Lilith Fair Warning
Valerie Gould
putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
support this terrible organization.
Michael, OKC wrote:
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, June 16, 1999
> CONTACT: Nancy Coleman, David Elliot or Lela Shepard
> at 202-467-4999
>
> OH MY! FALWELL MAGAZINE WARNS THAT
> LILITH FAIR CELEBRATES 'DEMONIC LEGEND'
>
> First he's troubled by a cute little teletubby. Now it's independent
> women musicians.
>
> The June issue of TV minister Jerry Falwell's National Liberty
> Journal contains an article headlined, "Secrets of the Lilith Fair"
> that warns parents about the so-called demonic legend behind the
> popular Lilith Fair concert series.
>
> Lilith Fair, featuring some of the nation's best women musicians,
> was launched by singer Sarah McLachlan in 1997. It spanned 37 cities
> that summer and was the top-grossing festival that year, according
> to Pollstar, a concert trade magazine. "[Lilith] was a great example
> of strong women out there doing something they love, doing something
> really positive," recalls McLachlan.
>
> Positive? Not according to Falwell's National Liberty Journal. "With
> the Lilith Fair concerts drawing such media attention in its third
> year, National Liberty Journal is presenting this article as an
> information tool to parents who may not wish their children to
> participate in a music festival that celebrates a pagan figure," the
> magazine warned darkly. "Many young people no doubt attend the
> Lilith Fair concerts not knowing the demonic legend of the mystical
> woman whose name the series manifests."
>
> Lilith is a figure from ancient Hebrew mythology who takes on a
> variety of forms. According to various mythologies, she has been
> called Adam's first wife, a fiery, female spirit and a wild-haired,
> winged seductress who tempts men in their sleep. Some see her as the
> first feminist because of her independent ways.
>
> Carole Shields, president of the People For the American Way
> Foundation, reacted to the National Liberty Journal article by
> offering to purchase Rev. Falwell a ticket to the popular concert
> series. "But he'll have to come to Washington, because I don't think
> the tour is going through Lynchburg," Shields said.
Amie or KRC
wrote:
>I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>support this terrible organization.
So what? You don't have to go to the show, and I would think that
the best means of not supporting the tour would be to simply not buy a
ticket. And besides, considering that the founder of the tour, Sarah
MacLachlan, is a Canadian, she could probably care less about some
whiny American like Falwell attempting to demonize her very successful
tour. It's been the highest-grossing tour of the past two summers and
it probably will be again this year. I'm sure MacLachlan is crying
all the way to the bank over Falwell's idiotic pronouncements.
KRC
Patrick L. Humphrey
>I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>support this terrible organization.
[zap!]
Here's a radical idea for you, Valerie:
if it's so bloody offensive to you, DON'T GO -- and do the rest of us the
courtesy of making up our own minds about it, okay? Or is that too complex a
concept for you?
--Patrick L. "why do I get the feeling Valerie was hanging around the Gay
Pride parade last weekend?" Humphrey
Bud
Valerie Gould wrote in message <377CA512...@ionet.net>...
>I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>support this terrible organization.
>
>
for "sheeple" like yourself to judge others without making the slightest
effort to help others help themselves.
ta...@xtra.co.nz
wrote:
>I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>support this terrible organization.
I support Planned Parenthood. I just wish I could remove all your ova
before you have a chance to breed.
*****
"For me eroticism must be ugly, the aesthetic always divine,
and death beautiful." - S. Dali
*****
John
searching for a doc. who would charge a fortune and may or may not be
competent. Those days are really not so far behind us and many in this
country would like to see them return. Hey, you stood a good chance of
loosing two lives then instead of one. And I do agree, don't breed (hope
it's not too late).
As another person commented - How many adopted children do you have?
Joel Olson
> ...
> Lilith Fair, featuring some of the nation's best women
musicians,
<quot>
July 21, 1999 , Starplex Amphitheatre, Dallas, TX
Tickets On Sale Now: $31.75 - $54.25
Sarah McLachlan, Sheryl Crow, Shawn Colvin, Mya, Luscious
Jackson, Dido, Aterciopelados, Ana Egge, Fleming & John,
Deborah Vial and Trish Murphy.
July 20, 1999 South Park Meadows, Austin TX; Prices:
$34.00 - $54.00
Sarah McLachlan, Sheryl Crow, Shawn Colvin, Monica, Luscious
Jackson, Dido, Aterciopelados, Ana Egge, Fleming & John,
Kitty Gordon, and Trish Murphy.
1999 $1 PER TICKET RECIPIENTS :
DATE - CITY - COMMUNITY GROUP DONATION
7/08 - Vancouver, BC - Downtown Eastside Women's Centre
7/09 - George, WA - Eastside Domestic Violence Center
7/10 - George, WA - Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault
Program
7/11 - Portland, OR - Domestic Violence Resource Center
7/13 - San Francisco, CA - Support Network for Battered
Women
7/14 - San Francisco, CA - Center for Domestic Violence
Prevention
7/16 - San Diego, CA - Women's Resource Center
7/17 - Los Angeles, CA - Proyecto Pastoral at Dolores
Mission
7/18 - Phoenix, AZ - Villa De Fidelis
7/20 - Austin, TX - Families in Crisis
7/21 - Dallas, TX - New Beginning Center
7/23 - Atlanta, GA - Women's Resource Center
7/24 - Atlanta, GA - Partnership Against Domestic Violence
7/25 - Nashville, TN - Renewal House
7/27 - Charlotte, NC - Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis
Center
7/28 - Washington, DC - House of Ruth DC
7/30 - Camden, NJ - Women In Transition
7/31 - Hershey, PA - YWCA of Greater Harrisburg
8/01 - Rochester, NY - Finger Lakes House of Hope
8/03 - Boston, MA - Respond
8/04 - Hartford, CT - Network Against Domestic Abuse
8/06 - New York, NY - Suffolk County Coalition Against
Domestic Violence
8/07 - Holmdel, NJ - Women's Crisis Services
8/08 - Holmdel, NJ - Providence House
8/10 - Columbus, OH - Haven House
8/11 - Cincinnati, OH - Women Helping Women
8/13 - Pittsburgh, PA - Women's Shelter & Rape Crisis Center
8/14 - Detroit, MI - La CADA
8/15 - Detroit, MI - Women's Justice Center
8/17 - Cleveland, OH - Battered Womens Shelter
8/18 - Indianapolis, IN - Coburn Place
8/19 - Chicago, IL - Crisis Center for South Suburbia
8/21 - Toronto, ONT - Red Door Shelter
8/22 - Toronto, ONT - Ernestines
8/24 - Milwaukee, WI - Women's Horizons, Inc.
8/25 - Minneapolis, MN - Red Wing
8/26 - Bonner Springs, KS - Women's Transitional Care
Services
8/28 - Denver, CO - Family Tree Women in Crisis Shelter
8/29 - Denver, CO - Alternatives to Family Violence
8/31 - Edmonton, ALB - Wings
</quot>
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/8151/lilithfair.h
tml
<quot>
Lilith Expands Non-Profit Roster
In addition to presenting a women's shelter in each market
with a donation from ticket sales, Lilith Fair has also
invited a number of national non-profit organizations to set
up booths and tables in the Lilith Fair village at each show
to present Lilith Fair patrons with information about their
organizations. Non-profits selected include:
The Breast Cancer Fund
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network
LIFEbeat
Planned Parenthood
Global Exchange
Laubach Literacy
NOW
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Amensty International
We are proud to be associated with all of the groups on the
list and encourage all the Lilith Fair concert goers to stop
by their websites before the tour and then to visit the
booths in the village on the day of the concert.
In addition to the national groups, regional and local
groups will also be present in the Lilith Village.
</quot>
http://www.lilithfair.com/
---------------------------------------
Bicker Stumper
---------------------------------------
Jerry Morgan
>Better Planned Parenthood than a coat hangar in some back room, or
>searching for a doc. who would charge a fortune and may or may not be
>competent. Those days are really not so far behind us and many in this
>country would like to see them return. Hey, you stood a good chance of
>loosing two lives then instead of one. And I do agree, don't breed (hope
>it's not too late).
>
Some folks don't realize that abortion existed long before Roe v.
Wade. Evidently they also believe that if legal abortion ceased to
exist in the U.S. that no one would be performing them illegally or
that no one would travel outside the U.S. borders to obtain a legal
abortion elsewhere. What's really weird about such folks is that many
of them also oppose sex education programs in schools, programs which
tend to reduce the need for abortion.
Oh by the way, "fundies" don't breed.
They "multiply", "be plentiful" or "be fruitful". To do otherwise
would mean that they actually enjoyed sexual intercourse.
>As another person commented - How many adopted children do you have?
>
I can't answer for the "fundies" but I've "multiplied" twice, "been
plentiful" twice and been "fruitful" once for a total of 5 Morgan
Munchkins over the course of a lotta' years. Owing to all this
multiplying, plentifuling and fruitfuling we never did any "adopting".
After all, these single wide's don't provide a lot of room. ;-)
- - - - -
If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?
George Carlin
- - - - -
Joel Olson
>> Better Planned Parenthood than a coat hangar ...
>
> Some folks don't realize that abortion existed long before
> Roe v. Wade. Evidently they also believe that if legal
abortion
> ceased to exist in the U.S. that no one would be
performing
> them illegally or that no one would travel outside the
U.S.
> borders to obtain a legal abortion elsewhere. What's
really
> weird about such folks is that many of them also oppose
sex
> education programs in schools, programs which tend to
> reduce the need for abortion.
>
patients this procedure. There are numerous reasons to
terminate a pregnancy, and there will be more in the years
ahead as more tests for genetic abnormalities become
available. As I recall, it had something to do with
government funding. Do the HMOs also restrict abortions?
Reversing the hospital cave-in would allow PP to get back to
their original priorities which, I believe, placed birth
control and STDs much higher than abortion.
> Oh by the way, "fundies" don't breed. They "multiply",
> "be plentiful" or "be fruitful". To do otherwise would
mean
> that they actually enjoyed sexual intercourse.
>
That brings out another contradiction. All this retrograde
furor helps to further reduce the already low funding of
research on various sexual problems, and inhibits
researchers from entering these fields. The result is that
when you look at a book on STDs, e.g. M. Corsaro & C.
Korzeniowsky or Stephen Zinner, there are many grab-bag
labels, like NGU, PID, NSP applied to groups of maladies
that need to be invesitgated. Techniques for correcting
tubal scarring apparently have not been developed. The
result (and herein lies the advertised contradiction) is
epidemics like Chlamydia, which don't just end a particular
pregnancy, they often render the woman permanently sterile.
Ending this one would save a lot more healthy wanted babies
than dissing PP could ever hope for.
-------------------------------------
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. -
Anonymous
-------------------------------------
Peter Gettys
>
> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, Valerie Gould <sgo...@ionet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
> >support this terrible organization.
>
> the best means of not supporting the tour would be to simply not buy a
> ticket. And besides, considering that the founder of the tour, Sarah
> MacLachlan, is a Canadian, she could probably care less about some
> whiny American like Falwell attempting to demonize her very successful
> tour. It's been the highest-grossing tour of the past two summers and
> it probably will be again this year. I'm sure MacLachlan is crying
> all the way to the bank over Falwell's idiotic pronouncements.
>
> KRC
Did you also know that this is the final Lilith Fair?!? Mclachlan get's
very little for planning most of it herself. Before you say she has her
underlings do it I'll say nope she does most of it herself and she's
tired of doing it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
-Peter G.<syt...@webzone.net.nospam>-------------------------
-Rana's Vintage Technologies--http://www.bigdog.tulsa.ok.us/-
--IBM PS/2------IBM XT------IBM CONVERTIBLE------DATAVUE 25--
-------------------------------------------------------------
x-no-archive: yes
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
<snip>
>I'm a little hazy on how they got the hospitals to deny
>patients this procedure. There are numerous reasons to
>terminate a pregnancy, and there will be more in the years
>ahead as more tests for genetic abnormalities become
>available. As I recall, it had something to do with
>government funding. Do the HMOs also restrict abortions?
>
Legal abortion to save a woman's life existed prior to Roe v. Wade.
However, as with most medical procedures one can and will find doctors
that disagree on not only the "risks" of a specific condition but the
best course of treatment for that condition. In this scenario the
patient had to "shop around" for a doctor willing to perform the
procedure or a hospital willing to permit it to be done.
>Reversing the hospital cave-in would allow PP to get back to
>their original priorities which, I believe, placed birth
>control and STDs much higher than abortion.
>
As it's name implies, the primary goal of "Planned Parenthood" was and
should be to provide counseling to those clients seeking info on
family planning.
The fact that PP has come to the forefront in providing abortion
information is regrettable but a reflection of the hysteria that
ensues from the issue of abortion.
- - - - -
The Older I get - The better I *WAS*.
Amie or KRC
<syt...@webzone.net.nospam> wrote:
--cut--
>Did you also know that this is the final Lilith Fair?!? Mclachlan get's
>very little for planning most of it herself. Before you say she has her
>underlings do it I'll say nope she does most of it herself and she's
>tired of doing it.
I can read Rolling Stone, why would you think I'd say it was her
underlings? And BTW, the "crying all the way to the bank..." comment
is a very old showbiz cliche' that originated when Liberace was
slammed by a critic in the 1950's - he said "I cried all the way to
the bank" when he was asked about the slam. It simply means that I
doubt MacLachlan or anyone involved with Lilith is particularly
worried about the "threat" of Falwell, given the shows' success. It's
kind of like the Disney "boycott" a few years back...
KRC
Valerie Gould
Valerie Gould
Not worth my time.
"Patrick L. Humphrey" wrote:
> Valerie Gould <sgo...@ionet.net> writes:
>
> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
> >support this terrible organization.
>
Valerie Gould
Now who is twisted?
Michael, OKC wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, in <377CA512...@ionet.net>,
> Valerie Gould expressed the following:
>
> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
> >support this terrible organization.
>
> Planned Parenthood has nothing on the christian church where the murder of
> innocent men, women, and children is concerned. Perhaps if you looked a
> little closer at your beloved church you might find it hard to continue
> supporting yet another terrible organization...
Valerie Gould
I so hope you come to Jesus before it is too late. Your attitude is grievous
to the Lord.
