Pet rock meets the Devil
Milt Stevens
When my father was in third grade his teacher, a Mrs. Reilly, gave all of
the kids little (about 2" long) green pigs on St. Patrick's day. He kept
his for the duration of his lifetime. God knows what political implications
an act like that might have these days.
John Boston
Craig Macbride
>Oh, lord ... I want to live in a *grown-up* country ...
Maybe you'd like Australia? ... Ideal time to check while visiting next
year's Worldcon.
[ I really like the "Oh, lord" beginning to your comment. ]
--
Craig Macbride <cr...@glasswings.com.au>
-----------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig---------------
Graeme Garden: I am into neolithic man.
Bill Oddie: Is that legal?
- "The Goodies"
Nels E Satterlund
>
> Actually, I'd love to visit Australia, if for no other reason than to
> see the stars in the southern sky. Are the politics much different
> than here? Hmm. I wonder. It seems a very dramatic country,
> landscape-wise. Also, I've seen 'The Last Wave' and 'Picnic at Hanging
> Rock'. Clearly there are some very peculiar things going on down
> there. Wouldn't mind having a look-see at all that.
Take a gander at the film "Ballroom Dancing" (dang is that correct?)
Set in Australia
--
Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company
Ne...@Earthling.net <-- Use this address please,
My Lurkers motto: I read much better than I type.
Craig Macbride
>Actually, I'd love to visit Australia, if for no other reason than to
>see the stars in the southern sky.
Interesting how people say that at times but, not being specifically
interested in them, it's something I tend to forget. However, if you
do want to see them clearly, there's no better way I've found than lying
on a yacht somewhere along the Great Barrier Reef.
>Are the politics much different than here? Hmm. I wonder.
Only slightly, and we tend to follow most US trends, good or bad. However,
the religious loonies have much less influence here, so things that are a
matter of conscience or of nobody else's business are more likely to be
legal here. (eg. abortion, casinos, poker machines, prostitution.) This
state has begun a programme of punishing first-time marijuana offenders
with ... a warning!
>Also, I've seen 'The Last Wave' and 'Picnic at Hanging
>Rock'.
Last time I went to Hanging Rock was some years ago for a friend's birthday
party, but it's not terribly far from Melbourne.
>Plus, the way you guys talk down there, I think it's really cute.
"Cute"?! Oh.
Morgan
<awnb...@panix.com> said:
>Actually, I'd love to visit Australia, if for no other reason than to
>see the stars in the southern sky.
Me Too!
Being a sad person, I also want to see the water swirl down the sink the
wrong way.
Interesting anecdote. I was doing some market research for Disney
Florida two summers ago. One of the main areas of questioning was
assesing what people thought of other holiday destinations. Australia
repeatedly emerged as an Adult Themepark. Somewhere to go and have an
astounding amount of fun and adult holiday value.
--
Morgan
"Come to the edge." he said. They said "We are afraid." "Come
to the edge." he said. They came. He pushed them...and they flew.
Aahz Maruch
Nels E Satterlund <Ne...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>Take a gander at the film "Ballroom Dancing" (dang is that correct?)
>Set in Australia
I hope you meant "Strictly Ballroom". Wonderful movie.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction
listen to weather forecasts and economists?" -- Kelvin Throop III
Nels E Satterlund
>
> In article <35F60DB1...@pacbell.net>,
> Nels E Satterlund <Ne...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> >Take a gander at the film "Ballroom Dancing" (dang is that correct?)
> >Set in Australia
>
> I hope you meant "Strictly Ballroom". Wonderful movie.
That's it!
Thanks, I coulden't think of it last night and my SO the movie fan had
gone to bed.
The camera shots were interesting, and the people looke real ( i.e. not
Hollywood)
Nels
--
Nels E Satterlund I don't speak for the company, specially here
Ne...@Earthling.net <-- Use this address
My Lurkers motto: I read much better and faster, than I type.
James Nicoll
>>
>> Actually, I'd love to visit Australia, if for no other reason than to
>> than here? Hmm. I wonder. It seems a very dramatic country,
>> landscape-wise. Also, I've seen 'The Last Wave' and 'Picnic at Hanging
>> Rock'. Clearly there are some very peculiar things going on down
>> there. Wouldn't mind having a look-see at all that.
>
>
>
>Set in Australia
_Strictly Ballroom_, I believe. Parodied in an episode of
_Hercules_ FWIW.
--
Whenever someone quotes that old Heinlein comment about
specialization being for insects, I like to reflect on how much more
successful than hominids insects have been. Remove humans and you end
a K/T level Extinction Event. Remove insects and you _cause_ one.
Doug Wickstrom
Weholt) modulated the bit stream to say:
>Well, I'm sure there are Numerous Good Reasons for not doing this. I'm
>sure I'll be straightened out forthwith.
It seems perfectly sensible to me. The Romans thought so, too, though
they didn't make it automatic at five years, they did, periodically,
review the entire body of law.
The only problem I can see is a bill that simply states, every year,
"The Body of Law is Extended for Another Five Years." Politicians
are, unfortunately, not as stupid as they look.
--
Doug Wickstrom
Those truly desirous of private communication may find it helpful
to drop the "x" in the reply field, and replace "aol.com" with
"worldnet.att.net," cause the reply field is a fib.
Doug Berry
Nels E Satterlund <ne...@pacbell.net> said:
>Take a gander at the film "Ballroom Dancing" (dang is that correct?)
"Strictly Ballroom"
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry dbe...@nospam.hooked.net |
| http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/index.html |
| (remove "nospam" to reply by mail) |
|--------------------------------------------|
| "History is the vast and tangled web |
| of Conspiracy." -Anon. |
+--------------------------------------------+
Marty Helgesen
That's interesting. A probationary second grade teacher gave each of
her students a rock with a note saying it was a magic rock and would
help them do things. Some parents and other members of the community
objected that this was teaching "New Ageism". As a result her con-
tract was not renewed. She sued on the grounds of religious discrim-
ination and a violation of her First Amendment rights. She won and
the verdict was upheld on appeal.
I wonder what would have happened, and what the reaction of people in
this newsgroup would have been, in a parallel situation. Suppose a
teacher in a higher grade, whose students could read, gave them all
copies of the New Testament along with a note that the book was
inspired by God and that reading it would provide valuable guidance
for their lives. Suppose some parents and other members of the
community objected that this was teaching Christianity and as a
result her contract was not renewed.
I also wonder whether any Christian legal defense organizations will
cite Cowan v. Strafford R-VI School District in any of their future
suits. I suspect they will.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"A sneer is a distortion of the face that reflects a worse
distortion of the soul." -- F. J. Sheed
Support H.R. 1748 Anti-Spam bill. For further information see
http://www.cauce.org/
Jo Walton
awnb...@panix.com "Michael R Weholt" writes:
> Well, that's a refreshing response. I thought you were going to
> complain that Americans always think people Who Talk Funny are, by
> default, exotically sexy.
>
> Which they are, of course.
Why is it just Americans who think that?
I think it's deeply unfair that there are countries where everyone,
even ordinary people, have sexy voices.
(Reasons for wanting to emigrate to Canada #32.)
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Morgan
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> said:
>I wonder what would have happened, and what the reaction of people in
>this newsgroup would have been, in a parallel situation. Suppose a
>teacher in a higher grade, whose students could read, gave them all
>copies of the New Testament along with a note that the book was
>inspired by God and that reading it would provide valuable guidance
>for their lives. Suppose some parents and other members of the
>community objected that this was teaching Christianity and as a
>result her contract was not renewed.
The analogy only works if the said Bible was sealed shut and unreadable.
The difference between a token and a creed, is doctrine.
The teacher with the rock was empowering children to reach for something
themselves. No value judgements on their own behaviour, or other
people's behaviour was inherent in the act. It was religious
intolerence to sack the teacher because of her beliefs - beliefs she was
not passing on in written word to her charges.
In the second case, the teacher would be indoctrinating those beleifs in
the students. The Word of God, which would bring judgemental issues of
behaviour into play. It would not be the teacher's status as a
Christian that was being argued over, but that teacher's role in
relating that status to children. In the second case, the bible would,
among other things, be telling children God would tear them apart with
bears if they cheeked their elders.
Find a better analogy and there may be a discussion in here.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: Well, I'm sure there are Numerous Good Reasons for not doing this. I'm
Well, not to do that, but to discuss: the idea has a number of virtues,
which is why it's a classic conservative/libertarian notion, of course.
As an ideal, it's admirable. If you genuinely want the government to
maintain as few laws as possible, it's a sound notion. And, of course,
many laws *are* sunsetted.
But the practical problems with doing this for *all* laws, if you feel
that a fair percentage of our current laws are more or less good, are
mighty: the simple fact is that it takes a lot of time to pass a decent
law, and a lot of energy and attention, and this can only be done for a
few major bills per session. So, in practice, this would be a way to wipe
out most current laws, in a while. Which, again, is why it's such a
popular conservative/libertarian idea.
