Ethical Angst
OOsik11566
within boundaries if true meaning or value are to be found. "Ethics" (or
"principles" if you will), are the discipline dealing with good and evil and
with moral duty. As such, they serve as guideposts indicating which path to
follow at each fork in the road. Good path? Evil path? We walk separate
paths following separate values. By what yardstick shall we measure the
utility or correctness of those values? From the Universe of possible Values
and Ethics, please, for the moment, examine a common primary value: personal
survival......
To that end:
From "A Question For All" - Would you kill to survive?
Not surprisingly, the ARAs had trouble with that one. What came of efforts
to turn them into confessed would-be killers is very revealing. A little
sample review:
Dale Anderson wrote:
> Why is it so hard to admit there are times when you would go to extremes
> to survive, Karen?
Rat replied:
> I have no illusions that I would survive.
>I would be one of the teeming crowd killed
>off by the bombs/riots/virus/giant tidal wave
> during the opening credits. I have already
>resigned myself to dying, and am simply
> awaiting the day. It would not be worth it
>to me to kill any subject-of-a-life being
>myself to survive. We all die sooner or later.
Quick synopsis would be, "I'm already as good as dead, I'm not worth
anything dying that I might live, and it wouldn't matter because you are as
good as dead too".
Ward cautioned Rat with this practical wisdom:
>Color me skeptical, Karen. I think your instincts would kick in, in
>extremity; you can easily make such a statement from the comfortable warmth
>of your computer chair; but were you starving and faced with a live chicken
>as your only hope for food, I am of the opinion that your body's biological
>survival imperative would overrule you. You'd be on a lower level of the
>hierarchy of need, and your high-falutin' (we all have them) standards would
>be dramatically eroded.
"Practical wisdom"? Sure. Ward merely acknowledges and tries to remind
Rat that a human body's own requirements form its own "ethical" imperatives.
Divorced from reality, posturing is an easy trick. Forced into "reality" as
by our "question for all", a house of cards exposes its foundations.
Rat does admit her resolve might crumble if the chips were down but sticks
to her ethical position:
>But there _are_ examples of people who managed to die
>rather than violate their principles, and I would
>hope I could do it.
So there you have it folks. The distilled, bottom-line for bedrock ARA is
that _YOU_ are at the end-of-the-line. Followed to its ultimate logic in
extremis, a rat is a cat is a dog is a pig is a boy. Boys do not pass go or
collect two hundred dollars. But the other animals do. And the value of
that "ethic" is.....??? The boundaries and framework of your ethic
serves.....???
Felix
(trying to live without prejudice against others.... or myself)
Ward M. Clark
news:20001209115028...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
<snippage>
> So there you have it folks. The distilled, bottom-line for bedrock
ARA is
> that _YOU_ are at the end-of-the-line. Followed to its ultimate logic
in
> extremis, a rat is a cat is a dog is a pig is a boy. Boys do not pass
go or
> collect two hundred dollars. But the other animals do. And the value
of
> that "ethic" is.....??? The boundaries and framework of your ethic
> serves.....???
Very well put, Felix. Some ARA's, perhaps a majority, claim AR as some sort
of egalitarian outlook for humans AND animals - but the comments in this
thread speak rather eloquently to the facts of the case, specifically, that
the radical AR mind-set places animals ABOVE humans. Is this rooted in an
unrealistic canonization of animals, or in some pathological self-demeaning
disorder? Might make an interesting study for a psychologist, that.
>
> Felix
> (trying to live without prejudice against others.... or myself)
--
Ward M. Clark (doing likewise)
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Very well put, Felix. Some ARA's, perhaps a majority, claim AR as some sort
> of egalitarian outlook for humans AND animals - but the comments in this
> thread speak rather eloquently to the facts of the case, specifically, that
> the radical AR mind-set places animals ABOVE humans. Is this rooted in an
> unrealistic canonization of animals, or in some pathological self-demeaning
> disorder? Might make an interesting study for a psychologist, that.
For me at least, it follows directly from
my belief that we are called to follow
Christ's example of self-sacrifice. He
did not see self-preservation as the highest
good, and gave his life for others --
including the very others who killed Him.
I'm not claiming to equal Christ, or even
to fulfill the ethical obligations my own
beliefs demand. I am saying that this is
the example we are supposed to see as the
best. No other human can achieve it, but, IMO,
all humans are called upon to try.
Rat
(just back from an Advent Quiet Day at church)
Ward M. Clark
news:3A32E2...@pacbell.net...
> Ward M. Clark wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Very well put, Felix. Some ARA's, perhaps a majority, claim AR as some
sort
> > of egalitarian outlook for humans AND animals - but the comments in this
> > thread speak rather eloquently to the facts of the case, specifically,
that
> > the radical AR mind-set places animals ABOVE humans. Is this rooted in
an
> > unrealistic canonization of animals, or in some pathological
self-demeaning
> > disorder? Might make an interesting study for a psychologist, that.
>
> For me at least, it follows directly from
> my belief that we are called to follow
> Christ's example of self-sacrifice. He
> did not see self-preservation as the highest
> good, and gave his life for others --
> including the very others who killed Him.
For other people, perhaps. Is there any mainstream Judeo-Christian sect
that requires you do so for animals, or even that it would be desirable to
do so?
> I'm not claiming to equal Christ, or even
> to fulfill the ethical obligations my own
> beliefs demand. I am saying that this is
> the example we are supposed to see as the
> best. No other human can achieve it, but, IMO,
> all humans are called upon to try.
In your opinion, of course, yes? How many of the clergy agree with your
interpretation? You are certainly entitled to your own interpretation, but
you understand it is accepted by very few? Including church scholars?
>
> Rat
> (just back from an Advent Quiet Day at church)
--
Ward M. Clark
OOsik11566
>Date: 12/9/00 6:54 PM US
>Ward M. Clark wrote:
(snip)
> Is this rooted in an
>> unrealistic canonization of animals, or in some pathological self-demeaning
>> disorder?
Rat:
(snip)
> ... my belief [is] that we are called to >follow Christ's example of
self-sacrifice....
....to save mankind from.... simply being mean to each other? .....simply
being mean to animals?
>He did not see self-preservation as the >highest good, and gave his life for
others.
"Others" included animals? For this...ahem.... somewhat surprising, uh....
"take on Salvation" to be accurate and applicable, wouldn't animals have to be
fallen from Grace also? And is it not a canon of AR that animals are indeed,
innocent of sin?
(snip)
> I'm not claiming to equal Christ, or even
> to fulfill the ethical obligations my own
> beliefs demand....
Don't shy from admitting trying to equal Christ. The effort and its
inescapable failure is factored in already.
(snip)
>I am saying that this is the example we >are supposed to see as the best.
Example of _what_ ? From where do you glean this notion that animals
are an element in the mankind/Jesus/God equation? Through Christ, we are
saved of _our_ sins. Do animals have need of this salvation?
In any case, the destruction of self through suicide-as-sacrifice (either
by action or _inaction_ ) isn't what I wanted to examine (though as a
practice, AR embraces it). The central mystery is "why?".
And so, again, I ask:.... the value of
that "ethic" is.....??? The boundaries and framework of your ethic
serves.....???
Felix
(praying for consistency)
Snuffles
>
> <snip>
> > Very well put, Felix. Some ARA's, perhaps a majority, claim AR as some
sort
> > of egalitarian outlook for humans AND animals - but the comments in this
> > thread speak rather eloquently to the facts of the case, specifically,
that
> > the radical AR mind-set places animals ABOVE humans. Is this rooted in
an
> > unrealistic canonization of animals, or in some pathological
self-demeaning
> > disorder? Might make an interesting study for a psychologist, that.
>
> For me at least, it follows directly from
> my belief that we are called to follow
> Christ's example of self-sacrifice. He
> did not see self-preservation as the highest
> good, and gave his life for others
According to your doctrine he did not die.
He went to Heaven so sacrificed nothing.
More irrelevant nonsense!
> --
> including the very others who killed Him.
>
> I'm not claiming to equal Christ, or even
> to fulfill the ethical obligations my own
> beliefs demand. I am saying that this is
> the example we are supposed to see as the
> best. No other human can achieve it, but, IMO,
> all humans are called upon to try.
>
> Rat
> (just back from an Advent Quiet Day at church)
Do they agree with your support of the sexual
exploitation of children.
Snuffles
Well said < Loud claps of aggreement>
>
> Felix
> (praying for consistency)
I doubt you will get it.
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Do they agree with your support of the sexual
> exploitation of children.
I don't support sexual exploitation of
anyone. Please take this to E-mail.
Rat
Martin L. Martens
"Am I a member of NAMBLA? Good ghod NO!! I loathe kids of
any age and have no interest sexually in anything under
the age of say, 30! Am I an advocate of the group on civil
liberties grounds? YES! They are trying to eliminate age
of consent laws and I support them simply BECAUSE of the
violent suppression they have experienced."