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, Valerie Gould <sgo...@ionet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
> >support this terrible organization.
>
Valerie Gould
That is nothing but a spirit of murder. Please change your attitudes.
John wrote:
> Better Planned Parenthood than a coat hangar in some back room, or
> searching for a doc. who would charge a fortune and may or may not be
> competent. Those days are really not so far behind us and many in this
> country would like to see them return. Hey, you stood a good chance of
> loosing two lives then instead of one. And I do agree, don't breed (hope
> it's not too late).
>
> As another person commented - How many adopted children do you have?
>
Valerie Gould
their wedding night to make love. That is how Jesus created sex for the
marriage bed not for the back seat of a car or a hotel room.
Jerry Morgan wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 03:54:27 GMT, John <theha...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Better Planned Parenthood than a coat hangar in some back room, or
> >searching for a doc. who would charge a fortune and may or may not be
> >competent. Those days are really not so far behind us and many in this
> >country would like to see them return. Hey, you stood a good chance of
> >loosing two lives then instead of one. And I do agree, don't breed (hope
> >it's not too late).
> >
>
> Some folks don't realize that abortion existed long before Roe v.
> Wade. Evidently they also believe that if legal abortion ceased to
> exist in the U.S. that no one would be performing them illegally or
> that no one would travel outside the U.S. borders to obtain a legal
> abortion elsewhere. What's really weird about such folks is that many
> of them also oppose sex education programs in schools, programs which
> tend to reduce the need for abortion.
>
> Oh by the way, "fundies" don't breed.
>
> They "multiply", "be plentiful" or "be fruitful". To do otherwise
> would mean that they actually enjoyed sexual intercourse.
>
> >As another person commented - How many adopted children do you have?
> >
>
> I can't answer for the "fundies" but I've "multiplied" twice, "been
> plentiful" twice and been "fruitful" once for a total of 5 Morgan
> Munchkins over the course of a lotta' years. Owing to all this
> multiplying, plentifuling and fruitfuling we never did any "adopting".
>
> After all, these single wide's don't provide a lot of room. ;-)
>
> - - - - -
> If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?
> George Carlin
Bud
Valerie Gould wrote in message <3783A8DD...@ionet.net>...
>Go to their web site if you don't believe him.
Who cares what Falwell says? He thinks Tinky Winky is gay. Too bad for you
(and Falwell) that this is America and people have the freedom to disagree
with religious leaders. It's not like the "good old days" where you could
burn (or drown or hang) those who didn't share your religious views. Live
with it.
>
>Amie or KRC wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, Valerie Gould <sgo...@ionet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>> >support this terrible organization.
>>
Pete
> The thing that is going to stop abortion is abstinence. Couples waiting until
> their wedding night to make love. That is how Jesus created sex for the
> marriage bed not for the back seat of a car or a hotel room.
>
what if you're married (as I once was) and decide to do it in the back of
a car or motel room? (with whom you're married to, of course...)
Pete
Bud
Valerie Gould wrote in message <3783A98A...@ionet.net>...
>So you support the murder of the unborn? The sucking out of their brains?
>Now who is twisted?
God hates people who bear false witness Valerie. Nowhere does Michael make
any statement on his beliefs about abortion. I hope you like hot weather
because you'll see a lot of it in Hell if you don't stop bearing false
witness.
>
>Michael, OKC wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, in <377CA512...@ionet.net>,
>> Valerie Gould expressed the following:
>>
>> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>> >support this terrible organization.
>>
Bud
Valerie Gould wrote in message <3783A9DF...@ionet.net>...
>so you support the murder of the unborn the sucking out of their brains?
>I so hope you come to Jesus before it is too late. Your attitude is
grievous
>to the Lord.
>
Funny that you should say that Valerie since God hates people who bear false
witness -- like you continue to do. The more I read your posts, the more
I';m convinced that you're one of the false apostles that Paul warns us
against. No one who lies as much as you do, based on your posts, could be a
"true Christian." Jesus must be weeping at so sad a sight as you claiming
to be a Christian.
>ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, Valerie Gould <sgo...@ionet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>> >support this terrible organization.
>>
Bud
Valerie Gould wrote in message <3783A98A...@ionet.net>...
>So you support the murder of the unborn? The sucking out of their brains?
>Now who is twisted?
>
Valerie, before you continue to slander someone, you should beaware of what
the Bible says:
"And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they
be blameless.
Women in like manner [must be] grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful
in all things."
1Tim 3:11.
" Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers
nor male prostitutes nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor
SLANDERERSnor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. I Cor. 6:9
As the Bible says, Valerie, remove the beam from your own eye before you try
to remove the speck from someone else's eye. Your soul is in grave danger
unless you repent and turn from your wicked ways by slandering others.
>Michael, OKC wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 06:40:03 -0500, in <377CA512...@ionet.net>,
>> Valerie Gould expressed the following:
>>
>> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>> >support this terrible organization.
>>
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
>The thing that is going to stop abortion is abstinence. Couples waiting until
>their wedding night to make love. That is how Jesus created sex for the
>marriage bed not for the back seat of a car or a hotel room.
>
Jesus created sex????
I've heard that God allegedly did that back in the good old days of
the Garden of Eden?
By the way, who officiated at the wedding of Adam and Eve and in what
courthouse was their "marriage" legalized or should that be
legitimized?
And while we are at it, if everyone originated from Adam and Eve how
ya' gonna' deal with the incest issues. Do you condone incest? Think
it's a great idea?
And of course "abstinence" works wonders, just look at what "Just Say
NO to drugs" has done with the drug abuse rates. If "Just Say NO to
sex" works as well we are gonna' have a population explosion the likes
of which has never seen before.
- - - - -
How many members of the Westboro Baptist Church does it
take to change a light bulb? NONE, There is no light there
only a darkness akin to that in Germany in the late '30's.
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
>I am so grieved at how many on this board support the murder of the unborn.
>That is nothing but a spirit of murder. Please change your attitudes.
>
Only if you will change yours.
It's just that simple. Really.
- - - - -
When a man talks dirty to a woman, its sexual harassment.
When a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $3.95 per minute.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>"Patrick L. Humphrey" wrote:
>> Valerie Gould <sgo...@ionet.net> writes:
>> >I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
>> >putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
>> >innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
>> >support this terrible organization.
>> [zap!]
>>Here's a radical idea for you, Valerie:
>>if it's so bloody offensive to you, DON'T GO -- and do the rest of us the
>>courtesy of making up our own minds about it, okay? Or is that too complex a
>>concept for you?
>>--Patrick L. "why do I get the feeling Valerie was hanging around the Gay
>> Pride parade last weekend?" Humphrey
>No I didn't attend the parade. You were wrong I didn't attend it.
Well, considering that the one I was talking about -- which my wife and I were
present at -- was here in *Houston*, I'd hope you could have found something
to whine about closer to home than that.
>Not worth my time.
Your soulmates at the Jesus Hates Everyone But Us! Church of Mt. Enterprise
were there for it, and Dale and I had fun taunting them.
Here's to hoping you actually figure out how to emulate that Jesus guy you say
you follow, someday, rather than make excuses for trying to peddle your
beliefs as absolute truth and then whining because people have too much sense
than to swallow your fairy tale...
--Patrick L. "thankful Dale and I were both raised better'n that" Humphrey
Patrick L. Humphrey
>The thing that is going to stop abortion is abstinence. Couples waiting until
>their wedding night to make love. That is how Jesus created sex for the
>marriage bed not for the back seat of a car or a hotel room.
*Jesus* created sex?
Sheesh. Where _did_ Cain and Abel come from, again?
Nothing like a Jeeeeeeezoiid who can't even read the book she wants to belt
others with...
--Patrick L. "Jesus, save me from your followers" Humphrey
Bud
Michael OKC wrote in message <378eb98f...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>Michael, OKC wrote:
>>
>>> Planned Parenthood has nothing on the christian church where the murder
of
>>> innocent men, women, and children is concerned. Perhaps if you looked a
>>> little closer at your beloved church you might find it hard to continue
>>> supporting yet another terrible organization...
>>>
>>
>>So you support the murder of the unborn? The sucking out of their brains?
>>Now who is twisted?
>
I
>just want to know how you moralize the obvious contradiction in your
>opposition to Planned Parenthood based upon the murder of innocents with
your
>admitted support for the christian church which has been at the heart of
>countless such murders and deaths in it's bloody 2000 year history.
>
>Damn you, woman, learn to read and comprehend before you come and play with
>the big dogs! Straw man arguments won't get you far in this venue,
sweetie.
>
What do you want to bet that Valerie uses some form of birth control. She
doesn't realize that she has the founder of Planned Parenthood to thank for
the available of safe, effective birth control methods. (Interesting point,
Japan is still debating whether or not to make birth control pills legal in
Japan -- almost 30 years after their introduction.) I also bet that Valerie
doesn't know that the Oklahoma Planned Parenthood has NEVER performed an
abortion -- they do however, provide information on local doctors/clinics
that DO do abortions. I also bet that Valerie doesn't know that the much of
Planned Parenthood's efforts is to help mothers-to-be get prenatal care so
that their babies have a better chance of being born healthily.
Mickel Rinkel
read more about their history and their geneology then they too would see
whom the pursecuted truely are.
All I have to say is that some people need to "GET A LIFE" it's apparent
that they do not have one or why would they air their snow white laundry
here for all to see. Isn't that mud your slinging?????
Just a few words from a "PROUD PAGAN"!!!
Bright Blessings To You And Yours;
Nephyria
Valerie Gould wrote:
> I have to agree with Rev. Falwell. This celebration is wrong. The people
> putting it on support Planned Parenthood. They support the murder of
> innocent babies! Ask them go to their web site. You will see they
> support this terrible organization.
>
> Michael, OKC wrote:
>
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, June 16, 1999
> > CONTACT: Nancy Coleman, David Elliot or Lela Shepard
> > at 202-467-4999
> >
> > OH MY! FALWELL MAGAZINE WARNS THAT
> > LILITH FAIR CELEBRATES 'DEMONIC LEGEND'
> >
> > First he's troubled by a cute little teletubby. Now it's independent
> > women musicians.
> >
> > The June issue of TV minister Jerry Falwell's National Liberty
> > Journal contains an article headlined, "Secrets of the Lilith Fair"
> > that warns parents about the so-called demonic legend behind the
> > popular Lilith Fair concert series.
> >
> > Lilith Fair, featuring some of the nation's best women musicians,
> > was launched by singer Sarah McLachlan in 1997. It spanned 37 cities
> > that summer and was the top-grossing festival that year, according
> > to Pollstar, a concert trade magazine. "[Lilith] was a great example
> > of strong women out there doing something they love, doing something
> > really positive," recalls McLachlan.
> >
> > Positive? Not according to Falwell's National Liberty Journal. "With
> > the Lilith Fair concerts drawing such media attention in its third
> > year, National Liberty Journal is presenting this article as an
> > information tool to parents who may not wish their children to
> > participate in a music festival that celebrates a pagan figure," the
> > magazine warned darkly. "Many young people no doubt attend the
> > Lilith Fair concerts not knowing the demonic legend of the mystical
> > woman whose name the series manifests."
> >
> > Lilith is a figure from ancient Hebrew mythology who takes on a
> > variety of forms. According to various mythologies, she has been
> > called Adam's first wife, a fiery, female spirit and a wild-haired,
> > winged seductress who tempts men in their sleep. Some see her as the
> > first feminist because of her independent ways.
> >
> > Carole Shields, president of the People For the American Way
> > Foundation, reacted to the National Liberty Journal article by
> > offering to purchase Rev. Falwell a ticket to the popular concert
> > series. "But he'll have to come to Washington, because I don't think
> > the tour is going through Lynchburg," Shields said.
Mickel Rinkel
make tons of money " and never have I seen a time that I "CRIED ALL THE WAY
TO THE BANK"... The music industry here in Oklahoma is suffering
tremendousely and it is because of these boycotting radicals and their fears
of being sedduced by a female. Afteral whasn't it them who scorned and
chastised the female for all these years. So holy they are.
It is a shame when my wife and I planned a trip to Dallas just to share a
very wonderful experience with our daughter who was 4 years of age at that
time. We ended up having to turn around and drive almost the entire way back
to Oklahoma to find a Hotel or Motel in which to stay. We finally found one
that had one room available. It was all due to the Baptist Convention
boycotting Walt Disney World (which is several hundred miles away) had taken
all the Places for lodging. Needless to say that wasn't the end of the
story. Our pick-up overheated and we couldn't even exit the interstate due
to the enormous flow of traffic that stood still for hours at a time. That
ruined our truck as well as our trip to Six Flags.
Again A Word From A Proud Pagan
Nephyria
Oh yea, just in case some of you are thinking that I am hiding behind a
false identity...
Mickel S. Rinkel
Alternative Music House, Inc.
1024 S.W. 103rd Street
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73139
ta...@xtra.co.nz
wrote:
>so you support the murder of the unborn the sucking out of their brains?
>I so hope you come to Jesus before it is too late. Your attitude is grievous
>to the Lord.
I support the sucking out of your brains...but it's hardly worth the
trouble. I bet there isn't even a mouthful in there.
*****
A lady came up to me on the street and pointed at my
suede jacket. 'You know a cow was murdered for that
jacket'? She sneered. I replied in a psychotic tone
'I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now I'll have
to kill you too.'
*****
Amie or KRC
<rsmi...@telepath.com> wrote:
>Well I am a Promoter myself and let me iron out some facts here. I " do not
>make tons of money " and never have I seen a time that I "CRIED ALL THE WAY
>TO THE BANK"... The music industry here in Oklahoma is suffering
>tremendousely and it is because of these boycotting radicals and their fears
>of being sedduced by a female.
I've spent damn near ten years in the music industry in Oklahoma, as
a musician and promoter, and I never noticed that Sarah MacLachlan was
an Okie. I was talking about Lilith, not things on a local level.
And yes, the local industry has had its struggles as of late, but it's
still vibrant and will continue to be. Honestly, I only once
encounted any boycotting radicals at a show I was involved with, and
it still went off without any problems. IMO, the biggest stumbling
block to being successful with original music on the local level isn't
people like Valerie, but those who don't want to see any live music
that doesn't consist of some warmed-over Lynyrd Skynrd or Bad Company
covers.
