FLM films - My Webpage

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:27:08 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: >On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:00:55 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" ><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > >>"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... >>> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >>> >>> *sigh* >>> >> >>That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have >>access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and >>the shouting, but really! >> >>Does anyone else think this planet needs to be sterlized of all life so >>evolution can have another chance? 'Cause it certainly fucked up this time >>round. > >**Michiganders love their guns. This happened just north of Flint. My >neighbors here in southeastern Michigan all have guns. They are all >mostly farmers and hunters. They are almost like a fetish here, I'm >from Connecticut so I really don't "get" what is so cool about guns. >Luckily, my neighbors are really nice folk :) Okay, that's rural Michiganders. It's not NEARLY as redneck as Taylor was when I left Michigan in '97, though. :) And, Ta'...I think the world could REALLY use a first-contact scenario myself... - Will, figuring God/whatever is a scientist

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 03:14:36 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: >On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:35:24 -0600, Bill Crawford ><koichi@fastlane.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:27:08 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:00:55 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" >>><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... >>>>> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >>>>> >>>>> *sigh* >>>>> >>>> >>>>That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have >>>>access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and >>>>the shouting, but really! >>>> >>>>Does anyone else think this planet needs to be sterlized of all life so >>>>evolution can have another chance? 'Cause it certainly fucked up this time >>>>round. >>> >>>**Michiganders love their guns. This happened just north of Flint. My >>>neighbors here in southeastern Michigan all have guns. They are all >>>mostly farmers and hunters. They are almost like a fetish here, I'm >>>from Connecticut so I really don't "get" what is so cool about guns. >>>Luckily, my neighbors are really nice folk :) >> >>Okay, that's rural Michiganders. It's not NEARLY as redneck as Taylor >>was when I left Michigan in '97, though. :) > >**Oh dear, are you from Taylortucky? I went shopping in Taylor once >and was pretty traumatized. I've since recovered ;) Oh, no no. (Thank God!) I'm from Detroit, which used to be Murder City U.S.A. until D.C. took the crown... >>And, Ta'...I think the world could REALLY use a first-contact scenario >>myself... > >**With Seven of Nine...I agree :) I was thinking something like the Visitors, myself. Or a la 'Contact' worst-case... - Will, foregoing 'Caretaker' for 'The Iron Giant'

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:03:44 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message >news:45891F4583DA4654.BAF01A31175605E0.CD3D1E46B1CA4757@lp.airnews.net... >> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:27:08 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: > >> And, Ta'...I think the world could REALLY use a first-contact scenario >> myself... > > With Janeway? <eg> >That'll make world peace... No, that'd just make a happy Ta'. ;> - Will, watching Kirk...speak...muchlike...this

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:YfWu4.25740$bz2.4883369@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BC2EB7.DB8382C9@pilot.msu.edu>... > >Ta'Teria wrote: > >> > >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >> > >> *sigh* > > > >I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. > > > >Parents should unload and lock their weapons. > > > >I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. > > > I blame the parents. > > I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a gun of any description. I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could have done this:-(

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > *sigh* > That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and the shouting, but really! Does anyone else think this planet needs to be sterlized of all life so evolution can have another chance? 'Cause it certainly fucked up this time round. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (<>)


>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >*sigh* That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( Thena

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:2wWu4.2874$h96.49912@news3.cableinet.net... > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:YfWu4.25740$bz2.4883369@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BC2EB7.DB8382C9@pilot.msu.edu>... > > >Ta'Teria wrote: > > >> > > >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > >> > > >> *sigh* > > > > > >I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. > > > > > >Parents should unload and lock their weapons. > > > > > >I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. > > > > > > I blame the parents. <entering dangerous political discussion> I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed owned by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. > I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a gun > of any description. Very, very careless. I mean, what were the parents doing that their child can be unattended, physically locate the gun, put it into his book bag (or whatever) without mom or dad knowing and then take it to school? > I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could have done this:-( It's the culture of violence in our society.

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) wrote: |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... |> |>*sigh* | |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. | |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( | |Thena Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. Cannot be coincidence: > > > > > Dear God, > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > Concerned Student > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > God > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > > > > > > -- Who was that masked man?

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) wrote: >>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> >>*sigh* > >That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child >such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. > >Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( Mostly, unfortunately, because people (as the larger group) suck... - Will, disbelieving damn near everything since 1971

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... *sigh*

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Ta'Teria wrote: > > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > *sigh* I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. Parents should unload and lock their weapons. I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. * Robinson * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-02-29 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BC2EB7.DB8382C9@pilot.msu.edu>... >Ta'Teria wrote: >> >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> >> *sigh* > >I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. > >Parents should unload and lock their weapons. > >I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. I blame the parents.

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <4bfv4.5000$C4.99992@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > And in my opinion all guns should be destroyed. Then people might think > twice before killing someone, because it wouldn't be quite so easy. Destroy all the guns and a new method to inflict harm from a distance will be found, or guns will just be built again. It is very difficult, if not impossible to eliminate knowledge. Guns exists, and we need a way to deal with the consequences rationally. The number of guns in existence is irrelevant to the problem of people using them to kill. Remember, morality is never a numbers game and one person being unjustly killed by a gun is no more or less tragic than 1000. That *anyone* is killed unjustly is tragic. People kill via guns but many people also use them to protect. The issue is how to prevent the former while encouraging the latter. Banning guns is a convenient political solution but if history has shown us anything it's that banning items doesn't eliminate them, it only drives up the price (that's why black markets exist). Besides, the mere ownership of any item (a gun, heroine, pornography, etc) itself doesn't cause harm to others, it is the conscious action of the owner. What is needed is a moral philosophy that holds individuals responsible for their actions. That is- blame the people, not the objects. I find it odd that the same group that argues for gun control are the ones who blame gun violence on "society" (movies, TV, music, etc) By allowing the gun user the cop-out of blaming some one or something other than himself, the people making this claim are actually creating a climate in which gun-users have more freedom to act, since they can say what they didn't wasn't their fault. By insisting that gun owners take responsibility for themselves and the guns in their possession, you foster a social & moral climate in which bad actions (like shooting people) have bad consequences (like imprisonment for a long time). In this particular case, the parent screwed up and should be held just as responsible as if she had pulled the trigger herself. To control violence, place the blame for it on the people performing it, or in the case of children, on the people responsible for the child. D���sir���e- pop rocks and cola don't kill people...

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <pPgv4.5163$C4.101542@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > "Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message... > > > > > I agree here. I wouldn't mind the whole prayer in school thing if it > > weren't for the fact that the religion used would be Catholicism and not > > everyone follows that religion. > > > > Hell, a lot of people (like me) aren't even Christian! Back in my heavy-metal rebel days, I used to say that if we were forced to pray in school, I would demand the right to perform Satanic rituals in class. That usually shut people up. D���sir���e- ex-metalhead

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38BD3B9C.9532E5F2@pilot.msu.edu>, robins80@pilot.msu.edu says... > > > Steve Christianson wrote: > > > > > I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but all > > > I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. > > > > That's because you're sensible enough to see the truth, and not be > > distracted by the twaddle spat out by gun nuts in this country. The "truth" you are extolling is mere tautology. Less cars would mean less traffic accidents. Less people under 18 would mean less statutory rape. It's like the completely illogical new law here in California to raise the driving age from 16 to 17 because 16 year olds account for the highest percentage of accidents. Any one with half a brain can see it's because they have the least experience and that by raising the age to 17 (thus eliminating the accident-prone 16 year olds) it will now be the 17 year olds who cause the highest percentage of accidents. Regardless, this "fact" alone is hardly means to base law on. This isn't a numbers game. A law is just because it adheres to moral principles, not because a majority of people like it. By what rationality do you ban guns but not knives, spears, swords, nun chucks, razor blades, fishing line, rope, ice picks, automobiles, arsenic, baseball bats, gasoline and tire irons? If you say that guns kill more people, the moment you ban them, some other item from that list will then take over the number 1 spot. You can continue banning the number 1 item until nothing is left and guess what? People will still kill each other. Try blaming the people instead of the objects. You might get somewhere. D���sir���e- less of me in the world would result in fewer newsgroup posts ;- )

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:12Uu4.25471$bz2.4852967@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > *sigh* I heard about that.... This is such a scary time to be a parent......

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38BD2D5B.F6B1FCEC@ix.netcom.com... > You should read the article in today's newspaper about the kids family. The > boys father is serving time in the country jail, and the mother is living with > a man referred to as an uncle. The gun used had been reported as stolen in > December. The police searched the home and found another stolen gun, a 12 > gauge shotgun. Marvelous environment for a child. > Bob Ohhhh......some people should not be allowed to be parents....

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > X-No-Archive: yes > > Hey! It's our God given right in the U.S. to own a hangun, rifle, > shotgun, machine gun, derringer, cannon, howitzer, grenade launcher > and/or MX missile. It's called the Second Amendment pal (even > if...er...it became part of the Constitution back when all people had > were single shot Kentucky long rifles at best, which you really needed > on the frontier to protect yourself from animals or Indians, but never > mind...), and don't you Brits forget it!! > It's a right for ADULTS to own guns. Allowing SIX-YEAR-OLD KIDS to get their hands on them is just SO FUCKING STUPID. And in my opinion all guns should be destroyed. Then people might think twice before killing someone, because it wouldn't be quite so easy. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message... > > > I agree here. I wouldn't mind the whole prayer in school thing if it > weren't for the fact that the religion used would be Catholicism and not > everyone follows that religion. > Hell, a lot of people (like me) aren't even Christian! -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Steve Christianson wrote: > > X-No-Archive: yes > > Allie wrote: > > > > Lisa wrote > > > > >I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a > > gun > > >of any description. I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could > > have > > >done this:-( > > > > IMO anyone that allows a 7 year old access to a gun should be locked up! > > > > This is an awful tragedy. > > > > I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but all > > I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. > > That's because you're sensible enough to see the truth, and not be > distracted by the twaddle spat out by gun nuts in this country. > > [Am I ranting again?] Yes you are, but I agree with you! * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Masked Man wrote: > > On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) > wrote: > > |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > |> > |>*sigh* > | > |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child > |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. > | > |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( > | > |Thena > > Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. > Cannot be coincidence: > > > > > > > Dear God, > > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Concerned Student > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, > > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > God > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Who was that masked man? I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Amarna wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:50:52 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) > wrote: > > >On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) > >wrote: > > > >|>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >|> > >|>*sigh* > >| > >|That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child > >|such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. > >| > >|Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( > >| > >|Thena > > > >Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. > >Cannot be coincidence: > > > >> > > > > Dear God, > >> > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? > >> > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > Concerned Student > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > Dear Concerned Student, > >> > > > > I am not allowed in schools. > >> > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > God > >> > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > > Except that many of the gun owners who fail to keep their guns away > from children are religious and favor prayer in the schools. I don't > think we should reduce a case of gross parental negligence (if that > turns out to be the fact) into another argument for prayer in the > schools. They are and should be separate issues. > I agree here. I wouldn't mind the whole prayer in school thing if it weren't for the fact that the religion used would be Catholicism and not everyone follows that religion. * Robinson > -- Amarna -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... > "Mike. H." wrote: > > > > > > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed owned > > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they > > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. > > > > I don't know the full details, but apparently the gun was stolen. I > don't know if the kid stole it or his guardian. I dont know about in the States, but over here no gun is allowed to be kept out of a locked gun cabinet which has to be to a specific standard and inspected by the police before a gun license is issued. -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... > > Is it me, or do parent nowadays seem lazy? I hope that when I'm a > parent I'll spend time with my kids and try to get an idea of what > they're up to and correct any unacceptable behaviors. This is a hard one, because as your children grow up they dont really want you hanging around with them and with the best will in the world you cannot know what they are doing when they aren't with you. You have to hope and pray that all the values you taught them has gone deep enough for them to live by them when you are not around. Once your child goes to school you start to lose them to a degree as they have so many more influences on them and your time with them is less. It is not wise to point out to your child that their friends are wrong, but to try and get them to see for themselves why certain behaviour is not acceptable and why society does not like it. Of course we also have to look to our own behaviour as it is useless to tell them you expect one way and then act another. This is why it was always so important for me to be with my kids while they were small, I wanted to be the one that they looked to for guidance and understanding, not a childminder, a nanny or from some young girl who works in a nursery. -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... <<SNIP> > > I think it's the tendency of today's parents to plop their kids in front > of the TV and wander off. *looks around guiltily at her children in front of the tv, watching Pokemon, while she reads the ng* -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38BD2A16.2A98@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Allie wrote: > > > > Lisa wrote > > > > >I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a > > gun > > >of any description. I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could > > have > > >done this:-( > > > > IMO anyone that allows a 7 year old access to a gun should be locked up! > > > > This is an awful tragedy. > > > > I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but all > > I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. > > > That's because you're sensible enough to see the truth, and not be > distracted by the twaddle spat out by gun nuts in this country. > > [Am I ranting again?] You're lovely when you rant! I know we've had this conversation before, but I still cannot comprehend why a society feels the need for all its people to have guns. I know if you are evil enough or determined enough you would always find a way to harm someone, but these things are so dangerous and unfortunately as a society you seem to have no respect for them at all. A gun should never be left where it can be found and it should be incredibly difficult to steal, they certainly are here. I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, you've had this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime or is everyone so immune to it that you cannot see a way forward until these sort of tragedies happen. What I found really, really sad yesterday was my immediate reaction when I put the news on. If I am honest my first thought was "Oh another school shooting" I was sad, but unfortunately no longer shocked by it. When does it reach the point when you say enough is enough. :-( -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ali Andrews <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk>)


Lisa wrote >What I found really, really sad yesterday was my immediate reaction when I >put the news on. If I am honest my first thought was "Oh another school >shooting" I was sad, but unfortunately no longer shocked by it. When does >it reach the point when you say enough is enough. > >:-( When I first heard the news I only caught the end of the report and the newsreader hadn't said what country it was in. Sadly he didn't need to, I guessed immediately it was the US :-(( And even more sadly, like you I wasn't shocked. Allie x

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:Eibv4.11$LU6.730@news3.cableinet.net... > I know we've had this conversation before, but I still cannot comprehend why > a society feels the need for all its people to have guns. All of the people do not have guns. > I know if you are > evil enough or determined enough you would always find a way to harm > someone, Very true. >but these things are so dangerous and unfortunately as a society > you seem to have no respect for them at all. Most people do have a healthy respect for guns. Unfortunately, there are far too many who do not. The result is a continuation of this type of tragedy. > A gun should never be left > where it can be found and it should be incredibly difficult to steal, they > certainly are here. I partially agree. They certainly should never be left lying around loaded when there are children in the house. But what about gun owners who don't have children? Or the woman living alone in a bad neighborhood? Having it within easy reach can mean all the difference between life and death. > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, Some see it a right, some see it as a basic liberty and are exercising freedom of choice, some see it as a mechanism for the right to protect oneself and their families, some see it as a means to engage in sport, etc. >you've had this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime Actually, yes it has. >or is everyone > so immune to it that you cannot see a way forward until these sort of > tragedies happen. I don't think people are necessarily immune to it. Lot's of us just are not in agreement on how we should go about preventing future tragedies, while retaining freedom of choice. > What I found really, really sad yesterday was my immediate reaction when I > put the news on. If I am honest my first thought was "Oh another school > shooting" I was sad, but unfortunately no longer shocked by it. When does > it reach the point when you say enough is enough. I would say when you are no longer shocked by it.

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... > "Mike. H." wrote: > > > > > > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed owned > > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they > > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. > > > > I don't know the full details, but apparently the gun was stolen. I > don't know if the kid stole it or his guardian. Don't know either, but I doubt a 6 year old stole a gun. I've seen more on this case as it has become available. Sounds like the boy was growing up in a less than ideal situation <mild understatement>. > > Very, very careless. I mean, what were the parents doing that their child > > can be unattended, physically locate the gun, put it into his book bag (or > > whatever) without mom or dad knowing and then take it to school? > > > > Is it me, or do parent nowadays seem lazy? I don't know if I'd call it lazy (although that surely applies in some cases). Unfortunately, our society has gotten to the point that it is near impossible for one of the parents to stay home. I think what happens is the parents are frazzled at days end, still have a lot of things to do to keep the household running and subsequently the kids wind up getting neglected. It's really a shame. > I hope that when I'm a > parent I'll spend time with my kids and try to get an idea of what > they're up to and correct any unacceptable behaviors. I hope so too. Even as a non-custodial parent, I try to talk to my son about the things that are going on in his life whenever I can. > > > I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could have done this:-( > > > > It's the culture of violence in our society. > > I think it's the tendency of today's parents to plop their kids in front > of the TV and wander off. It's a part of the problem to be sure. unfortunately, the answers aren't all that easy.

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Ta'Teria wrote: > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BC2EB7.DB8382C9@pilot.msu.edu>... > >Ta'Teria wrote: > >> > >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >> > >> *sigh* > > > >I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. > > > >Parents should unload and lock their weapons. > > > >I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. > > I blame the parents. I read this morning that the kid's father and grandfather were in jail for gun charges. I wonder what this poor kid's homelife was like. * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Ta'Teria wrote: > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BC2EB7.DB8382C9@pilot.msu.edu>... > >Ta'Teria wrote: > >> > >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >> > >> *sigh* > > > >I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. > > > >Parents should unload and lock their weapons. > > > >I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. > > I blame the parents. Another thought: The media and company will never think of blaming the parents, that's not the in thing these days. They always seem to look everywhere else but the home. * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


"Mike. H." wrote: > > > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed owned > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. > I don't know the full details, but apparently the gun was stolen. I don't know if the kid stole it or his guardian. > > I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a > gun > > of any description. > > Very, very careless. I mean, what were the parents doing that their child > can be unattended, physically locate the gun, put it into his book bag (or > whatever) without mom or dad knowing and then take it to school? > Is it me, or do parent nowadays seem lazy? I hope that when I'm a parent I'll spend time with my kids and try to get an idea of what they're up to and correct any unacceptable behaviors. > > I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could have done this:-( > > It's the culture of violence in our society. I think it's the tendency of today's parents to plop their kids in front of the TV and wander off. * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ali Andrews <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk>)


Lisa wrote >I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a gun >of any description. I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could have >done this:-( IMO anyone that allows a 7 year old access to a gun should be locked up! This is an awful tragedy. I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but all I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. Allie x

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Amarna <amarna@pipeline.com>)


On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:50:52 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) >wrote: > >|>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >|> >|>*sigh* >| >|That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child >|such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. >| >|Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( >| >|Thena > >Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. >Cannot be coincidence: > >> > > > > Dear God, >> > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? >> > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > Concerned Student >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Dear Concerned Student, >> > > > > I am not allowed in schools. >> > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > God >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ Except that many of the gun owners who fail to keep their guns away from children are religious and favor prayer in the schools. I don't think we should reduce a case of gross parental negligence (if that turns out to be the fact) into another argument for prayer in the schools. They are and should be separate issues. -- Amarna

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


You should read the article in today's newspaper about the kids family. The boys father is serving time in the country jail, and the mother is living with a man referred to as an uncle. The gun used had been reported as stolen in December. The police searched the home and found another stolen gun, a 12 gauge shotgun. Marvelous environment for a child. Bob "Mike. H." wrote: > "Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:2wWu4.2874$h96.49912@news3.cableinet.net... > > > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:YfWu4.25740$bz2.4883369@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BC2EB7.DB8382C9@pilot.msu.edu>... > > > >Ta'Teria wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > > >> > > > >> *sigh* > > > > > > > >I saw that on abcnews.com. It is a sad thing. > > > > > > > >Parents should unload and lock their weapons. > > > > > > > >I bet they'll blame this on Pokemon, Half-Life or some such. > > > > > > > > > I blame the parents. > > <entering dangerous political discussion> > > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed owned > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. > > > I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a > gun > > of any description. > > Very, very careless. I mean, what were the parents doing that their child > can be unattended, physically locate the gun, put it into his book bag (or > whatever) without mom or dad knowing and then take it to school? > > > I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could have done this:-( > > It's the culture of violence in our society.

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Steve Christianson wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: > > > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > > > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > > That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have > > access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and > > the shouting, but really! > > Hey! It's our God given right in the U.S. to own a hangun, rifle, > shotgun, machine gun, derringer, cannon, howitzer, grenade launcher > and/or MX missile. It's called the Second Amendment pal (even > if...er...it became part of the Constitution back when all people had > were single shot Kentucky long rifles at best, which you really needed > on the frontier to protect yourself from animals or Indians, but never > mind...), and don't you Brits forget it!! > > Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please write a law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a large affect on crime. Bob

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Ali Andrews wrote: > Lisa wrote > > >I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a > gun > >of any description. I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could > have > >done this:-( > > IMO anyone that allows a 7 year old access to a gun should be locked up! > > This is an awful tragedy. > > I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but all > I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. > > Allie > x How to save 40,000 lives a year. Make Automobiles illegal. Bob

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kaboom@7of.9)


On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:00:55 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: >"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... >> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> >> *sigh* >> > >That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have >access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and >the shouting, but really! > >Does anyone else think this planet needs to be sterlized of all life so >evolution can have another chance? 'Cause it certainly fucked up this time >round. **Michiganders love their guns. This happened just north of Flint. My neighbors here in southeastern Michigan all have guns. They are all mostly farmers and hunters. They are almost like a fetish here, I'm from Connecticut so I really don't "get" what is so cool about guns. Luckily, my neighbors are really nice folk :) kaboomie

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kaboom@7of.9)


On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:35:24 -0600, Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote: >On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:27:08 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: > >>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:00:55 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" >><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... >>>> Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >>>> >>>> *sigh* >>>> >>> >>>That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have >>>access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and >>>the shouting, but really! >>> >>>Does anyone else think this planet needs to be sterlized of all life so >>>evolution can have another chance? 'Cause it certainly fucked up this time >>>round. >> >>**Michiganders love their guns. This happened just north of Flint. My >>neighbors here in southeastern Michigan all have guns. They are all >>mostly farmers and hunters. They are almost like a fetish here, I'm >>from Connecticut so I really don't "get" what is so cool about guns. >>Luckily, my neighbors are really nice folk :) > >Okay, that's rural Michiganders. It's not NEARLY as redneck as Taylor >was when I left Michigan in '97, though. :) **Oh dear, are you from Taylortucky? I went shopping in Taylor once and was pretty traumatized. I've since recovered ;) > >And, Ta'...I think the world could REALLY use a first-contact scenario >myself... **With Seven of Nine...I agree :) kaboomie

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message news:45891F4583DA4654.BAF01A31175605E0.CD3D1E46B1CA4757@lp.airnews.net... > On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:27:08 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: > And, Ta'...I think the world could REALLY use a first-contact scenario > myself... With Janeway? <eg> That'll make world peace...

2000-03-01 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message news:68F07BEA457F9E6E.5FCDF487976D8D15.C5A885DAFD87C62C@lp.airnews.net... > On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:03:44 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > >Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message > >news:45891F4583DA4654.BAF01A31175605E0.CD3D1E46B1CA4757@lp.airnews.net... > >> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:27:08 GMT, kaboom@7of.9 wrote: > > > >> And, Ta'...I think the world could REALLY use a first-contact scenario > >> myself... > > > > With Janeway? <eg> > >That'll make world peace... > > No, that'd just make a happy Ta'. ;> Hey, if I'm happy, everyone's happy... > - Will, watching Kirk...speak...muchlike...this lol... Have you ever read Will Shatner's "Get a Life"?? THere a section where he interviews someone who does a parody of him...

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: Apologies if the text wrap seems a bit wonky. It came through sort of weird. > > "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > > > There are certain restrictions on adults having the right and the ability > to > > get guns. Truthfully, they do not seem to be very well enforced. But > > generally speaking, you are correct. It's simply a difference in our > > culture. > > I know I am only going on what I have seen on tv, but it seems that you just > go into a shop, get yourself a license, buy yourself a gun and away you go. > Is it really that simple? Well, it really varies by State. Here in my home state (Utah) it is just about that simple. > > > But this is my argument, these people are showing a real lack of > maturity > > > and therefore should never be allowed to have a gun. There should be no > > > grey areas. > > > > But how can you test reliably for maturity? Heck, can anyone even agree on > > what threshold of "maturity" must be reached in order for someone to > possess > > a gun? It's very difficult. Circumstances change (for instance, a gun may > > have been in the household prior to a divorce, or drug problem). > > Again, this comes back to whoever is handing out your licences. When my > husband applied for a licence here, we had to buy a special gun cabinet to a > specific standard, which then had to be bolted to the wall and floor, he had > to fill in an extensive application form which was then forwarded to the > police who checked all his details and to see if he had a criminal record, > he had to provide good reason as to why he wanted to keep guns, we then had > a visit from a police officer to check the cabinet and to see what he > thought of my husband. Good lord, talk about extreme Government bureaucracy. But OK, let's say (heaven forbid) that your husband develops a mental illness after being approved to own a gun. Can the Government just come in and take everything away? How would they even know in the first place? > At any given point he could have been refused the licence with no court of > appeal, and you may find this hard to believe, but I actually questioned > that this process was tough enough. Wow. Frankly, I am speechless that you are willing to have this much Government interference in your life. It seems so subjective to me that a Police Officer can simply deny you something (without appeal) when you have not even committed a crime. That's something that I hope never happens in this country. > I was dismayed that they didnt check me out as the guns would be in my home, After reading what you wrote above, I'm a bit surprised myself. Perhaps it is assumed that you will not have access to the storage cabinet? > I was also saddened that they never did > a medical check on either of us to see whether we suffered from any sort of > mental or physical disorder which should prohibit us from having the guns. Here I have to agree with you. We need to do a much better job of preventing people with known mental illness from getting guns. Unfortunately, though it still doesn't provide an answer to what happens if the illness (or drug addiction for that matter) occurs after ownership. Although, that's no different than what happens here. > No one asked me whether my husband was violent towards me or prone to > drinking etc.. all of this should be taken into consideration before > handing out a licence. Well, people lie. > > I don't think it is so much about "need", but rather a desire to exercise > > freedom of choice. It's a basic right in this country for "life, liberty > and > > the pursuit of happiness". Who are we (or the Government) to dictate to > the > > individual how they exercise that right? Are there negative consequences? > > Absolutely. You would be an idiot to deny that. However, it's a price we > pay > > for living in a free society. Has that price become too high? I guess > that's > > why we're engaging in discussion. > > When you have children killing each other then the price has gone through > the roof. Look at the Columbine High School tragedy, though. Those kids had home made grenades and explosives. I suspect the toughest gun laws in the country wouldn't have prevented that. I guess what I am saying is that it is so much more than guns. And I don't want to lose the freedoms that I enjoy because we as a society (US) are unwilling to look at the much tougher issues. > > > Wanting something does not make it a right, > > > > Oh, I never said that it was. I was just trying to provide a few reasons > on > > why people who believe strongly in gun ownership, do so. > > I have a real problem with society today in general in as much as people > seem to think that if they want something and it will make them happy then > they should have it, no matter what it is, possesions, someone elses > husband/wife, a baby etc.., they desire it so therefore they have a right to > it. I just dont see life as being like that, but whilst we bring up future > generations to believe in instant gratification and the pursuit of their own > happiness at the expense of those around them, then the morals behind the > gun issue will continue on a downward spiral What you are describing above is called Radical Individualism, and I would have agreed with you almost 100 % until you put the gun issue "qualifier" in your paragraph. It's the very thing I was referring to when I said we are unwilling to look at the tougher issues.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > Mike. H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > news:89m8m1010i2@news1.newsguy.com... > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be > a > > 1 minute silent prayer time. > > I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or > review his spelling words one last time... :-) Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. Don't even blur the lines by associating it with prayer. Simply let the parents know that it is happening, and let them make the decision what their child does with the time.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


havoc wrote: > Second, why is it that most of the strongest supporters of gun rights are so > opposed to other personal individual rights? Politically, this is the same > part of the spectrum that is against a woman's right to choose an abortion, Actually, isn't it the other way around? Meaning, the supporters of abortion rights are OK with allowing a woman freedom of choice in ending the life of an unborn child (thereby removing his/her rights in a most permanent fashion), while attempting to control the freedom of choice to purchase a gun when that act has absolutely no such direct consequence? > the group that would most adamantly oppose legalization of drugs (and > ownership of those drugs). Hmmm.... Can you draw a paralell that gun owners will act in a similar fashion to those addicted to drugs? For example, increase in the crime rate to support their gun habit? > Desiree, I'm not suggesting you belong to this > hypocritical contingent, but you can't deny its existence. There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle. > Make the price high enough, and you can really limit the availability. Guns > aren't nearly as big a problem in Europe and Asia, for example, because they > are so tightly controlled. Most of Europe and Asia isn't based on the idea of a free market economy either. > Here is the simple math: If you arm the good guys, then the bad guys are > certainly going to be even more heavily armed. This is math? Besides, if the good guys are allowed to carry guns, are the bad guys going to start walking around with rocket launchers? Those could be tough to hide. Fact is, guns in the hands of the "good guys" levels the playing field. > If the bad guys are so > heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be only > be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully "defends" > himself. The good guy doesn't have to "defend" himself because the criminal has decided not to act. All due to the possible fact that he has a chance of running into someone with a gun. I don't know about you, but I tend to shy away from repeat situations where there is a 50 % chance I'll be killed. > This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. Looks suspiciously anti-gun to me. >It's pragmatic reasoning. The world > would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. John Lott has done an extensive study on this that disproves your "pragmatic reasoning", I'm afraid.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: A Danger To Others (Was Re: :-( - (Bexar <jazz@hilconet.com>)


Bozo the Evil Klown <evilklowwn@aol.comedy> wrote in message news:20000302141932.01296.00000250@ng-fe1.aol.com... > I was flipping through news channels today..... it seems the shooter in > question had a violent history before he ever got hold of a gun; he'd been > suspended from school for fighting, and for stabbing a girl with a pencil. > > My suspension of disbelief, toughened up and tempered by six years of Vger > *still* can't comprehend why someone with a history of violent attack was still > in a public school until he actually killed someone..... One reason they kept violents and trouble kid in school is money. Schools get money from the state depending on how many students are enroll. More students enrolled equals more money from the state. > of course, since he's > too young to be charged with any sort of crime he may even wind up back in the > public school system. > If not at that same school, it will be at another school. > Hopefully, he'll get his future murders in while he's still young enough to get > away with it. > Only if he gets alot of help. > Given his history as a threat to others, at what point do we decide that the > rights and safety of the OTHER students requires him to be seperated? Whether > or not he can be reformed is a seperate issue, but my own concern is for the > other children he may hurt or kill until then- especially with the concerted > efforts going into convincing him that he's not responsible for his own > actions. > > The punch line is that the prosecutor's office *will decide* today if any > charges will be filed against the (so-called) adults who let him get his hands > on a gun. > I hope they do charge these " adults" for they are a major reason this young kid did what he did. Bexar

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <sbu9hmo3ee6151@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >In article <38BE052A.3EEC@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > > > >> This whole issue is such bullshit and is filled with the worst kind of > >> moral sophistry and tawdry rationalization for what is really the gun > >> nuts' desire to keep their toys. > > > >Sorry Steve, it's based on moral principle and human rights. (Although > >from previous discussion you strike me as a moral relativist who has no > >acceptance of human rights) The human right being the right to property. > >Mere ownership of *anything* cannot be banned. > > Interesting in theory, but not the least bit true in practice. It's not true in practice because people don't respect rights. As part of > the normal police powers, states have always had the right to ban hazardous > materials You speak as if the police have rights that the common person doesn't have. All rights are individual rights, and no group or government can claim rights that the individual doesn't have. Besides you are arguing historic implementation, while I am arguing principle. *In principle* no one (and this includes governments) has the right to tell anyone else what they can or can't own. If you disagree, please explain to me what moral right or principle makes this so. > (like diseased animals from crossing state lines). For example, > are you suggesting I would have the right to store hazardous and nuclear > waste in my house, next door to my neighbors? You have every right to store it on your own house (which would be rather stupid if you ask me), but if it leaks onto your neighbor's property you have infringed on their rights, and are thus responsible for the damage done by said material. If it gets into the water, then you have infringed on the rights of the water owner and are thus responsible to him. Ownership is *never* the issue. What you do with what you own is. > Second, why is it that most of the strongest supporters of gun rights are so > opposed to other personal individual rights? Politically, this is the same > part of the spectrum that is against a woman's right to choose an abortion, > the group that would most adamantly oppose legalization of drugs (and > ownership of those drugs). Desiree, I'm not suggesting you belong to this > hypocritical contingent, but you can't deny its existence. I don't deny it's existence but I fail to see what relevance this line of argument has to a debate on gun laws? That both "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are illogical and contradictory has nothing to do with the facts of this debate. I am arguing for individual rights, since those are the only rights that exist. > No one has any right what > >so ever to tell anyone else what they can and cannot own (and don't throw > >"slaves" at me, you cannot "own" another human being because doing so > >violates that person's right to Liberty) People will still own banned > >item, the price for acquiring them will just be higher. So not only do > >you not have a right do ban an item (such as a gun) it is impractical and > >ineffective anyway. > Make the price high enough, and you can really limit the availability. Price is determined by the Law of Supply and Demand. See that word "Law" That means the principle is involitile in regards to goods for which there is both a supply and a demand. You do not "make the price high" you decrease the supply, which, given a constant demand, will cause the price to rise. In a free market, when this happens, new supplies will enter the market, creating more supply thus lower the price. This is Economics 101 and applies to guns as much as to hot dogs or automobiles and as much to "banned" items as to those that aren't. > Guns > aren't nearly as big a problem in Europe and Asia, for example, because they > are so tightly controlled. Controlled by who? The government? So you have two classes of people- those allowed guns and thus not. Not a very free society if you ask me. You are assuming that some one has the *right* to control them. What right is this? Where does it come from? How can it be a right if we don't all have it? > > Here is the simple math: If you arm the good guys, then the bad guys are > certainly going to be even more heavily armed. If the bad guys are so > heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be only > be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully "defends" > himself. Statistics don't support this. Reliable sources have shown at least a 10 to 1 ratio of crimes thwarted by potential victims who used guns to defend themselves vs. guns used to commit crimes. This of course leaves out all the unreported instance of defense plus those crimes that never happen because the criminal decides the risk of the victim having a gun is too great. > > This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. It's pragmatic reasoning. "pragmatic reasoning" is a contradiction. Reasoning is a process of logical steps, based on basic principles which lead to specific conclusions. "Pragmatism" involves compromise which by definition means surrendering principles, thus preventing the implementation of reason. > The world > would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. In Utopia perhaps. But guns exists, you can't un-invent them, and the bad guys will always have them. Instead of living in the fantasy of banning guns, how about implementing punishments for gun users that actually mean something, and stop letting murderers off by allowing the claims the "society" or "violent movies" made me do it. > > >D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time > > > -Havoc -- whose logic can rival a Vulcan. Good. I'd love to hear the logical reasons for banning an inanimate item, incapable of harming anyone without the volitional, malevolent action of a person. D���sir���e- nobody ever wants to ban phasers

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <85Ev4.1055$237.27437@news3.cableinet.net>, lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk says... > > So, if the woman is a drug user or mentally unstable etc.. and unable to > make a rational, responsible decision who is watching out for the child? I > dont think Society can dictate who has children or not, but just because any > woman can give birth shouldn't give her an automatic right to raise that > child if she is clearly an unfit parent and placing the child in danger. > > Like guns, people consider children to be a right and they are not. > > Lisa So long as you are not physically or psychologically hurting your child, no one has the right to take him or her away from you. I absolutely do not trust the government to be able to make a fair or impartial decision in such a matter. If the parent is doing something illegal (like abusing the child, or neglecting him) then the police can step in and arrest the parent, but to take the child away in the absence of a crime is simply Draconian. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the right to own a gun, but I have posted several times already on that topic and have yet to see any reasoned responses so I won't go into it again here, I'll just leave it to my sig. D���sir���e- if life is a right then property rights logically follow

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <IUlv4.83083$ox5.22282851@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, laware@strato.net says... > > It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or > universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when > they act like that? Exactly. We have come to accept the very destructive doctrine of relative morality. We accept immorality in the guise of "different culture" or "independence" or just shrug and say "who are we to tell someone else what to do" and yet this mentality fosters an attitude of non-responsibility. If there is no absolute moral standard, then *any* action can be defended as moral. Even shooting a 6 year old girl. D���sir���e- Absolutely

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:59:05 -0500, Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote: |I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. Manners and |getting along with others should be reinforced, but the bulk should rely |on the parents. | Masked Man----->Some favorite quotations on this subject: Educate children without religion and you make a race of clever devils out of them. ---Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington Religion is not an escape from life; it is life. ---S. A. C. Sidelights The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundations in morality and religion. ---Abraham Lincoln If you are not right toward God, you can never be so toward men; and this is so whether wits and rakes allow it or not. ---William Pitt, Lord Chatham. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:33:56 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote: |I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a |1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the |church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving |our children the basic principles of learning. Masked Man---->I couldnt disagree more. Life is not meant to be compartmentalized. Separation of church and state, historically, applied to separation of state from church, not the other way around. And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer is as much a part of life as breathing. Children should learn that in school as well as church. Once upon a time in this country they did. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38c3eb1b.88468175@news.mindspring.com>, kemosabe@skyenet.net says... > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:33:56 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> > wrote: > > |I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > |1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > |church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > |our children the basic principles of learning. > > Masked Man---->I couldnt disagree more. Life is not meant to be > compartmentalized. Separation of church and state, historically, > applied to separation of state from church, not the other way around. Very little of the actual implementation of the U.S. has historical precedent. The Rights respecting approach of the founding fathers had precedent, to be sure, but the actual laws (right to free speech, free association, no state religion) were basically new in terms of large scale government. Historical precedent is not a logical argument anyway. Effectively, all your saying is "it's always been done that way" but this doesn't offer any proof as to whether that way is just or not. > And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer > is as much a part of life as breathing. For a devoted Christian or Jew or Muslim, maybe. (although, even as a Christian, I still don't quite understand prayer- does God really change his mind because of hearing prayers?) But for Taoists or Buddhists "prayer" is meaningless. You are projecting your beliefs onto everyone one else even though everyone else may not agree. Children should learn that > in school as well as church. Once upon a time in this country they > did. The problem here comes from having government-dictated education. The "once upon a time" you are referring to was back when school was primarily a private institution and thus the parents had some choice as to whether their children were exposed to Christian prayer or Judaism or Buddhism or whatever based on what church/institution was running the school. In current state-run schools, teaching one religion at the expense of others goes against the foundation of our country. The fundamental Right to Liberty includes the right to believe in whatever religion/philosophy you choose as well as to not believe in any (I.e. the right to think freely). To force religion on children through state-sponsered schools is a simple and clear violation of rights and cannot be allowed in a free society. As has already been pointed out, there are not just Judeo-Christians here, but Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists, Nature worshippers, ancestor worshippers and probably rooster worshippers none of whom have any use for your idea of "prayer". Neither the government nor you have any right to dictate any religious beliefs on any of them via the public school system. D���sir���e- a free thinking Christian

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38BE052A.3EEC@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > This whole issue is such bullshit and is filled with the worst kind of > moral sophistry and tawdry rationalization for what is really the gun > nuts' desire to keep their toys. Sorry Steve, it's based on moral principle and human rights. (Although from previous discussion you strike me as a moral relativist who has no acceptance of human rights) The human right being the right to property. Mere ownership of *anything* cannot be banned. No one has any right what so ever to tell anyone else what they can and cannot own (and don't throw "slaves" at me, you cannot "own" another human being because doing so violates that person's right to Liberty) People will still own banned item, the price for acquiring them will just be higher. So not only do you not have a right do ban an item (such as a gun) it is impractical and ineffective anyway. The moral principle is that of retaliation. All people have a right to defend themselves against force, be it from a burglar, mugger, rapist or oppressive government. The first thing Fascist governments do when they achieve power is remove guns from the hands of the people so they can't oppose the government. Ban guns and some other device capable of inflicting harm will be invented. You *cannot* undo knowledge, and the fact is, the knowledge of guns exists. Instead of bleating about banning them and hoping the criminals agree to your ban, why not try to take the more rational steps of requiring *responsibility* in action. Stop blaming "the culture" "the society" "violent movies" or "rap music" and blame the person who uses a gun to initiate violence. Don't allow them the cop-out of "harsh family life" or "abuse" or any other nonsense that supposedly destroyed their ability to make rational judgements about their actions. Initiating force is *always* wrong and it is *always* the sole fault of the person doing the initiating. When you can come up with a reasoned, logical, principled argument that explains one person's right to prevent another person from owning an object that has no will of it's own, then perhaps you may have something other than faux moral indignation to rant about. D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c7037a.94708065@news.mindspring.com>... >| >|> And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer >|> is as much a part of life as breathing. >| >| God really change his mind because of hearing prayers? > >MM---->The question is irrelevant to a discussion of why we ought to >pray...My theology dictates that the Lord takes pleasure in those who >petition him after his will. > > YOUR theology..... But what gives you the right to impose that theology on me or my children??? > >|To force religion on children through state-sponsered schools is a simple and clear violation of rights and >|cannot be allowed in a free society. > >Masked Man---->Baloney. To do otherwise is to summon more incidents >like Columbine. How many more children have to die on the altar of >your libertarianism? The corpses of these children amply demonstrate >more eloquently than I ever could that religious libertarianism does >not work > > Oh yeah...... As if nobody has ever been killed in the name of religion. Religion is probably responsible for more murders, atrocities and oppression than communism, libertarianism and all the other 'isms combined. >|Neither the government nor you have any right to dictate any >|religious beliefs on any of them via the public school system. > >Masked Man---->The roots of this nation are fundamentally >Judeo-Christian. The ecumenism you allude to is a rather recent >historical development, and is used by some as a straw man to force >home a bankrupt point of view that because we cannot accommodate all. >we shall accommodate none. > As a member of the Jewish half of Judeo-Christian, I wouldn't want my children to be made to feel out of place in school by being surrounded by Christian prayers, etc. But let's talk about accommodating the majority, as you suggest. If you lived in a mostly Muslim neighborhood, would you want your children's school to take several breaks during the day during which they could worship Allah? If you lived in a jewish neighborhood, would you want your children's school to observe jewish laws of kosher food? >Furthermore, I am not dictating anything. I am lobbying for Christian >organizations like Youth for Christ to be allowed back into our public >schools, and asserting that by doing so, we can save some future >generations of children from becoming both murderers and victims. hmm.. The Spanish Inquisition was a religious movement. In recent American years, one still sees abortion clinic bombings being performed by people in the name of religion. The KKK often cites religion in support of their cause. I'm not suggesting that religion is automatically evil, but it's certainly not automatically virtuous. >| >|D���sir���e- a free thinking Christian >Masked Man--->just a plain, old Christian > -Havoc The voice of reason. (Who also admires Desiree's thinking)

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >In article <38BE052A.3EEC@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > >> This whole issue is such bullshit and is filled with the worst kind of >> moral sophistry and tawdry rationalization for what is really the gun >> nuts' desire to keep their toys. > >Sorry Steve, it's based on moral principle and human rights. (Although >from previous discussion you strike me as a moral relativist who has no >acceptance of human rights) The human right being the right to property. >Mere ownership of *anything* cannot be banned. Interesting in theory, but not the least bit true in practice. As part of the normal police powers, states have always had the right to ban hazardous materials (like diseased animals from crossing state lines). For example, are you suggesting I would have the right to store hazardous and nuclear waste in my house, next door to my neighbors? Second, why is it that most of the strongest supporters of gun rights are so opposed to other personal individual rights? Politically, this is the same part of the spectrum that is against a woman's right to choose an abortion, the group that would most adamantly oppose legalization of drugs (and ownership of those drugs). Desiree, I'm not suggesting you belong to this hypocritical contingent, but you can't deny its existence. No one has any right what >so ever to tell anyone else what they can and cannot own (and don't throw >"slaves" at me, you cannot "own" another human being because doing so >violates that person's right to Liberty) People will still own banned >item, the price for acquiring them will just be higher. So not only do >you not have a right do ban an item (such as a gun) it is impractical and >ineffective anyway. > Make the price high enough, and you can really limit the availability. Guns aren't nearly as big a problem in Europe and Asia, for example, because they are so tightly controlled. Here is the simple math: If you arm the good guys, then the bad guys are certainly going to be even more heavily armed. If the bad guys are so heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be only be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully "defends" himself. This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. It's pragmatic reasoning. The world would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. >D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time > -Havoc -- whose logic can rival a Vulcan.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message <4%Ev4.84756$ox5.22804515@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... >> I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. > >Why not? > > Because morality is subjective, and it shouldn't be up to a teacher or school board to choose the "correct" morality. Yes, there are a handful of Universals which are appropriate to teach anywhere. Mostly this: Thou shall respect others. (Which includes that you shouldn't kill them, steal from them, etc). This type of morality is taught in schools already. Further, a respect for law is generally taught in school. But once you get into more specific types of morality... You run into danger. Should schools teach that pre-marital sex is wrong? Should schools teach that sex is wrong? Should schools teach that flag burning is wrong? Should schools teach that atheism is wrong? Should schools teach that homosexuality is wrong? Yes, there are some nearly unverisal moral concepts that should be, and are already, taught in school. But as to others, they should be left to the home and parents. Can you tell me one more principle that is universally accepted and isn't already taught in schools, that you feel should be?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message <020320002045313154%brianb1@home.com>... >> YOUR theology..... But what gives you the right to impose that theology on >> me or my children??? > >Conversely, what gives you the right to impose your *lack* of theology >on me or *my* children? > How dare you say that I lack theology, simply because my theology differs from yours. (And would you really want the Protestant kids fighting the Jewish kids fighting the Muslim kids fighting the Catholic kids fighting the atheist kids). I would have no right to impose atheism on your children. You have the right to teach your kids any theology you wish. I'm not imposing anything on them, I'm leaving the public schools silent on the matter. But why should the public school teach *my* kids *your* theology. I'll make you a deal.... I'll agree with the preaching of religion in schools, as long as the theology is that Jesus was a lunatic heretic that spawned the evil Christian religion, in whose name millions have been murdered.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38bf2abf.104762318@news.mindspring.com>... >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|YOUR theology..... But what gives you the right to impose that theology on >|me or my children? > >Masked Man---->It's not just my theology. It's theology embraced by >millions of people, thousands of whom can be found in my hometown >every Sunday morning and evening. > And there are also thousands of people in the KKK, does that make them right? There are billions of Hindus and Budhists in the world, so perhaps your local schools should teach Hinduism, if you're using majority as grounds for judging merit. > > > > >Who was that masked man?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c02b0a.104837219@news.mindspring.com>... >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|Religion is probably responsible for more murders, atrocities and oppression >|than communism, libertarianism and all the other 'isms combined. > >Masked Man---->Even conceding that point, and I do so only for >argument, religion has _saved_ more lives than all those other isms >combined as well.... > Does your mask keep you from understanding history? Give me examples of religion saving lives (not souls, but actual lives). Let's just take a look at religion in America. Religion was used to justify and rationalize slavery. (Which was ended by abolitionism). Moving to the 20th Century, Religion was used to rationalize Jim Crow laws. (Which were ended by the liberalism of the Civil Rights movement). Let's move to the 21st Century... Where at Bob Jones and other places, religion is used to rationalize continued bigotry. (Whether against inter-racial dating, homosexual preferences, etc.) I'm not saying that good can't come from religion. There is indeed plenty of charity work, etc, which is done in the name of religion. But there is also plenty of charity work that is done without invoking religion. Conclusion: Religion is, by itself, morally neutral. It can be used for evil just as readily as it can be used for good. History teaches us that religion is more likely to be used for oppressive purposes. -Havoc -- Defender of freedom and tolerance. > > > > >Who was that masked man?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c12b47.104898841@news.mindspring.com>... >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|If you >|lived in a mostly Muslim neighborhood, would you want your children's school >|to take several breaks during the day during which they could worship Allah? > >Masked Man----->That is exactly the deal I am proposing. I have seen >it work. There were two Jewish girls in the classroom I grew up in. >Neither they nor their parents apparently had any trouble with their >reciting the Lord's prayer. The tradeoff for that requirement was >they received time off during their high holy days, no questions >asked. As a Jew, I can tell you that's a very unfair trade-off. As it currently stands, many schools schedule activities on Saturdays, thus forcing Jewish children to choose between their religion and exra-ciricular activities. And the Jewish kids might be allowed to take off from school during their high holy days, but as a result they are at a disadvantage for missing school time. How would you like it if your kids were "allowed" to take off for Christmas, but they would have to make up the work? If you're Catholic, how would you like it if schools served meat every day of lent? As Jews, we deal with these trade-offs, because we know we're the minority. We recognize that there are far greater levels of oppression and unfairness. But just because it could be even worse, doesn't mean that it should be even worse. The Jewish kids might have recited the Lord's prayer because they had to, but that doesn't mean that they "had no problem with it." I have several friends who are paganists and I can tell you, that it's actually a beautiful religion focused on appreciating nature. Would you want your children to be forced or coerced into reciting pagan prayers?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Masked Man wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:33:56 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> > wrote: > > |I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > |1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > |church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > |our children the basic principles of learning. > > Masked Man---->I couldnt disagree more. Life is not meant to be > compartmentalized. Separation of church and state, historically, > applied to separation of state from church, not the other way around. I'm not basing my opinion on anything other than I think our kids have enough to deal with already. I don't want any more time taken away from them learning basic principles, just so we can educate (or introuduce or impose) a set of religious morals. Morals, I might add, that would be near impossible to agree on due to the diversity of our country. > And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer > is as much a part of life as breathing. In your opinion. I don't pray and my breathing is quite fine, thank you. > Children should learn that in school as well as church. And if we simply leave it in the church and the home, they haven't really lost anything have they?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


I think you're right... firstly I am sick of the media blaming stuff like heavy metal music (I LIKE some of it!), computer games (I PLAY Doom, Quake etc.!) and movies (I LOVE Arnie films and the Alien trilogy) for real-life violence... but I still think there should be tighter gun controls - people wanting to own a gun should, IMHO, have to pass some sort of competency test before being allowed to. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950 "D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message > In article <4bfv4.5000$C4.99992@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > > > And in my opinion all guns should be destroyed. Then people might think > > twice before killing someone, because it wouldn't be quite so easy. > > Destroy all the guns and a new method to inflict harm from a distance > will be found, or guns will just be built again. It is very difficult, > if not impossible to eliminate knowledge. Guns exists, and we need a way > to deal with the consequences rationally. The number of guns in > existence is irrelevant to the problem of people using them to kill. > Remember, morality is never a numbers game and one person being unjustly > killed by a gun is no more or less tragic than 1000. That *anyone* is > killed unjustly is tragic. People kill via guns but many people also use > them to protect. The issue is how to prevent the former while > encouraging the latter. > > Banning guns is a convenient political solution but if history has shown > us anything it's that banning items doesn't eliminate them, it only > drives up the price (that's why black markets exist). Besides, the mere > ownership of any item (a gun, heroine, pornography, etc) itself doesn't > cause harm to others, it is the conscious action of the owner. What is > needed is a moral philosophy that holds individuals responsible for their > actions. That is- blame the people, not the objects. > > I find it odd that the same group that argues for gun control are the > ones who blame gun violence on "society" (movies, TV, music, etc) By > allowing the gun user the cop-out of blaming some one or something other > than himself, the people making this claim are actually creating a > climate in which gun-users have more freedom to act, since they can say > what they didn't wasn't their fault. > > By insisting that gun owners take responsibility for themselves and the > guns in their possession, you foster a social & moral climate in which > bad actions (like shooting people) have bad consequences (like > imprisonment for a long time). > > In this particular case, the parent screwed up and should be held just as > responsible as if she had pulled the trigger herself. To control > violence, place the blame for it on the people performing it, or in the > case of children, on the people responsible for the child. > > D���sir���e- pop rocks and cola don't kill people...

