeah they're fun to think about :) VI>TE>VI>During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And you feel suc VI>TE>VI>a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfortunately, VI>TE>VI>it never, ever does!! :( VI>TE>Good sex, and nothing BUT sex!! :) But don't say that it never, never VI>TE>lasts. I refuse to believe that. I think that if both partners put a VI>TE>little bit of effort into it, the honeymoon stage can last forever, if VI>TE>not 24/7 then at least with "honeymoon bursts" now and then. :) VI>TE>I think I really need that feeling to continue forever, for me to be VI>TE>really happy in a relationship, so I'm trying to work on that now! VI>Well for me, the honeymoon stage with Bob was good sex AND good talk, VI>communication, sharing. Yeah, you're right come to think of it, communication does almost seem easier in the honeymoon stage than later. I guess that's what causes relationships to fall apart, if the communication isn't kept up... VI>And I don't think that it is possible for the honeymoon to ever last VI>for ever. You mature in a relationship from the infuation stage of VI>honeymoon to a deeper, but more quieter love. That's what everyone says, but judging from my own patterns, I don't work that way. Instead of changing from infatuation-type feelings to more deep, quiet love gradually, I experience alternating feelings of both kinds throughout the whole relationship. My infatuated feelings never really go away. I think that's what my problem is; I remain all mushy and in love no matter how much time goes by, and then I feel hurt and frustrated if the other person doesn't feel the same way. :( Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 8:08pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741473 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741421, Reply to #741216, Reply to #741129, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>(Previous exchanges omitted) TE>VI>TE>VI>Well there is a difference between human law and the "ultimate law" TE>VI>TE>VI>So I would be very, very cautious about trying to pass human TE>VI>TE>VI>legislation based upon my (or anybody else's) interpretation of the TE>VI>TE>VI>"ultimate law". TE>VI>TE>We have no choice but to pass legislation based on laws created by TE>VI>TE>humans, because no one truly knows what the "ultimate law" is, or if TE>VI>TE>there even is one, no matter how much people think they know. TE>VI>Don't faint, but I think I agree with you on this point. TE>WOW! thanx :) Remember I never...or all most never...disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>On the other hand, there are certain basics that I think we can all TE>VI>TE>VI>agree upon. "Thou shall not kill." for a start. TE>VI>TE>But these basics need to be modified, for example the above really sho TE>VI>TE>be something more like "Thou shalt not kill except in self-defense" TE>VI>TE>etc... TE>VI>No, I would say the rule still is "Thou shall not kill, period". TE>VI>Self defense is a justification for violating the rule. TE>Hmmm... I suppose. Although to me it seems like modifying the rule and TE>allowing a justification is basically the same thing, or two different TE>means for the same end. No, I look at them as different. I think a justification requires a higher level of persuasiveness than a justification. TE>VI>I would say that selg defense can only be evokedas a justification in TE>VI>extreme situtations. In other words, you can not killl in self defense TE>VI>unless your life is actually in danger OR if you reasonably believe TE>VI>that your life is in danger. TE>I don't know about that. That still seems too strict to me, actually, or TE>maybe just too black-and-white. What if it was your mother's life that TE>was in danger, or your child's? What if someone was not trying to kill TE>you, but was trying to poke your eye out or blow your kneecaps off? The TE>possibilities are endless... and I don't think that a person should TE>necessarily be punished for trying to protect their mother, or their TE>child, or their eye or kneecaps. Depending on the situation, of course. My memory of my Criminal Law class in Law School is vague. I don't remember if you can use LETHAL force to protect the life of another or not. TE>VI>For example, in law school we studied cases of claimed defense where a TE>VI>robber is killed after holding a toy gun to the head of a would be TE>VI>victim. Is there a valid self defense claim in this situation? The TE>VI>answer is, it depends on the appearance of the toy gun. If the toy gun TE>VI>is a bright collar, like a water pistol, the answer is no because a TE>VI>person should know when looking at the object that it is a toy gun and TE>VI>not a real gun. On the other hand, if the toy gun is black or metalic TE>VI>in appearance than there is a valid self defense claim--because a TE>VI>person can reasonably believe when looking at that object that it is a TE>VI>REAL gun and that therefore their life is in danger. TE>That sounds reasonable. But again, it's just so black-and-white that TE>these kinds of rules make it hard to judge specific situations on their TE>own merit (which I think is the problem with the way law is dealt with.) TE>What if the gun was pointed to the back of the perp's head and he/she TE>couldn't see it, only feel it? What if the perp was so nervous that TE>he/she didn't realize that it was a toy gun, even if it was obvious? Or TE>didn't notice? Situations like a robbery really get adrenalin going, TE>they are unimaginably strenuous situations, and sometimes people can't TE>think what they're doing and commit rash acts to try to save themselves TE>anyway they can; they might think they're in danger even if technically TE>they're not. Why must a person be punished for something like this, TE>despite the fact that the person was not the one committing the original TE>crime? IMHO if a perp gets killed during a robbery attempt, it ought to TE>be a message to other robbers not to do it! Instead, it's a message that TE>it's okay to rob, because it's basically illegal for the victim to defend TE>him/herself in any way other than if they're sure they're gonna get killed! My basic understanding is that the test is whether someone reasonably believes their life is in danger. Obviously in a situtation where the perp holds a plastic toy gun up to the back of your head, you have a reasonable fear of having your head shoot off. TE>Btw, sorry, I'm kind of ranting now cause sometimes this subject gets me TE>riled up :) No problem! TE>VI> TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>The problem is that human beings can not always hear the high TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>which controls the universe. I visualize the communication f TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>higher power as similiar to the kid's game of telephone--the TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>gets more and more distorted as time and distance go on. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>If this so-called higher power can't even make human beings hear TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>correctly, then it's not all that powerful, is it? TE>VI>TE>VI>I don't view the short come as being with the higher power. The sh TE>VI>TE>VI>come is with people. TE>VI>TE>But if the higher power is so powerful, than why can't he/she/it fix TE>VI>TE>people up so that we wouldn't have these short-comings? TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Additionally, our greatest sin is that we establish our own b TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the moral law of the universe. Which in a nut shell is what TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>above. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>Yup. That's why I just wrote above that I would be very cautious a TE>VI>TE>VI>passing legislation based upon the moral law of the universe. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Exactly, and that is the big problem with this "moral law!" What TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>should do is, instead of trying to convince everyone else that t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>is the highest law, instead they should try to convince everyone TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>why their law is more REASONABLE, in human terms, than other TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>suggestions, then maybe we can get somewhere. TE>VI>TE>VI>People will never stop trying to convince others that their law is TE>VI>TE>VI>highest law. It's just human nature to believe so. :) TE>VI>TE>Yeah, I know, and it's quite a major fault with human nature IMHO! TE>VI>Perhaps you're right. TE>Well, it's an opinion, I don't know if I'm right or not. What difference does it matter? If you hold the belief, it's true for you. :) Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 8:09pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741474 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741422, Reply to #741217, Reply to #741130, R*) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>But still, no matter what, there is a strong anti-drug moral TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>that existsin this country. There is only a very limited gro TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>says that alcholol use is PER SE morally corrupt. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>At the current time, yes, you're right. But it's really only bee TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>widespread for the past couple of decades or so. TE>VI>TE>VI>No, I think you are wrong about that. Historically, the use of alch TE>VI>TE>VI>beverages such as wine and beer have been widely tolerated by TE>VI>TE>VI>societies. TE>VI>TE>VI>I won't deny that certain Protestant sects preached that alcohol us TE>VI>TE>VI>was per se morally corrupt. My argument is that OVERALL this was a TE>VI>TE>VI>minority position. TE>VI>TE>I wasn't referring to the anti-alcohol beliefs, I was talking about th TE>VI>TE>anti-drug moral stance. (sorry, I was being unclear about that). TE>VI>TE>I agree with you that alcohol is for the most part very much accepted! TE>VI>And now I completely lost your train of thought. Sorry, could you TE>VI>please repeat what you were trying to argue. (I have been on trial TE>VI>this week so I am more than slightly ditzy.) TE>Hehehe that's okay :) About the widespread anti-drug moral stance - I TE>was just saying that it's only a very recent thing that's been TE>happening, it hasn't always been this way. But I forget what we were TE>talking about before that I said that and I'm too lazy to TP back right TE>now :) Ok, so let's just let this thread die. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>This bouncing back and forth stuff was very, very disruptive to my TE>VI>TE>VI>childhood. And I was not the person being bounced. TE>VI>TE>Everyone has skeletons in their childhood closet that were very, very TE>VI>TE>disruptive. That still doesn't mean that children need to be TE>VI>TE>completely sheltered from any disruption. Life goes on, it's not alway TE>VI>TE>easy, and children need to be able to deal with it just like the rest TE>VI>TE>us. Maybe I'm harsh, but I'm realistic. TE>VI>It is IMPOSSIBLE to shelter a child completely from disruptions. But I TE>VI>believe that we should try, to the extent humanly possible, to give our TE>VI>children a stable, healthy environment to grow up in. TE>Of course! That's granted. But you can't go overboard with this; for TE>example I don't think it's reasonable for two people who don't get along TE>to stay together only because of the child - I think that the arguments TE>and negative vibes between the parents are probably worse for the child TE>than a divorce would be! That goes without saying! Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 8:10pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741475 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741423, Reply to #741218, Reply to #741131, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in priso TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulated e TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwise, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, rather t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. TE>VI>TE>VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social policy TE>VI>TE>VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger out th TE>VI>TE>VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of being "so TE>VI>TE>VI>on crime". TE>VI>TE>Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But that's ju TE>VI>TE>me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) TE>VI>You can't help it. You are a scientist at heart. :) TE>Hmmm... I guess I must be! I suppose it's time I admitted that to TE>myself... thanx :) Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 8:11pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741476 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741424, Reply to #741219, Reply to #741132, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being any ch TE>VI>TE>VI>in this matter. TE>VI>TE>Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree on laws? TE>VI>TE>That's why there exist separate countries. TE>VI>Because our technology has arrived at the point that we have the MEANS TE>VI>of killing ourselves. Both quickly--with nuclear weapons AND slowly, TE>VI>with pollution and environmental degradation. TE>This is true. But it's still not an automatic condemnation; just because TE>we have the technology doesn't mean we'll use it. But you can't really TE>get away from pollution and environmental degradation; it comes with the TE>territory of having, what is it now, 5 billion people on earth... Pollution and environmental degradation are mainly the results of our technology...which we do use. Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 8:11pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741477 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741425, Reply to #741220, Reply to #741133, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree that you TE>VI>TE>VI>can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree that th TE>VI>TE>VI>reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem is th TE>VI>TE>VI>they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I would ad TE>VI>TE>I'm glad you agree on those points, but if you don't agree with my TE>VI>TE>proposed solution, then what solution would YOU propose? TE>VI>I'm a social critic. I'm great at point out problems. I'm LOUSY at TE>VI>proposing any solutions. TE>I guess I won't vote for you for mayor :) I ain't running. :) Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 8:13pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741478 To: Tempest Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #741426, Reply to #741221, Reply to #741134, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>Well, it is understandable that you might be addicted to the "hone TE>o TE>VI>TE>VI>stage' relationships. They are so much fun!! TE>VI>TE>Yeah, they sure are!! :) TE>VI>I'm getting hot just remembering all of my past "honeymoons". :) TE>Hehehehhehe yeah they're fun to think about :) That's for sure! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And you feel TE>VI>TE>VI>a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfortunate TE>VI>TE>VI>it never, ever does!! :( TE>VI>TE>Good sex, and nothing BUT sex!! :) But don't say that it never, never TE>VI>TE>lasts. I refuse to believe that. I think that if both partners put a TE>VI>TE>little bit of effort into it, the honeymoon stage can last forever, if TE>VI>TE>not 24/7 then at least with "honeymoon bursts" now and then. :) TE>VI>TE>I think I really need that feeling to continue forever, for me to be TE>VI>TE>really happy in a relationship, so I'm trying to work on that now! TE>VI>Well for me, the honeymoon stage with Bob was good sex AND good talk, TE>VI>communication, sharing. TE>Yeah, you're right come to think of it, communication does almost seem TE>easier in the honeymoon stage than later. I guess that's what causes TE>relationships to fall apart, if the communication isn't kept up... I wouldn't say communicatin seems easier in the honeymoon stage. But I think frequently in the honeymoon stage people are on their best behavior. Once they start to show some of their warts after the honeymoon ends, that's when trouble frequently arsies. TE>VI>And I don't think that it is possible for the honeymoon to ever last TE>VI>for ever. You mature in a relationship from the infuation stage of TE>VI>honeymoon to a deeper, but more quieter love. TE>That's what everyone says, but judging from