>Afteral whasn't it them who scorned and chastised the female for all these years. So holy they are.
>It is a shame when my wife and I planned a trip to Dallas just to share a
>very wonderful experience with our daughter who was 4 years of age at that
>time. We ended up having to turn around and drive almost the entire way back
>to Oklahoma to find a Hotel or Motel in which to stay. We finally found one
>that had one room available. It was all due to the Baptist Convention
>boycotting Walt Disney World (which is several hundred miles away) had taken
>all the Places for lodging. Needless to say that wasn't the end of the
>story. Our pick-up overheated and we couldn't even exit the interstate due
>to the enormous flow of traffic that stood still for hours at a time. That
>ruined our truck as well as our trip to Six Flags.
Well, the Baptists have a right to meet just like anyone else, and
if I'm not mistaken - the Southern Baptist Convention is headquartered
in Dallas, which would explain their presence. Being a former travel
agent, I would advise anyone to reserve their rooms in advance, as you
never know what you're going to run into when you get to your
destination. And besides, if I had known the Baptists were in town, I
would have avoided the place at all costs, anyway, as I really
wouldn't want to hang with them.
KRC
ta...@xtra.co.nz
>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:24:03 -0500, in <3783A953...@ionet.net>,
>Valerie Gould expressed the following:
>
>>No I didn't attend the parade. You were wrong I didn't attend it.
>>Not worth my time.
>
>All those lost homosexual souls are "not worth you time?" You're no
>christian, Val, you're an arrogant, elitist bitch. You're a prime example of
>why I will never darken the door of another christian church for the rest of
>my wonderfully happy and fulfilling life.
Ah Michael, you'd love it down here! The Prime Minister attended our
"Hero Parade" (the annual gay pride extravaganza) the Mayors of two
different cities were IN the parade. Several churches had floats in
the parade. New Zealand may have problems with racial bigotry, but
homosexual bigotry is NOT acceptable. The television commercials often
have gay couples in them. There are plenty of Gay Christian churches
here. Hell, after the Hero, the PM actually said she'd look into the
issue of Homosexual marriage. She's still dawdling, but at least the
subject was addressed publically.
Joel Olson
> According to new reports sex education is working
> as kids are starting to refrain from sex. Problem is,
> there has been an explosion of oral sex seeing it as
> a safe alternative from AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy.
Sounds more like a solution than a problem.
-------------------------------------
It is an infantile superstition of the human spirit that
virginity would be thought a virtue and not the barrier that
separates ignorance from knowledge. - Voltaire
-------------------------------------
Pete
(Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
> I can't help but wonder if the publicity surrounding "Bill and
> Monica's Oral Sex Affair" has contributed to the popularity of oral
> sex among teens.
>
Damn, when I was kid, playing president meant blowing up russia, not
being blown. "I've declared Russia illegal - bombing starts in 5 minutes"
Pete
(child of the 70s and early 80s)
Joel Olson
> The better "educated" kids are, the less likely they
> will fall victim to a wide range of dangers and
> certainly there's less danger of contracting AIDS
> via oral sex than via intercourse. However, most
> STD's are transmittable via oral sex. And of course
> oral sex does eliminate the chances of an unwanted
> pregnancy while at the same time fulfilling the
> dreams of many teenage boys.
Maybe times have changed. When (and where) I was a kid, oral
sex was considered contemptible.
> I can't help but wonder if the publicity surrounding
> "Bill and Monica's Oral Sex Affair" has contributed
> to the popularity of oral sex among teens.
You must be prescient! I just happened onto C-span2 this
morning and there was Gordon Liddy claiming that very thing.
Speaking to "Clinton's Legacy".
-----------------------------------------
So anyway this guy goes to see a $10 hooker and gets the
crabs. He goes back to complain and she says; "What do you
expect for $10.... lobster?"
-----------------------------------------
Amie or KRC
>On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 15:55:15 GMT, Michael OKC wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 14:24:03 -0500, in <3783A953...@ionet.net>,
>>Valerie Gould expressed the following:
>>
>>>No I didn't attend the parade. You were wrong I didn't attend it.
>>>Not worth my time.
>>
>>All those lost homosexual souls are "not worth you time?" You're no
>>christian, Val, you're an arrogant, elitist bitch. You're a prime example of
>>why I will never darken the door of another christian church for the rest of
>>my wonderfully happy and fulfilling life.
>
>Ah Michael, you'd love it down here! The Prime Minister attended our
>"Hero Parade" (the annual gay pride extravaganza) the Mayors of two
>different cities were IN the parade. Several churches had floats in
>the parade. New Zealand may have problems with racial bigotry, but
>homosexual bigotry is NOT acceptable. The television commercials often
>have gay couples in them.
Surprisingly enough, I haven't seen any major backlash against the
popular NBC show "Will and Grace", in which one of the title
characters is a gay man. That might be because the fact he's gay
isn't as in-your-face as "Ellen" was (nor is the actor gay in real
life), but it's been mentioned several times in the handful of
episodes I've seen. I suspect that like Tinky-Winky (who'd been
"outed" some time ago in Europe), that it's only a matter of time
until Falwell and comapny realize there's a show like "Will and Grace"
out there and decide to raise some hell about it.
KRC
Amie or KRC
wrote:
>so you support the murder of the unborn the sucking out of their brains?
>I so hope you come to Jesus before it is too late. Your attitude is grievous
>to the Lord.
Ah yes, the old Partial-Birth Abortion red herring - it was only a
matter of time! Let's use the most extreme example possible and try
to paint it as the norm in order to win some points. Sorry, Valerie,
we're smarter than that. Did you know that according to the AMA,
Partial-Birth Abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions
performed in this country? And did you also know that in all
documented cases, every one was performed to save the life of the
mother? There has never been a documented case of the Partial-Birth
procedure being used in an "on-demand" situation - you can't just walk
into a clinic two days before you're going to drop and get an abortion
- that's a lie perpetuated by people like you in order to try and win
converts. Hell, there's only a handful of places in the entire nation
where you can get an abortion in the third trimester unless your life
is in jeopardy, and Oklahoma ain't one of them.
KRC
Amie or KRC
>I've wondered about that myself... The rr was all atwitter about Ellen and
>they've basically ignored Will and Grace. My personal belief is that all of
>that will change if the writers attempt to introduce a boyfriend for Will.
>Right now it's all cute, funny, and easily ignored, but the uptight folks
>won't care too much for even vague insinuations that Will is sharing a bed and
>sexual relations with another man.
That probably will be the litmus test. Plus, another reason that it
may have passed under their radar is that Will isn't a "typical" gay
man to the religious right - in other words, he isn't effeminate. A
channel surfer who watches a few minutes of the show isn't probably
going to pick up that the character is gay unless they happen on the
show at the right time. Plus, with "Ellen" you had the fact that
Ellen DeGeneres came out for real at the same time as her fictional
character, so that thrust a spotlight on her and her show. Like I
said before, I wouldn't be surprised that the fact the guy who plays
Will (and for that matter, the guy who plays his "stereotypical queen"
friend Jack as well) isn't actually gay is a reason why it's gone
unnoticed.
>I am surprised the baptists (southern flavor) didn't call for a boycott of NBC
>in their recent convention. I guess there are too many other shows on that
>network that the leadership likes and they're not ready to give them up? Or
>perhaps the embarrassing and utter failure of their Disney boycott has left a
>sour taste in their mouths? Who knows with those people...
One thing that also played into the outcry against "Ellen" as well
as the "boycott" of Disney was that ABC is Disney-owned. I don't know
what there is on NBC that the right wing would like a whole lot - they
seem more the CBS and "Touched by an Angel" or "Walker, Texas Ranger"
type. Actually, the latter could be a gay-themed show, given all the
latent homosexual tensions on it. We once sat down and looked for gay
innuendo on that show, and it's hilarious how much there is - just the
lyrics of the opening song has some - "...when you're in Texas, look
behind you - 'cause that's where the Ranger's gonna be..."
KRC
Joel Olson
>>> According to new reports sex education is working
>>> as kids are starting to refrain from sex. Problem is,
>>> there has been an explosion of oral sex seeing it as
>>> a safe alternative from AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy.
>>
>> Sounds more like a solution than a problem.
>
> is that you can get HIV and a number of other diseases
> just as easy through oral sex.
1. Possible
One needs to consider M>F and F>M transmission separately,
as the site of the infection obviously varies, and males can
obtain whatever protection that condoms provide. But it is
well known that syphilis, herpes, gonorrhea and very likely
chlamydia are not fussy about where they take root. Not
sure, but I'd think it possible that infected throats may
provide a little more time for recognition, diagnosis and
treatment before the gonads get messed up. As to HIV, and
someone quickly correct me if I'm wrong, the reports a few
years back were that salivary (bloodless) transmission was
possible but very rare.
Of course, one would expect the High School versions of sex
ed to present the symptoms of clap and the various nuisance
infections in a practical (i.e. not exaggerated extreme
cases) way (including the length of incubation periods) so
that they can recognize when something is wrong. This is not
enough, however, as many STDs do not present symptoms, and
regular visits to one's doctor are perhaps advisable.
(What's the men's equivalent of gynecologist?)
2. Probablity - Can doesn't mean Will
STDs are caught from people you presumably like and (thought
you) know. I expect that most kids will be encouraged to
exercise some judgement here, both in terms of chosing
partners and in getting treatment when needed and leveling
about it with those needing to know. About 15% of reported
STDs are re-infections due to partners not being treated.
Clearly, they can make better decisions with better
information. I don't know what the statistics are for the
incidence of the various STDs, but would think that
gonorrhea and its relatives remain the most prevalent form
of STD. The odds increase with one's number of partners, and
with theirs.
In my day (anyone remember the Dell Vikings?), each (small
town) High School was pretty much an isolated population and
the vast majority of attachments formed within the student
body. Nobody knew anybody they could catch anything from. To
the extent that this still holds, the odds go down.
Similarly, there is a high degree of age segregation, which
also helps to protect the younger age groups. Finally,
crushes and HS romances are monogomal. So all in all, I
think its easy to overestimate the risks, and that there are
some (religious or other) groups with a vested interest in
exaggerating them.
Finally, its now obvious that sexual transmission remains a
potential route for both old and new diseases and that its
only prudent to encourage research in this area.
---------------------------------------
there is an obvious price the child must pay for being saved
from seriousness. - E. Goffman
---------------------------------------
Amie or KRC
wrote:
>The thing that is going to stop abortion is abstinence. Couples waiting until
>their wedding night to make love. That is how Jesus created sex for the
>marriage bed not for the back seat of a car or a hotel room.
You do know, Valerie, that married women seek abortions as well,
don't you? Many times the family cannot afford another child - or
even one child, so the woman will seek an abortion. How do you
justify that one in your abstinence arguement?
The truth is that abstinence makes perfect sense on the surface, but
as has been pointed out in regards to Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No"
drug abstinence program - it doesn't work in the real world. It's
ironic to me that the right wing says we need more drug education
because more information will stop kids from doing drugs, and then
turns around and says that we need less sex education because more
information will make them have sex. Perhaps even in your clouded
mind, you can pick up on that hypocrisy.
Teaching kids the facts of birth control and STD prevention is the
only way you will see a drop in the abortion and disease rate.
Abortions existed long before Roe v. Wade, and would still exist if it
was ever overturned. Did you know that until the Reagan
Administration, the U.S. Armed Forces regularly educated servicemen
and women on the dangers of STDs? And this education included the
encouragement of the use of condoms and other forms of protection.
The military was way ahead of the curve on this one - they knew that
they could not prevent people from having sex, so they'd at least tell
them how to be safer about it.
But going back to abortion. Why is it that the religious right
decries the use of things such as condoms that aid in the prevention
of pregnancy? Don't they realize that in doing so, you will see a
drop in the abortion rate? Well, yes, they do - but they don't care.
To people like you, Valerie, sex is something evil and dirty that you
save for the one you love. I don't believe that. But I do believe
that when I have sex, I will protect myself and my partner as best I
can, because I am not in denial about what's out there. For the
record, I have been in a monogamous relationship for more than three
years, but I'm sure that doesn't account for anything to you, as I
don't have a band of metal around my finger to make it "legitimate" in
your eyes.
In conclusion, abstinence of many things can be beneficial, but not
necessarily realistic. Abstaining from red meat will probably lower
your chance for a heart attack. Abstaining from drinking will
probably lower your chances of contracting liver disease. And, given
the amount of toxins floating in our air, abstinence from breathing
will undoubtedly lower your chances of consuming these toxins - but I
wouldn't advise it. "Just Say No" won't work - and never has.
KRC
The Steel Wolf
<sgo...@ionet.net> scripsit:
>I am so grieved at how many on this board support the murder of the unborn.
>That is nothing but a spirit of murder. Please change your attitudes.
You cannot murder that which is not sentient. This is the crux of the
issue regarding abortion: life versus sentience. There are many
things, including plants and bacteria, which are living but not
sentient. If a creature is not sentient, then I would argue that it
cannot sustain a "soul". Before the point in a child's development at
which it becomes sentient, and thus is imbued with a human soul, it
cannot be murdered any more than a tree can be murdered. The point of
sentience is generally regarded to be at the end of the first
trimester.
If you believe that a fetus is sentient prior to the end of the first
trimester, you must also believe that the most mammals' brains (which
are, if I recall correctly, in a more advanced developmental state
than a fetus of less than three months' maturity) are capable of
supporting sentient life. With that in mind, I have a question for
you: do you eat meat or wear leather products? Do you support the
cruel murder of innocent cows or chickens?
If you can demonstrate to the world that a fetus is sentient prior to
the first trimester, I'll gladly reconsider my beliefs. Otherwise,
you are not able to provide a compelling moral argument against
abortion.
--
"Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil
on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad
evil. Bad, BAD evil.'"
- David Gerard <f...@thingy.apana.org.au>
Remove the anti-spam dongle to reply via e-mail.
ta...@xtra.co.nz
>I hear that in some U.S. markets there are actually some commercials with gay
>couples in them, but of course you won't see them here in Okieville. A child
>might see them and think gays are real people deserving of compassion and
>respect or even worse, they might catch the disease and become gay! <insert
>collective gasp here>
>
>I'm still planning on coming to visit you one of these days, Tarla, so keep
>that little back room tidy and warm for me! :-)
You betcha! Oh, and did I mention that gay couples can immigrate to NZ
(if they meet the other requirements, of course) just like straight
married couples can? All you need is to show that the relationship has
existed for four years (or more) and your partner gets treated just
like the partner of a married person who is applying.