- Date: 08/26/2000 Author: Rat & Swan
<lab...@pacbell.net>
"I have no real love for NAMBLA. I'm not interested (more
like disgusted!) at sexual interest in creepy kids. Yuck!
But unless we watch each others' backs, we are ALL going
to get nailed." - Date: 08/26/2000 Author: Rat & Swan
<lab...@pacbell.net>
"Teenagers are sexual, and NAMBLA recognizes that, but
teenagers are also complete human beings, and NAMBLA is
one of the few groups which also recognize and respect
that."
Date: 11/30/2000 Author: Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net>
(See:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990809/nycu/teenbrain.htm,
about how "complete" teenager's brains are. From the
article - 'With the advent of technologies such as
magnetic resonance imaging, neuroscientists have
discovered that the adolescent brain is far from mature.'
)
MrFalafel
I find it compelling that anti ARAs quite often take to character
asasisnation in order to attempt to justify their arguments. I guess
they realize their arguments don't hold water and simply go for the
jugular instead. Hmm...
I wonder how many nambla members eat meat, are pro-hunting and are pro
vivisection? Does this mean that all hunters are members of nambla? Get
real.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
MrFalafel
Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
that after 5 minutes.
Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now. Would I put
myself before killing an animal or a human? I would think so, but then
again I bet if you asked those people who resorted to cannibalism for
survival if they would ever eat human flesh before hand, they would
have all said 'no'.
Suffice to say if I was forced into that situation and ate an animal I
would feel the same remorse as if ate a human.
Dale Anderson
news:912hn3$4gc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people?
Because those in the opposition have regularly done it to them, perhaps?
--
Dale (BBD) Anderson
dand...@mail.tds.net
"My point being that when you argue
with animal rights activist about "poor
starving children" you might just as well
bring up aliens from Mars. As they
probably know more about that than
being poor, starving or children."
Verne
Dale Anderson
>
> I find it compelling that anti ARAs quite often take to character
> asasisnation in order to attempt to justify their arguments. I guess
> they realize their arguments don't hold water and simply go for the
> jugular instead. Hmm...
Yeah.... We'd never see an ARA do such things now, would we?
Whoops! I think we just DID! :^>
OOsik11566
>Date: 12/11/2000 5:35 AM US
> "Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@home.com> wrote:
>> "OOsik11566" <oosik...@aol.com> wrote in message
(snip)
>Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
>no 'bottom line' for ARAs....
"Categorizing people" is one thing. Examining a distillation of any
particular philosophy is another. Ideas and the philosophical constructs
which comprise belief systems _are_ distinguishable from each other, no? Do
you appreciate the difference?
>If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
>that after 5 minutes.
"Meetings" may highlight the differences or nuance within a group. But
the group is meeting upon its similarity.
>Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
>animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now. Would I put
>myself before killing an animal or a human? I would think so,....
Thank you for your honesty. And now, we know we better keep an eye on
you.... if the expedition falters, I'm as at risk as the horses and dogs!!!!
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> I find it compelling that anti ARAs quite often take to character
> asasisnation in order to attempt to justify their arguments.
I merely posted Rat's comments about NAMBLA and made no
comment about it.
*You* perceived it as "character assassination" and that
says more about you than anything.
*You* perceived her comments as negative. I don't think
Rat would characterize it that way.
[...]
Ward M. Clark
<snippage>
> Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people?
Nosce te ipsum, pal.
> There is
> no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
> that after 5 minutes.
Been there, done that, not convinced. The AR meetings (five) I've sat in on
were thinly disguised religious revival meetings, with the rank and file
told very specifically what to think and how to act.
>
> Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
> animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
Color me skeptical.
> Would I put
> myself before killing an animal or a human? I would think so, but then
> again I bet if you asked those people who resorted to cannibalism for
> survival if they would ever eat human flesh before hand, they would
> have all said 'no'.>
> Suffice to say if I was forced into that situation and ate an animal I
> would feel the same remorse as if ate a human.
Again, color me skeptical.
Ward M. Clark
Rat & Swan
(snip)
> I merely posted Rat's comments about NAMBLA and made no
> comment about it.
Actually, only the last was my comment.
The first two were Swan's, as I think you'll
see if you reread the original post. Swan
is not fond of children. I don't dislike
children, although I have no sexual interest
in them.
(Couldn't you tell from the style of posting
those weren't my comments? Does it sound
like my style?)
Rat
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Martin L. Martens wrote:
.>
.> (snip)
.> > I merely posted Rat's comments about NAMBLA and made no
.> > comment about it.
.>
.> Actually, only the last was my comment.
.> The first two were Swan's, as I think you'll
.> see if you reread the original post. Swan
.> is not fond of children. I don't dislike
.> children, although I have no sexual interest
.> in them.
.>
.> (Couldn't you tell from the style of posting
.> those weren't my comments? Does it sound
.> like my style?)
.>
.> Rat
Do you really think he cares?
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
brand...@my-deja.com
"Dale Anderson" <dand...@mail.tds.net> wrote:
> "MrFalafel" <mrfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:912hcu$461$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > I find it compelling that anti ARAs quite often take to character
> > asasisnation in order to attempt to justify their arguments. I guess
> > they realize their arguments don't hold water and simply go for the
> > jugular instead. Hmm...
>
> Yeah.... We'd never see an ARA do such things now, would we?
>
> Whoops! I think we just DID! :^>
Actually, I'm just waiting to hear what part of our arguments don't hold
water. Kevin
>
> --
>
> Dale (BBD) Anderson
> dand...@mail.tds.net
>
> "My point being that when you argue
> with animal rights activist about "poor
> starving children" you might just as well
> bring up aliens from Mars. As they
> probably know more about that than
> being poor, starving or children."
>
> Verne
>
>
Dale Anderson
news:914kva$rme$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Actually, I'm just waiting to hear what part of our arguments don't
hold
> water. Kevin
Shoot... That's easy..... Any argument he says doesn't!
Cerkowski's not the only one who does that kind of hand-waving, you
know.... ;-)
James Hepler
>
> Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
> no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
> that after 5 minutes.
Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never heard of
one. And what the hell are you doing meeting when so many shelters and
rescues are so hard up for volunteers. Seriously, talking about helping
animals is not helping animals. Why not conduct your meetings while
cleaning out cages at the local shelter? Then at least you would be
DOING something.
And I don't care how much you already do, it isn't enough.
> Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
> animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
Then you must have a funny definition of animal. I consider killing a
mosquito exponentially easier than killing a person.
> Would I put
> myself before killing an animal or a human? I would think so, but then
> again I bet if you asked those people who resorted to cannibalism for
> survival if they would ever eat human flesh before hand, they would
> have all said 'no'.
That depends, doesn't it? Some cultures were known for cannibalism
without it pertaining to survival. Those folks would have said, "yes".
And even then, can you give me an example of a real life situation in
which anyone has had to resort to cannibalism for survival? And I want
detail.
> Suffice to say if I was forced into that situation and ate an animal I
> would feel the same remorse as if ate a human.
LOL! I love this group!
--
James Hepler
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down
inside you secretly long for a cold hearted Republican to lower taxes,
brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
-Mayor Bob Terwilliger
brand...@my-deja.com
Because that's the way it's done, what part of this newsgroup confuses you?
There is
> no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
> that after 5 minutes.
So, it's a cult full of discontented souls???
>
> Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
> animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
This almost made the list but was beaten out by your last sentence. What
list? read on.
Would I put
> myself before killing an animal or a human? I would think so, but then
> again I bet if you asked those people who resorted to cannibalism for
> survival if they would ever eat human flesh before hand, they would
> have all said 'no'.
You're a piece of work, I'll give you that.
>
> Suffice to say if I was forced into that situation and ate an animal I
> would feel the same remorse as if ate a human.
OK, I have a file under "My Documents" where I store the most moronic
statements I have ever heard. Guess what, you just made the list. Kevin
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Rat:
> (snip)
> > ... my belief [is] that we are called to >follow Christ's example of
> self-sacrifice....
> ....to save mankind from.... simply being mean to each other? .....simply
> being mean to animals?
Well, that would be part of it. :)
> >He did not see self-preservation as the >highest good, and gave his life for
> others.
> "Others" included animals? For this...ahem.... somewhat surprising, uh....
> "take on Salvation" to be accurate and applicable, wouldn't animals have to be
> fallen from Grace also? And is it not a canon of AR that animals are indeed,
> innocent of sin?
Three different questions here. If one reads the Pauline
letters and the Gospel of John in the way many scholars have, the
death and resurrection of Christ was to redeem not only
humanity, but the whole of a creation which was corrupted
by the Fall of Man, or by Satan. While theologians
generally agree that individual animals, as individuals,
are incapable of sin, several theologians (including
C.S. Lewis) have suggested that predation is a result of
the corruption of creation and, as Isaiah suggests, in
a redeemed creation, animals would also be redeemed and
predation (and, no doubt, other inter-species cruelty) ended.
