Abortion Debate
Bob Ackley
Replying to a message of TERRY VERNON to SEAN M. BROOKS:
BA>>> IMO, it's when society began absolving people from
BA>>> any guilt associated with misbehavior, and began allowing people to
BA>>> blame other people or society at large for their own misfortunes -
BA>>> many, if not most of which, are their own d*mn fault.
SB>> Absolute agreement! And, a recent example of this nonsense
SB>> is the Florida jury sticking it to the tobacco industry for
SB>> allegedly being guilty of making people get sick from smoking
SB>> cigarettes. Let's see, I don't recall the cigarette makers holding
SB>> pistols to people's heads and FORCING them to smoke! <g>
TV> And how about the complicity of the Fed and States,
TV> who gleefully collected taxes off those tobacco sales?
... not to mention government farm subsidies to tobacco growers.
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
FRANK SCHEIDT
-=> Quoting Bob Eyer to Frank Scheidt <=-
BE> -People have been "thinking this through" for centuries. But you
BE> -have to back to the Middle Ages to find legal conventions which
BE> -treat abortion as murder.
>Speaks well for the Middle Ages, doesn't it? ... in *that*
>respect at least ...
BE> But look what was was associated with it. Feudalism. Absolute
BE> monarchies. Church mandate. Inquisition and threat of
BE> interdict from the Holy Office.
But people who led decent lives had nothing to fear from
the Church.
BE> If you had democratic rule, equal rights for women, etc., in the
BE> Middle Ages, whole ranges of prohibitions and penalties would
BE> have been impossible to implement let alone sanctify under
BE> colour of law--including making abortion equivalent to murder.
BE> -My friend, we live in the Modern Age, superior in every respect to
BE> -all the ages of history.
>One of your more questionable statements ... [sigh] ...
BE> You have only to indicate your reason for doubt to begin
BE> discussion on it.
See below ... [sigh again] ...
BE> -Our technology, science, literature,
BE> -art, morality,
> ... "morality"?? 'Scuse me while I stifle a puke ...
BE> Puke away as did Pope Pius IX in 1858; but the contributions of
BE> the Modern Period to morality are huge, so huge as to classify
BE> all previous condition of society as that corresponding to
BE> ignorance and barbarism:
BE> (1) Only in the Modern period was slavery abolished in the
BE> leading countries of the world and in their dependents.
Doubtless based on Church-based morality.
BE> (2) Only in the Modern period was the principle of free and
BE> universal public education established in most countries.
Church schools were among the first in America, and are
*still* considered among the best ...
BE> (3) Only in the Modern period did states get behind the principle
BE> of enforcing universal human rights.
*Some* human rights, yes ... of course it all depends (as
your friend, Bill Clinton, would put it) upon how one
defines "human rights".
BE> (4) Only in the Modern period was the principle of universal
BE> suffrage and democracy established.
Democracy is fine but universal suffrage? That's quite
controversial ...
BE> (5) Only in the Modern period did women achieve political
BE> equality.
Ha! They promised to end wars if they were given the vote
via the 19th amendment of eight decades ago. Has war
ended?
BE> (6) Only in the Modern period has it even been possible to
BE> provide global humanitarian relief.
True enough, but that is because of the inevitable
progression of technology -- something which is certainly
not hindered by the Church.
BE> (7) Only in the Modern period did the full flowering of moral
BE> systems develop. The ancients had no fully elaborated moral
BE> systems; their morality was based on a mere patchwork of
BE> rules thought to be related to religions. They never achieved
BE> recognition of completely general moral principles from which
BE> to deduce their moral rules. Their understanding of morality
BE> was therefore far inferior to modern understanding of the same
BE> subject.
Oh my! You cannot *possibly* believe *that*!! At least I
*hope* you can't. The "morality" (for lack of a better
term) of the modern era is akin to that of the ancient
Romans, not to that of the Middle Ages ...
BE> And so on and so forth (the list above only covers the high
BE> points).
Is that your best shot?
Dan Kimmel
"FRANK SCHEIDT" <org.fidonet.p0...@FRANK.SCHEIDT> wrote in
message news:0000...@GratisNet.com...
>
>
> -=> Quoting Bob Eyer to Frank Scheidt <=-
>
> BE> -People have been "thinking this through" for centuries. But you
> BE> -have to back to the Middle Ages to find legal conventions which
> BE> -treat abortion as murder.
>
> >Speaks well for the Middle Ages, doesn't it? ... in *that*
> >respect at least ...
>
> BE> But look what was was associated with it. Feudalism. Absolute
> BE> monarchies. Church mandate. Inquisition and threat of
> BE> interdict from the Holy Office.
>
> But people who led decent lives had nothing to fear from
> the Church.
<sigh> They certainly did if they were people who led decent lives who
didn't happen to be Catholic.
> BE> (4) Only in the Modern period was the principle of universal
> BE> suffrage and democracy established.
>
> Democracy is fine but universal suffrage? That's quite
> controversial ...
<sigh> Not in THIS country, it's not.
> BE> (5) Only in the Modern period did women achieve political
> BE> equality.
>
> Ha! They promised to end wars if they were given the vote
> via the 19th amendment of eight decades ago. Has war
> ended?
<sigh> Off your meds again, I see.
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Joe Lafoon to George Lagergren <=- 07-23-00 23:16
BE> during an abortion. Abortion is the deliberate killing of the
BE> fetus as ordered, or performed, by its own mother.
GL> Which society accepts as okay because the aborting woman herself
GL> is never charged with a crime known as "murder".
JL> Society does NOT accept it as okay. Certain members of society do,
JL> and the law does.
Okay then, what percentage of the USA society favor throwing the
aborting woman in jail for her so-called abortion "crime"?
JL> Did society accept the extermination of Jews during WWII? (I love
JL> rattling cages...)
Society did not accept/support the extermination of Jews during
WWII because the Nazis never publicly disclosed they were
killing Jews.
.. "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message." 23 Jul 00 23:20
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR]
George Lagergren
-=> Quoting Joe Lafoon to Mimi Weasel <=- 07-23-00 23:36
JL> I think the Nazis were evil for what they did, which was murdered a
JL> bunch of innocent people. Abortion doctors are just as evil in my
JL> book, for the same reason. YMMV.
And are women who seek out abortions just as evil, too?
.. "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message." 23 Jul 00 23:35
Mimi Weasel
whilst talking to MIMI, TERRY said:
TV>MW> TV>Ahh, that's our cunning ploy - we rely on you thinking
TV>MW> TV>that we are all monomaniacal one-dimensional posters.
