faggots and dykes
tb...@tsca.uucp
pro-creation. i do agree that that is one function for them (and a
very important one at that), but you're overlooking the unity factor; i
believe that the pleasure resulting from the sexual union and relationship
in general binds people together. moses says in genesis that men and
women were set apart to be married, and that the two would cleave to
become one flesh -- the idea implies that a man and a woman sharing
one life should share all things (including their bodies).
as an evangelical Christian, i do believe that there is something wrong
about homosexuality -- i know i'll probably catch some heat for that, but
the Bible is fairly clear about it (the few times that it is mentioned).
this has been a difficult topic for me to deal with, since i have some
homosexual friends, and it is difficult for me to call it sin. on the
other hand, where God is clear, i need to be clear too. don't get me
wrong -- i don't hold out homosexuality as a more grave sin than any of
my own sins -- lust, pride, impatience. but sin is still sin.
frankly, i don't appreciate the disparaging remarks about homosexuals.
i don't appreciate those kinds of remarks about all people. Jesus died
for them just as much as He died for you and me. we need to recognize
sin where we see it, but we also need to be moving forward in an attitude
of love. Jesus didn't go around calling people perverts to put them down;
He came to give us new life, to show us that we didn't have to be satisfied
with our sinful nature, to forgive us, and to bring us into a relationship
with God. To call other people perverts (while implying that you're okay)
is ridiculous. it reminds me of the parable of the pharisee and the
publican, where the pharisee is praying to himself (not God) about what
a great guy he is, while the other man asks for mercy; the publican went
home justified, while the pharisee did not. the Lord wants us to
recognize who we are in His sight, and if we believe that we are good
enough for God, then we have a wrong view of who we are in His sight.
Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."
we need to realize that we are poor in spirit -- telling other people
what "perverts" they are doesn't seem to recognize our own poorness of
spirit. do we mourn our own sinfulness, even as Christians? we need
to. i'm not trying to water it down -- as i said before, sin is still
sin. but i suggest that we work on taking the log out of our own eyes
before we work on the speck in someone else's.
tbare@sri-nic
ps: sorry about the long flame, but i get really wound up when people
misrepresent who our Lord is and what He is trying to do... -bare
jrl
With all this high intellectual discussion of 'gays' one question
seems to keep popping up. If the whole world were 'gay' then mankind would
become extinct in one generation. The Creator gave you genitals for one reason
only that being to procreate. The pleasure that we connect with this primal act
is merely a byproduct of our large brain. Yes it probally can be said that homo-
sexuals have ben around since the dawn of man. But it is only in the last 20
or 30 years that they have come out of the closet. That is what happens when
you have too many liberals in office for too many years. When a 'gay' couple
can produce a child than I will be ready to accept them into the mainstream
of homo-sapiens. Until that happens I can only accept gays as perverts with
severe mental problems. Lets have the bloody liberal faggot and dyke discussion
take a walk to net.motss where it belongs.
Oh I can feel the flames already . . . . . . . .
harpo!jrl
Phil Ngai
adopted childen. No doubt they are corrupting and or sexually abusing
these innocent helpless children to satisfy their godless perversions. :-)
(it's getting hot in here)
--
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6825 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phil
Stephen Dyer
enough job of unmasking the true nature of such hate-filled epithets.
However, it IS appropriate to point out that this discussion most
certainly does belong in 'net.singles', for it was engendered by
Jeff Sargent's public ruminations about the nature of his own sexuality,
and his thoughtless, though probably unintentional, public derogation
of gay people as a group. Where would you expect public replies to this
to appear? Surely not in 'net.motss'! It should appear precisely in
the same newsgroup in which the original article appeared, so that
Jeff's statements do not sit unanswered in the eyes of the original
audience. It is heartening to see so many eloquent, well-formed replies.
All I want now is some response from Jeff, who has been mysteriously
silent following his raking over the coals (all in the spirit of
charity and fellowship, of course!) Then, we can retire this discussion,
I hope.
--
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sd...@bbncca.ARPA
Randy Haskins
person is a jerk and NOT let it effect the discussion? If you feel
the need to refute this person, please do it with mail (I can't
imagine wanting to refute anything that has its obvious intent in
causing resentment, but that's another story). This person wanted
to wreck the discussion; don't make his/her day.