Jerry Morgan
(Pete) wrote:
>In article <3785d6ee...@news3.newscene.com>, jmo...@bubbaworld.com
>(Jerry Morgan) wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I can't help but wonder if the publicity surrounding "Bill and
>> Monica's Oral Sex Affair" has contributed to the popularity of oral
>> sex among teens.
>>
>
>Damn, when I was kid, playing president meant blowing up russia, not
>being blown. "I've declared Russia illegal - bombing starts in 5 minutes"
>
>Pete
>(child of the 70s and early 80s)
Well gosh, I was a child of the 50's and 60's and believe me, the kids
of the 80's and 90's didn't invent blow jobs. They've been around for
a long, long time.
However, I do want to thank you for the stroll down memory lane with
Ronnie Reagan. That little quip by Reagan during a "mic test" rattled
a few folks in the U.S.S.R.
- - - - -
The Older I get - The better I *WAS*.
DRDANJ
>You do know, Valerie, that married women seek abortions as well,
>don't you? Many times the family cannot afford another child - or
>even one child, so the woman will seek an abortion. How do you
>justify that one in your abstinence arguement?
Hi KRC...
The idea of abortion as a birth control, whether married or not, IMO is a bad
idea. My sister and her husband only make 120k annually between the two, but
their lifestyle keeps them from 'affording' children. Pregnancy is the risk
you take.
> The truth is that abstinence makes perfect sense on the surface, but
>as has been pointed out in regards to Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No"
>drug abstinence program - it doesn't work in the real world. It's
>ironic to me that the right wing says we need more drug education
>because more information will stop kids from doing drugs, and then
>turns around and says that we need less sex education because more
>information will make them have sex. Perhaps even in your clouded
>mind, you can pick up on that hypocrisy.
I totally agree.
>Teaching kids the facts of birth control and STD prevention is the
>only way you will see a drop in the abortion and disease rate.
Teaching the facts of STD is the only way, not just the prevention. Shall we
teach the kids how to wear bullet proof vests? Shall we pass them out during
lunches, claiming its the "Only" way to stop the killings?
>Abortions existed long before Roe v. Wade, and would still exist if it
>was ever overturned. Did you know that until the Reagan
>Administration, the U.S. Armed Forces regularly educated servicemen
>and women on the dangers of STDs? And this education included the
>encouragement of the use of condoms and other forms of protection.
>The military was way ahead of the curve on this one - they knew that
>they could not prevent people from having sex, so they'd at least tell
>them how to be safer about it.
Also agree with you there. As you stated: "the U.S. Armed Forces regularly
educated servicemen and women on the dangers of STDs?"
Teach them about STD's, not how to play russian roulette (sp?) safely.
>But going back to abortion. Why is it that the religious right
>decries the use of things such as condoms that aid in the prevention of
pregnancy? Don't they realize that in doing so, you will see a drop in the
abortion rate? Well, yes, they do - but they don't care.
Yes they care. When people are thinking for themselves, and only for the
present time, is when there is a problem. Once we teach condom safety, then a
better condom will come along. Next, we ~might~ have the safest sex
possible...approving of anyone to have sex at anytime with zero responsibility,
other than the age factor or consent. Next we might lower the consenting age
to say 13, kids miss the feel of sex without a condom (or they just break),
then we have an increase of unwed, uneducated teenage mothers. Are you up for
yet another tax increase to pay for this lifestyle?
>To people like you, Valerie, sex is something evil and dirty that you
>save for the one you love.
I agree it should be saved for the one you love, not just a one-night stand.
Also, I think sex between two adults is a wonderful thing.
>But I do believe
>that when I have sex, I will protect myself and my partner as best I
>can, because I am not in denial about what's out there.
Yes, I can understand your side...but the key word in there was 'I', meaning
you. What about the selfish people who dont give a crap? Are we going to pass
laws against selfishness? Who are you watching out for, you and your partner,
or the entire community?
>For the record, I have been in a monogamous relationship for more than three
years,
Hey, thats great! Do you know how many couples dont have a monogamous
relationship, many of them already married?
>but I'm sure that doesn't account for anything to you, as I
>don't have a band of metal around my finger to make it "legitimate" in your
eyes.
<grin>
>In conclusion, abstinence of many things can be beneficial, but not
>necessarily realistic.
Yes, I see your point...but it ~CAN~ be realistic to several people, so why not
bank on that?
>Abstaining from red meat will probably lower
>your chance for a heart attack. Abstaining from drinking will
>probably lower your chances of contracting liver disease. And, given the
amount of toxins floating in our air, abstinence from breathing will
undoubtedly lower your chances of consuming these toxins - but I wouldn't
advise it. "Just Say No" won't work - and never has.
<VBG>
I spent a majority of my youth in non-stop sexual relationships. My desire was
for the body, not the mind. Someone stated in another post about teens having
monogamous relationships (Joel I believe) and my experience says differently.
I had sex with most of my friends, and they all had sex with each other. We
didnt date each other, we did drugs and drank, having sex with whoever looked
good at the time. That was not abnormal in several social circles.
I've been dating a woman and we decided not to have sex unless/until we were to
marry. At first it was tough, but I must say it has been the best decision
either of us have made. We have been together for almost 3 years now and can
truely appreciate the 'love' without dealing with the problems associated with
sex. Many people dont get enough sex at home, so they find someone else...to
'hold them over'. Others cant stand each other but the sex is so good they
think its worth continuing the relationship. Sure, your more intelligent than
that (I believe), but a majority of the population, especially teens and young
adults, are not!
I do understand where you come from on many points, in fact for years I had the
same way of thinking (and no it wasnt because I became a christian that I think
differently), but you are not like everyone else.
Peace.....
Dan
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>
>> The better "educated" kids are, the less likely they
>> will fall victim to a wide range of dangers and
>> certainly there's less danger of contracting AIDS
>> via oral sex than via intercourse. However, most
>> STD's are transmittable via oral sex. And of course
>> oral sex does eliminate the chances of an unwanted
>> pregnancy while at the same time fulfilling the
>> dreams of many teenage boys.
>
>Maybe times have changed. When (and where) I was a kid, oral
>sex was considered contemptible.
>
I do not believe that I've every encountered a fellow that felt that
way regarding oral sex. Girls certainly, but not guys. Where did you
grow up?
>> I can't help but wonder if the publicity surrounding
>> "Bill and Monica's Oral Sex Affair" has contributed
>> to the popularity of oral sex among teens.
>
>You must be prescient! I just happened onto C-span2 this
>morning and there was Gordon Liddy claiming that very thing.
>Speaking to "Clinton's Legacy".
>
Ah yes, the "G-Man".
Actually Liddy's quit a character and he comes up with some really
great lines on occasion.
Here's one of my favorite "Liddyism's"
*****
"There's something different about us - different from people of
Europe, Africa, Asia ... a deep and abiding belief in the Easter
Bunny."
- G. Gordon Liddy
*****
ta...@xtra.co.nz
>On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 20:44:51 GMT, in <37865eb0....@enews.newsguy.com>,
>ta...@xtra.co.nz expressed the following:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:27:06 GMT, Michael OKC wrote:
>>
>>>I hear that in some U.S. markets there are actually some commercials with gay
>>>couples in them, but of course you won't see them here in Okieville. A child
>>>might see them and think gays are real people deserving of compassion and
>>>respect or even worse, they might catch the disease and become gay! <insert
>>>collective gasp here>
>>>
>>>I'm still planning on coming to visit you one of these days, Tarla, so keep
>>>that little back room tidy and warm for me! :-)
>>
>>You betcha! Oh, and did I mention that gay couples can immigrate to NZ
>>(if they meet the other requirements, of course) just like straight
>>married couples can? All you need is to show that the relationship has
>>existed for four years (or more) and your partner gets treated just
>>like the partner of a married person who is applying.
>
>Ooo! That sounds downright Canadian! ;-) Let me get one more year with my
>partner under my belt and then I'll call upon you to find me a nice, cushy
>programmer position down there!
No worries, Mate. They love American programmers here.
Bud
Michael OKC wrote in message <378869a...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>Also, if the fact that Will is not effeminate is the key that certainly
would
>be curious. What most people fail to understand is that most gay men are
not
>effeminate in the stereotypical way. If indeed we can determine that it's
the
>effeminacy that bothers them we've put a whole new face on the issue
because
>I've met my share of screaming queen straight men... and most of them are
very
>active in denominations that are traditionally sympathetic to the rr. Two
of
>them are southern baptist music directors.
Ah, but the the crux of the matter is that most of these folks can't or
won't see pass the sterotypes -- it takes too much thinking and
understanding to do that. Thinking "outside the box" is uncomfortable for
just about everyone -- it takes courage (and a real conscious effort) to do
it. IMO, it takes that same kind of courage to be willing to hold beliefs
that don't match those of the society around us. For every Thoreau, there
are a million sheep.
>
Amie or KRC
--cut--
>Also, if the fact that Will is not effeminate is the key that certainly would
>be curious. What most people fail to understand is that most gay men are not
>effeminate in the stereotypical way. If indeed we can determine that it's the
>effeminacy that bothers them we've put a whole new face on the issue because
>I've met my share of screaming queen straight men... and most of them are very
>active in denominations that are traditionally sympathetic to the rr. Two of
>them are southern baptist music directors.
Oh, I've met very queening straight men as well. My point, though,
was that many of the sheeple that fall in line with the likes of
Falwell seize upon the most outspoken examples of gay culture and
profess those to be the norm. Leather boys, dykes on bykes, or drag
queens are nowhere near representative of the average gay man or
woman. However, the religious right wants to make you think that, and
I'm fully convinced that many of the movement's followers couldn't
recognoze the average gay person if they dressed up as Tinky-Winky and
hit them with their purse. They're so hung up in "gay" and "straight"
behaviours that they can't see the proverbial forest through the
trees. An example was that Falwell henchman that came out a few years
ago. Falwell was actually quoted as saying he "...had no idea - he
never acted like a gay man." To me, that says that they have a set
idea of what a gay man or woman should act like, and they are
oblivious when they do not. It just goes to show how pervasive
stereotypes have become. Hell, I meet more than one criteria of the
"typical gay male stereotype" - I like nice clothes, I like cooking, I
can decorate my home with something other than Budweiser mirrors and
Pamela Anderson posters...
I've had exposure to both sides of the fence, so to speak, and it's
amazing what people really think will "turn you gay" - as if that's
possible. I'm quite straight, but I don't let that stop me from
enjoying things that some narrow-minded dorks think are "gay" for
whatever reason their simple minds arrived at that conclusion.
--cut--
>Fortunately for me I have never seen an episode of Walker! The show holds
>zero appeal for me. :-)
It has no appeal, except for comic relief. When you don't have
cable and you're sitting around on Saturday night with nothing to do,
it's amazing what will entertain you...
KRC
Amie or KRC
>Hi KRC...
>
>The idea of abortion as a birth control, whether married or not, IMO is a bad
>idea. My sister and her husband only make 120k annually between the two, but
>their lifestyle keeps them from 'affording' children. Pregnancy is the risk
>you take.
I never said I agreed with the choice one way or the other, only
that it is a fact.
--cut--
>Teaching the facts of STD is the only way, not just the prevention. Shall we
>teach the kids how to wear bullet proof vests? Shall we pass them out during
>lunches, claiming its the "Only" way to stop the killings?
Then what is your solution? Keeping children ignorant will not make
the problem go away. Telling them to "Just Say No" will not make the
problem go away. You have to accept the fact, no matter how difficult
that may be, that children are having sex and that denying them
information on the basis of your own arbitrary morality is not doing
anyone any good. That's the cold, hard fact.
--cut--
>Also agree with you there. As you stated: "the U.S. Armed Forces regularly
>educated servicemen and women on the dangers of STDs?"
>Teach them about STD's, not how to play russian roulette (sp?) safely.
The military was at least willing to admit the reality that they
could not stop people from having sex. General American society has
yet to do that.
>>But going back to abortion. Why is it that the religious right
>>decries the use of things such as condoms that aid in the prevention of
>pregnancy? Don't they realize that in doing so, you will see a drop in the
>abortion rate? Well, yes, they do - but they don't care.
>
>Yes they care. When people are thinking for themselves, and only for the
>present time, is when there is a problem. Once we teach condom safety, then a
>better condom will come along. Next, we ~might~ have the safest sex
>possible...approving of anyone to have sex at anytime with zero responsibility,
>other than the age factor or consent. Next we might lower the consenting age
>to say 13, kids miss the feel of sex without a condom (or they just break),
>then we have an increase of unwed, uneducated teenage mothers. Are you up for
>yet another tax increase to pay for this lifestyle?
Dan, you're being absurd. There are people on the religious right
who do not care whether or not people die from STDs or whether or not
unwanted pregnancies can be prevented. That's not everyone who is
religious or conservative, but it does include some of the more vocal.
I believe you said that you used to live in California, correct? If
you lived anywhere near Orange County, then you have probably heard of
Rep. William Dannemeyer. Dannemeyer is a conservative Christian from
that area that hired a very dubious gentleman as his "AIDS Advisor" in
the late 1980's. This gentleman (I don't recall his name off hand,
but I will get it for you if you so desire) advocated the quarrantine
of AIDS victims on a deserted island. He also encouraged Dannemeyer
to speak out against AIDS victims, essentially telling them that AIDS
was their punishment for their behaviour. Now, you tell me, how
Christian is that?
You extrapolation from my suggestion that we actually teach kids how
to be sexually responsible is straight out of the Rush Limbaugh school
of debate, and I'm sorry, but you won't lure me down that path. You
and I both know that is not was I was suggesting.
>>To people like you, Valerie, sex is something evil and dirty that you
>>save for the one you love.
>
>I agree it should be saved for the one you love, not just a one-night stand.
>Also, I think sex between two adults is a wonderful thing.
Absolutely. However, unlike most of the religious right, I don't
think there is a damn thing wrong with sex, nor do I believe that a
wedding band is necessary to make it complete. Love, however, should
be a component.
