Procter & Gamble myth
Brad Pierce
-- Brad
Eric Iverson
> Who are Procter & Gamble's main competitors?
Apparently God fearing Americans like you and me.....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Gruntpig production, in association with the Rat Lab Steamworks.
Eric Iverson, president. Eric IVerson, emperor. ERiC IVerSoN, DeMIgOd!!!
eive...@nmsu.edu "I want to kill everyone here with a cute
Computing Research Lab colorful Hydrogen Bomb!!"
New Mexico State University -Zippy the Pinhead
Tim Maroney
>Who are Procter & Gamble's main competitors?
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!
Seriously, after being bombarded by the more pinheaded elements of
Christianity, certain people in Proctor & Gamble may wind up deciding
there's something to this Satanism business after all! Chalk up
another self-fulfilling prophecy....
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Those Jesus freaks, well, they're friendly but
the shit they believe has got their minds all shut."
-- Frank Zappa, "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing"
Robert King
>
>.................claiming that
>P&G executives appeared on TV talk shows pledging a slice of profits
>to some entity known as "The Church of Satan." In this new twist,
>"the profit sharing pact is said to be contingent on Beelzebub first
>boosting P&G sales" according to a Wall Street Journal description of
>a flyer that has been widely circulated.
This isn't a new twist. I read in an anthology of articles from
"Buzz" , a British Christian Youth magazine, that the 'profits to Satan'
part of the story dates back to the rest of it. Aparrently the article
reproduced there was written after many people had written (of course
without sources) in to the magazine asking them to give publicity
to the boycott campaign.
No, there's nothing new under the sun.
--
|Robert King, Mathematics, University of Queensland, Australia +61 7 377 3949 |
|"Life unwinds like a cheap sweater, since I gave up hope I feel a lot better |
| - Steve Taylor, "Since I gave up hope .." |
Havana - Moon
think that the Jim and Tammy fiasco would have given them some small
amount of reason to think for themselves.
"Nothing new under the sun,
Just lots of things we don't know.
David Canzi
>I appears by now that the "Born Agains" just never learn. One would
>think that the Jim and Tammy fiasco would have given them some small
>amount of reason to think for themselves.
In 1973, the "Children of God" sect was distributing a pamphlet in
which their leader, "Moses David" predicted, with the coming of comet
Kohoutek, the end of the world by Christmas. Moses David was proven
wrong: Kohoutek came and went, the world decided to stay around. In
1974, the Children of God were still out there distributing pamphlets.
Robots will be robots.
--
David Canzi
sbi...@desire.wright.edu
I am VERY well acquainted with 'Born Agains' as my mother was one and insisted
all her four kids spend about 20 hours a week in church. There is one almost
certain side-effect to doing this. All four of her children, myself included,
as soon as we left home refused to set foot inside a church except for weddings
and funerals. In fact, I refused to get married from a church! There is a
strong reason for why these people believe this way. A good majority of them
are very poorly educated, lower income and frightened by this big wonderful
complex world of ours. They have absolutely no knowledge of scientific theory,
or logical reasoning and do not understand the difference between a fact and a
belief. Many of them also are in the low-average IQ range. I am not being
insulting. I have many relatives, former neighbors, etc. who are 'Born Agains'
and I am speaking from personal observation.
Some of them have been turned off by the Jim and Tammy mess but I think it is
even more sad to think that these 'religious quacks' still get support from
people who are just too obstinate to change their mind or too blind to see.
Of course, there are still those folk who think Nixon was not a crook.... ;^)
Mike Van Pelt
>I am VERY well acquainted with 'Born Agains' as my mother was one ...
>A good majority of them are very poorly educated, lower income ...
>absolutely no knowledge of scientific theory, or logical reasoning ...
>low-average IQ range.
If, instead of "born agains", you had posted such an article about
{Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Orientals, ??} you would have been roundly
and deservedly flamed. Since this particular strain of bigotry is
currently quite trendy, this may well be the only flame you get.
It's a pity...
--
Mike Van Pelt Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse
Headland Technology/Video 7 computer interfaces --
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Menus are for Restaurants!
Eric Iverson
> In article <105.26...@desire.wright.edu> sbi...@desire.wright.edu writes:
> >I am VERY well acquainted with 'Born Agains' as my mother was one ...