> (snip)
> >I am saying that this is the example we >are supposed to see as the best.
> Example of _what_ ?
Example of the moral/ethical relationship we should have
with other conscious beings.
> From where do you glean this notion that animals
> are an element in the mankind/Jesus/God equation? Through Christ, we are
> saved of _our_ sins. Do animals have need of this salvation?
See above.
> In any case, the destruction of self through suicide-as-sacrifice (either
> by action or _inaction_ ) isn't what I wanted to examine (though as a
> practice, AR embraces it). The central mystery is "why?".
A childhood raised as an Anglo-Catholic? An adulthood
working in animal rescue and animal welfare, seeing what
atrocities we inflict on animals? On humans? On the
whole of God's creation? Would you ask Mother Teresa
"why?" Or is it only understandable if one sacrifices for
humans?
> And so, again, I ask:.... the value of
> that "ethic" is.....???
That we are called to love one another, and act on that
love to make the world better for everyone.
> The boundaries and framework of your ethic
> serves.....???
All of God's creation, of which we have been made
stewards. Think universally, act locally...you know?:)
Rat/Karen
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Rat replied:
> > I have no illusions that I would survive.
> >I would be one of the teeming crowd killed
> >off by the bombs/riots/virus/giant tidal wave
> > during the opening credits. I have already
> >resigned myself to dying, and am simply
> > awaiting the day. It would not be worth it
> >to me to kill any subject-of-a-life being
> >myself to survive. We all die sooner or later.
> Quick synopsis would be, "I'm already as good as dead, I'm not worth
> anything dying that I might live, and it wouldn't matter because you are as
> good as dead too".
An inaccurate synopsis, though, Felix. I know myself
well enough to know that if the nitty-gritty nitted and
gritted...I'm a near-sighted, 55-year-old woman with
*ahem* limited survival skills. Most sci-fi epic assume
the hero is SuperSurvivor. For most of us SF _readers_,
much as we might wish, it just ain't so. I'm being
realistic here. YOU might survive. Swan and I are toast.
As for resigning myself to dying, as I've said before, I have
fulfilled my obligations to kin and (for the most part) other
entities, and, as soon as I get this #%$**# novel written...
there's nothing I feel I _have_ to finish here.
I try to live so that if I did die today, or any day, I could make
a good death. One of the old Christian goals, y'know. Lotsa
medieval people used to make it a priority. If I'm facing an
eternity after Judgment, I don't want to make the last thing I do
before I go something I seriously feel I shouldn't (morally) do.
<snip>
> So there you have it folks. The distilled, bottom-line for bedrock ARA is
> that _YOU_ are at the end-of-the-line.
<snip>
More that, for the Christian, you are at the end of the line.
Your own behavior is all you can really answer for.
It's tough. I'm not saying I'm sure I could do it in reality.
But I'm saying, I think it's what I have to try my best to do.
Rat
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> MrFalafel wrote:
.> >
.> > Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
.> > no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd
realize
.> > that after 5 minutes.
.>
.> Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never heard of
.> one. And what the hell are you doing meeting when so many shelters
and
.> rescues are so hard up for volunteers. Seriously, talking about
helping
.> animals is not helping animals. Why not conduct your meetings while
.> cleaning out cages at the local shelter? Then at least you would be
.> DOING something.
There are many small AR groups, and meetings do take place.
What's so hard to understand about that? I was a member of a
local one in the '80's. They were, as implied, meetings of
people with differing outlooks.
.>
.> And I don't care how much you already do, it isn't enough.
That's subjective, and can be said of anyone. My household
has rescued roughly 30 cats, aided in the rescue of at least
a dozen more, rescued 5 dogs, two rabbits...and we still support
AR. As I wrote in another post, the status quo will always kill
many animals, so we need to work to change that. As a welfarist,
you work for a change as well. We differ only in what the
ultimate goal should be, not in whether or not animals should
be helped right now.
>
> > Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
> > animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
>
> Then you must have a funny definition of animal. I consider killing a
> mosquito exponentially easier than killing a person.
What about a dog?
(...)
James Hepler
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> .>
> .> MrFalafel wrote:
> .> >
> .> > Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
> .> > no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd
> realize
> .> > that after 5 minutes.
> .>
> .> Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never heard of
> .> one. And what the hell are you doing meeting when so many shelters
> and
> .> rescues are so hard up for volunteers. Seriously, talking about
> helping
> .> animals is not helping animals. Why not conduct your meetings while
> .> cleaning out cages at the local shelter? Then at least you would be
> .> DOING something.
>
> There are many small AR groups, and meetings do take place.
> What's so hard to understand about that?
I've never seen a halfway organized local AR group.
> I was a member of a
> local one in the '80's. They were, as implied, meetings of
> people with differing outlooks.
You can't avoid that. But were the meetings social gatherings or
businesslike in nature? What did you do and talk about at these
meetings?
> > > Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard killing an
> > > animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
> >
> > Then you must have a funny definition of animal. I consider killing a
> > mosquito exponentially easier than killing a person.
>
> What about a dog?
Also easier, although I've not killed either. It could very easily
depend on the dog and the person when making such a comparison..
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> > James Hepler wrote:
.> > .>
.> > .> MrFalafel wrote:
.> > .> >
.> > .> > Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There
is
you'd
.> > realize
.> > .> > that after 5 minutes.
.> > .>
.> > .> Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never
heard of
shelters
.> > and
.> > .> rescues are so hard up for volunteers. Seriously, talking about
.> > helping
.> > .> animals is not helping animals. Why not conduct your meetings
while
.> > .> cleaning out cages at the local shelter? Then at least you
would be
.> > .> DOING something.
.> >
.> > There are many small AR groups, and meetings do take place.
.> > What's so hard to understand about that?
.>
.> I've never seen a halfway organized local AR group.
Therefore they don't exist? They do.
.>
.> > I was a member of a
.> > local one in the '80's. They were, as implied, meetings of
.> > people with differing outlooks.
.>
.> You can't avoid that. But were the meetings social gatherings or
.> businesslike in nature? What did you do and talk about at these
.> meetings?
Mostly philosophical issues and plans for protests. There
was a bulletin board with letters that members had written
to local papers - generally on their own initiative. That's
how I used to do most of my own activist work. There was
socializing before and after the meetings, not during. It
was during a protest against hunting bear with dogs at the
state capitol that I got to speak with Mario Cuomo. More
often, the protests were in public places, involving signs,
chants, and a costume or two. No, I never wore one. The
group was organized, but not regimented.
.>
.> > > > Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard
killing an
.> > > > animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
.> > >
.> > > Then you must have a funny definition of animal. I consider
killing a
.> > > mosquito exponentially easier than killing a person.
.> >
.> > What about a dog?
.>
.> Also easier, although I've not killed either. It could very easily
.> depend on the dog and the person when making such a comparison..
Odd answer for a dog rescuer. I'd expect something more
like 'It would be hard for me, but I'd do it'.
...
--
"Time may one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be
inflicted by today's decision. One thing is certain - although we may
never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this
presidential election, the identity of the loser is clear. It is the
nation's confidence in the judge as impartial guardian of the rule of
law." - Justice John Paul Stevens
Ward M. Clark
news:3A369E9B...@email.unc.edu...
> MrFalafel wrote:
> >
> > Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
> > no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
> > that after 5 minutes.
>
> Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never heard of
> one.
Actually, James, I've been a fly on the wall at five local meetings of
Denver-area PeTAphiles. Three at a local community college, two at public
libraries.
Entertaining, to say the least. <G>
<snip>
--
Dale Anderson
>
> Actually, James, I've been a fly on the wall at five local meetings of
> Denver-area PeTAphiles. Three at a local community college, two at
public
> libraries.
>
> Entertaining, to say the least. <G>
Man... I wish I could experience that.... ;^>
Richard Bishop
Ward M. Clark <wardm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hsd_5.26620$x6.14...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> "James Hepler" <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3A369E9B...@email.unc.edu...
> > MrFalafel wrote:
> > >
> > > Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
> > > no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd
realize
> > > that after 5 minutes.
> >
> > Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never heard of
> > one.
>
> Actually, James, I've been a fly on the wall at five local meetings of
> Denver-area PeTAphiles. Three at a local community college, two at public
> libraries.
>
> Entertaining, to say the least. <G>
One of our local ARL groups claimed to have 500 members. Funny, because
they never had more than 10-15 people at meetings. The SAME people.
They also tried to stage a protest. Two women showed up with four children.
Sue
Ward M. Clark
news:91dek7$hng$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
<snippage>
>
> One of our local ARL groups claimed to have 500 members. Funny, because
> they never had more than 10-15 people at meetings. The SAME people.
> They also tried to stage a protest. Two women showed up with four
children.
All five meetings I've sat in on consisted of less than ten people. At
least half of them were the same bunch in all five.
That's in the metro Denver area, with a considerable population.
I have no idea how many members they claimed.
Ward M. Clark
news:3A36FF...@pacbell.net...