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:O3jv4.3513 > > Then those big, young, seasoned fighters in the street gangs would be able > to do you in without fearing any resistence at all. For them, it would be > easier, not harder. > Teach self-defence classes in school! -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > In article <pPgv4.5163$C4.101542@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > > > Hell, a lot of people (like me) aren't even Christian! > > Back in my heavy-metal rebel days, I used to say that if we were forced > to pray in school, I would demand the right to perform Satanic rituals in > class. That usually shut people up. > > D���sir���e- ex-metalhead LOL :) And I'd demand the right to go into a telepathic trance and speak with the Firstborn <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38BE2F7F.39F4@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > > > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, you've had > > this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime > > > No, in fact it's the cause of the problem. No Steve, *criminals* are the cause of the problem. I have never seen a gun take any willful action of its own. When a gun jumps out of a drawer and shoots someone all by itself, then you can logically claim guns are the problem. Perhaps you should try putting the responsibility for actions on the people who perform such actions. D���sir���e- not a gun nut BTW

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <89m8m8010ia@news1.newsguy.com>, mhantz@micron.net says... > "Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:38BE2F7F.39F4@yahoo.com... > > X-No-Archive: yes > > Thank you. :-) > > It's part of my personality, I feel strongly about certain things and > > I'm not always good at being subtle in expressing myself. > > Passion and subtlety are often mutually exclusive. Or so my past > relationships would seem to indicate. <g> > > > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, you've > had > > > this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime > > > > > > No, in fact it's the cause of the problem. > > Then how is it that there has been a continuing decline in the violent crime > rate (source - Bureau of Justice Statistics) coincident with the > "proliferation of guns in society"? > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm > > > Similarly, do you completely discount the published results of John R. Lott, > which show that in those areas that enact concealed carry laws, the rates of > violent crime actually go down? > > > BTW, I'm not trying to be snotty here. But I do think the statistics belie > your claim. > Steve is concerned with statistics or the idea that guns can be used to defend as well as attack. He has emotional moral indignation on his side and that's all he needs. D���sir���e- emotions make bad moral judgements

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - A Danger To Others (Was Re: :-( - (evilklowwn@aol.comedy)


I was flipping through news channels today..... it seems the shooter in question had a violent history before he ever got hold of a gun; he'd been suspended from school for fighting, and for stabbing a girl with a pencil. My suspension of disbelief, toughened up and tempered by six years of Vger *still* can't comprehend why someone with a history of violent attack was still in a public school until he actually killed someone..... of course, since he's too young to be charged with any sort of crime he may even wind up back in the public school system. Hopefully, he'll get his future murders in while he's still young enough to get away with it. Given his history as a threat to others, at what point do we decide that the rights and safety of the OTHER students requires him to be seperated? Whether or not he can be reformed is a seperate issue, but my own concern is for the other children he may hurt or kill until then- especially with the concerted efforts going into convincing him that he's not responsible for his own actions. The punch line is that the prosecutor's office *will decide* today if any charges will be filed against the (so-called) adults who let him get his hands on a gun. He-Who-Wishes-I-Could-Be-Surprised-By-This "All of our Gods are currently busy with other believers; please hold, your salvation is important to Us. If you are praying for personal gain, pray '1' now....."

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (evilklowwn@aol.comedy)


Masked Man doth write thus: >Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. >Cannot be coincidence: > >> > > > > Dear God, >> > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? >> > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > Concerned Student >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Dear Concerned Student, >> > > > > I am not allowed in schools. >> > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > God The guns and knives students routinely smuggle into school aren't *allowed,* either. Since these schoolchildren are manifestly more powerful than this do-nothing Deity, I honestly believe I'd be much safer in any real-world situation without such a pathetic God on my side. He-Who-Understands-The-Klingons'-Attitudes-Towards-Their-Gods "All of our Gods are currently busy with other believers; please hold, your salvation is important to Us. If you are praying for personal gain, pray '1' now....."

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


saladbar@my-deja.com wrote in message <89m8gl$qse$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... >In article <89lbke$mjj$3@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>, > "Ali Andrews" <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> lurker@home wrote >> > >> >A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if >you >> >do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that >situation, >> >whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. >> > >> >> Yea! And if a kid gets hold of the gun because you don't have it >looked >> away and there is an accident because you keep it loaded - what the >hell! >> At least you knew you could protect yourself in the unlikely event >someone >> came at you with a sledgehammer. >> >> <good grief> >> >> Allie >> x > ><sarcasm> [sarcasm snipped] ></sarcasm> > Yes, we do.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


"Mike. H." wrote: > > "lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message > news:8Vvv4.4353$ql2.34372@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > > > Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE3032.47F3@yahoo.com>... > > >X-No-Archive: yes > <snip God in school thing> > > >What a bunch of fundamentalist horseshit. > > > > You even got the animal right! I'm a Christian, but (or should I say > "so"?) > > this kind of bumper-sticker logic just frosts me. It's cute maybe, but it > > just isn't appropriate. It's like cracking Alzheimers' jokes about > President > > Reagan. > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > 1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > our children the basic principles of learning. I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. Manners and getting along with others should be reinforced, but the bulk should rely on the parents. * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38BE93B0.BE779FBF@pilot.msu.edu>, robins80@pilot.msu.edu says... > "lurker@home" wrote: > > > > > >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop > > >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and > > >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't > > >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. > > > > > True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those ten > > fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it > > would go a long way toward stopping such things. > > If they were posted as something that was religion neutral, that would > be cool. Methinks most major religions have similar laws. I think what > others have said about making people actually responsible for their > actions instead of trying to blame Quake and the "Lethal Weapon" movies > is true. It's too easy for the media and families to point to these > things and say "Here's why this happened." > > * Robinson > remove the "God" aspects of the 10 Commandments and you are generally left with the fundamental principles of human rights: 1, 2, 3, 4 (ignore as they relate specific to YHWH) 5- Honor your parents- "honor" means to demonstrate the appropriate gratitude to. Your parents (or whomever) raised you deserve at least your thanks and honor. 6- You shall not commit murder- this asserts the right to life of every person. Each man's life is his own and cannot be forcibly taken by anyone else. 7- You shall not commit adultery- if you are married, your spouse assumes you are being faithful, if you commit adultery you are not being honest with your spouse and in fact breaking your marriage contract (committing fraud; see 8 below) 8- You shall not steal- This asserts the right to property. Each man's possessions are his own and cannot be forcibly taken by anyone else. 9- You shall not bear false witness against you neighbor- Don't commit fraud or lie about the facts of reality as you know them. 10- Do not covet your neighbor's _________(whatever)- This is sort of the thought precursor to "do not commit adultery" and "don't steal" the final 6 commandments can easily be rewritten as the right to life, the right to liberty & the right to property. These are basic human rights that need to be taught to every human on the planet. D���sir���e- it's all about rights

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( (Voyager Angle) - (Charles Barber <phto@sympatico.ca>)


It would be a interesting storyline to address the fact that access to a Phaser on a Star Ship is no more difficult then obtaining a knife for your meal.. Now that they have all those children on board a crew member might not realize the consequences of leaving a Phaser unattended long enough for someone to "borrow it" for awhile. In the past with no children on board they would be used to leaving a phaser or to unattended because they could trust the other crew members because of their Star Fleet training. Even without the weapons Kids being Kids could be tempted to explore parts of the ship that could be kind of dangerous. > From: "Ali Andrews" <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> > Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange > Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.voyager > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:14:48 -0000 > Subject: Re: :-( > > > lurker@home wrote >> >> A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you >> do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, >> whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. >> > > Yea! And if a kid gets hold of the gun because you don't have it looked > away and there is an accident because you keep it loaded - what the hell! > At least you knew you could protect yourself in the unlikely event someone > came at you with a sledgehammer. > > <good grief> > > Allie > x > > > >

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:48:57 GMT, saladbar@my-deja.com wrote: | do we |have a deal? MM--->No. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <8Uqv4.1225$SV6.26386@news3.cableinet.net>, lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk says... > > "D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.13275c10768a67829896e3@news.csulb.edu... > > In article <4bfv4.5000$C4.99992@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > > > . > > By insisting that gun owners take responsibility for themselves and the > > guns in their possession, you foster a social & moral climate in which > > bad actions (like shooting people) have bad consequences (like > > imprisonment for a long time). > > This to me, is the crux of the matter, if licenses were not given out so > easily and there were far tougher guidelines as to who was eligible for a > licence then maybe these sort of people would not be owning guns. > > > > > In this particular case, the parent screwed up and should be held just as > > responsible as if she had pulled the trigger herself. To control > > violence, place the blame for it on the people performing it, or in the > > case of children, on the people responsible for the child. > > Absolutely, the parents are 100% to blame for this child and society is to > blame for allowing these people to be raising this child and owning guns as > well. Except there is no "society" you can blame. "Society" as a collective entity cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals. That woman made a choice to have a child. With that choice comes responsibility to raise that child as a member of society and she abrogated that responsibility it is nobody's fault but her own. Unless you wish to argue that "society" has some right to dictate who can have children, and that, to me, is a scary proposition no matter how well intentioned it may be. D���sir���e- guns+children=dead children but guns+children+responsible parents=protected children

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38BE2F7F.39F4@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > Thank you. :-) > It's part of my personality, I feel strongly about certain things and > I'm not always good at being subtle in expressing myself. Passion and subtlety are often mutually exclusive. Or so my past relationships would seem to indicate. <g> > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, you've had > > this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime > > > No, in fact it's the cause of the problem. Then how is it that there has been a continuing decline in the violent crime rate (source - Bureau of Justice Statistics) coincident with the "proliferation of guns in society"? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm Similarly, do you completely discount the published results of John R. Lott, which show that in those areas that enact concealed carry laws, the rates of violent crime actually go down? BTW, I'm not trying to be snotty here. But I do think the statistics belie your claim.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:Klpv4.1178$SV6.24677@news3.cableinet.net... > > "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > news:89jlme01q3l@news1.newsguy.com... > > "Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:Eibv4.11$LU6.730@news3.cableinet.net... > > > > > I know we've had this conversation before, but I still cannot comprehend > > > why a society feels the need for all its people to have guns. > > > > All of the people do not have guns. > > No, but all adults have the right and the ability to get them, we do not. There are certain restrictions on adults having the right and the ability to get guns. Truthfully, they do not seem to be very well enforced. But generally speaking, you are correct. It's simply a difference in our culture. > > Most people do have a healthy respect for guns. Unfortunately, there are > > far too many who do not. The result is a continuation of this type of tragedy. > > But this is my argument, these people are showing a real lack of maturity > and therefore should never be allowed to have a gun. There should be no > grey areas. But how can you test reliably for maturity? Heck, can anyone even agree on what threshold of "maturity" must be reached in order for someone to possess a gun? It's very difficult. Circumstances change (for instance, a gun may have been in the household prior to a divorce, or drug problem). > > I partially agree. They certainly should never be left lying around loaded > > when there are children in the house. But what about gun owners who don't > > have children? Or the woman living alone in a bad neighborhood? Having it > > within easy reach can mean all the difference between life and death. > > Whether they have children or not a gun is not something that just lies > around. I dont know whether this comes down to cultural difference or not, Partly, I think, it does. Much to our dismay, the US is a more violent society. I can't say as to why, but I thik John McCain's statement last night is probably correct. Paraphrasing here, he basically said that we as a society expose our children to negative influences from the earliest age. > but I cannot comprehend the need to have a gun around me. I know there are > people here who will disagree and I know from first hand experience why they > disagree, but I do not believe that the majority of US citizens need a gun > to defend themselves. I don't think it is so much about "need", but rather a desire to exercise freedom of choice. It's a basic right in this country for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Who are we (or the Government) to dictate to the individual how they exercise that right? Are there negative consequences? Absolutely. You would be an idiot to deny that. However, it's a price we pay for living in a free society. Has that price become too high? I guess that's why we're engaging in discussion. > > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, > > > > Some see it a right, some see it as a basic liberty and are exercising > > freedom of choice, some see it as a mechanism for the right to protect > > oneself and their families, some see it as a means to engage in sport, > etc. > > Wanting something does not make it a right, Oh, I never said that it was. I was just trying to provide a few reasons on why people who believe strongly in gun ownership, do so. >whilst some people may see it as > a necessity I think you need far stricter guidelines and to be far more > selective as to who you hand them out to. I agree. There are many things I would support, such as closing all purchasing loopholes, 24 hour waiting periods and standardized background checks. Banning all guns or registration of all guns I would not, however. > > >or is everyone > > > so immune to it that you cannot see a way forward until these sort of > > > tragedies happen. > > > > I don't think people are necessarily immune to it. Lot's of us just are > > not > > in agreement on how we should go about preventing future tragedies, while > > retaining freedom of choice. > > You may not be able to legislate against evil which will always find its own > way to do harm, but you can certainly make a difference as to how many > accidents happen. Yes. Which is why I promote absolute personal responsibilty for what happens with someone's gun while it is in their control. If there were direct consequences, then maybe people wouldn't be so careless. > At some point somebody has to take responsibility and > question just what people really do have a "right" to. OK, fair enough. > > > shooting" I was sad, but unfortunately no longer shocked by it. When > > > does it reach the point when you say enough is enough. > > > > I would say when you are no longer shocked by it. > > Which unfortunately people no longer are. Speaking only for myself, when I read that a first grader killed another first grader I was completely shocked.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:8Vvv4.4353$ql2.34372@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE3032.47F3@yahoo.com>... > >X-No-Archive: yes <snip God in school thing> > >What a bunch of fundamentalist horseshit. > > You even got the animal right! I'm a Christian, but (or should I say "so"?) > this kind of bumper-sticker logic just frosts me. It's cute maybe, but it > just isn't appropriate. It's like cracking Alzheimers' jokes about President > Reagan. I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a 1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving our children the basic principles of learning.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Ali Andrews wrote in message <89lbke$mjj$3@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>... > >lurker@home wrote >> >>A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you >>do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, >>whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. >> > >Yea! And if a kid gets hold of the gun because you don't have it looked >away and there is an accident because you keep it loaded - what the hell! >At least you knew you could protect yourself in the unlikely event someone >came at you with a sledgehammer. > Don't do strawmen on me, Ali, it's insulting. I think Lurker's earned better than that. Of course a gun I owned would be locked up, with the ammunition kept separate, when my children were of an age when they wouldn't have sense about it. What I'm saying here is that you have to do the things that give you the best chance. Leaving loaded guns around a house where children play is stupid, and of course I would never do something like that. If one of my kids had the kind of problems this kid apparently has, I would never consider owning a weapon of any kind, even a slingshot. You have to figure what's appropriate for your own family and do it.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Lisa wrote in message ... > >"lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message >news:kYiv4.3367$ql2.24396@typhoon.we.rr.com... >> >> Lisa wrote in message ... >> > >> >"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message >> >news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... >> >> "Mike. H." wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed >> >owned >> >> > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then >they >> >> > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I don't know the full details, but apparently the gun was stolen. I >> >> don't know if the kid stole it or his guardian. >> > >> >I dont know about in the States, but over here no gun is allowed to be >kept >> >out of a locked gun cabinet which has to be to a specific standard and >> >inspected by the police before a gun license is issued. >> > >> >> >> ........which works well in an environment where criminals give you a >couple >> of minutes' warning before they sledgehammer your front door and rush >> inside. Then you ample time to find your key, unlock the cabinet, get the >> other key and unlock the gun case or trigger lock, look up the ammunition >> supply you keep in a separate place for safety, and load that baby up..... > >I really do understand that, but is there really that much type of crime >that happens. I would love to know the ratio between accidental shootings >and those which have genuinely stopped crime.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message ... >lurker@home <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message >news:C0jv4.3453$ql2.24517@typhoon.we.rr.com... >> >> Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BD3CF1.CC16541C@pilot.msu.edu>... >> >Masked Man wrote: >> >> >> >> On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> >> |> >> >> |>*sigh* >> >> | >> >> |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow >a >> child >> >> |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. >> >> | >> >> |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( >> >> | >> >> |Thena >> >> >> >> Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. >> >> Cannot be coincidence: >> >> >> >> > > > > > Dear God, >> >> > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, >Colorado? >> >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > > > Concerned Student >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, >> >> > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. >> >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > > > God >> >> > > > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Who was that masked man? >> > >> >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop >> >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and >> >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't >> >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. >> > >> True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those ten >> fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it >> would go a long way toward stopping such things. > >It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or >universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when >they act like that? > Dat be so.........I'm all for anything that's a civilizing influence, and four of the world's great religions recognize those ten precepts as central to civilization.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Lisa wrote in message ... > >"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message >news:IUlv4.83083$ox5.22282851@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... >> lurker@home <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message >> news:C0jv4.3453$ql2.24517@typhoon.we.rr.com... >> > >> > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BD3CF1.CC16541C@pilot.msu.edu>... >> > >Masked Man wrote: >> > >> >> > >> On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> > >> |> >> > >> |>*sigh* >> > >> | >> > >> |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could >allow >> a >> > child >> > >> |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. >> > >> | >> > >> |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( >> > >> | >> > >> |Thena >> > >> >> > >> Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. >> > >> Cannot be coincidence: >> > >> >> > >> > > > > > Dear God, >> > >> > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, >> Colorado? >> > >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > >> > > > > > Concerned Student >> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... >> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, >> > >> > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. >> > >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > >> > > > > > God >> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Who was that masked man? >> > > >> > >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop >> > >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and >> > >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't >> > >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. >> > > >> > True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those >ten >> > fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it >> > would go a long way toward stopping such things. >> >> It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards >or >> universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when >> they act like that? >> > > >My two favourite words are "personal responsibility" and unfortunately not >enough parents use them themselves or even dare to suggest it to their >children. Our actions have consequences that we must be responsible for and >children should learn this from babyhood. > Amen! Watchoo sed!

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE001D.2A46@yahoo.com>... >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >lurker@home wrote: >> >> >> Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please >> >write a >> >> law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a >> >large >> >> affect on crime. >> >> Bob >> > >> >Stolen by whom, the seven year old? Stolen from whom? The point of the >> >problem is access. How does a seven year old gain access to a handgun? >> > >> >> It's easy if he lives in a crack house. He just goes over and picks it up >> off his stoned-ass mother's lap. > > >So legalize drugs: then his mother can be treated as having a medical >problem and actually be cured, instead of the current stupidity of >criminalizing drugs so she's tossed in jail. Also get rid of guns, so >there's no weapon for the kid to pick up. A gun in my own hands saved my bones when I was not much older than that kid. Whoever it was in our house, went out through my sister's bedroom window. Something like that will make a believer of you.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... [Great stuff snipped] The house next door to mine is going on the market.......would you PLEASE buy it.............?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Lisa wrote: > > > I know we've had this conversation before, but I still cannot comprehend why > a society feels the need for all its people to have guns. I know if you are > evil enough or determined enough you would always find a way to harm > someone, but these things are so dangerous and unfortunately a snip- > Lisa Lisa. In many ways I agree with you, in others I disagree. Beyond that, I want to ask you a simple question (the answer will NOT be simple). Please provide a method of getting rid of the guns in the USA. There are between 250 and 300 MILLION guns in America. Please tell us how to get rid of them. Even more important, how do we do that, taking the illegal guns held by criminals and the insane FIRST, so that the general public is not put at the mercy of armed criminals first. ALSO, please tell us how to get the police to protect the threatened. Right now, the Police can do nothing until a crime has been committed, and even then, do nothing. Case in point, (AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS, but rather as an example of police attitudes) on Oct 1, 1998, somebody broke out the window of my van, in my driveway, and stole about $5,000 of merchandise from me. I reported it to the police. They wouldn't even come to my house to look and make a report, much less send somebody out to take fingerprints. If they cannot do that little bit, what do you think they can do about protecting citizens? Bob

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Laura Ware wrote: > Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:38BD2D5B.F6B1FCEC@ix.netcom.com... > > You should read the article in today's newspaper about the kids family. > The > > boys father is serving time in the country jail, and the mother is living > with > > a man referred to as an uncle. The gun used had been reported as stolen > in > > December. The police searched the home and found another stolen gun, a 12 > > gauge shotgun. Marvelous environment for a child. > > Bob > > Ohhhh......some people should not be allowed to be parents.... Although I agree with the sentiment, how does a free society enforce that. The last society on this planet that decided who should or should not be parents (Sterilization by State Order) was headed by a certain ex-corporal from Austria.) Bob

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


BTS wrote: > > > > Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please > write a > > law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a > large > > affect on crime. > > Bob > > Stolen by whom, the seven year old? Stolen from whom? The point of the > problem is access. How does a seven year old gain access to a handgun? By having a father in jail. By having the mother living with an "uncle" with a dubious past. By living in a house where, when searched by police, found a stolen shotgun. (to big for a 6 year old to handle). People who steal guns usually aren't to gun conscious with kids. You'll find the entire story in the news. You might want to read it before commenting. Bob

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE3032.47F3@yahoo.com>... >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >Masked Man wrote: >> >> On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) >> wrote: >> >> |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> |> >> |>*sigh* >> | >> |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child >> |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. >> | >> |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( >> | >> |Thena >> >> Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. >> Cannot be coincidence: >> >> > > > > > Dear God, >> > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > Concerned Student >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, >> > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > God >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > > > >What a bunch of fundamentalist horseshit. You even got the animal right! I'm a Christian, but (or should I say "so"?) this kind of bumper-sticker logic just frosts me. It's cute maybe, but it just isn't appropriate. It's like cracking Alzheimers' jokes about President Reagan.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


"D�sir�e Davis" wrote: > > In article <pPgv4.5163$C4.101542@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > "Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message... > > > > > > > I agree here. I wouldn't mind the whole prayer in school thing if it > > > weren't for the fact that the religion used would be Catholicism and not > > > everyone follows that religion. > > > > > > > Hell, a lot of people (like me) aren't even Christian! > > Back in my heavy-metal rebel days, I used to say that if we were forced > to pray in school, I would demand the right to perform Satanic rituals in > class. That usually shut people up. > I like that. You're pretty cool! * Robinson > D�sir�e- ex-metalhead -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38BE85D3.770B5B86@ix.netcom.com... > > > Lisa wrote: > > > > > > > I know we've had this conversation before, but I still cannot comprehend why > > a society feels the need for all its people to have guns. I know if you are > > evil enough or determined enough you would always find a way to harm > > someone, but these things are so dangerous and unfortunately a > > snip- > > > Lisa > > Lisa. > In many ways I agree with you, in others I disagree. Beyond that, I want to ask > you a simple question (the answer will NOT be simple). > > Please provide a method of getting rid of the guns in the USA. There are > between 250 and 300 MILLION guns in America. Please tell us how to get rid of > them. Even more important, how do we do that, taking the illegal guns held by > criminals and the insane FIRST, so that the general public is not put at the > mercy of armed criminals first. ALSO, please tell us how to get the police to > protect the threatened. Right now, the Police can do nothing until a crime has > been committed, and even then, do nothing. Case in point, (AND THIS HAS NOTHING > TO DO WITH GUNS, but rather as an example of police attitudes) on Oct 1, 1998, > somebody broke out the window of my van, in my driveway, and stole about $5,000 > of merchandise from me. I reported it to the police. They wouldn't even come > to my house to look and make a report, much less send somebody out to take > fingerprints. If they cannot do that little bit, what do you think they can do > about protecting citizens? First and foremost Bob before you start taking guns away from people you gotta stop giving them out for anything other than very valid reasons. It is such a massive thing that it will take years to resolve, but unless you find a starting place it will never happen. I hate to bring it up, but look at Dunblane and how quickly these guns were removed, IIRC it happened within months. I realise how much bigger the states is, but if each state is individually responsible for itself then the problem becomes smaller (please dont laugh at my small town attitude, I have no real idea of how large your country is or how it is governed <g>) I'm afraid your police really need to buck their ideas up big time, because yes it is possible to take guns from the criminals and the insane, I'm quite sure the police know exactly who they are it is just whether they have the guts and the back up to forcibly retrieve the arms. Everyone needs to make a stand. As for the police apathy I'm afraid that just isn't your country alone, what you experienced has happened to many of us, myself included, what the answer to that one is I dont know. What I do know though is that guns are not the answer, no matter how you try to justify it and rationalise it you will never convince me that they are a way forward for society. The issues are larger, but until people stop faffing around and start to stop it then it will never happen. We learnt alot from what happened at Dunblane and I just dont understand what it will take for your country to do the same :-( -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


"lurker@home" wrote: > > > >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop > >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and > >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't > >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. > > > True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those ten > fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it > would go a long way toward stopping such things. If they were posted as something that was religion neutral, that would be cool. Methinks most major religions have similar laws. I think what others have said about making people actually responsible for their actions instead of trying to blame Quake and the "Lethal Weapon" movies is true. It's too easy for the media and families to point to these things and say "Here's why this happened." * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


"lurker@home" wrote: > >It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or > >universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when > >they act like that? > > > Dat be so.........I'm all for anything that's a civilizing influence, and > four of the world's great religions recognize those ten precepts as central > to civilization. I agree here, I just don't like the tendency for folks that want prayer in schools and posting the ten commandments to foster the Roman Catholic faith and try to ignore the others. * Robinson -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu>)


Brian Barjenbruch wrote: > > > I agree here, I just don't like the tendency for folks that want prayer > > in schools and posting the ten commandments to foster the Roman Catholic > > faith and try to ignore the others. > > How are they doing that? > > (FWIW, I'm Lutheran, and I haven't noticed any overt Catholicism in > this sort of thing, so far) > I can't back it up, it's just seems that the far right is more Catholic (they could be Protestant, I'm not sure) and they are the ones you hear calling for such things. Now maybe if a coalition of religious leaders of the major religions practiced in the U.S. called for it, I'd feel better. * Robinson > -- > "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery." > - Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- "No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime orders of the Empire." -- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:gCuv4.4311$ql2.34202@typhoon.we.rr.com... <<snip>> > >> A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you > >> do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that > situation, > >> whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. > > > >Is the world really this bad? > > Lordy I hope not, but when it does turn bad, it's a good idea not to be > completely helpless. > > I understand the principle behind what you're saying, but where does it end, when everyone has got a gun? So someone goes and gets a bigger and better gun, so everybody then wants this, does it then reach the point where not only people have guns in their home but carry them with them all the time. Did you ever see that Michael Douglas film, I cant remember the name, where he is having a really bad day and just flips? The thing that scared me so much about that film is that it could have been me, you or anybody, we've all had days like that where everything has got to us and it only takes one more thing, no matter how small to push us over the edge. The repercussions from doing things in the heat of the moment can be enormous, I would just prefer that guns dont come into this equation.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (saladbar@my-deja.com)


In article <89lbke$mjj$3@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>, "Ali Andrews" <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > lurker@home wrote > > > >A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you > >do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, > >whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. > > > > Yea! And if a kid gets hold of the gun because you don't have it looked > away and there is an accident because you keep it loaded - what the hell! > At least you knew you could protect yourself in the unlikely event someone > came at you with a sledgehammer. > > <good grief> > > Allie > x <sarcasm> and of course we all know the latter is a more likely scenario! </sarcasm> -- saladbar Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (saladbar@my-deja.com)


In article <38bc5b04.10231055@news.mindspring.com>, OK, you can bring your God into the public schools if others can bring their Goddess, or Alah, the Discordians can bring Eris, and the rational Satanists can bring their Bringer of Free Will into the schools. do we have a deal? -- saladbar > > Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. > Cannot be coincidence: > > > > > > > Dear God, > > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Concerned Student > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, > > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > God > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Who was that masked man? > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com>)


I suspect a bit of sarcasm sailed right over your head on that last post, Bob... GeneK Helen & Bob wrote: > > Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please write a > law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a large > affect on crime.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:89jlme01q3l@news1.newsguy.com... > "Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:Eibv4.11$LU6.730@news3.cableinet.net... > > > I know we've had this conversation before, but I still cannot comprehend > why > > a society feels the need for all its people to have guns. > > All of the people do not have guns. No, but all adults have the right and the ability to get them, we do not. > > > I know if you are > > evil enough or determined enough you would always find a way to harm > > someone, > > Very true. > > >but these things are so dangerous and unfortunately as a society > > you seem to have no respect for them at all. > > Most people do have a healthy respect for guns. Unfortunately, there are far > too many who do not. The result is a continuation of this type of tragedy. But this is my argument, these people are showing a real lack of maturity and therefore should never be allowed to have a gun. There should be no grey areas. > > > A gun should never be left > > where it can be found and it should be incredibly difficult to steal, they > > certainly are here. > > I partially agree. They certainly should never be left lying around loaded > when there are children in the house. But what about gun owners who don't > have children? Or the woman living alone in a bad neighborhood? Having it > within easy reach can mean all the difference between life and death. Whether they have children or not a gun is not something that just lies around. I dont know whether this comes down to cultural difference or not, but I cannot comprehend the need to have a gun around me. I know there are people here who will disagree and I know from first hand experience why they disagree, but I do not believe that the majority of US citizens need a gun to defend themselves. > > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, > > Some see it a right, some see it as a basic liberty and are exercising > freedom of choice, some see it as a mechanism for the right to protect > oneself and their families, some see it as a means to engage in sport, etc. Wanting something does not make it a right, whilst some people may see it as a necessity I think you need far stricter guidelines and to be far more selective as to who you hand them out to. > > >you've had this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime > > Actually, yes it has. > > >or is everyone > > so immune to it that you cannot see a way forward until these sort of > > tragedies happen. > > I don't think people are necessarily immune to it. Lot's of us just are not > in agreement on how we should go about preventing future tragedies, while > retaining freedom of choice. You may not be able to legislate against evil which will always find its own way to do harm, but you can certainly make a difference as to how many accidents happen. At some point somebody has to take responsibility and question just what people really do have a "right" to. > > > What I found really, really sad yesterday was my immediate reaction when I > > put the news on. If I am honest my first thought was "Oh another school > > shooting" I was sad, but unfortunately no longer shocked by it. When > does > > it reach the point when you say enough is enough. > > I would say when you are no longer shocked by it. Which unfortunately people no longer are. Lisa

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ali Andrews <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk>)


lurker@home wrote > >A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you >do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, >whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. > Yea! And if a kid gets hold of the gun because you don't have it looked away and there is an accident because you keep it loaded - what the hell! At least you knew you could protect yourself in the unlikely event someone came at you with a sledgehammer. <good grief> Allie x

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:VZiv4.3412$ql2.24517@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > Lisa wrote in message ... > > > >"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message > >news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... > > > ><<SNIP> > >> > >> I think it's the tendency of today's parents to plop their kids in front > >> of the TV and wander off. > > > >*looks around guiltily at her children in front of the tv, watching > Pokemon, > >while she reads the ng* > > > > > > > I'd bet my next paycheck that you're a GREAT mom! > > Thanks:-) Not too sure the kids would agree this morning though <g>

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:IUlv4.83083$ox5.22282851@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > lurker@home <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message > news:C0jv4.3453$ql2.24517@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BD3CF1.CC16541C@pilot.msu.edu>... > > >Masked Man wrote: > > >> > > >> On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > >> |> > > >> |>*sigh* > > >> | > > >> |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow > a > > child > > >> |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. > > >> | > > >> |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( > > >> | > > >> |Thena > > >> > > >> Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. > > >> Cannot be coincidence: > > >> > > >> > > > > > Dear God, > > >> > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, > Colorado? > > >> > > > > > Sincerely, > > >> > > > > > Concerned Student > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, > > >> > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. > > >> > > > > > Sincerely, > > >> > > > > > God > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Who was that masked man? > > > > > >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop > > >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and > > >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't > > >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. > > > > > True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those ten > > fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it > > would go a long way toward stopping such things. > > It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or > universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when > they act like that? > My two favourite words are "personal responsibility" and unfortunately not enough parents use them themselves or even dare to suggest it to their children. Our actions have consequences that we must be responsible for and children should learn this from babyhood. -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.13275c10768a67829896e3@news.csulb.edu... > In article <4bfv4.5000$C4.99992@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > . > By insisting that gun owners take responsibility for themselves and the > guns in their possession, you foster a social & moral climate in which > bad actions (like shooting people) have bad consequences (like > imprisonment for a long time). This to me, is the crux of the matter, if licenses were not given out so easily and there were far tougher guidelines as to who was eligible for a licence then maybe these sort of people would not be owning guns. > > In this particular case, the parent screwed up and should be held just as > responsible as if she had pulled the trigger herself. To control > violence, place the blame for it on the people performing it, or in the > case of children, on the people responsible for the child. Absolutely, the parents are 100% to blame for this child and society is to blame for allowing these people to be raising this child and owning guns as well. Lisa

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:kYiv4.3367$ql2.24396@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > Lisa wrote in message ... > > > >"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message > >news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... > >> "Mike. H." wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed > >owned > >> > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they > >> > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. > >> > > >> > >> I don't know the full details, but apparently the gun was stolen. I > >> don't know if the kid stole it or his guardian. > > > >I dont know about in the States, but over here no gun is allowed to be kept > >out of a locked gun cabinet which has to be to a specific standard and > >inspected by the police before a gun license is issued. > > > > > ........which works well in an environment where criminals give you a couple > of minutes' warning before they sledgehammer your front door and rush > inside. Then you ample time to find your key, unlock the cabinet, get the > other key and unlock the gun case or trigger lock, look up the ammunition > supply you keep in a separate place for safety, and load that baby up..... I really do understand that, but is there really that much type of crime that happens. I would love to know the ratio between accidental shootings and those which have genuinely stopped crime. Please dont get me wrong here, my husband owns guns and I have absolutely nothing against them per se, what I do object to though is the careless and cavalier manner that alot of people in the States seem to treat their guns. My children have no idea where our guns are kept and have probably only ever seen them a handful of times. > > A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you > do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, > whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. Is the world really this bad? -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love" > >

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38BE2F7F.39F4@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > Lisa wrote: > > > > > > I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but > > all > > > > I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. > > > > > > > > > That's because you're sensible enough to see the truth, and not be > > > distracted by the twaddle spat out by gun nuts in this country. > > > > > > [Am I ranting again?] > > > > You're lovely when you rant! > > > Thank you. :-) > It's part of my personality, I feel strongly about certain things and > I'm not always good at being subtle in expressing myself. LOL, subtle certainly isnt one word I would use to describe you<g>, but I genuinely love your ability to say what you think without pussyfooting around in case someone takes it the wrong way. > > > or is everyone > > so immune to it that you cannot see a way forward until these sort of > > tragedies happen. > > > Unfortunately we've become very immune over here. :-( Peter didnt even know it had happened and when I told him last night his first comment was "oh another one" which says it all. -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


lurker@home <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:C0jv4.3453$ql2.24517@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BD3CF1.CC16541C@pilot.msu.edu>... > >Masked Man wrote: > >> > >> On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) > >> wrote: > >> > >> |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >> |> > >> |>*sigh* > >> | > >> |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a > child > >> |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. > >> | > >> |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( > >> | > >> |Thena > >> > >> Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. > >> Cannot be coincidence: > >> > >> > > > > > Dear God, > >> > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? > >> > > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > > Concerned Student > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, > >> > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. > >> > > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > > God > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Who was that masked man? > > > >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop > >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and > >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't > >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. > > > True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those ten > fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it > would go a long way toward stopping such things. It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when they act like that?

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (BTS <deletethisbstevens@usxchange.net>)


Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article > Steve Christianson wrote: > > X-No-Archive: yes > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: > > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > > > > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > > > That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have > > > access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and > > > the shouting, but really! > > Hey! It's our God given right in the U.S. to own a hangun, rifle, > > shotgun, machine gun, derringer, cannon, howitzer, grenade launcher > > and/or MX missile. It's called the Second Amendment pal (even > > if...er...it became part of the Constitution back when all people had > > were single shot Kentucky long rifles at best, which you really needed > > on the frontier to protect yourself from animals or Indians, but never > > mind...), and don't you Brits forget it!! > Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please write a > law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a large > affect on crime. > Bob Stolen by whom, the seven year old? Stolen from whom? The point of the problem is access. How does a seven year old gain access to a handgun? -- later... b.t.s. occassionally, I'm callous and strange - btvs

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Ali Andrews wrote in message <89iqp0$cep$4@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>... > >Lisa wrote > >>I cant believe that anyone would let a 7 year old child have access to a >gun >>of any description. I am absolutely baffled as to why this child could >have >>done this:-( > >IMO anyone that allows a 7 year old access to a gun should be locked up! > >This is an awful tragedy. > >I know the issue of gun ownership is a complicated and emotive one but all >I can see is less guns = less accidents like this one. > And more than 2 million crimes each year that maybe don't get stopped by people who are able to protect themselves when the bad guys come for them. Like everything else, it's a trade-off. If guns are around, there will be negligent idiots who fail to see the evil in their own children and take the necessary steps to keep them from becoming a danger, and other negligent idiots who leave loaded weapons lying around. There will also be more people who are able to keep themselves from becoming victims. I hate having that be the choice, but nonetheless, it is the choice. It does nothing to assuage the pain of this awful event, but we can take a little comfort from knowing that for every tragedy like this one, there are literally thousands of tragedies that don't happen because otherwise helpless citizens were able to protect themselves from robbery, rape, murder or violent assault. Last week those of us lucky enough to have news sources that actually publish such things, read about an old man who saved himself from an armed intruder by shooting the guy with a gun he'd owned for years but never used.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Helen & Bob wrote in message <38BD2E4C.C1F33259@ix.netcom.com>... > > >Steve Christianson wrote: > >> X-No-Archive: yes >> >> EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: >> > >> > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... >> > > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> > > >> > > *sigh* >> > > >> > >> > That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids have >> > access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language and >> > the shouting, but really! >> >> Hey! It's our God given right in the U.S. to own a hangun, rifle, >> shotgun, machine gun, derringer, cannon, howitzer, grenade launcher >> and/or MX missile. It's called the Second Amendment pal (even >> if...er...it became part of the Constitution back when all people had >> were single shot Kentucky long rifles at best, which you really needed >> on the frontier to protect yourself from animals or Indians, but never >> mind...), and don't you Brits forget it!! >> >> > >Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please write a >law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a large >affect on crime. >Bob > The real tragedy here is being ignored by the media, and by this group. That kid has been growing up in a crack house, surrounded by drugs, criminals and violence. His father is in jail. If we want to write a new law that would prevent this kind of thing, let's make it a law that lets us rip kids out of homes like that, away from the parents from whom they are learning to be animals capable of murder at the age of seven. My parents bought me a gun when I was eight years old. In all the time I owned it, it never once leapt out of the closet and attacked anyone, although it did scare an intruder away from our home one Saturday when my parents were shopping and I was alone with my sister and a neighbor's daughter. I hate to think what might have happened if I hadn't had it, but I can think of multiple scenarios.The difference here is that my parents gave a rat's ass about me, carefully taught me what a gun was for and NOT for, and made sure I remembered it.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Lisa wrote in message ... > >"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message >news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... >> "Mike. H." wrote: >> > >> > >> > I haven't seen the specifics of this case, but if this gun was indeed >owned >> > by the parents (and there is no reason to believe otherwise), then they >> > should be held partly (if not totally) responsible. >> > >> >> I don't know the full details, but apparently the gun was stolen. I >> don't know if the kid stole it or his guardian. > >I dont know about in the States, but over here no gun is allowed to be kept >out of a locked gun cabinet which has to be to a specific standard and >inspected by the police before a gun license is issued. > ........which works well in an environment where criminals give you a couple of minutes' warning before they sledgehammer your front door and rush inside. Then you ample time to find your key, unlock the cabinet, get the other key and unlock the gun case or trigger lock, look up the ammunition supply you keep in a separate place for safety, and load that baby up..... A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, whatever slows your response time, shortens your life.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Lisa wrote in message ... > >"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message >news:38BD3B69.14E50B7B@pilot.msu.edu... > ><<SNIP> >> >> I think it's the tendency of today's parents to plop their kids in front >> of the TV and wander off. > >*looks around guiltily at her children in front of the tv, watching Pokemon, >while she reads the ng* > > I'd bet my next paycheck that you're a GREAT mom!

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Michael Robinson wrote in message <38BD3CF1.CC16541C@pilot.msu.edu>... >Masked Man wrote: >> >> On 29 Feb 2000 22:45:36 GMT, athena7843@aol.comno.spam. (Athena7843) >> wrote: >> >> |>Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... >> |> >> |>*sigh* >> | >> |That is just so messed up. I don't understand how someone could allow a child >> |such access to a gun, let alone why that kid shot her. >> | >> |Somedays, the world is just too damn depressing. :( >> | >> |Thena >> >> Masked Man---->This email came the same day as Ta's and Thena's post. >> Cannot be coincidence: >> >> > > > > > Dear God, >> > > > > > Why didn't you save the school children in Littleton, Colorado? >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > Concerned Student >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> >AND THE REPLY... >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Dear Concerned Student, >> > > > > > I am not allowed in schools. >> > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > God >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> >Pass it on........ >> > > > >> > > > >> >> -- >> >> Who was that masked man? > >I sincerely doubt having the ten commandments posted is going to stop >this from happening. We need people to pay attention to students and >try to help them when they show signs of trouble. That probably won't >catch every potential problem, but it's a step in the right direction. > True enough. BUT -- if we lived in a social environment in which those ten fundamentals could be posted without anyone "taking offense" at them, it would go a long way toward stopping such things.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (evilklowwn@aol.comedy)


BTS doth write thus: >Stolen by whom, the seven year old? Stolen from whom? The point of the >problem is access. How does a seven year old gain access to a handgun? By coming from an inbred pig-ignorant family that has *NO* business breeding. Fortunately our society has enough experience with such shootings that public and private forces are already hard at work looking to blame socety, TV, junk food, the Mars Polar Lander, Ann Landers.... *anything* to avoid the tragedy of actually blaming the brat who pulled the trigger. Fortunately until a diffuse-enough scapegoat is found, the boy will be protected from any taint of responsibility and is already well on his way to the very apex of modern American society: Victimhood. Outpourings of sympathy for how badly he must feel have already begun, and no doubt by the time his parents/guardians sign his first book deal he'll be enrolled in a 12-step program to help people get over the trauma of shooting people like that. He-Who-Is-Not-Being-Sarcastic-(Enough) "All of our Gods are currently busy with other believers; please hold, your salvation is important to Us. If you are praying for personal gain, pray '1' now....."

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message <4bfv4.5000$C4.99992@nnrp4.clara.net>... >"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message... >> X-No-Archive: yes >> >> Hey! It's our God given right in the U.S. to own a hangun, rifle, >> shotgun, machine gun, derringer, cannon, howitzer, grenade launcher >> and/or MX missile. It's called the Second Amendment pal (even >> if...er...it became part of the Constitution back when all people had >> were single shot Kentucky long rifles at best, which you really needed >> on the frontier to protect yourself from animals or Indians, but never >> mind...), and don't you Brits forget it!! >> > >It's a right for ADULTS to own guns. Allowing SIX-YEAR-OLD KIDS to get their >hands on them is just SO FUCKING STUPID. > >And in my opinion all guns should be destroyed. Then people might think >twice before killing someone, because it wouldn't be quite so easy. > Then those big, young, seasoned fighters in the street gangs would be able to do you in without fearing any resistence at all. For them, it would be easier, not harder.