> >A good majority of them are very poorly educated, lower income ...
> >absolutely no knowledge of scientific theory, or logical reasoning ...
> >low-average IQ range.
>
> If, instead of "born agains", you had posted such an article about
> {Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Orientals, ??} you would have been roundly
> and deservedly flamed. Since this particular strain of bigotry is
> currently quite trendy, this may well be the only flame you get.
>
> It's a pity...
Uh, sorry to spoil your flame, but when someone's talking about their
relatives and personal aquaintances, it hardly qualifies as bigotry.
Bigotry is based on ignorance of groups due to prejudice and lack of
exposure. The posting you mention was based on personal experience
due to over-exposure. It may not have been objective, but I don't
feel it was bigoted. Perhaps you're just mad because you read
something you didn't want to think about. That's certainly how a lot
of people are defining bigotry these days. More and more colleges are
passing resolutions to discourage the expression of views offensive to
minorities and other special interest groups. Unfortunately, this
results in an environment unsuitable to free thought and free
expression. Free thought isn't possible when everyone is a potential
watchdog checking to see if your views are politically correct. We
could go a lot farther in this country if we just accepted the fact
not everyone is going agree with everyone else, and stopped being so
offended all the time. If everytime I open my mouth I risk offending
people with X dependency, or Y syndrome, people who are Z-impaired or
are XYZ-americans, eventually I won't be able to open my mouth at all.
This is the age of the euphemism, the kinder gentler lie. People seem
more comfortable veiling the truth in self-concious apologetic
rhetoric than actually examining the conflicts below the surface. If
you ask me, the country's become pablum-dependent, thinking-impaired
and is suffering from post-traumatic-fascist syndrome. If that
somehow offends you, then go ahead and label me as a bigot. Coming
from you I'll take it as a compliment.
Mike Van Pelt
>In article <23...@hsv3.UUCP> m...@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>> [What a display of bigotry]
In article <EIVERSON.90...@hades.nmsu.edu> eive...@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes:
>Uh, sorry to spoil your flame, but when someone's talking about their
>relatives and personal aquaintances, it hardly qualifies as bigotry.
If that's all he'd said, I'd agree, but he went on from there to
say that _most_ "born-agains" were poor, ignorant, uneducated louts.
What he's doing is generalizing from a few unpleasant relatives and
personal acquaintances to "born again" Christians in general. If
someone happened to be mugged by an African-American, would he then be
a non-bigot if he said that most African-Americans were street
criminals? Of course he'd be a bigot.
I'm not saying that ignorant know-nothing "born agains" don't exist.
They do, alas, and I find them extremely embarrassing.
>Free thought isn't possible when everyone is a potential watchdog
>checking to see if your views are politically correct. We could go a
>lot farther in this country if we just accepted the fact not everyone
>is going agree with everyone else, and stopped being so offended all
>the time. ... If you ask me, the country's become pablum-dependent,
>thinking-impaired and is suffering from post-traumatic-fascist syndrome.
Actually, I agree with this completely and enthusiastically. I just
delight in pointing out the hypocricy of people who make statements,
the semantic content of which is, "I hate Christians, because they're
all so prejudiced, bigoted, and intolerant." Better, sometimes when I
point this out, they realize the hypocricy of it, and start thinking
for themselves for a change. (It'd be nice if there was more of that
going around...)
--
Mike Van Pelt "Nobody's life, liberty, or property
Headland Technology/Video 7 are safe while Congress is in session."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Will Rogers
John Berryhill
Does having been a born-again (including teaching sunday school and
door-to-door evangelism), give me the credentials to criticize them
without being called a bigot? I should certainly hope so. I don't
think I have to feel bad when I tell people that when I was a
born-again Christian I was full of crap.
--
John Berryhill
143 King William, Newark DE 19711
Allen WELLS
>... A good majority of them
>are very poorly educated, lower income and frightened by this big wonderful
>complex world of ours. They have absolutely no knowledge of scientific theory,
>or logical reasoning and do not understand the difference between a fact and a
>belief. Many of them also are in the low-average IQ range.
I'm rather impressed to see such a bigoted, self serving, unjustifiable tirade
in sci.skeptic.