TV>MW> It doesn't fit you, but it's a very apt description of many of
TV>MW> the ERWBDC here abouts.
TV>They are better at fooling you than I am....
They're not fooling.
L'Chaim
Mimi
MimiW...@home.com
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com
George W putting the W in AWOL
ţ CMPQwk 1.42 9998 ţPuritanism: The morbid fear that someone somewhere might be
having fun
Michael Gothreau
On 07-24-00, GEORGE LAGERGREN said to JOE LAFOON:
-=> Quoting Joe Lafoon to Mimi Weasel <=- 07-23-00 23:36
JL> I think the Nazis were evil for what they did, which was murdered a
JL> bunch of innocent people. Abortion doctors are just as evil in my
JL> book, for the same reason. YMMV.
GL>And are women who seek out abortions just as evil, too?
And what about the men who impregnated them? Are they evil too?
And what about the parents of these evil persons? Parents are obviously the
real evil...
Michael R. Gothreau
-!-
*Durango b300 #PE* 24 hours in a day. 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I
think not!
Bob Eyer
>Speaks well for the Middle Ages, doesn't it? ... in *that*
>respect at least ...
-But look what was was associated with it. Feudalism. Absolute
-monarchies. Church mandate. Inquisition and threat of
-interdict from the Holy Office.
>But people who led decent lives had nothing to fear from
>the Church.
"Decent lives?" Average longevity in the Middle Ages was less
than 30 years. The class system practically guaranteed that
the only people who had a chance to lead a decent life were
aristocrats and Church prelates.
Now if you had the engine of innovation working (implying
democracy, freedom, etc), those average longevity figures would
climb to reasonable levels.
The average person in the leading countries of the world did not
begin to live decent lives until the late 19th century.
Decency, my friend, goes WITH relaxed abortion laws and no
abortion laws. You need freedom for innovation. If you have no
innovation, you'll have little or no per capita growth. Your
society will be mired in ignorance and barbarism. And that's what
you get in societies which treat abortion as murder and
systematically punish it as such.
-Puke away as did Pope Pius IX in 1858; but the contributions of
-the Modern Period to morality are huge, so huge as to classify
-all previous condition of society as that corresponding to
-ignorance and barbarism:
-
-(1) Only in the Modern period was slavery abolished in the
-leading countries of the world and in their dependents.
>Doubtless based on Church-based morality.
That hypothesis must be rejected, owing to the fact that any
religious foundation for the Church must be found in the
original documents--especially the Bible. The Bible does not
condemn slavery. On the contrary, it either supports or
condones it.
Diocletian did more to end slavery than did Christianity. When
Christianity assumed state power in the 4th century, it had the
opportunity to have civil administrations ban it. But it
refused to do so.
That refusal continued well into the Modern period. This fact,
incidentally, is one of things the Pope apologised for this past
March.
-(2) Only in the Modern period was the principle of free and
-universal public education established in most countries.
> Church schools were among the first in America, and are
> *still* considered among the best ...
I question that estimate. But the main point is that Church
schools did not amount to a FREE and universal system. The great
majority of Catholics in the past, as well as the present, were
never able to educate their children in the Church system.
Universal free public education guarantees literacy and
education to all, regardless of class background, income,
religious persuasion, etc.
Nearly universal literacy is a common feature of all leading
societies in the modern period after the introduction of free
public education. It cannot be found in the major powers of the
ancient world.
-(3) Only in the Modern period did states get behind the principle
-of enforcing universal human rights.
>*Some* human rights, yes ...
Practically all of them. But even if modern states and their
international system promoted only a small subset, they would
still be morally far in advance of the leading states of the
ancient world. The very idea of rights enforceable by courts
against government cannot be found in the ancient world. This
idea is a development of modern constitutionalism, and probably is
not older than the 17th century.
-(4) Only in the Modern period was the principle of universal
-suffrage and democracy established.
>Democracy is fine but universal suffrage? That's quite
>controversial ...
For what reason? I don't know anyone seriously doubts the
utility of universal adult suffrage.
-(5) Only in the Modern period did women achieve political
-equality.
>Ha! They promised to end wars if they were given the vote
>via the 19th amendment of eight decades ago. Has war
>ended?
So you're implying that their suffrage should be taken away from
them on the ground that the promise was not kept.
-(6) Only in the Modern period has it even been possible to
-provide global humanitarian relief.
>True enough, but that is because of the inevitable
>progression of technology -- something which is certainly
>not hindered by the Church.
Not today in the modern period, except for biotechnology. The
Church has been compelled to make many compromises with science
during the last 500 years. One of the remaining areas in which
science is pushing back the reactionary character of Church
doctrine is in the area of biotechnology. The Church's position
on abortion seriously hinders research on fetal tissue and genetic
research in that area, because it involves using the discarded
materials from abortion operations.
The Church certainly did hinder the development of science,
necessary for technological advance. If Torquemada had had his
way, Christopher Columbus would have been burned at the stake for
doubting the scientific wisdom of Augustine on the issue of the
extent and shape of the oceans. The only thing that saved him was
the dream of Queen Isabella of extending the Spanish empire.
Columbus's successful voyage led to a number of technolical
improvements which never would have evolved if the Church had
had its way.
There are hundreds of incidents in the history of the Church
which show where, if the Church had had its way, there would be
no science, no technological development at all. One only has
to recall Galileo. And Galileo recalls Bruno and many others.
-(7) Only in the Modern period did the full flowering of moral
-systems develop. The ancients had no fully elaborated moral
-systems; their morality was based on a mere patchwork of
-rules thought to be related to religions. They never achieved
-recognition of completely general moral principles from which
-to deduce their moral rules. Their understanding of morality
-was therefore far inferior to modern understanding of the same
-subject.
>Oh my! You cannot *possibly* believe *that*!! At least I
>*hope* you can't. The "morality" (for lack of a better
>term) of the modern era is akin to that of the ancient
>Romans, not to that of the Middle Ages ...
This is nonsense. Practically all discussion of morality and
ethics at the university level relies on models developed only
during the Modern period. Modern economics, for example, is based
on the psychological interpretation of utilitarianism, which makes
its appearance in systematic form as an ethical theory only in the
Modern period.
It would be an exaggeration to say that all morality is due to
advances only in the Modern period; but it would not be too much
of an exaggeration. The ignorance of morality in the ancient
world was abysmal.
Bob
Gary Braswell
JL>While Gary Braswell gunned down God Dan, Joe charged his Tau Cannon...