--
Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
D.A. Seifert
it has now turned into a pointless debate of the "gay"
lifestyle vs. the "normal" lifestyle, and like a lot of other
debates, there are many of us who don't want to have to
wade through it!
Move it to net.motss, move it to net.debate (soon to be lobbied for),
move it to a mailing list, I don't care, but MOVE IT!
Net.singles is one one the more interesting newsgroups, with
very very little flaming. Lets not spoil it, ok?
--
_____
/_____\ Ever try to autocross a Sopwith Camel?
/_______\
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
be...@umcp-cs.uucp
flames against gays. I am amazed that both sides keep yelling at one another.
How about treating people like people? Should people who have been sterilized
not have sex? Just because they have been sterilized and still have sex are
they not fit to teach, be parents, and hold positions which require security
clearances? Not being able to procreate directly within a relationship does
not automatically make those people unfit for anything other than procreation.
Why should it matter what they do in the privacy of their own homes?
Gay people generally are not seducing children, raping women, or killing
people. Neither are blacks, Jews, women, Englishmen, rich folks, or any
other subdivision of society other than rapists, child molesters, and
murderers. Yes, there are some people in all of those categories who will
commit some crimes. But most of those people are lawabiding citizens. How
about getting after the rapists and the child molesters? Concentrate on the
area of sexual abuse of children. Most of that abuse is more heterosexual
rather than homosexual. Lobby to allow the children to give testimony.
Volunteer to help out with counseling kids. Help out however you can.
Leave alone those people who do whatever they want in the privacy of their
own homes with other consenting adult partners. It's none of your business.
Beth Katz
People are people too. {seismo,rlgvax}!umcp-cs|beth
Chuq Von Rospach
> harpo!jrl
Hoo boy, understatement of the year...
> With all this high intellectual discussion of 'gays' one question
>seems to keep popping up. If the whole world were 'gay' then mankind would
>become extinct in one generation.
Bad assumption on a number of levels. It is possible for homosexuals to
have children, and growing numbers are. Artificial insemination is one
possibility. In a few years parthenogenisis will be a possibility as well.
If the fate of civilisation is involved, I'm sure you'll even find a few
hardy women who can overcome their revulsion with the male body and do it
for humanity. Besides, making the assumption that everyone is gay is like
making the assumption that everyone isn't. Silly, silly, silly. If you put
25 programmers in a room you will get 30 different opinions on a subject.
Why should it be different with sex?
>The Creator gave you genitals for one reason
>only that being to procreate. The pleasure that we connect with this primal act
>is merely a byproduct of our large brain.
Hmmm... that isn't where I notice the pleasure but that's beside the point.
If the Creator (what a nice amorphous way of pointing out that the reason
you are so any-gay is because your God told you to be-- so much for
thinking for yourself) really wanted Sex (with a capital S, thank God) to
be simply for procreation then It would have kept us amoeba's because we
wouldn't have to worry about things like partners. Sex is a much more
complicated subject than that. Anthropological studies have shown that the
reason the sex is fun is directly linked to the intelligence of man. Lower
animals have sex only during times of ovulation. Lower animals also tend to
be polygamous and the young tend to be born quickly and become independent
quickly. Humans (and to a lesser extent our brothers the primates) take a
lot longer to mature and the woman is less able to fend for both herself
and her sibling. To survive the latter months of pregnancy and the early
months of the child they invented recreational sex. This new and improved
feature allows the woman to keep a man from wandering so that he will be
more willing to take care of her.
>Yes it probally can be said that homo-
>sexuals have ben around since the dawn of man. But it is only in the last 20
>or 30 years that they have come out of the closet.
bullshit. They have always been around. Many famous names in history were
gay and acknowledge as such. Look for biographical works that haven't been
rewritten by the puritanical elite.
>That is what happens when
>you have too many liberals in office for too many years. When a 'gay' couple
>can produce a child than I will be ready to accept them into the mainstream
>of homo-sapiens.
See my previous comments on gay childrearing. If it takes too many liberals
in office for too many years to allow people to live their lives the way
they want to without fear (or excessive fear considering the current
situation) of retribution then I'm for it. Harrasing Gays for being gay is
no better than what happened to the 'witches' in Salem in the 1600's. The
only difference is that Salem used physical torture and the current crop of
bigots is limited to psychological torture.