For what it is worth, there HAVE been studies done on the demographics of
born-again christians, and they aren't significantly different than the
population as a whole. But even if that wasn't true, your generalizations
are degrading, bigoted, and unreasonable. This is not any different than if you
had made the same statements about blacks, hispanics, amerinds, appalachians,
or welfare federal aid recipients. At least these groups do have documented
demographics which differ from the national mean ...
For what it is worth, I am not a born-again christian. I was raised in a
born-again christian environment. The two major employeers at our church
were IBM and GE - including many managers and engineers. The median
demographics of the people in the church seemed to be somewhat above the
median demographics of the area it was in.
Of course, this sort of thing varies a LOT from church to church. I will
freely admit that churches are a social phenomena which reflects our
society's tendancy to segregate itself. Southern Babtists are much different
culturally and demographically than Free Methodists ...
>Some of them have been turned off by the Jim and Tammy mess but I think it is
>even more sad to think that these 'religious quacks' still get support from
>people who are just too obstinate to change their mind or too blind to see.
I see ... so the presence of quacks is a clear indicator of the lack of
validity of the field? So, Lyndon Larouche is a clear indicator that the
Democrats are stupid and blind? The National Enquirer is a clear indicator
that newspaper readers are stupid and blind?
Or is this one of those cases where bad eggs in causes you agree with are
distracting extremists while bad eggs in causes you disagree with are
symptoms of your opponents stupidity.
Yes, there are some truly bad eggs in televangelism who sucker trusting
followers. There are also plenty of religious fringe groups that have
nothing to do with born-again fundamanetalism and are even worse, like the
Moonies and Scientology (and no, I don't want to have a debate about whether
Scientology is a religion). And there are plenty of quacks on the new-age
circuit conning people and pushing stupid and/or harmful diets and practices.
(A side note: victims of new-age cons are predominantly liberals, does this
mean that liberals are as stupid as born-again christians?) Or how about
those bad eggs in government?
Sigh ... I'll unwind for now - but I hate it when bigotry becomes trendy.
Please forgive me if I got caried away in my flaming.
--
---------- "Aliens have landed, and they're living in my car."
Alien | - Wierd Al
---------- Microsoft has its own opinions. These are all mine, but I share.
Geoff Miller
>In article <105.26...@desire.wright.edu> sbi...@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>I am VERY well acquainted with 'Born Agains' as my mother was one ...
>>A good majority of them are very poorly educated, lower income ...
>>absolutely no knowledge of scientific theory, or logical reasoning ...
>>low-average IQ range.
>
>If, instead of "born agains", you had posted such an article about
>{Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Orientals, ??} you would have been roundly
>and deservedly flamed. Since this particular strain of bigotry is
>currently quite trendy, this may well be the only flame you get.
>
>It's a pity...
>--
Not a valid comparison. Being a Black, Jew Hispanic or Oriental isn't a
matter of choice; being a Born-Again is. Born Again Christians aren't
exempt from criticism. On the contrary, since they are what they are as the
result of a conscious decision, that decision and the factors leading up to
it are very much open to discussion and criticism. Saying things that are
less than flattering about a given group of people is not necessarily
bigotry.
As an aside, I found the original posting to be right on the money. I've known
quite a few of these people myself, and what Mr./Ms. Bishop wrote is right
on target.
I refuse to deny what I see with my own eyes simply because it doesn't
conform to my personal concept of utopia.
Geoff Miller
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Geoff Miller + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.sun.com + Fremont, CA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Allen WELLS
>As an aside, I found the original posting to be right on the money. I've known
>quite a few of these people myself, and what Mr./Ms. Bishop wrote is right
>on target.
You are making a subtle (and, I think, wrong) assumption here, and that is
that the most visible of the 'born-agains' are representative of group.
As with many things, the people who are the most visible are the ones that
are the most fanatic.
Would it be fair to characterize environmentalists on the basis of stressed-
out paranoids who think pouring apple juice down the drain will poison the
environment, or who think that dead aquarium fish must be incinerated to
keep them from starting plagues in the wild?
Would it be fair to characterize people who believe in animal rights on the
basis of the leader of the Animal Liberation Front (which has taken over -
via hostile take-overs - many of the 'animal rights' groups) who I have
heard on the radio calling the SPCA a bunch of Nazis (linking their killing
of unwanted pets to the holocost) and advocating a national welfare state
for unwanted pets (they have the same rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness that people do, after all)?