2000-03-02 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


BTS wrote in message <01bf83da$de59cec0$9fe72fd8@bs>... > > >Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article >> Steve Christianson wrote: >> > X-No-Archive: yes >> > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: >> > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > >> > > > Just saw on the news a 7-yo kid shot a 6 yo girl in school.... > >> > > That is disgusting... what kind of world is this where little kids >have >> > > access to HANDGUNS??? I mean, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Sorry for the language >and >> > > the shouting, but really! > >> > Hey! It's our God given right in the U.S. to own a hangun, rifle, >> > shotgun, machine gun, derringer, cannon, howitzer, grenade launcher >> > and/or MX missile. It's called the Second Amendment pal (even >> > if...er...it became part of the Constitution back when all people had >> > were single shot Kentucky long rifles at best, which you really needed >> > on the frontier to protect yourself from animals or Indians, but never >> > mind...), and don't you Brits forget it!! > >> Steve. The kid used a weapon reported as stolen in December. Please >write a >> law making the use of a stolen weapon illegal. I am sure it will have a >large >> affect on crime. >> Bob > >Stolen by whom, the seven year old? Stolen from whom? The point of the >problem is access. How does a seven year old gain access to a handgun? > It's easy if he lives in a crack house. He just goes over and picks it up off his stoned-ass mother's lap.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38c22fbc.1073776@news.mindspring.com>, kemosabe@skyenet.net says... > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:35:56 -0800, HBeachBabe@yahoo.com (D���sir���e > Davis) wrote: > > |Exactly. We have come to accept the very destructive doctrine of > |relative morality. We accept immorality in the guise of "different > |culture" or "independence" or just shrug and say "who are we to tell > |someone else what to do" and yet this mentality fosters an attitude of > |non-responsibility. If there is no absolute moral standard, then *any* > |action can be defended as moral. Even shooting a 6 year old girl. > | > |D���sir���e- Absolutely > > Masked Man---->D���sir���e, I'm trying very hard to be angry with you, but > you make it impossible when you post stuff like this. I begin to > think I dont understand you at all....<g> > I'll make it easy- I believe in the absolute right to life, the absolute right to liberty and the absolute right to property. What these mean is this: life: no one has the right to take or attempt to take the life of anyone else or cause physical harm/pain to anyone else. liberty: no one has the right to enslave or in any way limit the actions, movement or speech of anyone else except to prevent the person from violate one of these rights. property: no one has the right to make any claims of ownership on anyone else's time, money, body or property. These three rights can be used to determine all other morality. Religion is not needed to do so, although as I posted earlier, the last 6 Commandments mirror these rights rather nicely. Point being, you can teach basic morality (don't kill, injury, rape, steal, enslave, coerce, defraud, or lie) without teaching specific religions and without running afoul of any one of them. D���sir���e- an enigma wrapped inside a riddle wrapped in a tostada shell

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <ATWv4.451$7F3.8668@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > "D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > > > > So penalize everyone for the actions of a few? You think that is just? > > Logical? Fair? I do not deny people misuse guns. People misuse cars, > > knives, aspirin and the the wrong end of milk containers. In order to be > > logically consistent (a requirement in a rational debate) you must then > > argue for the banning of anything capable of misuse, if, in fact, that is > > your reasoning for banning guns. "Misuse" is obviously not a rational or > > logical argument. > > > > The difference being that cars, knives, aspirin and milk containers are not > specifically *designed* for the purpose of maiming and killing people. Guns > are. So the argument isn't that they are being "misused" but in fact they are being used correctly. Even if I agree that some guns are specifically designed to hurt people (as opposed to being designed to hurt animals, ward of predictors, etc), I could still argue that so are knives, nun chucks, billy clubs, mace, pepper spray, and a host of other items. Do we prevent the manufacture of any item "designed" to inflict harm? Regardless, what must be shown then, is that this property of guns (the reason for their existence) alters their status as property in regards to the absolute right to property. That is, that the absolute right to own property does not include objects designed to inflict harm when used properly. > > To end another person's life for any reason other than self-defence is > wrong. Agreed > Besides, this is not a matter of logic - this is very much a moral > issue. Morals *are* logical. All morality can be derived from basic human rights using logic. An illogical moral is useless. D���sir���e- proud owner of pepper spray

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1329e66d14a877219896f8@news.csulb.edu... > In article <ATWv4.451$7F3.8668@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > > > The difference being that cars, knives, aspirin and milk containers are not > > specifically *designed* for the purpose of maiming and killing people. Guns > > are. > > So the argument isn't that they are being "misused" but in fact they are > being used correctly. > > Even if I agree that some guns are specifically designed to hurt people > (as opposed to being designed to hurt animals, ward of predictors, etc), > I could still argue that so are knives, nun chucks, billy clubs, mace, > pepper spray, and a host of other items. Do we prevent the manufacture > of any item "designed" to inflict harm? > It wouldn't be a bad idea... even if people hurting each other can't be entirely prevented, it would at least be nice to make it more difficult to do so. > Regardless, what must be shown then, is that this property of guns (the > reason for their existence) alters their status as property in regards to > the absolute right to property. That is, that the absolute right to own > property does not include objects designed to inflict harm when used > properly. > > > > Besides, this is not a matter of logic - this is very much a moral > > issue. > > Morals *are* logical. All morality can be derived from basic human > rights using logic. An illogical moral is useless. > > D���sir���e- proud owner of pepper spray > Is it logical, then, to care about the rights of others? (EB - opening up another can of worms <g>) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <IUXv4.569$7F3.9708@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > "D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.1329e66d14a877219896f8@news.csulb.edu... > > In article <ATWv4.451$7F3.8668@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > Even if I agree that some guns are specifically designed to hurt people > > (as opposed to being designed to hurt animals, ward of predictors, etc), > > I could still argue that so are knives, nun chucks, billy clubs, mace, > > pepper spray, and a host of other items. Do we prevent the manufacture > > of any item "designed" to inflict harm? > It wouldn't be a bad idea... even if people hurting each other can't be > entirely prevented, it would at least be nice to make it more difficult to > do so. But if an individual buys a baseball bat for the sole purpose of beating intruders over the head, then what> You are beginning down the slippery slope of wanting to control people based on their thoughts ("You can own a bat to play baseball, and if you happen to whap someone upside the head with it, no one will call for a ban on bats. But if we can't let you buy it for the expressed purpose of whapping someone upside the head."). Tread carefully. > > Regardless, what must be shown then, is that this property of guns (the > > reason for their existence) alters their status as property in regards to > > the absolute right to property. That is, that the absolute right to own > > property does not include objects designed to inflict harm when used > > properly. > > > Besides, this is not a matter of logic - this is very much a moral > > > issue. > > > > Morals *are* logical. All morality can be derived from basic human > > rights using logic. An illogical moral is useless. > > > > D���sir���e- proud owner of pepper spray > > > > Is it logical, then, to care about the rights of others? Of course. In order for rights to have any meaning, they must a) be enforceable (telling a killer you have the right to life and he has no right to kill you does little good unless you can defend yourself) and b) everyone must have them. That is, in order for you to have the right to life, liberty & property so must your neighbors. It is logical to defend the rights of others because it is in your own best interest to do so. If your neighbor's rights can be violated, then so can yours, so you are well served by helping to protect your neighbor's rights. D���sir���e- they were small worms

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >The right to life is the primary right. From that comes the right to >liberty and the right to property. If you disagree I would like to know >what your idea of "rights" is. It is a waste of my time and yours to >attempt a rational argument with someone who isn't starting with the same >fundamentals. > >Assuming you agree with the 3 basic rights (life, liberty, property) I agree with your 3 basics. And I agree that the right to life comes first. >ownership of a gun falls under the right to property. Yup, it does fall there. But my right to life (which you identified as the primary right), trumps the right to own a gun. Law is about balancing competing rights. Legislators can balance the right to own a gun with the danger that right imposes on the lives of others. If they find that gun ownership infringes upon the right to life, then they should take action to better balance those competing rights. By your logic, I should have the right to kill someone, since killing is part of liberty. You have yet to >show a logical, rational way whereby anyone is justified in violating >this right. You have certainly made appeals to emotion, but have yet to >counter the fundamental principle. It is *only* by rationally, logically >justifying why anyone is allowed to violate the right to ownership that >you can claim guns should be banned. When you do that, you may have >something <snip> > >D���sir���e- logic is fun -Havoc -- Accurate logic and rationality is even more fun.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >In article <IUlv4.83083$ox5.22282851@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, >laware@strato.net says... >> >> It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or >> universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when >> they act like that? > >Exactly. We have come to accept the very destructive doctrine of >relative morality. I'm shocked to see you embracing absolutist morality, Desiree. This condemnation of relativist morality is simply the way certain people condemn other moralities with which they disagree. They're all for their own moral relativity, just not for the relativity of others. Let's take the most common example. You've stated there is a right to life... If "thou shalt not kill" is therefore taken as a moral absolute, then you would have to accept all of the following propositions: 1. The cops in the Diallo trial were guilty of Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. 2. Capital punishment is wrong, since all killing is equally immoral. 3. Females who have abortion should be jailed for Murder in the First Degree, since even a pro-choice individual would acknowledge that a fetus is certainly some form of life or potential life. 4. An abortion to save the life of a mother should be treated as Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. 5. Failure to abort when the pregnancy results in the death of the mother, should be treated as Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. (Please note.. Comparing 4 and 5... No matter what, it's murder in the first degree). 6. Any soldier who has ever fought in a way is guilty of Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. 7. Killing in self-defense still constitutes Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. I could keep adding to this list, but I'll stop there as I've proven that morality is indeed relative. Often, those without tolerance will attempt to condemn moral relativity when it's a moral principle that they disagree with. For example, many religious conservatives will condemn tolerance of homosexuality as "moral relativism." We accept immorality in the guise of "different >culture" or "independence" or just shrug and say "who are we to tell >someone else what to do" and yet this mentality fosters an attitude of >non-responsibility. If there is no absolute moral standard, then *any* >action can be defended as moral. Not true. Moral relativity does not require moral irrationality. On the other hand, moral absolutism cannot logically exist, as you would have morals that would contradict each other and require balancing. Such balancing, is the very definition of relativism. >Even shooting a 6 year old girl. > Compare it to the shooting of Diallo, who was also a totally innocent victim. (Though older than 6, but equally innocent). Yet, the Jury acquited the 4 police officers who shot him. Do you *absolutely* believe that those 4 police officers are murderers? >D���sir���e- Absolutely > -Havoc -- Relatively, for absolutism is inherently illogical and blind.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message ... >But you WERE merely pointing out the negatives. ;-) >I would say that if Christianity were truly practiced by all who are giving >it lip service, your picture of it would not be quite as negative. :-) > I will readily acknowledge that some good has been done in the name of Christianity. But I know my history, and realize that Christianity is among the most murderous religions on the planet in the history of the world. It was founded largely as an opiate of the masses, in order to justify the oppression of monarchies by divine right. One can be quite moral without Christianity, or without any other religion. I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and Constitutional law, I don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat of any kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of Judeo-Christianity. Every family has their own unique views on religion, so let it be taught in the home and in the church (and in private schools).

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message ... >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38BFDAE3.F2634087@ucs.net... >> Laura Ware wrote: Except that at the place they spend the waking hours >> at, they are sent the >> >> > message that God is not all that important... >> > I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being >> > stopped >> > at the school door. Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those >> > of >> > the Judeo-Christian bent? >> >> I personally don't believe G-d is very important and I wouldn't want >> any school to teach my kids otherwise. I don't want the government to >> tell my kids how important G-d should, or should not be. (You will >> notice I abbreviate G-d with a dash out of respect for my own religion.. >> so obviously, it does have some importance to me). >> >> It would be wrong to forbid Judeo-Christian speech, but it isn't >> forbidden. It's merely inappropriate for the classroom. And this >> prohibition is alright due to something called the First Amendment of >> the US Constitution. > >I disagree. There was a case where a teacher had a Bible on his desk that >he would read during Silent Sustained Reading period. If you have a link to information about this case, I'd love to see it. But till you show me multiple specific examples, your claim in invalid. Is anyone stopped from wearing a cross at school? Aren't all students (at least Christian and Jewish students) excused from school for religious observations? Are jewish kids forced to eat pork, are Hindu children forced to eat beef? Nobody is forced to abandon their religion in school, they simply can't use school to impose religion, whether overtly or covertly. For example, the teacher you mentioned... I doubt the teacher was told he wasn't allowed to read the bible on his own time. Perhaps the school board asked the teacher to keep it inside his desk and only read it on his own time. And that's appropriate in a way you can't understand, as you are only looking at it as a member of the majority religion. Let me relate some typical personal experiences... Around Christmas time, strangers will wish me a Merry Christmas. It doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy, it makes me feel uncomfortable. Now, I'm an intelligent adult and I know that the well wisher only means the best. I know he is not intentionally disrespecting my religious beliefs, I know he isn't trying to convert me. But I'm still made to feel slightly uncomfortable with the subtle reminder that I'm an outsider.. that I don't really belong. With stories like Scrooge and the Grinch, the culture enforces the idea that there is something wrong with you if you dislike Christmas. So now let's go to the school room. I voiced my own discomfort even as an adult. Now imagine an impressionable and sensitive child. If that child doesn't belong to the majority faith, should he or she be made to feel like an outsider, simply because they don't subscribe to the same beliefs as the teacher? I know that if I was a 4th grader, and the teacher had a bible sitting prominently on his desk, I'd feel like a total outsider in the classroom. He didn't read it out >loud, didn't order the students to read it, just read it to himself. This >was, we are told, a separation of church and state violation. >See, it's like someone said. If one is truly living their faith (whatever >that faith might be) it is not like a jacket one takes on and off. I don't >stop being a Christian when I log onto the newsgroup, for example, or when >I'm driving my car, or shopping at the mall. Are we asking people to leave >their faith at the door because it is "inappropriate?" > Keep your faith where ever you go.... But in the classroom, keep it to yourself. That's all the Constitution requires.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <sc0podhree6148@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > > >The right to life is the primary right. From that comes the right to > >liberty and the right to property. If you disagree I would like to know > >what your idea of "rights" is. It is a waste of my time and yours to > >attempt a rational argument with someone who isn't starting with the same > >fundamentals. > > > >Assuming you agree with the 3 basic rights (life, liberty, property) > > I agree with your 3 basics. And I agree that the right to life comes first. > > >ownership of a gun falls under the right to property. > > Yup, it does fall there. But my right to life (which you identified as the > primary right), trumps the right to own a gun. Merely owning a gun does not in any way affect your right to life. Using that gun to kill you does. This is a huge difference. By your logic I could claim that owning a cat violates my right to life if I am deathly allergic to cats or owning a crossbow violates my right to life since crossbow bolts are potentially lethal or your right to own a pool is a violation of my right to life since I can't swim an may drown. If you are going to argue a position (life trumps possession of potential deadly items) be prepared to argue it consistently.) Point again being ownership isn't the issue, action is. > > Law is about balancing competing rights. There is nothing in any of those 3 rights at odds with each other. Law is about protecting rights. There is no such thing as "competing rights" Those 3 rights are known as "negative rights" They prohibit you from acting in a certain manner against other people. You can do what you want so long as you don't violate any one else's right to Life, Liberty or Property. It is impossible for them to "compete" as they refer to 3 different principles, all growing out of the concept of man as the sole owner of his own person. > Legislators can balance the right > to own a gun with the danger that right imposes on the lives of others. Not justly they can't since they have no right to deny the ownership of property. They have every right to prevent the aiming or firing of a gun at another person though. Owning a gun poses no danger to anyone else. Pointing a gun at someone poses a grave danger. Legislatures can ban the pointing of guns at people without violating any rights at all, but can only ban guns by violating the right to property. If > they find that gun ownership infringes upon the right to life, then they > should take action to better balance those competing rights. Show me how mere ownership (not use) infringes on any right. If I own a gun and never use it, I have not infringed on any rights at all and you cannot claim otherwise. If I own a gun, and only use it to shoot an intruder I still have not violated any rights. If I own a gun and use it to shoot my neighbor because he looked at me funny, I have violated his rights. Once again, *ownership* is never the issue, action is. What gun control people want is to violate the right to property in order to prevent the possibility of violating the right to life. In effect, enacting punishment (confiscation of property) *before* a crime is actually committed. > By your logic, I should have the right to kill someone, since killing is > part of liberty. No, since The Right to Liberty does not include the Liberty to violate rights. Killing violates the right to life. To claim rights for yourself means must must also allow them for all other people. You cannot claim the right to liberty without first claiming the right to life and you cannot claim the right to life without also recognizing that the right to life applies to all people. Plus, the right to Liberty applies only to your own actions, not to your interaction with others. I cannot knock someone out of my way and claim "the right to Liberty" allows it. "My right to swing my fist ends at the beginning of your nose." > You have yet to > >show a logical, rational way whereby anyone is justified in violating > >this right. You have certainly made appeals to emotion, but have yet to > >counter the fundamental principle. It is *only* by rationally, logically > >justifying why anyone is allowed to violate the right to ownership that > >you can claim guns should be banned. When you do that, you may have > >something > <snip> > >D���sir���e- logic is fun > -Havoc -- Accurate logic and rationality is even more fun. You're right on that count. I'm having fun being accurate and rational. D���sir���e- wondering why the brig isn't just a entrance less room that prisoners are beamed into thus preventing escape attempts

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <M6_v4.87802$ox5.23390675@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, laware@strato.net says... > > I disagree. There was a case where a teacher had a Bible on his desk that > he would read during Silent Sustained Reading period. He didn't read it out > loud, didn't order the students to read it, just read it to himself. This > was, we are told, a separation of church and state violation. > See, it's like someone said. If one is truly living their faith (whatever > that faith might be) it is not like a jacket one takes on and off. I don't > stop being a Christian when I log onto the newsgroup, for example, or when > I'm driving my car, or shopping at the mall. Are we asking people to leave > their faith at the door because it is "inappropriate?" Not because it is "inappropriate" but because the school is government- owned & operated and mandates that people use it by force of law. I agree the case with a teacher reading the Bible on his own was overkill and I guarantee no complaints would have been filed if he were reading Siddhartha (a required book in many English classes), the Bagahava Gida, the Koran, The Torah or any other spiritual (or anti-spiritual a la Atlas Shrugged or Atheism: The Case Against God) work. However, religion must not come from government-owned secular schools. As government institutions they are responsible to many different views and beliefs and have no right to violate the liberty of those who believe different by teaching any particular religion. Remember, they have a captive audience. Parents *have* to send their kids to government school. If the school is teaching Judeo-Christian beliefs as "facts" the parents of a Hindi student who can't afford a private secular or Hindu school are stuck. The must then undo what the school has done and was even paid for with the Hindi parents tax dollars! If you want your children to be taught about your idea of God, then send them to a private Christian run school. Do not force your beliefs on every one else though through public schools paid for by all citizens, many of whom aren't Christian. D���sir���e- the government are lousy teachers anyway

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >In article <sc0podhree6148@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... >> >> D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >> >> >The right to life is the primary right. From that comes the right to >> >liberty and the right to property. If you disagree I would like to know >> >what your idea of "rights" is. It is a waste of my time and yours to >> >attempt a rational argument with someone who isn't starting with the same >> >fundamentals. >> > >> >Assuming you agree with the 3 basic rights (life, liberty, property) >> >> I agree with your 3 basics. And I agree that the right to life comes first. >> >> >ownership of a gun falls under the right to property. >> >> Yup, it does fall there. But my right to life (which you identified as the >> primary right), trumps the right to own a gun. > >Merely owning a gun does not in any way affect your right to life. Using >that gun to kill you does. The possession of the gun does indeed affect my right to life. The Michigan shooting is a perfect example. If adults didn't possess the pistol in the first place, then the shooting would not have occurred. Also, again, take a look at gun accidents in the home. This is a huge difference. By your logic I >could claim that owning a cat violates my right to life if I am deathly >allergic to cats or owning a crossbow violates my right to life since >crossbow bolts are potentially lethal or your right to own a pool is a >violation of my right to life since I can't swim an may drown. No, I said that there needs to be a balancing. For example, your crossbow example... A law banning the possession of a crossbow in some places would be perfectly appropriate. To extend it to your hypothetical about swimming pools, some safety regulations of swimming pools is also perfectly appropriate. Pistols simply require even stronger safety regulations. I have no problem with the ownership of a pistol, if that pistol is kept stored at a target range, and you don't possess it elsewhere. If you >are going to argue a position (life trumps possession of potential deadly >items) be prepared to argue it consistently.) Point again being >ownership isn't the issue, action is. Action equals liberty, which you identify as one of the fundamental rights. So if ownership or possession can't be outlawed because it infringes upon ownership rights, how can you offer to regulate action, which is liberty? Sounds like you're the one being inconsistent. >> >> Law is about balancing competing rights. > >There is nothing in any of those 3 rights at odds with each other. Law >is about protecting rights. There is no such thing as "competing rights" Sure there are. I'll give you an example that's not life or death. I own property and I love to Bar-B-Que. Thus, using the outdoor bar-b-que is both a property right, and a right of liberty. But, when I bar-b-que, a lot of smoke blows into my neighbor's yard, making it difficult for him to enjoy a nap in his hammock on a nice day. Thus, my bar-b-que is infringing upon his right to peacefully enjoy his property. His rights are legitimate. My rights are legitimate. Our rights compete. My neighbor and I would either have to come to some sort of compromise arrangement, or simply become enemies. >Those 3 rights are known as "negative rights" They prohibit you from >acting in a certain manner against other people. You can do what you >want so long as you don't violate any one else's right to Life, Liberty >or Property. If something makes the world less safe, then it does violate other individual's right to life, liberty and property. Thus, requiring a balancing. Another example, ciagrette smoking. The right of the individual to smoke, versus the right of others to be free from the dangers of second hand smoke. In most of Europe, even the police officers don't carry pistols. Diallo would still be alive if he was in such a place.... so why don't you tell Diallo how wonderful the world is with a proliferation of pistols? Who are you going to blame for his death? A jury found it wasn't the fault of the police officers. It wasn't Diallo's fault, he undoubtedly was a completely innocent victim. If not for the pistols, he would still be alive today. His right to life was certainly infringed by living in a country where pistols are prolific. It is impossible for them to "compete" as they refer to 3 >different principles, all growing out of the concept of man as the sole >owner of his own person. > >> Legislators can balance the right >> to own a gun with the danger that right imposes on the lives of others. > >Not justly they can't since they have no right to deny the ownership of >property. They have every right to prevent the aiming or firing of a gun >at another person though. Owning a gun poses no danger to anyone else. I concede ownership poses no danger, since ownership is an abstract concept. Possession on the other hand does pose a danger. There are actually no laws that I know of that outlaw any type of ownership (except slaves). But there are plenty of possession laws (possession of drugs, possession of weapons, possession of diseased cattle). >Pointing a gun at someone poses a grave danger. Legislatures can ban the >pointing of guns at people without violating any rights at all, But banning the guns will save more lives than doing it your way. And you did say that the right to life was primary. but can >only ban guns by violating the right to property. > > If >> they find that gun ownership infringes upon the right to life, then they >> should take action to better balance those competing rights. > >Show me how mere ownership (not use) infringes on any right. If I own a >gun and never use it, I have not infringed on any rights at all and you >cannot claim otherwise. A. You have contributed to the proliferation of guns which is what caused the death of Diallo. B. Your pistol could get stolen and then used against me, even if *you* never use the pistol. C. Your curious child might find the pistol and accidentally blow their own brains out, even though you never used the pistol yourself. D. Your curious child might find the gun, point it out the window and pull the trigger, killing me, and thus violating my right to life, even though you never personally pointed the gun at me. There you go... 4 ways in which your possession of a pistol could infringe upon the right to life, even if you do nothing wrong. If I own a gun, and only use it to shoot an >intruder I still have not violated any rights. If I own a gun and use it >to shoot my neighbor because he looked at me funny, I have violated his >rights. Once again, *ownership* is never the issue, action is. What gun >control people want is to violate the right to property in order to >prevent the possibility of violating the right to life. In effect, >enacting punishment (confiscation of property) *before* a crime is >actually committed. > >> By your logic, I should have the right to kill someone, since killing is >> part of liberty. > >No, since The Right to Liberty does not include the Liberty to violate >rights. Killing violates the right to life. Guns make killing more likely. Logically therefore, guns also violate the right to life, thus requiring some sort of balancing of the competing rights. To claim rights for >yourself means must must also allow them for all other people. You >cannot claim the right to liberty without first claiming the right to >life and you cannot claim the right to life without also recognizing that >the right to life applies to all people. > >Plus, the right to Liberty applies only to your own actions, not to your >interaction with others. I cannot knock someone out of my way and claim >"the right to Liberty" allows it. "My right to swing my fist ends at the >beginning of your nose." > But in a complex society, practically every action is interactive. Example.. seatbelt laws... If I die or get seriously injured in an accident, the cost, through insurance premiums, etc, is borne by everyone. So, do I have the right to not wear a seatbelt? >> You have yet to >> >show a logical, rational way whereby anyone is justified in violating >> >this right. You have certainly made appeals to emotion, but have yet to >> >counter the fundamental principle. It is *only* by rationally, logically >> >justifying why anyone is allowed to violate the right to ownership that >> >you can claim guns should be banned. When you do that, you may have >> >something > >> <snip> > >> >D���sir���e- logic is fun > >> -Havoc -- Accurate logic and rationality is even more fun. > >You're right on that count. I'm having fun being accurate and rational. > Really? I guess you're talking about some other thread where you're being accurate and rational. (<wink> Just a good natured jib) -- Havoc, the logical spectrum of chaos.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Techlab Photo Rescue wrote in message <38c56bd3.167467828@news.erols.com>... >On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 22:23:38 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) >wrote: > >>On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:17:39 -0500, havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >> >>|And you prove my point. I am agreeing with you. These universal morals >>|should be enforced through normal school interaction. In fact, they >>|already are. One doesn't need to bring religion into the classroom in >>|order to teach these types of morals. >> >>Masked Man---->I would argue rather, there is no reason for keeping >>religion out of the classroom, and great harm in doing so. > >But I think, MM that you have proven *exactly* the opposite. > >Look at this discussion so far. Lots of different viewpoints from >'bring back religion' to 'I don't want an mention of religion' and a >few somewhere in the middle. Let's look at the idea of bringing >religion into the classroom for a moment. Let's start with : > >Question 1: >*Who's* religion should be brought into the classroom? > >And and variation of the idea "there is only one true religion" is not >a valid answer, since it is devisive, intolerant and discriminating. >Besides.. all religions (by their nature) believe they are the >'correct' one to follow. > >If there isn't universal agreement on the answer to this question, it >all falls apart from there. I doubt it would even get out of >committee without some bloodletting.. An opportunity for bloodletting????? Cool... let the committee commence. (Oh... It already did.. in the form of the GOP primaries) -Havoc

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <sc0r568qee6108@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >Exactly. We have come to accept the very destructive doctrine of > >relative morality. > > I'm shocked to see you embracing absolutist morality, Desiree. This > condemnation of relativist morality is simply the way certain people condemn > other moralities with which they disagree. They're all for their own moral > relativity, just not for the relativity of others. The 3 morals I always discuss are absolute, not relative. Also, they are "negative" rights, since they forbid you to take certain actions. Rights violations also require volition. For an action to be a "violation" the violator must have taken a conscious action using his/her free will. Rights may be defended. These rights protect individuals from the initiation of force, but they do not bar retaliatory force taken to prevent the initial violation or as punishment for initiating a force. And finally, these rights apply equally to all people. So, with this in mind lets look at your list: > > Let's take the most common example. You've stated there is a right to > life... If "thou shalt not kill" is therefore taken as a moral absolute, > then you would have to accept all of the following propositions: This is a false premise which I have never argued but I'll play along anyway > 1. The cops in the Diallo trial were guilty of Murder in the First Degree, > since all killing is equally immoral. I haven't been following this case so I can't comment. If you could give a quick rundown... > 2. Capital punishment is wrong, since all killing is equally immoral. Capital punishment is retaliatory force which is not immoral. > 3. Females who have abortion should be jailed for Murder in the First > Degree, since even a pro-choice individual would acknowledge that a fetus is > certainly some form of life or potential life. > 4. An abortion to save the life of a mother should be treated as Murder in > the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. I will not touch the abortion debate. But I will say that your example below is not murder since the baby took no cognitive action. It was not a malicious or negligent act on the child's part. > 5. Failure to abort when the pregnancy results in the death of the mother, > should be treated as Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is > equally immoral. (Please note.. Comparing 4 and 5... No matter what, it's > murder in the first degree). > 6. Any soldier who has ever fought in a way is guilty of Murder in the > First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. If the soldiers volunteered to defend his country from an attacker then he is using moral retaliatory force. If the soldier was drafted or conscripted and is being forced to fight, morality cannot be attributed to his actions. > 7. Killing in self-defense still constitutes Murder in the First Degree, > since all killing is equally immoral. No. Retaliatory force isn't immoral. > > I could keep adding to this list, but I'll stop there as I've proven that > morality is indeed relative. Not "relative" in the sense that the same action can be considered moral by one person and immoral by another. That is relative morality. All you attempted to show is that the full details of the situation are needed before making a moral judgement You have also proved that you don't understand how rights work. > Often, those without tolerance will attempt to condemn moral relativity when > it's a moral principle that they disagree with. For example, many religious > conservatives will condemn tolerance of homosexuality as "moral relativism." And they are wrong. Prove that homosexuality is immoral and you can claim that it is. What I am saying is that any given activity is either moral or immoral because of what the activity is, not because of whether or not someone thinks it's moral or immoral. > We accept immorality in the guise of "different > >culture" or "independence" or just shrug and say "who are we to tell > >someone else what to do" and yet this mentality fosters an attitude of > >non-responsibility. If there is no absolute moral standard, then *any* > >action can be defended as moral. > > Not true. Moral relativity does not require moral irrationality. So morality must be rational? I agree. Since rationality is logical and requires reason, the morality of any action can be determined via logic based on the existent facts, not on any persons beliefs. On the > other hand, moral absolutism cannot logically exist, as you would have > morals that would contradict each other and require balancing. Such > balancing, is the very definition of relativism. Nope, since morals can be determined by logic and logic is the art of non-condtridiction then morals are noncontradictory. > >Even shooting a 6 year old girl. > Compare it to the shooting of Diallo, who was also a totally innocent > victim. (Though older than 6, but equally innocent). Yet, the Jury > acquited the 4 police officers who shot him. Do you *absolutely* believe > that those 4 police officers are murderers? As I said, I am not familiar with the case. But we are obviously speaking of two different things. When I speak of relative morality, I am referring that the idea that an immoral act (human sacrifice for instance) can be justified as moral because we don't wish to condemn the culture that practices it. A moral relativist is one who says "I would never commit human sacrifice because I believe it to be immoral but if that culture thinks it's OK, well then for them it is OK" despite the logical, rational conclusion that killing someone against their will is clearly immoral. Absolutism is logic: A is A Relativism is illogic: A is A or B or C or whatever anyone wants it to be D���sir���e- who is absolutely D���sir���e since I can be nothing else.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >In article <sc0r568qee6108@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... >> >> D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >> >Exactly. We have come to accept the very destructive doctrine of >> >relative morality. >> >> I'm shocked to see you embracing absolutist morality, Desiree. This >> condemnation of relativist morality is simply the way certain people condemn >> other moralities with which they disagree. They're all for their own moral >> relativity, just not for the relativity of others. > >The 3 morals I always discuss are absolute, not relative. Also, they are >"negative" rights, since they forbid you to take certain actions. Rights >violations also require volition. For an action to be a "violation" the >violator must have taken a conscious action using his/her free will. >Rights may be defended. These rights protect individuals from the >initiation of force, but they do not bar retaliatory force taken to >prevent the initial violation or as punishment for initiating a force. >And finally, these rights apply equally to all people. So, with this in >mind lets look at your list: >> Well, you've managed to put together a whole lot of intellectual gobbledy gook that actually says nothing and means even less. >> Let's take the most common example. You've stated there is a right to >> life... If "thou shalt not kill" is therefore taken as a moral absolute, >> then you would have to accept all of the following propositions: > >This is a false premise which I have never argued but I'll play along >anyway > >> 1. The cops in the Diallo trial were guilty of Murder in the First Degree, >> since all killing is equally immoral. > >I haven't been following this case so I can't comment. If you could give >a quick rundown... > Innocent man entering his home is stopped by the police late at night. He reaches for his wallet, to show ID. Police mistake the wallet for a gun and shoot the Mr. Diallo 41 times. (19 bullets actually strike him). >> 2. Capital punishment is wrong, since all killing is equally immoral. > >Capital punishment is retaliatory force which is not immoral. > You're practicing moral relativism. How do we judge the appropriate amount of retaliation without relative judgements? Should the four police officers in the Diallo case all receive the death penalty? One could easily argue that such use of the death penalty would be retaliotory. This is proof that your rhetoric holds no weight when applied to the real world. Furthermore, what about the *fact* that innocent people are sometimes put to death in any society that uses the death penalty? Since innocent people do die as a result of the death penalty, isn't the penalty immoral? Your retaliatory force argument just shrivelled up and disappeared. >> 3. Females who have abortion should be jailed for Murder in the First >> Degree, since even a pro-choice individual would acknowledge that a fetus is >> certainly some form of life or potential life. >> 4. An abortion to save the life of a mother should be treated as Murder in >> the First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. > >I will not touch the abortion debate. But I will say that your example >below is not murder since the baby took no cognitive action. It was not >a malicious or negligent act on the child's part. > The baby took no congitive action? There you go, placing relativity on your morals again. The fetus is less a life than a baby, because relatively, it displays less signs of intelligent life, specifically cognitive action. What gives you the right to determine exactly how we measure the value of life? Moral relativism isn't the acceptance of any claimed morality (as you distort the definition of moral relativism). Quite the contrary, it's the mere recognition that no single individual has an exclusive right to determine what is or isn't moral for everyone else. As long as we have differing values, we will have different moral standards. That's not to say that every single moral standard is acceptable. >> 5. Failure to abort when the pregnancy results in the death of the mother, >> should be treated as Murder in the First Degree, since all killing is >> equally immoral. (Please note.. Comparing 4 and 5... No matter what, it's >> murder in the first degree). >> 6. Any soldier who has ever fought in a way is guilty of Murder in the >> First Degree, since all killing is equally immoral. > >If the soldiers volunteered to defend his country from an attacker then >he is using moral retaliatory force. If the soldier was drafted or >conscripted and is being forced to fight, morality cannot be attributed >to his actions. > So, you'd buy the defense of Nazis who claimed they were "just following orders?" Or let's say I volunteer to defend my country.. What if my country attacked first? What if both countries accuse the other of attacking first? >> 7. Killing in self-defense still constitutes Murder in the First Degree, >> since all killing is equally immoral. > >No. Retaliatory force isn't immoral. How do you determine the appropriate amount of retaliation without relative examinations of factual patterns? Do I have the right to shoot someone who trespasses on my lawn, as I'm retaliating for trespassing. Do I have the right to kill someone who says nasty things to me? If someone pushes me, then do I have the right to kill them? If someone almost kills me in a car accident, can I then retaliate my killing them? If my employers negligence allowed me to be exposed to asbestos, which resulted in my only having a few months to live... can I then kill my employer in retaliation? How do you judge without looking at the situation relative to the facts. >> >> I could keep adding to this list, but I'll stop there as I've proven that >> morality is indeed relative. > >Not "relative" in the sense that the same action can be considered moral >by one person and immoral by another. That is relative morality. Yes, there are some things that can be considered moral by some, and immoral by others. For example, some people could easily argue that drug use is immoral. Others could easily argue that it is a right and not immoral. While I might have my own personal opinion about which position is morally correct, I recognize that I'm not omniscient (ok... ok.... I am omniscient, but don't tell anyone), so I'm not necessarily correct in my judgment. All >you attempted to show is that the full details of the situation are >needed before making a moral judgement You have also proved that you >don't understand how rights work. > I've spent years studying precisely how rights work. I've studied Kant, Mill, Rawls. I've studied the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the bible. I'm always willing to listen to a rational arguement. First thing I learned is that no human being knows exactly how rights work. But I do understand all the various theories, and I know which theory I prefer. I concede that my theory may or may not be the correct one.... are you so willing to admit the same? Or are you arrogant enough to believe that you are the one person on earth who can make moral judgements for all others? >> Often, those without tolerance will attempt to condemn moral relativity when >> it's a moral principle that they disagree with. For example, many religious >> conservatives will condemn tolerance of homosexuality as "moral relativism." > >And they are wrong. Prove that homosexuality is immoral and you can >claim that it is. What I am saying is that any given activity is either >moral or immoral because of what the activity is, Perhaps. not because of whether >or not someone thinks it's moral or immoral. Absolutely correct. So what makes you the perfect judge of what is moral or immoral? Just because you, Desiree think something is moral, that doesn't make it so. > >> We accept immorality in the guise of "different >> >culture" or "independence" or just shrug and say "who are we to tell >> >someone else what to do" and yet this mentality fosters an attitude of >> >non-responsibility. If there is no absolute moral standard, then *any* >> >action can be defended as moral. >> >> Not true. Moral relativity does not require moral irrationality. > >So morality must be rational? I agree. Since rationality is logical and >requires reason, the morality of any action can be determined via logic >based on the existent facts, not on any persons beliefs. > Even logic leaves room for disagreement. Utilitarianism is the most *logical* moral system devised. But the results of any utilitarian equation will depend not just on the facts, but on the utilitarian values that we assign to those facts. Since even logical people can disagree about the value of certain facts, logic will not necessarily always give definitive moral answers. > >> Compare it to the shooting of Diallo, who was also a totally innocent >> victim. (Though older than 6, but equally innocent). Yet, the Jury >> acquited the 4 police officers who shot him. Do you *absolutely* believe >> that those 4 police officers are murderers? > >As I said, I am not familiar with the case. But we are obviously >speaking of two different things. When I speak of relative morality, I >am referring that the idea that an immoral act (human sacrifice for >instance) can be justified as moral because we don't wish to condemn the >culture that practices it. Show me a single main stream example of someone justifying the morality of human sacrifice. On the other hand, I could see some alien culture (getting back to Trek) looking down at earth and condemning our immoral savagery, because we condone the death penalty. Would the aliens be right? Are we right? I merely ask you to recognize that you cannot possibly be 100.00% certain of the answer. I am pro-choice, for example. I am convinced that the woman's rights over her own body trump the rights of the unborn, but potential life that she carries. But I also acknowledge there is a possibility, even though I feel the possibility is very unlikely, that I'm wrong. A moral relativist is one who says "I would >never commit human sacrifice because I believe it to be immoral but if >that culture thinks it's OK, well then for them it is OK" despite the >logical, rational conclusion that killing someone against their will is >clearly immoral. > So, any state that permits the death penalty is immoral, because as I've previously stated, in any state that regularly practices the death penalty, innocent people are likely to be executed. (By the way, I'm actually pro-death penalty, but with many reservations). Or any state/nation that permits abortion, is immoral because that constitutes killing? (What if you're wrong and cognitive brain functions begin at 3 days of age). Or any state that prohibits abortion is immoral because it infringes upon a woman's liberty? I'm not saying that we have to accept any standard or morality. But we must recognize that reasonable minds can in fact differ. >Absolutism is logic: A is A >Relativism is illogic: A is A or B or C or whatever anyone wants it to be > Absolutism is illogical: A is A. a is A. ahhh is A. eh is A. Relativism is pragmatic logic: A is A. a is a. ahhh is ahhh. eh is eh. eh is not A. If I don't use the western vocabulary, then there is no A. >D���sir���e- who is absolutely D���sir���e since I can be nothing else. ....... but you would be someone else, if you changed your name. -Havoc, by choice.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc0s6slsee6152@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message ... > > >But you WERE merely pointing out the negatives. ;-) > >I would say that if Christianity were truly practiced by all who are giving > >it lip service, your picture of it would not be quite as negative. :-) > > > > I will readily acknowledge that some good has been done in the name of > Christianity. But I know my history, and realize that Christianity is among > the most murderous religions on the planet in the history of the world. It > was founded largely as an opiate of the masses, in order to justify the > oppression of monarchies by divine right. > > One can be quite moral without Christianity, or without any other religion. > > I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and Constitutional law, I > don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat of any > kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of Judeo-Christianity. > > Every family has their own unique views on religion, so let it be taught in > the home and in the church (and in private schools). I missed part of this thread, but had to jump in here. pardon the intrusion. I am speaking as a deeply religious person myself and I can see both sides of the issue here. I do not believe in prayer in schools because of the fact that there are children of so many different religious backgrounds, that isn't fair. For persons of many faiths, there is no such thing as a 'generic' prayer or the belief that all roads lead to teh same place. This - being forced to participate in ONE type of prayer for all the children isn't right. It is not freedom of religion. Also - there are so many in the world today that do not practice TRUE Christianity. Most all, if not all the wars in history have religious backgrounds. Many millions throughout time have been killed only because of their faith and their beliefs. During WWII, look at how many people lost their lives only because they were Jewish. A little known fact, look at all of those who were killed because they refused to take up arms against their fellowman during the same time - Jehovah's Witnesses. They were put into concentration camps and killed, beaten tortured simply because they would not renounce their faith. It had nothing to do with what race they were born into. yet and still, there are many good, moral people on earth today who do not beling to any organised religion - due to some of these reasons. Still, they are much better than many who do attend church each Saturday or Sunday and live the rest of the week however they like. The point I am trying to make, is that prayer in school isn't the answer. The answer, unfortunately, isn't that easy. It is only when people come to the conclusion that all of us are equal - despite race, nationality, religion, social standing - whatever. Deep down - we are all the same - created in God's image. If we could live by the few principles outlined for us and were simply good people - treating others the way we would like to be treated.... then we would all be a lot better off. Okay - off my soapbox and end of sermon. Sorry to take up bandwidth for rambling. I just I just don't understand why people cannot be nice and be fair to one another <sigh>...... Micaela > > >

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (VoyagerLady <voyagerlady13NOvoSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid>)


In article <38c7037a.94708065@news.mindspring.com>, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:16:49 -0800, D���sir���e Davis ><HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Being in Education, I decided to put in my two strips worth..... >|Effectively, all your saying is "it's always been done that way" but this >|doesn't offer any proof as to whether that way is just or not. > >Masked Man---->I reject the burden of proof. I do not have to prove >anything. >| >|> And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer >|> is as much a part of life as breathing. I agree with you 100% Masked Man!!!! >| God really change his mind because of hearing prayers? > >MM---->The question is irrelevant to a discussion of why we ought to >pray...My theology dictates that the Lord takes pleasure in those who >petition him after his will. He most certainly does. And I have seen answers to prayer. >Masked Man---->I'll respectfully request you not put words in my >mouth. The "once upon a time" I referred to was 1950's America, a >time in which I lived and attended public school, where we prayed >every day, where my teacher read her Bible in class, where Christmas >decorations included a creche, where prayers were routinely offered at >assemblies. The time was not that long ago. I know it exists because >I was part of it. In the 50's. And during that time, students were NOT being murder on their campuses. Having gone through the trauma of a student being murdered on campus, I know the horror it brings to the students and staff. > >|To force religion on children through state-sponsered schools is a simple and clear violation of rights and >|cannot be allowed in a free society. > >Masked Man---->Baloney. To do otherwise is to summon more incidents >like Columbine. How many more children have to die on the altar of >your libertarianism? The corpses of these children amply demonstrate >more eloquently than I ever could that religious libertarianism does >not work Columbine, the recent incident where one first grader shot and killed another first grader, the student who was stabbed to death on my campus, this sort of VIOLENCE did not happen when there was prayers in school. I was assaulted twice last school year. Teachers were not assaulted when there was prayer in school. BTW, one assault left me with a black eye. > > >|Neither the government nor you have any right to dictate any >|religious beliefs on any of them via the public school system. > >Masked Man---->The roots of this nation are fundamentally >Judeo-Christian. The ecumenism you allude to is a rather recent >historical development, and is used by some as a straw man to force >home a bankrupt point of view that because we cannot accommodate all. >we shall accommodate none. Actually the first amendment says Congress shall make NO laws regarding the establishment of a religion............... The term seperation of church and state DOES NOT exist in the US Constitution. It was used in a speech by one of the Founding Fathers. Who, BTW is probably appaled at the misuse of this quote by the liberals. > >Furthermore, I am not dictating anything. I am lobbying for Christian >organizations like Youth for Christ to be allowed back into our public >schools, and asserting that by doing so, we can save some future >generations of children from becoming both murderers and victims. >| Actually, the courts have ruled that students have rights to have Christian Clubs on capus. Ronda * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (VoyagerLady <voyagerlady13NOvoSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid>)


In article <C_Fv4.84879$ox5.22842546@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote: >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message >news:sbu8jvicee6134@corp.supernews.com... > >> I'm not suggesting that religion is automatically evil, but it's >> certainly not automatically virtuous. > >I would say that it is not religion that is at fault, but some "religious" >people. Just because they fly the name of God on their banner does not mean >He told them to. Most assuredly true!!!!! Reminds of me of the man who said he would not leave during a flood because God would protect him. He declined every offer of help. Then in Heaen he asked God why he didn't protect him, and God said I sent many rescuers to aid you and you turned them all down. Ronda * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:35:56 -0800, HBeachBabe@yahoo.com (D�sir�e Davis) wrote: |Exactly. We have come to accept the very destructive doctrine of |relative morality. We accept immorality in the guise of "different |culture" or "independence" or just shrug and say "who are we to tell |someone else what to do" and yet this mentality fosters an attitude of |non-responsibility. If there is no absolute moral standard, then *any* |action can be defended as moral. Even shooting a 6 year old girl. | |D�sir�e- Absolutely Masked Man---->D�sir�e, I'm trying very hard to be angry with you, but you make it impossible when you post stuff like this. I begin to think I dont understand you at all....<g> -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:38:24 -0700, "Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote: |And if we simply leave it in the church and the home, they haven't |really lost anything have they? Masked Man---->Unequivocally, yes, for those who do not attend church, because few parents teach moral values, let alone religious ones. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 07:59:00 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: |And for non-Christians for whom prayer is not a part of their faith? How |will their religious needs be attended to? Masked Man---->They won't. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 07:59:00 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > |And for non-Christians for whom prayer is not a part of their faith? How > |will their religious needs be attended to? > > Masked Man---->They won't. > Well, I'm not sending my kids to *those* schools, then! -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38BFA194.1E63@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > > > In article <38BE052A.3EEC@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > > > > > This whole issue is such bullshit and is filled with the worst kind of > > > moral sophistry and tawdry rationalization for what is really the gun > > > nuts' desire to keep their toys. > > > > Sorry Steve, it's based on moral principle and human rights. (Although > > from previous discussion you strike me as a moral relativist who has no > > acceptance of human rights) > > > Uh, that comment is way out of line. Just because I don't get my > morality or principles out of books and grad school classes doesn't mean > I don't have a strong moral center when it comes to human rights. ;-) The right to life is the primary right. From that comes the right to liberty and the right to property. If you disagree I would like to know what your idea of "rights" is. It is a waste of my time and yours to attempt a rational argument with someone who isn't starting with the same fundamentals. Assuming you agree with the 3 basic rights (life, liberty, property) ownership of a gun falls under the right to property. You have yet to show a logical, rational way whereby anyone is justified in violating this right. You have certainly made appeals to emotion, but have yet to counter the fundamental principle. It is *only* by rationally, logically justifying why anyone is allowed to violate the right to ownership that you can claim guns should be banned. When you do that, you may have something <snip> > > D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time > Logic? I don't see any logic here. Do you know what logic is? I doubt it since you instead try to redefine it as "sophistry" You have yet to make a logical argument and instead continually make appeals to emotion. Besides, I don't need to make much of an argument. All I have to do is point to the basic right to property. You are the one who must prove logically that this right is trumped by your appeal to safety or that such a right doesn't exist. I welcome either attempt. > I see alot of sophistry in order to > dodge the very obvious fact that people misuse guns on a vast scale in > this country and some realistic gun control is long overdue. So penalize everyone for the actions of a few? You think that is just? Logical? Fair? I do not deny people misuse guns. People misuse cars, knives, aspirin and the the wrong end of milk containers. In order to be logically consistent (a requirement in a rational debate) you must then argue for the banning of anything capable of misuse, if, in fact, that is your reasoning for banning guns. "Misuse" is obviously not a rational or logical argument. > Certainly > personal responsibility is extremely important, but it's just a fact > that a significant number of people *aren't* responsible, and since they > don't go through life wearing little name tags that identify themselves > as such we need reasonable social policies and legislation to protect > the innocent. And we have those, without violating the rights of the innocent as well. We have laws against murder, rape, theft, and slavery. Enforce those and you have no need for gun control. Meaning: the actual criminal actions are already banned. You wish to criminalize what is otherwise a morally neutral action- ownership. > As to the whole inanimate object argument, it's ludicrous. > Of course guns are inanimate. So what. People misuse inanimate objects > all the time. That's why parents keep sharp objects away from children > and it's why we need gun control. So we should ban all inanimate objects that may cause harm? You make the (il)logical leap of parents keeping sharp objects away from children to society keeping guns away from adults based on the idea they are dangerous. This is why I say you haven't argued logically. By your own words in the previous paragraph we *must* have sharp-object control laws. Since this is obviously absurd, what you must do instead is to show that guns are *not* objects and in fact can't be considered property because if they are objects, and thus property, they are protected by the basic Right to Property. Steve, I have done half your job and given you your arguments: All you have to do to prove your side is prove any of the following: A) There is no right to property or B) Communal safety trumps the individual Right to Property or C) Guns are not objects, thus not property Do any of these logically, consistently and without flaw and I will concede. Appeals to emotion or pragmatism will be rightfully ignored (as they would be in any reasonable debate) Here is my logical argument for my position. First, the argument for property rights: I) All men have the right to life (deny this and we have nothing to talk about) ii) therefore a person's life belongs to himself iii) therefore a person "owns" himself iv) therefore a person owns his labor v) therefore a person owns the results of that labor vi) as the owner, a person can trade the results of his labor to someone else in exchange for reciprocal labor or objects vii) since a person owns the results of his labor, the material items he acquires through his labor are his property and can rightfully be called the results of his labor as well viii) since property is acquired as a direct result of being the sole owner of one's life, property is the sole property of the person who acquired it and thus "The Right to Property". I) "Society" is merely a collection of individuals who have chosen to live, work and trade together. ii) All members of society retain their individual rights (since rights can neither be bestowed or removed by anyone). iii) "Society" as a whole or any group within society, has no rights that are not possessed by the individual. iv) "Guaranteed safety from the criminal actions of others" is not a right possessed by individual, thus not possessed by society. v) since society does not possess the right of "safety" it can't be said to trump the individual right to property. I would hope I wouldn't have to logically prove that a gun is an inanimate object and thus properly considered "property" but here it is: I) The knowledge required to construct a gun exists ii) therefore as long as someone desires a gun, guns will exist iii) Guns are a man-made (I.e. not naturally occurring object). iv) Since man owns the results of his labor, the builder of a gun owns that gun until he decides to trade it to someone else for a mutually agreed on price, at which point the gun is owned by the person who traded for it. v) Therefore, all guns are property, and the owners have the right to own them. vi) Since society has no rights not held by the individual and individuals have no right to take another persons property without consent, society has no right to take away a gun from it's rightful owner except as part of the punishment for committing a crime (i.e. a violation of someone else's rights.) Thus, no law abiding citizen can be denied the right to own a gun. As I said, I welcome a logical refutation of any of these arguments or the proofs requested above. D���sir���e- logic is fun

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > knowledge > > in a gun discussion. > > Bob Too late, I just posted a lengthy logical proof of the right to own guns. > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > months? Well, I could bring up the Holocaust thus invoking the Usenet Law that says once the Holocaust is mentioned the rest must die... D���sir���e- in need of the official Usenet rulebook...