But you have to consider if you really want to have to refight for a good
clean air bill every five years, but the clean water bill might not be
passable for another few years after that. And we'll get that homicide
law passed again, but we probably won't get to hate crimes. And we might
fund the court system, maybe, but probably can't get to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commision, so doing whatever you want with nukes will be
hunky-dory. And so on. You'll have to live with the idea that an awful
lot of contemporary laws will vanish, never or rarely to return. Many
specifics of this would be good. Many would not.
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Alter S. Reiss
>
> That's interesting. A probationary second grade teacher gave each of
> her students a rock with a note saying it was a magic rock and would
> help them do things. [. . .]
>
> I wonder what would have happened, and what the reaction of people in
> this newsgroup would have been, in a parallel situation. Suppose a
> teacher in a higher grade, whose students could read, gave them all
> copies of the New Testament along with a note that the book was
> inspired by God and that reading it would provide valuable guidance
> for their lives. Suppose some parents and other members of the
> community objected that this was teaching Christianity and as a
> result her contract was not renewed.
>
> I also wonder whether any Christian legal defense organizations will
> cite Cowan v. Strafford R-VI School District in any of their future
> suits. I suspect they will.
Uh. Er. There is a tiny bit of a difference between those two
cases. In the first, the teacher quite clearly had no belief whatsoever
in the efficacy of the rock-powers. It was far closer to "Dumbo" than to
anything else. In the other, it might possibly be that the teacher had
some religious attachment to the New Testament.
That said, while the reason the local peasantry was up in arms
about the teacher in question was quite silly, a valid point could be
made. The teacher didn't believe in the rocks. The parents, had they
brain power enough to have _earned_ graduation from the second grade,
would have realized she wasn't trying to do anything theological, just
reinforce the self images of the kids in question. However, the kids
might have thought that there was some sort of magic power in the rocks.
And there are some belief systems which both find that objectionable on
theological grounds, and which find the theological state of children to
be something worth considering.
The response was disproportionate to the offense, to be sure;
simply letting the teacher know not to mess about with something that
might be construed as religious by stupid people, indicate the possibility
that there are second graders that might qualify as stupid, and then send
her around to explain to those kids that she didn't think that the rocks
actualy were magical, and be done with it.
Yes, I realize that the above issue had nothing to do with why she
was fired. She was fired because she hit a concentration of Christians of
a certain stripe, who thought that she really meant what she was saying.
But still.
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
Posted and Patrolled: No Trepanning!
Gary Farber
:
: That's interesting. A probationary second grade teacher gave each of
: her students a rock with a note saying it was a magic rock and would
: objected that this was teaching "New Ageism". As a result her con-
: tract was not renewed. She sued on the grounds of religious discrim-
: ination and a violation of her First Amendment rights. She won and
: the verdict was upheld on appeal.
: I wonder what would have happened, and what the reaction of people in
: this newsgroup would have been, in a parallel situation. Suppose a
: teacher in a higher grade, whose students could read, gave them all
: copies of the New Testament along with a note that the book was
: inspired by God and that reading it would provide valuable guidance
: for their lives. Suppose some parents and other members of the
: community objected that this was teaching Christianity and as a
: result her contract was not renewed.
It's not a parallel, Marty, not remotely. Telling students in a public
school that they should believe in a specific religious belief is
verboten, and rightly so (do you really disagree?; if so, I'm sure you'll
allow me to pick the religious beliefs that will be taught). Telling them
a silly and obviously fictional story is not. Are you really saying that
the New Testament is no more valid or meaningful than a deliberate untruth
such as "this is a magic rock"? I didn't understand that to be your
belief. Yet it was entirely obviously the belief of the teacher that she
was telling them a silly fiction.
[. . . .]
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:48:51 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R
: Weholt) wrote:
: >Well, I'm sure there are Numerous Good Reasons for not doing this. I'm
: >sure I'll be straightened out forthwith.
: That trick never works.
Straightening out Michael? I'm inclined to agree.
-- LJM
Ken Walton
<mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> writes
>>see the stars in the southern sky.
>
>
>
>Being a sad person, I also want to see the water swirl down the sink the
>wrong way.
Isn't that an urban myth? I read Alan Garner's _Strandloper_ recently,
and he says the moon is upside-down in Australia. Is this true?
--
Ken Walton mailto:k...@kenjo.demon.co.uk
Free RPG, and strange penguin humour at http://www.kenjo.demon.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm all in favour of marching to a different drummer, but not of
people who shamble past my bedroom window at midnight, singing
drunkenly while hammering on a tin can." - Phil Masters
Gary Farber
: In this post <59IxBWAT...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>, Ken Walton
: <k...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> said:
:>Isn't that an urban myth? I read Alan Garner's _Strandloper_ recently,
:>and he says the moon is upside-down in Australia. Is this true?
: No myth at all.
: Not only does antipodean water go round in the opposite direction, but
: if you stand on the equator, the water doesn't swirl at all - goes
: straight down.
: I knows this, 'cos Michael Palin watched it happening at the said
: equator. It's a party trick. One side, clockwise, other side, anti-
: clockwise - in't middle, straight down.
: It's the little things that speak 'alien' to me - like the freeway signs
: in the USA being a different colour than ours. That French electricity
: pylons are different shapes. I'd like to see water go round the other
: way, and see just how spooked I'd get.
: Can't answer for the moon, however.
Did you know that "gullible" isn't in either Chamber's dictionary, nor the
OED?
Avram Grumer
<gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
> Well, not to do that, but to discuss: the idea has a number of virtues,
> which is why it's a classic conservative/libertarian notion, of course.
> As an ideal, it's admirable. If you genuinely want the government to
> maintain as few laws as possible, it's a sound notion. And, of course,
> many laws *are* sunsetted.
Heck with laws, I'd be much happier with a sunsetting refrigerator --
anything I leave in there for more than, say, six months vanishes.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
In the future, everyone's web server will be down for fifteen minutes.
Daniel Blum
> In this post <6t745j$m...@news1.panix.com>, Gary Farber
> <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> said:
> >Did you know that "gullible" isn't in either Chamber's dictionary, nor the
> >OED?
> But I bet 'cynic' is.
> Honest Gary, this is a realio, trulio, fact. All to do with the earth's
> rotational spin and things.
Except that people have done tests on this. It turns out that unless you let
the water sit for about 24 hours, which way it swirls when you pull the plug
out depends mostly on how the water got INTO the basin, or tub, or whatnot,
and what happened to it while it was in there. I believe this was cited in one
of the "Straight Dope" books by Cecil Adams.
____________________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"Friends, we have passed a night in hell; but now the sun is shining, the
birds are singing, and the radiant form of the dentist consoles the world."
____________________________________________________________________________
Morgan
<k...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> said:
>Isn't that an urban myth? I read Alan Garner's _Strandloper_ recently,
>and he says the moon is upside-down in Australia. Is this true?
No myth at all.
Not only does antipodean water go round in the opposite direction, but
if you stand on the equator, the water doesn't swirl at all - goes
straight down.
I knows this, 'cos Michael Palin watched it happening at the said
equator. It's a party trick. One side, clockwise, other side, anti-
clockwise - in't middle, straight down.
It's the little things that speak 'alien' to me - like the freeway signs
in the USA being a different colour than ours. That French electricity
pylons are different shapes. I'd like to see water go round the other
way, and see just how spooked I'd get.
Can't answer for the moon, however.
Morgan
<gfa...@panix2.panix.com> said:
>Did you know that "gullible" isn't in either Chamber's dictionary, nor the
>OED?
But I bet 'cynic' is.
Honest Gary, this is a realio, trulio, fact. All to do with the earth's
rotational spin and things.
--
Alison Scott
>Honest Gary, this is a realio, trulio, fact. All to do with the earth's
>rotational spin and things.
Morgan, it *is* to do, theoretically, with the earth's rotational
spin. But the party trick is just that, a party trick. If you took a
perfectly round bath the size of a house, and let the water stand in
perfect windfree conditions for about a week, and then let it out, you
*might* be able to detect the effect of coriolis force. Might. But in
normal baths, and certainly for tourists, other factors such as the
shape of the bath and the way the water is turning, have much more
effect.
Which reminds me! I have a McDonald's flying dragon of the sort that's
now been taken off sale because the base looks too much like a willy.
"Are they allowed to sell children's toys in the shape of dildos?", I
asked, clutching the willy in a suggestive fashion as I scoffed
Marianne's uneaten Chicken McNuggets. Evidently not, we now discover.
It makes a brilliant dashboard ornament which encourages Steven not to
drive in an overly agressive fashion (or the dragon, which is balanced
very precariously on the willy, will fall off). Interestingly,
whenever we're driving along, the dragon rotates steadily in an
anti-clockwise direction.