>Until that happens I can only accept gays as perverts with
>severe mental problems. Lets have the bloody liberal faggot and dyke discussion
>take a walk to net.motss where it belongs.
People who automatically write off an entire (and non-trivial) section of
the population based on a biased and incorrect stereotype (this, my
friends, is called bigotry whether is is Nazism and Jews, Rednecks and
Blacks, or assholes and gays) are the people with the real problem. If you
can't look past the walls and see the people, you really don't know what it
means to live. Forcing people to conform to your internal stereotypes may
make your life a little more stable, but it also makes it a lot less real.
chuq
--
From the ledge of the seventh cornice: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
Love is the process of my leading you gently back to yourself.
- Saint Exupery
Alan S. Driscoll
genitals "for one reason only that being to procreate," but
She certainly gave you fertilizer between the ears.
--
Alan S. Driscoll
AT&T Bell Laboratories
S Badian
I am valiantly attempting to come up with some logical
counter-argument to this ridiculous show of hate. If you try to
tell me it isn't a show of hate, I won't believe for a second.
I am totally amazed that people can hate other human beings just
because they are a little different than themselves. I must be
more tolerant than I thought!
I'm not going to discuss your argument. I won't give you
the satisfaction. What I will say is KEEP YOUR DAMN HATE OUT
OF OUR NEWSGROUP!!!! This is supposed to be a constructive forum
to discuss problems of single people. Homosexual feelings happen
to be one of those problems. WE DO NOT WANT ANY VALUE JUDGEMENTS
ATTACHED TO THESE FEELINGS!
So hit the road, jack. We don't need any of your ideas
anyway!
Sharon Badian
Sorry to all of the sensible people in this group who have to
see this; I can't seem to get mail to individuals, otherwise
I would have sent this through the mail.
Rsk the Wombat
Well, the original article finally got here...I wondered what all the
fuss was about...
Y'know, there's not much one can say to such an exhibition of colossal
stupidity, prejudice, ignorance, and blind hate as shown in harpo!jrl's article.
--
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
{ allegra, cornell, decvax, hplabs, ihnp4, ucbvax} !purdue!rsk
tr...@fluke.uucp
I'm not sure I should recognize their statement but I usually admire
people willing to state their views, even when I disagree violently.
Peter
Tom Blenko
who have been defending gay rights so righteously and at such great
length, that you are engaged in just the same kind of exercise that
authors of articles such as "faggots and dykes" are?
It seems to me that there has been an abundance of
1) ad personum attacks
2) unsubstantiated (moreover undecidable) assertions about
what gays/straights are/aren't
3) totally gratuitous speculation (if you think it absurd
for someone to argue from the premise of the world's being
TOTALLY filled with gays, you certainly needn't substitute
your own absurd speculation).
If the thesis is tolerance, as some of you are claiming, feel free to
actively display your own.
If the thesis is that all gays are normal, contributive, well-adjusted
members of society, then we may have a bright future to look forward
to, because straights certainly aren't.
Tom
Daniel Hachigian
I have to disagree. Saying that harpo!jrl is a brave person
is analogous to saying that Hitler was a great individual.
His nonconstructive comments were made behind the curtain of
relative anonymity offered by the net; he did not even sign
his name.
Moreover, I cannot help but feel that a courageous person
would not be afraid of something that he/she does not under-
stand. There is a fundamental difference between vindictive,
vituperative castigation and disagreement of opinion. The
latter could be proffered in a form which enlightens with-
out malice as a forethought.
I hope my soapbox is | -Dan Hachigian
taller than his. | hplabs!dan or csnet: dan@hplabs
Chuq Von Rospach
>who have been defending gay rights so righteously and at such great
>length, that you are engaged in just the same kind of exercise that
>authors of articles such as "faggots and dykes" are?
Yes, it HAS occurred to us progessive, right-thinking types (since the
References line on this article points back to an article of mine I think
he was referring to me. As such, I shall endeavor to answer for myself). I
happen to be human. Part of being human is being imperfect. I will gladly
admit that I am bigotted and biased because I don't think any person can
free themselves of this. It is simply too large a part of our social
heritage. Unfortunately. I'm even willing to admit some of my biases:
people who don't shower, people who don't think, people who don't like
people for what they are, and people who insist on viewing human beings as
little tiny things that can be shoved in a convenient box somewhere and
typecast. These are all bigotries and biases, but I think they are MUCH
healthier than the bigotries of people who don't like jews or gays or plaid
warlocks. They are certainly less harmful to other people.