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > > So penalize everyone for the actions of a few? You think that is just? > Logical? Fair? I do not deny people misuse guns. People misuse cars, > knives, aspirin and the the wrong end of milk containers. In order to be > logically consistent (a requirement in a rational debate) you must then > argue for the banning of anything capable of misuse, if, in fact, that is > your reasoning for banning guns. "Misuse" is obviously not a rational or > logical argument. > The difference being that cars, knives, aspirin and milk containers are not specifically *designed* for the purpose of maiming and killing people. Guns are. To end another person's life for any reason other than self-defence is wrong. Besides, this is not a matter of logic - this is very much a moral issue. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:31:47 -0500, havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |It would be wrong to forbid Judeo-Christian speech, but it isn't |forbidden. It's merely inappropriate for the classroom. And this |prohibition is alright due to something called the First Amendment of |the US Constitution. Masked Man---->You ignore the experience of over 150 years of history, which says the exact opposite. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1329d9c62add0a9b9896f4@news.csulb.edu... > In article <E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > months? > > Well, I could bring up the Holocaust thus invoking the Usenet Law that > says once the Holocaust is mentioned the rest must die... > DO NOT go there... for a start, I have Jewish ancestry... <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38BF9856.7C94@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > > > Steve is concerned with statistics or the idea that guns can be used to > > defend as well as attack. He has emotional moral indignation on his side > > and that's all he needs. > > > Uh, Missy, I am certainly concerned with "statistics" when I form my > opinions. The most important statistic happens to be the tens of > thousands of needless deaths that occur in this country every year > because we don't have realistic gun control. What about all the deaths that occur because of swimming pools, auto accidents, surfing, overdoses of legal drugs, alcohol, plane crashes, knives, baseball bats, being dragged behind cars, and a thousand other methods of inflicted harm? > As to the "statistics" put > out by hack writers in the employ of the NRA and the right wing gun > nuts, I have nothing but contempt for them. It's the easiest thing in > the world to come up with a "statistic" that supports your side's > argument. > Oh well.. that's logical... believe the statistics that prove your side, and hold in contempt the ones you don't agree with. I'd laugh at your last statement if I didn't think you were so serious. Why does this apply to the statistics of "gun nuts" but not the gun control side? In fact, you haven't used statistic to reach your conclusion, but reached your conclusion and then found statistics to back it up. Someone needs a refresher course in Logic 1A D���sir���e- statistics are rather useless in a moral debate anyway

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:wVOv4.1578 > > Generally speaking it is the male of the species that faffs about, they > discuss how to do something, plan how to do it, make sketches of how to do > it, have a little nap to refresh themselves before actually getting on with > it and in the mean time the woman just did it! Understand now<eg>? > Ooh! Sexism! Can I sue? <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:04:51 GMT, "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote: |Sure. I told both my boys that while I could decide all kinds of things for |them, including their bedtimes, I could not decide for them whether or not |to follow Christ. Both boys chose that path freely and we tried very hard |not to pressure them in this (even told the youngest he might be deciding |prematurely, but he was adamant and we felt it would be wrong to stop him). Masked Man----->Laura, you have made my day. I honestly feel that what is happening between you, your sons, and their Lord, is the best of what this country is about. I only wish more people embraced those ideals. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:17:39 -0500, havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |And you prove my point. I am agreeing with you. These universal morals |should be enforced through normal school interaction. In fact, they |already are. One doesn't need to bring religion into the classroom in |order to teach these types of morals. Masked Man---->I would argue rather, there is no reason for keeping religion out of the classroom, and great harm in doing so. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <sbvf0fnqee683@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >In article <sbu9hmo3ee6151@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > >> D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >> >In article <38BE052A.3EEC@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com > says... > >> >> moral sophistry and tawdry rationalization for what is really the gun > >> >> nuts' desire to keep their toys. > >> >Sorry Steve, it's based on moral principle and human rights. (Although > >> >from previous discussion you strike me as a moral relativist who has no > >> >acceptance of human rights) The human right being the right to > property. > >> >Mere ownership of *anything* cannot be banned. > >> Interesting in theory, but not the least bit true in practice. > >It's not true in practice because people don't respect rights. > People don't respect rights, or governments don't? You think there is a difference? > >As part of > >> the normal police powers, states have always had the right to ban > hazardous > >> materials > >You speak as if the police have rights that the common person doesn't > >have. All rights are individual rights, and no group or government can > >claim rights that the individual doesn't have. Besides you are arguing > >historic implementation, while I am arguing principle. *In principle* no > >one (and this includes governments) has the right to tell anyone else > >what they can or can't own. If you disagree, please explain to me what > >moral right or principle makes this so. > I was referring to state police powers. The state is vested with certain > responsibilities, which is part of the social contract of living in a > democracy. The concept of "social contract" is a wonderful liberal fallacy to justify everything from gun control to welfare "rights" Basically, what this doctrine says, is that by living in society you are obligated to whatever the majority or the government say you are. A "contract" is only binding if both parties to it explicit agree on it. Since the option to accept or reject the stipulations of this "social contract" was never given to any individual, no individual is bound by it. The only legitimate powers a state has over it's citizens are the powers to prevent rights violations- I.e. the power to prevent murder, theft, rape, slavery, trespass and other crimes that involve specific harm to to a specific victim caused by a specific persons willful or negligent act. This power also includes the power to administer a certain amount of punishment on the offender. Any other actions by the state are rights violations and thus unjust and illegitimate. That they do happen is not an argue that they *should* happen. > For example, Joe Shmoe doesn't have the right to place me in > handcuffs if he sees me steal property. In the absence of a police officer he has the right to take whatever means necessary to secure the return of his property. When you initiate force against someone (attempt to rape, rob, murder, enslave) them, you give up your own rights. To have rights, you must accept that others have those exact same rights. > A police officer does have that > power, which in transferred to him by the state, which has been transferred > to the state by the people in the democratic social contract. As you see, > ultimately, the power belongs to the people. Not a "social contract" but through the consent of the governed. Consent is a voluntary process and can be withdrawn if the government becomes a rights-violater. > >> (like diseased animals from crossing state lines). For example, > >> are you suggesting I would have the right to store hazardous and nuclear > >> waste in my house, next door to my neighbors? > >You have every right to store it on your own house (which would be > >rather stupid if you ask me), but if it leaks onto your neighbor's > >property you have infringed on their rights, and are thus responsible for > >the damage done by said material. If it gets into the water, then you > >have infringed on the rights of the water owner and are thus responsible > >to him. Ownership is *never* the issue. What you do with what you own > >is. > You're right... It isn't ownership, but you just acknowledged that it's > "possession" that can be inherently dangerous. I can't own a nuclear > reactor in my house, because it *will* cause harm to others. Only if you allow it to. The answer isn't to ban nuclear reactors in the house. The answer is simply to enforce the laws regarding waste material getting out. The ultimate effect is the same (people won't have nuclear reactors in their house) but one way is just (enforcing laws) and the other way isn't (banning ownership). > Similarly, > statistics shows that even legally possessed pistols will you mean "can" cause harm, unless you are willing to argue that every gun in existence has harmed an innocent person, and has done so absent a conscious action of the user. > cause harm to > innocent victims. (Take a look at statistics about pistol accidents in the > home, etc) Again, the answer isn't to unjustly ban ownership (which is a rights violation) but to enforce the laws about responsibility and negligence. If a gun is left where a child can get at it, that parent needs to be held accountable for the actions taken by that child. You are arguing "security" (if guns are banned, gun accidents can't happen) which is a common tact, but it still violates rights, and rights trump security every time. > >> Guns > >> aren't nearly as big a problem in Europe and Asia, for example, because > they > >> are so tightly controlled. > >Controlled by who? The government? So you have two classes of people- > >those allowed guns and thus not. Not a very free society if you ask me. > >You are assuming that some one has the *right* to control them. What > >right is this? Where does it come from? How can it be a right if we > >don't all have it? > One person wouldn't have such a right to control such a thing. That would > fly against the principle of democratic government. But just as a > democratic country can impose a 55 mph speed limit, it can also impose other > reasonable safety restrictions. Lets look at this a moment. Why can a government rightfully impose a speed limit? Because the government *owns* the road. It is theirs and we drive on it by privilege, not right. We as users of that property are required to follow the rules set by the owner of the property else they have the right to restrict our use of it. This is a safety in the sense that the government doesn't want accidents on their roads, just as if roads were privately owned (as they should be) the owners would be free to set whatever rules they desired regard use of their property. This doesn't translate to guns though. The government can forbid you bring a gun into a government owned building and using the previous argument forbid you from bringing one onto government owned roads, but they have no right to tell you what you can keep in your own home. It is your home, not the government's thus you get to make the rules. > >> Here is the simple math: If you arm the good guys, then the bad guys are > >> certainly going to be even more heavily armed. If the bad guys are so > >> heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be > only > >> be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully > "defends" > >> himself. > >Statistics don't support this. Reliable sources have shown at least a 10 > >to 1 ratio of crimes thwarted by potential victims who used guns to > >defend themselves vs. guns used to commit crimes. This of course leaves > >out all the unreported instance of defense plus those crimes that never > >happen because the criminal decides the risk of the victim having a gun > >is too great. > Show me your "reliable sources" and then I'll evaluate their credibility. I > work in a criminal court and have seen six homicides in the last year. In > four of them, the victim was in fact armed (which contributed to their > death). In the other two, arming the victim wouldn't have made a > difference. Here is one study: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html#results which includes the critic from the gun control side. > >> This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. It's pragmatic reasoning. > >"pragmatic reasoning" is a contradiction. Reasoning is a process of > >logical steps, based on basic principles which lead to specific > >conclusions. "Pragmatism" involves compromise which by definition means > >surrendering principles, thus preventing the implementation of reason. > No, pragmatism means consideration of real-world consequences. It would be > illogical to consider any ideology without considering the real-world > consequences of the implementation of such ideology. if "real-world" consequences differ from the theory, the theory is invalid. Reasoning is based on a logic starting point and follows specific rules of logic to determine it's conclusions. "pragmatism" is the idea that reason needs to be "adjusted" to fit the illogical nature of people. You can be "pragmatic" but you cannot reason pragmatically or have "pragmatic reasoning." "pragmatism" could be used to support the banning of any item the government doesn't want people to have from guns to drugs to books to rap music. Regardless of "pragmatism" the action of banning an object because of peoples illegal action with that object is an unjust violation of rights that no legitimate government can take. Philosophy, from which reason & logic spring, is never concered with "pragmatism" I.e. the details, it is only concerned with principles, and it is not the fault of the philosophy if people fail to follow the principles, it is the fault of the people. > >> The world > >> would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. > >In Utopia perhaps. But guns exists, you can't un-invent them, and the > >bad guys will always have them. > The bad guys don't always have them. In Europe and Asia, they are kept out > of the hands of the good guys, and most of the bad guys. In my own court, > defendants charged with pistol possession is the minority fraction. But if > you arm the good guys, then you can bet that 100% of the bad guys will be > armed. Bad guys don't have them because they don't need to. They can prey on people free of the fear they might get shot back. But, by your own admission, some of the bad guys do have them, and if one of those bad guys threatens you with it, I'm sure most people won't want one to protect themselves. Again though, this isn't a logical or reasoned argument, simply a pragmatic one, which has nothing to do with rights. Rights are never pragmatic. They are absolute and immutable. > Instead of living in the fantasy of > >banning guns, how about implementing punishments for gun users that > >actually mean something, and stop letting murderers off by allowing the > >claims the "society" or "violent movies" made me do it. > CPW3rd... Which is criminal possession of a weapon, can carry several years > in jail. I would say that means something. Further, in two years with my > court, I've never seen a single murderer let off by such ridiculous claims. > You're allowing a few well publicized cases (less than 1% of the entire > justice system) affect your view of the entire system. It not "affecting" my view at all. I'm simply pointing out that it is not a logic means of argument. I'm curious as to what "criminal possession of a weapon" involves. If it is mere ownership, there should be no penalty unless there is specific reason to prevent that specific individual from owning a gun (mental illness, past criminal convictions). All I have been arguing is the proper role of government is to ban the unprovoked initiation of force (an action consciously taken by a person of free will who must assume responsibility for his actions), not ban guns (an object with no free and completely incapable of doing anything on its own) > >Good. I'd love to hear the logical reasons for banning an inanimate > >item, incapable of harming anyone without the volitional, malevolent > >action of a person. > Quite simple: Your wrong. only in that I left out the qualifier "malevolent or negligent" > It can harm someone without a volitional > *malevolent* action of a person. Take a look at the number of pistol > accidents in the home when Johnny finds daddy's pistol and decides to play > cops and robbers. There is no malevolent action by the child, only > innocence which results in death. The action here was on the part of the parent who *negligently* left the gun loaded in a place where the child had access. Was this accident the gun's fault or the parent's? Learn where to attach blame. Let's look at the chain- the gun was owned by a parent who obviously either didn't keep it out of reach of his child or failed to teach child about its dangers. The child willfully took the gun and used it as a toy and then willfully pulled the trigger. The gun did nothing but be a gun. (if I wanted to be a real smartass, I would point out that the gun didn't kill anyone, the bullet did... we don't need to ban guns, just bullets) Point being, the people involved were negligent and must accept responsibility for their actions. A gun is an inanimate object like any other and cannot be held responsible for actions taken by people. This whole line of argument is irrelevant anyway since the same could be said of baseball bats. > >D���sir���e- nobody ever wants to ban phasers > -Havoc -- who would require strict licensing requirements for phasers. Licences imply the government has some "right" to ban, which it doesn't and I have yet to see any reasoned argument that they do. D���sir���e- to prevent accidental deaths of children we must ban: guns, baseball, swimming pools, knives, automobiles, pillow cases, stuffed animals, action figures, baggies, rope, scissors, stairs, bicycles, jungle gyms, treehouses, ladders, electrical outlets, teeter-totters, rollerblading, bathtubs, dogs, chainsaws, merry-go-rounds escalators, airplanes, hammers, matches, football, ice hockey, airbags, arrows, screwdrivers, any food that causes allergy, and powerlines. We can go back to living in caves... primitive, but safe!

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <sbvf508see683@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BFB4C1.1AC0@yahoo.com>... > >X-No-Archive: yes > > > > > > > >havoc wrote: > >> > >I think the response would typically be that there's a Second Amendment, > >which specifically protects gun ownership rights. There's no such > >constitutional protection of a *specific* nature for the use of drugs > >and the right to an abortion, though of course you and I both know the > >right to privacy cases and arguments related thereto. > > > > OK Steve-O... I agree with you that the best course would be repeal of the > Second Amendment. But we also both know that the Second Amendment has not > been incorporated and therefore doesn't apply to the states. So I agree, in > Constituional terms, that the Federal government should be limited, the > states are in fact already free to impose any restrictions they see fit. Not true. In Constitutional matters, the Constitution applies equally to the states and the Feds. > > >Although it's against my interest, I think the anti-gun control crowd > >has a point and that the most honest way of dealing with the gun control > >issue is to repeal the Second Amendment first. Any time that a right > >specifically provided for by the Constitution is at issue, the utmost > >caution should be used in restricting that right, as certainly we see in > >First Amendment and other cases. Therefore, I think it's high time the > >issue go to the people for their decision, though I have very little > >anticipation that Congress will do so in the near future. Again, while > >it doesn't serve my interest, I don't have much respect for those > >Supreme Court decisions which try to interpret around the Second > >Amendment. The Second Amendment, is based specifically on the right to property, a right neither granted by, nor repealable by any government but the right of every individual based on his/her existence. Until you can justify, via logic and reason, using individual rights as your basis, why a government has the right to ban private ownership of an inanimate object, gun bans will be unjust and rights-violating. > >Steve Christianson-- pragmatism over rhetoric every time Pragmatism= compromise. The just has nothing to gain from compromising with the unjust. Pragmatism means sacrificing principles. If you are so eager to sacrifice your principles, go right ahead, but don't you dare expect me to. Neither of you have demonstrated the willingness or ability to debate principles, instead getting caught up in details. By denying reason with appeals to "pragmatism" or attempting to discredit it by calling it "rhetoric" you demonstrate that you don't have a rational argument, only an appeal to emotion. Emotions are great for many things except reasoned debates and creating law. Law *must* be based on logic & reason, never on emotion or "pragmatism" D���sir���e- supporting the right to arm bears food for bot

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > X-No-Archive: yes > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > I won't laugh or deny that that might have happened. But these kids need to > > be educated in the true meaning of the prayer they engage in. > > I truly shiver at what you might mean by being "educated" in the violent > environment we know encompasses childhood. > > > And, there > > needs to be parental authority exercised. My boys know that in the unlikely > > event they would do the above, they would suffer far more at my hands then > > would be to their liking. :-) > > I suspect your boys aren't atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.... I agree... I suffered terribly at school because my religious beliefs were different to those of the other kids. Little bastards. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or knowledge > in a gun discussion. > Bob > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few months? -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38BFDF66.EB594534@ix.netcom.com... > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote: > > > > Teach self-defence classes in school! > > As someone who has been a judoka, and a karateka, I will say that what you are > suggesting is impossible. To be able to use the arts takes constant practice to > maintain speed and strength. I estimate that 95% of the population would not > maintain their skill, and only hurt themselves if they tried to use the arts in > a real world defense situation. I stand corrected :) I still believe, though, that there has to be *some* form of gun control, if only to stop the crazies from getting their hands on them. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:38BFE5D3.423E638@micron.net... > Steve Christianson wrote: > > > > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Real world example: "Look, egghead didn't pray! And Jew boy put that > > funny shit cap on his head. We'll kick their asses in the playground > > after school, right guys?" Laugh if you want, but that's the reality of > > the popular culture. > > Then we need to be tough as nails and enforce existing laws designed to > prevent this sort of violence. > Simple. Make bullying a criminal offence, no matter the age of the bully. (I HATE bullies...) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950 >

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


I shall now enter Loserville, USA and respond to my own post. "Mike H." wrote: > > havoc wrote: > > >John Lott has done an extensive study on this that disproves your > > >"pragmatic reasoning", I'm afraid. > > > > > Please post a link to information about this study. Then I'll evaluate its > > credibility. > > http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/lott.pdf havoc - I'm heading out of town for a much deserved 3 day weekend (Vegas, baby!). I really would be interested in hearing your opinion on the Lott study, whenever you find some time to digest it all (it's 60 some odd pages IIRC). Perhaps we could discuss in e-mail, if acceptable to you? Regards, Mike

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > Mike H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message <snip> > > And if we simply leave it in the church and the home, they haven't > > really lost anything have they? > > Except that at the place they spend the waking hours at, they are sent the > message that God is not all that important... Really? My son has never said anything like this to me. Is this message that "God is not all that important" happening via commission or omission on the part of school teachers? > I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being stopped > at the school door. But any given teacher's religious expression may be in direct conflict with any or all of his/her student's religious beliefs. How should that be dealt with? > Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those of the Judeo-Christian bent? Well, I wasn't limiting my objection to any particular bent at all. My specific response was to question why children are losing anything, when religious beliefs can still be taught in churches, etc. and the home. If it's not being taught in schools, then it's not conflicting with what's being taught elsewhere. IMO, this is the best solution.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:sbua17tcee669@corp.supernews.com... > > > > Laura Ware wrote in message > > <4%Ev4.84756$ox5.22804515@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... > > >> I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. > > > > > >Why not? > > > > > > > > > > Because morality is subjective, and it shouldn't be up to a teacher > or > > school board to choose the "correct" morality. > > > > Yes, there are a handful of Universals which are appropriate to > teach > > anywhere. Mostly this: Thou shall respect others. (Which includes > that > > you shouldn't kill them, steal from them, etc). This type of > morality is > > taught in schools already. Further, a respect for law is generally > taught > > in school. > > But see, you prove my point. There IS universal morality that could > be > inculcated. Not so much taught - teachers have a heavy enough load, > and I > wouldn't try to add a course - but as part of every day interaction. > And you prove my point. I am agreeing with you. These universal morals should be enforced through normal school interaction. In fact, they already are. One doesn't need to bring religion into the classroom in order to teach these types of morals.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:sbucdfjree6104@corp.supernews.com... > > > > Masked Man wrote in message > <38c02b0a.104837219@news.mindspring.com>... > > >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > > > >|Religion is probably responsible for more murders, atrocities and > > oppression > > >|than communism, libertarianism and all the other 'isms combined. > > > > > >Masked Man---->Even conceding that point, and I do so only for > > >argument, religion has _saved_ more lives than all those other > isms > > >combined as well.... > > > > > > > Does your mask keep you from understanding history? Give me > examples of > > religion saving lives (not souls, but actual lives). > > > > Let's just take a look at religion in America. Religion was used to > > justify > > and rationalize slavery. (Which was ended by abolitionism). > > >Religion also motivated many to take part in The Underground > Railroad. > > >Moving to the > > 20th Century, Religion was used to rationalize Jim Crow laws. > (Which were > > ended by the liberalism of the Civil Rights movement). > > And the leader of the Civil Rights movement was a preacher of God's > word. > > >Let's move to the > > 21st Century... Where at Bob Jones and other places, religion is > used to > > rationalize continued bigotry. (Whether against inter-racial > dating, > > homosexual preferences, etc.) > > And in other places, religion is used to denounce bigotry. > > > I'm not saying that good can't come from religion. There is indeed > plenty > > of charity work, etc, which is done in the name of religion. But > there is > > also plenty of charity work that is done without invoking religion. > > > Conclusion: Religion is, by itself, morally neutral. It can be > used for > > evil just as readily as it can be used for good. History teaches us > that > > religion is more likely to be used for oppressive purposes. > > I think you are looking at a one-sided view of history. And if > religion is > neutal in your eyes, then why not blame some of the religious instead > of > religion? Actually, you have proven my point. Good and evil can both be perpetrated in the name of religion. I'm not blaming religion for these actions, and nor am I going to credit religion with the positives. The implication of many of those who favor religion in the schools is that somehow, if you teach people about G-d, they won't go around shooting people. But history teaches us that it is often religious people who are the most likely to pick up arms in support of immoral causes. It would be a one sided to say that religion gets credit for its positive contributions to history, but not any of the blame for its negative contributions. -Havoc

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: Except that at the place they spend the waking hours at, they are sent the > message that God is not all that important... > I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being > stopped > at the school door. Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those > of > the Judeo-Christian bent? I personally don't believe G-d is very important and I wouldn't want any school to teach my kids otherwise. I don't want the government to tell my kids how important G-d should, or should not be. (You will notice I abbreviate G-d with a dash out of respect for my own religion.. so obviously, it does have some importance to me). It would be wrong to forbid Judeo-Christian speech, but it isn't forbidden. It's merely inappropriate for the classroom. And this prohibition is alright due to something called the First Amendment of the US Constitution. -Havoc

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote: > > X-No-Archive: yes > > Mike. H. wrote: > > Then how is it that there has been a continuing decline in the violent crime > > rate (source - Bureau of Justice Statistics) coincident with the > > "proliferation of guns in society"? > > > > http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm > > Certainly there's been a long overdue decline in violent crime, due to > tougher criminal legislation, longer prison terms and the > impelementation of no-nonsense policing policies like in New York City. Yep. All good things IMO. > However, America still has a *much* higher crime rate than the rest of > the Western world, and we need gun control to get it down to a civilized > level. I agree that we have a much higher crime rate. For some reason we are a much more violent society. But I honestly don't think it has to do with the simple fact that someone can own a gun. > > Similarly, do you completely discount the published results of John R. Lott, > > which show that in those areas that enact concealed carry laws, the rates of > > violent crime actually go down? > > Lott! That guy's a hack! A complete and utter shill for the right. > Anyone who publishes a book called "More Guns, Less Crime" should be > taken out and shot (small pun intended...). So you dispute his findings altogether? > > > BTW, I'm not trying to be snotty here. But I do think the statistics belie > > your claim. > > I think the statistics are being wildly manipulated by the NRA and the > right wing gun nuts to support their arguments. At least they are acknowledging the statistics exist. The fervent anti-gun crowd doesn't even want anyone to know about them. Can't blame them really, as it "shoots down" many of their arguments.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote: > > X-No-Archive: yes > > Mike H. wrote: > > > > > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be > > > a > > > > 1 minute silent prayer time. > > > > > > I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or > > > review his spelling words one last time... :-) > > > > Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. Don't even blur the lines by > > associating it with prayer. Simply let the parents know that it is > > happening, and let them make the decision what their child does with the > > time. > > This is unrealisitc though. In rural areas and the South the unspoken > reality will be that this is *prayer* time. Well, if that's what the overwhelming majority silently deem it to be, then so be it. I think it is a legitimate compromise for those whose religion is a part of their everyday lives and those who do not want specific religious beliefs imposed on them. > The kid who is atheist, agnostic, of a different faith So they remain silent for a minute. It's not based on any particular faith. > or just doesn't want to pray will be > subject to the vicious peer pressure and ostracism that only the young > can inflict on each other. Kids will do that anyway, whether or not there is a "minute of silence" in the schools. I see it every single day where I live. It's simply an outgrowth of having one dominant religion in a particular ares. > That's one of the reasons why the Supreme > Court originally found school prayer to be unconstitutional: the > unspoken and yet very real social pressure by the majority on minorities > which will have a chilling effect on the maintenance of differing > religious views. > > Real world example: "Look, egghead didn't pray! And Jew boy put that > funny shit cap on his head. We'll kick their asses in the playground > after school, right guys?" Laugh if you want, but that's the reality of > the popular culture. Then we need to be tough as nails and enforce existing laws designed to prevent this sort of violence.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > "Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > news:38BF3ACC.E0D384B8@micron.net... > > Well, it really varies by State. Here in my home state (Utah) it is just > > about that simple. > > So the only judge of whether you are fit to own a gun is a shopkeeper? The shopkeeper merely must comply with existing law. Which IIRC, means verifying a current state address and performing the required background check <which is administered by a state agency>. It would be impractical to have shopkeepers making subjective judgements on someone's fitness. Although, I suppose he could simply make a business decision to not sell a gun to someone. > > Good lord, talk about extreme Government bureaucracy. But OK, let's say > > (heaven forbid) that your husband develops a mental illness after being > > approved to own a gun. Can the Government just come in and take > > everything away? How would they even know in the first place? > > You really think that is bureaucracy? I just think it is sensible! Oh yes. I honestly think that is far too much government interference into the life of a private citizen. > I'm not > to sure on the ins and outs of it, but there are certain precedents for > removing the licence, one is not renewing it by the required due date, one > is keeping or borrowing a gun without notifying the firearms department. But without a recourse to challenge the decision, you basically have no rights at all. The government can simply make a unilateral decision to disarm you. > As far as the mental illness goes, should that ever happen then I would have no > compunction in reporting the matter to the firearms department myself and > asking their advice, I would want nothing on my conscience. Me either. I certainly would do the same thing in your case. > > Wow. Frankly, I am speechless that you are willing to have this much > > Government interference in your life. It seems so subjective to me that > > a Police Officer can simply deny you something (without appeal) when you > > have not even committed a crime. That's something that I hope never > > happens in this country. > > I dont see it as interference, I just see it as due care being taken with > something that could have life threatening consequences, I also bow to the > fact that the people who hand out these licences generally have years of > experience and know far more about what they are doing than I do. OK, there's that difference in culture thing again. :) I myself, am a bit less inclined to have the government think they know what is best for me. At least on this issue. I am willing to allow the government to adress things where I don't have the means to make a decision (such as the Food & Drug Administration). > > After reading what you wrote above, I'm a bit surprised myself. Perhaps > > it is assumed that you will not have access to the storage cabinet? > > By law I am not supposed to have a key or any knowledge of where it is, the > only person who does is Peter. So if I were to find it and take one and got > caught with it, then he would lose his licence, IIRC I am only allowed to > use his gun if he is with me. Right. Seems fairly consistent with the laws you have previously described. > > Here I have to agree with you. We need to do a much better job of > > preventing people with known mental illness from getting guns. > > Unfortunately, though it still doesn't provide an answer to what happens > > if the illness (or drug addiction for that matter) occurs after > > ownership. Although, that's no different than what happens here. > > Of course you cant legislate against everything, but it would not be > unreasonable to require a medical certificate from a doctor every 5 years or > so. Which in effect, could be used by the government to keep track of who owns guns. Something I do not support. > I realise people will always fall through the gap, that is realistic, > but you could go a hell of a long way toward making life safer for everyone. > > > > > > No one asked me whether my husband was violent towards me or prone to > > > drinking etc.. all of this should be taken into consideration before > > > handing out a licence. > > > > Well, people lie. > > They do, but I would far rather they had asked my opinion on guns being in > my home before granting him the power to keep them. Well, hopefully you and your husband discussed the issue in detail before you allowed him to bring guns into your home. > No, as I've said before, you cant legislate against evil, nice as it would > be :-) People like that will always find a way. Unfortunately. :( > > What you are describing above is called Radical Individualism, and I > > would have agreed with you almost 100 % until you put the gun issue > > "qualifier" in your paragraph. It's the very thing I was referring to > > when I said we are unwilling to look at the tougher issues. > > > > Wow, never knew I was a Radical Individualist! No no no. You aren't the Radical Individualist. :) In fact, you were saying that you had a problem with society today based on people's desire for instant gratification. Those are the Radical Individualists. Something I was agreeing with you on, except I don't limit it to just gun ownership. It's becoming an increasingly prevalent attitude in our society. With all sorts of negative consequences. > I just think the guns issue > is perceived as yet another "right" and until people stop demanding rights > over what is more sensible then accidents will continue to happen. It's a balance, I think. When to waive individual rights, and when to vigourously fight for them.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


havoc wrote: > > Mike H. wrote in message <38BF40F0.2002F04C@micron.net>... > > >Besides, if the good guys are allowed to carry guns, are the bad guys > >going to start walking around with rocket launchers? Those could be > >tough to hide. Fact is, guns in the hands of the "good guys" levels the > >playing field. > > > > I'm in charge of pistol licensing in the community in which I live. From > experience, I can tell you that arming the good guys does not level the > playing field. Quite the opposite, the armed victim is actually more likely > to get injured. I haven't seen the facts to support this. But then again, we're now talking two different things. My argument is that less crime is committed. Your argument is based on greater chance of injury resulting from actual crimes. (which is not to dismiss it) > Where an unarmed victim will simply surrender their wallet > without resistence and without injury, the armed victim will often try to > resist and will consequently be stabbed, shot, etc by their attacker. I'm suggesting that the numbers indicate that there are less victims if we arm the good guys. > Those are simply the facts. You can argue all you want about there being > the "right" to self defense by owning a pistol. Are you saying that you do not have a right to defend yourself? > But you can't argue that it protects people from violent crime. Sure I can. I've seen the numbers that support this conclusion. Violent crimes are down in this country. In part due to liberalized concealed-carry laws. > The availability of pistols makes crime more violent, not less. Again, you're talking about the crime *itself* being more violent. I'm arguing that there are less crimes altogether. The net effect is a reduction in violence. > >The good guy doesn't have to "defend" himself because the criminal has > >decided not to act. All due to the possible fact that he has a chance of > >running into someone with a gun. I don't know about you, but I tend to > >shy away from repeat situations where there is a 50 % chance I'll be > >killed. > > > > > Quite wrong. How is that wrong? Have you done a detailed study that polls at-large criminals for how many actual crimes they have committed vs. thought about committing, but were subsequently deterred. I'd politely suggest that extrapolation based on captured criminals testimony about a specific crime is flawed. > There is already a chance he'll run into someone with a gun > (lots of store owners, etc, are already armed). Yet the criminal continues > to act. Yes, criminals continue to act. In decreasing numbers. > It just means that the criminal must be prepared to face a pistol. > As a result, he'll be armed with a pistol. That's the point. These guys are already armed with pistols. They know they have the upper hand. If we don't allow the law abiding citizen to be armed, we don't change that condition. > Now, when an innocent victim is > suddenly attacked by an experienced criminal, who is going to have the upper > hand with their pistol? I must admit, my view presupposes that the armed citizen has at least some clue on how to wield a weapon. I don't know about other states, but you have to pass a course before you are issued a concealed-carry permit. I suspect that's not unique. > This isn't a 50-50 shoot-out at the ok coral. > The bad guy will win almost every single time. Possibly. But eventually, the numbers will catch up with him. My point is, can we reduce the overall number of attempts, thereby having a postive influence on the crime rate? I believe that we can. > In my Court, I've seen six murders in the last year. Four of them wouldn't > have occurred, if the *victim* hadn't been armed. As to the other two.... > The other two would have occurred even if the victim was armed. Not one of > the six would have been prevented, and four were caused at least partially > by the fact that the victim was armed. But these are cases in which some sort of criminal prosecution is occurring. In other words, the crimes were already committed. I'm not disputing the specifics of these cases, I'm saying that for the 6 you describe there may have been 100 not committed at all. > >John Lott has done an extensive study on this that disproves your > >"pragmatic reasoning", I'm afraid. > > > Please post a link to information about this study. Then I'll evaluate its > credibility. http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/lott.pdf

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Ali Andrews wrote: > havoc wrote > > >I'm offended..... First Robrey calls me decent, now you call me > >sensible! <g> > > > >There is a reason that I am.... > > Woops! > > Let me revise that. > > You are sensible but with an air of "danger" about you :-) > > Allie > x Much better... thanks Allie <g> -Havoc

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote: > "lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:O3jv4.3513 > > > > Then those big, young, seasoned fighters in the street gangs would be able > > to do you in without fearing any resistence at all. For them, it would be > > easier, not harder. > > > > Teach self-defence classes in school! > As someone who has been a judoka, and a karateka, I will say that what you are suggesting is impossible. To be able to use the arts takes constant practice to maintain speed and strength. I estimate that 95% of the population would not maintain their skill, and only hurt themselves if they tried to use the arts in a real world defense situation. Bob

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or knowledge in a gun discussion. Bob "D�sir�e Davis" wrote: > In article <38BE2F7F.39F4@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > > > > > > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, you've had > > > this policy for years yet has it made any difference to crime > > > > > > No, in fact it's the cause of the problem. > > No Steve, *criminals* are the cause of the problem. I have never seen a > gun take any willful action of its own. When a gun jumps out of a drawer > and shoots someone all by itself, then you can logically claim guns are > the problem. > > Perhaps you should try putting the responsibility for actions on the > people who perform such actions. > > D�sir�e- not a gun nut BTW

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote: > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:45:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > |Because morality is subjective, and it shouldn't be up to a teacher > or > |school board to choose the "correct" morality. > > Masked Man---->The de facto choice in such circumstances is always > amorality. How many body bags filled with children's bodies do you > need to see before you realize how bankrupt this view is? > You conveniently snipped my reply about certain unviersal morals already being taught in our schools. I never advocated a complete absence of morality, only religion based morality. So, again, I'll post my challenge: As respect for others is already taught in schools, can you tell me one more principle that is universally accepted and isn't already taught in schools, that you feel should be?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Lisa wrote: > > > > > A gun is like a tourniquet. Chances are you'll never need one, but if you > > do, it's the only thing you need, and you need it FAST. In that situation, > > whatever slows your response time, shortens your life. > > Is the world really this bad? > > -- > Lisa Lisa: In 63 years I have never pointed a loaded weapon at anybody. I sincerely hope I never have to. But if the time comes, I also know that if you hesitate you are lost. Having died once, I no longer fear death for myself. I could never, never, never forgive myself if through my inaction, harm came to another innocent person, especially a loved one. Bob

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ali Andrews <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk>)


havoc wrote >I'm offended..... First Robrey calls me decent, now you call me >sensible! <g> > >There is a reason that I am.... Woops! Let me revise that. You are sensible but with an air of "danger" about you :-) Allie x

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sbua17tcee669@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message > <4%Ev4.84756$ox5.22804515@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... > >> I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. > > > >Why not? > > > > > > Because morality is subjective, and it shouldn't be up to a teacher or > school board to choose the "correct" morality. > > Yes, there are a handful of Universals which are appropriate to teach > anywhere. Mostly this: Thou shall respect others. (Which includes that > you shouldn't kill them, steal from them, etc). This type of morality is > taught in schools already. Further, a respect for law is generally taught > in school. But see, you prove my point. There IS universal morality that could be inculcated. Not so much taught - teachers have a heavy enough load, and I wouldn't try to add a course - but as part of every day interaction. > But once you get into more specific types of morality... You run into > danger. Should schools teach that pre-marital sex is wrong? Should schools > teach that sex is wrong? Should schools teach that flag burning is wrong? > Should schools teach that atheism is wrong? Should schools teach that > homosexuality is wrong? Yet some schools seem to have no problem, at least in the area of sex education, of imposing morals whether or not parents agree with them.. > Yes, there are some nearly unverisal moral concepts that should be, and are > already, taught in school. But as to others, they should be left to the > home and parents. > > Can you tell me one more principle that is universally accepted and isn't > already taught in schools, that you feel should be? Uncertain - believe it or not, I haven't thought about it in those terms. I am fortunate that I have been able to keep in touch with my kid's schooling and in communicaton with their teachers so I have an idea what they are being exposed to. One child has been exposed to evolution, which of course contradicts creation; I told him to know it for the test, but it was not up to him to challenge his teacher (this is 4th grade, after all).

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Mike H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:38BF33B0.B4490ED8@micron.net... > Masked Man wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:33:56 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> > > wrote: > > > > |I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > > |1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > > |church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > > |our children the basic principles of learning. > > > > Masked Man---->I couldnt disagree more. Life is not meant to be > > compartmentalized. Separation of church and state, historically, > > applied to separation of state from church, not the other way around. > > I'm not basing my opinion on anything other than I think our kids have > enough to deal with already. I don't want any more time taken away from > them learning basic principles, just so we can educate (or introuduce or > impose) a set of religious morals. Morals, I might add, that would be > near impossible to agree on due to the diversity of our country. > > > And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer > > is as much a part of life as breathing. > > In your opinion. I don't pray and my breathing is quite fine, thank you. > > > Children should learn that in school as well as church. > > And if we simply leave it in the church and the home, they haven't > really lost anything have they? Except that at the place they spend the waking hours at, they are sent the message that God is not all that important... I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being stopped at the school door. Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those of the Judeo-Christian bent?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:2XJv4.1274$237.30703@news3.cableinet.net... > > "Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > news:38BF3B76.67F53DCA@micron.net... > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > Mike. H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > > > news:89m8m1010i2@news1.newsguy.com... > > > > > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe > be > > > a > > > > 1 minute silent prayer time. > > > > > > I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, > or > > > review his spelling words one last time... :-) > > > > Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. Don't even blur the lines by > > associating it with prayer. Simply let the parents know that it is > > happening, and let them make the decision what their child does with the > > time. > > > > Or even let the child decide? Sure. I told both my boys that while I could decide all kinds of things for them, including their bedtimes, I could not decide for them whether or not to follow Christ. Both boys chose that path freely and we tried very hard not to pressure them in this (even told the youngest he might be deciding prematurely, but he was adamant and we felt it would be wrong to stop him).

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38BF7F15.41FC@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Mike H. wrote: > > > > > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be > > > a > > > > 1 minute silent prayer time. > > > > > > I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or > > > review his spelling words one last time... :-) > > > > Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. Don't even blur the lines by > > associating it with prayer. Simply let the parents know that it is > > happening, and let them make the decision what their child does with the > > time. > > > This is unrealisitc though. In rural areas and the South the unspoken > reality will be that this is *prayer* time. The kid who is atheist, > agnostic, of a different faith or just doesn't want to pray will be > subject to the vicious peer pressure and ostracism that only the young > can inflict on each other. But how will they know what their peers are doing? AFAIK, Betaziods and Vulcans haven't hit the public schools yet... >That's one of the reasons why the Supreme > Court originally found school prayer to be unconstitutional: the > unspoken and yet very real social pressure by the majority on minorities > which will have a chilling effect on the maintenance of differing > religious views. There is pressure now for children to reject religion, Steve. By the majority of those in the entertainment industry. > Real world example: "Look, egghead didn't pray! And Jew boy put that > funny shit cap on his head. We'll kick their asses in the playground > after school, right guys?" Laugh if you want, but that's the reality of > the popular culture. I won't laugh or deny that that might have happened. But these kids need to be educated in the true meaning of the prayer they engage in. And, there needs to be parental authority exercised. My boys know that in the unlikely event they would do the above, they would suffer far more at my hands then would be to their liking. :-)

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


lurker@home <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message news:cQJv4.4835$ql2.45228@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message > <3%Ev4.84755$ox5.22804649@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... > >> 1 minute silent prayer time. > > > >I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or > >review his spelling words one last time... :-) > > Reviewing those spelling words one last time is a form of prayer..... LOL!!! True....

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sbuamfcee617@corp.supernews.com... > > Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message <020320002045313154%brianb1@home.com>... > >> YOUR theology..... But what gives you the right to impose that theology > on > >> me or my children??? > > > >Conversely, what gives you the right to impose your *lack* of theology > >on me or *my* children? > > > > > How dare you say that I lack theology, simply because my theology differs > from yours. (And would you really want the Protestant kids fighting the > Jewish kids fighting the Muslim kids fighting the Catholic kids fighting the > atheist kids). > > I would have no right to impose atheism on your children. You have the > right to teach your kids any theology you wish. I'm not imposing anything > on them, I'm leaving the public schools silent on the matter. But why > should the public school teach *my* kids *your* theology. But ARE the public schools silent on the matter? Think before you answer. Yes, they are silent as far as the Jeudeo-Christian faiths are concerned, but humanism, New-Age-ism, other religions? Are they truly "silent" on these issues? And does not the silence sometimes lead to a distortion of history?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sbucqfb7ee6105@corp.supernews.com... > > Masked Man wrote in message <38c12b47.104898841@news.mindspring.com>... > >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > >|If you > >|lived in a mostly Muslim neighborhood, would you want your children's > school > >|to take several breaks during the day during which they could worship > Allah? > > > >Masked Man----->That is exactly the deal I am proposing. I have seen > >it work. There were two Jewish girls in the classroom I grew up in. > >Neither they nor their parents apparently had any trouble with their > >reciting the Lord's prayer. The tradeoff for that requirement was > >they received time off during their high holy days, no questions > >asked. > > > As a Jew, I can tell you that's a very unfair trade-off. As it currently > stands, many schools schedule activities on Saturdays, thus forcing Jewish > children to choose between their religion and exra-ciricular activities. Actually, I understand the difficulty here. We are not Jewish, but we meet Sunday mornings, Sunday nights, and Wednesday nights, and if my oldest sticks with band in high school we will have a similar conflict.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sbucdfjree6104@corp.supernews.com... > > Masked Man wrote in message <38c02b0a.104837219@news.mindspring.com>... > >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > >|Religion is probably responsible for more murders, atrocities and > oppression > >|than communism, libertarianism and all the other 'isms combined. > > > >Masked Man---->Even conceding that point, and I do so only for > >argument, religion has _saved_ more lives than all those other isms > >combined as well.... > > > > Does your mask keep you from understanding history? Give me examples of > religion saving lives (not souls, but actual lives). > > Let's just take a look at religion in America. Religion was used to justify > and rationalize slavery. (Which was ended by abolitionism). >Religion also motivated many to take part in The Underground Railroad. >Moving to the > 20th Century, Religion was used to rationalize Jim Crow laws. (Which were > ended by the liberalism of the Civil Rights movement). And the leader of the Civil Rights movement was a preacher of God's word. >Let's move to the > 21st Century... Where at Bob Jones and other places, religion is used to > rationalize continued bigotry. (Whether against inter-racial dating, > homosexual preferences, etc.) And in other places, religion is used to denounce bigotry. > I'm not saying that good can't come from religion. There is indeed plenty > of charity work, etc, which is done in the name of religion. But there is > also plenty of charity work that is done without invoking religion. > Conclusion: Religion is, by itself, morally neutral. It can be used for > evil just as readily as it can be used for good. History teaches us that > religion is more likely to be used for oppressive purposes. I think you are looking at a one-sided view of history. And if religion is neutal in your eyes, then why not blame some of the religious instead of religion?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: A Danger To Others (Was Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Bozo the Evil Klown <evilklowwn@aol.comedy> wrote in message news:20000302141932.01296.00000250@ng-fe1.aol.com... > I was flipping through news channels today..... it seems the shooter in > question had a violent history before he ever got hold of a gun; he'd been > suspended from school for fighting, and for stabbing a girl with a pencil. > > My suspension of disbelief, toughened up and tempered by six years of Vger > *still* can't comprehend why someone with a history of violent attack was still > in a public school until he actually killed someone..... of course, since he's > too young to be charged with any sort of crime he may even wind up back in the > public school system. To be honest, his teachers may have idealistically thought they could help him if they kept him in school. I made a decision like that once and it was a very bad one: I plead being young and idealistic. :-) > Hopefully, he'll get his future murders in while he's still young enough to get > away with it. > > Given his history as a threat to others, at what point do we decide that the > rights and safety of the OTHER students requires him to be seperated? Whether > or not he can be reformed is a seperate issue, but my own concern is for the > other children he may hurt or kill until then- especially with the concerted > efforts going into convincing him that he's not responsible for his own > actions. I am for segregating kids like this - taught them many moons ago. The problem is that we sometimes think it is cruel to keep them out of the regular classroom, when that is just what they need. > The punch line is that the prosecutor's office *will decide* today if any > charges will be filed against the (so-called) adults who let him get his hands > on a gun. I hope they do! AND that they take the kid out of that home!