> OOsik11566 wrote:
<snippage>
>
> Three different questions here. If one reads the Pauline
> letters and the Gospel of John in the way many scholars have,
Which scholars? Who are they, and what denominations do they represent?
What percentage of Biblical scholars do they represent?
> the
> death and resurrection of Christ was to redeem not only
> humanity, but the whole of a creation which was corrupted
> by the Fall of Man, or by Satan.
Is there any Biblical reference that leads them to this conclusion?
> While theologians
> generally agree that individual animals, as individuals,
> are incapable of sin, several theologians (including
> C.S. Lewis) have suggested that predation is a result of
> the corruption of creation and, as Isaiah suggests, in
> a redeemed creation, animals would also be redeemed and
> predation (and, no doubt, other inter-species cruelty) ended.
Well, since I don't ascribe to or believe in the very concept of "sin" nor
do I believe I (or anyone else) carries any burden of guilt for any mythical
ancient ancestor's transgression, the above doesn't mean much to me
personally. However, I'd once again like to see you cite some passages that
support this view.
>
> > (snip)
> > >I am saying that this is the example we >are supposed to see as the
best.
>
> > Example of _what_ ?
>
> Example of the moral/ethical relationship we should have
> with other conscious beings.
We can go into this at another time, perhaps, but I'd argue that the vast
majority of animals are not "conscious" as we'd define the term. Further,
the Bible in several passages explicitly instructs people on which animals
they can eat, and later in the NT, the Christ Himself is described eating
fish and referring to eating meat.
>
> > From where do you glean this notion that animals
> > are an element in the mankind/Jesus/God equation? Through Christ, we
are
> > saved of _our_ sins. Do animals have need of this salvation?
>
> See above.
Why would any "loving" God condemn animals to suffering and death for the
acts of humans, and why do animals require "redemption" for acts in which
they have taken no part and for which they bear no responsibility?
Sounds downright sadistic to me.
Actually this is my whole problem with the Judeo-Christian concept of "sin"
in general, and "original sin" in particular. I acknowledge no
responsibility for the acts of any hypothetical ancestor, and I don't
believe Mankind is inherently corrupt, requiring redemption. I'm pleased to
be one of the Other People. <G> However, taking that concept at face
value, I can almost understand the ideas of making Mankind in general
accountable for the acts of the "first man" as he represents sort of a type
specimen, and therefore represents the Judeo-Christian concept of the
"corrupt soul." I can not in good conscience understand how any doctrine,
or any God, could be so sadistic as to apply the punishment to all Creation,
and require any "redemption" on the part of animals.
>
> > In any case, the destruction of self through suicide-as-sacrifice
(either
> > by action or _inaction_ ) isn't what I wanted to examine (though as a
> > practice, AR embraces it). The central mystery is "why?".
>
> A childhood raised as an Anglo-Catholic? An adulthood
> working in animal rescue and animal welfare, seeing what
> atrocities we inflict on animals? On humans? On the
> whole of God's creation? Would you ask Mother Teresa
> "why?" Or is it only understandable if one sacrifices for
> humans?
>
> > And so, again, I ask:.... the value of
> > that "ethic" is.....???
>
> That we are called to love one another, and act on that
> love to make the world better for everyone.
Key point: Do we not then bear a responsibility to seek objective
rationality, to ensure that we are not in ignorance making the world _worse_
for everyone, which is my primary argument against the radical AR agenda?
In almost every area of human-animal interaction, the AR agenda would make
matters arguably worse for humans and animals both. Wildlife management and
biomedical research stand out as glaring examples.
>
> > The boundaries and framework of your ethic
> > serves.....???
>
> All of God's creation, of which we have been made
> stewards. Think universally, act locally...you know?:)
>
> Rat/Karen
Indeed. Please refer to my reply immediately above.
OOsik11566
>Date: 12/12/00 9:49 PM US
>OOsik11566 wrote:
>> "Others" included animals? For this...ahem.... somewhat surprising,
>uh....
>> "take on Salvation" to be accurate and applicable, wouldn't animals have to
>be
>> fallen from Grace also? And is it not a canon of AR that animals are
>indeed,
>> innocent of sin?
Rat:
> Three different questions here.
1)>If one reads the Pauline
> letters and the Gospel of John in the way many scholars have, the
> death and resurrection of Christ was to redeem not only
> humanity, but the whole of a creation which was corrupted
> by the Fall of Man, or by Satan.
Right. "IF". Why have I only heard of this "reading" today? I know
you to be a very bright and educated woman. But then Jones and Howell weren't
dunces either. Let's let argument by authority rest for now, OK? Just give
me the, uh, "meat" of Pauline's and John's posit and we'll go from there.
2) >While theologians
> generally agree that individual animals, as individuals,
> are incapable of sin, several theologians (including
> C.S. Lewis) have suggested that predation is a result of
> the corruption of creation and, as Isaiah suggests, in
> a redeemed creation, animals would also be redeemed and
> predation (and, no doubt, other inter-species cruelty) ended.
>
OK. Supposing I give C.S. Lewis equal weighting with the Pope and Isaiah
would really agree that predation is a "result of the corruption of
creation".... You are left sucking one thumb and diddling with the other
trying to explain how/why God would bother to create diverse phenotypes and
physiologies. And worse yet, _IF_ you go down the road of "Creationism" by
way of explanation, the whole book of Genesis becomes a weight around your
neck. Unless, of course, you "cherry-pick". By "cherry-pick", I mean the
process under which any notion can be expounded and backed by Biblical quote:
up to, including and beyond the Jones's and "Koresh's" of the world.
3) I'm sorry, what was the third question?
(snip)
>
Would you ask Mother Teresa
> "why?"
Oh. I see. Some things are sacred. Like Mother Teresa. Quick
flashback: you are advocating or agreeing with the notion of "mercy killing".
We can question one but not the other? MT could be viewed as a care-giver
who's "mercy" enabled the true price of over-population to be deferred and
multiplied upon the coming generation, no?
Terry Cross
oosik...@aol.com (OOsik11566) wrote:
> [...]By "cherry-pick", I mean the
> process under which any notion can be expounded and backed by
> Biblical quote: up to, including and beyond the Jones's and
> "Koresh's" of the world.
Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine from
Jones or Koresh -- and I mean a direct quote, not just attributed.
You "cherry-pick" not even from the source, but from the Weekly World
News tabloid and the convicted criminals in the Cult Awareness Network.
TCross
--
Logic is Truth, and Truth, Logic.
This is all we know in Life, and all we need to know.
Terry Cross
> process under which any notion can be expounded and backed by
> Biblical quote: up to, including and beyond the Jones's and
> "Koresh's" of the world.
Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine from
Terry Cross
> process under which any notion can be expounded and backed by
> Biblical quote: up to, including and beyond the Jones's and
> "Koresh's" of the world.
Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine from
Terry Cross
> process under which any notion can be expounded and backed by
> Biblical quote: up to, including and beyond the Jones's and
> "Koresh's" of the world.
Amusing example, given that you would not be able to quote a SINGLE
doctrine from Jones or Koresh -- and I mean a direct quote, not just
attributed.
You "cherry-pick" not even from the source, but from the Weekly World
News tabloid and from the convicted criminals in the Cult Awareness
James Hepler
>
> James Hepler wrote:
>
>
> Therefore they don't exist? They do.
Um, feel free to quote where I claimed they don't exist. Thanks!
FTR, I claimed to have never heard of a meeting. And I still haven't.
I came across the McDonalds thing, but that's it, and it wasn't really a
meeting. Watch your conclusion jumping, sonny.
> .> > I was a member of a
> .> > local one in the '80's. They were, as implied, meetings of
> .> > people with differing outlooks.
> .>
> .> You can't avoid that. But were the meetings social gatherings or
> .> businesslike in nature? What did you do and talk about at these
> .> meetings?
>
> Mostly philosophical issues and plans for protests. There
> was a bulletin board with letters that members had written
> to local papers - generally on their own initiative. That's
> how I used to do most of my own activist work. There was
> socializing before and after the meetings, not during. It
> was during a protest against hunting bear with dogs at the
> state capitol that I got to speak with Mario Cuomo. More
> often, the protests were in public places, involving signs,
> chants, and a costume or two. No, I never wore one. The
> group was organized, but not regimented.
I see.
> .> > > > Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would regard
> killing an
> .> > > > animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
> .> > >
> .> > > Then you must have a funny definition of animal. I consider
> killing a
> .> > > mosquito exponentially easier than killing a person.
> .> >
> .> > What about a dog?
> .>
> .> Also easier, although I've not killed either. It could very easily
> .> depend on the dog and the person when making such a comparison..
>
> Odd answer for a dog rescuer. I'd expect something more
> like 'It would be hard for me, but I'd do it'.
I don't fuck with reality, Michael. That it would be hard is a given
for any well meaning individual. Maybe that's why you need a
disclaimer?