JL> GB> I disagree with the comparison though since these laws were designed
JL> GB> with hate and malice in mind and heart and often carried out by people
JL> GB> who preyed on humans. I doubt most people who support or do abortions
JL> GB> meet this criteria.
JL>So you support hate crime legislation.
You did not leave enough of the post for me to know what laws I was
talking about.
-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Gary Braswell
BS>From: bob...@rapfire.net (Bob Sakowski)
BS>com.gratisnet.p99@centurion (Centurion) wrote in
BS><0010...@GratisNet.com>:
BS>>To hell with Usenet, Bob. If I wanted to deal with that kind of
BS>>crap, I'd be getting those groups from my own ISP. This is a FIDO
BS>>echo, not a Usenet echo. I also like to know when I browse a content
BS>>list who is sending to whom, and ALL in the To: line don't cut it.
BS>>If anybody has email access, they can get Usenet on their own, so
BS>>let's leave it that way.
BS>I will tell you John that I have been thinking of getting out of the
BS>FIDO business at the end of January, next, when my subscription to
BS>the backbone comes up for renewal.
Can't say as I blame you.
BS>Until then, I am experimenting with headers that the Newsgate
BS>usenet/fido conversion program will recognize to solve the TO: All
Cool!
BS>problem. I really don't have the time, inclination or energy to place
BS>a patch in someone elses software or write a new application.
Understandable.
BS>The board only gets a half dozen callers daily now and it is one of
BS>less than twenty here in the Tulsa area were there were 90+ a scant 2
BS>years ago.
Our net is about to die here come August.
BS>Anyway, I haven't made any final decisions yet, nor do I expect to
BS>until say 90-120 days prior to 01-31-01.
Let us know.
Gary Braswell
EC>-=> Quoting Gary Braswell to Ed Connell <=-
EC> EC>If you want to argue the issues with logic, I'll be
EC> EC>happy to join in. I'm not sure how to discuss with
EC> EC>folks who just say "you're evil" and that they disagree
EC> EC>most vehemently. To that I say, "<yawn> so what? I
EC> EC>know I'm not evil."
EC> GB> Goes hand in hand with the "you are a liar" line. Overused in the
EC> GB> extreme.
EC>That's a damnable lie. <g>
True.<g>
EC>... I laugh at your feeble attempts to make me laugh. OOPS!
Great line for a villain.<g>
-!-
ž OLXWin 1.00b ž I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Gary Braswell
MG>On 07-21-00, GARY BRASWELL said to GOD DAN:
MG>C> GD> ... "All 'true Christians' die stupid.": Styx
MG>GB>Lets drop the insulting taglines.
MG>I assume you'll be taking care of the ones which I find insulting too.
If I see them and agree they are, yes.
-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Gary Braswell
EH>EH>>EH>> GB> Lets stop the insults via the TO: field.
EH>EH>>EH>>You gotta be joking...
EH>EH>>EH>>But it's your echo, so whatever you say... but a bit more
EH>EH>>EH>>consistancy on your part would be greatly appreciated.
EH>EH>> GB> Such as?
EH>EH>>Such as pay attention to Dan's posting and see that his
EH>EH>>"problems" are entirely selective and that he has posted with
EH>EH>>other names in the past.
EH> GB> I don't seem them as selective and unless I can get proof
EH> GB> otherwise, it appears there is not much to be done.
EH>Whatever... fido is dying anyway. Bob S. just told Centurion in this packet
EH>that he may drop fido at the end of Jan. 2001. If that happens, fido is
dead.
Bob was planning on carrying it on via the internet I believe.
EH>EH>>You will notice that he really isn't here to discuss the
EH>EH>>issues, and continues to try and steer the conversation
EH>EH>>torward religion and attack anyone who believes in God.
EH>EH>>And you might pay closer attention to Dave Worrell, too.
EH> GB> I am keeping an eye on a lot of people, very carefully.
EH>Keep your eye on Mimi, she seems to go on a bombing run calling
EH>people names left and right. Her last run, in the same packet as
EH>your reply here, is accompnaied with an appeal to you to do something
EH>about Richard.
Already replied to them.
EH>EH>>Having to wade through a couple hundred posts just to find 10%
EH>EH>>of them as being worth reading is discouraging. This last week
EH>EH>>when Bob's system was down and I didn't get any packets was
EH>EH>>more enjoyable than I had expected.
EH> GB> Well, if its that bad for you, maybe its time to go.
EH>When I do, it will be of my own choosing...
But of course.
-!-
ž OLXWin 1.00b ž I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Gary Braswell
EH>EH>>RH>>He's lying to you and his reader "failure" is selective.
EH>EH>>Note RH>>again that he's used multiple handles in the same
EH>EH>>package.
EH>EH>> GB> Well, so far I have not caught him in a lie to me, so
EH>EH>> until GB> otherwise I will take him at his word.
EH>EH>>Oh come on, Gary, when he can change his name in the "From:"
EH>EH>>field at will, he is lying to you when he says he's having
EH>EH>>problems.
EH> GB> Going back and doing it by hand is a hassle. Anyway, what is
EH> GB> the problem? Handles are allowed. We know who it is. So what
EH> GB> is the problem I ask again?
EH>When I reply to Dan Ceppa and get some condescending reply back from
EH>"God Dan" he shouldn't be surprised to have his name changed again.
Be condescending back.
EH>EH>> GB> I had the very same problem with an earlier version of
EH>EH>> DOS GB> OLX
EH>EH>>You are quite gullible, you know that?
EH> GB> I have never in my life been called so gullible by both side
EH> GB> in this.
EH>That says nothing to you?
Yeah, it says I am doing a good job.
EH> GB> I am just a pushover idiot who cannot see what the
EH> GB> "other sides" agenda is.
EH>Oh good grief...
Read it many times, not from you.
EH> GB> I am very glad for all those who are so much more worldly and
EH> GB> knowledgeable than I, what would I do otherwise?<g>
EH>You'd get lost in the wilderness...
Nah, I know exactly where I am.
EH> GB> I can't count the people here, liberal and conservative with
EH> GB> their panties in a wad who think I am a dupe or being duped
EH> GB> by the "other side". I coddle the "other side" all the time,
EH> GB> protect them, ignore what they say or do, watch out or Gary
EH> GB> will get you because he is on the other side.
EH>I've not accused you of being on the other side. I'm just asking that
EH>you be a bit more consistant and not let people put anything over on you.
Ok.
EH> GB> People mistake my civility and trying to be fair and doing
EH> GB> the best I can for some mental fallibility.