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sbu8jvicee6134@corp.supernews.com... > I'm not suggesting that religion is automatically evil, but it's > certainly not automatically virtuous. I would say that it is not religion that is at fault, but some "religious" people. Just because they fly the name of God on their banner does not mean He told them to.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |YOUR theology..... But what gives you the right to impose that theology on |me or my children? Masked Man---->It's not just my theology. It's theology embraced by millions of people, thousands of whom can be found in my hometown every Sunday morning and evening. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Religion is probably responsible for more murders, atrocities and oppression |than communism, libertarianism and all the other 'isms combined. Masked Man---->Even conceding that point, and I do so only for argument, religion has _saved_ more lives than all those other isms combined as well.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |If you |lived in a mostly Muslim neighborhood, would you want your children's school |to take several breaks during the day during which they could worship Allah? Masked Man----->That is exactly the deal I am proposing. I have seen it work. There were two Jewish girls in the classroom I grew up in. Neither they nor their parents apparently had any trouble with their reciting the Lord's prayer. The tradeoff for that requirement was they received time off during their high holy days, no questions asked. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:45:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Because morality is subjective, and it shouldn't be up to a teacher or |school board to choose the "correct" morality. Masked Man---->The de facto choice in such circumstances is always amorality. How many body bags filled with children's bodies do you need to see before you realize how bankrupt this view is? -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:21:03 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |There are billions of Hindus and Budhists in the world, so perhaps your |local schools should teach Hinduism, if you're using majority as grounds for |judging merit. Masked Man---->I'm not interested in the world. Or, even in the country. I'm interested in my hometown, and there are few Hindus, Buddhists, or KKK here. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Mike H. wrote in message <38BF40F0.2002F04C@micron.net>... >Besides, if the good guys are allowed to carry guns, are the bad guys >going to start walking around with rocket launchers? Those could be >tough to hide. Fact is, guns in the hands of the "good guys" levels the >playing field. > I'm in charge of pistol licensing in the community in which I live. From experience, I can tell you that arming the good guys does not level the playing field. Quite the opposite, the armed victim is actually more likely to get injured. Where an unarmed victim will simply surrender their wallet without resistence and without injury, the armed victim will often try to resist and will consequently be stabbed, shot, etc by their attacker. Those are simply the facts. You can argue all you want about there being the "right" to self defense by owning a pistol. But you can't argue that it protects people from violent crime. The availability of pistols makes crime more violent, not less. >> If the bad guys are so >> heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be only >> be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully "defends" >> himself. > >The good guy doesn't have to "defend" himself because the criminal has >decided not to act. All due to the possible fact that he has a chance of >running into someone with a gun. I don't know about you, but I tend to >shy away from repeat situations where there is a 50 % chance I'll be >killed. > > Quite wrong. There is already a chance he'll run into someone with a gun (lots of store owners, etc, are already armed). Yet the criminal continues to act. It just means that the criminal must be prepared to face a pistol. As a result, he'll be armed with a pistol. Now, when an innocent victim is suddenly attacked by an experienced criminal, who is going to have the upper hand with their pistol? This isn't a 50-50 shoot-out at the ok coral. The bad guy will win almost every single time. In my Court, I've seen six murders in the last year. Four of them wouldn't have occurred, if the *victim* hadn't been armed. As to the other two.... The other two would have occurred even if the victim was armed. Not one of the six would have been prevented, and four were caused at least partially by the fact that the victim was armed. >> This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. > >Looks suspiciously anti-gun to me. > > >>It's pragmatic reasoning. The world >> would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. > >John Lott has done an extensive study on this that disproves your >"pragmatic reasoning", I'm afraid. > Please post a link to information about this study. Then I'll evaluate its credibility. -Havoc

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38BF9D5E.24D6@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > > > First and foremost Bob before you start taking guns away from people you > > gotta stop giving them out for anything other than very valid reasons. It > > is such a massive thing that it will take years to resolve, but unless you > > find a starting place it will never happen. I hate to bring it up, but look > > at Dunblane and how quickly these guns were removed, IIRC it happened within > > months. I realise how much bigger the states is, but if each state is > > individually responsible for itself then the problem becomes smaller (please > > dont laugh at my small town attitude, I have no real idea of how large your > > country is or how it is governed <g>) > > > Actually I like your small town attitude, it's refreshing. :-) Why thank you :-) *does a little curtsey* > > > What I do know though is that guns are not the answer, no matter how you try > > to justify it and rationalise it you will never convince me that they are a > > way forward for society. The issues are larger, but until people stop > > faffing around and start to stop it then it will never happen. We learnt > ^^^^^^^ > > > "Faffing"? Is that something that pillocks do? <g> ROTFLOL, you'll never forget that one will you? Generally speaking it is the male of the species that faffs about, they discuss how to do something, plan how to do it, make sketches of how to do it, have a little nap to refresh themselves before actually getting on with it and in the mean time the woman just did it! Understand now<eg>? > > > > alot from what happened at Dunblane and I just dont understand what it will > > take for your country to do the same :-( > > > More kids dying? :-( Exactly, but what is so worrisome is that even this doesn't seem to make any difference to peoples attitudes.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >In article <sbu9hmo3ee6151@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... >> >> D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >> >In article <38BE052A.3EEC@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... >> > >> >> This whole issue is such bullshit and is filled with the worst kind of >> >> moral sophistry and tawdry rationalization for what is really the gun >> >> nuts' desire to keep their toys. >> > >> >Sorry Steve, it's based on moral principle and human rights. (Although >> >from previous discussion you strike me as a moral relativist who has no >> >acceptance of human rights) The human right being the right to property. >> >Mere ownership of *anything* cannot be banned. >> >> Interesting in theory, but not the least bit true in practice. > >It's not true in practice because people don't respect rights. > People don't respect rights, or governments don't? >As part of >> the normal police powers, states have always had the right to ban hazardous >> materials > >You speak as if the police have rights that the common person doesn't >have. All rights are individual rights, and no group or government can >claim rights that the individual doesn't have. Besides you are arguing >historic implementation, while I am arguing principle. *In principle* no >one (and this includes governments) has the right to tell anyone else >what they can or can't own. If you disagree, please explain to me what >moral right or principle makes this so. > I was referring to state police powers. The state is vested with certain responsibilities, which is part of the social contract of living in a democracy. For example, Joe Shmoe doesn't have the right to place me in handcuffs if he sees me steal property. A police officer does have that power, which in transferred to him by the state, which has been transferred to the state by the people in the democratic social contract. As you see, ultimately, the power belongs to the people. >> (like diseased animals from crossing state lines). For example, >> are you suggesting I would have the right to store hazardous and nuclear >> waste in my house, next door to my neighbors? > >You have every right to store it on your own house (which would be >rather stupid if you ask me), but if it leaks onto your neighbor's >property you have infringed on their rights, and are thus responsible for >the damage done by said material. If it gets into the water, then you >have infringed on the rights of the water owner and are thus responsible >to him. Ownership is *never* the issue. What you do with what you own >is. > You're right... It isn't ownership, but you just acknowledged that it's "possession" that can be inherently dangerous. I can't own a nuclear reactor in my house, because it *will* cause harm to others. Similarly, statistics shows that even legally possessed pistols will cause harm to innocent victims. (Take a look at statistics about pistol accidents in the home, etc) >> Second, why is it that most of the strongest supporters of gun rights are so >> opposed to other personal individual rights? Politically, this is the same >> part of the spectrum that is against a woman's right to choose an abortion, >> the group that would most adamantly oppose legalization of drugs (and >> ownership of those drugs). Desiree, I'm not suggesting you belong to this >> hypocritical contingent, but you can't deny its existence. > >I don't deny it's existence but I fail to see what relevance this line of >argument has to a debate on gun laws? That both "Conservatives" and >"Liberals" are illogical and contradictory has nothing to do with the >facts of this debate. I am arguing for individual rights, since those >are the only rights that exist. > And I respect your clear non-partisan logic on the issue. > >> Guns >> aren't nearly as big a problem in Europe and Asia, for example, because they >> are so tightly controlled. > >Controlled by who? The government? So you have two classes of people- >those allowed guns and thus not. Not a very free society if you ask me. >You are assuming that some one has the *right* to control them. What >right is this? Where does it come from? How can it be a right if we >don't all have it? One person wouldn't have such a right to control such a thing. That would fly against the principle of democratic government. But just as a democratic country can impose a 55 mph speed limit, it can also impose other reasonable safety restrictions. >> >> Here is the simple math: If you arm the good guys, then the bad guys are >> certainly going to be even more heavily armed. If the bad guys are so >> heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be only >> be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully "defends" >> himself. > >Statistics don't support this. Reliable sources have shown at least a 10 >to 1 ratio of crimes thwarted by potential victims who used guns to >defend themselves vs. guns used to commit crimes. This of course leaves >out all the unreported instance of defense plus those crimes that never >happen because the criminal decides the risk of the victim having a gun >is too great. Show me your "reliable sources" and then I'll evaluate their credibility. I work in a criminal court and have seen six homicides in the last year. In four of them, the victim was in fact armed (which contributed to their death). In the other two, arming the victim wouldn't have made a difference. >> >> This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. It's pragmatic reasoning. > >"pragmatic reasoning" is a contradiction. Reasoning is a process of >logical steps, based on basic principles which lead to specific >conclusions. "Pragmatism" involves compromise which by definition means >surrendering principles, thus preventing the implementation of reason. > No, pragmatism means consideration of real-world consequences. It would be illogical to consider any ideology without considering the real-world consequences of the implementation of such ideology. >> The world >> would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. > >In Utopia perhaps. But guns exists, you can't un-invent them, and the >bad guys will always have them. The bad guys don't always have them. In Europe and Asia, they are kept out of the hands of the good guys, and most of the bad guys. In my own court, defendants charged with pistol possession is the minority fraction. But if you arm the good guys, then you can bet that 100% of the bad guys will be armed. Instead of living in the fantasy of >banning guns, how about implementing punishments for gun users that >actually mean something, and stop letting murderers off by allowing the >claims the "society" or "violent movies" made me do it. CPW3rd... Which is criminal possession of a weapon, can carry several years in jail. I would say that means something. Further, in two years with my court, I've never seen a single murderer let off by such ridiculous claims. You're allowing a few well publicized cases (less than 1% of the entire justice system) affect your view of the entire system. >> >> >D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time >> > >> -Havoc -- whose logic can rival a Vulcan. > >Good. I'd love to hear the logical reasons for banning an inanimate >item, incapable of harming anyone without the volitional, malevolent >action of a person. Quite simple: Your wrong. It can harm someone without a volitional *malevolent* action of a person. Take a look at the number of pistol accidents in the home when Johnny finds daddy's pistol and decides to play cops and robbers. There is no malevolent action by the child, only innocence which results in death. > >D���sir���e- nobody ever wants to ban phasers -Havoc -- who would require strict licensing requirements for phasers.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ali Andrews <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk>)


<snipped for brevity only!> Havoc, thank you for an excellent post. It's good to know that there are some sensible people out there! Respectfully, Allie x

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BFB4C1.1AC0@yahoo.com>... >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >havoc wrote: >> >> Second, why is it that most of the strongest supporters of gun rights are so >> opposed to other personal individual rights? Politically, this is the same >> part of the spectrum that is against a woman's right to choose an abortion, >> the group that would most adamantly oppose legalization of drugs (and >> ownership of those drugs). Desiree, I'm not suggesting you belong to this >> hypocritical contingent, but you can't deny its existence. > > >I think the response would typically be that there's a Second Amendment, >which specifically protects gun ownership rights. There's no such >constitutional protection of a *specific* nature for the use of drugs >and the right to an abortion, though of course you and I both know the >right to privacy cases and arguments related thereto. > OK Steve-O... I agree with you that the best course would be repeal of the Second Amendment. But we also both know that the Second Amendment has not been incorporated and therefore doesn't apply to the states. So I agree, in Constituional terms, that the Federal government should be limited, the states are in fact already free to impose any restrictions they see fit. >Although it's against my interest, I think the anti-gun control crowd >has a point and that the most honest way of dealing with the gun control >issue is to repeal the Second Amendment first. Any time that a right >specifically provided for by the Constitution is at issue, the utmost >caution should be used in restricting that right, as certainly we see in >First Amendment and other cases. Therefore, I think it's high time the >issue go to the people for their decision, though I have very little >anticipation that Congress will do so in the near future. Again, while >it doesn't serve my interest, I don't have much respect for those >Supreme Court decisions which try to interpret around the Second >Amendment. > > >> Here is the simple math: If you arm the good guys, then the bad guys are >> certainly going to be even more heavily armed. If the bad guys are so >> heavily armed, then lots of people are going to get killed. It will be only >> be a small percentage of the time that the good guy successfully "defends" >> himself. >> >> This isn't pro or anti gun ideology. It's pragmatic reasoning. The world >> would be much safer for the good guys if you strictly limit handguns. > > >Well put, Havoc. > > >> >D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time >> > >> -Havoc -- whose logic can rival a Vulcan. > > >Steve Christianson-- pragmatism over rhetoric every time

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Ali Andrews wrote: > <snipped for brevity only!> > > Havoc, thank you for an excellent post. It's good to know that there > are > some sensible people out there! > > Respectfully, > Allie > x I'm offended..... First Robrey calls me decent, now you call me sensible! <g> There is a reason that I am.... -Havoc

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message <3%Ev4.84755$ox5.22804649@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... >> 1 minute silent prayer time. > >I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or >review his spelling words one last time... :-) Reviewing those spelling words one last time is a form of prayer.....

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:38BF3ACC.E0D384B8@micron.net... > Lisa wrote: > > Apologies if the text wrap seems a bit wonky. It came through sort of > weird. Okay :-) > > > > > "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > > > > > There are certain restrictions on adults having the right and the ability > > to > > > get guns. Truthfully, they do not seem to be very well enforced. But > > > generally speaking, you are correct. It's simply a difference in our > > > culture. > > > > I know I am only going on what I have seen on tv, but it seems that you just > > go into a shop, get yourself a license, buy yourself a gun and away you go. > > Is it really that simple? > > Well, it really varies by State. Here in my home state (Utah) it is just > about that simple. So the only judge of whether you are fit to own a gun is a shopkeeper? > > Again, this comes back to whoever is handing out your licences. When my > > husband applied for a licence here, we had to buy a special gun cabinet to a > > specific standard, which then had to be bolted to the wall and floor, he had > > to fill in an extensive application form which was then forwarded to the > > police who checked all his details and to see if he had a criminal record, > > he had to provide good reason as to why he wanted to keep guns, we then had > > a visit from a police officer to check the cabinet and to see what he > > thought of my husband. > > Good lord, talk about extreme Government bureaucracy. But OK, let's say > (heaven forbid) that your husband develops a mental illness after being > approved to own a gun. Can the Government just come in and take > everything away? How would they even know in the first place? You really think that is bureaucracy? I just think it is sensible! I'm not to sure on the ins and outs of it, but there are certain precedents for removing the licence, one is not renewing it by the required due date, one is keeping or borrowing a gun without notifying the firearms department. As far as the mental illness goes, should that ever happen then I would have no compunction in reporting the matter to the firearms department myself and asking their advice, I would want nothing on my conscience. > > > At any given point he could have been refused the licence with no court of > > appeal, and you may find this hard to believe, but I actually questioned > > that this process was tough enough. > > Wow. Frankly, I am speechless that you are willing to have this much > Government interference in your life. It seems so subjective to me that > a Police Officer can simply deny you something (without appeal) when you > have not even committed a crime. That's something that I hope never > happens in this country. I dont see it as interference, I just see it as due care being taken with something that could have life threatening consequences, I also bow to the fact that the people who hand out these licences generally have years of experience and know far more about what they are doing than I do. > > > I was dismayed that they didnt check me out as the guns would be in my home, > > After reading what you wrote above, I'm a bit surprised myself. Perhaps > it is assumed that you will not have access to the storage cabinet? By law I am not supposed to have a key or any knowledge of where it is, the only person who does is Peter. So if I were to find it and take one and got caught with it, then he would lose his licence, IIRC I am only allowed to use his gun if he is with me. > > > I was also saddened that they never did > > a medical check on either of us to see whether we suffered from any sort of > > mental or physical disorder which should prohibit us from having the guns. > > Here I have to agree with you. We need to do a much better job of > preventing people with known mental illness from getting guns. > Unfortunately, though it still doesn't provide an answer to what happens > if the illness (or drug addiction for that matter) occurs after > ownership. Although, that's no different than what happens here. Of course you cant legislate against everything, but it would not be unreasonable to require a medical certificate from a doctor every 5 years or so. I realise people will always fall through the gap, that is realistic, but you could go a hell of a long way toward making life safer for everyone. > > > No one asked me whether my husband was violent towards me or prone to > > drinking etc.. all of this should be taken into consideration before > > handing out a licence. > > Well, people lie. They do, but I would far rather they had asked my opinion on guns being in my home before granting him the power to keep them. > > > When you have children killing each other then the price has gone through > > the roof. > > Look at the Columbine High School tragedy, though. Those kids had home > made grenades and explosives. I suspect the toughest gun laws in the > country wouldn't have prevented that. I guess what I am saying is that > it is so much more than guns. And I don't want to lose the freedoms that > I enjoy because we as a society (US) are unwilling to look at the much > tougher issues. No, as I've said before, you cant legislate against evil, nice as it would be :-) People like that will always find a way. > > > > > Wanting something does not make it a right, > > > > > > Oh, I never said that it was. I was just trying to provide a few reasons > > on > > > why people who believe strongly in gun ownership, do so. > > > > I have a real problem with society today in general in as much as people > > seem to think that if they want something and it will make them happy then > > they should have it, no matter what it is, possesions, someone elses > > husband/wife, a baby etc.., they desire it so therefore they have a right to > > it. I just dont see life as being like that, but whilst we bring up future > > generations to believe in instant gratification and the pursuit of their own > > happiness at the expense of those around them, then the morals behind the > > gun issue will continue on a downward spiral > > What you are describing above is called Radical Individualism, and I > would have agreed with you almost 100 % until you put the gun issue > "qualifier" in your paragraph. It's the very thing I was referring to > when I said we are unwilling to look at the tougher issues. > Wow, never knew I was a Radical Individualist! I just think the guns issue is perceived as yet another "right" and until people stop demanding rights over what is more sensible then accidents will continue to happen. Lisa

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:38BF3B76.67F53DCA@micron.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > Mike. H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > > news:89m8m1010i2@news1.newsguy.com... > > > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be > > a > > > 1 minute silent prayer time. > > > > I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or > > review his spelling words one last time... :-) > > Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. Don't even blur the lines by > associating it with prayer. Simply let the parents know that it is > happening, and let them make the decision what their child does with the > time. > Or even let the child decide?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:5%Ev4.84757$ox5.22804604@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message > > > > And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer > > is as much a part of life as breathing. Children should learn that > > in school as well as church. Once upon a time in this country they > > did. > > I'm on your side in spirit, MM, but whose prayers? There are certain > prayers *I* wouldn't be comfortable with my kids being a part of. That's > why I lean towards a moment of silence as a compromise. > That sounds like a reasonable idea... a moment of silent prayer, or meditation, or whatever's appropriate for your particular faith. I know I for one would not like to have my kids made to recite Christian prayers. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:33:56 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> > wrote: > > |I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > |1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > |church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > |our children the basic principles of learning. > > Masked Man---->I couldnt disagree more. Life is not meant to be > compartmentalized. Separation of church and state, historically, > applied to separation of state from church, not the other way around. > > And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer > is as much a part of life as breathing. Children should learn that > in school as well as church. Once upon a time in this country they > did. > And for non-Christians for whom prayer is not a part of their faith? How will their religious needs be attended to? -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:16:49 -0800, D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: |Effectively, all your saying is "it's always been done that way" but this |doesn't offer any proof as to whether that way is just or not. Masked Man---->I reject the burden of proof. I do not have to prove anything. | |> And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer |> is as much a part of life as breathing. | | God really change his mind because of hearing prayers? MM---->The question is irrelevant to a discussion of why we ought to pray...My theology dictates that the Lord takes pleasure in those who petition him after his will. | The "once upon a time" you are referring to was back when school was |primarily a private institution and thus the parents had some choice as |to whether their children were exposed to Christian prayer or Judaism or |Buddhism or whatever based on what church/institution was running the |school. Masked Man---->I'll respectfully request you not put words in my mouth. The "once upon a time" I referred to was 1950's America, a time in which I lived and attended public school, where we prayed every day, where my teacher read her Bible in class, where Christmas decorations included a creche, where prayers were routinely offered at assemblies. The time was not that long ago. I know it exists because I was part of it. |To force religion on children through state-sponsered schools is a simple and clear violation of rights and |cannot be allowed in a free society. Masked Man---->Baloney. To do otherwise is to summon more incidents like Columbine. How many more children have to die on the altar of your libertarianism? The corpses of these children amply demonstrate more eloquently than I ever could that religious libertarianism does not work |Neither the government nor you have any right to dictate any |religious beliefs on any of them via the public school system. Masked Man---->The roots of this nation are fundamentally Judeo-Christian. The ecumenism you allude to is a rather recent historical development, and is used by some as a straw man to force home a bankrupt point of view that because we cannot accommodate all. we shall accommodate none. Furthermore, I am not dictating anything. I am lobbying for Christian organizations like Youth for Christ to be allowed back into our public schools, and asserting that by doing so, we can save some future generations of children from becoming both murderers and victims. | |D�sir�e- a free thinking Christian Masked Man--->just a plain, old Christian -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > There are certain restrictions on adults having the right and the ability to > get guns. Truthfully, they do not seem to be very well enforced. But > generally speaking, you are correct. It's simply a difference in our > culture. I know I am only going on what I have seen on tv, but it seems that you just go into a shop, get yourself a license, buy yourself a gun and away you go. Is it really that simple? > > > > Most people do have a healthy respect for guns. Unfortunately, there are > > > far too many who do not. The result is a continuation of this type of > tragedy. > > > > But this is my argument, these people are showing a real lack of maturity > > and therefore should never be allowed to have a gun. There should be no > > grey areas. > > But how can you test reliably for maturity? Heck, can anyone even agree on > what threshold of "maturity" must be reached in order for someone to possess > a gun? It's very difficult. Circumstances change (for instance, a gun may > have been in the household prior to a divorce, or drug problem). Again, this comes back to whoever is handing out your licences. When my husband applied for a licence here, we had to buy a special gun cabinet to a specific standard, which then had to be bolted to the wall and floor, he had to fill in an extensive application form which was then forwarded to the police who checked all his details and to see if he had a criminal record, he had to provide good reason as to why he wanted to keep guns, we then had a visit from a police officer to check the cabinet and to see what he thought of my husband. At any given point he could have been refused the licence with no court of appeal, and you may find this hard to believe, but I actually questioned that this process was tough enough. I was dismayed that they didnt check me out as the guns would be in my home, I was also saddened that they never did a medical check on either of us to see whether we suffered from any sort of mental or physical disorder which should prohibit us from having the guns. No one asked me whether my husband was violent towards me or prone to drinking etc.. all of this should be taken into consideration before handing out a licence. > > I don't think it is so much about "need", but rather a desire to exercise > freedom of choice. It's a basic right in this country for "life, liberty and > the pursuit of happiness". Who are we (or the Government) to dictate to the > individual how they exercise that right? Are there negative consequences? > Absolutely. You would be an idiot to deny that. However, it's a price we pay > for living in a free society. Has that price become too high? I guess that's > why we're engaging in discussion. When you have children killing each other then the price has gone through the roof. > > > > > I dont see why your average citizen should want or need a gun, > > > > > > Some see it a right, some see it as a basic liberty and are exercising > > > freedom of choice, some see it as a mechanism for the right to protect > > > oneself and their families, some see it as a means to engage in sport, > > etc. > > > > Wanting something does not make it a right, > > Oh, I never said that it was. I was just trying to provide a few reasons on > why people who believe strongly in gun ownership, do so. I have a real problem with society today in general in as much as people seem to think that if they want something and it will make them happy then they should have it, no matter what it is, possesions, someone elses husband/wife, a baby etc.., they desire it so therefore they have a right to it. I just dont see life as being like that, but whilst we bring up future generations to believe in instant gratification and the pursuit of their own happiness at the expense of those around them, then the morals behind the gun issue will continue on a downward spiral -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Michael Robinson" <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BEC809.EC259411@pilot.msu.edu... > "Mike. H." wrote: > > > > "lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message > > news:8Vvv4.4353$ql2.34372@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > > > > > Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE3032.47F3@yahoo.com>... > > > >X-No-Archive: yes > > <snip God in school thing> > > > >What a bunch of fundamentalist horseshit. > > > > > > You even got the animal right! I'm a Christian, but (or should I say > > "so"?) > > > this kind of bumper-sticker logic just frosts me. It's cute maybe, but it > > > just isn't appropriate. It's like cracking Alzheimers' jokes about > > President > > > Reagan. > > > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > > 1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > > church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > > our children the basic principles of learning. > > I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. Manners and > getting along with others should be reinforced, but the bulk should rely > on the parents. Surely morality is interlinked with manners and the ability to see others points of view. Lisa

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.13286f93dca222289896e7@news.csulb.edu... > > . > > > By insisting that gun owners take responsibility for themselves and the > > > guns in their possession, you foster a social & moral climate in which > > > bad actions (like shooting people) have bad consequences (like > > > imprisonment for a long time). > > > > This to me, is the crux of the matter, if licenses were not given out so > > easily and there were far tougher guidelines as to who was eligible for a > > licence then maybe these sort of people would not be owning guns. > > > > > > > > In this particular case, the parent screwed up and should be held just as > > > responsible as if she had pulled the trigger herself. To control > > > violence, place the blame for it on the people performing it, or in the > > > case of children, on the people responsible for the child. > > > > Absolutely, the parents are 100% to blame for this child and society is to > > blame for allowing these people to be raising this child and owning guns as > > well. > > Except there is no "society" you can blame. "Society" as a collective > entity cannot be held responsible for the actions of individuals. That > woman made a choice to have a child. With that choice comes > responsibility to raise that child as a member of society and she > abrogated that responsibility it is nobody's fault but her own. Unless > you wish to argue that "society" has some right to dictate who can have > children, and that, to me, is a scary proposition no matter how well > intentioned it may be. So, if the woman is a drug user or mentally unstable etc.. and unable to make a rational, responsible decision who is watching out for the child? I dont think Society can dictate who has children or not, but just because any woman can give birth shouldn't give her an automatic right to raise that child if she is clearly an unfit parent and placing the child in danger. Like guns, people consider children to be a right and they are not. Lisa

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (saladbar@my-deja.com)


In article <38beded5.85325279@news.mindspring.com>, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:48:57 GMT, saladbar@my-deja.com wrote: > > | do we > |have a deal? > > MM--->No. > > -- > > Who was that masked man? > exactly. -- saladbar Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Mike. H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:89m8m1010i2@news1.newsguy.com... > > "lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message > news:8Vvv4.4353$ql2.34372@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > > > Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE3032.47F3@yahoo.com>... > > >X-No-Archive: yes > <snip God in school thing> > > >What a bunch of fundamentalist horseshit. > > > > You even got the animal right! I'm a Christian, but (or should I say > "so"?) > > this kind of bumper-sticker logic just frosts me. It's cute maybe, but it > > just isn't appropriate. It's like cracking Alzheimers' jokes about > President > > Reagan. > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > 1 minute silent prayer time. I'd just call it one minute of silence, so a kid could pray, daydream, or review his spelling words one last time... :-) I really don't want to mandate religion in public schools, though equal time might be nice....

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BEC809.EC259411@pilot.msu.edu... > "Mike. H." wrote: > > > > "lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote in message > > news:8Vvv4.4353$ql2.34372@typhoon.we.rr.com... > > > > > > Steve Christianson wrote in message <38BE3032.47F3@yahoo.com>... > > > >X-No-Archive: yes > > <snip God in school thing> > > > >What a bunch of fundamentalist horseshit. > > > > > > You even got the animal right! I'm a Christian, but (or should I say > > "so"?) > > > this kind of bumper-sticker logic just frosts me. It's cute maybe, but it > > > just isn't appropriate. It's like cracking Alzheimers' jokes about > > President > > > Reagan. > > > > I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > > 1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > > church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > > our children the basic principles of learning. > > I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. Why not?

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message news:38c3eb1b.88468175@news.mindspring.com... > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:33:56 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> > wrote: > > |I agree. At most (and I'm not even sure about this) there should maybe be a > |1 minute silent prayer time. Bottom line is though, religion belongs in the > |church (or synagogue, mosque, etc) and the home. Let school be about giving > |our children the basic principles of learning. > > Masked Man---->I couldnt disagree more. Life is not meant to be > compartmentalized. Separation of church and state, historically, > applied to separation of state from church, not the other way around. > > > And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete Prayer > is as much a part of life as breathing. Children should learn that > in school as well as church. Once upon a time in this country they > did. I'm on your side in spirit, MM, but whose prayers? There are certain prayers *I* wouldn't be comfortable with my kids being a part of. That's why I lean towards a moment of silence as a compromise.

2000-03-03 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Michael Robinson <robins80@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:38BE9445.636C2941@pilot.msu.edu... > "lurker@home" wrote: > > >It comes down to our attitudes. If we teach kids there are no standards or > > >universal morals and we are just animals anyway, why is it surprising when > > >they act like that? > > > > > Dat be so.........I'm all for anything that's a civilizing influence, and > > four of the world's great religions recognize those ten precepts as central > > to civilization. > > I agree here, I just don't like the tendency for folks that want prayer > in schools and posting the ten commandments to foster the Roman Catholic > faith and try to ignore the others. First I heard that these things would foster Catholicism. They are not restricted to them alone.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Your entire argument is based on an invalid assumption. You assume that |life was better for everyone in the 50's. This assumption is simply false. |A great many of us would never want to go back in time. Masked Man---->The assumption may be false, but it is not mine in any case. I never said that. I did say allowing prayer in schools today might have saved the lives of kids today. I brought up the 50's because you objected on Constitutional grounds, to which I raised the rejoinder of recent past history. I don't find you reasonable at all. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |What's my supposed vested interest? Masked Man----->It would appear, in part, to discredit my point of view. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |You know nothing about my vested |interests, but you're awful good at tossing out accusations when you know |you've been logically beaten. Masked Man---->This is a fantasy that exists in your own mind. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: | (It might surprise you to learn that I'm in |employment negotiations with a bible company). Masked Man-----.It would, indeed. I hope you get the job... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread |can see. Masked Man----->you havent found a shred of merit in a point of view that has manifest merit, and that is what I find so disturbing about your posts.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Havoc |Defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Masked Man----->Not the America I was born into.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TC <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com>)


Masked Man wrote >... >On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:56:32 -0800, HBeachBabe@yahoo.com (D���sir���e >Davis) wrote: > >|However, religion must not come from government-owned secular schools. >|As government institutions they are responsible to many different views >|and beliefs and have no right to violate the liberty of those who believe >|different by teaching any particular religion. Remember, they have a >|captive audience. Parents *have* to send their kids to government >|school. If the school is teaching Judeo-Christian beliefs as "facts" the >|parents of a Hindi student who can't afford a private secular or Hindu >|school are stuck. The must then undo what the school has done and was >|even paid for with the Hindi parents tax dollars! > >Masked Man---->Historically, this was America as late as 1960. So this makes it right?? As late as the mid-1800s it was legal to own another human being in many parts of this country. Historical precedent doesn't necessarily mean something is right or proper. >There are many quotes from founding fathers that this was their intent all >along. Which is why I find the Supreme Court decisions banning prayer >in school such an obscenity. Whatever the problems with the point of >view, and I'll let havoc and D���sir���e address those, it has merit, and >should be considered today. My public school years were from 1961 to 1974. During that period of time in my schools, no one was murdered on campus despite there being no school sponsored prayer. No one was shot or knifed either. There was a high school couple that were murdered out on lover's lane, but people were murdered in the 50s too, despite the existence of organised prayer in the schools. There were fistfights. You are not going to claim that prior to 1960 there were no fistfights in schools, are you? It seems to me that standing in front of a group of children and leading them in mouthing words and phrases that they may not understand or believe is an exercise in futility. If a student is reciting that prayer just because the teacher says they should, or they don't want to rock the boat and be ostracized then that prayer is meaningless. If the student, deep in their heart, truly believes, then it seems to me that God would know that heart. There would not be any need for a school official or another student to tell them when it is time to pray or what words to use. TC

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:53:58 -0600, "TC" <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com> wrote: |So this makes it right?? As late as the mid-1800s it was legal to own |another human being in many parts of this country. Historical precedent |doesn't necessarily mean something is right or proper. Masked Man---->no, it doesnt, but it is not to be dismissed out of hand, either.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:53:58 -0600, "TC" <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com> wrote: |It seems to me that standing in front of a group of children and leading |them in mouthing words and phrases that they may not understand or believe |is an exercise in futility. If a student is reciting that prayer just |because the teacher says they should, or they don't want to rock the boat |and be ostracized then that prayer is meaningless. If the student, deep in |their heart, truly believes, then it seems to me that God would know that |heart. There would not be any need for a school official or another student |to tell them when it is time to pray or what words to use. Masked Man------>Of course. Absolutely. I never said, nor do I maintain, that forcing children to pray would somehow magically save them or redeem their character. Conversion, if it is to happen at all, is a far more subtle and ineffable process than that. But, I do believe that the presence of spiritual influences and spiritual principles generally has an edifying effect on the group as a whole. I believe this effect can be demonstrated, and clearly seen over time. It is this influence I want to see brought back into our schools. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > |Havoc > |Defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. > > Masked Man----->Not the America I was born into.... > See what happens whenever religion is discussed? It turns into a flame war. So I have just one more thing to add to this thread: THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! ;-) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:00:09 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: |"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... |> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |> |> |Havoc |> |Defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. |> |> Masked Man----->Not the America I was born into.... |> | |See what happens whenever religion is discussed? It turns into a flame war. |So I have just one more thing to add to this thread: | |THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! |;-) Masked Man---->Thanks, EB. I needed that,,,,:) -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d5482e.67763733@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:45:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|Morality in the schools fell when Reagan became President. Let's blame him. >|(I don't remember any elementary school shootings prior to Reagan). > >Masked Man---->I do. Reagan wont do as a scapegoat on these terms. > True enough, Maskmon. The decline started with the education legislation passed under Johnson.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


havoc wrote in message ... > >Masked Man wrote in message <38c2278f.59410639@news.mindspring.com>... >>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> >>wrote: >> >>|I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. >They've >>|been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in >>|america. >> >>Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in >>America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... >> >Oh... One more point. You claim there was less violence when the bible was >taught in schools in the 50's. But if memory serves, this was a time period >that blacks and jews were subject to lynchings. Blacks, rarely and only in the worst of the South. Jews, not at all. > >Seems to me, we've become a whole lot more moral, not less. (Or are you >disappointed that racial and religious lynchings are things of the past?) We've become more moralistic, that's all. Moralistic and moral are two different creatures. > >Your argument that religion in schools prevents violence, has now been >effectively disproven. (Unless you claim that lynchings aren't violent). Are you claiming that the people who did the lynchings were typical of religious people, or that the violence stemmed from something that was taught? That's the only way you can make that comparison. If that's your claim, you need to bring in some kind of evidence to support it. The fact that religion was addressed in some schools at the same time those things were going on, in no way indicates causality. Carrots were served in all those same schools..... By the same reasoning, we can't say that the gross increase in violence and other socially undesirable behavior that coincided with the elimination of religious topics in schools was caused by that change, but the circumstantial evidence certainly points in that direction. -- Lurker will now return to lurking.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:00:09 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > | > |See what happens whenever religion is discussed? It turns into a flame war. > |So I have just one more thing to add to this thread: > | > |THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > |;-) > > Masked Man---->Thanks, EB. I needed that,,,,:) > I thought this thread could do with lightening up a bit ;) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38e4559e.71203741@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread >|can see. > >Masked Man----->you havent found a shred of merit in a point of view >that has manifest merit, and that is what I find so disturbing about >your posts.... > I'm a reader of this thread, and I don't see anything close to it. I've seen rhetorical maneuvering and false logic in virtually every one of havoc's posts. It's Masked Man who has been keeping the discussion on track.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:00:01 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Again, your real agenda exposed. Masked Man---->On the contrary, it is yours that is exposed. You will use anything you can to discredit a point of view that you cannot abide. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 12:59:12 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |That's Unamerican. Masked Man---->On the contrary, in the America I was born into, it was eminently American. Only recently has it been fashionable to diss this point of view. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:17:08 GMT, "lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote: | |Masked Man wrote in message <38e4559e.71203741@news.mindspring.com>... |>On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |> |>|I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread |>|can see. |> |>Masked Man----->you havent found a shred of merit in a point of view |>that has manifest merit, and that is what I find so disturbing about |>your posts.... |> |I'm a reader of this thread, and I don't see anything close to it. I've seen |rhetorical maneuvering and false logic in virtually every one of havoc's |posts. It's Masked Man who has been keeping the discussion on track. Masked Man---->Thank you, lurker... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("lurker@home" <bluesbird@crosswinds.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38e97e1c.81571077@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:17:08 GMT, "lurker@home" ><bluesbird@crosswinds.net> wrote: > >| >|Masked Man wrote in message <38e4559e.71203741@news.mindspring.com>... >|>On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >|> >|>|I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread >|>|can see. >|> >|>Masked Man----->you havent found a shred of merit in a point of view >|>that has manifest merit, and that is what I find so disturbing about >|>your posts.... >|> >|I'm a reader of this thread, and I don't see anything close to it. I've seen >|rhetorical maneuvering and false logic in virtually every one of havoc's >|posts. It's Masked Man who has been keeping the discussion on track. > > >Masked Man---->Thank you, lurker... > One reason I haven't been posting in this thread is that you've been handling it like a rook on a checkerboard....

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( : religion in school vs. tolerance - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38e76607.75405214@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:53:58 -0600, "TC" <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com> >wrote: > >|It seems to me that standing in front of a group of children and leading >|them in mouthing words and phrases that they may not understand or believe >|is an exercise in futility. If a student is reciting that prayer just >|because the teacher says they should, or they don't want to rock the boat >|and be ostracized then that prayer is meaningless. If the student, deep in >|their heart, truly believes, then it seems to me that God would know that >|heart. There would not be any need for a school official or another student >|to tell them when it is time to pray or what words to use. > >Masked Man------>Of course. Absolutely. I never said, nor do I >maintain, that forcing children to pray would somehow magically save >them or redeem their character. Conversion, if it is to happen at >all, is a far more subtle and ineffable process than that. > So now you're advocating using the school to convert others to your particular faith?? You are providing an illustration of just why organized religion must be barred from schools. So someone like you doesn't try to "convert" the children of others. >But, I do believe that the presence of spiritual influences and >spiritual principles generally has an edifying effect on the group as >a whole. One of my spiritual principles in respect for others, including respect for homosexuality. You stated that school shouldn't teach tolerance of homosexuality. So it seems you're being rather selective over which principles you choose to adopt. I believe this effect can be demonstrated, and clearly seen >over time. It is this influence I want to see brought back into our >schools. > Thank goodness our schools are relatively free from your influence.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38eb7e4b.81618864@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 12:59:12 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|That's Unamerican. > >Masked Man---->On the contrary, in the America I was born into, it was >eminently American. Only recently has it been fashionable to diss >this point of view. > America is a country founded on liberty and justice for all. Equality and respect for men and women of different races, ethnicities, religions and creeds. America was founded to be different than the European theocracies. The Constitution put law and reason over the religion of any one man. So to put a single religious viewpoint over respect for the Bill of Rights for all men and women? Yes, that's downright un-American.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d447a5.67626220@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:39:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|So, you'd have no problem with my pagan friend, who is a teacher, bringing >|worship of the nature goddess into the classroom? > >Masked Man---->In theory, no. Pragmatically, I'd have to know more. > You wouldn't care for it... It includes tolerance for homosexuality.. It includes the worship of a Goddess as opposed to the existence of a G-d.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38e1550e.71059746@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|What's my supposed vested interest? > >Masked Man----->It would appear, in part, to discredit my point of >view. > >-- Now you're giving me far too much credit. I cannot discredit a point of view that has no legitimate credit: To summarize: You believe that the bible should be taught in public schools over the U.S. Constitution You believe that schools should try to "convert" students religiously. You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. No, I have no vested interest in trying to discredit you... But I'm always interested in unmasking someone like you. By the way.... what's this habit of snipping out 90% of a post to reply one sentence at a time? It's almost the type of tactic that would be used by W--- (he whose name is unmentionable)

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


lurker@home wrote in message ... > >havoc wrote in message ... >> >>Masked Man wrote in message <38c2278f.59410639@news.mindspring.com>... >>>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>|I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. >>They've >>>|been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in >>>|america. >>> >>>Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in >>>America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... >>> >>Oh... One more point. You claim there was less violence when the bible was >>taught in schools in the 50's. But if memory serves, this was a time >period >>that blacks and jews were subject to lynchings. > >Blacks, rarely and only in the worst of the South. Jews, not at all. > Sheesh....... Jews not at all? Someone should tell that to one of my fraternity brothers, Michael Shwerner. His death became the subject of a movie called Mississippi burning. >> >>Seems to me, we've become a whole lot more moral, not less. (Or are you >>disappointed that racial and religious lynchings are things of the past?) > > >We've become more moralistic, that's all. Moralistic and moral are two >different creatures. We are far less likely to lynch people because of racial or religious differences. To me, that makes society a whole lot better. >> >>Your argument that religion in schools prevents violence, has now been >>effectively disproven. (Unless you claim that lynchings aren't violent). > > >Are you claiming that the people who did the lynchings were typical of >religious people, or that the violence stemmed from something that was >taught? That's the only way you can make that comparison. If that's your >claim, you need to bring in some kind of evidence to support it. The fact >that religion was addressed in some schools at the same time those things >were going on, in no way indicates causality. Carrots were served in all >those same schools..... > I'm not suggesting that relgion necessarily caused the violence, but I'm showing that the religion didn't prevent the violence. This to counter the view that there wouldn't be any school shootings if only the students were forced to pray. Secondly, religion has always been cited as justification for lynchings, etc. (ie Burning crosses, prayers at klan meetings) >By the same reasoning, we can't say that the gross increase in violence and >other socially undesirable behavior Your definition of "undesirable" must grossly differ from my own (and that of many other people). I believe social behavior has drastically improved over the last 50 years. Not declined. We're a far more tolerant nation than we were. That counts for a whole lot in my book. that coincided with the elimination of >religious topics in schools was caused by that change, but the >circumstantial evidence certainly points in that direction. > >-- >Lurker will now return to lurking. > >

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38e35571.71158984@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >| (It might surprise you to learn that I'm in >|employment negotiations with a bible company). > >Masked Man-----.It would, indeed. I hope you get the job... > They've offered it.. I'm waiting to see if they'll increase their salary offer. One thing about religion, it's a great racket. -Havoc

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote in message <38C1A548.5FED@yahoo.com>... >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >lurker@home wrote: >> >> Masked Man wrote in message <38e4559e.71203741@news.mindspring.com>... >> >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >> > >> >|I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread >> >|can see. >> > >> >Masked Man----->you havent found a shred of merit in a point of view >> >that has manifest merit, and that is what I find so disturbing about >> >your posts.... >> > >> I'm a reader of this thread, and I don't see anything close to it. I've seen >> rhetorical maneuvering and false logic in virtually every one of havoc's >> posts. It's Masked Man who has been keeping the discussion on track. > > >I don't agree, I think havoc's done a great job. He's been punching >holes in MM's bubble gum logic you could drive a starship through. And you should see the way that I drive!! Thanks Steve-O. -Havoc

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38e4559e.71203741@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread >|can see. > >Masked Man----->you havent found a shred of merit in a point of view >that has manifest merit, and that is what I find so disturbing about >your posts.... > Tell me... where is the merit in refusing to tolerate homosexuality? Where is the merit in using schools to convert people to your faith?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote in message <38C1C75C.4A10@yahoo.com>... >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >havoc wrote: >> >> Steve Christianson wrote in message <38C1A548.5FED@yahoo.com>... >I just wish I had more time to join you. I have a new book to crank out >and time is at a premium. > I'm in a temporary lull, but I really might be changing jobs, which would eat away at my time. What book are you currently cranking on? Would it be possible to get a copy of your "Business Law Made Simple?" Amazon says that it's out of stock. And if I do make this change of jobs, I'll need to check all my criminal law knowledge at the door, in exchange for internet law, intellectual property, and business law. >Hey, do you have Ta's chat room URL? If not, you should. It would be >good to chat some >time. It's on his NG page? -Havoc

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... >"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message >news:sc3dv3snee6156@corp.supernews.com... >> >> lurker@home wrote in message ... >> > >> >Blacks, rarely and only in the worst of the South. Jews, not at all. >> >> Sheesh....... Jews not at all? Someone should tell that to one of my >> fraternity brothers, Michael Shwerner. His death became the subject of a >> movie called Mississippi burning. >> > >Wow, you actually knew one of the civil rights workers? > No..... He was killed well before I was born. But he was a member of my fraternity chapter. We named a library in his honor. -Havoc

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


watcher715@my-deja.com wrote in message <89r5t0$a5t$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... >In article <sbua17tcee669@corp.supernews.com>, > "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >> But once you get into more specific types of >morality... You run into >> danger. Should schools teach that pre-marital >sex is wrong? >(They already teach that it is right!) > No they don't. They do teach that if individuals are going to engage in sex, they should use protection. They don't teach that it's right. And further, most schools teach abstinence as one method of birth control as well. >> Should schools teach that sex is wrong? >(They already teach that it is right!) > >> Should schools teach that flag burning is wrong? >(They already teach that it is right!) I've never heard of a school encouraging glad burning. They might teach the the Supreme Court has ruled that it's Constitutionally protected. Are you suggesting that schools should be teaching the bible instead of the Supreme Court? > >> Should schools teach that atheism is wrong? >(They already teach that it is right!) > Yes, schools teach science. But they don't teach atheism. Or are you protesting the teaching of evolution? It's been a long time since the Scopes trial. >> Should schools teach that homosexuality is >wrong? >(They already teach that it is right!) > No they don't. They teach that all people should be respected and tolerated, including homosexuals, minorities, other religions, etc. Are you suggesting that schools shouldn't teach tolerance of homosexuals? >> Yes, there are some nearly unverisal moral >concepts that should be, and are >> already, taught in school. But as to others, >they should be left to the >> home and parents. >> >> Can you tell me one more principle that is >universally accepted and isn't >> already taught in schools, that you feel should >be? I notice you didn't answer this question.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c32817.59547466@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:56:32 GMT, Techlab@photo-rescue.com (Techlab >Photo Rescue) wrote: > >|Question 1: >|*Who's* religion should be brought into the classroom? > >Masked Man---->In the era when I attended school, the answer to this >question was the teacher's. So, you'd have no problem with my pagan friend, who is a teacher, bringing worship of the nature goddess into the classroom?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c92c8b.60687057@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:43:25 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|>The term seperation of church and state DOES NOT exist in the US >|>Constitution. >|> >| >|Under the evolution of our law, the Supreme Court has interpretting the >|First Amendment as such. That's the Supreme Court's job. > >Masked Man---->And, in the process declared that the way of life >practiced by a large number of Americans in the preceding 150 years >was wrong. "way of life?" umm... No, the Supreme Court hasn't stopped you from being Christian. It's only prohibited the *public school* from serving as a religious institution. > > >What can be changed and repudiated can itself be changed and >repudiated. I look forward earnestly to a day when a different >Supreme Court will look back on the decisions you mention, and declare >them to be wrong. > If there is one thing that this discussion proves, it's the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision. Look at the volatility that any discussion of religion stirs up.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c2278f.59410639@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >|I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. They've >|been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in >|america. > >Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in >America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... > Morality in the schools fell when Reagan became President. Let's blame him. (I don't remember any elementary school shootings prior to Reagan). >-- > > > > >Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c92c8b.60687057@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:43:25 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|>The term seperation of church and state DOES NOT exist in the US >|>Constitution. >|> >| >|Under the evolution of our law, the Supreme Court has interpretting the >|First Amendment as such. That's the Supreme Court's job. > >Masked Man---->And, in the process declared that the way of life >practiced by a large number of Americans in the preceding 150 years >was wrong. "way of life?" umm... No, the Supreme Court hasn't stopped you from being Christian. It's only prohibited the *public school* from serving as a religious institution. > > >What can be changed and repudiated can itself be changed and >repudiated. I look forward earnestly to a day when a different >Supreme Court will look back on the decisions you mention, and declare >them to be wrong. > If there is one thing that this discussion proves, it's the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision. Look at the volatility that any discussion of religion stirs up.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 07:15:35 -0800, Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: |It depends on which State you are in. There are, essentially, 50 sets of rules |in the US. It ranges from ridiculously easy (which, IMHO, should be toughened |up) to Almost impossible. (Interestingly enough, in the high crime states). In |some States, a concealed Carry permit can be acquired with relative ease, in |others , only if you can prove you are the Governors Brother in Law ( A slight |exaggeration). In some states, open carry is permitted, except in |establishments serving liquor. The rules are wide, and varied. Where you have |an obscene form of thought control going on in the US is that the newspapers |very rarely print a news story about somebody defending themselves successfully |from harm by use/posession of a firearm. The NRA has records showing that it |happens daily. With all that, I agree with those who would punish gun owners |who are careless with weapons and allow a child to get their hands on one. At |the same time, I think children should be taught how to handle guns safely, to |avoid accidents when they do get their hands on them, as is bound to happen |while there are careless adults. Masked Man----->I'll jump gingerly into this conversation, and say that generally I agree: we could save some kids' lives, if courses on firearm safety were not only offered, but compulsory. |Bob -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c2278f.59410639@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >|I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. They've >|been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in >|america. > >Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in >America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... > Oh... One more point. You claim there was less violence when the bible was taught in schools in the 50's. But if memory serves, this was a time period that blacks and jews were subject to lynchings. Seems to me, we've become a whole lot more moral, not less. (Or are you disappointed that racial and religious lynchings are things of the past?) Your argument that religion in schools prevents violence, has now been effectively disproven. (Unless you claim that lynchings aren't violent). -Havoc >-- > > > > >Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 18:56:32 -0800, HBeachBabe@yahoo.com (D�sir�e Davis) wrote: |However, religion must not come from government-owned secular schools. |As government institutions they are responsible to many different views |and beliefs and have no right to violate the liberty of those who believe |different by teaching any particular religion. Remember, they have a |captive audience. Parents *have* to send their kids to government |school. If the school is teaching Judeo-Christian beliefs as "facts" the |parents of a Hindi student who can't afford a private secular or Hindu |school are stuck. The must then undo what the school has done and was |even paid for with the Hindi parents tax dollars! Masked Man---->Historically, this was America as late as 1960. There are many quotes from founding fathers that this was their intent all along. Which is why I find the Supreme Court decisions banning prayer in school such an obscenity. Whatever the problems with the point of view, and I'll let havoc and D�sir�e address those, it has merit, and should be considered today. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:39:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |So, you'd have no problem with my pagan friend, who is a teacher, bringing |worship of the nature goddess into the classroom? Masked Man---->In theory, no. Pragmatically, I'd have to know more. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:45:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Morality in the schools fell when Reagan became President. Let's blame him. |(I don't remember any elementary school shootings prior to Reagan). Masked Man---->I do. Reagan wont do as a scapegoat on these terms. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:53:57 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Your argument that religion in schools prevents violence, has now been |effectively disproven. (Unless you claim that lynchings aren't violent). Masked Man----->This guilt-by-association ploy of yours is not going to work, havoc. The 50's were bad because there were lynchings means that the 50's attitudes toward religion is also bad doesnt wash. And, you have proven nothing save that you are intellectually dishonest, and have a vested interest in a specific point of view that will never change regardless of the merits of the opposition's case. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:44:07 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: | |"way of life?" umm... No, the Supreme Court hasn't stopped you from being |Christian. It's only prohibited the *public school* from serving as a |religious institution. MM---->which was part of that way of life in earlier times. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |No they don't. They do teach that if individuals are going to engage in |sex, they should use protection. They don't teach that it's right. And |further, most schools teach abstinence as one method of birth control as |well. Masked Man---->This is a distinction without a difference.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |I've never heard of a school encouraging glad burning. They might teach the |the Supreme Court has ruled that it's Constitutionally protected. Are you |suggesting that schools should be teaching the bible instead of the Supreme |Court? Masked Man---->Yes. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Yes, schools teach science. But they don't teach atheism. Or are you |protesting the teaching of evolution? It's been a long time since the |Scopes trial. Masked Man---->Of course they teach atheism. The deliberate exclusion of God from any discussion on the origins of the universe is atheism by definition. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |No they don't. They teach that all people should be respected and |tolerated, including homosexuals, minorities, other religions, etc. Are you |suggesting that schools shouldn't teach tolerance of homosexuals? Masked Man---->No, I'm suggesting they shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d94a31.68278950@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|I've never heard of a school encouraging glad burning. They might teach the >|the Supreme Court has ruled that it's Constitutionally protected. Are you >|suggesting that schools should be teaching the bible instead of the Supreme >|Court? > >Masked Man---->Yes. > That's Unamerican. But it does expose your real viewpoint.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38db4a90.68373621@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|No they don't. They teach that all people should be respected and >|tolerated, including homosexuals, minorities, other religions, etc. Are you >|suggesting that schools shouldn't teach tolerance of homosexuals? > >Masked Man---->No, I'm suggesting they shouldn't teach tolerance for >homosexuality.... > Again, your real agenda exposed.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d64890.67861822@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:53:57 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|Your argument that religion in schools prevents violence, has now been >|effectively disproven. (Unless you claim that lynchings aren't violent). > >Masked Man----->This guilt-by-association ploy of yours is not going >to work, havoc. Wait a second... I'm not the one who brought up any association to the 50's... You brought it up. You claimed that life was somehow less violent during the 50's because there was prayer in schools. I pointed out that society was actually MORE violent during the 50's, contrary to your assertions. Furthermore, let's not forget that many of the lynchings of jews and blacks were done in the name of religion. So, the actual evidence from the 50's suggests that religion in the schools did not lessen violence, but might have actually had the opposite effect. Your entire argument is based on an invalid assumption. You assume that life was better for everyone in the 50's. This assumption is simply false. A great many of us would never want to go back in time. The 50's were bad because there were lynchings means >that the 50's attitudes toward religion is also bad doesnt wash. And, >you have proven nothing save that you are intellectually dishonest, Dishonest? I've been nothing but truthful, logical, and tolerant, as the readers of this thread can see for themselves. >and have a vested interest in a specific point of view that will never >change What's my supposed vested interest? You know nothing about my vested interests, but you're awful good at tossing out accusations when you know you've been logically beaten. (It might surprise you to learn that I'm in employment negotiations with a bible company). > regardless of the merits of the opposition's case. > I've addressed every argument on the merits, as the readers of this thread can see. -Havoc Defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Dishonest? I've been nothing but truthful, logical, and tolerant, as the |readers of this thread can see for themselves. Masked Man---->I find you rigid, inflexible, wedded to an untenable point-of-view, and unwilling to see any merit in the views of others. That is no doubt an extreme view, as is your characterization of me. The only thing you've said to this point I could get behind 100% is above: we'll let the newsgroup readers decide for themselves. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (watcher715@my-deja.com)