>>But I do believe
>>that when I have sex, I will protect myself and my partner as best I
>>can, because I am not in denial about what's out there.
>
>Yes, I can understand your side...but the key word in there was 'I', meaning
>you. What about the selfish people who dont give a crap? Are we going to pass
>laws against selfishness? Who are you watching out for, you and your partner,
>or the entire community?
Look, Dan, I can't protect myself from the selfish bastard that
might jack a Quik Trip with me in it. We can't protect ourselves from
everything, nor can the government. You're extrapolating upon what I
do for myself and trying to apply it to the general public. While it
might be nice if the general public followed my line of thinking, I'm
not so naive as to think it will happen anytime soon. And to answer
your question - I am only looking out for me and my partner, as
neither of us want a child right now, nor could we afford one. If
somebody reads what I say in regards to that and agrees, that's great.
But if they don't, that's fine, too. I can't legislate the morality
of others, and neither should you. Providing sex education is a
public health issue, not a moral one. You have to realize there is a
difference.
>>For the record, I have been in a monogamous relationship for more than three
>years,
>
>Hey, thats great! Do you know how many couples dont have a monogamous
>relationship, many of them already married?
More than I care to count. Both my parents have cheated on one
another, but they worked through it. A lot of the "working through
it" was a spiritual journey that I won't talk about. If either of
them wishes to do so, they can certainly come here and post - I put
Agent on my dad's computer and ok.general is in the "subscribed
groups" list.
>>but I'm sure that doesn't account for anything to you, as I
>>don't have a band of metal around my finger to make it "legitimate" in your
>eyes.
>
><grin>
>
>>In conclusion, abstinence of many things can be beneficial, but not
>>necessarily realistic.
>
>Yes, I see your point...but it ~CAN~ be realistic to several people, so why not
>bank on that?
Because it won't work all the time. People like Valerie advocate
abstinence in disregard for anything else. Her attitude is that
so-called abstinence-only education will solve it all. I have no
problems with a sex-ed program that teaches abstinence, but it cannot
deny the other options. Teaching a "Just Say No" sort of ideal won't
help anything. Responsible sexual behaviour must be taught - and that
includes not only abstinence education, but safer sex as well. My
parents grew up in the 1950's, when sex wasn't even talked about -
didn't change the fact my dad lost his virginity at 15. Denial of the
reality isn't going to get us anywhere.
>>Abstaining from red meat will probably lower
>>your chance for a heart attack. Abstaining from drinking will
>>probably lower your chances of contracting liver disease. And, given the
>amount of toxins floating in our air, abstinence from breathing will
>undoubtedly lower your chances of consuming these toxins - but I wouldn't
>advise it. "Just Say No" won't work - and never has.
>
><VBG>
>
>I spent a majority of my youth in non-stop sexual relationships. My desire was
>for the body, not the mind. Someone stated in another post about teens having
>monogamous relationships (Joel I believe) and my experience says differently.
>I had sex with most of my friends, and they all had sex with each other. We
>didnt date each other, we did drugs and drank, having sex with whoever looked
>good at the time. That was not abnormal in several social circles.
And did any teachings that sex before marriage was wrong have any
impact on you? Did you ever learn responsible sexual behaviour before
you sought out the information yourself? I got more than one offer
for sex and beyond when I toured with my band, and I never accepted a
single one. And, for the record, I was a heavy drinker back then. I
knew the dangers of faceless sex because my physician father drilled
it in to me (and the loss of a family friend to AIDS in 1991 brought
it home as well) - I learned responsible sex long before I ever had it
for the first time. And I learned the idea of self-control.
>I've been dating a woman and we decided not to have sex unless/until we were to
>marry. At first it was tough, but I must say it has been the best decision
>either of us have made. We have been together for almost 3 years now and can
>truely appreciate the 'love' without dealing with the problems associated with
>sex. Many people dont get enough sex at home, so they find someone else...to
>'hold them over'. Others cant stand each other but the sex is so good they
>think its worth continuing the relationship. Sure, your more intelligent than
>that (I believe), but a majority of the population, especially teens and young
>adults, are not!
But who are you to decide that?
>I do understand where you come from on many points, in fact for years I had the
>same way of thinking (and no it wasnt because I became a christian that I think
>differently), but you are not like everyone else.
I would hope I'm not like everyone else <g> - I kinda pride myself
on being an independent thinker...
Slugfish
> One thing that also played into the outcry against "Ellen" as well
> as the "boycott" of Disney was that ABC is Disney-owned.
...as is ESPN and its sister networks...I'm waiting for the RR to jump
all over the satanic influence of the X Games.
> I don't know
> what there is on NBC that the right wing would like a whole lot - they
> seem more the CBS and "Touched by an Angel" or "Walker, Texas Ranger"
> type.
TV critics are forever all over CBS by describing them as the "geriatric-
skewing" network, the "Must Pee TV" network because with the possible
exception of shows like that Raymond thing (I'm not really home during
prime time so all I know is what I read in Entertainment Weekly), a lot
of their shows are really horribly turgid (that Angel show, Promised Land),
really jingoistic (JAG), or just plain awful (Walker).
Consequently, a network that skews to an older, probably conservative
audience is going to have a lot of bland, inoffensive programming. Ya,
the RR would probably lap it up like turkey puree.
Sorry to be a little bit OT, but reading that just made all the
gears start cranking in my head.
> Actually, the latter could be a gay-themed show, given all the
> latent homosexual tensions on it. We once sat down and looked for gay
> innuendo on that show, and it's hilarious how much there is - just the
> lyrics of the opening song has some - "...when you're in Texas, look
> behind you - 'cause that's where the Ranger's gonna be..."
ROTFLOL
--slg., suddenly delurked.
--
"Mmmf mmf mmmmmf mf, mfmmf mmf mf, mmmf mf mf, mf,
mmf mf ff mmmmmfmmmf mmf mmf mmf mmf mf mmmfmmmmf."
--Kenny McCormick
http://www.telepath.com/slugfish
Dodgers newsgroup FAQ and Other Crap
Joel Olson
>> Maybe times have changed. When (and where) I
>> was a kid, oral sex was considered contemptible.
>
> I do not believe that I've every encountered a fellow
> that felt that way regarding oral sex. Girls certainly,
> but not guys.
I was misinformed. An example of ignorance versus
experience. :-)
> Where did you grow up?
Raised on a farm in southwest MN, did first grade in a
one-room schoolhouse. Small-town, small high school, only 12
in our graduating class. Methodists, but most of Dad's
family were Lutheran, sometimes a sore point. 60 miles to
the nearest lake, so not many loons around, but did bag a
pheasant now & then.
--------------------------------
In short, the things he did were done because it was easier
to do them than not to do them. - J. London
--------------------------------
Pete
(Jerry Morgan) wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:41:24 -0500, ir00...@remove.mindspring.com
> (Pete) wrote:
>
> >In article <3785d6ee...@news3.newscene.com>, jmo...@bubbaworld.com
> >(Jerry Morgan) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I can't help but wonder if the publicity surrounding "Bill and
> >> Monica's Oral Sex Affair" has contributed to the popularity of oral
> >> sex among teens.
> >>
> >
> >Damn, when I was kid, playing president meant blowing up russia, not
> >being blown. "I've declared Russia illegal - bombing starts in 5 minutes"
> >
> >Pete
> >(child of the 70s and early 80s)
>
> Well gosh, I was a child of the 50's and 60's and believe me, the kids
> of the 80's and 90's didn't invent blow jobs. They've been around for
> a long, long time.
Yeah. I wasn't really trying to claim oral sex for my generation - I'm
certain that my ancestors did all sorts of wild stuff that my generation
(and yours for sure, Jerry) tried to claim. Thankfully your generation and
mine never had to worry about being turned into pillars of salt = )
I put the 'child of the 70s and 80s' to date the quote more than me - but
the more I think about it, that quote happened around 87' or so, didn't
it? Towards the end of those wacky reagan years? I can't remember... I do
remember hearing the quote and laughing my ass off...
Pete
Dy Ziegler
DRDANJ
>>Teaching the facts of STD is the only way, not just the prevention. Shall we
teach the kids how to wear bullet proof vests? Shall we pass them out during
lunches, claiming its the "Only" way to stop the killings?
>
> Then what is your solution? Keeping children ignorant will not make the
problem go away. Telling them to "Just Say No" will not make the problem go
away. You have to accept the fact, no matter how difficult that may be, that
children are having sex and that denying them information on the basis of your
own arbitrary morality is not doing anyone any good. That's the cold, hard
fact.
What is my solution? I have none at this time, to be honest. But, put it
another way. Suppose my child might be influenced to try heroin. Should I,
just based on the possibility, show her the proper way to inject? Maybe even
show her the best way IMO to spot a good vein? Drugs will always be around
teens, no matter what. Should we teach 'Drug Buying 101' and supply free
scales or maybe have a class on rolling the proper blunt? I am instead going
to teach her the risks of shooting up, not show her how. Would that be denying
her information?
>The military was at least willing to admit the reality that they
>could not stop people from having sex. General American society has yet to do
that.
Yep, and in Amsterdam they hand out information on how to shoot heroin properly
to avoid the spread of HIV. Think we should adopt that idea here, maybe pass
them out in school parking lots?
>Dan, you're being absurd. There are people on the religious right
>who do not care whether or not people die from STDs or whether or not unwanted
pregnancies can be prevented.
Yes, I agree...but there are people on the left that think the same. Same
thought process that all gays wear dresses, isnt it? You have an incredible
mind and non judgemental...only with some people. Did the RR have to come into
this? We have members of both sides in favor of legalization, yet there are
others on both sides who disagree.
>That's not everyone who is
>religious or conservative, but it does include some of the more vocal.
Very true, and thank you for saying so, but thats the vocal end that you hear
in your part-time participation. I believe you were the one who proved someone
wrong with the two mommies book, someone who paid attention only part-time as
well. I know better, you know better, but that person didnt and you did a fine
job on educating them.
<snipped info on Calif>
I wasnt too interested at the time in politics, so I was unaware. Regardless,
thats judging a entire group by the actions of few. How Christian was that?
Not very, but even Clinton ~claims~ to be a Christian.
>You extrapolation from my suggestion that we actually teach kids how to be
sexually responsible is straight out of the Rush Limbaugh school of debate, and
I'm sorry, but you won't lure me down that path.
While I have agreed with Limbaugh on several topics, he is just another voice
that I choose to ignore these days.
>Absolutely. However, unlike most of the religious right, I don't
>think there is a damn thing wrong with sex, nor do I believe that a
>wedding band is necessary to make it complete.
Had you taken the word *Most* out of that, I would agree.
>Love, however, should be a component.
Yes, and thats whats missing today. Maybe we should teach 'love first' instead
of handing out condoms to kids who enjoy puppy love.
>Look, Dan, I can't protect myself from the selfish bastard that
>might jack a Quik Trip with me in it. We can't protect ourselves from
everything, nor can the government. You're extrapolating upon what I do for
myself and trying to apply it to the general public.
When people support laws that dont apply to the general public, rather to just
themselves, then we are destroying the purpose of laws, am I correct? Is it
for the people, or for ~some~ of the people?
>While it
>might be nice if the general public followed my line of thinking, I'm
>not so naive as to think it will happen anytime soon.
Sure, and I think we all feel this way at times...but some people do believe it
will happen, or at least try very hard, ie. socialists.
>And to answer
>your question - I am only looking out for me and my partner, as
>neither of us want a child right now, nor could we afford one.
So, the idea of abortion for anyone who feels they cant support a child, or had
a one night stand after getting drunk at the bar, works for you because you
could benefit. Yes, that does sound selfish. Next time my 15 year old
neighbor wants yet another abortion (she has had 2 already) I will remember
that you approve of her choice. When I was married I couldnt afford a child
either, but I had a daughter, something I will never regret...even though I
couldnt pay for cable.
> If somebody reads what I say in regards to that and agrees, that's great. But
if they don't, that's fine, too. I can't legislate the morality
>of others, and neither should you.
Wait, that lost me. Isnt that exactly what the far left is doing, legislating
the morality of others?
>Providing sex education is a public health issue, not a moral one.
Sex education is one thing, approving of a childs sexual acts is another. And
with it being a health issue, I will refer you back to the drug education.
Educate proper drug use or the negatives about participating in such acts?
>More than I care to count. Both my parents have cheated on one
>another, but they worked through it. A lot of the "working through
>it" was a spiritual journey that I won't talk about.
And that spiritual journey made the difference, but I will respect your wishes
and leave that alone.
>Because it won't work all the time. People like Valerie advocate
>abstinence in disregard for anything else.
Yes, and some people ban smoking in certain cities without looking into other
options or taking a persons rights into consideration.
>Her attitude is that
>so-called abstinence-only education will solve it all. I have no
>problems with a sex-ed program that teaches abstinence, but it cannot deny the
other options.
And I totally agree, until the options turn to passing out condoms and showing
them how to use them.
>Teaching a "Just Say No" sort of ideal won't
>help anything. Responsible sexual behaviour must be taught -
Taught by whom? Taught by parents who are scared to talk about it, or by
people who feel you dont need love to have sex? Should these teachers have
certain standards prior to approval? Would that not be discrimination as well?
>and that
>includes not only abstinence education, but safer sex as well. My
>parents grew up in the 1950's, when sex wasn't even talked about -
>didn't change the fact my dad lost his virginity at 15. Denial of the
>reality isn't going to get us anywhere.
>
Yes, and it didnt change the fact my neighbor has had 2 abortions either, as I
said...15. She learned how to use condoms but that hasnt done her any good.
>And did any teachings that sex before marriage was wrong have any
>impact on you?
>Did you ever learn responsible sexual behaviour before
>you sought out the information yourself?
No, I was never taught anything about sexuality.
>I got more than one offer
>for sex and beyond when I toured with my band, and I never accepted a
>single one. And, for the record, I was a heavy drinker back then. I
>knew the dangers of faceless sex because my physician father drilled
>it in to me (and the loss of a family friend to AIDS in 1991 brought
>it home as well) - I learned responsible sex long before I ever had it
>for the first time.
Had you not had someone at home or your experiences teach you this, would you
be any different? What if you learned all your info about sex from a teacher
who goes home with every person they meet on friday night?