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> > James Hepler wrote:
.> >
.> >
.> > Therefore they don't exist? They do.
.>
.> Um, feel free to quote where I claimed they don't exist. Thanks!
.>
.> FTR, I claimed to have never heard of a meeting. And I still
haven't.
.> I came across the McDonalds thing, but that's it, and it wasn't
really a
.> meeting. Watch your conclusion jumping, sonny.
Note the question mark. If you weren't questioning
their existence, then your remark was pretty pointless.
Do you seek out AR groups?
.>
.> > .> > I was a member of a
.> > .> > local one in the '80's. They were, as implied, meetings of
.> > .> > people with differing outlooks.
.> > .>
.> > .> You can't avoid that. But were the meetings social gatherings
or
.> > .> businesslike in nature? What did you do and talk about at these
.> > .> meetings?
.> >
.> > Mostly philosophical issues and plans for protests. There
.> > was a bulletin board with letters that members had written
.> > to local papers - generally on their own initiative. That's
.> > how I used to do most of my own activist work. There was
.> > socializing before and after the meetings, not during. It
.> > was during a protest against hunting bear with dogs at the
.> > state capitol that I got to speak with Mario Cuomo. More
.> > often, the protests were in public places, involving signs,
.> > chants, and a costume or two. No, I never wore one. The
.> > group was organized, but not regimented.
.>
.> I see.
From what I've heard from other ARAs, this was pretty
typical. the main difference was probably that ARAL was
extremely polite compared to some other groups.
.>
.> > .> > > > Personally, if I was in a survival situation, I would
regard
.> > killing an
.> > .> > > > animal the same as killing a human, just as I do now.
.> > .> > >
.> > .> > > Then you must have a funny definition of animal. I consider
.> > killing a
.> > .> > > mosquito exponentially easier than killing a person.
.> > .> >
.> > .> > What about a dog?
.> > .>
.> > .> Also easier, although I've not killed either. It could very
easily
.> > .> depend on the dog and the person when making such a comparison..
.> >
.> > Odd answer for a dog rescuer. I'd expect something more
.> > like 'It would be hard for me, but I'd do it'.
.>
.> I don't fuck with reality, Michael. That it would be hard is a given
.> for any well meaning individual. Maybe that's why you need a
.> disclaimer?
No, I wanted you to clarify that because there appears to
be an internal conflict in what you have posted. You have
written on several occasions that people try to help animals
mainly for their *own* benefit, yet from what you write about
dogs it's clear that you care about dogs as individuals, and
think of them as individuals. The first idea is Cartesian,
and the second is AW or AR. They conflict.
.>
.> --
.> James Hepler
.>
http://www.sorryaboutdresden.com
OOsik11566
>Date: 12/18/00 9:38 AM US
>Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine from
>Jones or Koresh -- and I mean a direct quote, not just attributed.
Oooooops!!! I guess I missed the part where I was supposed to actually
quote directly from their doctrine. Had I only known you would require such
for satisfaction .....
FTR, I never heard or saw any direct quotes from Jones. I have heard
words recorded by Howell (aka. Koresh). For those who may have been on
another planet at the time, Jones and Koresh used the Bible and their
understanding of it to promulgate cultism which was ultimately of a very fatal
nature.
>You "cherry-pick" not even from the source, but from the Weekly World
>News tabloid and the convicted criminals in the Cult Awareness Network.
How did you divine my reading list? Does your foil hat have antennae?
But enough of that. I want you to be happy. So....
>Logic is Truth, and Truth, Logic.
>This is all we know in Life, and all we need to know.
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts
of lightning".
- Calvin & Hobbes
Felix
(Bishop of Beastly Beatitudes)
Richard Bishop
> >From: Terry Cross tcro...@hotmail.com(Terry Cross)
> >Date: 12/18/00 9:38 AM US
>
> >Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine from
> >Jones or Koresh -- and I mean a direct quote, not just attributed.
>
> Oooooops!!! I guess I missed the part where I was supposed to
actually
> quote directly from their doctrine. Had I only known you would require
such
> for satisfaction .....
> FTR, I never heard or saw any direct quotes from Jones. I have heard
> words recorded by Howell (aka. Koresh). For those who may have been on
> another planet at the time, Jones and Koresh used the Bible and their
> understanding of it to promulgate cultism which was ultimately of a very
fatal
> nature.
I know of a Jones quote: "Drink the Koolaid."
Sue
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> .>
> .> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> .> >
> .> > James Hepler wrote:
> .> >
> .> > .> I've never seen a halfway organized local AR group.
> .> >
> .> > Therefore they don't exist? They do.
> .>
> .> Um, feel free to quote where I claimed they don't exist. Thanks!
> .>
> .> FTR, I claimed to have never heard of a meeting. And I still
> haven't.
> .> I came across the McDonalds thing, but that's it, and it wasn't
> really a
> .> meeting. Watch your conclusion jumping, sonny.
>
> Note the question mark.
Punctuation is moot. You were jumping to a conclusion. And a stupid
one. Nine times out of ten, when you come back with that kind of
response, interrogative or not, the answer is, "of course not". You
know that.
All this time, and you still play these sophomoric games.
> If you weren't questioning
> their existence, then your remark was pretty pointless.
> Do you seek out AR groups?
I have in the past. And I never claimed to have a point all the time,
silly guy.
> .> > Odd answer for a dog rescuer. I'd expect something more
> .> > like 'It would be hard for me, but I'd do it'.
> .>
> .> I don't fuck with reality, Michael. That it would be hard is a given
> .> for any well meaning individual. Maybe that's why you need a
> .> disclaimer?
>
> No, I wanted you to clarify that because there appears to
> be an internal conflict in what you have posted.
Don't let appearances fool you, Michael.
> You have
> written on several occasions that people try to help animals
> mainly for their *own* benefit,
Boy are you one confused dood! Lemme try to clear you up.
Oh, and feel free to show some QUOTES, if you think I'm wrong.
I said to DAVID and to POLLY, in my efforts to refute their claims that
animals are better of just by getting the chance to live, claimed that
WE are the ones who derive benefit from their getting to live, that THE
ANIMALS lack the ability to comprehend life as an abstract concept.
I've never said, to my knowledge, that humans HELP animals MAINLY for
their OWN benefit.
There's a big difference above. Your inability to keep separate
arguments separate is duly noted.
> yet from what you write about
> dogs it's clear that you care about dogs as individuals, and
> think of them as individuals. The first idea is Cartesian,
> and the second is AW or AR. They conflict.
I don't know what the first idea is since you can't seem to get it
right. The second is AW, and barely such.. More like DW.
One thing I do know is that if YOU can't keep shit straight, YOU are
unqualified to identify inner conflict. And that's the bottom line.
Polly
> For me at least, it follows directly from
> my belief that we are called to follow
> Christ's example of self-sacrifice. He
> did not see self-preservation as the highest
> including the very others who killed Him.
>
> I'm not claiming to equal Christ, or even
> to fulfill the ethical obligations my own
> beliefs demand. I am saying that this is
> the example we are supposed to see as the
> all humans are called upon to try.
>
> Rat
I guess you're a member of the Pick & Choose denomination -- Ignore some of
Christ's teachings, pick & choose which others you want to espouse.
I don't think the disciples ate only veggies at the Last Supper. Jesus
didn't feed the multitudes just bread, but bread AND FISH.
As for the Old Testament, we could talk about homosexuality in Sodom &
Gomorrah and how God felt about that. Or, is it strictly New Testament that
you pick and choose from?
Polly
Polly
> >
> > Why is it so important for you two to catagorize people? There is
> > no 'bottom line' for ARAs. If you ever went to a meeting, you'd realize
> > that after 5 minutes.
>
> Sorry, ARA meetings? Where do these take place? I've never heard of
> one. And what the hell are you doing meeting when so many shelters and
> rescues are so hard up for volunteers. Seriously, talking about helping
> animals is not helping animals. Why not conduct your meetings while
> cleaning out cages at the local shelter? Then at least you would be
> DOING something.
He was referring to meetings held by individual AR groups, at which nothing
of substance is done for any animal. You are correct, they should try
actually DOING something constructive rather than sitting around planning
demonstrations and lobbying strategies.
>
> And I don't care how much you already do, it isn't enough.
Most don't do anything.
>
Polly
Polly
news:3A383E...@albany.net...
> >
> Mostly philosophical issues and plans for protests. There
> was a bulletin board with letters that members had written
> to local papers - generally on their own initiative. That's
> how I used to do most of my own activist work. There was
> socializing before and after the meetings, not during. It
> was during a protest against hunting bear with dogs at the
> state capitol that I got to speak with Mario Cuomo. More
> often, the protests were in public places, involving signs,
> chants, and a costume or two. No, I never wore one. The
> group was organized, but not regimented.
Gee, that was very productive and helped a lot of animals (not).