>It seems to me that there has been an abundance of
>
> 1) ad personum attacks
> 2) unsubstantiated (moreover undecidable) assertions about
> what gays/straights are/aren't
> 3) totally gratuitous speculation (if you think it absurd
> for someone to argue from the premise of the world's being
> TOTALLY filled with gays, you certainly needn't substitute
> your own absurd speculation).
In response:
1) I don't feel I attacked any person, just a set of very negative
biases. If you feel uncomfortable with these attacks you might
want to look as to whether or not they hit too close to home.
2) I don't think they were unsubstantiated. Look in the literature.
Go out and (*gasp*) talk to gays. Go out and listen to them. I
have had a number of gay friends of both sexes. I have been
quite close to many of them. I have learned a lot. These
assertions may not be substantiated from your view, but they are
from mine because I have developed them from my experience and
involvement with gay people.
3) This comment doesn't parse. Oh, well.
>If the thesis is tolerance, as some of you are claiming, feel free to
>actively display your own.
I have an inordinate amount of tolerance for many things, including
tolerance for people that don't take showers. As recent comments have
shown, one thing I DON'T have tolerance for is when the bigotry or lack of
tolerance causes problems for other people. Life is difficult enough for
all of us-- we don't need to run around making excuses to make other
people's lives worse. I try very hard to make myself and the people around
me happy. I won't stand around and watch incosiderate bigoted assholes tear
that down. My apologies to the net for drawing this argument out instead of
letting it die and rot in hell where it belongs, but Chuqui happens to be
pissed (an exceptionally rare event, thankfully) and he is not going to let
the assholes ruin someone's life.
>If the thesis is that all gays are normal, contributive, well-adjusted
>members of society, then we may have a bright future to look forward
>to, because straights certainly aren't.
My thesis was not that all gays are normal, contributive or well adjusted.
My thesis was that gays are just like the rest of us! Some are normal,
contribiutive, and well adjusted. Some are screwed up in the head. Some are
simply unsure of themselves. The same can be said for any group of people
larger than about 10, regardless of sexual preferences, religious beliefs,
color of hair, skin, eyelashes, whether they snore at night, drool at
breakfast, pick their noses, brush their teeth, or eat raw squid. We are
ALL human, dammit. The thing that pisses me off about all of this is there
is an undercurrent in bigotry that says 'You are different from me, therefore
you are less human than I am'. The thing that makes us human is our
difference, denying that denies the very essence that makes us what we are,
and that is the greatest sin that any man could make.
chuq
(Another heart-felt apology to the poor souls that have to wade through
this. It probably should have been said privately but I just felt it
couldn't be dropped until this last attack was answered.)
Stephen Dyer
>Has it ever occurred to any of you progressive, right-thinking types,
>who have been defending gay rights so righteously and at such great
>length, that you are engaged in just the same kind of exercise that
>authors of articles such as "faggots and dykes" are?
>If the thesis is tolerance, as some of you are claiming, feel free to
>actively display your own.
>If the thesis is that all gays are normal, contributive, well-adjusted
>members of society, then we may have a bright future to look forward
>to, because straights certainly aren't.
I don't remember reading anything which would claim that gay people have an
edge on humanity or tolerance--perhaps you'd like to point out the article.
The whole point of the "right-thinkers" in this discussion is to show
that sexual attraction to members of one's own sex HAS NO BEARING on the
well-roundedness and maturity of individuals nor on their efficacy as
successful members of their society (save for the discrimination which they
encounter.) There are screwed up gay people, there are screwed up straight
people--the *problem* is that many people use homosexuality as a discriminant
to justify their own attitudes without any real evidence. This is a disservice
to the people being discriminated against, not to mention all of society.
As for "tolerance", I do not agree that those who took exception to Jeff's
or, more seriously, harpo!jrl's article were guilty of intolerance.
There are ways to take exception to ideas posted here without spraying
hate and invective as we saw in the harpo!jrl article. I think that we
can reliably say that that article was inappropriately phrased, even
as the sentiments were genuine. To be "tolerant" does not mean to
lack critical judgement.