EH>Fallibility is a human trait... we all suffer with it.
True.
EH> GB> And they have no idea what I know.
EH> GB> I like it that way.<g>
EH>I'm sure you do...
<g>
EH>EH>>RH>> GB> Everyone seems to know its him under either name.
EH>EH>>RH>>And the use of "God Dan" is a clear attempt to insult
EH>EH>>those RH>>that have
EH>EH>>RH>>religious beliefs. Your ignoring that don't change it.
EH>EH>> GB> Feel free to have your own handle in response if it makes
EH>EH>> you GB> feel better.
EH>EH>> GB> I hold very strong religious beliefs. It bothers me not
EH>EH>> one GB> whit.
EH>EH>>It doesn't bother me, either. It only shows how small Dan is
EH>EH>>and insecure in his beliefs he is that he feels the need to
EH>EH>>use such an alias. BTW, did you not notice that his "God Dan"
EH>EH>>persona appeared in here only AFTER one of the other
EH>EH>>participants of [That Other Echo] cross posted one of his
EH>EH>>posts from there under that name? He had no "problem" when he
EH>EH>>posted as Ernie Kovacks, or Torqumada, or any of his other
EH>EH>>personas.
EH> GB> Actually he was having problem even back then, several of is
EH> GB> messages alternated to me.
EH> GB> But if it does not bother you, why are you posting on it?
EH>It all started with a moderator warning...
That guy is a dickwad.
EH> GB> I don't take handles seriously.
EH> GB> Buy your logic John is having delusions about being in the
EH> GB> Roman Legions.
EH>heh heh heh...
Ok, maybe they are no delusions?<g>
EH> GB> So what if Dan thinks he is a god?
EH>EH>>But, like I said... it's your echo.
EH> GB> And like I said, I try to make it more open than that.
EH>Si, El Jeffe, si...
Bloat.<g>
Gary Braswell
JL>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his Tau Cannon...
JL> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is named
JL>"All."
Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care of that.
-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Gary Braswell
C>* Originally by: Ed Hulett (1:170/302.98), 21 Jul 00 20:59.
C>21 Jul 00 20:59, Ed Hulett wrote to Gary Braswell:
C> EH>>> GB> Well, so far I have not caught him in a lie to me, so
C> EH>>> until GB> otherwise I will take him at his word.
C> EH>>>Oh come on, Gary, when he can change his name in the "From:"
C> EH>>>field at will, he is lying to you when he says he's having
C> EH>>>problems.
C> GB>> Going back and doing it by hand is a hassle. Anyway, what is
C> GB>> the problem? Handles are allowed. We know who it is. So what
C> GB>> is the problem I ask again?
C> EH> When I reply to Dan Ceppa and get some condescending reply back from
C> EH> "God Dan" he shouldn't be surprised to have his name changed again.
C> EH>>> GB> I had the very same problem with an earlier version of
C> EH>>> DOS GB> OLX
C> EH>>>You are quite gullible, you know that?
C> GB>> I have never in my life been called so gullible by both side
C> GB>> in this.
C> EH> That says nothing to you?
C> GB>> I am just a pushover idiot who cannot see what the
C> GB>> "other sides" agenda is.
C> EH> Oh good grief...
C> GB>> I am very glad for all those who are so much more worldly and
C> GB>> knowledgeable than I, what would I do otherwise?<g>
C> EH> You'd get lost in the wilderness...
C> GB>> I can't count the people here, liberal and conservative with
C> GB>> their panties in a wad who think I am a dupe or being duped
C> GB>> by the "other side". I coddle the "other side" all the time,
C> GB>> protect them, ignore what they say or do, watch out or Gary
C> GB>> will get you because he is on the other side.
C>Gary, you have your own take on things from your perspective, and that's as
it
C>should be. However, I don't think its quite true that *both* sides think
C>you're a dupe. I have followed all the various threads here, and from MY
C>perspective, those on the left seem to me to be trying to use you as a tool
to
C>shut down any reasoned talk from the right. Most of us on that side have
made
C>repeated requests to them to enter into real debate and all we get are
cliches
C>and condescending replies and name calling. That is, and always has been,
the
C>method by which the liberals seek to retain power. We see it every day from
C>the White House right on down the line to local politics.
Its not just from one side, its both.
C>Sure, we bitch about things, but only because we're tired of the petty BS
that
C>passes for political debate from the left. It was going on when Bloomberg
was
C>the moderator and its going on now. I don't know what you hear in private
C>from various posters (except for what I send you), so I can't use that as a
C>factor in what I see going on. But, when we get a bunch of people from other
C>echoes coming in here making bombing runs and trying to trash this echo, how
C>are we supposed to react? Overall, I think most of us have used more than a
C>little restraint in responding to those attacks. You can strive to be fair,
C>but sooner or later you're going to have to fish or cut bait if you want this
C>echo to survive. Sometimes you have to cut out a tumor rather than use
chemo.
Its not just the people from other echos that are the problem.
Don't worry.
Something is in the works.
C> EH> It all started with a moderator warning...
C> GB>> I don't take handles seriously.
C> GB>> Buy your logic John is having delusions about being in the
C> GB>> Roman Legions.
C> EH> heh heh heh...
C>Just for the record, my handle has nothing to do with Rome. It is a
carryover
C>from the days when I ran a StarTrek themed BBS.
A likely story Citizen.<g>
C> GB>> So what if Dan thinks he is a god?
C>He thinks he is better than God.
We all have our delusions.<g>
Stan Hardegree
SH>> Those four men were allies in one of the most brilliantly
SH>> conceived and executed miltary victories in history.
EC> I'd like to give credit to the pope in another way that has
EC> more to do with the heart than the mind.
EC> I was reading recently about how during the dark days of
EC> oppression, the Christians (mostly Catholics, I'd estimate),
EC> thousands of them, would march by the offices of the Polish
EC> state and chant "We forgive you. We forgive
EC> you."
EC> The healing grace of such forgiveness is powerful stuff,
EC> just like God's forgiving grace. In a Bible study class
EC> yesterday, I commented that if I had to sum up the good news
EC> of the gospel in a few words, they would be that God is the
EC> father of the prodigal son.
Well said.
---
Joe Lafoon
While FRANK SCHEIDT gunned down JOE LAFOON, Joe charged his Tau Cannon...
MG> Thank you for proving my original response about Nazis murdering Jews
MG> to be correct. Murder is illegal, what the Nazis did was legal in their
MG> country, therefore it was _NOT_ murder.