We decided it's because we're in the Western Hemisphere.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Now with added cobwebs: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Vicki Rosenzweig
>In article <6t6pgm$j...@news1.panix.com>,
>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
>>: sure I'll be straightened out forthwith.
>>
>>which is why it's a classic conservative/libertarian notion, of course.
>>As an ideal, it's admirable. If you genuinely want the government to
>>maintain as few laws as possible, it's a sound notion. And, of course,
>>many laws *are* sunsetted.
>
>>And we'll get that homicide
>>law passed again, but we probably won't get to hate crimes. And we might
>>fund the court system, maybe, but probably can't get to the Nuclear
>>Regulatory Commision, so doing whatever you want with nukes will be
>>hunky-dory. And so on. You'll have to live with the idea that an awful
>>lot of contemporary laws will vanish, never or rarely to return. Many
>>specifics of this would be good. Many would not.
>
>I don't accept that the system of statutes would be wittled down to
>the Good Ol' Days of the robber barons. I don't think it has to be
>that way at all. I think They'd like us to believe it would be that
>way, but it wouldn't have to be. Look at Russia and Poland. Russia did
>a *really* shitty job of setting up their new country, but they
>nevertheless set up *a whole new country*. Poland did the same thing
>with a great deal more success. And we wouldn't even be starting from
>the same place; we have two centuries of experience. We have a pretty
>steady way of doing things. We have pretty much broad agreement on
>what the country -- in general terms -- ought to be. Our job would be
>a cinch compared to what countries like Poland have had to do.
>
>And don't forget that everything you mention above could come about
>right now, especially if things go the way they seem to be going and
>most of us lefties stay away from the polls this November. Look at
>Affirmative Action (whether you agree with it or not). Look at the
>ability of women to get safe abortions in this country (whether you
>agree that they should be able to get them or not). I mean, *not*
>sunsetting doesn't guarantee any protection against what you are
>talking about. Sunsetting *does* guarantee that things will have to be
>looked at again pretty soon. Sunsetting Jim Crow would have been
>pretty handy during the Civil Rights years, though the fight still
>would have been tough. But the default would have been: you have to
>vote *for* these reprehensible laws. Maybe the percentages wouldn't
>have been all that different, but I think there is a fairly important
>difference between being forced to vote *for* a set of vile laws, and
>being allowed to simply sit back and filibuster away some proactive
>law that finally does away with certain evils. I dunno, maybe I'm
>wrong about that. But I think it's harder to do, maybe even hard
>enough to change a few critical votes.
>
The problem is, they wouldn't vote *for* it, if the current Congress is
any example. They'd vote for something innocuous, and slip it in as
a rider that most people weren't even aware of.
For example, Congress is in the process of massively revising the
rules for public housing. The changes would affect, among other
things, who paid the rent (tenants or government), how much they
paid, who got the apartments, and how long they could stay.
But it's not being done as the Public Housing Amendment of 1998:
it's a rider to the appropriations bill for the Veterans Administration.
The President may have the choice of letting this slide through, or
leaving the VA funded, without there ever having been any public
debate on whether the new suggested rules for public housing are
better than what we have now.
There's been a lot of this in the last couple of years, while people
either read news stories about the president's sex life, or read and
write articles about how all the scandals are designed to keep us
from noticing that Congress hasn't done anything. If only: they're
designed to keep us from noticing that Congress has been doing
things, as quietly as possible, because they know that the voters
might not like some of what their contributors want.
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
"Informed citizenship in our great nation requires a certain
flexibility." -- Molly Ivins
John Boston
[snip exchange on the Magic Rock Massacre]
>Well, except I don't even think it was a silly fiction. If I remember
>how the thing went, I believe she told the children "before you put
>your magic rock away, think three good things about yourself! And
>you'll see the magic will have worked!" Or something like that. Which,
>you know, for a little kid who's having a hard time of it for one
>reason or another, that just teaches a nice little lesson about how
>feeling good about yourself makes you feel good about yourself. An
>important truth for a little one to learn, I think, and nothing
>fictional about it at all.
>
>And where religion comes into it is absolutely beyond me, even as the
>teacher's defense or cause of action or whatever the hell it was. I
>suspect her lawyer felt that was her best shot at getting what
>she wanted since we don't have A Pitiful Lack of Gentle Imaginations
>as a legitimate cause of action in this country.
Where religion comes into it is that the teacher was fired for
offending the religious beliefs of people in the community. The way the
statute against religious discrimination is written, it's actually not so
clear that this is against the law, but the school board didn't think of
this argument in time.
As to imagination: there has actually been litigation by
fundamentalists objecting to English curricula that contained fantasy of
some sort on the ground that it is contrary to their religious beliefs to
encourage children to use their imaginations. (If memory serves, they lost
on their demand that the curriculum be trimmed to fit their beliefs; the
school board had already agreed that their children could be excused from
that assignment and read something else. This was some years ago and I
can't provide a cite.)
John Boston
John Boston
says...
>>see the stars in the southern sky.
>
>interested in them, it's something I tend to forget. However, if you
>do want to see them clearly, there's no better way I've found than lying
>on a yacht somewhere along the Great Barrier Reef.
>
>
>the religious loonies have much less influence here, so things that are a
>matter of conscience or of nobody else's business are more likely to be
>legal here. (eg. abortion, casinos, poker machines, prostitution.) This
>state has begun a programme of punishing first-time marijuana offenders
>with ... a warning!
[snip]
I had the good fortune to visit Australia for a couple of weeks
about two years ago, and of course became an instant expert. I was
pleasantly impressed by the candor of public discourse there. In
particular, I remember reading _The Australian_, a national newspaper that
seems to occupy a position similar to that of _The New York Times_ or the
_Washington Post_, and finding one of the Op Ed columnists wondering whether
a particular provincial cabinet minister dressed as he did in order to
please his rural constituents, or simply because he was a dickhead. Eat
your heart out, A.M. Rosenthal!
John Boston
Ed Dravecky III
<snips, lots of 'em>
> The analogy only works if the said Bible was sealed shut and
> unreadable. The difference between a token and a creed, is
> doctrine.
Okay, not that I agree that there is a parallel here, but what if
the teacher was handing out crucifixes? Those little fish symbols
for their (parents) cars? Stars of David on a necklace?
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/
Gary Farber
Avram Grumer <av...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Heck with laws, I'd be much happier with a sunsetting refrigerator --
: anything I leave in there for more than, say, six months vanishes.
I have personally supplied your fridge with an alternative (despite never
having been to your apartment): anything you leave in there for more than
six months transmutes. HTH.
James Nicoll
Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
snip re: sexy accents
>Well, I grew up right next to Canada and while there are a *great*
>many things I admire about our great neighbor to the north, I'm afraid
>familiarity with CanadaSpeak may have bred in my ear just a wee bit of
>indifference. And, of course, like Americans, they all talk the same
>way.
That will come as one hell of a surprise to my Nova Scotian
relatives and moreso the people in Newfoundland. Hmmm. And perhaps
Quebec as well; their accent is thick, they might as well be speaking
another language.
James 'Ontarian lilt' Nicoll
Gary Farber
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: In article <6t7gjh$co_...@mrw.panix.com>,
: Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
: snip re: sexy accents
:>Well, I grew up right next to Canada and while there are a *great*
:>many things I admire about our great neighbor to the north, I'm afraid
:>familiarity with CanadaSpeak may have bred in my ear just a wee bit of
:>indifference. And, of course, like Americans, they all talk the same
:>way.
: That will come as one hell of a surprise to my Nova Scotian
: relatives and moreso the people in Newfoundland. Hmmm. And perhaps
: Quebec as well; their accent is thick, they might as well be speaking
: another language.
So you're saying that they're unlike Americans, who all talk the same way?
ga...@thinks.james.usually.pays.more.attention
Mike Scott
wrote:
>I knows this, 'cos Michael Palin watched it happening at the said
>equator. It's a party trick. One side, clockwise, other side, anti-
>clockwise - in't middle, straight down.
It's a "rip off the tourists" trick, and it depends on swirling the
water right before you pull out the plug.
There *is* a small Coriolis effect on water swirling, and if you leave a
large tub sitting perfectly still under controlled conditions for a week
or so to get rid of other, larger, effects, it makes its presence felt.
Under normal conditions, not a chance.
--
Mike Scott
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
http://www.moose.demon.co.uk
Morgan
<ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk> said:
>Morgan <mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Honest Gary, this is a realio, trulio, fact. All to do with the earth's
>>rotational spin and things.
>
>Morgan, it *is* to do, theoretically, with the earth's rotational
>spin. But the party trick is just that, a party trick.
Well, it's something i saw with my own eyes. And the conditions for
each pasrt were identicle.
I'm going off to sulk now.
Morgan
<dshe...@netcom.com> said:
>Morgan (mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk) wrote:
><snips, lots of 'em>
>> The analogy only works if the said Bible was sealed shut and
>> unreadable. The difference between a token and a creed, is
>> doctrine.