Polly
Terry Cross
"Richard Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> OOsik11566 <oosik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001218204624...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> > >From: Terry Cross tcro...@hotmail.com(Terry Cross)
> > >Date: 12/18/00 9:38 AM US
> >
> > >Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine
> > >from
> > >Jones or Koresh -- and I mean a direct quote, not just attributed.
> >
> > Oooooops!!! I guess I missed the part where I was supposed to
> > actually
> > quote directly from their doctrine. Had I only known you would
> > require such for satisfaction .....
> > FTR, I never heard or saw any direct quotes from Jones. I
> > have heard words recorded by Howell (aka. Koresh). For those who
> > may have been on another planet at the time, Jones and Koresh used
> > the Bible and their understanding of it to promulgate cultism
>
> I know of a Jones quote: "Drink the Koolaid."
A strange quote indeed. Do you have this on transcript, video, or
audio recording?
The odd part is, most of the victims died by cyanide injection.
TCross
--
Logic is Truth, and Truth, Logic.
This is all we know in Life, and all we need to know.
James Hepler
Polly wrote:
>
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3A32E2...@pacbell.net...
> > For me at least, it follows directly from
> > my belief that we are called to follow
> > Christ's example of self-sacrifice. He
> > did not see self-preservation as the highest
> > good, and gave his life for others --
> > including the very others who killed Him.
> >
> > I'm not claiming to equal Christ, or even
> > to fulfill the ethical obligations my own
> > beliefs demand. I am saying that this is
> > the example we are supposed to see as the
> > best. No other human can achieve it, but, IMO,
> > all humans are called upon to try.
> >
> > Rat
>
> I guess you're a member of the Pick & Choose denomination -- Ignore some of
> Christ's teachings, pick & choose which others you want to espouse.
Gee, you just named pretty much every Christian on the face of the
earth. Well done.
> I don't think the disciples ate only veggies at the Last Supper.
Not even worth debating.
> Jesus
> didn't feed the multitudes just bread, but bread AND FISH.
That's a tough one to argue against.
> As for the Old Testament, we could talk about homosexuality in Sodom &
> Gomorrah and how God felt about that. Or, is it strictly New Testament that
> you pick and choose from?
Everyone picks and chooses. That's why we don't follow the rules laid
out in Deuteronomy for invading enemy towns and villages.
Although Song of Solomon (sic) is a great source of erotic poetry, even
today!
Richard Bishop
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com (Terry Cross)> wrote in message
news:91o0r1$g4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <91mnre$8eq$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Richard Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > OOsik11566 <oosik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20001218204624...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> > > >From: Terry Cross tcro...@hotmail.com(Terry Cross)
> > > >Date: 12/18/00 9:38 AM US
> > >
> > > >Amusing example, given that you could not quote a SINGLE doctrine
> > > >from
> > > >Jones or Koresh -- and I mean a direct quote, not just attributed.
> > >
> > > Oooooops!!! I guess I missed the part where I was supposed to
> > > actually
> > > quote directly from their doctrine. Had I only known you would
> > > require such for satisfaction .....
> > > FTR, I never heard or saw any direct quotes from Jones. I
> > > have heard words recorded by Howell (aka. Koresh). For those who
> > > may have been on another planet at the time, Jones and Koresh used
> > > the Bible and their understanding of it to promulgate cultism
> > > hich was ultimately of a very fatal nature.
> >
> > I know of a Jones quote: "Drink the Koolaid."
>
> A strange quote indeed. Do you have this on transcript, video, or
> audio recording?
>
Jeeze, no sense of humor.....
Sue
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
.> news:3A383E...@albany.net...
.> > >
.> > Mostly philosophical issues and plans for protests. There
.> > was a bulletin board with letters that members had written
.> > to local papers - generally on their own initiative. That's
.> > how I used to do most of my own activist work. There was
.> > socializing before and after the meetings, not during. It
.> > was during a protest against hunting bear with dogs at the
.> > state capitol that I got to speak with Mario Cuomo. More
.> > often, the protests were in public places, involving signs,
.> > chants, and a costume or two. No, I never wore one. The
.> > group was organized, but not regimented.
.>
.> Gee, that was very productive and helped a lot of animals (not).
.>
.> Polly
We got bear hunts with dogs banned, at least for a while.
I hope you washed that foot first, Polly. ;)
You just can't stand to read that many ARAs actually do more
actual rescue work and help more animals than you do, can you?
I don't understand why - you clearly don't care much about animals
in the first place...
Richard Bishop
Actual rescue work? Like throwing paint on little old ladies in ancient
minks, running around naked, harassing parents and children outside
restaurants, picketing leather stores, complaining because a town
has the name of Fishkill.......
Sue
Polly
> Polly wrote:
> .>
> .> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
> .> news:3A383E...@albany.net...
> .> > >
> .> > Mostly philosophical issues and plans for protests. There
> .> > was a bulletin board with letters that members had written
> .> > to local papers - generally on their own initiative. That's
> .> > how I used to do most of my own activist work. There was
> .> > socializing before and after the meetings, not during. It
> .> > was during a protest against hunting bear with dogs at the
> .> > state capitol that I got to speak with Mario Cuomo. More
> .> > often, the protests were in public places, involving signs,
> .> > chants, and a costume or two. No, I never wore one. The
> .> > group was organized, but not regimented.
> .>
> .> Gee, that was very productive and helped a lot of animals (not).
> .>
> .> Polly
>
> We got bear hunts with dogs banned, at least for a while.
> I hope you washed that foot first, Polly. ;)
I don't consider that a claim to fame.
> You just can't stand to read that many ARAs actually do more
> actual rescue work and help more animals than you do, can you?
Marching around the state capitol with protest signs doesn't rescue any
animals, nor does it help many.
> I don't understand why - you clearly don't care much about animals
> in the first place...
I'm not a rescue, although we have some animals on the farm that you might
call rescues. I think there's a difference between giving an animal a
permanent home and 'rescuing' it. And as far as 'helping more animals', get
real. I help more of them every day than you probably see in a month; only
difference is, they belong to me. I not only help them, I take full
financial responsibility for them -- no donations from the public, no
501(C)(3).
Polly
Rat & Swan
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3A32E2...@pacbell.net...
> > For me at least, it follows directly from
> > my belief that we are called to follow
> > Christ's example of self-sacrifice. He
> > did not see self-preservation as the highest
> > good, and gave his life for others --
> > including the very others who killed Him.
<snip>
> I guess you're a member of the Pick & Choose denomination -- Ignore some of
> Christ's teachings, pick & choose which others you want to espouse.
<snip>
I've discussed all this several times, and,
frankly, I don't think you are worth the
bandwidth to argue it again.
Rat
Polly
Must have been prior to my joining the ng. No big deal. I'm sure I'm not
missing much.
Polly
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> > James Hepler wrote:
.> > .>
.> > .> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> > .> >
.> > .> > James Hepler wrote:
.> > .> >
.> > .> > .> I've never seen a halfway organized local AR group.
.> > .> >
.> > .> > Therefore they don't exist? They do.
.> > .>
.> > .> Um, feel free to quote where I claimed they don't exist.
Thanks!
.> > .>
.> > .> FTR, I claimed to have never heard of a meeting. And I still
.> > .> I came across the McDonalds thing, but that's it, and it wasn't
.> > really a
.> > .> meeting. Watch your conclusion jumping, sonny.
.> >
.> > Note the question mark.
.>
.> Punctuation is moot. You were jumping to a conclusion. And a stupid
.> one. Nine times out of ten, when you come back with that kind of
.> response, interrogative or not, the answer is, "of course not". You
.> know that.
.>
.> All this time, and you still play these sophomoric games.
Different people have different ideas of what is
"sophomoric". Personally, I think that gratuitous
verbal abuse falls into that category. It appeared
to me that you were implying that these small AR groups
are either nonexistent or extremely rare. Neither idea
is true, and I was responding in light of that, not
playing any games.
.>
.> > If you weren't questioning
.> > their existence, then your remark was pretty pointless.
.> > Do you seek out AR groups?
.>
.> I have in the past. And I never claimed to have a point all the
time,
.> silly guy.
OK, pointless remark. Got it.
.>
.> > .> > Odd answer for a dog rescuer. I'd expect something more
.> > .> > like 'It would be hard for me, but I'd do it'.
.> > .>
.> > .> I don't fuck with reality, Michael. That it would be hard is a
given
.> > .> for any well meaning individual. Maybe that's why you need a
.> > .> disclaimer?
.> >
.> > No, I wanted you to clarify that because there appears to
.> > be an internal conflict in what you have posted.
.>
.> Don't let appearances fool you, Michael.
In forums like this, we have nothing else to go on.
.>
.> > You have
.> > written on several occasions that people try to help animals
.> > mainly for their *own* benefit,
.>
.> Boy are you one confused dood! Lemme try to clear you up.
.>
.> Oh, and feel free to show some QUOTES, if you think I'm wrong.