Every movement has its lunatic fringe, populated by people with serious
emotional and mental problems. When you don't like a group or you
disagree with its aims it is very tempting (and easy) to associate that
group with its lunatic fringe and, thus, discredit the entire movement
without ever needing to think about the real issues.
In my opinion, people who automatically so label born-agains are no better
than people in the 60's who labelled civil rights activists as violent,
deranged revolutionaries by lumping them with the Black Panthers, or who
labelled people in the peace movement as immoral degenerates by lumping
them with the yippies and hippies. (How many of you had some adult
insultingly call you a 'hippy' because of your clothes or hair at some
point ... raise your hands ... thought so ...)
Jordan Gottlieb
> >absolutely no knowledge of scientific theory, or logical reasoning ...
> >low-average IQ range.
>
> If, instead of "born agains", you had posted such an article about
> {Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Orientals, ??} you would have been roundly
> and deservedly flamed. Since this particular strain of bigotry is
> currently quite trendy, this may well be the only flame you get.
>
> It's a pity...
> --
> Mike Van Pelt Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse
> Headland Technology/Video 7 computer interfaces --
There is a world of difference between saying what was said about
a 'born again' and about saying the same about a Black, Oriental,
or Hispanic. The former refers to a person based on the conscious
decisions that he has made in relation to religion, etc. The Later
would be making a judgement based on nothing.
I don't think it's unfair to make generalizations based on the religius
beliefs of a person. It accurately reflects their opinions, level of
reasoning ability, etc. To say that the above statement is bigotry
is similar to saying that it is bigotry to call all murderers bad people.
I'm not going to say that such a statement it not bigotry, but it
is at least based on decisions made by the people in question and one's
personal opinion of those decisions.
Jordan.
igloo
Paul Hager
RE: Born Agains.
Falwell, Swaggert, and Jim and Tammy are Born Agains.
But so is Jimmy Carter.
Personally speaking, whatever his failings as a chief executive,
Jimmy's efforts as an "elder statesman" to further world peace
and as a concerned citizen to house the homeless have earned my
respect. Jimmy is OK in my book.
Stereotyping is a dangerous business.
--
paul hager hag...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
"It's a terrible thing to lose your mind."
-- Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle
Ted Powell
>In article <16...@male.EBay.Sun.COM> geo...@purplehaze.UUCP (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>As an aside, I found the original posting to be right on the money. I've known
>>quite a few of these people myself, and what Mr./Ms. Bishop wrote is right
>>on target.
>
>You are making a subtle (and, I think, wrong) assumption here, and that is
>that the most visible of the 'born-agains' are representative of group.
>
>As with many things, the people who are the most visible are the ones that
>are the most fanatic.
And these are the ones that most people (rationally or otherwise) will
perceive as being most likely to have an impact on their own lives.
Similarly, before allowing a child to go to a particular swimming hole,
they will likely consider the safety of the deeper parts, being
relatively unconcerned with the fact that most of it is only two feet
deep. The kid might well ask, "Would it be fair to characterize this
swimming hole on the basis of the part that's over my head?" and the kid
might well be right. But the pattern of reacting to greatest perceived
danger rather than to some sort of average is likely to stay with us for
a while yet.
This is, of course, a rather crude way of looking at the world, but
I don't think that simply deploring it will do much towards making it go
away. One approach that might help is offering alternate
characterizations which correspond more closely to sets of people that
are genuinely objects of concern. For example:
If someone were in a position to have some sort of impact on my life,
I'd be more concerned about where they were on the RWA scale than
whether they were "born again." For a discussion of the RWA (Right Wing
Authoritarianism) scale, see Bob Altemeyer's "Enemies of Freedom".
Of course, asking someone "Will you respond to this little
questionnaire I have here?" is not as easy as asking "Are you born
again?" (or simply waiting a few minutes to see whether they ask "Are
you a Christian?" :-). But then, nobody said that being fair was easy.
--
t...@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!eslvcr!ted (Ted Powell)
Dan Hepner
and tell us the defintion of 'bigot' without even reading a
dictionary.
bigot \big-et\ one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own
church, party, belief, or opinion.
(Webster's New Collegiate)
-----------
Sure looks like Van Pelt was on the money to me.
Dan Hepner