>
>Okay, not that I agree that there is a parallel here, but what if
>the teacher was handing out crucifixes? Those little fish symbols
>for their (parents) cars? Stars of David on a necklace?
Both crucifixes and Stars of David come with their own culturally
predetermined interpretations. If the children genuinely had no
previous association with them, them it'd be the same as the rock.
However, they do have cultural interpretations of the 'right' way of
seeing the world, and are contentious. The whole point about a rock is
that it *isn't* pre-loaded with such imagery. At the end of the day,
it's a rock.
Interestingly, I'd negate the crucifix anyway. A man nailed to a cross,
isn't exactly non-contentious, in any way shape or form. Even if the
child concerned had no idea of what it meant in a wider context, the
specific imagery of pain and death would work against the message - you
are special, think of that every day. A cross would be much less
contentious than a crucifix.
The fish shape is pretty good, as it does stand alone with far less of a
cultural overload. But it does have a cultural overload, and that's
what the issue is about the 'religious' indoctrination.
As a side issue, there is of course, a reason why the teacher chose a
rock. The point about many pagan beleifs is to beleive in your personal
worth regardless of doctrine. You make a choice within yourself, not
one associated with other people laying down 'the way it is done'. A
rock, as a natural artifact, only gives you what you see in it. So you
are not giving over a set of beleifs, but making a statement about
looking for the truth within yourself. Unlike a bible, or a crucifix,
or a Star of David, where you are presenting a set of beleifs for
interpretation.
The fish, of course, doesn't present a precise set of beleifs. It's a
statement of a shared umbrella of beleifs. That's why it's less
contentious than the others.
On the total other side, of course. Should someone set up a systematic
beleif structure and designate a rock as it's symbol - then the rock
would be out on the dungheap too.
David G. Bell
jbo...@mindspring.com "John Boston" writes:
> In article <6t70cq$sc_...@mrw.panix.com>, awnb...@panix.com says...
>
> [snip exchange on the Magic Rock Massacre]
>
> >Well, except I don't even think it was a silly fiction. If I remember
> >how the thing went, I believe she told the children "before you put
> >your magic rock away, think three good things about yourself! And
> >you'll see the magic will have worked!" Or something like that. Which,
> >you know, for a little kid who's having a hard time of it for one
> >reason or another, that just teaches a nice little lesson about how
> >feeling good about yourself makes you feel good about yourself. An
> >important truth for a little one to learn, I think, and nothing
> >fictional about it at all.
> >
> >And where religion comes into it is absolutely beyond me, even as the
> >teacher's defense or cause of action or whatever the hell it was. I
> >suspect her lawyer felt that was her best shot at getting what
> >she wanted since we don't have A Pitiful Lack of Gentle Imaginations
> >as a legitimate cause of action in this country.
>
>
> Where religion comes into it is that the teacher was fired for
> offending the religious beliefs of people in the community. The way the
> statute against religious discrimination is written, it's actually not so
> clear that this is against the law, but the school board didn't think of
> this argument in time.
And it's quite likely that such a case could have been won by the
teacher without any need to invoke religious discrimination. But we
don't know all the details. What _was_ the teacher's religious
affiliation? It seems a clear case of an excessive reaction, and some
rather less than honest behaviour, on the part of the school
administration.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with schools that have a
religious bias, whether Catholic, or Islamic, or whatever loopy
Californian religion-of-the-day you choose to name. The problems come
when such schools seek to maintain the religious status quo by
maintaining ignorance.
But that doesn't need an overtly religious school; all you need to do is
get the ignorant, religious, extremists, into positions of authority.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <6t7gjh$co_...@mrw.panix.com>,
>Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> snip re: sexy accents
>
>>Well, I grew up right next to Canada and while there are a *great*
>>many things I admire about our great neighbor to the north, I'm afraid
>>familiarity with CanadaSpeak may have bred in my ear just a wee bit of
>>indifference. And, of course, like Americans, they all talk the same
>>way.
>
> That will come as one hell of a surprise to my Nova Scotian
>relatives and moreso the people in Newfoundland. Hmmm. And perhaps
>Quebec as well; their accent is thick, they might as well be speaking
>another language.
Also, they don't have irony in Canada, evidently.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
>It makes a brilliant dashboard ornament which encourages Steven not to
>drive in an overly agressive fashion (or the dragon, which is balanced
>very precariously on the willy, will fall off). Interestingly,
>whenever we're driving along, the dragon rotates steadily in an
>anti-clockwise direction.
>
>We decided it's because we're in the Western Hemisphere.
Makes sense to me. I presume that when you cross into the Eastern
Hemisphere (which is no more than about two or three miles from your house,
as I recall), it changes direction?
P Nielsen Hayden
>But you have to consider if you really want to have to refight for a good
>clean air bill every five years, but the clean water bill might not be
>passable for another few years after that.
That's a good argument against sunsetting all laws.
>And we'll get that homicide
>law passed again, but we probably won't get to hate crimes.
And that's a good argument for it. Perhaps this makes me wicked, but I have
a great deal of difficulty seeing what good laws about "hate crimes" have
done, aside from rubbishing free speech and offering up a handy tool to
demagogues of all sorts. I've heard the arguments for "hate crime"
legislation, but it seems to me the behaviors it's designed to prevent are
already, you know, crimes.
P Nielsen Hayden
>I think this
>harks back to the cultural myth of conservatives being all for the
>government staying out of people's lives.
You think this is a "cultural myth"? Obviously there are conservatives who
are all for a big intrusive state. But the existence of the other kind of
conservative is hardly a myth. There are sincere and decent people who's
devoted their lives to that range of beliefs; imputing that they don't exist
is a bit much.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: Personally, I don't see anything wrong with schools that have a
: religious bias, whether Catholic, or Islamic, or whatever loopy
: Californian religion-of-the-day you choose to name.
That would be because you live in a country with an established religion,
and that doesn't have a strict constitutional prohibition upon such a
thing, and a strict policy of, in the words of Jefferson, "separation of
church and state."
[. . . .]
Gary Farber
Morgan <mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[. . .]
: Well, it's something i saw with my own eyes. And the conditions for
: each pasrt were identicle.
Without muttering about tv not being the same as one's "own eyes," I'll
simply inquire if you are familiar with the work and writings of James
Randi?
: I'm going off to sulk now.
There, there, hon. I suggest mixing up a bowl of sweet batter to bake:
you can do it both clockwise and counter-clockwise if you like.
Morgan
<gfa...@panix2.panix.com> said:
>: I'm going off to sulk now.
>
>There, there, hon. I suggest mixing up a bowl of sweet batter to bake:
>you can do it both clockwise and counter-clockwise if you like.
:-P
You're all being cwuel. Cwuel and cwuel and cwuel! I bet you don't
think there's a santa claus either.
Ed Dravecky III
<excellent points snipped>
> On the total other side, of course. Should someone set up a
> then the rock would be out on the dungheap too.
Whose Name I Forget to note that Pet Rocks are (sort of)
worshipped at Lava Lamp altars by the '70s Preservation Society.
Alter S. Reiss
> In article <6t6pgm$j...@news1.panix.com>, Gary Farber
> <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, not to do that, but to discuss: the idea has a number of virtues,
> > which is why it's a classic conservative/libertarian notion, of course.
> > As an ideal, it's admirable. If you genuinely want the government to
> > maintain as few laws as possible, it's a sound notion. And, of course,
> > many laws *are* sunsetted.
>
> anything I leave in there for more than, say, six months vanishes.
>
On the one hand, that seems like a good idea. On the other, I'd
be leery of arming my appliances with disintegrator technology of any
sort.
--
Alter S. Reiss --- www.geocities.com/Area51/2129 --- asr...@ymail.yu.edu
Posted and Patrolled: No Trepanning!
mike weber
opined:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom Morgan <mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In this post <6t745j$m...@news1.panix.com>, Gary Farber
>> <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> said:
>> >Did you know that "gullible" isn't in either Chamber's dictionary, nor the
>> >OED?
>
>
>> But I bet 'cynic' is.
>
>> Honest Gary, this is a realio, trulio, fact. All to do with the earth's
>> rotational spin and things.
>
>Except that people have done tests on this. It turns out that unless you let
>the water sit for about 24 hours, which way it swirls when you pull the plug
>out depends mostly on how the water got INTO the basin, or tub, or whatnot,
>and what happened to it while it was in there. I believe this was cited in one
>of the "Straight Dope" books by Cecil Adams.
>
Also, the volume of water -- and hence the radius for coriolis to have
its effect -- is important. I.e., the Maelstrom -will- spin the
appropriate way. A fifty-foot whirl flowing into a suddenly-opened
emergency drain has a good chance of doing so.
The effect in the average bath-tub is pretty well random, except as
factors like the shape of the tub affect it.