JL> So why all the fuss? Why memorials? Why do we care? It must have been
JL> right, it was legal...just like abortion, right?
FS> It's amazing how some people become very, very upset over
FS> "legal" killings in a foreign country, more than a
FS> half-century ago yet actually *support* "legal" killings in
FS> *this* country today. One day I suppose I'll understand
FS> the inconsistencies of humans ...
In the realm of politics, inconsistancy is the rule, not the exception.
Sad but true.
Joe Lafoon jla...@home.com ICQ# 448659
.. "Operator, give me the number for 911." "One sec, I'm looking it up."
ROGER TRUCKS
-=> Quoting Bob Eyer to Roger Trucks <=-
BE> BE:
BE> -Fortunately for the modern period, the Popes have been minor
BE> -players in world history, both within and outside the Church.
BE> -They do little more than remind us why our age became modern in
BE> -the first place.
>Bob, every generation thinks of themselves as "Us Moderns."
BE> Since the 17th century.
>I
>remember reading about a Roman writer of about 300 AD who used the
>term "Us Moderns."
BE> This claim is controversial; please cite author, title, and page
BE> on what you remember reading here.
I don't see anything controversial about it at all. More than likely
thousands of people have said the same thing. Come to think of it
a Greek might of made the statement.
BE> It is controversial mainly because most historians agree that
BE> the modern period of Western history began during the 16th or
BE> 17th centuries, and involves the recognition for the first time
BE> in human history of a general tendency of progress over the
BE> centuries up to the present.
BE> This general tendency wasn't visible to the contemporaries of
BE> ages prior to the modern period.
Ah, but it's the "modern" historians who are defining when the modern
period began. I'm sure many before them defined some other period as
modern.
>It's really an expression of snobbery to think
>our generation is more hip and sophisticated than the previous
>ones. True, our technology is more advanced but human nature has
>not changed one wit.
BE> I don't think the claim of progress is made about human nature.
BE> Rather it is made about science, technology, art, morality,
BE> literature, political institutions, law, etc.--all the factors
BE> that go into the good life and make it as long as possible for the
BE> average individual.
Huh? I would think if we could change the way humans treat each
it would be considered great progress.
BE> The other point is that the doctrine of progress is not about
BE> generations, let alone years. It is not about one person's
BE> perception of his own personal direction in life. Rather, it is
BE> about centuries and civilisations. The circumstances from one
BE> generation to the next are often confused by short-term aberration
BE> phenomena such as wars. To get a broad view and see the operation
BE> of progress you really have to take a longer view and look at a
BE> whole century and compare it to previous centuries in a given
BE> civilisation.
BE> This is the broad frame of reference which intellectuals used to
BE> evaluate their age as compared to previous ages at the end of the
BE> 17th century during the celebrated 'quarrel of the Ancients and
BE> Moderns', from which the modern concept of progress emerged,
BE> forming the key idea of the Enlightenment during the 18th century.
BE> One good way to see whether progress is occurring is to look at
BE> average human longevity. Human longevity is affected by all
BE> sorts of things--the food supply, medical science, factors which
BE> cause people to wish to live longer (art, all manner of other
BE> pleasure) rather than commit suicide, the effectiveness of
BE> political organisation in securing the welfare of the average
BE> individual, science, techniques, and so on.
BE> The striking thing about the close of the 20th century is that,
BE> all over the world average human longevity is no lower in any
BE> country than 37 years (Malawi and Zambia) and no higher than 83
BE> years (Andorra). The weighted average is about 65 years.
BE> Most historians agree that average human longevity in Britain two
BE> centuries ago was about 30 years; and Britain was by no means the
BE> poorest country at that time. The world mean figure at that time
BE> must have been slightly lower, at around 27-28.
BE> Here are the mean life expectancy figures from birth for the
BE> United States since 1850 (see TIME Almanac 1999, p.811):
BE> Year Longevity Increase
BE> 1850 38 -
BE> 1900 48 +10
BE> 1950 66 +18
BE> 1995 73 + 7
BE> The biggest increase in American longevity occurred during the
BE> first half of the 20th century. Decade over decade, the biggest
BE> increases occurred during the two world wars.
True, but what allowed it to happen? I'm asking your opinion, not trying
to challange you.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
BOB KLAHN
cc:centurian
I thought what Centurian has been doing was not allowed, either. But,
maybe he's getting treated the way he is because of how he behaves.
C> Ummm, Gary, I thought this sort of thing was not allowed? If he
C> can't stand the heat, maybe he needs to go somewhere else.
C> * Originally by: God Dan (1:393/9005.30), 18 Jul 00 02:26.
C> 18 Jul 00 02:26, God Dan wrote to Centurion:
->>> On 17 Jul 00 01:26:34, Centurion got back to Ed Connell
Ce>>> Yup, we all saw it. But, if Bob Klahn can deny being a racist, then
Ce>>> I guess Dan can deny saying what we all heard him say. That's the
Ce>>> way they operate, you see.
GD>> ES&D, little PVC.
BOB KLAHN bob....@sev.org www.sev.org/users/bob.klahn
.. Race is an idea whose time has passed. <New People Magazine>
TERRY VERNON
RT> RT> Right, and abortion is not murder of innocent people.
RT> RT> The day will come when the abortionist will have to face the wrath of
God.
RT> TV> Just so long as the anti-abortion group don't try to hasten that day.
RT> I shall pray for you.
Hmmm.
Is that a promise or a threat?
Terry V.
---
ş MM 1.1 #0367 ş "I've ALWAYS been a Yankees fan," - Hillary Clinton
TERRY VERNON
RT> RT> RT> Maybe someday the abortionist will be hunted down like the Nazis.
RT> RT> TV> Would you approve, then, of the present hunting and killing of
RT> RT> TV> doctors who do abortions?
RT> TV> I find your non-response to my question to be a little disturbing.
RT> Didn't you read my reply below?
I did. It does nothing to address the above question.
RT> RT> And you approve of the millions of innocents who are murdered by
RT> RT> abortionists? Well, ok, I'm sure some of those who were aborted
RT> RT> might have grown up to be criminals. My God!! I just realized
RT> RT> the abortionists are practicing capital punishment on some of the
RT> RT> unborn who would have turned out to be murderers. A very good
RT> RT> reason to outlaw abortion.
RT> TV> I don't happen to consider all embryos and fetuses to be
RT> TV> "people".
RT> Just because you don't consider it so doesn't make it so. The Nazis
RT> considered all Jews to be subhuman but that didn't make it so.