my own patterns, I don't TE>work that way. Instead of changing from infatuation-type feelings to TE>more deep, quiet love gradually, I experience alternating feelings of TE>both kinds throughout the whole relationship. My infatuated feelings TE>never really go away. I think that's what my problem is; I remain all TE>mushy and in love no matter how much time goes by, and then I feel hurt TE>and frustrated if the other person doesn't feel the same way. :( Date: Friday, September 19, 1997 2:17am Forum: Relationships From: Rand Msg#: 741486 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741473, Reply to #741421, Reply to #741216, R*) (1 reply) In a message dated 09-18-97 Vida wrote to Tempest : TE>I don't know about that. That still seems too strict to me, actually, or TE>maybe just too black-and-white. What if it was your mother's life that TE>was in danger, or your child's? What if someone was not trying to kill TE>you, but was trying to poke your eye out or blow your kneecaps off? The TE>possibilities are endless... and I don't think that a person should TE>necessarily be punished for trying to protect their mother, or their TE>child, or their eye or kneecaps. Depending on the situation, of course. V> My memory of my Criminal Law class in Law School is vague. I don't V> remember if you can use LETHAL force to protect the life of another or V> not. Just popping in here to say, sometimes. You can if you're a cop. You can if you're a homeowner, in your house, protecting your family. (Not your property.) And often you can if you're protecting your family outside as well. In practice of course, ain't no DA gonna prosecute you for blowing away some mugger hurting your wife, whether you're "allowed" to or not. TANSTAAFL, Rand --- * TIMM 1.3 * There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Date: Friday, September 19, 1997 6:42am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 741492 To: Rand Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741486, Reply to #741473, Reply to #741421, R*) RA>In a message dated 09-18-97 Vida wrote to Tempest : RA>TE>I don't know about that. That still seems too strict to me, actually, or RA>TE>maybe just too black-and-white. What if it was your mother's life that RA>TE>was in danger, or your child's? What if someone was not trying to kill RA>TE>you, but was trying to poke your eye out or blow your kneecaps off? The RA>TE>possibilities are endless... and I don't think that a person should RA>TE>necessarily be punished for trying to protect their mother, or their RA>TE>child, or their eye or kneecaps. Depending on the situation, of course. RA>V> My memory of my Criminal Law class in Law School is vague. I don't RA>V> remember if you can use LETHAL force to protect the life of another or RA>V> not. RA>Just popping in here to say, sometimes. You can if you're a cop. You can i RA>you're a homeowner, in your house, protecting your family. (Not your RA>property.) And often you can if you're protecting your family outside as RA>well. In practice of course, ain't no DA gonna prosecute you for blowing aw RA>some mugger hurting your wife, whether you're "allowed" to or not. Thanks for the refresher course! :) Date: Wednesday, October 8, 1997 2:27am Forum: Relationships From: Dti Msg#: 741863 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #740771, Reply to #739075, Reply to #738478, R*) TE>DT> Thing is, taking yr translation of my nasty endtime conspiracy, I TE>DT>figure that if the only ones left DT>to the operation, of course> were homeless junky skels, well, shit then TE>DT>you have five or six years to wait on a 99% local population reduction TE>DT>at the most on average considering the waiting periods for the more TE>DT>popular skell deathcauses... TE>But the skells will breed prior to that! ...to bear offspring which require actual support, which will eventually be denied. Shit, regular people cannot get the HMO they depend on to approve medical interventions, once Rudy et al smooth out the elimination of the dole and medicaid etc, all iffy crack babies will die without the sort of extreme support they are mandated to recieve nowadays... --- * SLMR 2.0 * To speak to an actual human being press 1 and hang up... Date: Wednesday, January 7, 1998 4:57am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 744392 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: Friday, January 9, 1998 2:01am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 744397 To: ** ALL ** Re: Kinsey (Copy by Calvin, Reply to #743598, Reply to #743590, Rep*) (1 reply) 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, April 4, 1998 1:01am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745681 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741475, Reply to #741423, Reply to #741218, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in pr VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopulate VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and otherwi VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, rathe VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social pol VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger out VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of being VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>on crime". VI>TE>VI>TE>Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But that's VI>TE>VI>TE>me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) VI>TE>VI>You can't help it. You are a scientist at heart. :) VI>TE>Hmmm... I guess I must be! I suppose it's time I admitted that to VI>TE>myself... thanx :) VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already, so I could be a REAL scientist :) Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 1:03am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745682 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741476, Reply to #741424, Reply to #741219, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being any VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>in this matter. VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree on laws VI>TE>VI>TE>That's why there exist separate countries. VI>TE>VI>Because our technology has arrived at the point that we have the MEANS VI>TE>VI>of killing ourselves. Both quickly--with nuclear weapons AND slowly, VI>TE>VI>with pollution and environmental degradation. VI>TE>This is true. But it's still not an automatic condemnation; just because VI>TE>we have the technology doesn't mean we'll use it. But you can't really VI>TE>get away from pollution and environmental degradation; it comes with the VI>TE>territory of having, what is it now, 5 billion people on earth... VI>Pollution and environmental degradation are mainly the results of our VI>technology...which we do use. Well, there is also new technology being developed to reduce pollution and environmental degradation! Now that more and more people are finally getting to realize what a real problem this is becoming. Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 1:04am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745683 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #741477, Reply to #741425, Reply to #741220, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree that VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree that VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem is VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I would VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm glad you agree on those points, but if you don't agree with my VI>TE>VI>TE>proposed solution, then what solution would YOU propose? VI>TE>VI>I'm a social critic. I'm great at point out problems. I'm LOUSY at VI>TE>VI>proposing any solutions. VI>TE>I guess I won't vote for you for mayor :) VI>I ain't running. :) Why not? "Mayor Vida" has a ring to it :) Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 1:10am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745684 To: Vida Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #741478, Reply to #741426, Reply to #741221, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And you fe VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfortun VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>it never, ever does!! :( VI>TE>VI>TE>Good sex, and nothing BUT sex!! :) But don't say that it never, ne VI>TE>VI>TE>lasts. I refuse to believe that. I think that if both partners put VI>TE>VI>TE>little bit of effort into it, the honeymoon stage can last forever, VI>TE>VI>TE>not 24/7 then at least with "honeymoon bursts" now and then. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>I think I really need that feeling to continue forever, for me to b VI>TE>VI>TE>really happy in a relationship, so I'm trying to work on that now! VI>TE>VI>Well for me, the honeymoon stage with Bob was good sex AND good talk, VI>TE>VI>communication, sharing. VI>TE>Yeah, you're right come to think of it, communication does almost seem VI>TE>easier in the honeymoon stage than later. I guess that's what causes VI>TE>relationships to fall apart, if the communication isn't kept up... VI>I wouldn't say communicatin seems easier in the honeymoon stage. But I VI>think frequently in the honeymoon stage people are on their best VI>behavior. Once they start to show some of their warts after the VI>honeymoon ends, that's when trouble frequently arsies. True... but that's why it's important to maintain communication, because everyone has "warts." And both people need to realize that nobody is perfect; but if one wants a relationship to last, then one must not take for granted the wonderful things about the other, and accept or try to work around the bad parts. And with good communication, both people might be willing to compromise and maybe change some of their behavior that's bad for the other person. And especially, always remember why the two people fell in love in the first place... cause another thing that causes trouble is when people start taking each other for granted. Date: Saturday, April 4, 1998 1:16am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745685 To: Vida Re: Kinsey (Reply to #744397, Copy by Calvin, Reply to #743598, Rep*) (2 replies) VVI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If I had to VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is purely gay or VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>(meaning they are only attracted to members of the same sex), 10 VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to members of the VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population that feels sex VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually ACT on those VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attractions, mainly because of the effects of homophobia. VI>SF>VI>SF>Interesting guesstimate, which conforms closely with the Kinsey the VI>SF>VI>Where do you think I came up with my guessestimate? :) VI>SF>He had a rateing scale of 1-6, with 1 absolute straight and 6 absolute VI>SF>gay. I have always thought of myself as a "Kinsey 6". VI>Yes. And I think the rating scale was pretty acurate. I can't remember VI>the precise breakdown as to what number means what. I figure that I VI>am more lesbian than heteo but that I obviously don't qualify as a VI>Kinsey 6. I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of 1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:51am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745723 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745681, Reply to #741475, Reply to #741423, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put in TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpopul TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and othe TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, ra TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says social TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational anger TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of bei TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>on crime". TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But tha TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) TE>VI>TE>VI>You can't help it. You are a scientist at heart. :) TE>VI>TE>Hmmm... I guess I must be! I suppose it's time I admitted that to TE>VI>TE>myself... thanx :) TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already, so I TE>could be a REAL scientist :) You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:54am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745724 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745682, Reply to #741476, Reply to #741424, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there being TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>in this matter. TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree on l TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's why there exist separate countries. TE>VI>TE>VI>Because our technology has arrived at the point that we have the ME TE>VI>TE>VI>of killing ourselves. Both quickly--with nuclear weapons AND slowl TE>VI>TE>VI>with pollution and environmental degradation. TE>VI>TE>This is true. But it's still not an automatic condemnation; just becau TE>VI>TE>we have the technology doesn't mean we'll use it. But you can't really TE>VI>TE>get away from pollution and environmental degradation; it comes with t TE>VI>TE>territory of having, what is it now, 5 billion people on earth... TE>VI>Pollution and environmental degradation are mainly the results of our TE>VI>technology...which we do use. TE>Well, there is also new technology being developed to reduce pollution TE>and environmental degradation! Now that more and more people are finally TE>getting to realize what a real problem this is becoming. But is this new technology too little, too late? And what kind of negative unforseen results will result from this new technology? After all, we didn't intentionally pollute the earth or intentionally cause environmental degradation. These were unforseen results of our technological genius. Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:55am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745725 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745683, Reply to #741477, Reply to #741425, R*) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>I don't agree with your proposed solution--but I DO agree th TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>can't expect the government to be reasonable. I also agree t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>reason they haven't gone after the source of the drug problem TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>they don't want to lose their bribes (or their profits, I wo TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I'm glad you agree on those points, but if you don't agree with TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>proposed solution, then what solution would YOU propose? TE>VI>TE>VI>I'm a social critic. I'm great at point out problems. I'm LOUSY a TE>VI>TE>VI>proposing any solutions. TE>VI>TE>I guess I won't vote for you for mayor :) TE>VI>I ain't running. :) TE>Why not? "Mayor Vida" has a ring to it :) Thank you. :) Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:58am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745726 To: Tempest Re: Dr Pax likes to eat pussy (Reply to #745684, Reply to #741478, Reply to #741426, R*) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>During the honey moon phase you have such good sex!! And yo TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>a high!!! Why can't that feeling last forever???????? Unfor TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>it never, ever does!! :( TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Good sex, and nothing BUT sex!! :) But don't say that it never, TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>lasts. I refuse to believe that. I think that if both partners p TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>little bit of effort into it, the honeymoon stage can last forev TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>not 24/7 then at least with "honeymoon bursts" now and then. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>I think I really need that feeling to continue forever, for me t TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>really happy in a relationship, so I'm trying to work on that no TE>VI>TE>VI>Well for me, the honeymoon stage with Bob was good sex AND good tal TE>VI>TE>VI>communication, sharing. TE>VI>TE>Yeah, you're right come to think of it, communication does almost seem TE>VI>TE>easier in the honeymoon stage than later. I guess that's what causes TE>VI>TE>relationships to fall apart, if the communication isn't kept up... TE>VI>I wouldn't say communicatin seems easier in the honeymoon stage. But I TE>VI>think frequently in the honeymoon stage people are on their best TE>VI>behavior. Once they start to show some of their warts after the TE>VI>honeymoon ends, that's when trouble frequently arsies. TE>True... but that's why it's important to maintain communication, because TE>everyone has "warts." And both people need to realize that nobody is TE>perfect; but if one wants a relationship to last, then one must not take TE>for granted the wonderful things about the other, and accept or try to TE>work around the bad parts. And with good communication, both people TE>might be willing to compromise and maybe change some of their behavior TE>that's bad for the other person. And especially, always remember why the TE>two people fell in love in the first place... cause another thing that TE>causes trouble is when people start taking each other for granted. True, true. Bob is my best friend, as well as my lover. I have been really NUTS over the past 4-5 days. Bob has put up with my insanity. Helping to calm me down, soothe me out. He deserves a red badge of courage for not running away from me over the weekend! Date: Monday, April 6, 1998 5:59am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745727 To: Tempest Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745685, Reply to #744397, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If I had to TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is purely gay TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>(meaning they are only attracted to members of the same sex), TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to members of TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population that feels TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually ACT on tho TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attractions, mainly because of the effects of homophobia. TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>Interesting guesstimate, which conforms closely with the Kinsey TE>VI>SF>VI>Where do you think I came up with my guessestimate? :) TE>VI>SF>He had a rateing scale of 1-6, with 1 absolute straight and 6 absolute TE>VI>SF>gay. I have always thought of myself as a "Kinsey 6". TE>VI>Yes. And I think the rating scale was pretty acurate. I can't remember TE>VI>the precise breakdown as to what number means what. I figure that I TE>VI>am more lesbian than heteo but that I obviously don't qualify as a TE>VI>Kinsey 6. TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! I am pretty sure that on the real Kinsey scale there is a spot for an exact 50/50 bisexual. :) Date: Tuesday, April 7, 1998 12:33am Forum: Relationships From: Conundrum Msg#: 745751 To: Tempest Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745685, Reply to #744397, Copy by Calvin, Rep*) (2 replies) TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! Fractions, Kat, fractions... I'm about a 1.5 or so myself. Humming (I think you can find it on the web, on his site) Bob Kanefsky's "Kinsey Scale" song. Date: Tuesday, April 7, 1998 6:16am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745758 To: Conundrum Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745751, Reply to #745685, Reply to #744397, C*) (1 reply) CO>TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would CO>TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of CO>TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! CO>Fractions, Kat, fractions... CO>I'm about a 1.5 or so myself. CO>Humming (I think you can find it on the web, on his site) Bob Kanefsky's CO>"Kinsey Scale" song. I never heard the song. Gee, I wish you could upload it so I could download it and hear it right now! :) Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 1:40am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745835 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745723, Reply to #745681, Reply to #741475, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are put VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are overpo VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos do. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial and o VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little more, VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Of course that would make more sense!!! But who says soci VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>dictated by sense alone? There's a lot of irrrational ang VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI> And when it comes to crime, there's a prevailing fear of VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>on crime". VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Social policy, for the most part, makes no sense at all. But VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>me, always trying to make sense in the face of nonsense :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You can't help it. You are a scientist at heart. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Hmmm... I guess I must be! I suppose it's time I admitted that to VI>TE>VI>TE>myself... thanx :) VI>TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) VI>TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) VI>TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already, so I VI>TE>could be a REAL scientist :) VI>You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) Hehehehh thanks! I appreciate that :) Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 1:42am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745836 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745724, Reply to #745682, Reply to #741476, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>Then you condemn us to extinction. I don't see there bei VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>in this matter. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Why would we become extinct just because we can't all agree o VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>That's why there exist separate countries. VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Because our technology has arrived at the point that we have the VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>of killing ourselves. Both quickly--with nuclear weapons AND sl VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>with pollution and environmental degradation. VI>TE>VI>TE>This is true. But it's still not an automatic condemnation; just be VI>TE>VI>TE>we have the technology doesn't mean we'll use it. But you can't rea VI>TE>VI>TE>get away from pollution and environmental degradation; it comes wit VI>TE>VI>TE>territory of having, what is it now, 5 billion people on earth... VI>TE>VI>Pollution and environmental degradation are mainly the results of our VI>TE>VI>technology...which we do use. VI>TE>Well, there is also new technology being developed to reduce pollution VI>TE>and environmental degradation! Now that more and more people are finally VI>TE>getting to realize what a real problem this is becoming. VI>But is this new technology too little, too late? And what kind of VI>negative unforseen results will result from this new technology? After VI>all, we didn't intentionally pollute the earth or intentionally cause VI>environmental degradation. These were unforseen results of our VI>technological genius. The problems are being fixed, little by little. Although the resulting problems are very serious, I don't see that as justification to destroy our new technology and go back to the stone age! Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 1:47am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745837 To: Vida Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745727, Reply to #745685, Reply to #744397, C*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If I had VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is purely VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>(meaning they are only attracted to members of the same se VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to members VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population that fee VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually ACT on VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attractions, mainly because of the effects of homophobia. VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>Interesting guesstimate, which conforms closely with the Kins VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>Where do you think I came up with my guessestimate? :) VI>TE>VI>SF>He had a rateing scale of 1-6, with 1 absolute straight and 6 absol VI>TE>VI>SF>gay. I have always thought of myself as a "Kinsey 6". VI>TE>VI>Yes. And I think the rating scale was pretty acurate. I can't rememb VI>TE>VI>the precise breakdown as to what number means what. I figure that I VI>TE>VI>am more lesbian than heteo but that I obviously don't qualify as a VI>TE>VI>Kinsey 6. VI>TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would VI>TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of VI>TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! VI>I am pretty sure that on the real Kinsey scale there is a spot for an VI>exact 50/50 bisexual. :) Only if you use decimal points! Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 1:50am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745838 To: Conundrum Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745751, Reply to #745685, Reply to #744397, C*) (1 reply) CO>TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would CO>TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of CO>TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! CO>Fractions, Kat, fractions... I didn't think the Kinsey scale would use fractions! CO>I'm about a 1.5 or so myself. I figure I'm a 2 or maybe a 1.5, if you go into the decimal points.. I dunno though, I wonder what the exact meanings for each number are. CO>Humming (I think you can find it on the web, on his site) Bob Kanefsky's CO>"Kinsey Scale" song. There's a Kinsey Scale song?! What's the web site? Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 6:48am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745854 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745835, Reply to #745723, Reply to #745681, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>It still doesn't seem likely that these people are TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>to try and prevent ghetto riots. The ghettos are ove TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>way, and prisons get a LOT more riots than ghettos d TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>It seems like it would make more sense, financial an TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>build more housing and spread people out a little mo TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>everyone into already overcrowded prisons. TE>VI>TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) TE>VI>TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) TE>VI>TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already, so I TE>VI>TE>could be a REAL scientist :) TE>VI>You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) TE>Hehehehh thanks! I appreciate that :) You're quite welcome. :) Always remember I enjoy our conversation-ESPECIALLY when we disagree. :) Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 6:50am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745855 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745836, Reply to #745724, Reply to #745682, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VI>Pollution and environmental degradation are mainly the results of o TE>VI>TE>VI>technology...which we do use. TE>VI>TE>Well, there is also new technology being developed to reduce pollution TE>VI>TE>and environmental degradation! Now that more and more people are final TE>VI>TE>getting to realize what a real problem this is becoming. TE>VI>But is this new technology too little, too late? And what kind of TE>VI>negative unforseen results will result from this new technology? After TE>VI>all, we didn't intentionally pollute the earth or intentionally cause TE>VI>environmental degradation. These were unforseen results of our TE>VI>technological genius. TE>The problems are being fixed, little by little. Although the resulting TE>problems are very serious, I don't see that as justification to destroy TE>our new technology and go back to the stone age! No, of course not. I would never advocate that. But I do believe it is a good reason to proceed with caution when we develope new technology. We always have to ask--what is the cost of this new technology? Will the cost of the new technology outweigh the benefits to humankind? Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 6:52am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745856 To: Tempest Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745837, Reply to #745727, Reply to #745685, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>TE>VVI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If I h TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is pure TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>(meaning they are only attracted to members of the same TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to membe TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population that TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually ACT TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attractions, mainly because of the effects of homophobi TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>Interesting guesstimate, which conforms closely with the K TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>Where do you think I came up with my guessestimate? :) TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>He had a rateing scale of 1-6, with 1 absolute straight and 6 ab TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>gay. I have always thought of myself as a "Kinsey 6". TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes. And I think the rating scale was pretty acurate. I can't rem TE>VI>TE>VI>the precise breakdown as to what number means what. I figure that TE>VI>TE>VI>am more lesbian than heteo but that I obviously don't qualify as a TE>VI>TE>VI>Kinsey 6. TE>VI>TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I would TE>VI>TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale of TE>VI>TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! TE>VI>I am pretty sure that on the real Kinsey scale there is a spot for an TE>VI>exact 50/50 bisexual. :) TE>Only if you use decimal points! I wish I wasn't so lazy. I could get the low down on the real Kinsey scale if I spent an hour or so in a library...or the same amount of time surfing the net. :) Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 7:12pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745865 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745854, Reply to #745835, Reply to #745723, R*) (1 reply) VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already, so I VI>TE>VI>TE>could be a REAL scientist :) VI>TE>VI>You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) VI>TE>Hehehehh thanks! I appreciate that :) VI>You're quite welcome. :) VI>Always remember I enjoy our conversation-ESPECIALLY when we disagree. VI>:) As do I! Of course it's good to disagree, if we agreed we'd have nothing to converse about! :) Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 7:19pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745866 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745855, Reply to #745836, Reply to #745724, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Pollution and environmental degradation are mainly the results o VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>technology...which we do use. VI>TE>VI>TE>Well, there is also new technology being developed to reduce pollut VI>TE>VI>TE>and environmental degradation! Now that more and more people are fi VI>TE>VI>TE>getting to realize what a real problem this is becoming. VI>TE>VI>But is this new technology too little, too late? And what kind of VI>TE>VI>negative unforseen results will result from this new technology? Afte VI>TE>VI>all, we didn't intentionally pollute the earth or intentionally cause VI>TE>VI>environmental degradation. These were unforseen results of our VI>TE>VI>technological genius. VI>TE>The problems are being fixed, little by little. Although the resulting VI>TE>problems are very serious, I don't see that as justification to destroy VI>TE>our new technology and go back to the stone age! VI>No, of course not. I would never advocate that. VI>But I do believe it is a good reason to proceed with caution when we VI>develope new technology. We always have to ask--what is the cost of VI>this new technology? Will the cost of the new technology outweigh the VI>benefits to humankind? Sure it's good to ask, what is the cost of this new technology, etc.! I'm not arguing that! The problem is, however, we can ask all we want but it's hard to get answers until we actually proceed. For example, the latest arguments about genetic engineering, cloning, etc. This debate has been going on for quite some time now, with not much use, because it is simply impossible to figure out what the costs of such technology will be. We know that we can "program" what colour eyes, hair, etc. we want our child to have; however, who knows whether this will wind up being a good or bad thing? We haven't experienced this yet, so there's no way of telling until we do. For example, who knew in, say, 1978, that 20 years from then there would be an internet and a computer in almost every home and that there would be thousands or millions of computer addicts? How were we, in 1978, to tell? Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 7:20pm Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 745867 To: Vida Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745856, Reply to #745837, Reply to #745727, R*) VI>TE>VI>TE>VVI>SF>VI>SF>VI>I said I believe MOST people are naturally bi. If VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>guessestimate I would say 10% of the population is p VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>(meaning they are only attracted to members of the s VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>purely hetero (meaning they are only attracted to me VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>opposite sex). That leaves 80% of the population th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attracted to BOTH--but not all of the 80% actually A VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>VI>attractions, mainly because of the effects of homoph VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>SF>Interesting guesstimate, which conforms closely with th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>VI>Where do you think I came up with my guessestimate? :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>He had a rateing scale of 1-6, with 1 absolute straight and 6 VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>SF>gay. I have always thought of myself as a "Kinsey 6". VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Yes. And I think the rating scale was pretty acurate. I can't VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>the precise breakdown as to what number means what. I figure th VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>am more lesbian than heteo but that I obviously don't qualify as VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Kinsey 6. VI>TE>VI>TE>I wonder what the exact meaning for each number is... I guess I wou VI>TE>VI>TE>rate myself a 2 though... the weird thing is, though, with a scale VI>TE>VI>TE>1-6 that leaves no room for an exact 50/50 bisexual! VI>TE>VI>I am pretty sure that on the real Kinsey scale there is a spot for an VI>TE>VI>exact 50/50 bisexual. :) VI>TE>Only if you use decimal points! VI>I wish I wasn't so lazy. I could get the low down on the real Kinsey VI>scale if I spent an hour or so in a library...or the same amount of VI>time surfing the net. :) I want to look for Kinsey stuff on the net, but I keep forgetting. I should make a note of it somewhere. One thing I must say for the Internet, it sure has made me lazy about going to the library! I used to go to the library a lot, now I only go if I have to do research for school! Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 6:11am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745878 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745865, Reply to #745854, Reply to #745835, R*) (1 reply) TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already, s TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>could be a REAL scientist :) TE>VI>TE>VI>You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) TE>VI>TE>Hehehehh thanks! I appreciate that :) TE>VI>You're quite welcome. :) TE>VI>Always remember I enjoy our conversation-ESPECIALLY when we disagree. TE>VI>:) TE>As do I! Of course it's good to disagree, if we agreed we'd have nothing TE>to converse about! :) Exactly! Plus you are intelligent enough that you make me rethink my assumptions, rethink my positions. I enjoy that. :) Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 6:49am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745879 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745866, Reply to #745855, Reply to #745836, R*) (1 reply) TE>VI>But I do believe it is a good reason to proceed with caution when we TE>VI>develope new technology. We always have to ask--what is the cost of TE>VI>this new technology? Will the cost of the new technology outweigh the TE>VI>benefits to humankind? TE>Sure it's good to ask, what is the cost of this new technology, etc.! TE>I'm not arguing that! The problem is, however, we can ask all we want TE>but it's hard to get answers until we actually proceed. For example, the TE>latest arguments about genetic engineering, cloning, etc. This debate TE>has been going on for quite some time now, with not much use, because TE>it is simply impossible to figure out what the costs of such technology TE>will be. We know that we can "program" what colour eyes, hair, etc. we TE>want our child to have; however, who knows whether this will wind up TE>being a good or bad thing? We haven't experienced this yet, so there's TE>no way of telling until we do. For example, who knew in, say, 1978, that TE>20 years from then there would be an internet and a computer in almost TE>every home and that there would be thousands or millions of computer TE>addicts? How were we, in 1978, to tell? That's exactly the point, we couldn't forsee in 1978 the internet, the explosion in cell phone technology and beepers, etc., etc. And all these technological innovations have brought about subtle changes. And like ripples in the stream these little changes bring about more changes. Small example. I got a letter from an attorney in Philadelphia yesterday. I had to send him a fax in response to the letter. I looked at the letterhead and saw that the phone number and fax number printed on the letterhead had a really weird area code. Area code 978??? Or something weird like that. Anyway, I had to stop and think for a moment. Then I realized that because all the cell phones and beeper phones that Philly is probably running out of available telephone numbers on their "standard" area code--just like NYC run out of numbers on 212 and 718. I still had to bring the faxed letterhead to one of the clerks to double check that I was reading the phone number correctly--as you probably realize faxed copies of documents are not exactly 100% clear. When you deal with the hysteria over cloning and genetic enginerring, that's a whole different kittle of fish. You have to consider that as a special case. I think the resistance to this new technology is primarily religious in nature. As a person who is both a rationalist and religious I can see the arguments on both sides of the fence. But I don't know if you want to get into the particulars of this conversation. I'm sure you will let me know. :) Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 8:25am Forum: Relationships From: Conundrum Msg#: 745911 To: Vida Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745758, Reply to #745751, Reply to #745685, R*) (1 reply) VI>CO>I'm about a 1.5 or so myself. VI>CO>Humming (I think you can find it on the web, on his site) Bob Kanefsky's VI>CO>"Kinsey Scale" song. VI>I never heard the song. Gee, I wish you could upload it so I could VI>download it and hear it right now! :) I can't upload it, but as I said, the lyrics are on the web; search Yahoo for "Bob Kanefsky" (that SHOULD do it, anyways; I don't remember how I got to his site). Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 8:31am Forum: Relationships From: Conundrum Msg#: 745912 To: Tempest Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745838, Reply to #745751, Reply to #745685, R*) TE>CO>Fractions, Kat, fractions... TE>I didn't think the Kinsey scale would use fractions! It certainly does; only six numbers, after all -- there are lots of gradations in reality. TE>CO>I'm about a 1.5 or so myself. TE>I figure I'm a 2 or maybe a 1.5, if you go into the decimal points.. I TE>dunno though, I wonder what the exact meanings for each number are. 1 means totally, completely straight. 