In article <C_Fv4.84879$ox5.22842546@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:sbu8jvicee6134@corp.supernews.com... > > > I'm not suggesting that religion is automatically evil, but it's > > certainly not automatically virtuous. > > I would say that it is not religion that is at fault, but some "religious" > people. Just because they fly the name of God on their banner does not mean > He told them to. > > I would say that it is not the gun that is at fault, but some "negligent" people. Just because they own a gun does not mean they will use them. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: Sexism was(Re: :-() - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:wA7w4.1138$ad7.34554@news3.cableinet.net... > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:h4Xv4.479$7F3.7777@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > Ooh! Sexism! Can I sue? <g> > > Sure I'll send you one of my special rubber cheques. They bounce *really* > high <g> > LOL! My bank account's been closed anyway. <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Robert Beltran is a great guy - (ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 12:45:45 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" > >Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on >topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and >what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> <confession mode on> Thanks to a tape Therese loaned to me with RB's Q&A session at the Galaxy Ball I am now a bit of a fan! He was charming. Of course RDM was charming too, but I expected that :-) I had heard from people that RB was a bit stand offish but he came across as genuinely warm, friendly and fun. Allie x

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > > I know I am only going on what I have seen on tv, but it seems that you just > go into a shop, get yourself a license, buy yourself a gun and away you go. > Is it really that simple? It depends on which State you are in. There are, essentially, 50 sets of rules in the US. It ranges from ridiculously easy (which, IMHO, should be toughened up) to Almost impossible. (Interestingly enough, in the high crime states). In some States, a concealed Carry permit can be acquired with relative ease, in others , only if you can prove you are the Governors Brother in Law ( A slight exaggeration). In some states, open carry is permitted, except in establishments serving liquor. The rules are wide, and varied. Where you have an obscene form of thought control going on in the US is that the newspapers very rarely print a news story about somebody defending themselves successfully from harm by use/posession of a firearm. The NRA has records showing that it happens daily. With all that, I agree with those who would punish gun owners who are careless with weapons and allow a child to get their hands on one. At the same time, I think children should be taught how to handle guns safely, to avoid accidents when they do get their hands on them, as is bound to happen while there are careless adults. Bob

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"VoyagerLady" <voyagerlady13NOvoSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message... > In article <C_Fv4.84879$ox5.22842546@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Laura > Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote: > > > >I would say that it is not religion that is at fault, but some > "religious" > >people. Just because they fly the name of God on their banner > does not mean > >He told them to. > > Most assuredly true!!!!! > > Reminds of me of the man who said he would not leave during a > flood because God would protect him. He declined every offer of > help. Then in Heaen he asked God why he didn't protect him, and > God said I sent many rescuers to aid you and you turned them all > down. > LOL! Damn right! I'm not Christian, but I do have a spiritual aspect to what I believe - and I believe the gods, or fate, or whatever - helps those that help themselves, as it were. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message news:UW0w4.88 > > I am speaking as a deeply religious person myself and I can see both sides > of the issue here. I do not believe in prayer in schools because of the > fact that there are children of so many different religious backgrounds, > that isn't fair. For persons of many faiths, there is no such thing as a > 'generic' prayer or the belief that all roads lead to teh same place. > This - being forced to participate in ONE type of prayer for all the > children isn't right. It is not freedom of religion. > > Also - there are so many in the world today that do not practice TRUE > Christianity. Most all, if not all the wars in history have religious > backgrounds. Many millions throughout time have been killed only because of > their faith and their beliefs. During WWII, look at how many people lost > their lives only because they were Jewish. A little known fact, look at all > of those who were killed because they refused to take up arms against their > fellowman during the same time - Jehovah's Witnesses. They were put into > concentration camps and killed, beaten tortured simply because they would > not renounce their faith. It had nothing to do with what race they were > born into. > > yet and still, there are many good, moral people on earth today who do not > beling to any organised religion - due to some of these reasons. Still, > they are much better than many who do attend church each Saturday or Sunday > and live the rest of the week however they like. > > The point I am trying to make, is that prayer in school isn't the answer. > The answer, unfortunately, isn't that easy. It is only when people come to > the conclusion that all of us are equal - despite race, nationality, > religion, social standing - whatever. Deep down - we are all the same - > created in God's image. If we could live by the few principles outlined for > us and were simply good people - treating others the way we would like to be > treated.... then we would all be a lot better off. > > Okay - off my soapbox and end of sermon. Sorry to take up bandwidth for > rambling. I just I just don't understand why people cannot be nice and be > fair to one another <sigh>...... > Because the human race sucks? :( Nothing wrong with your "ramble" BTW... very well put :) It was not part of the gods' original purpose to have humans turn on each other... sigh. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:vA7w4.1137$ad7.34554@news3.cableinet.net... > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > months? > > Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and > what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > The difference being, the gun control/religion threads crop up in EVERY active NG from time to time, not just the Trek ones. <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:00:14 GMT, "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote: |But you WERE merely pointing out the negatives. ;-) |I would say that if Christianity were truly practiced by all who are giving |it lip service, your picture of it would not be quite as negative. :-) Masked Man--->Amen -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote: |I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. They've |been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in |america. Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:56:32 GMT, Techlab@photo-rescue.com (Techlab Photo Rescue) wrote: |Question 1: |*Who's* religion should be brought into the classroom? Masked Man---->In the era when I attended school, the answer to this question was the teacher's. Not all of my teachers were Bible-quoting evangelicals. Many of them had no use for religion, and many of them felt as you do it did not belong in the classroom. The difference between then and now is those teachers are still there, but the Christians have been kicked out. I'd like to see our government invite them back in. It might save a few kids' lives. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:30:50 -0800, VoyagerLady <voyagerlady13NOvoSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: |Columbine, the recent incident where one first grader shot and |killed another first grader, the student who was stabbed to death |on my campus, this sort of VIOLENCE did not happen when there was |prayers in school. I was assaulted twice last school year. |Teachers were not assaulted when there was prayer in school. |BTW, one assault left me with a black eye. Masked Man---->That is essentially the point I';ve been trying to make all along, stated more eloquently than I could. The kind of episodes that triggered this thread did not happen, or were less severe in degree and kind, when kids were either required or allowed to pray in school. I submit, this is not a coincidence, and offers a potential remedy for present social problems. To restate this in a Trek context, one of the most wonderful lines in All Good Things is when Q told Picard that for a few brief moments he was willing to consider options he had never thought of before. I am asking some of you here to do the same. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:43:25 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |>The term seperation of church and state DOES NOT exist in the US |>Constitution. |> | |Under the evolution of our law, the Supreme Court has interpretting the |First Amendment as such. That's the Supreme Court's job. Masked Man---->And, in the process declared that the way of life practiced by a large number of Americans in the preceding 150 years was wrong. Baloney. I was part of that life for a brief period, and I know better, What can be changed and repudiated can itself be changed and repudiated. I look forward earnestly to a day when a different Supreme Court will look back on the decisions you mention, and declare them to be wrong. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Since we're now just going in circles, I will snip most of the post, not out of malice, but just to try to wind this down. D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... <snip> > >> The possession of the gun does indeed affect my right to life. The Michigan >> shooting is a perfect example. If adults didn't possess the pistol in the >> first place, then the shooting would not have occurred. Also, again, take a >> look at gun accidents in the home. > >But the cause of death and injury is the shooting, not the ownership. I >could ban cars and claim it saves lives too. Ownership in and of itself >does not violate any rights and thus can't justly be banned. > Obviously, you're babbling without reading my arguments. I'm talking about regulating possession, not banning ownership. Secondly, you obviously don't understand the concept of "but for" causation. <snip> > >> To extend it to your hypothetical about swimming >> pools, some safety regulations of swimming pools is also perfectly >> appropriate. > >So as the owner of a swimming pool I must make an attempt to protect the >people who trespass on my property and fall in my pool? If my own child >falls in because I am too stupid or negligent to be aware of what my >child is up to, that is my fault. If a neighbor is on my property >without permission and injuries themselves, that is not my fault. > What makes you say I was talking about trespassers? The government has a legitimate interest in regulating the safety of both public and private swimming pools. Just as the government has a legitimate interest in monitoring the safety of restaurants, etc. Protection of the public has always been, since the begin of civilzation, a legitimate government function. >> Pistols simply require even stronger safety regulations. > >You seem to have a problem in thinking the "right to life" implies a >right to safety. Are you saying that an accidental death isn't a death? Are you suggesting that the government can only attempt to prevent intentional murders, but not accidental killings?? > "rights" only apply to your own action. You are trying >to dictate the action of others. So are you, but I admit I'm doing so. >> If you >> >are going to argue a position (life trumps possession of potential deadly >> >items) be prepared to argue it consistently. Point again being >> >ownership isn't the issue, action is. > >> Action equals liberty, which you identify as one of the fundamental rights. >> So if ownership or possession can't be outlawed because it infringes upon >> ownership rights, how can you offer to regulate action, which is liberty? >> Sounds like you're the one being inconsistent. > >Not inconsistent at all. The right to liberty does not include the right >to violate rights. But by your interpretation, the right to ownership trumps my right to life. (Go ask any victim of an accidental shooting whether their right to life was infringed by the possession of pistols). I know... I know what you're going to say. They're lives were taken by the act of shooting, not by the pistol. But guess what: Shooting a person is already illegal, yet these individuals still died!!! I know you're willing to just shrug your shoulders and say that right to life doesn't include the right to try to make the world a safer place. If someone dies in an accidental shooting, oh well.... tough luck. If I decide to store a nuclear reactor in my house and the entire neighborhood dies from the radiation, oh well, tough luck. <snip> > >> Sure there are. I'll give you an example that's not life or death. I own >> property and I love to Bar-B-Que. Thus, using the outdoor bar-b-que is both >> a property right, and a right of liberty. But, when I bar-b-que, a lot of >> smoke blows into my neighbor's yard, making it difficult for him to enjoy a >> nap in his hammock on a nice day. Thus, my bar-b-que is infringing upon his >> right to peacefully enjoy his property. His rights are legitimate. My >> rights are legitimate. Our rights compete. My neighbor and I would either >> have to come to some sort of compromise arrangement, or simply become >> enemies. > >No conflict of rights. Here's why. You have the right to own and >operate a B-B-Q on your own property. Your neighbor has the right to >sleep in his hammock on his property. Since you own the B-B-Q, you are >responsible for the smoke it creates. If that smoke interferes with your >neighbor then you must devise a method to prevent the smoke from reaching >him. Perhaps you make a deal where you won't b-b-q while he is outside, >or you'll invite him over for a hot dog :-) Ahhh..... a deal. A compromise. A balancing of rights, thus demonstrating the conflict I mentioned. If there was no conflict, then there would be no need to conflict. Either he could always use his b-b-q, or he could never use his b-b-q (if some smoke always blows across to the neighbor). But you've engaged in a balancing. The smoke still affects the neighbor's property, even when the neighbor isn't outside, yet you concluded he could b-b-q at such times. Why? Because you concluded that the effect on the neighbor and his property was minimal at that time. Meanwhile, you concluded that a person shouldn't be totally banned from b-b-qing on her own property, just because it creates smoke. You engaged in a balancing, whether you admit it or not. <snip> > >Sorry, this simply isn't true. Only conscious action by an individual >with free will operating under his own volition can violate rights. >Objects cannot violate rights. A hurricane is not violating your right >to life. A hurricane is an act of nature. If the government could regulate hurricanes, I'd be all for it. > Neither is a hungry bear, or an ebola virus But if someone decides to carry around a container of the ebola virus on a NYC subway, and it infects thousands of people as a result, their rights have indeed been violated. Thus, a balancing of rights would be appropriate: A law against carry ebola virus in open containers in public. <snip> >> Thus, requiring a >> balancing. Another example, ciagrette smoking. The right of the individual >> to smoke, versus the right of others to be free from the dangers of second >> hand smoke. > >The same as the BBQ scenario. You are free to smoke all you want until >your smoke come onto my property 9or into my lungs). OK.... So your saying that laws that prevent smoke from getting into your lungs are appropriate? OK, well, I want laws that prevent bullets from getting into my lungs or those of any other innocent person. Soooo...... It should be illegal to possess a pistol in a public place, and it should be illegal to possess or store a pistol within one thousand yards of a child. As I said..... If someone just wants to keep a pistol for target practice, I have no problem with them owning pistols that are kept stored at the target range. >> >> In most of Europe, even the police officers don't carry pistols. Diallo >> would still be alive if he was in such a place.... so why don't you tell >> Diallo how wonderful the world is with a proliferation of pistols? > >I have mentioned that I am not familiar with this case, so I can't really >comment. I get the impression however, that this was someone shot by the >police, yes? What were the circumstances? I've repeated the circumstances several times. Further, it's been all over the national news. It is a demonstration of your "head buried in the sand" philosophy that attempts to ignore real-life consequences. Diallo was at the front steps of his home, when he was stopped by the police. He had not engaged in any illegal activity. He pulled out his wallet to show id. It was night time, police mistook the wallet for a gun and shot Mr. Diallo. They fired 41 bullets, striking Mr. Diallo 19 times and killing him. This would not have happened in any country with tight restrictions on firearms. >> >> Who are you going to blame for his death? A jury found it wasn't the fault >> of the police officers. It wasn't Diallo's fault, he undoubtedly was a >> completely innocent victim. If not for the pistols, he would still be alive >> today. His right to life was certainly infringed by living in a country >> where pistols are prolific. > >Assuming he was unjustly shot by police, his "right to life" was violated >by the person who pulled the trigger since only people can violate >rights, not objects. It was unjust. Everyone agrees it was unjust. But a Jury found it wasn't the fault of the police officers. They reasonably believed they were in danger (that's a question of fact resolved by the jury). So his "right to life" was violated... but not my the police. It was an accident. An accident that would not have occurred but for the proliferation of guns in America. So tell me..... According to you.... Mr. Diallo's death was an unavoidable part of a living in a moral society? Sounds like a pretty immoral society to me, where such "accidental" deaths are routine. <snip> >> There are actually no laws >> that I know of that outlaw any type of ownership (except slaves). But there >> are plenty of possession laws (possession of drugs, possession of weapons, >> possession of diseased cattle). > >And none of these are just laws, since no one has the right to deny >ownership. You previously stated that it's ok to prohibit possession of a lit cigarette in public. Sounds like you're contradicting yourself, yet again. That's the problem with almost any extremist position..... As you attempt to actually implement such extremism, you find yourself forcing square pegs into round holes and contradicting yourself. > >> >Pointing a gun at someone poses a grave danger. Legislatures can ban the >> >pointing of guns at people without violating any rights at all, >> >> But banning the guns will save more lives than doing it your way. And you >> did say that the right to life was primary. > >I will concede that it will save more lives, but only by violating >rights. You argue that safety trumps rights. I disagree. Rights are >involitile. They exist because man exists. Rights can neither be given >nor taken away by anyone or any government. Thus rights trump anything >else. Rights are fluid and need to balance. You've said it yourself, even if you refuse to admit it. Example, you've mentioned retaliatory rights. Normally, an individual has a right to life. Yet, you've also stated that the government can punish an individual utilizing the death penalty. So apparently, you do believe that the right to life can indeed be forfeited (taken away). Yet another of your contradictions. >> >> but can >> >only ban guns by violating the right to property. >> > >> > If >> >> they find that gun ownership infringes upon the right to life, then they >> >> should take action to better balance those competing rights. >> > >> >Show me how mere ownership (not use) infringes on any right. If I own a >> >gun and never use it, I have not infringed on any rights at all and you >> >cannot claim otherwise. >> >> A. You have contributed to the proliferation of guns which is what caused >> the death of Diallo. > >The death of Diallo was cause by the *action* of a person pulling a >trigger, not by owning a gun. > We can only prohibit intentional acts... Wouldn't you agree? Accidents can't be effectively prohibited, since accident occurs without any intent. Thus, in the Diallo shooting, the intentional act that could have been prevented in the possession of firearms. >> B. Your pistol could get stolen and then used against me, even if *you* >> never use the pistol. > >The rights violation against you is made by the person pointing the gun >at you, not by ownership of the gun to begin with. But I'm still dead because you possessed a pistol. > >> C. Your curious child might find the pistol and accidentally blow their own >> brains out, even though you never used the pistol yourself. > >The violation of my child's right was committed by me for a) not keeping >the gun out of his reach (just as if I didn't plug up unused electrical >outlets and he sticks his finger in one) and b) not teaching him the >dangers of guns I.e. abrogating my responsibility as a parent for the >welfare of my my child > Nice to know you're really sorry about it.. But the kid is still dead. >> D. Your curious child might find the gun, point it out the window and pull >> the trigger, killing me, and thus violating my right to life, even though >> you never personally pointed the gun at me. > >The fault again lies with me (assuming the child is to young to accept >responsibility for his action) for the same reasons as above. Again, the >rights violation is in action, not in ownership. > Nice to know you're willing to accept the blame. Shall we strap you to a chair and stick a needle into your arm? How's that as the compromise. I'll support your ownership of a pistol. But if your pistol ever kills anyone due to your negligence, then you have to be put to death. Under that compromise, no reasonable person would actually want the responsibility of owning a pistol. And the few that did continue to possess a pistol would go to such excessive lengths of care, that it would satisfy my objections. But I doubt you believe that you should be put to death under the above scenario. >> There you go... 4 ways in which your possession of a pistol could infringe >> upon the right to life, even if you do nothing wrong. > >Key word being "could" Lots of things "could" be a rights violation. >But the proper use of retaliatory force (which confiscating a gun would >be) is only allowed *after* an initiation of force. Basically, you can't >justly take my gun until I actually point it at you. (You can't >implement punishment before the crime) >> Oh wow...... I'm dead, but I should rest in peace knowing that your pistol has finally been taken away. Sure, that's fair. <snip> >> > >> >Plus, the right to Liberty applies only to your own actions, not to your >> >interaction with others. I cannot knock someone out of my way and claim >> >"the right to Liberty" allows it. "My right to swing my fist ends at the >> >beginning of your nose." >> > >> >> But in a complex society, practically every action is interactive. >> Example.. seatbelt laws... If I die or get seriously injured in an >> accident, the cost, through insurance premiums, etc, is borne by everyone. >> So, do I have the right to not wear a seatbelt? > >yes you do. but you do not then have the right to expect *anyone* else >to pay for your injuries. Your insurance company could include a clause >stating that they do not pay if you are not wearing a seat belt, or the >owner of the road could require that all people traveling on his road >must wear a seat belt. The government owns public roads. So the government, as the owner of the roads, can require seatbelts. (You just said so yourself). By the exact same reasoning, the government can prohibit the possession of pistols on public roads and on government property. Such a prohibition would effectively eliminate pistols, since you wouldn't be able to take it anywhere without utilizing government roads. (How would you take it home from the gun shop?) >to borrow a popular phrase from around here: [poke] > >D���sir���e- who has no children to get shot > - Havoc- thank goodness <g>

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (HBeachBabe@yahoo.com)


In article <sc10p7jsee639@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >In article <sc0podhree6148@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > >> > >> D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > >> I agree with your 3 basics. And I agree that the right to life comes > first. > >> >ownership of a gun falls under the right to property. > >> Yup, it does fall there. But my right to life (which you identified as > the > >> primary right), trumps the right to own a gun. > >Merely owning a gun does not in any way affect your right to life. Using > >that gun to kill you does. > The possession of the gun does indeed affect my right to life. The Michigan > shooting is a perfect example. If adults didn't possess the pistol in the > first place, then the shooting would not have occurred. Also, again, take a > look at gun accidents in the home. But the cause of death and injury is the shooting, not the ownership. I could ban cars and claim it saves lives too. Ownership in and of itself does not violate any rights and thus can't justly be banned. > This is a huge difference. By your logic I > >could claim that owning a cat violates my right to life if I am deathly > >allergic to cats or owning a crossbow violates my right to life since > >crossbow bolts are potentially lethal or your right to own a pool is a > >violation of my right to life since I can't swim an may drown. > > No, I said that there needs to be a balancing. For example, your crossbow > example... A law banning the possession of a crossbow in some places would > be perfectly appropriate. Banning ownership is never appropriate. Owning a crossbow does not cause injury or death. Firing a crossbow can. The punishment of confiscating property can be enacted only when a right has been violated. > To extend it to your hypothetical about swimming > pools, some safety regulations of swimming pools is also perfectly > appropriate. So as the owner of a swimming pool I must make an attempt to protect the people who trespass on my property and fall in my pool? If my own child falls in because I am too stupid or negligent to be aware of what my child is up to, that is my fault. If a neighbor is on my property without permission and injuries themselves, that is not my fault. > Pistols simply require even stronger safety regulations. You seem to have a problem in thinking the "right to life" implies a right to safety. "rights" only apply to your own action. You are trying to dictate the action of others. > > I have no problem with the ownership of a pistol, if that pistol is kept > stored at a target range, and you don't possess it elsewhere. Doesn't do much good if you are mugged or your home is broken into. > If you > >are going to argue a position (life trumps possession of potential deadly > >items) be prepared to argue it consistently. Point again being > >ownership isn't the issue, action is. > Action equals liberty, which you identify as one of the fundamental rights. > So if ownership or possession can't be outlawed because it infringes upon > ownership rights, how can you offer to regulate action, which is liberty? > Sounds like you're the one being inconsistent. Not inconsistent at all. The right to liberty does not include the right to violate rights. > >> Law is about balancing competing rights. > >There is nothing in any of those 3 rights at odds with each other. Law > >is about protecting rights. There is no such thing as "competing rights" > Sure there are. I'll give you an example that's not life or death. I own > property and I love to Bar-B-Que. Thus, using the outdoor bar-b-que is both > a property right, and a right of liberty. But, when I bar-b-que, a lot of > smoke blows into my neighbor's yard, making it difficult for him to enjoy a > nap in his hammock on a nice day. Thus, my bar-b-que is infringing upon his > right to peacefully enjoy his property. His rights are legitimate. My > rights are legitimate. Our rights compete. My neighbor and I would either > have to come to some sort of compromise arrangement, or simply become > enemies. No conflict of rights. Here's why. You have the right to own and operate a B-B-Q on your own property. Your neighbor has the right to sleep in his hammock on his property. Since you own the B-B-Q, you are responsible for the smoke it creates. If that smoke interferes with your neighbor then you must devise a method to prevent the smoke from reaching him. Perhaps you make a deal where you won't b-b-q while he is outside, or you'll invite him over for a hot dog :-) You are still allowed to own and operate the b-b-q, you just can't bother your neighbor with it. No rights conflicts. > > > >Those 3 rights are known as "negative rights" They prohibit you from > >acting in a certain manner against other people. You can do what you > >want so long as you don't violate any one else's right to Life, Liberty > >or Property. > If something makes the world less safe, then it does violate other > individual's right to life, liberty and property. Sorry, this simply isn't true. Only conscious action by an individual with free will operating under his own volition can violate rights. Objects cannot violate rights. A hurricane is not violating your right to life. Neither is a hungry bear, or an ebola virus or a heart attack. There is volition involved. No choice was made. These things are just doing what they do and can't do anything else. > Thus, requiring a > balancing. Another example, ciagrette smoking. The right of the individual > to smoke, versus the right of others to be free from the dangers of second > hand smoke. The same as the BBQ scenario. You are free to smoke all you want until your smoke come onto my property 9or into my lungs). > > In most of Europe, even the police officers don't carry pistols. Diallo > would still be alive if he was in such a place.... so why don't you tell > Diallo how wonderful the world is with a proliferation of pistols? I have mentioned that I am not familiar with this case, so I can't really comment. I get the impression however, that this was someone shot by the police, yes? What were the circumstances? > > Who are you going to blame for his death? A jury found it wasn't the fault > of the police officers. It wasn't Diallo's fault, he undoubtedly was a > completely innocent victim. If not for the pistols, he would still be alive > today. His right to life was certainly infringed by living in a country > where pistols are prolific. Assuming he was unjustly shot by police, his "right to life" was violated by the person who pulled the trigger since only people can violate rights, not objects. > > It is impossible for them to "compete" as they refer to 3 > >different principles, all growing out of the concept of man as the sole > >owner of his own person. > > > >> Legislators can balance the right > >> to own a gun with the danger that right imposes on the lives of others. > > > >Not justly they can't since they have no right to deny the ownership of > >property. They have every right to prevent the aiming or firing of a gun > >at another person though. Owning a gun poses no danger to anyone else. > > I concede ownership poses no danger, since ownership is an abstract concept. > Possession on the other hand does pose a danger. "possession" and "ownership" are the same thing. > There are actually no laws > that I know of that outlaw any type of ownership (except slaves). But there > are plenty of possession laws (possession of drugs, possession of weapons, > possession of diseased cattle). And none of these are just laws, since no one has the right to deny ownership. > >Pointing a gun at someone poses a grave danger. Legislatures can ban the > >pointing of guns at people without violating any rights at all, > > But banning the guns will save more lives than doing it your way. And you > did say that the right to life was primary. I will concede that it will save more lives, but only by violating rights. You argue that safety trumps rights. I disagree. Rights are involitile. They exist because man exists. Rights can neither be given nor taken away by anyone or any government. Thus rights trump anything else. > > but can > >only ban guns by violating the right to property. > > > > If > >> they find that gun ownership infringes upon the right to life, then they > >> should take action to better balance those competing rights. > > > >Show me how mere ownership (not use) infringes on any right. If I own a > >gun and never use it, I have not infringed on any rights at all and you > >cannot claim otherwise. > > A. You have contributed to the proliferation of guns which is what caused > the death of Diallo. The death of Diallo was cause by the *action* of a person pulling a trigger, not by owning a gun. > B. Your pistol could get stolen and then used against me, even if *you* > never use the pistol. The rights violation against you is made by the person pointing the gun at you, not by ownership of the gun to begin with. > C. Your curious child might find the pistol and accidentally blow their own > brains out, even though you never used the pistol yourself. The violation of my child's right was committed by me for a) not keeping the gun out of his reach (just as if I didn't plug up unused electrical outlets and he sticks his finger in one) and b) not teaching him the dangers of guns I.e. abrogating my responsibility as a parent for the welfare of my my child > D. Your curious child might find the gun, point it out the window and pull > the trigger, killing me, and thus violating my right to life, even though > you never personally pointed the gun at me. The fault again lies with me (assuming the child is to young to accept responsibility for his action) for the same reasons as above. Again, the rights violation is in action, not in ownership. > There you go... 4 ways in which your possession of a pistol could infringe > upon the right to life, even if you do nothing wrong. Key word being "could" Lots of things "could" be a rights violation. But the proper use of retaliatory force (which confiscating a gun would be) is only allowed *after* an initiation of force. Basically, you can't justly take my gun until I actually point it at you. (You can't implement punishment before the crime) > > If I own a gun, and only use it to shoot an > >intruder I still have not violated any rights. If I own a gun and use it > >to shoot my neighbor because he looked at me funny, I have violated his > >rights. Once again, *ownership* is never the issue, action is. What gun > >control people want is to violate the right to property in order to > >prevent the possibility of violating the right to life. In effect, > >enacting punishment (confiscation of property) *before* a crime is > >actually committed. > > > >> By your logic, I should have the right to kill someone, since killing is > >> part of liberty. > > > >No, since The Right to Liberty does not include the Liberty to violate > >rights. Killing violates the right to life. > > Guns make killing more likely. Logically therefore, guns also violate the > right to life, thus requiring some sort of balancing of the competing > rights. Nope, sorry. "Guns" are an inanimate object with no volition and no will of their own and thus are incapable of violating rights. Only a person can violate your rights and only by initiating force against you. So there is no logic in saying "guns violate the right to life" > > To claim rights for > >yourself means must must also allow them for all other people. You > >cannot claim the right to liberty without first claiming the right to > >life and you cannot claim the right to life without also recognizing that > >the right to life applies to all people. > > > >Plus, the right to Liberty applies only to your own actions, not to your > >interaction with others. I cannot knock someone out of my way and claim > >"the right to Liberty" allows it. "My right to swing my fist ends at the > >beginning of your nose." > > > > But in a complex society, practically every action is interactive. > Example.. seatbelt laws... If I die or get seriously injured in an > accident, the cost, through insurance premiums, etc, is borne by everyone. > So, do I have the right to not wear a seatbelt? yes you do. but you do not then have the right to expect *anyone* else to pay for your injuries. Your insurance company could include a clause stating that they do not pay if you are not wearing a seat belt, or the owner of the road could require that all people traveling on his road must wear a seat belt. > > >> You have yet to > >> >show a logical, rational way whereby anyone is justified in violating > >> >this right. You have certainly made appeals to emotion, but have yet to > >> >counter the fundamental principle. It is *only* by rationally, > logically > >> >justifying why anyone is allowed to violate the right to ownership that > >> >you can claim guns should be banned. When you do that, you may have > >> >something > > > >> <snip> > > > >> >D���sir���e- logic is fun > > > >> -Havoc -- Accurate logic and rationality is even more fun. > > > >You're right on that count. I'm having fun being accurate and rational. > > > > Really? I guess you're talking about some other thread where you're being > accurate and rational. (<wink> Just a good natured jib) to borrow a popular phrase from around here: [poke] D���sir���e- who has no children to get shot food for bot

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (IML <ianmarglee@ozemail.com.au>)


TehTigre wrote in message ... > >I missed part of this thread, but had to jump in here. pardon the >intrusion. > >I am speaking as a deeply religious person myself and I can see both sides >of the issue here. I do not believe in prayer in schools because of the >fact that there are children of so many different religious backgrounds, >that isn't fair. For persons of many faiths, there is no such thing as a >'generic' prayer or the belief that all roads lead to teh same place. > This - being forced to participate in ONE type of prayer for all the >children isn't right. It is not freedom of religion. > >Also - there are so many in the world today that do not practice TRUE >Christianity. Most all, if not all the wars in history have religious >backgrounds. Many millions throughout time have been killed only because of >their faith and their beliefs. During WWII, look at how many people lost >their lives only because they were Jewish. A little known fact, look at all >of those who were killed because they refused to take up arms against their >fellowman during the same time - Jehovah's Witnesses. They were put into >concentration camps and killed, beaten tortured simply because they would >not renounce their faith. It had nothing to do with what race they were >born into. > >yet and still, there are many good, moral people on earth today who do not >beling to any organised religion - due to some of these reasons. Still, >they are much better than many who do attend church each Saturday or Sunday >and live the rest of the week however they like. > >The point I am trying to make, is that prayer in school isn't the answer. >The answer, unfortunately, isn't that easy. It is only when people come to >the conclusion that all of us are equal - despite race, nationality, >religion, social standing - whatever. Deep down - we are all the same - >created in God's image. If we could live by the few principles outlined for >us and were simply good people - treating others the way we would like to be >treated.... then we would all be a lot better off. > >Okay - off my soapbox and end of sermon. Sorry to take up bandwidth for >rambling. I just I just don't understand why people cannot be nice and be >fair to one another <sigh>...... > >Micaela > Very interesting points in this thread, from my non-American POV anyway... In Australia most students are taught about the most prevalent faiths in religion classes, but in addition I went to a private school (Lutheran) which practised daily prayers as well as weekly chapel. In retrospect, it would have been useful to have learnt about religion from a more objective source, indeed to have enforced the *spiritual* side of religion - ie. the golden rule, and self-belief, and believing that there's always a light at the end of a dark tunnel; rather than teaching that if you're good you'll go to heaven or where-ever, that God controls everything, and my personal gripe: the Pope speaks for God. My school never taught spirituality, but luckily my parents did. Believe me when you're in a jam, it's all that stops you from killing somebody out of pure frustration and anger. Rituals and prayers will only get you so far - religion is so intertwined with politics that I really don't want to be involved with any of them. I just try to be a good person and not step on anyone else- I think that's all anybody can do. A minute's silence is really the only sure way of not offending anybody. It's really about contemplation and an attempt to make sense of it all - a prayer's not going to bring anybody back or stop the next kid with a lethal weapon. As for guns in the American school playground - I think it's more complicated than just religion - Australia doesn't have these problems even though the cultures are similar. We do have tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur Massacre (25 people) a few years ago - and I support them. Parents seem to think that education is up to schools alone - I believe that schools are only responsible for textbook education - life education is up to parents, and the rest of society - certainly not the media. I would hope that STAR TREK is a welcome exception to the rule. .......can we get back to voyager now, or am I in the wrong newsgroup? :-) Fiona - sometime ng poster fionablue47@hotmail.com

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (IML <ianmarglee@ozemail.com.au>)


Desiree wrote snip! >Merely owning a gun does not in any way affect your right to life. Using >that gun to kill you does. This is a huge difference. By your logic I >could claim that owning a cat violates my right to life if I am deathly >allergic to cats or owning a crossbow violates my right to life since >crossbow bolts are potentially lethal or your right to own a pool is a >violation of my right to life since I can't swim an may drown. If you >are going to argue a position (life trumps possession of potential deadly >items) be prepared to argue it consistently.) Point again being >ownership isn't the issue, action is. If people don't intend to use a gun to shoot people, then what do they use it for? Shooting practice? Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just because it looks cool in your gun cabinet! I don't own a car because I don't drive and I don't really need to. Yet it is my "right" to have one even though I need to be licenced first. Should I go out and buy one just because most other people have a car? And that baseball bat example- It is a lot harder to swing a bat at somebody, let alone kill someone with a baseball bat than it is to aim a gun and pull the trigger and mortally wound or disfigure. A person being swung at can dodge a bat but try ducking a bullet. It's far too easy to make a mistake. I've thought about a hockey stick or a bat, but I wouldn't touch a gun. I don't think I'd ever forgive myself if I made a mistake. Plus my kids wouldn't be in danger. >snip! >D���sir���e- wondering why the brig isn't just a entrance less room that >prisoners are beamed into thus preventing escape attempts Plots are more interesting that way :-) F.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > knowledge > > in a gun discussion. > > Bob > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > months? > > -- > Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." > EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: > 37464244 > Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. > Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950 > >

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > knowledge > > in a gun discussion. > > Bob > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > months? Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> Lisa

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Sexism was(Re: :-() - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:h4Xv4.479$7F3.7777@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:wVOv4.1578 > > > > Generally speaking it is the male of the species that faffs about, they > > discuss how to do something, plan how to do it, make sketches of how to do > > it, have a little nap to refresh themselves before actually getting on > with > > it and in the mean time the woman just did it! Understand now<eg>? > > > > Ooh! Sexism! Can I sue? <g> Sure I'll send you one of my special rubber cheques. They bounce *really* high <g>

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (watcher715@my-deja.com)


In article <sbua17tcee669@corp.supernews.com>, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > Laura Ware wrote in message > <4%Ev4.84756 $ox5.22804515@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... > >> I agree with that. Schools shouldn't teach morality. > > > >Why not? > > > > > > Because morality is subjective, and it shouldn't be up to a teacher or > school board to choose the "correct" morality. > > Yes, there are a handful of Universals which are appropriate to teach > anywhere. Mostly this: Thou shall respect others. (Which includes that > you shouldn't kill them, steal from them, etc). This type of morality is > taught in schools already. Further, a respect for law is generally taught > in school. > > But once you get into more specific types of morality... You run into > danger. Should schools teach that pre-marital sex is wrong? (They already teach that it is right!) > Should schools teach that sex is wrong? (They already teach that it is right!) > Should schools teach that flag burning is wrong? (They already teach that it is right!) > Should schools teach that atheism is wrong? (They already teach that it is right!) > Should schools teach that homosexuality is wrong? (They already teach that it is right!) > Yes, there are some nearly unverisal moral concepts that should be, and are > already, taught in school. But as to others, they should be left to the > home and parents. > > Can you tell me one more principle that is universally accepted and isn't > already taught in schools, that you feel should be? > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


TehTigre wrote in message ... > >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message >news:sc0s6slsee6152@corp.supernews.com... >> >> Laura Ware wrote in message ... >> >> >But you WERE merely pointing out the negatives. ;-) >> >I would say that if Christianity were truly practiced by all who are >giving >> >it lip service, your picture of it would not be quite as negative. :-) >> > >> >> I will readily acknowledge that some good has been done in the name of >> Christianity. But I know my history, and realize that Christianity is >among >> the most murderous religions on the planet in the history of the world. >It >> was founded largely as an opiate of the masses, in order to justify the >> oppression of monarchies by divine right. >> >> One can be quite moral without Christianity, or without any other >religion. >> >> I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and Constitutional law, >I >> don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat of any >> kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of Judeo-Christianity. >> >> Every family has their own unique views on religion, so let it be taught >in >> the home and in the church (and in private schools). > >I missed part of this thread, but had to jump in here. pardon the >intrusion. > >I am speaking as a deeply religious person myself and I can see both sides >of the issue here. I do not believe in prayer in schools because of the >fact that there are children of so many different religious backgrounds, >that isn't fair. For persons of many faiths, there is no such thing as a >'generic' prayer or the belief that all roads lead to teh same place. > This - being forced to participate in ONE type of prayer for all the >children isn't right. It is not freedom of religion. > >Also - there are so many in the world today that do not practice TRUE >Christianity. Most all, if not all the wars in history have religious >backgrounds. Many millions throughout time have been killed only because of >their faith and their beliefs. During WWII, look at how many people lost >their lives only because they were Jewish. A little known fact, look at all >of those who were killed because they refused to take up arms against their >fellowman during the same time - Jehovah's Witnesses. They were put into >concentration camps and killed, beaten tortured simply because they would >not renounce their faith. It had nothing to do with what race they were >born into. > >yet and still, there are many good, moral people on earth today who do not >beling to any organised religion - due to some of these reasons. Still, >they are much better than many who do attend church each Saturday or Sunday >and live the rest of the week however they like. > >The point I am trying to make, is that prayer in school isn't the answer. >The answer, unfortunately, isn't that easy. It is only when people come to >the conclusion that all of us are equal - despite race, nationality, >religion, social standing - whatever. Deep down - we are all the same - >created in God's image. If we could live by the few principles outlined for >us and were simply good people - treating others the way we would like to be >treated.... then we would all be a lot better off. > >Okay - off my soapbox and end of sermon. Sorry to take up bandwidth for >rambling. I just I just don't understand why people cannot be nice and be >fair to one another <sigh>...... > >Micaela > Don't apologize..... Very well spoken, thank you. -Havoc

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Techlab Photo Rescue <Techlab@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message news:38d4a074.180942649@news.erols.com... > On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:39:30 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) > wrote: > > >On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:38:24 -0700, "Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> > >wrote: > > > >|And if we simply leave it in the church and the home, they haven't > >|really lost anything have they? > > > >Masked Man---->Unequivocally, yes, for those who do not attend church, > >because few parents teach moral values, let alone religious ones. > > I find this statement to be unfair, unfounded, unsubstantiated, and > downright inflammartory. > > Dammit,. MM.. I expect more from you than knee-jerk reactions and > troll bait. You're smarter than that. I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. They've been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in america.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


VoyagerLady wrote in message <21343500.bfd2fb10@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>... >In article <38c7037a.94708065@news.mindspring.com>, >kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote: >>On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:16:49 -0800, D���sir���e Davis >><HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >Being in Education, I decided to put in my two strips worth..... > > And of course you're welcome to.... > > >>|Effectively, all your saying is "it's always been done that >way" but this >>|doesn't offer any proof as to whether that way is just or not. >> >>Masked Man---->I reject the burden of proof. I do not have to >prove >>anything. >>| >>|> And, any education that does not include prayer is incomplete > Prayer >>|> is as much a part of life as breathing. > > >I agree with you 100% Masked Man!!!! > > Plenty of people manage to live quite well without prayer. Billions manage to live quite well without Christian prayer. >>| God really change his mind because of hearing prayers? >> >>MM---->The question is irrelevant to a discussion of why we >ought to >>pray...My theology dictates that the Lord takes pleasure in >those who >>petition him after his will. > > > >He most certainly does. And I have seen answers to prayer. > > >>Masked Man---->I'll respectfully request you not put words in my >>mouth. The "once upon a time" I referred to was 1950's America, >a >>time in which I lived and attended public school, where we >prayed >>every day, where my teacher read her Bible in class, where >Christmas >>decorations included a creche, where prayers were routinely >offered at >>assemblies. The time was not that long ago. I know it exists >because >>I was part of it. > >In the 50's. And during that time, students were NOT being >murder on their campuses. Having gone through the trauma of a >student being murdered on campus, I know the horror it brings to >the students and staff. > There is no logic to your evidence. Perhaps we should also return to the segrated schooling that existed in the 50's? Furthermore, there is still violence in private religious schools. And finally, the country of Japan doesn't have murders on campus, and they don't have Christianity as part of their education. (Actually, they don't have anything quite akin to Judeo-Christian religion). So, there is absolutely no proof that religion in education prevents on-campus murders. But there is plenty of evidence of religion being invoked in the name of committing violent acts. One only needs to look at Arab terrorists who committ their acts of violence in the name of Allah. One only needs to look at the Christian crusades where millions were killed in "holy wars." > >> >>|To force religion on children through state-sponsered schools >is a simple and clear violation of rights and >>|cannot be allowed in a free society. >> >>Masked Man---->Baloney. To do otherwise is to summon more >incidents >>like Columbine. How many more children have to die on the altar >of >>your libertarianism? The corpses of these children amply >demonstrate >>more eloquently than I ever could that religious libertarianism >does >>not work > > >Columbine, the recent incident where one first grader shot and >killed another first grader, the student who was stabbed to death >on my campus, this sort of VIOLENCE did not happen when there was >prayers in school. B.S., as demonstrated above. > I was assaulted twice last school year. >Teachers were not assaulted when there was prayer in school. Teachers were not assaulted when there was segregation. Teachers were not assaulted when WWII heros were President. Teachers were not assualted prior to the mass suburbanization of America (should we all go back to farms?). Teachers were not assualted before Pat Robertson began to influence the GOP. I understand they still recite prayers at KKK meetings, just as they used to do prior to lynchings (back in your wonderful 40's and 50's). >BTW, one assault left me with a black eye. > > As George Bailley would say, maybe it was the answer to one of your prayers. (I am joking... I of course don't wish the black eye upon you, and regret any violence perpetrated on you by anyone). > >> >> >>|Neither the government nor you have any right to dictate any >>|religious beliefs on any of them via the public school system. >> >>Masked Man---->The roots of this nation are fundamentally >>Judeo-Christian. The ecumenism you allude to is a rather recent >>historical development, and is used by some as a straw man to >force >>home a bankrupt point of view that because we cannot accommodate >all. >>we shall accommodate none. > > > >Actually the first amendment says Congress shall make NO laws >regarding the establishment of a religion............... > >The term seperation of church and state DOES NOT exist in the US >Constitution. > Under the evolution of our law, the Supreme Court has interpretting the First Amendment as such. That's the Supreme Court's job. >It was used in a speech by one of the Founding Fathers. Who, BTW >is probably appaled at the misuse of this quote by the liberals. > Yeah.... those horrible liberals, preaching tolerance for all faiths <g>. > >> >>Furthermore, I am not dictating anything. I am lobbying for >Christian >>organizations like Youth for Christ to be allowed back into our >public >>schools, and asserting that by doing so, we can save some future >>generations of children from becoming both murderers and >victims. >>| > > >Actually, the courts have ruled that students have rights to have >Christian Clubs on capus. > No, the Court has ruled that a religious group can't automatically be denied standing on campus, merely because of relgious content. This right is not exclusive to Christian clubs. Jewish clubs, Hindu clubs, homosexual clubs, Pagan clubs, Star Trek clubs, all have the same rights. -- Havoc, protector of Truth, Justice and the American Way.

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc17odu2ee630@corp.supernews.com... > > TehTigre wrote in message ... > > > If we could live by the few principles outlined > for > >us and were simply good people - treating others the way we would like to > be > >treated.... then we would all be a lot better off. > > > >Okay - off my soapbox and end of sermon. Sorry to take up bandwidth for > >rambling. I just I just don't understand why people cannot be nice and be > >fair to one another <sigh>...... > > > >Micaela > > > > > Don't apologize..... > Very well spoken, thank you. > > -Havoc Thanks Havoc. very much appreciated. Mic > > >

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


VoyagerLady <voyagerlady13NOvoSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message news:27e16f56.c08a46fb@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com... > In article <C_Fv4.84879$ox5.22842546@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Laura > Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote: > >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > >news:sbu8jvicee6134@corp.supernews.com... > > > >> I'm not suggesting that religion is automatically evil, but > it's > >> certainly not automatically virtuous. > > > >I would say that it is not religion that is at fault, but some > "religious" > >people. Just because they fly the name of God on their banner > does not mean > >He told them to. > > > > Most assuredly true!!!!! > > Reminds of me of the man who said he would not leave during a > flood because God would protect him. He declined every offer of > help. Then in Heaen he asked God why he didn't protect him, and > God said I sent many rescuers to aid you and you turned them all > down. > > Ronda LOL!!!! Too true...

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.132a057e11f10505989776@news.csulb.edu... > In article <IUXv4.569$7F3.9708@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > "D���sir���e Davis" <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.1329e66d14a877219896f8@news.csulb.edu... > > > In article <ATWv4.451$7F3.8668@nnrp4.clara.net>, evilbillKILL-THE- > > > SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk says... > > > > Even if I agree that some guns are specifically designed to hurt people > > > (as opposed to being designed to hurt animals, ward of predictors, etc), > > > I could still argue that so are knives, nun chucks, billy clubs, mace, > > > pepper spray, and a host of other items. Do we prevent the manufacture > > > of any item "designed" to inflict harm? > > > It wouldn't be a bad idea... even if people hurting each other can't be > > entirely prevented, it would at least be nice to make it more difficult to > > do so. > > But if an individual buys a baseball bat for the sole purpose of beating > intruders over the head, then what> You are beginning down the slippery > slope of wanting to control people based on their thoughts ("You can own > a bat to play baseball, and if you happen to whap someone upside the head > with it, no one will call for a ban on bats. But if we can't let you > buy it for the expressed purpose of whapping someone upside the head."). > Tread carefully. > I agree with you there... I just don't think instruments designed specifically to hurt, maim and kill should be generally available. You don't know whether someone is going to use a baseball bat to play baseball, to whack someone over the head, or to thrash their PC with <g>, so you give them the benefit of the doubt, *because* it's not *made* to be used as an offensive weapon. > > > > Is it logical, then, to care about the rights of others? > > Of course. In order for rights to have any meaning, they must a) be > enforceable (telling a killer you have the right to life and he has no > right to kill you does little good unless you can defend yourself) and b) > everyone must have them. That is, in order for you to have the right to > life, liberty & property so must your neighbors. It is logical to defend > the rights of others because it is in your own best interest to do so. > If your neighbor's rights can be violated, then so can yours, so you are > well served by helping to protect your neighbor's rights. > > D���sir���e- they were small worms Hey, don't insult my worms! <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38BFD8D1.AB387330@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:sbucdfjree6104@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > Masked Man wrote in message > > <38c02b0a.104837219@news.mindspring.com>... > > > >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:21:09 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >|Religion is probably responsible for more murders, atrocities and > > > oppression > > > >|than communism, libertarianism and all the other 'isms combined. > > > > > > > >Masked Man---->Even conceding that point, and I do so only for > > > >argument, religion has _saved_ more lives than all those other > > isms > > > >combined as well.... > > > > > > > > > > Does your mask keep you from understanding history? Give me > > examples of > > > religion saving lives (not souls, but actual lives). > > > > > > Let's just take a look at religion in America. Religion was used to > > > > justify > > > and rationalize slavery. (Which was ended by abolitionism). > > > > >Religion also motivated many to take part in The Underground > > Railroad. > > > > >Moving to the > > > 20th Century, Religion was used to rationalize Jim Crow laws. > > (Which were > > > ended by the liberalism of the Civil Rights movement). > > > > And the leader of the Civil Rights movement was a preacher of God's > > word. > > > > >Let's move to the > > > 21st Century... Where at Bob Jones and other places, religion is > > used to > > > rationalize continued bigotry. (Whether against inter-racial > > dating, > > > homosexual preferences, etc.) > > > > And in other places, religion is used to denounce bigotry. > > > > > I'm not saying that good can't come from religion. There is indeed > > plenty > > > of charity work, etc, which is done in the name of religion. But > > there is > > > also plenty of charity work that is done without invoking religion. > > > > > Conclusion: Religion is, by itself, morally neutral. It can be > > used for > > > evil just as readily as it can be used for good. History teaches us > > that > > > religion is more likely to be used for oppressive purposes. > > > > I think you are looking at a one-sided view of history. And if > > religion is > > neutal in your eyes, then why not blame some of the religious instead > > of > > religion? > > Actually, you have proven my point. Good and evil can both be > perpetrated in the name of religion. I'm not blaming religion for these > actions, and nor am I going to credit religion with the positives. In the name of religion - yes. Would it surprise you that I question the faith of many who claim it in this world? I have found it is easy for someone to SAY they believe thus and so - but many of them do not live it, which is where it really counts. > The implication of many of those who favor religion in the schools is > that somehow, if you teach people about G-d, they won't go around > shooting people. But history teaches us that it is often religious > people who are the most likely to pick up arms in support of immoral > causes. > > It would be a one sided to say that religion gets credit for its > positive contributions to history, but not any of the blame for its > negative contributions. But you WERE merely pointing out the negatives. ;-) I would say that if Christianity were truly practiced by all who are giving it lip service, your picture of it would not be quite as negative. :-)

2000-03-04 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38BFDAE3.F2634087@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: Except that at the place they spend the waking hours > at, they are sent the > > > message that God is not all that important... > > I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being > > stopped > > at the school door. Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those > > of > > the Judeo-Christian bent? > > I personally don't believe G-d is very important and I wouldn't want > any school to teach my kids otherwise. I don't want the government to > tell my kids how important G-d should, or should not be. (You will > notice I abbreviate G-d with a dash out of respect for my own religion.. > so obviously, it does have some importance to me). > > It would be wrong to forbid Judeo-Christian speech, but it isn't > forbidden. It's merely inappropriate for the classroom. And this > prohibition is alright due to something called the First Amendment of > the US Constitution. I disagree. There was a case where a teacher had a Bible on his desk that he would read during Silent Sustained Reading period. He didn't read it out loud, didn't order the students to read it, just read it to himself. This was, we are told, a separation of church and state violation. See, it's like someone said. If one is truly living their faith (whatever that faith might be) it is not like a jacket one takes on and off. I don't stop being a Christian when I log onto the newsgroup, for example, or when I'm driving my car, or shopping at the mall. Are we asking people to leave their faith at the door because it is "inappropriate?"