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
The history of exploration is mostly the history of
finding new ways to die unexpectedly --
JWCjr, on the Apollo 1 fire
mike weber
ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk (Alison Scott) opined:
>It makes a brilliant dashboard ornament which encourages Steven not to
>drive in an overly agressive fashion (or the dragon, which is balanced
>very precariously on the willy, will fall off). Interestingly,
>whenever we're driving along, the dragon rotates steadily in an
>anti-clockwise direction.
>
>We decided it's because we're in the Western Hemisphere.
>
Here's one for you -- take a helium filled balloon. Fasten its string,
with a piece of tape or whatever to the exact middle of the floor of
the car, so that the balloon floats free in the back-seat area,
exactly between the front seats, and free to move in any direction.
Hang a plumb bob from the ceiling directly above the balloon, so that
its tip almost touches the top of the balloon.
Close windows, shut off all ventilation so air in car is basically
still, then drive fairly rapidly through a series of turns.
The plumb bob will swing toward the outside, the balloon toward the
inside.
Morgan
><excellent points snipped>
>> On the total other side, of course. Should someone set up a
>> systematic belief structure and designate a rock as it's symbol -
>> then the rock would be out on the dungheap too.
>
>I'll ignore Stonehenge and the Great Big Islamic Rock In Mecca
>Whose Name I Forget to note that Pet Rocks are (sort of)
>worshipped at Lava Lamp altars by the '70s Preservation Society.
All of which are identifiable as specific rocks.
Not like she handed out a minature version of Stonehenge - which is a
good example of how a rock could be loaded with outside meaning, and
therefore you are handing the meaning to the child, not the rock.
Wonder if Fred Flintstone has an indentifiable rock shape?
James Nicoll
Well, apparently *I* don't have irony in Canada. I'll see if it
suddenly occurs to me when I go to NY next month.
Alter S. Reiss
> ><snips, lots of 'em>
Me, too.
>
> As a side issue, there is of course, a reason why the teacher chose a
> rock. The point about many pagan beleifs is to beleive in your personal
> worth regardless of doctrine. [. . .]
First off, I think that this isn't what the teacher intended. However, if
it was, then she deserved what she got. She was teaching kids whose
parents believe that doctrine is important, and while she might think that
they're wrong, that's a religious position, and she has no business
expressing it in the context of a public school. The point about many
Christian beliefs is that if you accept Jesus as your personal savior, all
will be well. Whether you find the one more objectionable than the other,
so long as they are coming from a relgious framework, they are both equaly
inappropriate in a school context.
Pierre Jelenc
>
> And that's a good argument for it. Perhaps this makes me wicked, but I have
> a great deal of difficulty seeing what good laws about "hate crimes" have
> done, aside from rubbishing free speech and offering up a handy tool to
> demagogues of all sorts. I've heard the arguments for "hate crime"
> legislation, but it seems to me the behaviors it's designed to prevent are
> already, you know, crimes.
Which is why I believe that each and every law should start with a plain
English "statement of intent". If the intent is the same as that of
another law, then one of them is redundant. If the stated intent is not
achieved, then the law (or more likely its author) is stupid and must be
scrapped. Yes; the author too. The author of a stupid law should be forced
to resign and stay out of politics. For ever.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
| The RAW Kinder CD "EP" is out!
The New York City Beer Guide | Home Office Records
http://www.nycbeer.org | http://www.web-ho.com
Morgan
"Alter S. Reiss" <asr...@ymail.yu.edu> said:
> She was teaching kids whose
>parents believe that doctrine is important, and while she might think that
>they're wrong, that's a religious position, and she has no business
>expressing it in the context of a public school.
I did say it was as an aside. Still, I should know better than opening
up such things and not expect people to re-apply things back to the
original, as if the intervening posts didnt' exist.
As a further aside. At what point does a moral or ethical belief (such
as it's good for children to think three good things about themselves
every day) and religion, meet?
You can have an ethical and moral stance, which is not religious. Most
pagans would not consider their beleifs religious. As they are not part
of a religion.
Joel Rosenberg
>In <6t6pgm$j...@news1.panix.com> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> writes:
>
>>But you have to consider if you really want to have to refight for a good
>>clean air bill every five years, but the clean water bill might not be
>>passable for another few years after that.
>
>That's a good argument against sunsetting all laws.
>
>>And we'll get that homicide
>>law passed again, but we probably won't get to hate crimes.
>
>a great deal of difficulty seeing what good laws about "hate crimes" have
>done, aside from rubbishing free speech and offering up a handy tool to
>demagogues of all sorts. I've heard the arguments for "hate crime"
>legislation, but it seems to me the behaviors it's designed to prevent are
>already, you know, crimes.
>
Well, yes, they are, which is why hate crime laws (at least the ones that pass
Constitutional muster) don't trash even the free speech of the Nazis, but do,
in effect, permit more severe treatment of activities that are already crimes.
If I spraypaint JR 55407 on my neighbor's house, for example, that's bad
enough and I ought to face some sanction; if I spraypaint KKK and Nazi
symbols, that's worse. Absent the hate crime laws, a prosecutor trying for a
more serious penalty about the second is going to run into arguments about
selective prosecution and punishing people because of their views.
------------------------------------------------------------
http:/www.winternet.com/~joelr Latest novel: The Silver Stone
(see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0380722089/joelrosenbergA)
Favorite wine: Silver Oak Cabernet Turn-ons: brie and BG42
------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>In article <6t7gjh$co_...@mrw.panix.com>,
>Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> snip re: sexy accents
>
>>Well, I grew up right next to Canada and while there are a *great*
>>many things I admire about our great neighbor to the north, I'm afraid
>>familiarity with CanadaSpeak may have bred in my ear just a wee bit of
>>indifference. And, of course, like Americans, they all talk the same
>>way.
>
> That will come as one hell of a surprise to my Nova Scotian
>relatives and moreso the people in Newfoundland. Hmmm. And perhaps
>Quebec as well; their accent is thick, they might as well be speaking
>another language.
I think you need some of those irony pill thingies.
--
Doug Wickstrom
Those truly desirous of private communication may find it helpful
to drop the "x" in the reply field, and replace "aol.com" with
"worldnet.att.net," cause the reply field is a fib.
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>On the total other side, of course. Should someone set up a systematic
>beleif structure and designate a rock as it's symbol - then the rock
>would be out on the dungheap too.
"Rock of Ages, cleft for me...."
Doug Wickstrom
modulated the bit stream to say:
>In this post <6t8n0a$c...@news1.panix.com>, Gary Farber
><gfa...@panix2.panix.com> said:
>>: I'm going off to sulk now.
>>
>>There, there, hon. I suggest mixing up a bowl of sweet batter to bake:
>>you can do it both clockwise and counter-clockwise if you like.
>
>
>:-P
>
>You're all being cwuel. Cwuel and cwuel and cwuel! I bet you don't
>think there's a santa claus either.
Of course there's a santa clause. If you scrag the guy, you have to
wear the suit.
Doug Wickstrom
<asr...@ymail.yu.edu> modulated the bit stream to say:
>First off, I think that this isn't what the teacher intended. However, if
>it was, then she deserved what she got. She was teaching kids whose
>parents believe that doctrine is important, and while she might think that
>they're wrong, that's a religious position, and she has no business
>expressing it in the context of a public school. The point about many
>Christian beliefs is that if you accept Jesus as your personal savior, all
>will be well. Whether you find the one more objectionable than the other,
>so long as they are coming from a relgious framework, they are both equaly
>inappropriate in a school context.
Silliness alert. The above is an example of just _why_ she won the
lawsuit.
Kevin J. Maroney
>There *is* a small Coriolis effect on water swirling, and if you leave a
>large tub sitting perfectly still under controlled conditions for a week
>or so to get rid of other, larger, effects, it makes its presence felt.
>Under normal conditions, not a chance.
Actually, if I recall Uncle Cecil correctly, under most circumstances
even letting the water stand for a very long time wouldn't have much
effect, that the design of the basin is likely to have a lot of effect
on which way the water spirals.
The test on which he reported--with 500 gallons of water left to sit
for days to damp out the rotational momentum from filling the
tank--was conducted in a tank which was very carefully built to not
impart an arbitrary rotation.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
Kevin J. Maroney
>The only problem I can see is a bill that simply states, every year,
>"The Body of Law is Extended for Another Five Years." Politicians
>are, unfortunately, not as stupid as they look.
Right. They only look stupid so they can get re-elected.
Also, to address Michael's point, I really don't think I want the
First Amendment sunsetted. Or the Eighth.
Kevin J. Maroney
>In <6t76bd$rk_...@mrw.panix.com> awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) writes:
>
>>I think this
>>harks back to the cultural myth of conservatives being all for the
>>government staying out of people's lives.
>
>You think this is a "cultural myth"? Obviously there are conservatives who
>are all for a big intrusive state. But the existence of the other kind of
>conservative is hardly a myth.