1.5-2 is "not totally straight, but still unlikely to be attracted to partners of the same sex." 2.5-4.5 is closer to BI. 5-7 is various levels of gay. Pretty smooth gradation. TE>CO> Humming (I think you can find it on the web, on his site) Bob Kanefsky's TE>CO>"Kinsey Scale" song. TE>There's a Kinsey Scale song?! What's the web site? Bob Kanefsky is a very good filker, who has a web site with all his songs. I don't remember what it is, but it should be easy to find. Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 5:50pm Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 745919 To: Conundrum Re: Kinsey (Reply to #745911, Reply to #745758, Reply to #745751, R*) CO>VI>CO>I'm about a 1.5 or so myself. CO>VI>CO>Humming (I think you can find it on the web, on his site) Bob Kanefsky CO>VI>CO>"Kinsey Scale" song. CO>VI>I never heard the song. Gee, I wish you could upload it so I could CO>VI>download it and hear it right now! :) CO>I can't upload it, but as I said, the lyrics are on the web; search CO>Yahoo for "Bob Kanefsky" (that SHOULD do it, anyways; I don't remember CO>how I got to his site). I'll give it a try. I have Real Audio loaded on my puter, so maybe I can even find an audio clip. :) Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 4:30am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 746058 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745878, Reply to #745865, Reply to #745854, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with already VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>could be a REAL scientist :) VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) VI>TE>VI>TE>Hehehehh thanks! I appreciate that :) VI>TE>VI>You're quite welcome. :) VI>TE>VI>Always remember I enjoy our conversation-ESPECIALLY when we disagree. VI>TE>VI>:) VI>TE>As do I! Of course it's good to disagree, if we agreed we'd have nothing VI>TE>to converse about! :) VI>Exactly! VI>Plus you are intelligent enough that you make me rethink my VI>assumptions, rethink my positions. I enjoy that. :) I make you rethink things?! Wow, I wouldn't have thought so, you seem to be just as obstinate as I am on most issues :) Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 4:41am Forum: Relationships From: Tempest Msg#: 746059 To: Vida Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #745879, Reply to #745866, Reply to #745855, R*) (1 reply) VI>TE>VI>But I do believe it is a good reason to proceed with caution when we VI>TE>VI>develope new technology. We always have to ask--what is the cost of VI>TE>VI>this new technology? Will the cost of the new technology outweigh the VI>TE>VI>benefits to humankind? VI>TE>Sure it's good to ask, what is the cost of this new technology, etc.! VI>TE>I'm not arguing that! The problem is, however, we can ask all we want VI>TE>but it's hard to get answers until we actually proceed. For example, the VI>TE>latest arguments about genetic engineering, cloning, etc. This debate VI>TE>has been going on for quite some time now, with not much use, because VI>TE>it is simply impossible to figure out what the costs of such technology VI>TE>will be. We know that we can "program" what colour eyes, hair, etc. we VI>TE>want our child to have; however, who knows whether this will wind up VI>TE>being a good or bad thing? We haven't experienced this yet, so there's VI>TE>no way of telling until we do. For example, who knew in, say, 1978, that VI>TE>20 years from then there would be an internet and a computer in almost VI>TE>every home and that there would be thousands or millions of computer VI>TE>addicts? How were we, in 1978, to tell? VI>That's exactly the point, we couldn't forsee in 1978 the internet, the VI>explosion in cell phone technology and beepers, etc., etc. And all VI>these technological innovations have brought about subtle changes. And VI>like ripples in the stream these little changes bring about more VI>changes. Exactly what I'm saying! We can't forsee these things, so we have to just go ahead and innovate, because IMHO that's a lot better than being in a technological standstill. VI>When you deal with the hysteria over cloning and genetic enginerring, VI>that's a whole different kittle of fish. You have to consider that as VI>a special case. Why is this a special case? VI> I think the resistance to this new technology is primarily religious VI>in nature. As a person who is both a rationalist and religious I can VI>see the arguments on both sides of the fence. But I don't know if you VI>want to get into the particulars of this conversation. I'm sure you VI>will let me know. :) As a non-religious rationalist, I am basically on one side of the fence. I'll be glad to get into the particulars if you want :) Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:51am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 746105 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #746058, Reply to #745878, Reply to #745865, R*) TE>VI>TE>VVI>TE>VI>TE>VI>Say it loud...I'm a scientist and I'm proud! :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Heheh! I'm not a real one yet though, kind of a wanna-be TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Maybe I should just get a degree and get it over with alre TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>could be a REAL scientist :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>VI>You might as well. You already have a sceintist's brain. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>TE>Hehehehh thanks! I appreciate that :) TE>VI>TE>VI>You're quite welcome. :) TE>VI>TE>VI>Always remember I enjoy our conversation-ESPECIALLY when we disagre TE>VI>TE>VI>:) TE>VI>TE>As do I! Of course it's good to disagree, if we agreed we'd have nothi TE>VI>TE>to converse about! :) TE>VI>Exactly! TE>VI>Plus you are intelligent enough that you make me rethink my TE>VI>assumptions, rethink my positions. I enjoy that. :) TE>I make you rethink things?! Wow, I wouldn't have thought so, you seem to TE>be just as obstinate as I am on most issues :) Actually, the older I got the less certain I gett! And the more I rethink! :) Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 6:56am Forum: Relationships From: Vida Msg#: 746106 To: Tempest Re: Common Sense, dead or not? (Reply to #746059, Reply to #745879, Reply to #745866, R*) TE>Exactly what I'm saying! We can't forsee these things, so we have to TE>just go ahead and innovate, because IMHO that's a lot better than being TE>in a technological standstill. How is that logical? Wouldn't it make more sense to be more cautious given the uncertainities of technological inovations? TE>VI>When you deal with the hysteria over cloning and genetic enginerring, TE>VI>that's a whole different kittle of fish. You have to consider that as TE>VI>a special case. TE>Why is this a special case? Because you are dealing with people's most fundamental spirtual/religious beliefs. I think this is the logical reason for why there is so much resistance to the experimenting with cloning and human genetic engineering. TE>VI> I think the resistance to this new technology is primarily religious TE>VI>in nature. As a person who is both a rationalist and religious I can TE>VI>see the arguments on both sides of the fence. But I don't know if you TE>VI>want to get into the particulars of this conversation. I'm sure you TE>VI>will let me know. :) TE>As a non-religious rationalist, I am basically on one side of the fence. TE>I'll be glad to get into the particulars if you want :) Sure it might be fun and interesting. :) Date: Tuesday, March 2, 1999 1:19am Forum: Relationships From: Da Brooklyn Boricua Msg#: 748329 To: ** ALL ** Re: What's up... I'm here... Hello to one and all (whoever remains that is)... My name is Jose... Juan Jose... I would like to thank everyone that have been around the BBS World since the beginning and hope that it continues... However, we must strive to mass increase our population as the ever-present power of the World Wide Web is fast approaching the demise of the BBS... Let us enjoy what we have and see to it that the festivities will live on forever in the BBS World... End of list! Select a Sysop option (R,W,F,T,S,M,E,A,O,X to exit or ? for menu):