Examine for a minute the article by harpo!jrl. What is the point that it
is trying to make? Do you detect a difference between the sentiments:
"gays should remain in the closet forever; discrimination is deserved;
gays are fundamentally imperfect" and "I can't accept homosexuality as
a valid lifestyle." The first represents the facist imposition of a personal
morality upon all members of society as well as a empirically unjustified
claim, the second, merely a statement of personal belief. One really
cannot take excessive exception to the latter, though it is often worthwhile
trying to express one's own views to let that person know where you stand.
With some luck, they might even understand you!
Rich Rosen
> ... I guess you consider masturbation and birth control to be perversions
> also? And do you urinate through your penis or have you found some other
> way ...? [proper!gam, Gordon Moffett]
Obviously he has. He submits articles to the net.
--
It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there.
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
Dick Dunn
would probably have to apologize and agree...
>The Creator gave you genitals for one reason
>only that being to procreate. The pleasure that we connect with this primal act
>is merely a byproduct of our large brain...
Well, maybe SOME of us have large brains...and maybe some of us even use
them...but all (higher?) animals derive pleasure from it - in the sense
that they are thereby motivated to do it and perpetuate themselves. What
does the thinking part of the brain have to do with it?
>...Yes it probally can be said that homo-
>sexuals have ben around since the dawn of man. But it is only in the last 20
>or 30 years that they have come out of the closet.
Homosexuality exists in many species, not just humans. It cycles in and
out of acceptability (and correspondingly, in and out of visibility). Gee,
either harpo!jrl doesn't know more than 20 or 30 years of history (if that
much) or I got caught in a time warp thinking that ancient Greece was a few
millenia back. (Check out Aristophanes.)
>That is what happens when
>you have too many liberals in office for too many years. When a 'gay' couple
>can produce a child than I will be ready to accept them into the mainstream
>of homo-sapiens. Until that happens I can only accept gays as perverts with
>severe mental problems...
It's a wonder that this wasn't cross-listed to net.politics, net.flame,
net.motss,... When harpo!jrl can tell cause from effect from irrelevant
opinion; when he can tell a liberal from a conservative; when he can
distinguish love, sex, and procreation; when he can show at least minimal
respect for others then I might be willing to consider accepting him as a
human. For now, I'll recognize him as (allegedly) Homo sapiens, but that's
about it.
> Oh I can feel the flames already . . . . . . . .
Too bad you can't feel any incipient thought processes! Hatred is easy;
thought is a lot harder.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Cerebus for dictator!
Gordon Moffett
> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
>
> With all this high intellectual discussion of 'gays' one question
> seems to keep popping up. If the whole world were 'gay' then mankind would
> become extinct in one generation.
If we all drove thru the same intersection at the same time we'd all
die.
> The Creator gave you genitals for one reason
> only that being to procreate.
... I guess you consider masturbation and birth control to be perversions
also? And do you urinate through your penis or have you found some other
way ...?
> The pleasure that we connect with this primal act
> is merely a byproduct of our large brain.
... I guess it isn't pleasurable for you, then.
> Yes it probally can be said that homo-
> sexuals have ben around since the dawn of man. But it is only in the last 20
> or 30 years that they have come out of the closet. That is what happens when
> you have too many liberals in office for too many years.
... not to mention the Federal deficit! Homosexuality, like butterscotch,
goes in and out of fashion and is held in various regards in different
cultures.
> When a 'gay' couple
> can produce a child than I will be ready to accept them into the mainstream
> of homo-sapiens. Until that happens I can only accept gays as perverts with
> severe mental problems.
Homosexuals do have children, but not very often. As for "severe
mental problems", I'm more worried about you than them right now ....
> Lets have the bloody liberal faggot and dyke discussion
> take a walk to net.motss where it belongs.
You're probably right; the rest of the net -- or you, at least -- isn't
ready for dealing with sexual issues in a mature manner.
... and to top it off you don't even have the guts to sign your article.
--
Gordon A. Moffett
{ hplabs!nsc, decvax!sun!amd70, ihnp4!dual } !proper!gam
T C Wheeler
favorite hate, catch-all word. Why do you still insist on calling
everything you dislike 'facist'? Do you call a skunk a facist if
it sprays you? Did you call your parents facists if they told you
you couldn't have the car for the night? Please come off this facist
everything kick and reserve the word for where it is really needed.