.>
.> I said to DAVID and to POLLY, in my efforts to refute their claims
that
.> animals are better of just by getting the chance to live, claimed
that
.> WE are the ones who derive benefit from their getting to live, that
THE
.> ANIMALS lack the ability to comprehend life as an abstract concept.
.> I've never said, to my knowledge, that humans HELP animals MAINLY for
.> their OWN benefit.
.>
.> There's a big difference above. Your inability to keep separate
.> arguments separate is duly noted.
OK, then I think I need you to clarify your position.
Do you believe that dogs are individuals, with consciousness,
the ability to suffer, and to feel emotions like loss? Do
you believe that harming dogs is doing *them* wrong? Do
you believe that they have something resembling a right
not to be abused?
.>
.> > yet from what you write about
.> > dogs it's clear that you care about dogs as individuals, and
.> > think of them as individuals. The first idea is Cartesian,
.> > and the second is AW or AR. They conflict.
.>
.> I don't know what the first idea is since you can't seem to get it
.> right. The second is AW, and barely such.. More like DW.
The idea of cartesian machines means that animals are
just complicated biological devices, with no soul, consciousness
or ability to suffer. It's obsolete in most non-Anti circles.
.>
.> One thing I do know is that if YOU can't keep shit straight, YOU are
.> unqualified to identify inner conflict. And that's the bottom line.
.>
.> --
.> James Hepler
My own take on this is that you are unwilling to examine
your own ideas and motivations. Unlike, say, Jonathan, I
believe that you will eventually do so. In the meantime,
I will note what I believe to be inconsistencies in your
ideas, and you will snap and snarl back at me. That's life.
Edwin
Hash: SHA1
"Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3A4108...@pacbell.net...
I think you're a very worthwhile person, Polly. The Rat has just caught
herself in her own trap, and wants to scurry away again.
Rat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOkJRJWlEsMBe8xuFEQLKCQCg988J1U+tUt6BHFREQ9oO2YbvgYgAn14L
O8HGw6QTy6XBnK+CE1ihADm4
=aTKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Hepler
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> .>
> .> one. Nine times out of ten, when you come back with that kind of
> .> response, interrogative or not, the answer is, "of course not". You
> .> know that.
> .>
> .> All this time, and you still play these sophomoric games.
>
> Different people have different ideas of what is
> "sophomoric".
Well of course. How else could you justify your tactics?
> Personally, I think that gratuitous
> verbal abuse falls into that category.
Nah, not when it is required. And trust me, you beg for it.
> It appeared
> to me that you were implying that these small AR groups
> are either nonexistent or extremely rare.
That would be silly, wouldn't it? It isn't true.
> Neither idea
> is true, and I was responding in light of that, not
> playing any games.
You responded to it WITH a game. But it is also moot. It doesn't
matter. It isn't like either of us will stop playing games, so get back
to the point.
> .> > .> > Odd answer for a dog rescuer. I'd expect something more
> .> > .> > like 'It would be hard for me, but I'd do it'.
> .> > .>
> .> > .> I don't fuck with reality, Michael. That it would be hard is a
> given
> .> > .> for any well meaning individual. Maybe that's why you need a
> .> > .> disclaimer?
> .> >
> .> > No, I wanted you to clarify that because there appears to
> .> > be an internal conflict in what you have posted.
> .>
> .> Don't let appearances fool you, Michael.
>
> In forums like this, we have nothing else to go on.
Bullshit, Michael. You can hold this view of all of your opponents
being pure evil, not caring about what they kill and when, but it is
FALSE. It is something YOU conjure up to justify your anger at our
refusal to kowtow to your myths. Few people kill for the pleasure of
watching the animal die. Knowing what you already know about me, you
would have to be a complete idiot to think it wouldn't be hard for me to
kill a human or a dog. You aren't a complete idiot, are you, Michael?
No one else answer that, please.
> .> > You have
> .> > written on several occasions that people try to help animals
> .> > mainly for their *own* benefit,
> .>
> .> Boy are you one confused dood! Lemme try to clear you up.
> .>
> .> Oh, and feel free to show some QUOTES, if you think I'm wrong.
> .>
> .> I said to DAVID and to POLLY, in my efforts to refute their claims
> that
> .> animals are better of just by getting the chance to live, claimed
> that
> .> WE are the ones who derive benefit from their getting to live, that
> THE
> .> ANIMALS lack the ability to comprehend life as an abstract concept.
> .> I've never said, to my knowledge, that humans HELP animals MAINLY for
> .> their OWN benefit.
> .>
> .> There's a big difference above. Your inability to keep separate
> .> arguments separate is duly noted.
>
> OK, then I think I need you to clarify your position.
I don't doubt it. The problem is that I cleared it up above and don't
know how to make it simpler. They were different subjects. Different
threads.
Part of the problem is the tendency of David to post his manifesto in
response to all sorts of threads, regardless of relevance sometimes. It
makes things run together.
But I don't think that people help animals for their *own* benefit.
Humans DO benefit from helping animals, but it isn't why *I* or anyone I
know does it.
I'm saying to David Harrison that his "at least they get to live"
argument only applies to HIM and humans, that animals don't derive the
benefit of getting to live, the people do. It's how THEY squash any
guilt they might feel at slaughter time.
> Do you believe that dogs are individuals, with consciousness,
> the ability to suffer, and to feel emotions like loss?
Tough question. They do suffer, and they can feel emotions like loss.
But that really isn't saying anything. They know when they feel good
and when they don't. They might not UNDERSTAND it, but they FEEL it.
IOW, they might FEEL pain, but I doubt they know what it is. They lack
the ability for introspection.
> Do
> you believe that harming dogs is doing *them* wrong? Do
> you believe that they have something resembling a right
> not to be abused?
I do.
> .> > yet from what you write about
> .> > dogs it's clear that you care about dogs as individuals, and
> .> > think of them as individuals. The first idea is Cartesian,
> .> > and the second is AW or AR. They conflict.
> .>
> .> I don't know what the first idea is since you can't seem to get it
> .> right. The second is AW, and barely such.. More like DW.
>
> The idea of cartesian machines means that animals are
> just complicated biological devices, with no soul, consciousness
> or ability to suffer. It's obsolete in most non-Anti circles.
It is a giant exaggeration to apply that to me.
> .> One thing I do know is that if YOU can't keep shit straight, YOU are
> .> unqualified to identify inner conflict. And that's the bottom line.
> .>
> .> --
> .> James Hepler
>
> My own take on this is that you are unwilling to examine
> your own ideas and motivations.
Your take is for shit. I will examine my ideas when I feel compelled to
do so. You, sir, have failed miserably in that department, particularly
when you get my ideas as confused as they are at the moment.
> Unlike, say, Jonathan, I
> believe that you will eventually do so. In the meantime,
> I will note what I believe to be inconsistencies in your
> ideas, and you will snap and snarl back at me. That's life.
I'll snap and snarl until your get your shit right. I'm not here to
guide you through my paradigm. What you need to do in order to
understand where I am coming from is this:
Don't ask stupid questions. I'll let you know when you do for
reference.
Don't jump to conclusions.
Don't tell me what I think, ASK me what I think.
Three simple steps for starters.
And I reserve the right to snap and snarl at you whenever I please. I'm
not in the "caring whether or not you like it" business. Griping about
it only pisses me off, so you might want to just ignore it, lest ye make
it worse. I'll be civil when you stop misinterpreting my statements,
past and present.
OOsik11566
>Date: 12/21/00 3:08 PM US
>Michael Cerkowski wrote:
(snip)
>> James Hepler wrote:
>But I don't think that people help animals for their *own* benefit.
Humans DO benefit from helping animals, but it isn't why *I* or anyone I
know does it. <
Quite the mouthful, Master James. Have you noticed how such concepts to
ARAs are as garlic is to vampires?
(snip)
>I'll be civil when you stop misinterpreting my statements,
>past and present.
Oh, well..... so much for civility......
Felix
(not confusing civility with patience for dissembling)
Michael Cerkowski
you. You are intelligent, and since you are young
I believe that you will refine your beliefs into
a more internally consistent frame of reference.
Since I apparently do nothing but provoke you,
I'm not going to continue trying to discuss things
with you. Have a nice life.
Yes, I will be participating less in this forum.
The "FAQs" will still be posted, and I'll join
discussions that I find interesting and at least
minimally civil. I'll also keep responding to new
people who appear to have open minds. As for the rest
of you, keep up the chortling, backslapping, and
blinkered thinking. You do more good for AR than you
can possibly imagine. Don't *ever* change.
Happy Holidays.
--
...
Rat & Swan
> >From: Rat & Swan lab...@pacbell.net
<snip>
> 1)>If one reads the Pauline
> > letters and the Gospel of John in the way many scholars have, the
> > death and resurrection of Christ was to redeem not only
> > humanity, but the whole of a creation which was corrupted
> > by the Fall of Man, or by Satan.
> Right. "IF". Why have I only heard of this "reading" today?
I don't know. AFAIK, it was the most common
opinion in the early church, and is still
common today.