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: Bill Crawford >Lisa! And you call yourself a married woman! Dallying about in >fluidic space with some other organism! For shaaaaaaaame! > >- Will, emigrating from chaotic "Get them out!" space Hmmm, I might have to make you Kid Chaos.

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... >"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message >news:sc56f7huee69@corp.supernews.com... >> >> EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... >> > >> >What's a fraternity chapter? Enlighten this ignorant Brit <g> >> >> Go rent the movie "Animal House." <g> >> >> Fraternity and sororities are social organizations existing on American >(and >> some Canadian) college campuses. Each such organization forms a >> "brotherhood" or "sisterhood" that connects its current members, its >> national members, and its past members (well.. technically.. all members >are >> life members). >> >> When I say that Michael Shwerner was a fraternity brother, I mean he was a >> member of the same fraternity house and the same chapter (same college). >> > >Are those the organizations that name themselves using the Greek alphabet? >Chi Kappa Delta, and so forth? > Yup, you got it.

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d6b05d.159983982@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:59:23 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|Bob Jones University was censured (not banned, not fined, not outlawed) for >|its intolerance. I'm PROUD to live in a country with the guts to stand up >|and condemn intolerance. If European nations had been more like this, then >|my people would not have faced a genocide. >| >|Yes, we live in a nation that is tolerant of diversity, but not tolerant of >|intolerance. Thank G-d. > > >Masked Man---->Many men and women fought and died in battlefields all >over this world, so that Bob Jones University could believe as it >does. You dishonor their memory and their sacrifice with your >intolerance. >-- How dare you challenge my patriotism. My family has a proud history of military service. Both my grandfather and an Uncle served in World War II, and they were fighting *against* the types of Bob Jones University, not for it. But mind you, no matter how much I dislike and disagree with Bob Jones University, I still will steadfastly defend their rights to whatever beliefs they hold. But Bob Jones University represents Anti-American values of bigotry and division, which is not what our soldiers fought for. You dishonor the service of my very own family members with your insults. -Havoc Patriotic American

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d7b0d7.160106135@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:59:23 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|Yes, we live in a nation that is tolerant of diversity, but not tolerant of >|intolerance. Thank G-d. > >Masked Man---->How can you claim to be tolerant of diversity when you >are intolerant of me and people like me? You are tolerant of some >diverse beliefs, but not all. I completely believe in tolerance of Christians, including you. But I do very much dislike and disagree with bigotry. Are you saying I'm intolerant because I dislike and disagree with the views of the KKK? I condemn intolerance. If you are intolerant, then I condemn your intolerance. >In that regard, you are no different >from me. At least, I'm honest enough to admit what I wont tolerate. I just admitted what I won't tolerate. Bigotry. Bigotry against Jews or Gentiles, Blacks or Whites, Men or Women, Heterosexuals or Homosexuals.... (the list goes on and on). >You say one thing and do another: where I come from, we call that >hypocrisy. > I say one thing: I oppose intolerance. I do the same thing: I oppose intolerance. But I applaud you for being so open about at least some of your bigotry. -Havoc

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Steve Christianson wrote in message <38C2C2C5.4BBE@yahoo.com>... >X-No-Archive: yes > > > >Masked Man wrote: >> >> On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:59:23 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >> >> |Yes, we live in a nation that is tolerant of diversity, but not tolerant of >> |intolerance. Thank G-d. >> >> Masked Man---->How can you claim to be tolerant of diversity when you >> are intolerant of me and people like me? You are tolerant of some >> diverse beliefs, but not all. In that regard, you are no different >> from me. At least, I'm honest enough to admit what I wont tolerate. >> You say one thing and do another: where I come from, we call that >> hypocrisy. > > >Havoc is tolerant of you, but you're such a butt-ignorant redneck Bible >thumping ass it's hard to give a shit or read your posts without >laughing. Clue alert: the 50s are gone. We live in a country where gays >and where people of other faiths happen to have a right to live in the >backwater jerkoff town in the sticks you call home. When you can get >that through your pig ignorant mind, call me. > Wow Steve-O... can always count on you to boil it down <g> -Havoc

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - closing thoughts and prayer - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


I will withdraw from further discussion in the prayer-in-school thread, as I feel my contribution is nearly complete. I have advocated tolerance for all faiths, races, genders, sexual preferences. Religion inside schools is inherently divisive, and I don't want my tax dollars used to teach my kids someone else's religion. For most of those who favor prayer in the schools, it's because they feel confident that its their religion that will be taught. I ask each of those people to consider the rights of the minority faiths. Would you be so enthusiastic for religion to be taught to your children, with your tax dollars, if it was a religion with which you disagreed? That said, I wish to share with everyone a Jewish prayer for the United States of America. I don't condone prayer inside of schools, but this isn't a school. And this prayer, for me, sums up much about how I feel about this wonderful nation**********: ____________________________________________________________________________ ______ Lord, G-d of our fathers, as we gather to pay homage to the founders and builders of this, our country, we ask Thy blessing. With courage and vision, they made of these United States a land of freedom and opportunity. For all that they have so firmly established, we render thanks unto Thee. "Our lines are fallen in pleasant places; yea, we have a goodly heritage." We are grateful for the faith that made fearless, and the courage that kept firm these valiant men and women. Above all, we are grateful that the spirit of Israel's Prophets so lived in their hearts that they knew all men are created equal in Thy sight, by Thee endowed with the imperishable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In tribute to the Founding Fathers of this blessed Republic, may we strive to keep these United States forever righteous and just. May ours be a land where none shall prey upon or exploit his fellowman, where bigotry and violence shall not be tolerated, where poverty shall be abolished, and all men live amicably as brothers. Vouchsafe unto us, O Lord, wisdom equal to our strength and courage equal to our responsibilities, to the end that our nation may lead the world in the advancement and fulfillment of human welfare. May all nations become aware of their common unity and all the peoples of the world be united in the bonds of brotherhood. Amen. ____________________________________________________________________________ __ -Havoc Truly Proud to be an American Citizen.

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:59:23 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Bob Jones University was censured (not banned, not fined, not outlawed) for |its intolerance. I'm PROUD to live in a country with the guts to stand up |and condemn intolerance. If European nations had been more like this, then |my people would not have faced a genocide. | |Yes, we live in a nation that is tolerant of diversity, but not tolerant of |intolerance. Thank G-d. Masked Man---->Many men and women fought and died in battlefields all over this world, so that Bob Jones University could believe as it does. You dishonor their memory and their sacrifice with your intolerance. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:59:23 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Yes, we live in a nation that is tolerant of diversity, but not tolerant of |intolerance. Thank G-d. Masked Man---->How can you claim to be tolerant of diversity when you are intolerant of me and people like me? You are tolerant of some diverse beliefs, but not all. In that regard, you are no different from me. At least, I'm honest enough to admit what I wont tolerate. You say one thing and do another: where I come from, we call that hypocrisy. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:32:54 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote: > >"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:xbkw4.1525$DF2.376914@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... >> >> Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... >> > X-No-Archive: yes >> > >> > >> > >> > Shammie wrote: >> > > >> > > >From: "Lisa >> > > >> > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! >> > > >> ;-) >> > > >> > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! >> > > >> > > Amen!! >> > >> > >> > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why destroy a >> > cool bad guy like that? >> >> And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD::: >> >> >*whisks Ta' off into fluidic space* Lisa! And you call yourself a married woman! Dallying about in fluidic space with some other organism! For shaaaaaaaame! - Will, emigrating from chaotic "Get them out!" space

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:11:28 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > |To summarize: > |You believe that the bible should be taught in public schools over the U.S. > |Constitution > |You believe that schools should try to "convert" students religiously. > |You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. > > Masked Man----->I believe only #3. The rest came out of your > imagination.... > So, you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated? I don't like the sound of that... I have several friends (both male and female) who are gay, and quite honestly I see absolutely no difference between them and my hetero friends, except for the gender of the people they find attractive. Which, IMO, is a personal matter that is none of anyone else's business. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > X-No-Archive: yes > > Lisa wrote: > > > > "Faffing"? Is that something that pillocks do? <g> > > > > ROTFLOL, you'll never forget that one will you? > > <g> OK, I admit I loved that one... > Pillock. <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc56f7huee69@corp.supernews.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... > > > >What's a fraternity chapter? Enlighten this ignorant Brit <g> > > Go rent the movie "Animal House." <g> > > Fraternity and sororities are social organizations existing on American (and > some Canadian) college campuses. Each such organization forms a > "brotherhood" or "sisterhood" that connects its current members, its > national members, and its past members (well.. technically.. all members are > life members). > > When I say that Michael Shwerner was a fraternity brother, I mean he was a > member of the same fraternity house and the same chapter (same college). > Are those the organizations that name themselves using the Greek alphabet? Chi Kappa Delta, and so forth? -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38C2C097.3891@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Lisa wrote: > > > > > Actually I like your small town attitude, it's refreshing. :-) > > > > Why thank you :-) > > > > *does a little curtsey* > > > :-) > Truth is, seriously, I respect people with down to earth attitudes and > real world opinions. You're one of them. > *blush* > > > > > "Faffing"? Is that something that pillocks do? <g> > > > > ROTFLOL, you'll never forget that one will you? > > > <g> OK, I admit I loved that one... :-) > > > > Generally speaking it is the male of the species that faffs about, they > > discuss how to do something, plan how to do it, make sketches of how to do > > it, have a little nap to refresh themselves before actually getting on with > > it and in the mean time the woman just did it! Understand now<eg>? -- Lisa "When I'm feeling weak And my pain walks down a one way street I look above And I know I'll always be blessed with love"

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Robrey wrote in message <38C24721.69C4FD1D@mailbag.com>... >havoc wrote: >> >> Masked Man wrote in message <38e1550e.71059746@news.mindspring.com>... >> >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >> > >> >|What's my supposed vested interest? >> > >> >Masked Man----->It would appear, in part, to discredit my point of >> >view. >> > >> >-- >> >> Now you're giving me far too much credit. I cannot discredit a point of >> view that has no legitimate credit: >> > Ahhh...but it worked well for two centuries...that counts for >something... > First, I would disagree that it worked well. Second, it would work even less well today, with a Country that is far more diverse than it ever was in times when religion was permitted in the classroom. >> To summarize: >> You believe that the bible should be taught in public schools over the U.S. >> Constitution > > And you are pretending that the Constitution should be completely >separate from the Bible. First off, yes I am. The Constitution is meant to govern the relationship between the US Government and the American people. All the American people, whether they believe in the Bible or not. If they were to be put together, you'd essentially be stating that the Constitution only applies to, or prefers, Christian Americans. > It wasn't once, you know, and you are too well >educated to be ignorant of that. I am certain you read the "FEDERALIST >PAPERS". The Founders were absolutely convinced that their religion >played a basic part in the dichotomy of a Free State. You know very >well I could fire the quotes at you...measure for measure... <g> > This has nothing to do with the Founders, if you know you're Constitutional history. The Founders believed in the Free State. This evolved into the freedom of the people, see below. > You don't have to *like* it, but I do believe you might be missing >something by not appreciating it. "The wall of separation between Church >and State" was intended by Jefferson to ensure that Government didn't >interfere with religion, not only the other way around. The Bill of >Rights is even more clear. It ensures that: "Congress shall make no law >respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free >exercise thereof." > > Somehow this got interpreted as "The Supreme Court will determine where >religion is to be permitted." Perhaps you prefer that interpretation, >but that doesn't make it either Constitutional or historical. >Legislating from the bench has it's drawbacks... > Here Robrey, you're ignoring Constitutional history. You're absolutely right when you state that the Founding Fathers *only* meant to limit interference in religion by the Federal government (Congress). But after the Civil War, the Constitution was amended with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which applied due process retraints on the State level as well. (Prior to such time, the Constitution did not limit any state activity). The Supreme Court, in its Conservative manner, ignored those Amendments for the most part, up until the 20th Century. Once they got around to applying those Constitutional Amendments to the State, the First Amendment was incorporated to apply to the State as well. Once the First Amendment is applied at the State level, it means no government agency can interfere in religion. Now, if a School board determines that a child should start his school day with a prayer, that's interference with that child's religion. Before you argue against incorporation of the First Amendment, remember.... Then you'd also be arguing that people don't have a right to freedom of speech (ie, you'd be arguing that states could Constitutionally ban speech). >> You believe that schools should try to "convert" students religiously. > > What do you mean? Robrey.... Here I'm quoting one of MM's other posts, where he implies that public schools should try to convert people to Christianity. Of course I agree that it's possible to have some religious content in school without proselytizing. (Although I would still disagree with such content). > >> You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. >> > There is a difference between teaching people not to hate and "HEATHER >HAS TWO MOMMIES". For one thing...Heather *DOESN'T* have two Mommies, >that's not how the world works, and if she's got two women caring for >her at home she's probably already figured it out...and it's possible no >one else is terribly interested. > MM specifically stated that schools should not be teaching tolerance of homosexuality. But further more, I have no problem with a lesson of "Heather has two mommies." Just as you state, a kid isn't going to be converted just by having prayer in school. Well similarly, "Heather has two mommies" isn't going to convert children into homosexuals. But it will teach kids to understand and respect the diversity of our great nation. > Would you like to cite a Founding Father who believed that religion >should be forced from the public square and homosexual activists should >be promoted in their place? You did READ the "FEDERALIST PAPERS" when >they were assigned to you didn't you? <g> > 1. Never did I suggest promotion of homosexuality. Only tolerance. 2. As stated above, the Founding Fathers did believe that a State had the right to promote religion. I don't argue this point. Of course I read the Federalist Papers. But I've also read the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions. 3. The Founders should not be treated as G-ds. They also believed in the continuation of slavery. 4. Do you deny that the First Amendment now applies to the states, though it only applied to the Federal government at the time of the founding?? >> No, I have no vested interest in trying to discredit you... >> But I'm always interested in unmasking someone like you. >> > Nah, you're using sleazy lawyer tricks to jerk him around. Some of us >have already figured out that some lawyers prefer to 'make the law up as >the go along'. They have a fetish for the Constitution, it does >appear... <g> > oooooooo.... The Constitution... all sexy and rational......... long legs.... voluptuous curves.... What a document <g> > But you are missing the point he is trying to make. One thing the >predominate religions of the US teach is that each person is a child of >God, That doesn't predominate my religion, and it would be an infringement of my Constitutional rights to have my children taught such. > and deserving of the respect of such. Respect for life can't be taught without G-d or Jesus? They do it just fine in the Far East. > Perhaps murders of the >politically correct would go down if people were reminded of that more >often.... <g> > See the whole discussion of lynchings, that took place during a time when the bible was very much a part of the classroom, especially in areas where lynchings took place. >> By the way.... what's this habit of snipping out 90% of a post to reply one >> sentence at a time? >> It's almost the type of tactic that would be used by W--- (he whose name is >> unmentionable) > > Hardly. Woofie could never restrain himself to one point: He would >have dug up everything you've said for the past two years in order to >expose your infamy. The Lone Ranger is just wondering why you're >jerking him around. > Yup... I remember W---'s 50k posts, but MM is doing the same thing with a simpler tactic... He is distorting an argument with selective snipping. > Cordially, > Robrey >- Nice to have your two cents Robrey... Good to see the pro-prayer argument rationally presented, -Havoc Fondler of the Constitution!

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Vdkw4.1531$DF2.376695@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > But 8472 has one thing going for them... Me! > You will be assimilated. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc3kf85fee6126@corp.supernews.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... > > > >Wow, you actually knew one of the civil rights workers? > > No..... He was killed well before I was born. But he was a member of my > fraternity chapter. We named a library in his honor. > What's a fraternity chapter? Enlighten this ignorant Brit <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


havoc wrote: > Masked Man wrote in message <38c2278f.59410639@news.mindspring.com>... > >On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> > >wrote: > > > >|I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. > They've > >|been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in > >|america. > > > >Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in > >America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... > > > > Morality in the schools fell when Reagan became President. Let's blame him. > (I don't remember any elementary school shootings prior to Reagan). > > But that is only a comment upon your memory, not history. Bob

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:15:41 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |Tell me... where is the merit in refusing to tolerate homosexuality? |Where is the merit in using schools to convert people to your faith? Masked Man----->I never suggested that schools be used to convert people to my faith. You are putting words in my mouth. I simply want the reality of my faith to be present in school, as it once was, with not only the government's permission, but its blessing.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Helen & Bob wrote in message <38C293A3.9C862790@ix.netcom.com>... > > >havoc wrote: >> >> Morality in the schools fell when Reagan became President. Let's blame him. >> (I don't remember any elementary school shootings prior to Reagan). >> >> > >But that is only a comment upon your memory, not history. >Bob > Precisely my point. Blaming a supposed deterioration of schools on a lack of prayer is equally unfounded in history. For example, I would agree that New York City schools have deteriorated over the last thirty to fifty years (although they are on their way back up now). But, prayer has been absent from most New York City schools this entire century, well before the Supreme Court made it a nationwide policy. In contrast, in the community in which I live, education has improved tremendously over the last forty years. It's actually been improving since religion was removed from the schools. The only evidence that removal of prayer in schools caused school deterioration is subjective and biased speculation. Similar to my statement that school morality fell when Reagan became President. I don't believe that statement, it was made for illustration only. It comes down to this..... I don't want a school teacher to tell my kids they are going to hell, for holding the beliefs I've taught them. You wouldn't want a school teacher to tell your kids that they are going to hell, for holding the beliefs that you've taught them. -Havoc

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... >"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message >news:sc3kf85fee6126@corp.supernews.com... >> >> EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... >> > >> >Wow, you actually knew one of the civil rights workers? >> >> No..... He was killed well before I was born. But he was a member of my >> fraternity chapter. We named a library in his honor. >> > >What's a fraternity chapter? Enlighten this ignorant Brit <g> > Go rent the movie "Animal House." <g> Fraternity and sororities are social organizations existing on American (and some Canadian) college campuses. Each such organization forms a "brotherhood" or "sisterhood" that connects its current members, its national members, and its past members (well.. technically.. all members are life members). When I say that Michael Shwerner was a fraternity brother, I mean he was a member of the same fraternity house and the same chapter (same college). -Havoc

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:11:28 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |No, I have no vested interest in trying to discredit you... |But I'm always interested in unmasking someone like you. Masked Man---->You havent unmasked me. You have misrepresented me....It is a favorite tactic of people like you against people like me. I have dealt with it all my adult life. You're not even particularly good at it....The one who stands unmasked here is you.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:11:28 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |To summarize: |You believe that the bible should be taught in public schools over the U.S. |Constitution |You believe that schools should try to "convert" students religiously. |You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. Masked Man----->I believe only #3. The rest came out of your imagination.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( : religion in school vs. tolerance - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:07:10 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |So it seems you're being rather selective over which principles you choose |to adopt. Masked Man---->On this, at least, we agree.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:23:01 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: | This to counter the |view that there wouldn't be any school shootings if only the students were |forced to pray. Masked Man---->That is not my view, and never has been. My view has been there would be less of it, if students were allowed to pray. Note the choice of words, because the significantly alter the meaning of the statement... Your statement above is a deliberate misrepresentation of my views. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:11:28 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |By the way.... what's this habit of snipping out 90% of a post to reply one |sentence at a time? Masked Man---->I seldom read long posts - > 100 lines. I doubt that many do. I snip for several reasons: to focus your attention on what I have to say - if you want to read what I'm responding to, I figure it's easy enough to do that. I snip to focus my own attention on what I want to say. These are complex issues, and sometimes it's easier to discuss them when I focus on one or two thoughts at a time. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:23:01 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |We're a far more tolerant nation |than we were. Masked Man----->Which, of course, explains why a US Senator would enter a resolution to censure Bob Jones University for its doctrinal beliefs....we are less tolerant, not more, in the ways that matter most... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c29624.153270798@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:15:41 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|Tell me... where is the merit in refusing to tolerate homosexuality? >|Where is the merit in using schools to convert people to your faith? > >Masked Man----->I never suggested that schools be used to convert >people to my faith. You are putting words in my mouth. I'm not going to hunt through the old posts in order to quote your exact words. I am not intentionally putting words in your mouth, merely holding you to what you say. If you're saying now that you never meant schools should be used for conversion, I'll believe you and accept that we had a miscommunication. > I simply want >the reality of my faith to be present in school, as it once was, with >not only the government's permission, but its blessing.... > And I simply don't want *your* faith imposed upon my kids with my tax money. No more than you would want *my* faith imposed on your kids. Faith is far too personal to have the school delving into it and picking and choosing. -Havoc Relgious Zealot in his own home. (ok, you caught me... I'm no religious zealot).

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:06:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |If they were to be put together, you'd essentially be stating that the |Constitution only applies to, or prefers, Christian Americans. Masked Man---->It did once, and many who framed it acknowledged that to be so, and, furthermore, an end, devoutly to be sought. In today's society of cultural pluralism, it probably wouldnt work. But, to deny the role of Christianity in our history, and that of our founding fathers to Christianity, is to deny our history. In that sense, of preserving the religious history of this nation, I'm more constitutional than you are.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38cb9b84.154646602@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:06:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|If they were to be put together, you'd essentially be stating that the >|Constitution only applies to, or prefers, Christian Americans. > >Masked Man---->It did once, and many who framed it acknowledged that >to be so, and, furthermore, an end, devoutly to be sought. In today's >society of cultural pluralism, it probably wouldnt work. But, to deny >the role of Christianity in our history, and that of our founding >fathers to Christianity, is to deny our history. In that sense, of >preserving the religious history of this nation, I'm more >constitutional than you are.... > No, you're more Christian than I am, not more Constitutional. And Christianity has no more place in our *government* than Islam, Catholocism, Hinduism, Judaism, Wicca or any other faith.\ I have zero interest in preserving the religious history of this nation if it means keeping this country a Christian nation. I'm not Christian, I have no interest in ever being Christian, I don't want my children to learn Christian, religious based principles or history. Are you saying that since I'm not Christian, I should have less rights than you?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:06:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: |3. The Founders should not be treated as G-ds. Masked Man---->Neither should the Supreme Court. They've promulgated a few bad decisions over the course of our history. This whole business of separation of church and state is just one example.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c6988e.153887871@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:11:28 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|No, I have no vested interest in trying to discredit you... >|But I'm always interested in unmasking someone like you. > >Masked Man---->You havent unmasked me. You have misrepresented >me....It is a favorite tactic of people like you against people like >me. I have dealt with it all my adult life. You're not even >particularly good at it....The one who stands unmasked here is you.... > Yup... You've caught me, you've unmasked me. I believe in tolerance and acceptance of the great diversity that is this great nation. I believe children should learn tolerance for people of all religions, races, ethnicities, genders, and sexual preferences. I believe that children, in public schools, should learn uniting moral principles without the inherent divisiveness of religion (As long as there are different religions, it's inherently divisive. Just look at this NG discussion as proof.) And finally I believe that religion is a personal choice that must be made by the family. It should not be imposed by the government. I don't want my children to be taught *your* religion with my tax dollars. So you've unmasked me alright... There are my beliefs.. which I've been open about from the very beginning. -Havoc, behind the mask.... still Havoc.

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38c99a30.154306864@news.mindspring.com>... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:23:01 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > >|We're a far more tolerant nation >|than we were. > >Masked Man----->Which, of course, explains why a US Senator would >enter a resolution to censure Bob Jones University for its doctrinal >beliefs....we are less tolerant, not more, in the ways that matter >most... Yet again, you've been unmasked. Bob Jones University was censured (not banned, not fined, not outlawed) for its intolerance. I'm PROUD to live in a country with the guts to stand up and condemn intolerance. If European nations had been more like this, then my people would not have faced a genocide. Yes, we live in a nation that is tolerant of diversity, but not tolerant of intolerance. Thank G-d. -Havoc

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc3dv3snee6156@corp.supernews.com... > > lurker@home wrote in message ... > > > >Blacks, rarely and only in the worst of the South. Jews, not at all. > > Sheesh....... Jews not at all? Someone should tell that to one of my > fraternity brothers, Michael Shwerner. His death became the subject of a > movie called Mississippi burning. > Wow, you actually knew one of the civil rights workers? -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:Wkiw4.2291$ad7.62829@news3.cableinet.net... > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:dXdw4.1206$7F3.26758@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > ;-) > > Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > Your information is out of date... they have the enhanced nanoprobes now! <eg> Although they were designed to self-destruct taking the 8472s with them, I'm sure the Borg will have de-activated the self-destruct mechanisms... making the perfect new weapon to assimilate 8472... <veg> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:J6iw4.2284$ad7.62449@news3.cableinet.net... > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:_S9w4.971$7F3.22896@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > The difference being, the gun control/religion threads crop up in EVERY > > active NG from time to time, not just the Trek ones. <g> > > You mean other newsgroups dont discuss Harry and Tom? > Not that I know of <g> The main topics of discussion in AGQ2 and AGQ3 tend to be who has the fastest computer, whether Quake 3 is better than Unreal Tournament, and why you can't run games on Windows 2000 if you have a Voodoo 2 card in your PC. <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Shammie wrote: > > > > >From: "Lisa > > > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > >> ;-) > > > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > > > > Amen!! > > > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why destroy a > cool bad guy like that? And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD:::

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:sKjw4.1505$za2.43112@nnrp3.clara.net... > "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:Wkiw4.2291$ad7.62829@news3.cableinet.net... > > > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:dXdw4.1206$7F3.26758@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > > ;-) > > > > Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > > > > Your information is out of date... they have the enhanced nanoprobes now! > <eg> > > Although they were designed to self-destruct taking the 8472s with them, I'm > sure the Borg will have de-activated the self-destruct mechanisms... making > the perfect new weapon to assimilate 8472... <veg> But 8472 has one thing going for them... Me!

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc3ks5msee681@corp.supernews.com... > >Hey, do you have Ta's chat room URL? If not, you should. It would be > >good to chat some > >time. > > It's on his NG page? Nope. Email me.

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: Robert Beltran is a great guy - (dtaejdh@aol.com)


In article <38c11c43.52239927@news.demon.co.uk>, ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk (Ali Andrews) writes: >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 12:45:45 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" > >> >>Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on >>topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and >>what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > ><confession mode on> >Thanks to a tape Therese loaned to me with RB's Q&A session at the >Galaxy Ball I am now a bit of a fan! He was charming. Of course RDM >was charming too, but I expected that :-) I had heard from people that >RB was a bit stand offish but he came across as genuinely warm, >friendly and fun. > >Allie >x > > Well, unburden your soul a little more often Allie <g> Since that Q and A was my initiation into them, I'd have to agree--RB was charming and fun. Since I had heard a bit more about RB before I went, it was RDM who pleasantly surprised me with his warmth and humor (not to mention the baby blues!) Doreen

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:xbkw4.1525$DF2.376914@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... > > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > > > > > Shammie wrote: > > > > > > >From: "Lisa > > > > > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > > >> ;-) > > > > > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > > > > > > Amen!! > > > > > > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why destroy a > > cool bad guy like that? > > And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD::: > > *whisks Ta' off into fluidic space*

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Robrey <robrey@mailbag.com>)


havoc wrote: > > Masked Man wrote in message <38e1550e.71059746@news.mindspring.com>... > >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > >|What's my supposed vested interest? > > > >Masked Man----->It would appear, in part, to discredit my point of > >view. > > > >-- > > Now you're giving me far too much credit. I cannot discredit a point of > view that has no legitimate credit: > Ahhh...but it worked well for two centuries...that counts for something... > To summarize: > You believe that the bible should be taught in public schools over the U.S. > Constitution And you are pretending that the Constitution should be completely separate from the Bible. It wasn't once, you know, and you are too well educated to be ignorant of that. I am certain you read the "FEDERALIST PAPERS". The Founders were absolutely convinced that their religion played a basic part in the dichotomy of a Free State. You know very well I could fire the quotes at you...measure for measure... <g> You don't have to *like* it, but I do believe you might be missing something by not appreciating it. "The wall of separation between Church and State" was intended by Jefferson to ensure that Government didn't interfere with religion, not only the other way around. The Bill of Rights is even more clear. It ensures that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Somehow this got interpreted as "The Supreme Court will determine where religion is to be permitted." Perhaps you prefer that interpretation, but that doesn't make it either Constitutional or historical. Legislating from the bench has it's drawbacks... > You believe that schools should try to "convert" students religiously. What do you mean? Allowing the existence of something does not guarantee "conversion". When I was fourteen, you could have breathed fire while preaching the Gospel, but I wasn't listening. I was more interested in Black Sabbath and Anton Levay...<EG> On the other hand, perhaps some of those liberation theology teachers rubbed off, I turned out OK. <g> > You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. > There is a difference between teaching people not to hate and "HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES". For one thing...Heather *DOESN'T* have two Mommies, that's not how the world works, and if she's got two women caring for her at home she's probably already figured it out...and it's possible no one else is terribly interested. Would you like to cite a Founding Father who believed that religion should be forced from the public square and homosexual activists should be promoted in their place? You did READ the "FEDERALIST PAPERS" when they were assigned to you didn't you? <g> > No, I have no vested interest in trying to discredit you... > But I'm always interested in unmasking someone like you. > Nah, you're using sleazy lawyer tricks to jerk him around. Some of us have already figured out that some lawyers prefer to 'make the law up as the go along'. They have a fetish for the Constitution, it does appear... <g> But you are missing the point he is trying to make. One thing the predominate religions of the US teach is that each person is a child of God, and deserving of the respect of such. Perhaps murders of the politically correct would go down if people were reminded of that more often.... <g> > By the way.... what's this habit of snipping out 90% of a post to reply one > sentence at a time? > It's almost the type of tactic that would be used by W--- (he whose name is > unmentionable) Hardly. Woofie could never restrain himself to one point: He would have dug up everything you've said for the past two years in order to expose your infamy. The Lone Ranger is just wondering why you're jerking him around. Cordially, Robrey -- "...We dare not forget today that we are heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and success of liberty. This much we pledge-and more." --John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 1961.

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Books over the Net - ("Allen W. McDonnell" <tanada@provide.net>)


> > Would it be possible to get a copy of your "Business Law Made Simple?" > Amazon says that it's out of stock. And if I do make this change of jobs, > I'll need to check all my criminal law knowledge at the door, in exchange > for internet law, intellectual property, and business law. > Have you tried Barnes and Nobles web page? If a book is out of print they second source it until they come up with a copy for you, way superior to Amazon.com IMO. -- Life is what YOU make of it, so why are you sitting there reading this? Allen W. McDonnell AIM Tanada1945, YIM Tanada1945 ICQ 44757320 Email Tanada@provide.spam.net

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:_S9w4.971$7F3.22896@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:vA7w4.1137$ad7.34554@news3.cableinet.net... > > > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > > months? > > > > Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > > topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is > and > > what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > > > > The difference being, the gun control/religion threads crop up in EVERY > active NG from time to time, not just the Trek ones. <g> You mean other newsgroups dont discuss Harry and Tom?

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:dXdw4.1206$7F3.26758@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:07:20 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > > |Havoc > > |Defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. > > > > Masked Man----->Not the America I was born into.... > > > > See what happens whenever religion is discussed? It turns into a flame war. > So I have just one more thing to add to this thread: > > THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > ;-) Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!!

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - 8472 Rules! - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: "Lisa >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! >> ;-) >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! Amen!!

2000-03-05 00:00:00 - Re: Robert Beltran is a great guy - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Ali Andrews" <ali@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:38c11c43.52239927@news.demon.co.uk... > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 12:45:45 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" > > > > >Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > >topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and > >what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > > <confession mode on> > Thanks to a tape Therese loaned to me with RB's Q&A session at the > Galaxy Ball I am now a bit of a fan! He was charming. Of course RDM > was charming too, but I expected that :-) I had heard from people that > RB was a bit stand offish but he came across as genuinely warm, > friendly and fun. :-))))))))) You made my evening saying that. I shall have to talk very nicely to Therese and see if I can have a look at it too. Doreen just sent me a tape with some of RB's previous work on it which I am really enjoying. It is really good to see him in a different light and some of his scenes in Managua were very, very moving. Lisa

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38C29603.575@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > > > The right to life is the primary right. From that comes the right to > > liberty and the right to property. If you disagree I would like to know > > what your idea of "rights" is. It is a waste of my time and yours to > > attempt a rational argument with someone who isn't starting with the same > > fundamentals. > > > I don't have any set cookie-cutter list of rights in my moral book. I > think the list of rights provided by the Constitution is pretty good, > though I'd delete the right to own guns from them. In my personal life, > my basic moral center is probably (1) justice, and (2) leave others > alone if they don't bother you or yours. Then how can anyone have a debate with you? You have your ideas- they have no basis in reality, just whatever you "feel" is right? In case you hadn't noticed the rights in the Bill of rights all are derived from the rights to life, liberty & property. > > Assuming you agree with the 3 basic rights (life, liberty, property) > > ownership of a gun falls under the right to property. You have yet to > > show a logical, rational way whereby anyone is justified in violating > > this right. You have certainly made appeals to emotion, but have yet to > > counter the fundamental principle. It is *only* by rationally, logically > > justifying why anyone is allowed to violate the right to ownership that > > you can claim guns should be banned. When you do that, you may have > > something > > > Why three basic rights? There are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights > to the Constitution, not three, and you're arguing that the Second > Amendement should be preserved. Focus your comments on that question. I am. I think in principles, something you seem to have serious trouble doing. Besides, each amendment does not represent a specific right. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > D���sir���e- logic over emotion every time > > > > > Logic? I don't see any logic here. > > > > Do you know what logic is? I doubt it since you instead try to redefine > > it as "sophistry" You have yet to make a logical argument > > > Curbing the number of guns in America as a way of reducing deaths > doesn't strike you as logical? Curbing the number of cars to prevent auto accidents is the same "logic" This is a logical fallacy which is why I don't accept it as a valid argument. Causation can only be applied to an action that has no other outcome possible. Action 'A' causes Result 'Z' If Action A does not always cause Result Z, but in fact may cause Result 'Y' or Result 'Z' based on some other factor then Action A isn't the cause of either result, some other factor is. In the case of guns, ownership isn't the cause. Shooting people with them is. > > and instead > > continually make appeals to emotion. Besides, I don't need to make much > > of an argument. All I have to do is point to the basic right to > > property. > > > Heh, I think between the two of us I'm more familiar with the > Constitutional right/s to property than you. Sorry to pull rank, but > I've been a lawyer for a long time. Remind me not to hire you, if this argument is indicative of your concepts of rights and logic. I'm arguing principles. You want to hold up U.S. as infallible except where you disagree. A most dishonest technique. I am not arguing the Constitution. I am arguing the Right to Property which exists because man exists, not because the Constitution does. The Right to Property exists even without the Constitution. We aren't arguing the law, we are debating the right of a free individual to own a gun. Such a debate is one of principle and principle alone. > > You are the one who must prove logically that this right is > > trumped by your appeal to safety or that such a right doesn't exist. I > > welcome either attempt. > Easy. Fewer guns make a safer society. That's the first. So would fewer cars, fewer knives, fewer baseball bats, fewer swimming pools, fewer scissors, fewer fatty foods, fewer bottles of beer, fewer airplanes... Again, your causation stinks. And again you prove your inability to *logically* prove safety trumps rights or that said right doesn't exist. Until you do either, you have no argument. > Rights to > property are subject to the police power of the government to regulate > those rights under the Constitution. Not justly. The government has no rights that an individual doesn't. If the government takes away personal property that is theft just as if it were done by a neighbor. > > > I see alot of sophistry in order to > > > dodge the very obvious fact that people misuse guns on a vast scale in > > > this country and some realistic gun control is long overdue. > > > > So penalize everyone for the actions of a few? You think that is just? > Desiree, bad guys don't walk around with name tags on so we can throw > them into jail. I wish they did. Until that happens, we all have to > accept legislation which binds us *all* in order to protect us *all* > from the irresponsible *few*. No we don't. You may accept punishment for actions you didn't take, but I will not. You cannot justly punish anyone until a crime has been committed. Theft of property (taking away a gun) is an initiation of force, which is always, 100% of the time, no exceptions, wrong. By the same token, retaliatory force (I.e. punishment for willfully initiating force) is always, 100% of the time acceptable. It's always that way. Everyone has to obey > the speed limit because *some* people can't be trusted to drive fast. The owner of the road can set the rules for it's use. If I owned a road, then I could set a speed limit or not based on my own choice. I refuse to accept the punishment (theft) required to implement your "solution." You want to initiate force against everyone, regardless of their action, and that is wrong. "It's always that way" isn't a valid or logical argument either. Past precedent carries no weight in a logical argument. But then, when have you argued logically? > > Logical? Fair? I do not deny people misuse guns. People misuse cars, > > knives, aspirin and the the wrong end of milk containers. In order to be > > logically consistent (a requirement in a rational debate) you must then > > argue for the banning of anything capable of misuse, if, in fact, that is > > your reasoning for banning guns. "Misuse" is obviously not a rational or > > logical argument. > > > The issue here is guns, not life in general and the nature of the > universe. What book or philosophy text are you getting all this from?

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (<>)


From: "EvilBill[AGQx]" evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk >> |You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. >> >> Masked Man----->I believe only #3. The rest came out of your >> imagination.... >> > >So, you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated? I don't like >the sound of that... I have several friends (both male and female) who are >gay, and quite honestly I see absolutely no difference between them and my >hetero friends, except for the gender of the people they find attractive. >Which, IMO, is a personal matter that is none of anyone else's business. Well said, EB! [hugs] Thena

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:K4pw4.2467$ad7.68074@news3.cableinet.net... > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:xbkw4.1525$DF2.376914@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... > > > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > > > > > > > > > Shammie wrote: > > > > > > > > >From: "Lisa > > > > > > > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > > > >> ;-) > > > > > > > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > > > > > > > > Amen!! > > > > > > > > > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why destroy a > > > cool bad guy like that? > > > > And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD::: > > > > > *whisks Ta' off into fluidic space* Whoo Hoo!

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message news:2B19B854EC56804F.273773DF9E1779BE.04624C86FA8159B2@lp.airnews.net... > On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:32:54 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" > <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:xbkw4.1525$DF2.376914@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > >> > >> Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... > >> > X-No-Archive: yes > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Shammie wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >From: "Lisa > >> > > > >> > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > >> > > >> ;-) > >> > > > >> > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > >> > > > >> > > Amen!! > >> > > >> > > >> > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why destroy a > >> > cool bad guy like that? > >> > >> And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD::: > >> > >> > >*whisks Ta' off into fluidic space* > > Lisa! And you call yourself a married woman! Dallying about in > fluidic space with some other organism! For shaaaaaaaame! Hey, you leave her alone!

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TC <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com>)


Masked Man wrote >... >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 13:53:58 -0600, "TC" <yewston@ix.REMOVE.netcom.com> >wrote: > >|It seems to me that standing in front of a group of children and leading >|them in mouthing words and phrases that they may not understand or believe >|is an exercise in futility. If a student is reciting that prayer just >|because the teacher says they should, or they don't want to rock the boat >|and be ostracized then that prayer is meaningless. If the student, deep in >|their heart, truly believes, then it seems to me that God would know that >|heart. There would not be any need for a school official or another student >|to tell them when it is time to pray or what words to use. > >Masked Man------>Of course. Absolutely. I never said, nor do I >maintain, that forcing children to pray would somehow magically save >them or redeem their character. Conversion, if it is to happen at >all, is a far more subtle and ineffable process than that. >But, I do believe that the presence of spiritual influences and >spiritual principles generally has an edifying effect on the group as >a whole. I believe this effect can be demonstrated, and clearly seen >over time. It is this influence I want to see brought back into our >schools. Are you saying that the public schools are supposed to be trying to convert children of all faiths into your brand of Christianity? That is not the function of public schools. The children's spiritual life is the province of the parents whether you agree with their choice of religion or not. Whether conversion happens due to force and coercion or peer pressure to be popular it is still a false conversion and is completely meaningless. With some of the things I have seen you post in this thread I fervently hope that the country you want never comes to pass. There is no place for me there. TC

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Athena7843" <mailto:athena7843@aol.comno.spam> wrote in message... > From: "EvilBill[AGQx]" evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk > > >> |You believe that schools should *not* teach tolerance of homosexuality. > >> > >> Masked Man----->I believe only #3. The rest came out of your > >> imagination.... > > > >So, you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated? I don't like > >the sound of that... I have several friends (both male and female) who are > >gay, and quite honestly I see absolutely no difference between them and my > >hetero friends, except for the gender of the people they find attractive. > >Which, IMO, is a personal matter that is none of anyone else's business. > > > Well said, EB! [hugs] > Thanks :) *blush* I don't find it easy to state my opinions and beliefs, because I got ridiculed for doing so a lot while I was at school, but I'm starting to try and get past that :) These days if someone ridicules me with no good reason I put them down as being a troll <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > > knowledge > > > in a gun discussion. > > > Bob > > > > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > months? > Seriously? Yes. Because of the passion about it involved. I am one who believes that an armed society is a free society. I do NOT believe that anyone who does NOT want a gun should be forced by law or societal pressure to have one (Switzerland). I believe that every gun owner has the responsibility to: 1. Keep the weapon in a safe, (i.e., unavailable to children) place. 2. Teach their own children, AT THE EARLIEST AGE, how to handle a gun safely, primarily by not touching it until an adult is there to control the handling. 3. To store the ammo separately from the weaponry, except for the load in the personal defense weapon. Use a trigger lock on the weapon. The problem is the illegal weapon. The incident that started this thread was a 6 year old boy who killed a 5 year old girl in school. What has been ignored in the case by the anti gunners are the ancillary facts. 1. The gun involved was a stolen weapon. 2. The 6 year old boy did not steal the weapon, it had been stolen by another resident of the house. (Who is now facing a charge on his handling of the weapon, 15 year sentence. This is separate from the gun theft charge.) 3. the little boy found the weapon loose in a bed in the house. 4. There was a large amount of parental neglect involved. (The boys father is in jail, and was in jail at the time of the shooting) Are you beginning to get the picture? I have two grown children. I have always had at least one rifle and one pistol in the house. My children knew that they were not to touch the weapons without my OK. I taught them how to hold and handle the weapons safely, starting when they were very young. I taught them how to shoot. They have never shot anybody. Neither of them (now grown and gone, supporting themselves) own weapons. That is their choice, I never tried to convince them either way. I just wanted them to respect the weapon (which too many people do NOT do) and to handle it safely. My piston is a legally purchased and registered weapon. My rifle is legally purchased, registration of rifles is not required in California. In my life, I have NEVER fired a weapon accidentally. I have never pointed a weapon at a human being. (Although I have had one pointed at me.) I ALSO believe that the right to own a weapon is a basic tenet of freedom. IIRC, in the UK, in WW2, at one time, after Dunkirk, the Home Guard was armed with personal weapons, as GB at that time did not have enough military rifles to go around. Just an example of personal weaponry guarding the freedom of a country. Bob

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > > knowledge > > > in a gun discussion. > > > Bob > > > > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > months? > > Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and > what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > > Lisa You forgot the several hundred posts that are role playing and flirting. Bob

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Masked Man wrote: > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > |No they don't. They teach that all people should be respected and > |tolerated, including homosexuals, minorities, other religions, etc. Are you > |suggesting that schools shouldn't teach tolerance of homosexuals? > > Masked Man---->No, I'm suggesting they shouldn't teach tolerance for > homosexuality.... Sure. We could burn them at the stake. Or beat them and tie them to a fence and leave them. You REALLY do not think that you can separate the tolerances, do you? You really do have that much naivet�. Bob

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Masked Man wrote: > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:31:02 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > |Yes, schools teach science. But they don't teach atheism. Or are you > |protesting the teaching of evolution? It's been a long time since the > |Scopes trial. > > Masked Man---->Of course they teach atheism. The deliberate exclusion > of God from any discussion on the origins of the universe is atheism > by definition. Your definition is wrong. Teaching that a deity does not exist is atheism. Saying nothing is ignoring the subject, but not denying it. If you teach that God exists, you are insulting the Wiccans. To teach that only ONE deity exist insults the polydeists. Just because YOU believe in a single deity does not mean YOU are right and the others are wrong. Bob

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"lurker@home" wrote: > Masked Man wrote in message <38d5482e.67763733@news.mindspring.com>... > >On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:45:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > >|Morality in the schools fell when Reagan became President. Let's blame > him. > >|(I don't remember any elementary school shootings prior to Reagan). > > > >Masked Man---->I do. Reagan wont do as a scapegoat on these terms. > > > True enough, Maskmon. The decline started with the education legislation > passed under Johnson. Bullpucky. I saw it the decline in the late '40s under Truman, and in High School under Eisenhower. Bob

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:Qoww4.1828$7F3.44203@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Vdkw4.1531$DF2.376695@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > But 8472 has one thing going for them... Me! > > > > You will be assimilated. <sigh> Assimilate this Borgy Boy! Lisa8472 ::thwaps:: Bill into oblivion with the rest of his Borgy Buddies.