And, equally, your view of abortion is not binding on others.
RT> TV> And I don't "approve" of abortion - but I consider that it
RT> TV> may be justified, on occasion.
RT> Which occassion would that be? Would it be an occasion of inconvenience
RT> to the prospective parents for instance?
No, not "inconvenience".
RT> TV> If you seriously feel that all abortion is murder,
RT> TV> are you in favor of life-in-prison for every woman
RT> TV> arranging and paying for such a murder?
RT> Hey, it's a start!
EOT.
Holding that view shows a total lack of serious intent
to change the existing law.
Terry V.
---
ş MM 1.1 #0367 ş I will pass on your suggestion....
Ed Hulett
EH>>EH>>EH>> GB> Lets stop the insults via the TO: field.
EH>>EH>>EH>>You gotta be joking...
EH>>EH>>EH>>But it's your echo, so whatever you say... but a bit
EH>>more EH>>EH>>consistancy on your part would be greatly
EH>>appreciated.
EH>>EH>> GB> Such as?
EH>>EH>>Such as pay attention to Dan's posting and see that his
EH>>EH>>"problems" are entirely selective and that he has posted
EH>>with EH>>other names in the past.
EH>> GB> I don't seem them as selective and unless I can get proof
EH>> GB> otherwise, it appears there is not much to be done.
EH>>Whatever... fido is dying anyway. Bob S. just told Centurion
EH>>in this packet that he may drop fido at the end of Jan. 2001.
EH>>If that happens, fido is dead.
GB> Bob was planning on carrying it on via the internet I
GB> believe.
Huh? How will he do that if he has no direct FIDO feed outside the internet?
EH>>EH>>You will notice that he really isn't here to discuss the
EH>>EH>>issues, and continues to try and steer the conversation
EH>>EH>>torward religion and attack anyone who believes in God.
EH>>EH>>And you might pay closer attention to Dave Worrell, too.
EH>> GB> I am keeping an eye on a lot of people, very carefully.
EH>>Keep your eye on Mimi, she seems to go on a bombing run
EH>>calling people names left and right. Her last run, in the same
EH>>packet as your reply here, is accompnaied with an appeal to
EH>>you to do something about Richard.
GB> Already replied to them.
I see that... and now you have Dan Kimmel and Randy Byrd trying to
be creative with their insults.
EH>>EH>>Having to wade through a couple hundred posts just to find
EH>>10% EH>>of them as being worth reading is discouraging. This
EH>>last week EH>>when Bob's system was down and I didn't get any
EH>>packets was EH>>more enjoyable than I had expected.
EH>> GB> Well, if its that bad for you, maybe its time to go.
EH>>When I do, it will be of my own choosing...
GB> But of course.
So there! <g>
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
EH>>EH>>RH>>He's lying to you and his reader "failure" is
EH>>selective. EH>>Note RH>>again that he's used multiple handles
EH>>in the same EH>>package.
EH>>EH>> GB> Well, so far I have not caught him in a lie to me, so
EH>>EH>> until GB> otherwise I will take him at his word.
EH>>EH>>Oh come on, Gary, when he can change his name in the
EH>>"From:" EH>>field at will, he is lying to you when he says
EH>>he's having EH>>problems.
EH>> GB> Going back and doing it by hand is a hassle. Anyway, what
EH>> is GB> the problem? Handles are allowed. We know who it is.
EH>> So what GB> is the problem I ask again?
EH>>When I reply to Dan Ceppa and get some condescending reply
EH>>back from "God Dan" he shouldn't be surprised to have his name
EH>>changed again.
GB> Be condescending back.
I did that, and it just winds him up more. It was amusing at first, but
not anymore.
EH>>EH>> GB> I had the very same problem with an earlier version
EH>>of EH>> DOS GB> OLX
EH>>EH>>You are quite gullible, you know that?
EH>> GB> I have never in my life been called so gullible by both
EH>> side GB> in this.
EH>>That says nothing to you?
GB> Yeah, it says I am doing a good job.
Sheesh, and naiive, to boot! <g>
EH>> GB> I am just a pushover idiot who cannot see what the GB>
EH>> "other sides" agenda is.
EH>>Oh good grief...
GB> Read it many times, not from you.
Good, you didn't get those posts... <g>
EH>> GB> I am very glad for all those who are so much more worldly
EH>> and GB> knowledgeable than I, what would I do otherwise?<g>
EH>>You'd get lost in the wilderness...
GB> Nah, I know exactly where I am.
Oh, you got a GPS? Cool!
EH>> GB> I can't count the people here, liberal and conservative
EH>> with GB> their panties in a wad who think I am a dupe or
EH>> being duped GB> by the "other side". I coddle the "other
EH>> side" all the time, GB> protect them, ignore what they say or
EH>> do, watch out or Gary GB> will get you because he is on the
EH>> other side.
EH>>I've not accused you of being on the other side. I'm just
EH>>asking that you be a bit more consistant and not let people
EH>>put anything over on you.
GB> Ok.
Now, get back on that fence!
EH>> GB> People mistake my civility and trying to be fair and
EH>> doing GB> the best I can for some mental fallibility.
EH>>Fallibility is a human trait... we all suffer with it.
GB> True.
Some more than others... <g>
EH>> GB> And they have no idea what I know.
EH>> GB> I like it that way.<g>
EH>>I'm sure you do...
GB> <g>
EH>>EH>>RH>> GB> Everyone seems to know its him under either name.
EH>>EH>>RH>>And the use of "God Dan" is a clear attempt to insult
EH>>EH>>those RH>>that have
EH>>EH>>RH>>religious beliefs. Your ignoring that don't change it.
EH>>EH>> GB> Feel free to have your own handle in response if it
EH>>makes EH>> you GB> feel better.
EH>>EH>> GB> I hold very strong religious beliefs. It bothers me
EH>>not EH>> one GB> whit.
EH>>EH>>It doesn't bother me, either. It only shows how small Dan
EH>>is EH>>and insecure in his beliefs he is that he feels the
EH>>need to EH>>use such an alias. BTW, did you not notice that
EH>>his "God Dan" EH>>persona appeared in here only AFTER one of
EH>>the other EH>>participants of [That Other Echo] cross posted
EH>>one of his EH>>posts from there under that name? He had no
EH>>"problem" when he EH>>posted as Ernie Kovacks, or Torqumada,
EH>>or any of his other EH>>personas.
EH>> GB> Actually he was having problem even back then, several of
EH>> is GB> messages alternated to me.