> I know
> you to be a very bright and educated woman. But then Jones and Howell weren't
> dunces either. Let's let argument by authority rest for now, OK? Just give
> me the, uh, "meat" of Pauline's and John's posit and we'll go from there.
O.K. -- if we're avoiding proof-texts, we have to look
at several of the underlying problems and (I think)
assumptions of the Bible itself and Christianity itself.
One is the classic Problem of Pain: if God is all-good
and omnipotent, why does suffering exist? The suffering
directly created by humans is easy: it's a result of
our free will. But what about the suffering not created
by humans? What about the suffering of animals which
is not a result of human action (disease, starvation,
predation, accident)? We either have to assume God doesn't
care about it, or God can't do anything about it, or
it's a result of some corruption of this material world not
intended or created by God. The Eden story says that the
world as originally intended/created by God was good and
without suffering or death. The concept of the Last
Days and the Second Coming to bring a New Heaven and a
New Earth implies, again, that this one is not what God
intended or intends forever. I.e.: there's something
fundamentally wrong with the world as it is. Not all of
it: much of the creation is still good. But it is
corrupted. If only humans were to be redeemed/saved/
given a new Visa card by the Second Coming, why would an
entire new _Earth_ be created? If it were just humans
involved, presumably they could remain in heaven or
whatever happy state they go to after death.
> 2) >While theologians
> > generally agree that individual animals, as individuals,
> > are incapable of sin, several theologians (including
> > C.S. Lewis) have suggested that predation is a result of
> > the corruption of creation and, as Isaiah suggests, in
> > a redeemed creation, animals would also be redeemed and
> > predation (and, no doubt, other inter-species cruelty) ended.
> OK. Supposing I give C.S. Lewis equal weighting with the Pope and Isaiah
> would really agree that predation is a "result of the corruption of
> creation".... You are left sucking one thumb and diddling with the other
> trying to explain how/why God would bother to create diverse phenotypes and
> physiologies.
That's the whole point. According to this argument, God
did not create predators as predators. The image of the
Peaceable Kingdom is that in a redeemed creation, no
animal would be a predator: the lion (IIRC) would eat
straw like the ox. O.K. -- it's a metaphor. If one
accepts evolution (I do)that means the corruption of
the material world goes back as far as life, if not before.
And worse yet, _IF_ you go down the road of "Creationism" by
> way of explanation, the whole book of Genesis becomes a weight around your
> neck. Unless, of course, you "cherry-pick". By "cherry-pick", I mean the
> process under which any notion can be expounded and backed by Biblical quote:
> up to, including and beyond the Jones's and "Koresh's" of the world.
> 3) I'm sorry, what was the third question?
I've forgotten now. :)
> (snip)
> Would you ask Mother Teresa
> > "why?"
> Oh. I see. Some things are sacred. Like Mother Teresa.
No, no, no. God (as it were) no!
> Quick
> flashback: you are advocating or agreeing with the notion of "mercy killing".
> We can question one but not the other? MT could be viewed as a care-giver
> who's "mercy" enabled the true price of over-population to be deferred and
> multiplied upon the coming generation, no?
Indeed. There are specific things about what Mother Teresa
did in her ministry I do not agree with. I just picked her
as a well-known example. Take somebody like the rector of
Glide Memorial in San Francisco, or the director of the
local soup kitchen if you want. My point was that very
few people question that it is admirable for people to
put themselves out in large ways or small (self-sacrifice)
for other humans. Many people, maybe most, assume there's
something a little odd about you if you never want to do
so at all, for anybody. I'm saying it's equally admirable to
do it for animals. With all the enthusiasm for rescue in
the Anti camp, I'd think this was something Antis could
agree with too.
Rat/Karen
Martin L. Martens
[...]
> We either have to assume God doesn't care about it,
> or God can't do anything about it, or it's a result
> of some corruption of this material world not
> intended or created by God.
Or, most likely, that "God" is a socially-constructed
fiction created by humans to explain away inconvenient
inconsistencies in the world.
[...]
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>
> James, I am tired of arguing with people like
> you.
Oh, you mean correct people? I can see that, as you have completely
abandoned the debate and resorted to the usual, "you hurt my feelings"
rant. Oh, well.
> You are intelligent, and since you are young
> I believe that you will refine your beliefs into
> a more internally consistent frame of reference.
My beliefs are more consistent that you could possibly comprehend. That
your simple mind can't figure out how to see that after SEVERAL attempts
to clear you up makes one wonder if the problem is truly MINE.
> Since I apparently do nothing but provoke you,
> I'm not going to continue trying to discuss things
> with you. Have a nice life.
I will have a great life.
> Yes, I will be participating less in this forum.
Still saying that? When you are done licking your wounds, let us know.
> The "FAQs" will still be posted, and I'll join
> discussions that I find interesting and at least
> minimally civil.
Civility is a construct people use to avoid passionate confrontation.
If you aren't dedicated enough to your beliefs that you are willing to
stand in a firestorm to defend them, then you might reconsider a new set
of beliefs. You confuse passion for anger, and that's YOUR problem.
> I'll also keep responding to new
> people who appear to have open minds.
People who are most unlike you, apparently.
> As for the rest
> of you, keep up the chortling, backslapping, and
> blinkered thinking.
LOL! From the original inventor of irony.
> You do more good for AR than you
> can possibly imagine. Don't *ever* change.
Yeah it shows.
I for one don't much appreciate being the springboard for Mikey's little
tear jerker above. He should be writing for Indonesian soap operas.
Polly
news:3A438376...@ya.hoo.com...
I suppose that's one theory, but one with which I certainly don't agree.
Polly
Rat & Swan
> Rat & Swan wrote:
Well, it's a theory....:)
Rat
OOsik11566
>OOsik11566 wrote:
(snip)
>Rat and Swan:
(snip)
>If one reads the Pauline
>> > letters and the Gospel of John in the way many scholars have, the
>> > death and resurrection of Christ was to redeem not only
>> > humanity, but the whole of a creation which was corrupted
>> > by the Fall of Man, or by Satan.
>
>> Right. "IF". Why have I only heard of this "reading" today?
>
> I don't know. AFAIK, it was the most common
> opinion in the early church, and is still
> common today....
(snip)
Looking at the map, it appears we sail towards an edge where it says, "Here
be monsters".
I ask a boon, that I may consider the course to chart, returning on deck
after such deliberations as are felt necessary.
--------
Merry Christmas, Joyful Kwanza, or may the Bird of Paradise fly up your
nose.
May we _all_ enjoy health and good company at the passing of the Solstice,
B-day of Christ.
Felix the Grinch
(off to hunt reindeer)
OOsik11566
>Date: 12/22/00 9:52 AM US
>Michael Cerkowski wrote:
>> James, I am tired of arguing with people like
>> you.
Tired? A possible vitamin difficiency?
Hepler:
>Oh, you mean correct people? I can see that, as you have completely
>abandoned the debate and resorted to the usual, "you hurt my feelings"
>rant.
Mikey says nothing about abandoning debate per se. He's merely "tired".
At least you, James, weren't relegated to the more common "uninteresting" heap.
Cerkowski:
>> I believe that you will refine your beliefs into
>> a more internally consistent frame of reference.
>
Projection. The fervent hope that someone can accomplish what he has not.
Hepler:
>My beliefs are more consistent that you could possibly comprehend.
Translation: I have the strength of ten for my heart (and mind) are pure.
Note to Cerkowski and his "people like you": this "consistency" prevents
"tiring".
Cerkowski:
>> Since I apparently do nothing but provoke you....
You mean in addition to serving as a poster-boy?.....
>.... I will be participating less in this forum.
Translation: "You won't have Nixon [me] to kick around anymore"
Hepler:
>
>Still saying that? When you are done licking your wounds, let us know.
The timer is running. I'd guess you can make it to the kitchen and back
for some cookies and milk before you miss anything.
Hepler:
>If you aren't dedicated enough to your beliefs that you are willing to
>stand in a firestorm to defend them, then you might reconsider a new set
>of beliefs.
Between a rock and a hard place. That's where Mikey finds himself. That's
where he's cornered. No wonder he's tired.
Cerkowski:
>> I'll also keep responding to new
>> people who appear to have open minds.
Translation: I'll try to assuage my pain amongst those unable to point out
my "ethical" shortcomings.
Hepler:
>I for one don't much appreciate being the springboard for Mikey's little
>tear jerker above.
You are blessed to have performed a service, even as the animals do, for a
fellow human being.
Felix
OOsik11566
>Martin L. Martens wrote:
>> Or, most likely, that "God" is a socially-constructed
>> fiction created by humans to explain away inconvenient
>> inconsistencies in the world.
> Well, it's a theory....:)
How's this for a "theory".... "God" is one of the earlier and
longest-running Unified Field theories? Let's face it, Lucy. There's a lot
of esplain'n to do.
Felix
(robed and hooded, watching re-runs, chanting with incense)