>And I learned the idea of self-control.
Glad you did, but thats you.
>>I've been dating a woman and we decided not to have sex unless/until we were
to marry. At first it was tough, but I must say it has been the best decision
either of us have made. We have been together for almost 3 years now and can
truely appreciate the 'love' without dealing with the problems associated with
sex. Many people dont get enough sex at home, so they find someone else...to
>>'hold them over'. Others cant stand each other but the sex is so good they
think its worth continuing the relationship. Sure, your more intelligent than
that (I believe), but a majority of the population, especially teens and young
adults, are not!
>
>But who are you to decide that?
To decide what, that several teens and young adults are just not smart enough?
My experiences as a counselor, along with teen pregnancy and a high divorce
rate with young adult parents. Note that I didnt say ALL, but I do stand
behind saying the majority.
>I would hope I'm not like everyone else <g> - I kinda pride myself
>on being an independent thinker...
And that is a great thing to be proud of! Too many people let society think
for them, after all they are told what to believe every time they turn on TV.
Ask a 19 year old the name of his/her elected officials, then ask them to name
the characters on Friends...you will be amazed what they do and do not know.
Peace.....
Dan
Amie or KRC
--cut--
>What is my solution? I have none at this time, to be honest. But, put it
>another way. Suppose my child might be influenced to try heroin. Should I,
>just based on the possibility, show her the proper way to inject? Maybe even
>show her the best way IMO to spot a good vein? Drugs will always be around
>teens, no matter what. Should we teach 'Drug Buying 101' and supply free
>scales or maybe have a class on rolling the proper blunt? I am instead going
>to teach her the risks of shooting up, not show her how. Would that be denying
>her information?
Again, Dan, you are extrapolating off of what I said and moving into
a new dimension. We're not talking about drugs, we're talking about
sex. If you want to discuss drugs, let's do it somewhere else.
You're getting into an apples-oranges realm with your logic.
>>The military was at least willing to admit the reality that they
>>could not stop people from having sex. General American society has yet to do
>that.
>
>Yep, and in Amsterdam they hand out information on how to shoot heroin properly
>to avoid the spread of HIV. Think we should adopt that idea here, maybe pass
>them out in school parking lots?
Again, we're not talking about drugs, Dan. However, since you asked
the question, I'll address it this one time. Have you ever looked up
the rates of HIV infection in the Netherlands resulting from IV drug
use and compared them to the U.S.? The fact of the matter is that you
seem to think that education means encouragement. It does not.
>>Dan, you're being absurd. There are people on the religious right
>>who do not care whether or not people die from STDs or whether or not unwanted
>pregnancies can be prevented.
>
>Yes, I agree...but there are people on the left that think the same. Same
>thought process that all gays wear dresses, isnt it? You have an incredible
>mind and non judgemental...only with some people. Did the RR have to come into
>this? We have members of both sides in favor of legalization, yet there are
>others on both sides who disagree.
Got a bit of a persecution complex, do we? I allow everyone the
same amount of rope - whether or not they hang themselves with it is
entirely up to them.
--cut--
>While I have agreed with Limbaugh on several topics, he is just another voice
>that I choose to ignore these days.
You're probably better off in that regard - he's a fraud.
--cut--
>Yes, and thats whats missing today. Maybe we should teach 'love first' instead
>of handing out condoms to kids who enjoy puppy love.
It's a public health issue, not a moral one.
>>Look, Dan, I can't protect myself from the selfish bastard that
>>might jack a Quik Trip with me in it. We can't protect ourselves from
>everything, nor can the government. You're extrapolating upon what I do for
>myself and trying to apply it to the general public.
>
>When people support laws that dont apply to the general public, rather to just
>themselves, then we are destroying the purpose of laws, am I correct? Is it
>for the people, or for ~some~ of the people?
I don't think that anything I do should be enshrined in law, nor
have I ever said such a thing. I'm talking about what I do for myself
- if anyone else wants to follow my example, more power to them. And
if anyone wants to disregard my example, more power to them as well.
>>While it
>>might be nice if the general public followed my line of thinking, I'm
>>not so naive as to think it will happen anytime soon.
>
>Sure, and I think we all feel this way at times...but some people do believe it
>will happen, or at least try very hard, ie. socialists.
>
>>And to answer
>>your question - I am only looking out for me and my partner, as
>>neither of us want a child right now, nor could we afford one.
>
>So, the idea of abortion for anyone who feels they cant support a child, or had
>a one night stand after getting drunk at the bar, works for you because you
>could benefit. Yes, that does sound selfish. Next time my 15 year old
>neighbor wants yet another abortion (she has had 2 already) I will remember
>that you approve of her choice. When I was married I couldnt afford a child
>either, but I had a daughter, something I will never regret...even though I
>couldnt pay for cable.
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said my fiance had an
abortion. I said we take precautions when we have sex because we
neither want nor can afford a child right now. How you turned that
one into an abortion question, I'll never know. And I think you're
playing the role of a baiting troll in regards to your 15-year-old
neighbor. I'm not an idiot, I can smell a red herring. And in the
off-chance that you might be truthful - it's not my place to approve
of her decision one way or the other. Like Dennis Miller said - "As
long as I have a dick, I don't have a say."
>> If somebody reads what I say in regards to that and agrees, that's great. But
>if they don't, that's fine, too. I can't legislate the morality
>>of others, and neither should you.
>
>Wait, that lost me. Isnt that exactly what the far left is doing, legislating
>the morality of others?
Cite me an example, and cite me an example that I'm a leftie.
You're making a bold assumption that just because I don't like the
right wing, I must be some sort of flaming liberal. Quit being a
troll, Dan.
>>Providing sex education is a public health issue, not a moral one.
>
>Sex education is one thing, approving of a childs sexual acts is another. And
>with it being a health issue, I will refer you back to the drug education.
>Educate proper drug use or the negatives about participating in such acts?
Apples and oranges, Dan.
>>More than I care to count. Both my parents have cheated on one
>>another, but they worked through it. A lot of the "working through
>>it" was a spiritual journey that I won't talk about.
>
>And that spiritual journey made the difference, but I will respect your wishes
>and leave that alone.
It's not my place to discuss it at any rate. Oh, and I never said
it was a religious journey or a Christian one. My parents are pretty
damn far from being Christians, FWIW.
>>Because it won't work all the time. People like Valerie advocate
>>abstinence in disregard for anything else.
>
>Yes, and some people ban smoking in certain cities without looking into other
>options or taking a persons rights into consideration.
I agree, but I never have said that what I believe should be law.
>>Her attitude is that
>>so-called abstinence-only education will solve it all. I have no
>>problems with a sex-ed program that teaches abstinence, but it cannot deny the
>other options.
>
>And I totally agree, until the options turn to passing out condoms and showing
>them how to use them.
And what's wrong with that? It's part of the education process -
you cannot teach rational sex-ed and not discuss birth control.
>>Teaching a "Just Say No" sort of ideal won't
>>help anything. Responsible sexual behaviour must be taught -
>
>Taught by whom? Taught by parents who are scared to talk about it, or by
>people who feel you dont need love to have sex? Should these teachers have
>certain standards prior to approval? Would that not be discrimination as well?
Look, I spent a good portion of my young life in Europe, where the
schools teach sex ed in far greater detail than it's ever been taught
in the U.S. They also have a far more open attitude towards sex -
including what many here would consider "deviant" sex. Yet, the
teenage pregnancy rate, STD infection rate, and even the rape rate of
the EC nations is far lower than that of the U.S. - explain that one
to me. You're pretty good with anecdotes, but when it comes down to
cold, hard facts - you will always lose.
>>and that
>>includes not only abstinence education, but safer sex as well. My
>>parents grew up in the 1950's, when sex wasn't even talked about -
>>didn't change the fact my dad lost his virginity at 15. Denial of the
>>reality isn't going to get us anywhere.
>>
>
>Yes, and it didnt change the fact my neighbor has had 2 abortions either, as I
>said...15. She learned how to use condoms but that hasnt done her any good.
And it's obvious that she never used them, assuming you're not
trolling. Dan, you're really starting to become an anecdotal robot.
I've had it with your trolling - give it up.
>>And did any teachings that sex before marriage was wrong have any
>>impact on you?
>>Did you ever learn responsible sexual behaviour before
>>you sought out the information yourself?
>
>No, I was never taught anything about sexuality.
>
>>I got more than one offer
>>for sex and beyond when I toured with my band, and I never accepted a
>>single one. And, for the record, I was a heavy drinker back then. I
>>knew the dangers of faceless sex because my physician father drilled
>>it in to me (and the loss of a family friend to AIDS in 1991 brought
>>it home as well) - I learned responsible sex long before I ever had it
>>for the first time.
>
>Had you not had someone at home or your experiences teach you this, would you
>be any different? What if you learned all your info about sex from a teacher
>who goes home with every person they meet on friday night?
>
>>And I learned the idea of self-control.
>
>Glad you did, but thats you.
And you're assuming that no one else could come to the same
conclusions I have? Damn naive of you. Quit trolling.
>>>I've been dating a woman and we decided not to have sex unless/until we were
>to marry. At first it was tough, but I must say it has been the best decision
>either of us have made. We have been together for almost 3 years now and can
>truely appreciate the 'love' without dealing with the problems associated with
>sex. Many people dont get enough sex at home, so they find someone else...to
>>>'hold them over'. Others cant stand each other but the sex is so good they
>think its worth continuing the relationship. Sure, your more intelligent than
>that (I believe), but a majority of the population, especially teens and young
>adults, are not!
>>
>>But who are you to decide that?
>
>To decide what, that several teens and young adults are just not smart enough?
>My experiences as a counselor, along with teen pregnancy and a high divorce
>rate with young adult parents. Note that I didnt say ALL, but I do stand
>behind saying the majority.
Bullshit. Quit trolling, and get down to business if you really
want to discuss things. I'd be happy to discuss things with you
without the anecdotal bullshit - you can reach me at
Brani...@hotmail.com
KRC
Amie or KRC
(Slugfish) wrote:
>In article <37865383...@news.prodigy.net>, Nwy...@excite.com wrote:
--cut--
>> Actually, the latter could be a gay-themed show, given all the
>> latent homosexual tensions on it. We once sat down and looked for gay
>> innuendo on that show, and it's hilarious how much there is - just the
>> lyrics of the opening song has some - "...when you're in Texas, look
>> behind you - 'cause that's where the Ranger's gonna be..."
>
>ROTFLOL
Well, I might as well take this further...
If you've ever watched the show, you'll notice very quickly that
Walker is always somewhat distant towards the hot blonde D.A. who
obviously has a thing for him. Rather than jumping her, which just
about any warm-blooded heterosexual would do - especially given the
fact her skirts get shorter and her blouses are cut lower every
episode - Walker would rather hang out with the old bar owner (his
Sugar Daddy?) and his "partner", who is, to quote the Reverend Horton
Heat - " A good lookin' big black buck." It's obvious that Walker
prefers the company of men - have you ever noticed that many episodes
involve him going out into the country with lots of other men and they
always seem to have some reason for getting (at least partially)
naked? That's why the show should be called (and I apologize in
advance if this offends anyone, but a gay man actually came up with
this name) "Walker, Rump Ranger"...
KRC
Jerry Morgan
(Pete) wrote:
<snip>
>Yeah. I wasn't really trying to claim oral sex for my generation - I'm
>certain that my ancestors did all sorts of wild stuff that my generation
>(and yours for sure, Jerry) tried to claim. Thankfully your generation and
>mine never had to worry about being turned into pillars of salt = )
>
One of the most difficult things for most people to accept is
realization that *their parents* and their parents generation DID all
sorts of "sex things". This spans all generations and really hits
hard at the current crop of young adults whose parents were a part of
the "drugs, sex and rock and roll generation of the 60's". We
"boomers" didn't invent much if anything in the way of outlandish
behavior, we simply conducted our outlandish behavior out in the open
as an act of defiance against "the establishment".
>I put the 'child of the 70s and 80s' to date the quote more than me - but
>the more I think about it, that quote happened around 87' or so, didn't
>it? Towards the end of those wacky reagan years? I can't remember... I do
>remember hearing the quote and laughing my ass off...
>
>Pete
While many of us found humor in this and other "Reaganism's", I'm sure
the pucker factor in the Soviet Union was remarkable. Never before
had a U.S. president made such a statement in jest or otherwise and
following as it did upon Reagan's earlier "Evil empire" comments it
caused great alarm throughout the Soviet leadership. And then along
came "Star Wars" and the "bankruptcy race" aka "final arms race" which
eventually led to the demise of the Soviet Union.
Bud
Jerry Morgan wrote in message <37874056...@news3.newscene.com>...
>
>One of the most difficult things for most people to accept is
>realization that *their parents* and their parents generation DID all
>sorts of "sex things". This spans all generations and really hits
>hard at the current crop of young adults whose parents were a part of
>the "drugs, sex and rock and roll generation of the 60's". We
>"boomers" didn't invent much if anything in the way of outlandish
>behavior, we simply conducted our outlandish behavior out in the open
>as an act of defiance against "the establishment".
>
OCAF make comments about how people are wickeder than in times past. They
seem to believe that people started doing drugs and out-of-wedlock sex in
the 1960's. If they read some history -- and not just the sanitized version
of history we're taught in high school -- they would learn that much of the
world was during heavy drugs (and all of them legal) during much of the
later part of the 19th century up until the 1920's when the first drug laws
went on the books. As you're probably well aware, one of the ingredients
of the pre-1920's Coke was cocaine and one of the ingredients in 7-Up was
lithium and most over-the-counter medicines contained either opium or
cocaine (no wonder they were called the good ole days.)
As to sex, well well during Victorian England, have sex with a virginal 11
or 12 year old girl was all the rage. The poor would sell their daughters
to brothels to make money to pay their debts. And if you ever have the
chance to read excerpts from Samuel Pepys' diary which was written in the
1600's, the sex with virginal 11 or 12 year old girl was almost tame
compared to the other sexual "adventures" of the time. And let's not forget
the middle ages where nunneries were more than a place of worshipping God.
When Shakespeare wrote in "Hamlet" that Ophelia should get herself to a
Nunnery, it didn't mean that she would lead a life of chastity.