EH>> GB> But if it does not bother you, why are you posting on it?
EH>>It all started with a moderator warning...
GB> That guy is a dickwad.
I know, a real pushover idiot... <g>
EH>> GB> I don't take handles seriously.
EH>> GB> Buy your logic John is having delusions about being in
EH>> the GB> Roman Legions.
EH>>heh heh heh...
GB> Ok, maybe they are no delusions?<g>
I didn't say a word!
EH>> GB> So what if Dan thinks he is a god?
EH>>EH>>But, like I said... it's your echo.
EH>> GB> And like I said, I try to make it more open than that.
EH>>Si, El Jeffe, si...
GB> Bloat.<g>
Ed Hulett
JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
JL>>Tau Cannon...
JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
JL>>named "All."
GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB> of that.
Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Don Martin
Centurion said "ABORTION DEBATE" to Joe Lafoon, adding:
JL> Being descended from apes (if you believe that) does not mean we ARE
JL> apes. There are apes in Africa living in jungles, do THEY have a
JL> constitution? Can they even write?
Ce> All primates descend from a common ancestor, which makes us
Ce> cousins according to the latest research.
Since we share something like 98% of our DNA sequences
with chimps, we derive a _lot_ of arrogance from that
remaining lousy 2%.
However, that 2% appears to be enough for most purposes.
.. Through a Jaundiced Eye Darkly--Rheum With a View
(don.m...@mail.va.gov)
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
Sean M. Brooks
Hi, George. Hope you're well.
-=> Quoting GEORGE LAGERGREN to SEAN M. BROOKS <=-
BE> Your assumption is incorrect. Abortion is not a crime. It's a
BE> legal operation recognised as legal in nearly all modern
BE> countries of the world, including nearly all predominantly
BE> Catholic countries.
SMB> Wrong again. Take note of the fact that abortion is a crime
SMB> because it is the unjust destruction of innocent human life.
GL> Then abortion is a strange type of legal "crime" because the
GL> aborting woman herself is never charged with a legal "crime".
George, I've already said this before, do some elementary
checking up on the history or abortion. There HAS been times when
"mothers," along with murderous abortionists, have been punished
for this crime.
SMB> Wrong. The Church condemns abortion. It does not recommend
SMB> any specific penalty for that crime. I would be satisfied if
SMB> abortion was penalized roughly with the same punished given to
SMB> unnatural mothers who give birth to babies and then abandon them in
SMB> dumpsters and toilets.
GL> Mothers who throw away their just born child tend to end up with
GL> several years of jail.
And, that's exactly what such unnatural "mothers" deserve. And
you do see how this should apply to "pre-born" babies as well?
GL> Do you think the law makers will throw any aborting woman in jail
GL> for several years???
Not at this present stage of our depraved and degenerate culture.
Yours. Sean
.. "What?!? This isn't the Files section?!?"
Ed Hulett
GB> But of course.
So there! <g>
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> Be condescending back.
EH>>Oh good grief...
GB> Ok.
GB> True.
GB> <g>
EH>>heh heh heh...
GB> Bloat.<g>
Ed Hulett
JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
JL>>Tau Cannon...
JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
JL>>named "All."
GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB> of that.
Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Ed
Don Martin
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Sean M. Brooks
Yours. Sean
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> But of course.
So there! <g>
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> Be condescending back.
EH>>Oh good grief...
GB> Ok.
GB> True.
GB> <g>
EH>>heh heh heh...
GB> Bloat.<g>
Ed Hulett
JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
JL>>Tau Cannon...
JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
JL>>named "All."
GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB> of that.
Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Ed
Don Martin
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Sean M. Brooks
Yours. Sean
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> Be condescending back.
EH>>Oh good grief...
GB> Ok.
GB> True.
GB> <g>
EH>>heh heh heh...
GB> Bloat.<g>
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
JL>>Tau Cannon...
JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
JL>>named "All."
GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB> of that.
Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Ed
Ed Hulett
GB> But of course.
So there! <g>
Ed
Don Martin
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Sean M. Brooks
Yours. Sean
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> But of course.
So there! <g>
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> Be condescending back.
EH>>Oh good grief...
GB> Ok.
GB> True.
GB> <g>
EH>>heh heh heh...
GB> Bloat.<g>
Ed Hulett
JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
JL>>Tau Cannon...
JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
JL>>named "All."
GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB> of that.
Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Ed
Don Martin
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Sean M. Brooks
Yours. Sean
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
GB> But of course.
So there! <g>
---
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Ed Hulett
JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
JL>>Tau Cannon...
JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
JL>>named "All."
GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB> of that.
Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Ed
Ed Hulett
GB> Be condescending back.
EH>>Oh good grief...
GB> Ok.
GB> True.
GB> <g>
EH>>heh heh heh...
GB> Bloat.<g>
Ed
Don Martin
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Sean M. Brooks
Yours. Sean
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDOnet <-> USENET gateway
Dan Ceppa
-> On 22 Jul 00 21:12:00, Bob Eyer got back to Roger Trucks
BE> Here are the mean life expectancy figures from birth for the
BE> United States since 1850 (see TIME Almanac 1999, p.811):
BE> Year Longevity Increase
BE> 1850 38 -
BE> 1900 48 +10
BE> 1950 66 +18
BE> 1995 73 + 7
BE> The biggest increase in American longevity occurred during the
BE> first half of the 20th century. Decade over decade, the biggest
BE> increases occurred during the two world wars.
That's rather interesting... Did they give a reason for that?
.. "Free people write books. Free people read books." -- Franklin
GratisNet - Tulsa, OK
FIDO - usenet gateway
Gary Braswell
DW>21 Jul 00 20:47, Ed Hulett wrote to Gary Braswell:
DW> EH>>> And you might pay closer attention to Dave Worrell, too.
DW> GB>> I am keeping an eye on a lot of people, very carefully.
DW> EH> Keep your eye on Mimi,
DW> You were a hall monitor in grade school, weren't you?
Drop it.
-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!
FRANK SCHEIDT
-=> Quoting Joe Lafoon to Frank Scheidt <=-
MG> Thank you for proving my original response about Nazis murdering Jews
MG> to be correct. Murder is illegal, what the Nazis did was legal in their
MG> country, therefore it was _NOT_ murder.
JL> So why all the fuss? Why memorials? Why do we care? It must have been
JL> right, it was legal...just like abortion, right?
FS> It's amazing how some people become very, very upset over
FS> "legal" killings in a foreign country, more than a
FS> half-century ago yet actually *support* "legal" killings in
FS> *this* country today. One day I suppose I'll understand
FS> the inconsistencies of humans ...