There is, however, a big cultural myth that *all* conservatives want
the government out of *all* aspects of people's lives. Many
conservatives believe that they believe it.
Rob Hansen
>The fish, of course, doesn't present a precise set of beleifs. It's a
>statement of a shared umbrella of beleifs. That's why it's less
>contentious than the others.
Nope. The symbol is a Gnostic one with an exactly equivalent meaning
to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
actually nailed to a fish.
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Richard McAllister
> You know, I was thinking about this. I'm sure this can't be an
> original idea with me, but I wonder what it would be like if Things
> Were Changed such that all laws, alls statutes (thereby excluding the
> provisions of the Constitution, in this country) were sunsetted after,
> say, 5 years or so. Unless they were specifically debated,
> reconsidered, and re-enacted, they're outta' here.
Well, given that the California legislature almost never makes the
constitutional deadline for passing the next year's budget I'm afraid this
would end up making murder legal for a few weeks here and there,
occasionally.
--
Rich McAllister <r...@eng.sun.com>
Richard McAllister
> Actually, I'd love to visit Australia, if for no other reason than to
> see the stars in the southern sky.
It's indeed very odd to see Orion standing on his head.
> Are the politics much different than here?
Except for calling the more conservative party the "Liberals",
it's not too confusing.
--
Rich McAllister <r...@eng.sun.com>
Alter S. Reiss
> xnims...@aol.com (Doug Wickstrom) wrote:
> >The only problem I can see is a bill that simply states, every year,
> >"The Body of Law is Extended for Another Five Years." Politicians
> >are, unfortunately, not as stupid as they look.
>
> Right. They only look stupid so they can get re-elected.
>
> Also, to address Michael's point, I really don't think I want the
> First Amendment sunsetted. Or the Eighth.
Or, for that matter, many of the ones in between. Or the
Thirteenth. Or the Fifteenth. Or the . . . . Well. Although, things
would have been different had they had to defend the sixteenth every five
years.
Alter S. Reiss
[. . .]
> the Great Big Islamic Rock In Mecca Whose Name I Forget
[. . .]
or The Kaaba, I think. (and I didn't know the _rock_ was
Islamic . . . What was the name of the other leg?)
Alter S. Reiss
> P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >Also, they don't have irony in Canada, evidently.
>
> Well, apparently *I* don't have irony in Canada. I'll see if it
> suddenly occurs to me when I go to NY next month.
No, I don't think we have enough of that to spare around here. We
do have bagels, though, and if you find one with an iron-like consistency,
that might help (and it would also be a _real_ bagel)
Joel Rosenberg
>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>> xnims...@aol.com (Doug Wickstrom) wrote:
>> >The only problem I can see is a bill that simply states, every year,
>> >"The Body of Law is Extended for Another Five Years." Politicians
>> >are, unfortunately, not as stupid as they look.
>>
>> Right. They only look stupid so they can get re-elected.
>>
>> Also, to address Michael's point, I really don't think I want the
>> First Amendment sunsetted. Or the Eighth.
>
> Or, for that matter, many of the ones in between. Or the
>Thirteenth. Or the Fifteenth. Or the . . . . Well. Although, things
>would have been different had they had to defend the sixteenth every five
>years.
>
I would rather the 2nd not be sunsetted, but that would, in practice, require
time travel.
Brenda Daverin
(John Boston) wrote:
> As to imagination: there has actually been litigation by
> fundamentalists objecting to English curricula that contained fantasy of
> some sort on the ground that it is contrary to their religious beliefs to
> encourage children to use their imaginations. (If memory serves, they lost
> on their demand that the curriculum be trimmed to fit their beliefs; the
> school board had already agreed that their children could be excused from
> that assignment and read something else. This was some years ago and I
> can't provide a cite.)
Sounds nastily like the objections lodged against an English proficiency
test that was being presented in California schools. I remember (but can't
cite, either) at least one spokesperson for the fundamentalist contingent
complaining that the test required her children to think logically. She
would have preferred a test which depended more on rote knowledge than
analysis. And then people like that complain when others accuse them of
seeking to encourage ignorance. Sigh.
--
Brenda Daverin
bdav...@best.com
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Morris M. Keesan
John Boston <jbo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> "You have completed second grade. Because you have worked so hard,
>you deserve something special and unique; just like you!
If I were the parent of one of those second grade students, I would have
complained about the teacher giving the children poor examples of
punctuation. Surely that semicolon doesn't belong there.
--
Morris M. Keesan -- kee...@world.std.com
Morris M. Keesan
Morgan <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>It's the little things that speak 'alien' to me - like the freeway signs
>in the USA being a different colour than ours. That French electricity
>pylons are different shapes.
Like discovering that men's and women's shoe sizes in the US are
different from each other, and that shoe sizes in the UK are unisex?
It's always the little things. A young Japanese woman who was staying
with us several years ago was astonished when she saw that American
toothpicks are pointed on both ends. She took a few toothpicks back
to Japan with her, to show to her father.
Morris M. Keesan
Brenda Daverin <bdav...@best.com> wrote:
...
>She
>would have preferred a test which depended more on rote knowledge than
>analysis. And then people like that complain when others accuse them of
>seeking to encourage ignorance. Sigh.
Wasn't that what Galileo's crime was? Not that he claimed that the
Earth moved, but that he argued in favor of gaining knowledge by
observation and analysis, instead of by faith?
Aahz Maruch
Morris M. Keesan <kee...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>It's always the little things. A young Japanese woman who was staying
>with us several years ago was astonished when she saw that American
>toothpicks are pointed on both ends. She took a few toothpicks back
>to Japan with her, to show to her father.
Not all American toothpicks are pointed on both ends, of course.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction
listen to weather forecasts and economists?" -- Kelvin Throop III
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In <6t76bd$rk_...@mrw.panix.com> awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) writes:
>
> >I think this
> >harks back to the cultural myth of conservatives being all for the
> >government staying out of people's lives.
>
> You think this is a "cultural myth"? Obviously there are conservatives who
> are all for a big intrusive state. But the existence of the other kind of
> devoted their lives to that range of beliefs; imputing that they don't exist
> is a bit much.
Yes, there are sincere and decent people who have devoted their lives
to that range of beliefs; the current national conservative movement
has no use for them. The attitude of "conservative" national
Republicans toward Barry Goldwater in his last few years speaks for
itself. So does their trashing William Weld, former Republican
governor of Massachusetts, who was a _genuine_ conservative
Republican, who often demonstrated his seriousness about keeping the
government out of people's private lives. Christine Todd Whitman, of
New Jersey, has had her own problems with them, for being
insufficiently rigid and intolerant.
The people peddling the line of keeping the government out of our
private lives nationally don't believe it any more than they believe
the moon is made of green cheese, or perhaps rather less.
Lis Carey
Kevin J. Maroney
>I would rather the 2nd not be sunsetted, but that would, in practice, require
>time travel.
I'm sorry, you want "Gun Control Arguments". That's the newsgroup next
door.
Morgan
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> said:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:01:41 +0100, Morgan <mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>The fish, of course, doesn't present a precise set of beleifs. It's a
>>statement of a shared umbrella of beleifs. That's why it's less
>>contentious than the others.
>
>Nope. The symbol is a Gnostic one with an exactly equivalent meaning
>to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
>actually nailed to a fish.
That may be the literal interpretation, but how the fish is seen in a
wider social context is not as precise. The most common interpretation
of the fish would be that it designated some type of Christian, with no
real concept of what type of Christian. It has gained grace as a
generic symbol, with no precise Church attached as baggage. As such,
it's a symbol of uniting Christians as people, if not as sects. And
many people who would recognise the cross, or a crucifix, do not
recognise the fish as Christian at all.
Your person on top of the onmibus at Clapham, would recognise it as a
loose Christian symbol. Unlike the crucifix, which is a much more
powerful and closed symbol.
P Nielsen Hayden
[about whether conservatives are in fact against the overweening state]
>The idea is that this is put about as a feature of the current state
>of the conservative movement, but that the feature does not exist
>in spite of their constant assurances to the nation that it does.
>
>Not, I hasten to add, that my beloved left is much better on this
>score.
Indeed. You'd think the libertarians had a point.
(In fact -- whisper it -- I think they do. I just keep hoping for a smarter
libertarianism.)
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
P Nielsen Hayden
>P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> And that's a good argument for it. Perhaps this makes me wicked, but I have
>> a great deal of difficulty seeing what good laws about "hate crimes" have
>> done, aside from rubbishing free speech and offering up a handy tool to
>> demagogues of all sorts. I've heard the arguments for "hate crime"
>> legislation, but it seems to me the behaviors it's designed to prevent are
>> already, you know, crimes.
>
>Which is why I believe that each and every law should start with a plain
>English "statement of intent". If the intent is the same as that of
>another law, then one of them is redundant. If the stated intent is not
>achieved, then the law (or more likely its author) is stupid and must be
>scrapped. Yes; the author too. The author of a stupid law should be forced
>to resign and stay out of politics. For ever.