Everything left of dead left is NOT facist. Look up the word and
use it right.
TCW
Stephen Dyer
Ahem, it need only be stated that my use of the word "facist" here was
entirely appropriate. For the record, I believe this is the first time I
have ever used this word, so calling it my "favorite" is jumping the gun
a bit, wouldn't you say? And, to belabor the obvious to everyone who has
seen my previous postings, I do not call everything I dislike "facist."
It has little to do with the current left<-->right political polarity.
I was using the word in the colloquial sense of a group trying to impose
its own private standards of behavior upon all of society regardless of
the feelings of society as a whole.
Steve Dyer
Doubtless, facism is itself a horrendous movement, worthy of all the
public denunciation we can heap on it! :-)
(How could one accuse anyone on netnews as being "facist?")
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sd...@bbncca.ARPA
Matt Crawford
I think a week was enough.
Let me extract the rational portion of harpo!jrl's by now infamous
posting. The premise from which it follows seems to be:
Axiom: Behavior which tends to propagate genes is GOOD;
behavior which diminshes the propagation is BAD.
Hence the conclusion follows that homosexuality is BAD. Some other
conclusions are:
Childlessness is BAD, even for heterosexuals.
Enormous families are VERY GOOD, especially if you can draw on the
resources of others to keep them alive. For example, put them on
welfare or give them away for adoption.
The true paragons of VERY VERY GOOD behavior are habitual rapists.
Please don't think that I accept the "axiom", but I will not put a humor
marker on this. The arch-conservatism exemplified by jrl is nothing to
laugh at.
Matt Crawford
Maurice E. Suhre
All those other people had been mistaken and he/she has
some divine connection/channel with less noise and hence puts
out greater clarity. Wonderful :-(
Maurice
{decvax,sdcrdcf,hplabs,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre
Jeff Sargent
> ...this discussion...was engendered by Jeff Sargent's public ruminations
> about the nature of his own sexuality, and his thoughtless, though probably
> unintentional, public derogation of gay people as a group....
> All I want now is some response from Jeff, who has been mysteriously
> silent following his raking over the coals (all in the spirit of
> charity and fellowship, of course!)
Put it this way: I suppose I had mixed motives. On the one hand, I think
we'll end up agreeing to disagree about the sources of homosexuality; coming
from a Christian viewpoint, I believe that God planned for union between a man
and a woman, and that anything else is outside His plans and hence suboptimal;
I still think there's something in a gay that makes homosexuality falsely SEEM
optimal; I'll leave it to my gay readers to figure out for themselves what
that may be in their cases, but I was hoping to at least provoke some self-
examination to help some gay toward the refreshing niftiness and healthiness
of heterosexuality; I really hoped I could be of some help. On the other
hand, I am, alas, not free of either pride or envy: pride, that I have not
become a practicing homosexual (and thus a somewhat patronizing attitude
toward those who have); envy, that these people have at least found an SO of
some sort. Neither the good motives nor the bad held total sway.
(Higgins: "Doolittle, you're either an honest man or a rogue."
Doolittle: "A little of both, Guv'nor. Like the rest of us, a little
of both."
-- from "Pygmalion", by George Bernard Shaw)
Speaking of theatre, my "mysterious silence" occurred because I took the
11th through the 14th off work in order to get the lights set for a local
theatrical production (This is the first time I've done lighting design, so
I didn't exactly design; I just tried things to see if they worked, and it
took a long time. Sort of like the way I program [1/2 :-)].) Since then
I've been trying to catch up on both real work and net articles, and it does
take a while.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
"...got to find my corner of the sky."
y...@uiucdcs.uucp
uiucdcs!yi Jun 25 18:54:00 1984
>
> I'm really glad *bare* straightened me out on the Lord.
> All those other people had been mistaken and he/she has
> some divine connection/channel with less noise and hence puts
> out greater clarity. Wonderful :-(
>
> Maurice
>
Hey, I thought he/she made a good point, and rather eloquently at that.
You know any verses where Jesus espouses hatred? Name-calling, perhaps?
-Mike Schwager (...ihnp4!uiucdcs!schwager)