JL> In the realm of politics, inconsistancy is the rule, not the
JL> exception. Sad but true.
Of course, *someone* -- I think it might have
been Ralph Waldo Emerson -- once said, "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Sean M. Brooks
Hi, Bob. Hope you're well.
-=> Quoting Bob Eyer to Sean M. Brooks <=-
SMB> -False. A good benchmark date for when we clearly started be-
SMB> -coming degenerate is when Roe vs. Wade was crammed down the
SMB> -throat of the US in 1973.
GL> Which occurred less than ten years after women become the
GL> majority voters in 1964. Interesting fact, isn't it?
>The spurious "majority rule" argument. Previously and still
>rejected.
BE> I think George was suggesting a causal relationship, not a moral
BE> one. Obviously, when women get sufficient electoral clout,
BE> they're going to wield it.
And, I continue to reject the notion that merely because a
certain category of people may be a "majority," that means they'll
automatically support abortion. You also have to factor in things
like women Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc., who reject abortion as
a crime. That alone demolishes George's tiresom mantra. And, I
didn't even have to point out how many women Catholics also reject
abortion!
You're going to have to take into account that many MEN are in
favor of easy abortion. Esp. if it gives them a way out of having
to accept responsibility for begetting children.
BE> When they do, the 'spirit of the times' is bound to change.
And, I deny that necessarily happens merely because of something
so trivial as women being a "majority" of the voters.
BE> And such changes are sometimes
BE> reflected in Court decisions.
It's true that many degenerate liberals use the courts to cram
policies down the throat of the US that they couldn't get passed into
law by the LEGISLATURES. Roe vs. Wade in 1973 comes to mind!
BE> Are you then reflecting skepticism of George's suggestion of a
BE> causal argument? If so, on what grounds.
See above.
Yours. Sean
.. St. Peter to Cornelius: "Roast pork is delicious!" (Acts 10 & 11)
FRANK SCHEIDT
Sean M. Brooks
FRANK SCHEIDT
Sean M. Brooks
FRANK SCHEIDT
Sean M. Brooks
FRANK SCHEIDT
Sean M. Brooks
FRANK SCHEIDT
Sean M. Brooks
Stan Hardegree
GB>> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
GB>> of that.
EH> Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
I hear you get a lot more mail that way.
---
Stan Hardegree
JL>> In the realm of politics, inconsistancy is the rule, not
JL>> the exception. Sad but true.
FS> Of course, *someone* -- I think it might have
FS> been Ralph Waldo Emerson -- once said, "A foolish
FS> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Emerson it was.
Gary Braswell
EH>JL>>While Gary Braswell gunned down Bob Sakowski, Joe charged his
EH>JL>>Tau Cannon...
EH>JL>> GB> Looks like dupes are being done in internet format.
EH>JL>>Whew. I thought I had entered usenet hell, where everyone is
EH>JL>>named "All."
EH> GB> Bob is trying to come up with something that will take care
EH> GB> of that.
EH>Until then, we all have to change our names to ALL. <G>
Sounds communist to me.<g>
-!-
ž OLXWin 1.00b ž I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Gary Braswell
EH>EH>>EH>>EH>> GB> Lets stop the insults via the TO: field.
EH>EH>>EH>>EH>>You gotta be joking...
EH>EH>>EH>>EH>>But it's your echo, so whatever you say... but a bit
EH>EH>>more EH>>EH>>consistancy on your part would be greatly
EH>EH>>appreciated.
EH>EH>>EH>> GB> Such as?
EH>EH>>EH>>Such as pay attention to Dan's posting and see that his
EH>EH>>EH>>"problems" are entirely selective and that he has posted
EH>EH>>with EH>>other names in the past.
EH>EH>> GB> I don't seem them as selective and unless I can get proof
EH>EH>> GB> otherwise, it appears there is not much to be done.
EH>EH>>Whatever... fido is dying anyway. Bob S. just told Centurion
EH>EH>>in this packet that he may drop fido at the end of Jan. 2001.
EH>EH>>If that happens, fido is dead.
EH> GB> Bob was planning on carrying it on via the internet I
EH> GB> believe.
EH>Huh? How will he do that if he has no direct FIDO feed outside the internet?
I meant making a transition to internet entirely.
EH>EH>>EH>>You will notice that he really isn't here to discuss the
EH>EH>>EH>>issues, and continues to try and steer the conversation
EH>EH>>EH>>torward religion and attack anyone who believes in God.
EH>EH>>EH>>And you might pay closer attention to Dave Worrell, too.
EH>EH>> GB> I am keeping an eye on a lot of people, very carefully.
EH>EH>>Keep your eye on Mimi, she seems to go on a bombing run
EH>EH>>calling people names left and right. Her last run, in the same
EH>EH>>packet as your reply here, is accompnaied with an appeal to
EH>EH>>you to do something about Richard.
EH> GB> Already replied to them.
EH>I see that... and now you have Dan Kimmel and Randy Byrd trying to
EH>be creative with their insults.
Replied to them as well.
EH>EH>>EH>>Having to wade through a couple hundred posts just to find
EH>EH>>10% EH>>of them as being worth reading is discouraging. This
EH>EH>>last week EH>>when Bob's system was down and I didn't get any
EH>EH>>packets was EH>>more enjoyable than I had expected.
EH>EH>> GB> Well, if its that bad for you, maybe its time to go.
EH>EH>>When I do, it will be of my own choosing...
EH> GB> But of course.
EH>So there! <g>
Hah!
-!-
ş OLXWin 1.00b ş I feel much better since I gave up hope!
Michael Gothreau
On 07-25-00, TERRY VERNON said to MICHAEL GOTHREAU:
MG> On 07-24-00, GEORGE LAGERGREN said to JOE LAFOON:
MG> JL> I think the Nazis were evil for what they did, which was murdered a
MG> JL> bunch of innocent people. Abortion doctors are just as evil in my
MG> JL> book, for the same reason. YMMV.
MG> GL>And are women who seek out abortions just as evil, too?
MG> And what about the men who impregnated them? Are they evil too?
MG> And what about the parents of these evil persons? Parents are obviously
TV>the
MG> real evil...
TV>It is incontrovertible that parents are the source of all evil.
So, womem who seek abortions are seeking to prevent parenthood and as a result
they are not evil, right?
LOL!
Michael R. Gothreau
-!-
*Durango b300 #PE* Atheist Problem: No one to talk to during sex.