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
<snip>
>I enjoy reading history and I always get a laugh when folks like Valerie or
>OCAF make comments about how people are wickeder than in times past. They
>seem to believe that people started doing drugs and out-of-wedlock sex in
>the 1960's. If they read some history -- and not just the sanitized version
>of history we're taught in high school -- they would learn that much of the
>world was during heavy drugs (and all of them legal) during much of the
>later part of the 19th century up until the 1920's when the first drug laws
>went on the books. As you're probably well aware, one of the ingredients
>of the pre-1920's Coke was cocaine and one of the ingredients in 7-Up was
>lithium and most over-the-counter medicines contained either opium or
>cocaine (no wonder they were called the good ole days.)
>
Sanitized history like sanitized Bible, another history book in
reality, often leads folks astray and causes them to think that the
"human condition" has changed radically over the past few thousand
years. Sure technology, medicine and other modern miracles have made
life easier, longer lasting and such but humans have changed very
little in spite of it all.
>As to sex, well well during Victorian England, have sex with a virginal 11
>or 12 year old girl was all the rage. The poor would sell their daughters
>to brothels to make money to pay their debts. And if you ever have the
>chance to read excerpts from Samuel Pepys' diary which was written in the
>1600's, the sex with virginal 11 or 12 year old girl was almost tame
>compared to the other sexual "adventures" of the time. And let's not forget
>the middle ages where nunneries were more than a place of worshipping God.
>When Shakespeare wrote in "Hamlet" that Ophelia should get herself to a
>Nunnery, it didn't mean that she would lead a life of chastity.
>
Shades of Maria Monk!!!
The greatest cultural shock of my life involved see children openly
*sold* as "sex slaves" during my tours in S.E. Asia. I have no idea
if the practice continues today but during the late 60's and early
70's it was very common in RVN, Cambodia and Thailand.
DRDANJ
Joel Olson
> The greatest cultural shock of my life involved
> see children openly *sold* as "sex slaves" during
> my tours in S.E. Asia. I have no idea if the
> practice continues today but during the late 60's
> and early 70's it was very common in RVN,
> Cambodia and Thailand.
Did they appear to incur psychological damage, fragmented
personalities, trauma, low self esteem? Or was it more like
the World of Suzie Wong?
-------------------------------------
The fact is that civilization requires slaves. The Greeks
were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the
ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and
contemplation becomes almost impossible. Human slavery is
wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on
the slavery of the machine, the future of the world
epends. - O. Wilde
-------------------------------------
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
>Jerry wrote:
>> The greatest cultural shock of my life involved
>> see children openly *sold* as "sex slaves" during
>> my tours in S.E. Asia. I have no idea if the
>> practice continues today but during the late 60's
>> and early 70's it was very common in RVN,
>> Cambodia and Thailand.
>
>Did they appear to incur psychological damage, fragmented
>personalities, trauma, low self esteem? Or was it more like
>the World of Suzie Wong?
>
For the most part these kids looked "lost", with a look in their eyes
akin to a "100 meter stare" but different. These were both young
girls and young boys, probably 8-13 that were either orphaned or
simply abandoned by parents and left to fend for themselves. Most
ended up in the "sex trade" around the major cities where the various
sex merchants preyed upon them, offering them food and shelter in
exchange for selling them on the street in prostitution or outright as
"sex slaves" to foreigners with the money.
Michael A. Clem
> I am so grieved at how many on this board support the murder of the unborn.
> That is nothing but a spirit of murder. Please change your attitudes.
>
Abortion is a difficult issue. I have serious trouble with people who think that
abortion is simply murder without considering the consequences of vigorously
pursuing such a policy. Would you so casually condemn a teenage unwed mother to
attempt to raise a child she doesn't want, can't afford, can't handle? I would
have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if I thought such people were
actually concerned about the women and babies involved, and wanted to help them
instead of merely condemning them.
And what about such considerations where the pregnancy causes serious health
risks to the mother? Or situations where the baby will be abnormal in some way?
Or where the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, against the woman's will?
And the legal consequences of outlawing abortion are also considerable. What
is an appropriate punishment for a woman who aborts her unborn child? The death
penalty? Or if the woman dies attempting to achieve an illegal abortion, how
shall she be punished? How could she be punished?
No, the moral questions raised by abortion will not be solved by passing laws.
--Mike Clem
Michael A. Clem
> so you support the murder of the unborn the sucking out of their brains?
> I so hope you come to Jesus before it is too late. Your attitude is grievous
> to the Lord.
>
When God aborts a child, we usually call it a miscarriage. Does God say one
thing and do something else? What kind of hypocrite is he, anyway? After all,
if abortion is wrong, then how can God justify it? Or maybe miscarriages are
the work of Satan, not God?
--Mike Clem
ta...@xtra.co.nz
(Amie or KRC) wrote:
>>So, the idea of abortion for anyone who feels they cant support a child, or had
>>a one night stand after getting drunk at the bar, works for you because you
>>could benefit. Yes, that does sound selfish. Next time my 15 year old
>>neighbor wants yet another abortion (she has had 2 already) I will remember
>>that you approve of her choice. When I was married I couldnt afford a child
>>either, but I had a daughter, something I will never regret...even though I
>>couldnt pay for cable.
So you don't regret having a daughter...so what? So the girl next door
has had two abortions...so fucking what? She's not your daughter,
she's not aborting your fetus, what business is it of yours to
determine her life and her choice of birth control?
*****
"If you're going to stay home from school today,you
can help me shave my armpits."
--"Juanita" from "Billy Madison"
Amie or KRC
--cut--
>So you don't regret having a daughter...so what? So the girl next door
>has had two abortions...so fucking what? She's not your daughter,
>she's not aborting your fetus, what business is it of yours to
>determine her life and her choice of birth control?
Uhh, Tarla, I didn't write that, Dan did in response to me. I'm
childless, pro-choice, and quite happy about both decisions.
KRC
Joel Olson
>
For the most part these kids looked "lost", with a look in
their eyes
akin to a "100 meter stare" but different. These were both
young
girls and young boys, probably 8-13 that were either
orphaned or
simply abandoned by parents and left to fend for themselves.
Most
ended up in the "sex trade" around the major cities where
the various
sex merchants preyed upon them, offering them food and
shelter in
exchange for selling them on the street in prostitution or
outright as
"sex slaves" to foreigners with the money.
>
I guess it beats dying of starvation, but still a most
unpalatable fate. Read somewhere that tours to SE Asia were
popular in Japan. As Bud pointed out, destitution forces
unsavory choices, as during the industrial revolution in
England. Many times people are about as "moral" as they can
afford to be.
----------------------
"Better the ugly truth than a beautiful lie." --Yiddish
saying
----------------------
ta...@xtra.co.nz
I knew that, I just didn't realize I'd left the the wrong header,
sorry.
Jerry Morgan
wrote:
<snip>
>I guess it beats dying of starvation, but still a most
>unpalatable fate. Read somewhere that tours to SE Asia were
>popular in Japan. As Bud pointed out, destitution forces
>unsavory choices, as during the industrial revolution in
>England. Many times people are about as "moral" as they can
>afford to be.
>
I dunno' which was worse, the "life" or starvation, during the time
frame that I was in SE Asia.
I've read that over the course of the past 10-15 years that AIDS has
reached epidemic levels among the child prostitutes of SE Asia and
India and this in spite of the efforts of WHO and other international
organizations to locate and "save" these children.
Jerry Morgan
This touches on the "God's will" or more accurately "God swill
argument", wherein "the faithful" when they can find no one to blame
for what they consider a bad thing attribute it to "the will of the
Lord".
If a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage that's "God swill".
If the same woman had an abortion, the woman and her doctor have
sinned although both could have in fact been doing "God's will".
God swill - brain food for the religious fanatic.
DRDANJ
<snip>
>I've read that over the course of the past 10-15 years that AIDS has
>reached epidemic levels among the child prostitutes of SE Asia and
>India and this in spite of the efforts of WHO and other international
>organizations to locate and "save" these children.
Back in 1991 I heard some alarming figures about Thailand. Around 50% of all
females, from birth to senior citizens, were either HIV+ or had Aids! They
claimed it was due to prostitution, a life the women were expected to live
while the men worked. The reporters interviewed many men informing them of
these figures, yet few seemed to care as they went looking for hookers, stating
that they were going to die someday! Most of these men were tourists from
Europe and the US.
On that note, and heading off topic, a college guy that worked for me, Monty,
said he did not fear Aids and refused to wear condoms. He felt the US
government would find a cure before he died had he contacted HIV. This was his
opinion back in 1989, which I hope has changed.
Peace.....
Dan
Amie or KRC
>Jerry Morgan wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I've read that over the course of the past 10-15 years that AIDS has
>>reached epidemic levels among the child prostitutes of SE Asia and
>>India and this in spite of the efforts of WHO and other international
>>organizations to locate and "save" these children.
>
>Back in 1991 I heard some alarming figures about Thailand. Around 50% of all
>females, from birth to senior citizens, were either HIV+ or had Aids!
It's actually closer to 40%, but it's amazingly high no matter which
way you look at it. The actual rate itself is very hard to determine,
however, due to the lack or regulation in the sex industry and an
apathetic and often unstable government.
>They claimed it was due to prostitution, a life the women were expected to live
>while the men worked.
It is. The sex industry is a major economic force in Thailand, and
the biggest customers of it are not westerners, but Japanese
businessmen. It is also the Japanese who keep up the demand for child
prostitutes. It is very common for rural children in Thailand to be
sold into prostitution at a young age as children are very much in
demand, thanks to the Japanese.
>The reporters interviewed many men informing them of these figures, yet few
>seemed to care as they went looking for hookers, stating that they were going
>to die someday! Most of these men were tourists from Europe and the US.
While westerners do partake, the majority of customers still come
from Asia. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia, which have
extremely harsh and sometimes downright bizarre laws pertaining to
sex, provide the largest amount of customers, behind Japan.
KRC
robert lindsay
Ben Randle <bra...@webzone.DOT.net> wrote:
>
>Well as I was severely searching for some form of decent radio to
>listen to while driving through Western Arkansas today, I found a
>decent AM radio show. According to new reports sex education is
>working as kids are starting to refrain from sex. Problem is, there
>has been an explosion of oral sex seeing it as a safe alternative from
^^^^^^^^^
MUST RESIST OBVIOUS STRAIGHTLINE>>>
SDSFKL
A
NO CARRIER
--
Robert Lindsay, NASA - Goddard, Greenbelt MD rlin...@seadas.gsfc.nasa.gov
#include <standard_disclaimer.h> 301-286-9958 ISTJ Type 9
"I mean, if you're scared of NASA, that's like being afraid of wax paper."
-J. "Kibo" Parry, USENET, Jan 30, 1999 Should we talk about the weather? -REM
robert lindsay
>
>I've wondered about that myself... The rr was all atwitter about Ellen and
>they've basically ignored Will and Grace. My personal belief is that all of
>that will change if the writers attempt to introduce a boyfriend for Will.
>Right now it's all cute, funny, and easily ignored, but the uptight folks
>won't care too much for even vague insinuations that Will is sharing a bed and
>sexual relations with another man.
For what it's worth their is supposedly so gay group that is denoucing
Jar-Jar in Episode I as being derogatory to gays.
Jar-Jar was unavailible for comment.
Joel Olson
<
I've read that over the course of the past 10-15
years that AIDS has reached epidemic levels
among the child prostitutes of SE Asia and India
and this in spite of the efforts of WHO and other
international organizations to locate and "save"
these children.
>
Hadn't heard India mentioned in this connection before, but
it could well be there too. Reportedly, the incidence is as
high or higher throughout central and western Africa.
On smaller scales, cities with large needle-sharing
subpopulations have problems. Of course, our laws
prohibiting syringes make them scarce, which leads to the
sharing, and the attempts by social or charitable
organizations to promote better hygiene come under immediate
attack.
Its interesting to place this in the context of the SOP of
epidemics - over time, the more virulent strains die out
after having killed off their host population, while the
less virulent strains continue (and the survivors develop
inheritable resistance), mainly in the weakest segments of
the populace, i.e. the young and the old and the poor. There
was a lot of interest, early in the US AIDS epidemic, in
finding someone with a natural immunity. Haven't seen this
mentioned in a long time now - anybody know if such a person
exists?
I conside FGM (female genital mutilation) to be a similar
horror, widespread in the Islamic parts of Africa (northern
& eastern), practiced traditionally in perceived conformance
with the Koran, but possibly a carryover from earlier times.
While there is some overlap with the geographic distribution
of AIDS, its (so far) less than I'd expect.
----------------------------------
Among modern occupations, only cult leaders and TV
weathermen rival the technological visionary's ability to
retain credibility despite all evidence to the contrary. -
N. Myhrvold
----------------------------------
robert lindsay
Jerry Morgan <jmo...@bubbaworld.com> wrote:
>
>While many of us found humor in this and other "Reaganism's", I'm sure
>the pucker factor in the Soviet Union was remarkable. Never before
>had a U.S. president made such a statement in jest or otherwise and
>following as it did upon Reagan's earlier "Evil empire" comments it
>caused great alarm throughout the Soviet leadership. And then along
>came "Star Wars" and the "bankruptcy race" aka "final arms race" which
>eventually led to the demise of the Soviet Union.
While this is true, According to John Prados, this pushed the US-USSR conflict
closer to nuclear war that is widely know during the early 80's. The soviets
went so far as to ask the KGB to report on signs that the US was preparing
for a first strike. As dutifule bureaucrats, the KGB for such information,
which lead to the USSR increase their readiness, which was picked up by
the US, which increase OUR readiness, which was picked up by the KGB as
preparations for a first strike, which lead the USSR to increase THEIR
readiness again...
fortunately cooler heads prevailed in the end, but apparently in 1983
we were closer to war than anytime since the cuban missle crisis.
Bud
Joel Olson wrote in message <378a...@wznews.webzone.net>...
>
>Its interesting to place this in the context of the SOP of
>epidemics - over time, the more virulent strains die out
>after having killed off their host population, while the
>less virulent strains continue (and the survivors develop
>inheritable resistance), mainly in the weakest segments of
>the populace, i.e. the young and the old and the poor. There
>was a lot of interest, early in the US AIDS epidemic, in
>finding someone with a natural immunity. Haven't seen this
>mentioned in a long time now - anybody know if such a person
>exists?