I was with you until you got to the bit about the authors. Very little in
human affairs has ever been improved by setting up systems where the
consequences of a single mistake are fatal.
P Nielsen Hayden
>If I spraypaint JR 55407 on my neighbor's house, for example, that's bad
>enough and I ought to face some sanction; if I spraypaint KKK and Nazi
>symbols, that's worse. Absent the hate crime laws, a prosecutor trying for a
>more serious penalty about the second is going to run into arguments about
>selective prosecution and punishing people because of their views.
I agree that the second is in a real sense worse. I wonder how wise it is,
however, to try to codify this kind of moral perception into law. With all
due respect, I have a hard time figuring out how "hate crime" laws don't
simply legitimate "punishing people because of their views."
Mary Kay Kare
>
> Nope. The symbol is a Gnostic one with an exactly equivalent meaning
> to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
> actually nailed to a fish.
Do you know why Jesus crossed the road?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Because he was nailed to a chicken.
For reasons which escape me this is one of my very favorite jokes. I
can't tell it without laughing hysterically and, indeed, I'm grinning like
a maniac as I type.
MK
--
Mary Kay Kare
Abandon hope all ye who
Press Enter Here.
Alter S. Reiss
> In this post <35fc130e...@news.demon.co.uk>, Rob Hansen
> <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> said:
> >On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:01:41 +0100, Morgan <mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>The fish, of course, doesn't present a precise set of beleifs. It's a
> >>statement of a shared umbrella of beleifs. That's why it's less
> >>contentious than the others.
> >
> >to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
> >actually nailed to a fish.
>
>
On the other hand, it is entirely possible that it isn't. Perhaps
a closer look at the post, particularly the "actually nailed to a fish"
remark, is in order.
Alter S. Reiss
> In this post <Pine.A41.3.95.980910...@acis.mc.yu.edu>,
> "Alter S. Reiss" <asr...@ymail.yu.edu> said:
> > She was teaching kids whose
> >parents believe that doctrine is important, and while she might think that
> >they're wrong, that's a religious position, and she has no business
> >expressing it in the context of a public school.
>
>
> I did say it was as an aside. Still, I should know better than opening
> up such things and not expect people to re-apply things back to the
> original, as if the intervening posts didnt' exist.
If the extention was illegitimate, I apologize.
> As a further aside. At what point does a moral or ethical belief (such
> as it's good for children to think three good things about themselves
> every day) and religion, meet?
I don't know. My current guess is when people think that it's has
to do with mysticism and/or spirituality, that's something that counts as
"religion", wheras if it is based on double-blind studies, it's
psychology. Niether of the above, it's either morals or ethics, neither
of which can I claim to realy understand all that well.
>
> You can have an ethical and moral stance, which is not religious. Most
> pagans would not consider their beleifs religious. As they are not part
> of a religion.
However, many religious people might object to the inclusion of
some neo-pagan practices into schools because they look rather like
religious practices, and, despite your assertion that they don't have any
intrisicly religious components, objections to said rites might not be all
that illegitimate from a separation of church and state issue.
And, to reiterate. I think that the teacher in question had no
more belief that those rocks were magical than Timothy Mouse thought that
the feather he gave Dumbo was magical. And, as such, while the only facts
I have on the issue are those given to me in the newsgroup, I hypothesize,
based on those facts, that the reason that she was fired was because she
was New Agey in some way, and the reason that she won her lawsuit was
because if a Christian teacher had done the same thing, he wouldn't have
gotten fired.
And another repeat: Doing something in school that stupid people
think is religious isn't a great idea, particularly as small children are
quite often stupid in the most astonishing ways.
Joel Rosenberg
It is -- as long as you add "when they act on them in illegal ways". And
that's just fine with me. If somebody feels that, say, black folks shouldn't
move into their neighborhood, and as long as they limit themselves to feeling
and legitimate expression, that's fine. (Well, no, it's not fine -- but the
sanctions should be social, not legal.)
When they add "burning a cross on the new black neighbors' lawn", I'm
perfectly willing to see them punished for the combination of their views and
their behavior. (I'd prefer to see that done via wise judicial discrimination
during sentencing, but the current of policy is against that, alas.)
YMMV, of course, and obviously does.
P Nielsen Hayden
You know, I do know all that; I even agree. It's rather a lot of overkill
in response to my point to Michael, which is that the existence of such
people isn't a "myth."
P Nielsen Hayden
>In article <6t9m5d$m...@news1.panix.com>,
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>>
>>In <6t91oh$5as$1...@blackice.winternet.com> jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg)
>> writes:
>>
>>>If I spraypaint JR 55407 on my neighbor's house, for example, that's bad
>>>enough and I ought to face some sanction; if I spraypaint KKK and Nazi
>>>symbols, that's worse. Absent the hate crime laws, a prosecutor trying for a
>>>more serious penalty about the second is going to run into arguments about
>>>selective prosecution and punishing people because of their views.
>>
>>I agree that the second is in a real sense worse. I wonder how wise it is,
>>however, to try to codify this kind of moral perception into law. With all
>>due respect, I have a hard time figuring out how "hate crime" laws don't
>>simply legitimate "punishing people because of their views."
>
>I have a real problem with punishing people for their views. However,
>we scale crimes against persons all the time. E.g., we have assault,
>and we have assault with intent to kill. You are right, in my opinion,
>when you say "the second is in a real sense worse" and I think the
>"worseness" can rightly be addressed, and so *should* be addressed,
>just as the "worseness" of assault with intent to kill can and should
>be.
>
>I might be able to accept something like "assault with intent to
>terrorize (on the basis of [race, religion, sexual orientation,
>etc., maybe]). That gives the prosecutor the task of proving, beyond a
>reasonable doubt, that the assault (or whatever) was done with not
>only the intention of doing physical harm, but also with the intention
>of terrorizing.
Good points. However, every time I find myself almost agreeing, I suddenly
envision a society in which the prosecutor and some of the judges are
sincere followers of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.
"Intent to terrorize" is such a usefully _flexible_ phrase. Its potential
in political show trials is, oh, endless.
P Nielsen Hayden
>In this post <35fc130e...@news.demon.co.uk>, Rob Hansen
><r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> said:
>>On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 12:01:41 +0100, Morgan <mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The fish, of course, doesn't present a precise set of beleifs. It's a
>>>statement of a shared umbrella of beleifs. That's why it's less
>>>contentious than the others.
>>
>>Nope. The symbol is a Gnostic one with an exactly equivalent meaning
>>to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
>>actually nailed to a fish.
>
>That may be the literal interpretation, but how the fish is seen in a
>wider social context is not as precise.
[Long serious explanation snipped]
Morgan, hello, yoo hoo, anyone home?
Michael T Pins
>In <6t6pgm$j...@news1.panix.com> Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> writes:
>>But you have to consider if you really want to have to refight for a good
>>clean air bill every five years, but the clean water bill might not be
>>passable for another few years after that.
>That's a good argument against sunsetting all laws.
Agreed. Getting even decent (much less good) enviromental legislation
passed is *tough*.
>>And we'll get that homicide
>>law passed again, but we probably won't get to hate crimes.
>And that's a good argument for it. Perhaps this makes me wicked, but I have
>a great deal of difficulty seeing what good laws about "hate crimes" have
>done, aside from rubbishing free speech and offering up a handy tool to
>demagogues of all sorts. I've heard the arguments for "hate crime"
>legislation, but it seems to me the behaviors it's designed to prevent are
>already, you know, crimes.
The only real value of "hate crime" laws is stiffer penalties. These are
necessary because, due to the fiasco known as the War On Drugs, non-drug
related criminals are getting paroled ever sooner to make room for all the
EvilPotSmokers, who are facing mandatory sentances. (Welcome to Amerika,
where you'll likely serve more actual jail time for selling dope than for
rape).
Of course, the solution is obvious, nuke the War On Drugs, but that just
isn't going to happen any time soon I'm afraid.
--
************************************************************************
* Michael T Pins | mtp...@visi.com *
* keeper of the nn sources | mtp...@isca.uiowa.edu *
* ftp.isca.uiowa.edu | #include <std.disclaimer> *
Gary Farber
wrote, quoting Rob Hansen and Morgan Gallegher:
[. . .]
: (Sheesh, what is it with all of us in here lately? We've suddenly got
: irony-poor blood, or what?)
They're Brits. You can't expect them to understand irony as well as we
Americans.
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Gary Farber
: In <6t91oh$5as$1...@blackice.winternet.com> jo...@bigfoot.com (Joel Rosenberg) writes:
:>If I spraypaint JR 55407 on my neighbor's house, for example, that's bad
:>enough and I ought to face some sanction; if I spraypaint KKK and Nazi
:>symbols, that's worse. Absent the hate crime laws, a prosecutor trying for a
:>more serious penalty about the second is going to run into arguments about
:>selective prosecution and punishing people because of their views.