>
one of the "educational channels" -- I can't recall if it was PBS, Discovery
or The Learning Channel. They covered several folks that had been HIV
positive for at least a dozen years but never came down with AIDS. Each of
the individuals profiled had a different factor that scientists believed was
keeping them from developing fall-blown AIDS. Scientists were studying the
men to see why , if anything, could be learned and applied to treating
HIV/AIDS. It was really an interesting show, I just wish I could recall
more of the details for you.
Jerry Morgan
<snip>
>Back in 1991 I heard some alarming figures about Thailand. Around 50% of all
>females, from birth to senior citizens, were either HIV+ or had Aids! They
>claimed it was due to prostitution, a life the women were expected to live
>while the men worked. The reporters interviewed many men informing them of
>these figures, yet few seemed to care as they went looking for hookers, stating
>that they were going to die someday! Most of these men were tourists from
>Europe and the US.
>
Generally speaking, life in SE Asia is short, difficult and involves a
daily struggle simply to survive. In these circumstances it's all too
common for one to have the attitude exhibited by the "johns" mentioned
above and of course it is that attitude in part that makes their lives
short, difficult and a struggle to survive.
>On that note, and heading off topic, a college guy that worked for me, Monty,
>said he did not fear Aids and refused to wear condoms. He felt the US
>government would find a cure before he died had he contacted HIV. This was his
>opinion back in 1989, which I hope has changed.
>
>Peace.....
>
>Dan
I think most of us have the attitude that government, science or
normally both will "save us" from just about every new medical threat
that comes along. History indicates that in the long run this is true
HOWEVER many suffer and die between the time of the arrival of the
threat and the arrival of the treatment/cure.
Jerry Morgan
lindsay) wrote:
<snip>
>While this is true, According to John Prados, this pushed the US-USSR conflict
>closer to nuclear war that is widely know during the early 80's. The soviets
>went so far as to ask the KGB to report on signs that the US was preparing
>for a first strike. As dutifule bureaucrats, the KGB for such information,
>which lead to the USSR increase their readiness, which was picked up by
>the US, which increase OUR readiness, which was picked up by the KGB as
>preparations for a first strike, which lead the USSR to increase THEIR
>readiness again...
>
I'd speculate (it's cheap and easy so why not?) that there were
probably several "close calls" during the cold war and that over time
more and more will be learned of them. I seem to recall that it was
only a couple of years ago that it was revealed that Cuba possessed
and had Soviet Union pre-approval to use tactical nukes if the U.S.
invaded during the Cuban Missile Crisis. While the major threats from
that time frame had been known for years, this was still a startling
revelation at its late date.
My "most likely accidental nuke scenario" involved something akin to
the "Bedford Incident" wherein simple bungling, misunderstandings and
an itchy finger on the launch button would touch off a nuclear war at
sea and by accident. For many years there was a "cat and mouse" game
played between the "hunter/killers" and the "boomers" on both sides
and often in very close and tense quarters.
>fortunately cooler heads prevailed in the end, but apparently in 1983
>we were closer to war than anytime since the cuban missle crisis.
Probably true, at least until the next "expose". ;-)
Like I said, I do believe these close calls were a lot more frequent
and probably a lot "closer" than most of us would have believed at the
time.
Jerry Morgan
lindsay) wrote:
>In article <378573c6...@news.webzone.net>,
>Ben Randle <bra...@webzone.DOT.net> wrote:
>>
>>Well as I was severely searching for some form of decent radio to
>>listen to while driving through Western Arkansas today, I found a
>>decent AM radio show. According to new reports sex education is
>>working as kids are starting to refrain from sex. Problem is, there
>>has been an explosion of oral sex seeing it as a safe alternative from
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>MUST RESIST OBVIOUS STRAIGHTLINE>>>
>
>SDSFKL
>A
>NO CARRIER
Fine job of resisting the urge.
I had a bit of difficulty resisting that one myself. ;-)
- - - - -
If the #2 pencil is the most popular, why is it still #2?
George Carlin
Les Cargill
>
> Valerie Gould wrote:
>
> > so you support the murder of the unborn the sucking out of their brains?
> > I so hope you come to Jesus before it is too late. Your attitude is grievous
> > to the Lord.
> >
>
> When God aborts a child, we usually call it a miscarriage. Does God say one
> thing and do something else? What kind of hypocrite is he, anyway? After all,
> if abortion is wrong, then how can God justify it? Or maybe miscarriages are
> the work of Satan, not God?
>
> --Mike Clem
Most abortions are simply human-initiated miscarriages. The cervix is dilated,
which starts the birthing process. The "sucking the brains out", partial-birth
abortion argument is a fairly weak argument, since those are quite rare. For those
interested, read "Cider House Rules".
--
X-No-Archive: yes
Les Cargill - lcar...@worldnet.att.net
Les Cargill
>
> Valerie Gould wrote:
>
> > That is nothing but a spirit of murder. Please change your attitudes.
> >
>
> Abortion is a difficult issue. I have serious trouble with people who think that
> abortion is simply murder without considering the consequences of vigorously
> pursuing such a policy. Would you so casually condemn a teenage unwed mother to
> attempt to raise a child she doesn't want, can't afford, can't handle? I would
> have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if I thought such people were
> actually concerned about the women and babies involved, and wanted to help them
> instead of merely condemning them.
There certainly is no shortage of demand for adopted babies. I don't really
care what those folks think, I just think they don't understand the problem
very well.
My take is: In this day and time, if any woman decides she doesn't want a child,
who am I to tell her she must? While I certainly would prefer that she adpot
the child out, bottom line is that it's none of my business.
> And what about such considerations where the pregnancy causes serious health
> risks to the mother?
Why is anyone except the doctor even in the loop for that? It's a medical
issue, use medical means to answer the questions. Why is it that "we" have to
order every aspect of people's lives?
> Or situations where the baby will be abnormal in some way?
Who defines abnormal?
> Or where the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, against the woman's will?
Or where the woman accidentally aborts by having a car wreck, or otherwise
commits "negligent homicide". If we are to attribute all rights and priveleges
fetuses, then let us be consistent about it.
Shouldn't we really be concerned about why anyone would *want* to abort? Isn't
that really the area where some good can be done?
> And the legal consequences of outlawing abortion are also considerable. What
> is an appropriate punishment for a woman who aborts her unborn child? The death
> penalty? Or if the woman dies attempting to achieve an illegal abortion, how
> shall she be punished? How could she be punished?
> No, the moral questions raised by abortion will not be solved by passing laws.
>
Morality has nothing to do with legality.
> --Mike Clem
Pete
(Jerry Morgan) wrote:
*I snipped a bit of stuff here*
> I think most of us have the attitude that government, science or
> normally both will "save us" from just about every new medical threat
> that comes along. History indicates that in the long run this is true
> HOWEVER many suffer and die between the time of the arrival of the
> threat and the arrival of the treatment/cure.
What was the last thing doctors cured - polio? Not to get on a
'konspiracy' rant - but ever notice that all we can do for most diseases
anymore is get them controllable - *with* ongoing treatment/medications.
Of course, there isn't any long-term $ in curing diseases... I remember
reading an AIDS article in rolling stone about some drugs they were
testing - that were horribly expensive.
Chris Rock had an interesting take on this for his HBO special - very
funny. It should be repeated a lot this month. Check it out.
Pete
Bud
Les Cargill wrote in message <378A92...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Michael A. Clem wrote:
>>
>> Valerie Gould wrote:
>>
>> > I am so grieved at how many on this board support the murder of the
unborn.
>> > That is nothing but a spirit of murder. Please change your attitudes.
>
>
>> >
>>
>> Abortion is a difficult issue. I have serious trouble with people who
think that
>> abortion is simply murder without considering the consequences of
vigorously
>> pursuing such a policy. Would you so casually condemn a teenage unwed
mother to
>> attempt to raise a child she doesn't want, can't afford, can't handle? I
would
>> have a lot more respect for the pro-life position if I thought such
people were
>> actually concerned about the women and babies involved, and wanted to
help them
>> instead of merely condemning them.
>
>
>There certainly is no shortage of demand for adopted babies. I don't really
>care what those folks think, I just think they don't understand the problem
>very well.
That's not a totally accurate statement. While it is true that there are
long waiting lists for white, perfectly healthly babies, the same can't be
said for black babies, drug-addicted babies or those with some kind of
health or mental problem. Older children, regardless of race, have even a
harder problem getting adopted. There are over 30,000 children that are
awaiting adoption based on government figures.
>
Jerry Morgan
(Pete) wrote:
<snip>
>What was the last thing doctors cured - polio? Not to get on a
>'konspiracy' rant - but ever notice that all we can do for most diseases
>anymore is get them controllable - *with* ongoing treatment/medications.
Not quite sure what you mean by "cured".
Only in the past few years has smallpox been eradicated, this after
polio basically met the same fate years earlier.
>Of course, there isn't any long-term $ in curing diseases... I remember
>reading an AIDS article in rolling stone about some drugs they were
>testing - that were horribly expensive.
>
Most "new" drugs are horribly expensive, especially when years are
spent in their development, testing and seeking FDA approval. Once
the initial costs are recouped AND the market is established the
prices fall to more reasonable levels. Later on once "generics" become
available the prices fall further still.
I'll agree that the "medical business" is one of the few where less
than the desired results are often "accepted" by most customers who
pay the bill without complaint. Customers who would in a similar
failed business experience with a plumber, auto mechanic or building
contractor be screaming to high heaven, stopping payment on the check
or calling the BBB.
>Chris Rock had an interesting take on this for his HBO special - very
>funny. It should be repeated a lot this month. Check it out.
>
>Pete
I'll watch for it, I've enjoyed Rock's specials in the past.
- - - - -
The Older I get - The better I *WAS*.
Michael OKC
news:73si3.17150$m7.5...@newscene.newscene.com...
> In article <379c2d21...@enews.newsguy.com>, <Michael OKC> wrote:
> >
> >I've wondered about that myself... The rr was all atwitter about Ellen
and
> >they've basically ignored Will and Grace. My personal belief is that all
of
> >that will change if the writers attempt to introduce a boyfriend for
Will.
> >Right now it's all cute, funny, and easily ignored, but the uptight folks
> >won't care too much for even vague insinuations that Will is sharing a
bed and
> >sexual relations with another man.
>
> For what it's worth their is supposedly so gay group that is denoucing
> Jar-Jar in Episode I as being derogatory to gays.
Really? If true it's utterly asisnine. I didn't exactly care for the
character the first time I saw the movie but I certainly didn't pick up any
anit-gay sentiments in anything Jar-Jar did or said. Are you sure you're
not confusing something else with the African-American/Jamaican outrage over
Jar-Jar? The fact that some of them were upset about Jar-Jar's "island"
dialect was pretty widely publicized.
Michael OKC
Timothy Melton
robert lindsay <rlin...@shark.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>For what it's worth their is supposedly so gay group that is denoucing
>Jar-Jar in Episode I as being derogatory to gays.
What? No Rasta men are going to sue? I must have missed the gay connection.
>Jar-Jar was unavailible for comment.
He was off takin' a toke, eh? ;-)
Tim
--
Tim Melton t...@questconsult.com
Quest Consultants Inc. http://www.questconsult.com/~tam
P.O. Box 721387 (405) 329-7475
Norman, OK 73070-8069 Fax: (405) 329-7734
Joel Olson
+ADw-
For what it's worth their is supposedly so gay
group that is denoucing Jar-Jar in Episode I as
being derogatory to gays.
Jar-Jar was unavailible for comment.
+AD4-
I'll denounce him as being a toon+ACE- Marching band people know
that no matter how high you lift your knees, the center of
gravity stays inside your body. His is out front by 6-8
inches.
-------------------------------------
Employees are our most valuable asset . . . I say we sell
them.
+AH4- M. Swenson
-------------------------------------
robert lindsay
Michael OKC <Mic...@somedomain.moc> wrote:
>
>Really? If true it's utterly asisnine. I didn't exactly care for the
>character the first time I saw the movie but I certainly didn't pick up any
>anit-gay sentiments in anything Jar-Jar did or said. Are you sure you're
>not confusing something else with the African-American/Jamaican outrage over
>Jar-Jar? The fact that some of them were upset about Jar-Jar's "island"
>dialect was pretty widely publicized.
>
>Michael OKC
I believe I read it in USA Toadie, on one of my interminable flights escorting
my daughter to visit The Evil One and Her Minion. I suppose I could search
www.usatoday.com, but that would make me feel unclean.
It was definately seperate of the rasta/jamacian thing, and was supposedly
based on Jar-Jar's movements and squeamishness.
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Les Cargill
Quite true, and thanks for the clarification. I'm not so sure that
race is that much of an issue ( I simply don't know ), but the older
kids, and kids with health problems are understandably more difficult
to place.
Nonetheless, with adoption as an alternative to abortion, there still
is demand for babies because of increasing fertility problems among
married couples.
Presumably, the babies adopted at birth won't at least
have the "older child" problem. I would guess that adoptive mothers are
probably more likely to have drug problems than mothers who keep their
child because of the correlation of poverty with both circuimstances.
But in my view, that's not even the point. It's more of a "whose
business is it, anyway" thing. Nobody has more at stake there than
the woman about to give birth.
--
Les Cargill - lcar...@worldnet.att.net
Timothy Melton
robert lindsay <rlin...@shark.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
[snip]
>Not that there's anything wrong with that....
You know, that's one of those phrases like "don't take offence,
but...".
By the way, anyone seen Valerie lately??
robert lindsay
Timothy Melton <t...@quest1.questconsult.com> wrote:
>In article <YC5j3.335$be.2...@newscene.newscene.com>,
>robert lindsay <rlin...@shark.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Not that there's anything wrong with that....
>
>You know, that's one of those phrases like "don't take offence,
>but...".
Actually, I was taking it from the 'famous' Sienfeld episode where some people
think he's gay...
>By the way, anyone seen Valerie lately??
oddly enough, their was a valerie I used to know out here too.
And she was pretty crazy also.
Our Valerie's Packard Hell was probably possesed by evil spirits^W^W Windows 98
and won't work, and the holy water shorted the keyboard...