: I agree that the second is in a real sense worse. I wonder how wise it is,
: however, to try to codify this kind of moral perception into law. With all
: due respect, I have a hard time figuring out how "hate crime" laws don't
: simply legitimate "punishing people because of their views."
They punish them because their acts are motivated by certain views.
Which is the way we punish many crimes. Many crimes are defined by
intent as well as action. The difference between degrees of murder, and
manslaughter, and accidental killing of someone, is intent.
Beating someone up is assault, is a bad thing, and a crime. Beating
someone up because they are a minority is, I think, a worse thing than
simple assault, and is more harmful to society, and is worth being
punished more strongly. As racial lynchings are more degredatory to a
civil society than a simple murder are, and as racially derogatory
graffiti is than simple graffiti. I do believe, strongly, that hate
crimes are worse than many simple criminal acts less the hate aspect. I
believe that some acts combined with some views are worse than the same
acts motivated by different views. I have no more problem coding these
"moral perceptions" into law than I do my "moral perception" that murder
is bad, period, or any other of the moral perceptions whose codification
into law I agree with. YMMV, of course.
Steve Brinich
> The problem is, they wouldn't vote *for* it, if the current Congress
> is any example. They'd vote for something innocuous, and slip it in
> as a rider that most people weren't even aware of.
While we're on the subject of repairing the legislative system, perhaps
we should require that:
1. The sponsor of a bill must read it on the floor. In full. (OK, I'll
allow him to get another member to read it to cover medical
contingencies.)
1a. If a quorum of the membership doesn't stay to hear the whole thing,
the bill dies.
1b. Only the members who did stay to hear the whole thing get to vote on
it.
2. Statements on the floor of Congress that Bill X wouldn't *really*
prohibit/require action Y (as asserted by critics of the bill) shall be
considered binding by the courts if someone is actually prosecuted under
the resulting law for doing/not doing Y.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
James Nicoll
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>In <6t9lmr$19s...@mrw.panix.com> Michael R Weholt <awnb...@panix.com>
>wrote, quoting Rob Hansen and Morgan Gallegher:
>[. . .]
>
>: (Sheesh, what is it with all of us in here lately? We've suddenly got
>: irony-poor blood, or what?)
>
>They're Brits. You can't expect them to understand irony as well as we
>Americans.
Where do I send the bill for my new irony meter? Mine just
melted for some reason.
--
Whenever someone quotes that old Heinlein comment about
specialization being for insects, I like to reflect on how much more
successful than hominids insects have been. Remove humans and you end
a K/T level Extinction Event. Remove insects and you _cause_ one.
Craig Macbride
>Except I hear you guys have a tendency to take Americans out there and
>forget to bring them back. :)
Shhhhh! They were trying to keep that quiet!
>Well, that doesn't sound too bad. Keep an eye on things, though. These
>things have a tendency to creep up on you. The problem with laws
>intended to Revive The Moral Fiber of the Nation is that, once passed,
>they are very difficult to get unpassed.
Luckily, it's only our federal government that is trying to do that. Many
of the laws increasing freedom (the legalisation of casinos, legalisation
of kangaroo meat for human consumption, legalisation of prostitution,
decriminalisation of pot smoking in some states, etc) have come in in the
last decade or so. The NT (Northern Territory) made euthenasia legal,
only to have it overturned by the federal gov't. The ACT tried to do
trials of providing free heroin to addicts, again stomped on by the federal
nitwits.
>Well, that's a refreshing response. I thought you were going to
>complain that Americans always think people Who Talk Funny are, by
>default, exotically sexy.
Well, I don't usually consider it something to complain about! On the other
hand, you appear to be male, which makes this concept of less appeal to
me in this particular case.
>Which they are, of course.
Ours is not to reason why....
--
Craig Macbride <cr...@glasswings.com.au>
-----------------------http://amarok.glasswings.com.au/~craig---------------
Graeme Garden: I am into neolithic man.
Bill Oddie: Is that legal?
- "The Goodies"
Jay Denebeim
>
>Maybe you'd like Australia? ... Ideal time to check while visiting next
>year's Worldcon.
Actually, I'm planning on doing exactly that. I've always had a
fondness for Australia.
Need any good programmers?
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* MPI of Cleveland Ohio refuses to honor their warranties. If *
* you buy from them don't expect them to stand by their products *
Jay Denebeim
Simply this: no law can be longer than will fit on 1 8x5" sheet of
paper, single spaced, in a 10pt font, and must be easily
understandable by a layman.
Works for me.
mike weber
<mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> opined:
>In this post <6t8n0a$c...@news1.panix.com>, Gary Farber
><gfa...@panix2.panix.com> said:
>>: I'm going off to sulk now.
>>
>>There, there, hon. I suggest mixing up a bowl of sweet batter to bake:
>>you can do it both clockwise and counter-clockwise if you like.
>
>
>:-P
>
>You're all being cwuel. Cwuel and cwuel and cwuel! I bet you don't
>think there's a santa claus either.
>
>
I thought you went off to sulk....
Oh, shucky-darn!!!!
Quick, everybody -- cancel the "Making Fun of Morgan 'Cos Morgan Is So
Wet" thread!!!
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
"He thanked his friends in Houston town -- he thanked his
fellow mates; he thanked his God and the makers of
Tang and then he thanked his Chief of State -- D.Previn
Plain and Simple Cronan
Jay Denebeim wrote
>A cubie of mine had a different theory on how to limit government.
>Simply this: no law can be longer than will fit on 1 8x5" sheet of
>paper, single spaced, in a 10pt font, and must be easily
>understandable by a layman.
>
>Works for me.
If it isn't my favorite censor! Talking about limiting government, no less!
P&SC
...I wonder if the KKK ever made donations to the Black Panthers?
Gary Farber
: A cubie of mine had a different theory on how to limit government.
: Simply this: no law can be longer than will fit on 1 8x5" sheet of
: paper, single spaced, in a 10pt font, and must be easily
: understandable by a layman.
: Works for me.
Ah, so you think that elected legislators are poor writers of law, and
prefer judges as superior.
This makes little sense to me. Why do you prefer judges writing your law?
(I can defend that notion, of course, but I'm curious if Jay will.)
~Ed Howdershelt
> > to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
> > actually nailed to a fish.
>
> >
> Because he was nailed to a chicken.
>
> For reasons which escape me this is one of my very favorite jokes. I
> can't tell it without laughing hysterically and, indeed, I'm grinning like
> a maniac as I type.
Ha! "Tacky", but I like it.
--
Wicca Works! at: http://www.atlantic.net/~wiccan/
Articles-Jewelry-Tiles-Chalices-Poetry-ClipArt-Other(!)Stuff
- Four boxes to be used in defense of Liberty:
Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo. Use in that order.
Alison Scott
>In this post <35fc130e...@news.demon.co.uk>, Rob Hansen
><r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> said:
>>Nope. The symbol is a Gnostic one with an exactly equivalent meaning
>>to that of the cross and represents their belief that Jesus was
>>actually nailed to a fish.
>
>That may be the literal interpretation, but how the fish is seen in a
>wider social context is not as precise. The most common interpretation
>of the fish would be that it designated some type of Christian, with no
>real concept of what type of Christian. It has gained grace as a
>generic symbol, with no precise Church attached as baggage. As such,
>it's a symbol of uniting Christians as people, if not as sects. And
>many people who would recognise the cross, or a crucifix, do not
>recognise the fish as Christian at all.
>
>Your person on top of the onmibus at Clapham, would recognise it as a
>loose Christian symbol. Unlike the crucifix, which is a much more
>powerful and closed symbol.
Morgan, did you know that fish swim clockwise in bathtubs in the
Northern Hemisphere, and anti-clockwise in hemispheres in the Southern
Hemisphere?
[not, however, if they have messiahs nailed to them...]
Hey, chaps, here's a new rasf game! What's the most outlandishly
untrue thing we can get <strikeout>Morgan</strikeout> a rasf regular
to fall for hook, line and sinker?
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Now with added cobwebs: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: Hey, chaps, here's a new rasf game! What's the most outlandishly
: untrue thing we can get <strikeout>Morgan</strikeout> a rasf regular
: to fall for hook, line and sinker?
Pocket programs are better when they don't list who is actually on program
items?
Radios are essential to run 500 person conventions?
120 person conventions should have six tracks of programming, and also
need twenty radios to run?
;-)
mike weber
(Michael R Weholt) opined:
>In article <35f7f9f8...@news.mindspring.com>,
>emsh...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Here's one for you --
<snip intentionally over-elaborate description of experiment>
>Jesus. After all that, the thing had damn well *better* do something
>entertaining.
>
The question is, why does a suspended weight in the car swing toward
the outside of the curve but a helium balloon floating on its string
swing toward the -inside-?