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C3B0D5.6A902B12@ix.netcom.com... > > > Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > > > knowledge > > > > in a gun discussion. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > > months? > > > > Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > > topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and > > what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > > > > Lisa > > You forgot the several hundred posts that are role playing and flirting. > Bob > <smooch> <g>

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C3B08C.B204B255@ix.netcom.com... > > > Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com... > > > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > > > knowledge > > > > in a gun discussion. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > > months? > > > Oops, this is Evil Bills question Bob, not mine, > Seriously? Yes. Because of the passion about it involved. I am one who > believes that an armed society is a free society. I do NOT believe that anyone > who does NOT want a gun should be forced by law or societal pressure to have > one (Switzerland). I believe that every gun owner has the responsibility to: > 1. Keep the weapon in a safe, (i.e., unavailable to children) place. > 2. Teach their own children, AT THE EARLIEST AGE, how to handle a gun safely, > primarily by not touching it until an adult is there to control the handling. > 3. To store the ammo separately from the weaponry, except for the load in the > personal defense weapon. Use a trigger lock on the weapon. > > The problem is the illegal weapon. The incident that started this thread was a > 6 year old boy who killed a 5 year old girl in school. What has been ignored > in the case by the anti gunners are the ancillary facts. > 1. The gun involved was a stolen weapon. > 2. The 6 year old boy did not steal the weapon, it had been stolen by another > resident of the house. (Who is now facing a charge on his handling of the > weapon, 15 year sentence. This is separate from the gun theft charge.) > 3. the little boy found the weapon loose in a bed in the house. > 4. There was a large amount of parental neglect involved. (The boys father is > in jail, and was in jail at the time of the shooting) > Are you beginning to get the picture? > > I have two grown children. I have always had at least one rifle and one pistol > in the house. My children knew that they were not to touch the weapons without > my OK. I taught them how to hold and handle the weapons safely, starting when > they were very young. I taught them how to shoot. They have never shot > anybody. Neither of them (now grown and gone, supporting themselves) own > weapons. That is their choice, I never tried to convince them either way. I > just wanted them to respect the weapon (which too many people do NOT do) and to > handle it safely. My piston is a legally purchased and registered weapon. My > rifle is legally purchased, registration of rifles is not required in > California. In my life, I have NEVER fired a weapon accidentally. I have > never pointed a weapon at a human being. (Although I have had one pointed at > me.) I ALSO believe that the right to own a weapon is a basic tenet of > freedom. IIRC, in the UK, in WW2, at one time, after Dunkirk, the Home Guard > was armed with personal weapons, as GB at that time did not have enough > military rifles to go around. Just an example of personal weaponry guarding > the freedom of a country. As I've said before I dont have a problem with guns per se, my husband owns two or three which when the time comes he will explain to the children what they are, how to use them and all the safety aspects that go with them etc.. What I do object to is the ease with which they are given out and the lack of control over where they are kept. You and I are perfectly sane (?) sensible people who have respect for the guns as well as the world around us, unfortunately though the same cannot be said for the rest of the world and until a better way is found of deciding who is fit and capable to own a gun then I still say take them away. Lisa

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Steve Christianson wrote: > I just wish I had more time to join you. I have a new book to crank out > and time is at a premium. Steve. What kind of book? I have a net friend on another group who's book is just about out. Its a readers companion for Heinlein fans. Bob > > >

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Bob, let me first say you presented a very strong argument. Your facts are entirely accurate, your conclusions are valid. But I still happen to disagree as a matter of public policy. Specifically: Helen & Bob wrote: > believes that an armed society is a free society. I do NOT believe > that anyone > who does NOT want a gun should be forced by law or societal pressure > to have > one (Switzerland). I believe that every gun owner has the > responsibility to: > 1. Keep the weapon in a safe, (i.e., unavailable to children) place. > 2. Teach their own children, AT THE EARLIEST AGE, how to handle a gun > safely, > primarily by not touching it until an adult is there to control the > handling. > 3. To store the ammo separately from the weaponry, except for the load > in the > personal defense weapon. Use a trigger lock on the weapon. > You are a responsible gun owner. As a kid, my father kept a pistol in the house; he is a responsible gun owner. In my current employment, I am partially responsible for pistol licensing for half of a county. The fact is, not everyone is equally responsible. If there isn't at least a licensing requirement, then it's impossible to keep pistols out of the hands of the irresponsible. And even with a licensing requirement (as we have in New York), no matter how hard I try to screen applicants, it's still impossible to be sure that only responsible people are getting pistol licenses. And of course, even a licensed pistol will often end up in the hands of a criminal. > The problem is the illegal weapon. The incident that started this > thread was a > 6 year old boy who killed a 5 year old girl in school. What has been > ignored > in the case by the anti gunners are the ancillary facts. > 1. The gun involved was a stolen weapon. > 2. The 6 year old boy did not steal the weapon, it had been stolen by > another > resident of the house. (Who is now facing a charge on his handling of > the > weapon, 15 year sentence. This is separate from the gun theft > charge.) > 3. the little boy found the weapon loose in a bed in the house. > 4. There was a large amount of parental neglect involved. (The boys > father is > in jail, and was in jail at the time of the shooting) > Are you beginning to get the picture? > All of your facts are entirely accurate. But there is one more fact. The incident would have been far less likely to occur if we didn't live with such a gun culture, where pistols are so readily available. With truly strict gun control, there is far less chance that the six year old ever would have gotten his hands on the pistol. (The pistol wouldn't have been available to steal in the first place. With less of a gun culture, the criminal element would have less need for pistols themselves, etc., etc.). So yes, I've got the picture. I've always had the picture. I just view the balancing slightly differntly than you do. I believe that pistols are so inherently dangerous, that such danger outweighs their legitimate uses. You happen to strike the balance the other way around. > I have two grown children. I have always had at least one rifle and > one pistol > in the house. My children knew that they were not to touch the > weapons without > my OK. I taught them how to hold and handle the weapons safely, > starting when > they were very young. I taught them how to shoot. They have never > shot > anybody. Neither of them (now grown and gone, supporting themselves) > own > weapons. That is their choice, I never tried to convince them either > way. I > just wanted them to respect the weapon (which too many people do NOT > do) and to > handle it safely. My piston is a legally purchased and registered > weapon. My > rifle is legally purchased, registration of rifles is not required in > California. In my life, I have NEVER fired a weapon accidentally. I > have > never pointed a weapon at a human being. (Although I have had one > pointed at > me.) I honestly wish more pistol owners were like you. > I ALSO believe that the right to own a weapon is a basic tenet of > freedom. Here I disagree with your philosophy. Is there also a right to own a machine gun? How about a right to own a nuclear warhead in your basement? Why does the right to own a weapon necessitate the right to own a gun? A knife, a baseball bat, pepper spray, are all weapons as well. Nobody is attempting to limit your possession of those items. > IIRC, in the UK, in WW2, at one time, after Dunkirk, the Home Guard > was armed with personal weapons, as GB at that time did not have > enough > military rifles to go around. Just an example of personal weaponry > guarding > the freedom of a country. And to a large extent, this was the intent of the Founding Fathers. But that was a different time and a different type of warfare. Even WWII was a very different type of warfare. With the sophistication of modern weaponry, a revolver is relatively meaningless. (And I really don't want people stockpiling automatic weapons). -Havoc

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C3B0D5.6A902B12@ix.netcom.com... > > Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > > > Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > > topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and > > what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> > > > > Lisa > > You forgot the several hundred posts that are role playing and flirting. > Bob > Just more par for the course. <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message... > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:Qoww4.1828$7F3.44203@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > You will be assimilated. > > <sigh> > > Assimilate this Borgy Boy! > > Lisa8472 ::thwaps:: Bill into oblivion with the rest of his Borgy Buddies. > Now that was just rude!! -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:n8Rw4.2480$za2.71615@nnrp3.clara.net... > "Lisa" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message... > > > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:Qoww4.1828$7F3.44203@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > You will be assimilated. > > > > <sigh> > > > > Assimilate this Borgy Boy! > > > > Lisa8472 ::thwaps:: Bill into oblivion with the rest of his Borgy Buddies. > > > > Now that was just rude!! > Hell yeah! But I got the power now *maniacal cackle*

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:29:16 -0800, Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: |You REALLY do not think that you can separate the tolerances, do |you? You really do have that much naivet�. Masked Man----->The principle is called, somewhat simplistically, love the sinner; hate the sin. I've seen it practiced often in my life. Even done it a time or two. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38C013B8.4B8E@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > Sure, this makes perfect sense to me. Don't even blur the lines by > > > > associating it with prayer. Simply let the parents know that it is > > > > happening, and let them make the decision what their child does with the > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > This is unrealisitc though. In rural areas and the South the unspoken > > > reality will be that this is *prayer* time. The kid who is atheist, > > > agnostic, of a different faith or just doesn't want to pray will be > > > subject to the vicious peer pressure and ostracism that only the young > > > can inflict on each other. > > > > But how will they know what their peers are doing? AFAIK, Betaziods and > > Vulcans haven't hit the public schools yet... > > > I'm sorry, but what are you saying? Are you telling me kids don't notice > this stuff? Come on. Steve, if kids are standing or sitting quietly, no one can read their minds. > > >That's one of the reasons why the Supreme > > > Court originally found school prayer to be unconstitutional: the > > > unspoken and yet very real social pressure by the majority on minorities > > > which will have a chilling effect on the maintenance of differing > > > religious views. That was teacher led prayer, BTW - and I am not advocating that. > > There is pressure now for children to reject religion, Steve. By the > > majority of those in the entertainment industry. > > > Where and how is there pressure from the entertainment industry to > reject religion in schools to the effect that school prayer must be > restored as a remedy? ::Sigh:: OK, I plead guilty to not being clear. Let me take a moment to elaborate. In my view, rightly or wrongly, I think there is great pressure on kids to reject religion and morality. The entertainment industry is one example (which is why my family watches little network TV), and there is societal pressure. In some schools things are taught to children that go against the faith of their parents (evolution, for example) and they have no recourse. Do I think a moment of silence will fix all this? I'm not quite that stupid. Do I think a moment of silence would be a constitutional way for schools to show respect (NOT preference) for religion? Yes. Also, keep in mind that my kids are currently in public schools and if I found the situation intolerable they would not be. > > > Real world example: "Look, egghead didn't pray! And Jew boy put that > > > funny shit cap on his head. We'll kick their asses in the playground > > > after school, right guys?" Laugh if you want, but that's the reality of > > > the popular culture. > > > > I won't laugh or deny that that might have happened. But these kids need to > > be educated in the true meaning of the prayer they engage in. > > > I truly shiver at what you might mean by being "educated" in the violent > environment we know encompasses childhood. You misunderstood. I was referring to those who were praying and then turning around and making a mockery of it with the above comments. > > And, there > > needs to be parental authority exercised. My boys know that in the unlikely > > event they would do the above, they would suffer far more at my hands then > > would be to their liking. :-) > > > I suspect your boys aren't atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.... It wouldn't matter. If they were guilty of bullying others because they thought differently I would punish them. Bullying is wrong, no matter what faith you hold or don't hold.

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Mike H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message news:38C01DF6.597538AF@micron.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > Mike H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > > <snip> > > > > And if we simply leave it in the church and the home, they haven't > > > really lost anything have they? > > > > Except that at the place they spend the waking hours at, they are sent the > > message that God is not all that important... > > Really? My son has never said anything like this to me. Is this message > that "God is not all that important" happening via commission or > omission on the part of school teachers? > > > I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being stopped > > at the school door. > > But any given teacher's religious expression may be in direct conflict > with any or all of his/her student's religious beliefs. How should that > be dealt with? What about the First Amendment? Don't teachers have a right to free speech in the classroom? Don't students? > > Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those of the Judeo-Christian bent? > > Well, I wasn't limiting my objection to any particular bent at all. My > specific response was to question why children are losing anything, when > religious beliefs can still be taught in churches, etc. and the home. If > it's not being taught in schools, then it's not conflicting with what's > being taught elsewhere. IMO, this is the best solution. I have to clarify. I don't want any particular religion taught in school per se; except possibly in a comparative religions class. I also don't want my children to be made to feel that their faith must be left at the schoolhouse door.

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:R%Vv4.381$7F3.7622@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > > X-No-Archive: yes > > I suspect your boys aren't atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.... > > I agree... I suffered terribly at school because my religious beliefs were > different to those of the other kids. Little bastards. And if my kids had been involved in making you suffer Bill they would have been punished and made to apologize. Bullying is wrong. Period.

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message news:38c939b3.3625739@news.mindspring.com... > On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:04:51 GMT, "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> > wrote: > > |Sure. I told both my boys that while I could decide all kinds of things for > |them, including their bedtimes, I could not decide for them whether or not > |to follow Christ. Both boys chose that path freely and we tried very hard > |not to pressure them in this (even told the youngest he might be deciding > |prematurely, but he was adamant and we felt it would be wrong to stop him). > > Masked Man----->Laura, you have made my day. I honestly feel that > what is happening between you, your sons, and their Lord, is the best > of what this country is about. I only wish more people embraced those > ideals. Glad I made SOMEONE'S day in this thread, MM....though I am gratified at how civilized everyone is being....

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc0ssheeee629@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message ... > >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38BFDAE3.F2634087@ucs.net... > >> Laura Ware wrote: Except that at the place they spend the waking hours > >> at, they are sent the > >> > >> > message that God is not all that important... > >> > I am disturbed at student's and teacher's religious expression being > >> > stopped > >> > at the school door. Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those > >> > of > >> > the Judeo-Christian bent? > >> > >> I personally don't believe G-d is very important and I wouldn't want > >> any school to teach my kids otherwise. I don't want the government to > >> tell my kids how important G-d should, or should not be. (You will > >> notice I abbreviate G-d with a dash out of respect for my own religion.. > >> so obviously, it does have some importance to me). > >> > >> It would be wrong to forbid Judeo-Christian speech, but it isn't > >> forbidden. It's merely inappropriate for the classroom. And this > >> prohibition is alright due to something called the First Amendment of > >> the US Constitution. > > > >I disagree. There was a case where a teacher had a Bible on his desk that > >he would read during Silent Sustained Reading period. > > If you have a link to information about this case, I'd love to see it. But > till you show me multiple specific examples, your claim in invalid. OK....I'll have to hunt it down, since this happened a while back....

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc563c8dee6105@corp.supernews.com... > > Helen & Bob wrote in message <38C293A3.9C862790@ix.netcom.com>... > It comes down to this..... I don't want a school teacher to tell my kids > they are going to hell, for holding the beliefs I've taught them. You > wouldn't want a school teacher to tell your kids that they are going to > hell, for holding the beliefs that you've taught them. Guess what, Havoc? I don't either. But I also don't want my child told he has violated school rules by bringing his Bible to school to read during lunch or that he is stupid for believing that the world was created by God. Can you tell me unequivicolly (sp) that this would not happen in today's climate?

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc2g4ngiee629@corp.supernews.com... > > Masked Man wrote in message <38c2278f.59410639@news.mindspring.com>... > >On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 05:48:04 GMT, "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> > >wrote: > > > >|I agree. Secondly, I dont think its the schools place to do that. > They've > >|been trying that for years, and look whats happened? Morality fell in > >|america. > > > >Masked Man---->We have different historical perspectives. Morality in > >America fell when the schools stopped teaching it.... > > > Oh... One more point. You claim there was less violence when the bible was > taught in schools in the 50's. But if memory serves, this was a time period > that blacks and jews were subject to lynchings. > > Seems to me, we've become a whole lot more moral, not less. (Or are you > disappointed that racial and religious lynchings are things of the past?) Racial and religious lynchings may be less frequent (James Byrd proved sadly enough that they have not been eliminated) but do you truly think we are more moral? Marriages break up far more frequently, immorality is far more accepted than before. Isn't juvenile crime up from the 50's? Tell me Havoc, could you leave your home unlocked in the 50's? Can you do so today? I can't believe you think that we as a people are more moral today than before...

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Masked Man <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message news:38cb9b84.154646602@news.mindspring.com... > On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:06:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > |If they were to be put together, you'd essentially be stating that the > |Constitution only applies to, or prefers, Christian Americans. > > Masked Man---->It did once, and many who framed it acknowledged that > to be so, and, furthermore, an end, devoutly to be sought. In today's > society of cultural pluralism, it probably wouldnt work. But, to deny > the role of Christianity in our history, and that of our founding > fathers to Christianity, is to deny our history. In that sense, of > preserving the religious history of this nation, I'm more > constitutional than you are.... To deny the history is indeed wrong, but I am forced to agree with others that we are not the same country we were then. We are much more of a melting pot, and have in some ways improved on the Founding Fathers (freeing the slaves, giving women the vote, etc.). Pushing a purely Christian agenda in a public school is not feasible nor Constitutional. Of course, kicking out God entirely is also not Constitutional which is why I disagee with some people here... :-) ]

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc3dhb2iee6104@corp.supernews.com... > Tell me... where is the merit in refusing to tolerate homosexuality? Could we agree that there might be a difference between accepting (I *hate* the word "tolerate" in this) homosexual PEOPLE and accepting homosexual BEHAVIOR?

2000-03-06 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:H1fw4.1297$za2.37130@nnrp3.clara.net... > "Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > > On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:00:09 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > > <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > | > > |See what happens whenever religion is discussed? It turns into a flame > war. > > |So I have just one more thing to add to this thread: > > | > > |THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > |;-) > > > > Masked Man---->Thanks, EB. I needed that,,,,:) > > > > I thought this thread could do with lightening up a bit ;) Hey, compared to some debates of this I've been involved in, this thread is positively TAME. :-) But I don't want Borg philosophy taught in the schools either. ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: "Wavemaker" >"Shammie" wrote: >> >> Understand this: you will attract someone who is on the same vibratory >level as >> yourself. So I think the more you work on developing your own self-esteem >and >> wholeness as a person, the more chance you have of attracting someone with >a >> healthy self-esteem and the more chance you will have for a long-lasting, >> stable relationship, if that is what you want. Get rid of your neediness >and >> watch your life open up for you. > >Well said. Thanks Wave! Hey, I like your "vibes" by the way. :-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: "EvilBill[AGQx]" >"Shammie" <shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl> wrote in message... yadda yadda >Methinks your personal experiences have left you rather cynical <g> Bloody sarky bugger, no!! Just the opposite. I am OPEN and FREE.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Shammie" <shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl> wrote in message news:20000306235718.03548.00000629@ng-cj1.aol.com... > >From: "havoc" > > EB wrote: > >Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment > and > >love seriously any more :( > > > > >I disagree. Love is timeless. > > Well love in and of itself, yes. But love, what people think is love? ...is > seriously flawed. I don't think most people have a clue as to what the > difference is between love and infatuation, for starters. Ask me, I've been "in > love" a dozen times already. And each one was "the one," the "soul mate," the > "end of the line," my "twin soul," my "door to eternity," the one I would spend > the "rest of my life with." Guess what? It's all bullshit! I know what you mean. I fell in love at least 100 separate times this weekend. <g> > I'm not saying I > wasn't seriously "in love." But I am saying that the idea of "timeless love" is > more or less an illusion IF you mean it in the context of living happily ever > after with your "one true mate." To be fair though, the definition of love is different for everybody. > People just change and grow in different > directions. I think the whole institution of marriage is in serious jeopardy > for that very reason. Wow, you're sexy when you make sense. <g> > Good luck if you can swing it, and more power to you. Not to mention a serious round of applause for the people who can make it work despite all the pressures facing couples today. > > As to a supposed shift in "lifetime > >commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it seriously. > > I think it is. Personally, I don't take it seriously anymore. And I think I'm > the healthier for that attitude. And no, I'm not jaded, I still absolutely > adore men, crave their company and will no doubt be "in love" yet again! But > I'm so through being shattered when it's over. <swoon> Will you marry me? <g>

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Techlab Photo Rescue" <Techlab@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message news:38c76ed7.168239250@news.erols.com... > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:08:44 -0700, "Mike H." <mhantz@micron.net> > wrote: > > > > >> At any given point he could have been refused the licence with no court of > >> appeal, and you may find this hard to believe, but I actually questioned > >> that this process was tough enough. > > > >Wow. Frankly, I am speechless that you are willing to have this much > >Government interference in your life. It seems so subjective to me that > >a Police Officer can simply deny you something (without appeal) when you > >have not even committed a crime. That's something that I hope never > >happens in this country. > > It does happen in this country. I was speaking more about a federal mandate type of thing, which is how it is being described above. > I'm not sure about some states, but > where I come from, a licence to carry is given at the discretion of > the local police chief. In my town, I was told not to apply, because > he would never approve such a licence. Do you remember what the specific reasons behind the denial were? I'm genuinely curious why they (he) would not license you based upon the background and training you describe below. > And there was no appeal > process. Since I was going for a private investigator's licence, I had > to move to another town in order to apply for a permit to carry. I think I would have moved to another town just on principle alone. What you describe is ludicrous, IMNSHO. > No criminal record, extensive training in firearms, firearm safety > course, even weekly target practice at the range with many of the > officers of this small town police force. Still, the best he would > issue is a "Firearm Identification" card, since he had no choice in > the matter. Dude sounds brain damaged. BTW, what exactly is a "Firearm Identification" card, and what "privileges" does it offer?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:OSRw4.1636$yV1.387031@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > Mike H. <mhantz@micron.net> wrote in message > > But any given teacher's religious expression may be in direct conflict > > with any or all of his/her student's religious beliefs. How should that > > be dealt with? > > What about the First Amendment? Don't teachers have a right to free > speech in the classroom? In the classroom? In a teaching environment? I could be wrong but I say no, they do not. > Don't students? I'd rather the primary motivation of students be learning in the classroom, not exercising their right to free speech. That can be acomplished on the front lawn or in the parking lot at lunch time. > > > Why is it all right to forbid the speech of those of the > Judeo-Christian bent? > > > > Well, I wasn't limiting my objection to any particular bent at all. My > > specific response was to question why children are losing anything, when > > religious beliefs can still be taught in churches, etc. and the home. If > > it's not being taught in schools, then it's not conflicting with what's > > being taught elsewhere. IMO, this is the best solution. > > I have to clarify. I don't want any particular religion taught in school > per se; except possibly in a comparative religions class. I also don't want > my children to be made to feel that their faith must be left at the > schoolhouse door. Right, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on principle.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38C29F7C.2501@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > Mike H. wrote: > > > This is unrealisitc though. In rural areas and the South the unspoken > > > reality will be that this is *prayer* time. > > > > Well, if that's what the overwhelming majority silently deem it to be, > > then so be it. I think it is a legitimate compromise for those whose > > religion is a part of their everyday lives and those who do not want > > specific religious beliefs imposed on them. > > > You MUST be kidding me. Tyranny of the majority has never been the > American way, and I can't see compromising on the principle of minority > rights here. Well, I don't know why you describe it as "tyranny". My point was that I can't do anything about what the overwhelming majority in any particular area silently deem something to be. If the overwhelming majority of a particular area is religious, it stands to reason that just about any activities that take place as a community will be, in part, faith based. Non-religious people in those communities seem to accept that, why can't they in this case? > > > The kid who is atheist, agnostic, of a different faith > > > > So they remain silent for a minute. It's not based on any particular > > faith. > > > FORCED to be silent while those about secretly pray. Come on. We "force" these kids to take gym, music classes, standardized tests and days off for Christmas and Easter. Are these wrong as well? Why can't students be taught to be respectful of other people's beliefs, and to allow those people one minute in the day to express that belief? Frankly, if people can't accept such a small compromise (one which is practically insignificant given the number of religious people in this country), then perhaps that is part of the problem. > > > or just doesn't want to pray will be > > > subject to the vicious peer pressure and ostracism that only the young > > > can inflict on each other. > > > > Kids will do that anyway, whether or not there is a "minute of silence" > > in the schools. I see it every single day where I live. It's simply an > > outgrowth of having one dominant religion in a particular ares. > > > So we should make it worse? Who says it will make thing's worse? Again, maybe it will teach children to be more tolerant of those who are religious. And if those who are religious are "bullying" those who aren't, then they should be punished for it. > > > That's one of the reasons why the Supreme > > > Court originally found school prayer to be unconstitutional: the > > > unspoken and yet very real social pressure by the majority on minorities > > > which will have a chilling effect on the maintenance of differing > > > religious views. > > > > > > Real world example: "Look, egghead didn't pray! And Jew boy put that > > > funny shit cap on his head. We'll kick their asses in the playground > > > after school, right guys?" Laugh if you want, but that's the reality of > > > the popular culture. > > > > Then we need to be tough as nails and enforce existing laws designed to > > prevent this sort of violence. > > > When I see a realistic design for such enforcement BEFOREHAND, then > maybe and only maybe will I reconsider my position on silent prayer. How about a 1 week suspension for a first offense and a permanent expulsion for the second offense? > Until then, it seems hopelessly unrealistic in light of the popular > culture. You mean the anti-religion popular culture? :)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com>)


Shammie wrote in message <20000307194755.03549.00000789@ng-cj1.aol.com>... >No, let's just have wild sex, then you go home. After snacks, of course... > Great, all I got was my face slapped.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message ... >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C568D1.A5A83E8A@ucs.net... >> Laura Ware wrote: >> >> > > >> > > Christianity was no more founded by Jesus than Judaism was founded >> > by >> > > Abraham. The religion was built by human beings long after they >> > were >> > dead. >> > >> > ??? I am surprised that you believe that. Maybe I misunderstood - do >> > you >> > believe in a God? >> > >> >> Yes, I believe in G-d, at least most of the time. But the Bible (Both >> Old Testament and New Testament), the Koran, even the Ten Commandments >> were all written and recorded by man. > >So you don't believe in inspiration of God? > Sure I do....... but I believe that my arguments in this thread are just as inspired as various religious texts. >> > > >> I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and >> > Constitutional >> > law, >> > > >I >> > > >> don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat >> > of >> > any >> > > >> kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of >> > Judeo-Christianity. >> > >> > And I don't want the religion of rationalism forced on my kids - so >> > what do >> > we do now? >> > >> >> I knew you would say that. > >Are you Betazoid or Vulcan? ;-) > Are my arguments based on logic or emotion? >>Rationalism isn't a religion. A religion, >> by its very definition, attempts to explain the unknown by means of >> supernatural forces. It also seeks to provide reassurance for people >> that their life has meaning. (With promises of heaven, or >> reincarnation, etc). Rational thought has nothing to do with >> supernatural forces. Rational thought isn't meant to promise you a life >> after death. Rational thought is merely using your brain and thinking >> independently. You don't want your kids taught to use their own brains >> that G-d gave them? > >Yes, but then what are you using as your philosopy of life? Everyone has >something that they base their world view and behavior on - a belief system, >if you will. Is that not a religion? > Religion is one type of belief system. Not every belief system is a religion. >> > > I really hate that term. It makes me want to run for my life <g> >> > >> > Aw, don't. I'm not gonna hurt ya... ;-) >> >> I'm just looking at the Christian Armies of the past, which quite often >> did kill and murder. (As did a plethura of other religious armies). > >Well, I'm not going to kill you.... ;-) > I believe you. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38d0890f.181226341@news.mindspring.com>... >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:53:20 -0800, Helen & Bob ><chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >|One of the most common errors (from the honest) or common lies (from the >|dishonest Religious Right -{as opposed to the honest Religious Right}), is that >|evolution teaches that man evolved from the ape. Darwin said that man and ape >|evolved from a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape. There is tons of >|evidence that this is true. There is NO doubt that Man evolved. IF you, as a >|religious person, wish to take the stand that the Creators methodology in >|creating Man was evolution, very few reasonable people will argue against that. >|Some will, of course. >|Bob > >Masked Man----->Darwin said lots of things, including this: > >"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I >for one must be content to remain an agnostic." > >Albert Einstein has said: > >"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." > >Arthur H. Compton has said: > >"...a world that has science needs, as never before, the inspiration >that religion has to offer...Beyond the nature taught by science is >the spirit which gives meaning to life." >---Scientific Monthly, December, 1946 > > For once MM, we are in agreement. Of course, none of the people you cited were in favor of foresaking scientific truths. They merely expressed a belief that we shouldn't abandon our faiths, merely because of science. I happen to agree. Which is why I continue to see creationism as a metaphor, though not a fact. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message ... >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56EC9.6E25EDBA@ucs.net... >> Laura Ware wrote: > >> > Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless >> > time >> > travel got invented and I missed it. >> > >> >> Quite to the contrary. Evolution has been scientifically and >> empirically proven to the same extent as gravity. Just because you >> personally don't understand the evidence (it's not as obvious as apples >> falling from trees) doesn't mean that it's unproven. Having personally >> conducted genetic experiments, I can assure you, there is no doubt that >> evolution has occurred, and that evolution does occur. Furthermore, the >> fossil record directly contradicts literal creationism. > >How so? And BTW, how do you empirically prove the beginning of the >universe? > Beginning of the Universe? You'd have to ask an astron-physicist. But I do know this... earth has been around for a few billion years. Homosapiens around 100,000 years (I'd have to check to be exact). There goes the whole "six day" theory. >> > > There >> > > >is no fossil record evidence for or against it. >> > > > >> > > >> > > On the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the fossil record. >> > For >> > > example, see the progressive development of human beings which can >> > be >> > found >> > > in the record. >> > >> > That has been brought into question - again, this is an area that >> > would be >> > fascinating to discuss but would take us far, far, afield. >> > >> > > There is even more support in the genetic record, our DNA. >> > Especially our >> > > mitochondrial DNA. >> > > >> > > >> > > -Havoc >> > > Prior to law school, I received a degree in genetics. >> > > (Yes, you should see my resume, lol) >> > >> > Actually, given the hints you've dropped, I am incredibly curious >> > about >> > it..... ;-) >> >> Genetics degree, law degree, litigation work, criminal work, teaching >> (lsats, logical reasoning to prospective law students). I try to keep >> busy. > >Wow! Were you a professional student or something? > B.S. was in genetics... normal four years. During that time, I also studied a lot of government, a little bit of philosophy, economics, sociology, history, wine tasting <g>. And the normal three years for law school. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Silverhawk wrote in message <8a3rvl$2i9m$1@quince.news.easynet.net>... >Laura Ware posted... >>>Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. >> >>Not so. > >So life, the universe, mankind and everything was created and finished >in the time it takes me to receive a letter sent from London? (we have >a crap postal service - don't ask). > >I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Who says that >if God exists, his perception of time is the same as ours? It might >be a "Blink of an Eye" situation. One day for God is a few millennia >for us. > > I completely agree Silverhawk. That's why I personally believe in seeing creationism as a metaphor, as opposed to literal.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote in message <38cf85f9.180436929@news.mindspring.com>... >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" ><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > >|Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality is wrong? > >Masked Man---->That much, at least, I can answer: > >Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it >[is] abomination. (KJV) > >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a >woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely >be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV) > Further proof that the world would *not* be more moral if we adhered strictly to the bible. Laura... you don't believe that a homosexual should be put to death???

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message <7kfx4.4625$yV1.1229474@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56C25.E1F59452@ucs.net... ><Moral differences snipped> > >> How does your scope of morality cover more than mine? You might find >> more things immoral than I do.. but your willingness to condemn moral >> activities as immoral, means that you have a narrower morality, not >> broader. > >OK, I think we were seeing it from different ends. > >> > > >> I believe our society is more moral today because of our >> > increased >> > > >> tolerance, because of less hate. No longer may individuals >> > legally be >> > > >> disciminated against by the government, on account of their >> > skin. A >> > man >> > > >> like John Rocker gets mostly condemned by society, as opposed to >> > > >> approved by it. While there is still plenty of violence in our >> > society, >> > > >> less of that violence is based on hate or ignorance. >> > > > >> > > >But it sounds to me that you are defining morality solely by >> > whether or >> > not >> > > >we are tolerant. I think the fact we are less bigoted is a moral >> > issue >> > and >> > > >a good thing, but it does not define the sum total of our morality. >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human >> > beings. > >Only? > >> > > I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher >> > divorce >> > > rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the >> > empowerment >> > > of women). >> > >> > Tell, me, what is respectful about vowing to be together "til death do >> > us >> > part" and then dumping someone just because it's easier to break up a >> > marriage than fix it? >> >> First, you have an invalid assumption. If two people are in love, then >> it is certainly easier to fix a marriage then to divorce. I don't know >> any couple that has divorced on the drop of a hat. > >It has been known to happen....though I know someone whose getting a >divorce, and glaciers have been known to move faster... > >> More importantly: How is it moral for society to coerce people to stay >> together, even if they make each other miserable? Even if the husband >> is beating the wife? Even if the two people are cheating on each other? >> >> > How does it respect the children to tear apart their >> > home and their security? >> >> How does it respect the children to grow up in a house where the parents >> hate each other? Where the parents fight all the time? >> >> > Methinks we differ on what constitutes respect. >> >> Yup... mine is the more moral perspective. <g> > >In your opinion.. ;-) > >Havoc, have we squeezed all we can from this topic? > I'm sure we'll get a resounding applause (and a sigh of relief) with my simple answer: "Yes." The End. :) -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote in message <5kfx4.4624$yV1.1228748@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56A47.5F399247@ucs.net... >> Laura Ware wrote: >> >> > Then explain the number of divorces that are "no-fault" or >> > "irreconciable >> > differences." >> > >> >> Very easily. Until recently, in most states, you weren't allowed to get >> a "no-fault" divorce. Now that you are allowed to get a "no-fault" >> divorce, it's become the preferred legal means. > >Which means there's no reason to work out difficulties.... > OK, so far better if they work out their differences by killing each other? (Literally). Or just live in a hate-filled house with each other? >> > > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to >> > stay in >> > a >> > > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely >> > it's not >> > > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband >> > regularly >> > beats >> > > the wife). >> > >> > There are times marriages cannot stand - but surely you would agree >> > that >> > most divorces aren't taking place because of abuse or adultery! >> > >> >> Quite the opposite. Hopefully, the divorce occurs before the marriage >> deteriorates into abuse or adultery. > >Wouldn't it be better if it were fixed instead? > Not every marriage can be fixed. >> > >Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of freedom >> > > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad >> > marriage. >> > > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. >> > >> > And they have no motivation to try to fix it. >> > >> >> That's bs. They have plenty of motivation to fix it. Divorce is still >> quite difficult. If they have kids, the kids are a powerful >> motivation. If they share property, then they have shared financial >> interests. They have the $30,000 they spent on a wedding as >> motivation. They have the high cost of lawyers for a divorce as another >> motivation for staying together. There are tons of motivations to work >> it out. > >Motivation for you, but these days it's almost as easy to change your mate >as to change your car. > That's patently untrue. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com>)


Shammie wrote in message <20000307221521.03806.00001180@ng-bj1.aol.com>... >>From: "TheFlinx" > >>>No, let's just have wild sex, then you go home. After snacks, of course... > >>Great, all I got was my face slapped. > >You needed that for your emotional growth. It wasn't my emotions growing.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com>)


Ta'Teria wrote in message ... > >TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:8a4b9t$nof$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net... >> >> Shammie wrote in message <20000307194755.03549.00000789@ng-cj1.aol.com>... >> >> >No, let's just have wild sex, then you go home. After snacks, of >course... >> > >> >> >> Great, all I got was my face slapped. > >Yes. But Unlike you, he didnt show up at her door with a bottle of cheap >champagne and a condom and say "Hey, I was in the nieghborhood..." Hey, who said it was cheap champagne, I spent over $4.95!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:59:50 -0600, "Wavemaker" <wavemaker@my-deja.com> wrote: > >"Shammie" wrote: >> >> Understand this: you will attract someone who is on the same vibratory >level as >> yourself. So I think the more you work on developing your own self-esteem >and >> wholeness as a person, the more chance you have of attracting someone with >a >> healthy self-esteem and the more chance you will have for a long-lasting, >> stable relationship, if that is what you want. Get rid of your neediness >and >> watch your life open up for you. > >Well said. 'Hearts are but intriguing devices; tender as roses, brittle as glass, fragile as crystal.' - Me, about fifteen years ago Attraction's a funny thing. So's love, but attraction is the basis of love, and thus doubly funny. In a funny-weird way. Person meets person, person is unable to alter person's subroutines, person tries to exist with person. And considering how adversarial people in general are, you have to wonder why they get together at ALL and try to stay that way, as opposed to just falling into bed at sporadic intervals, exchanging bodily fluids, and moving on. *ahem* Okay. I'm a bit of a cynic. But I'm also a romantic, perhaps too much so for these fscked-up self-serve do-it-yourself times we live in. (I'm an anachronism, and damn proud of it!) Do I believe in true love? HELL yes. But it's not easy. It's not supposed to be-- and that's part of its charm, and its curse... - Will, stopping before he bums himself out a touch

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:33:28 -0800, D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: |"laws exists for ...setting objective standards for the amount of |retaliation allowed..." Masked Man----->This is a widely accepted (in theological circles) interpretation of the biblical phrase, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." It was not a mandate for vengeance, but rather a restraint on the amount of vengeance that might be justly sought. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:33:28 -0800, D���sir���e Davis > <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > > |"laws exists for ...setting objective standards for the amount of > |retaliation allowed..." > > Masked Man----->This is a widely accepted (in theological circles) > interpretation of the biblical phrase, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth > for a tooth." It was not a mandate for vengeance, but rather a > restraint on the amount of vengeance that might be justly sought. > In other words, if someone assaults you or someone close to you, you could assault *them*, but you couldn't kill them unless they actually killed someone close to you? Interesting interpretation. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:26:24 -0000, "Silverhawk" <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote: |I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Who says that |if God exists, his perception of time is the same as ours? It might |be a "Blink of an Eye" situation. One day for God is a few millennia |for us. Masked Man---->There is some biblical support for this: one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Pet 3:8). Nevertheless, it is commonly accepted hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) to accept words in their common, unforced meanings. One day with us is 24-hours. That said, it seems reasonable to believe that the day in Genesis 1:1 is also 24 hours. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message... > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:op8x4.3163$7F3.69009@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > Shammie, you do not give me much hope... are you saying that there is no > > such thing as genuine lifelong love? *sniffle* > > There is Bill....I'm lucky enough to be experiencing it.... :-) > My luck was never any good :( -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Julianna Feigl" <glacierqueenn.NO.spam@hotmail.comTuvok.rules> wrote in message news:38C56203.2ADF@hotmail.comTuvok.rules... > Shammie wrote: > > > > > No, lots and lots of women are still forced to rely on it. Especially when kids > > are involved. > > Actually that's more the men's problem, since in most cases it's the > mother who gets custody. So if a father doesn't want to see his kid(s) > only on weekends he'll have to stick with their mother. > (friends of mine got a divorce recently and the kids stay with their > mother, but it's breaking their father's heart that he only has them > over the weekend) > What I'd like to know is, how come the mother almost always gets custody, even though it's often she who has been unfaithful? (statistically, women are more likely to be unfaithful than men) Isn't that setting the kids a bad example? Saying "you can be unfaithful, ruin someone's life, and get away with it"? -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: |Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality is wrong? Masked Man---->That much, at least, I can answer: Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. (KJV) Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV) 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (KJV) 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (KJV) -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (Charles Barber <phto@sympatico.ca>)


If God is given credit for creating the Earth in almost the blink of an eye. With such power why would it not be possible for God when creating Mankind that he made it impossible for us to perceive him within the known laws of Physics? And without the ability to perceive, that only leaves faith as the only way we can believe in God. Actual Scientific proof would be impossible to obtain. Imagine the Chaos that would occur if we were able to prove that God existed with Science without being able to comprehend his true purpose for us. And we ceased to develop any further as a Human race and spent all our time trying to re-create ourselves in the image "we" think God would like us to be? > From: "Silverhawk" <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> > Organization: Easynet Group plc > Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.voyager > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:26:24 -0000 > Subject: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") > > Laura Ware posted... >>> Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. >> >> Not so. > > So life, the universe, mankind and everything was created and finished > in the time it takes me to receive a letter sent from London? (we have > a crap postal service - don't ask). > > I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Who says that > if God exists, his perception of time is the same as ours? It might > be a "Blink of an Eye" situation. One day for God is a few millennia > for us. > > > Silverhawk > -- > "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams." >

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:53:20 -0800, Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: |One of the most common errors (from the honest) or common lies (from the |dishonest Religious Right -{as opposed to the honest Religious Right}), is that |evolution teaches that man evolved from the ape. Darwin said that man and ape |evolved from a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape. There is tons of |evidence that this is true. There is NO doubt that Man evolved. IF you, as a |religious person, wish to take the stand that the Creators methodology in |creating Man was evolution, very few reasonable people will argue against that. |Some will, of course. |Bob Masked Man----->Darwin said lots of things, including this: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." Albert Einstein has said: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Arthur H. Compton has said: "...a world that has science needs, as never before, the inspiration that religion has to offer...Beyond the nature taught by science is the spirit which gives meaning to life." ---Scientific Monthly, December, 1946 -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message... > On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > |Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality is wrong? > > Masked Man---->That much, at least, I can answer: > > Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it > [is] abomination. (KJV) > > Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a > woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely > be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV) > > 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not > inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor > idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves > with mankind, (KJV) > > 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous > man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for > sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and > murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1:10 For whoremongers, for them > that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for > perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to > sound doctrine; (KJV) > Well, we can pretty much discount the Leviticus ones, since Jesus' commandments would supersede the ones God gave the Israelites. As for 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Bible translation you use must be different from the one I've read... there's nothing in mine about the "effeminate" (which could in any case refer to transvestites rather than gays" or "abusers of themselves with mankind". I haven't got a Bible to hand to check the one in Timothy, but I'll wager my translation is different from your there, too. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:21:20 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: |Well, we can pretty much discount the Leviticus ones, since Jesus' |commandments would supersede the ones God gave the Israelites. Masked Man---->It is commonly accepted hermeneutics that the Old Testament is still binding on us today (for example, Thou shalt not kill, etc.) unless specifically superseded by New Testament doctrine. In my Bible, Christ never repudiated these words.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk>)


>> Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime >> commitment and love seriously any more :( > >Agreed. People don't take their words seriously. They mouth >them at the ceremony but figure they aren't bound to them. If they were absolutely bound to them, *no-one* would get married. Who's to say how you'll feel about your partner 10, 20, 40 years down the line? Having a rule saying you're only allowed to get married once and it *has* to last for the rest of your life would put enormous pressure on the whole institution and would probably result in the concept of marriage dying a death. Silverhawk [at least that's my opinion] -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk>)


>The problem is, that as long as a relationship is working there is >very little danger for infidelity... so more often than not an >infidelity is just a sign that the relationship has not been stellar >for some time anyway... On one side maybe. The faithful partner might think everything's still hunky-dory though. >and once it's reached *that* stage, no heart gets broken >anymore. It might still hurt, but not kill you. > >Julianna Silverhawk -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message... > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > > > Here is our big difference of opinion. Homosexuality is OK!! There is NO > > rational basis for saying that it's immoral. > > God says it is - that's rational enough for me. > (butting in again) Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality is wrong? (BTW - one of my gay friends is a Christian, and AFAIK she doesn't believe herself to be immoral, simply because of that.) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:GUcx4.4172 > > Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your roof). > Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless time > travel got invented and I missed it. > The Guardian of Forever? The Borg chroniton vortex? The slingshot-around-a-sun maneouvre? <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:43:28 -0800, Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: |I see. We were more tolerant when we had JIM CROW laws, poll taxes, the |KKK marching down the street in Washington DC, segregation, Separate but |"equal" school systems, several states where it was illegal for a black |to marry a white, etc., etc., etc. We were more tolerant then, right? |That's what you just said. |I'm beginning to think you call yourself the "masked man" because you're |ashamed to show your face. Masked Man---->I'm very sorry you feel that way, sir, because I like and respect you. There was, of course, much not to like about the 1950's. I only brought it up to dispute on historical grounds the stated notion that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. You and I both lived in an America where that simply was not true. And, yes, for the record, I believe what I said. The ills of that time period notwithstanding, it was clearly one more tolerant of Christians, and one in which fundamentalism was not a term of derision. I do not think it makes me a bad person to long for that part of those days, nor do I feel that by doing so, I am forced to embrace all of the political and moral views of that time. There was a profoundly moving line on an episode of Picket Fences a few years back. Simply stated, "It is politically correct to be against Christians." That is a widely held sentiment in this country, evidence of which can be seen in this newsgroup in recent days. One wonders when and how this sentiment has developed.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56C25.E1F59452@ucs.net... > > More importantly: How is it moral for society to coerce people to stay > together, even if they make each other miserable? Even if the husband > is beating the wife? Even if the two people are cheating on each other? > Or, indeed, if the wife is beating the husband? (Yes, it does happen!) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:50:12 -0800, Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: |I am sure that the Tuskeegee airmen fought and died so that Bob Jones University |could practice bigotry. Yep, I'm real sure of that. Masked Man---->Of course not, but the point at which we disagree is not why the Tuskegee airmen died, but whether Bob Jones University practices bigotry.... -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > > > That's unfair. I tolerate all of it's practices, except for those > that > > might themselves be intolerant. Still, I respect their right to > administer > > their own religion any way they wish. As long as they don't try to > impose > > those views on others. > > I am not trying to be unfair or disrespectful. Bear with me a moment. > > You claim to tolerate all of Christianity's practices (with a caveat), > > however: > -- You would deny a teacher the right to read his Bible to himself in > his > classroom. Incorrect. If the teacher is on his or her lunch break and there are no students in the room, the teacher can read Playboy for all I care. > -- You would deny (I suspect) the right of free speech to a student > who > wanted to include religious matter or a prayer in their valdictory > speech. Fairly correct. The student would not have the right to preach religion as part of a school event. (OTOH... I'm not going to give a kid detention for a passing statement about their faith in G-d, etc, etc. > -- You would deny my right to believe what the Bible teaches > concerning the > fact that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. Absolutely and totally incorrect. You have the right to believe in the tooth fairy, if you so wish. But I don't want the schools to teach kids to believe in the tooth fairy. > -- You might possibly deny me the right to share my faith with others, > > citing that as "intolerant." Not exactly sure what you're saying here, but you are incorrect. Even the KKK has the right to share their beliefs with others. But I'm not going to let the KKK begin to recruit in schools. > -- Connected with the above, are you saying that you would deny me the > right > to promote what I think is moral in the political and governmental > arena? Incorrect, even the KKK has the right to petition the government. > -- You have made yourself the judge over what is tolerant and > intolerant, > when I wish to use the Bible. This denies me, in the sense that you > state > that regarding homosexual behavior as sinful and wrong is intolerant. > It is intolerant. Just like regarding blacks as inferior is also intolerant. Just like regarding non-Christians as sinners would be intolerant. You can't give state any rational basis showing that homosexuality is *wrong.* So.. to condemn a behavior as wrong, only on the basis of religious bigotry, is in fact intolerant. > > >> > Tell me, Havoc, can you accept a liar while deploring the lie? > An > > >> > adulterer > > >> > while being against the adultery? > > >> > Besides, I would think that someone who was a homosexual would > want > to > > >> > be > > >> > identified by more than just one aspect of his life. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Of course, just as a Christian would want to be identified by > more than > > >> just one aspect of his life. Which is why I strongly advocate > teaching > > >> tolerance of all people who are not acting immorally. (I don't > promote > > >> tolerance for murderers, for example.) > > And who decides what is immoral? > As a civilized people, we are capable of using our intellects to decide what is or isn't wrong. If we relied on the bible, we would still have slavery. > > >I'm not sure about that. Being a Christian kind of permeates > everything > I > > >do, so I'm not sure if it could be considered "one" aspect. > > > > > > > So being a wife isn't an aspect of your life? Being a mother isn't > an > > aspect of your life? Being a woman isn't an aspect of your life? > > But in all those, my Christianity influences how I carry out those > roles. > It affects the kind of wife I am, the kind of mother I am, the kind of > woman > I am. > > > In that sense, your sexual preference probably affects your life far > more > > than your religion. > > How? > If you were homosexual, you would be condemned by many members of your faith and your community. It would be a struggle to have children. You might be rejected by your family. Thus, your heterosexuality certainly has a very great effect on your life. > > >> > Maybe you'd better define "tolerate.">> > > >> To tolerate something is to accept it, and accept that it's not > "bad." > > >> That is, while it might be wrong to you, to tolerate is to > realize that > > >> it's not wrong for other people. > > > > > >Here is where we disagree. By this definition, you could not > condemn > > >murder, slavery, or anything else. Because you think it is wrong > does > not > > >mean it is wrong for everyone. (At least that it how your logic > comes > > out). > > > > > > > Then you don't understand my logid. Murder is wrong, it isn't right > for > > anyone. So I can certainly condemn it. Slavery is wrong, it isn't > right > > for anyone. I can certainly condemn it. > > To YOU and I these things are wrong. To some, murder is not wrong. > So what > standard do you use to condemn it? In some countries, slavery is > legal. > What standard shall we use to condemn it? > Who sets the standards, Havoc? > We do. We actually do a pretty good job of it when personal bigotries and religious gobbledygook doesn't get in the way. > > My morality is based on rational thought (If you believe in G-d.. > then you > > should believe he gave us rational brains for a reason.). > > Actually, I do. I use my brain for debates like this, for one thing > (and > for trying to figure out how a replicator burns a pot roast <g>) > Because the Bible ordered the replicator to burn the roast, of course :). For the record, and I'm not saying this just to get flamed.. but many of the "great" biblical figures probably practiced homosexuality at some point. This list would include King David (see his relationship with Jonathon, which was supposedly a friendship) and Jesus (all alone in the wilderness with 12 other men?) > >Even with > > rational thought, there might be some moral ambiguity on certain > issues, > but > > many other issues are very clear cut. > > To you. Maybe not to everyone. > How could any rational person consider murder to be moral? I'm not talking about self-defense, etc. How could any rational person find an unprovoked murder to be rational? > > Morality is built on the simple premise of respect for others. If > you > kill > > someone, obviously you're not respecting their life. It is > therefore > > immoral. > > Street gangs kill those who betray them. They would reason that the > betrayer showed disrespect first, therefore had lost their right to > life. > Rationally prove them wrong. > lol.... I'm not talking disrespect in terms of being mean to someone. But morality does sometimes require a balancing of rights (see my discussion in other posts).Now.. rationally prove murder wrong? Every individual has a right to life. It is wrong, absent exigent circumstances, to violate that right. "Betrayal" is not such an exigent circumstance. (Exigent circumstances would include self-defense, etc). There are some areas where killing might be a grey moral area. Is it right to kill in warfare? Is euthanasia right or wrong? As I said, a rational approach provides many clear answers, and continues to leave some areas grey. > > Slavery is permitted under biblical teachings, but it is still > immoral, > > because it fails to respect another individual's right to liberty, > life > and > > freedom. > > Slavery WAS permitted under the Old Law, as were some other things. > In the > New Testament, a slaveowner is encouraged to free a slave (the book of > > Philemon) > And in the Old Testament, I can find very similar statements. That only proves that the bible is a big enough book to provide support for almost any moral position. I could easily use the New Testament to show that G-d approves tolerance of homosexuality. The fact is, in the South, the Bible was often used to justify slavery. Just as the Bible is currentlty being used to justify intolerance of homosexuality. > > >> > > If you want to teach your children that homosexuality is > wrong, you > > >> > are > > >> > > entitled to do so. But I wouldn't want a school to be making > the > > >> > > judgement of right or wrong on such a matter. > > >> > > > >> > But by saying it's OK, are they not making such a judgement? > > > > > > Here is our big difference of opinion. Homosexuality is OK!! There > is NO > > rational basis for saying that it's immoral. > > God says it is - that's rational enough for me. > That's a matter of faith. Not a matter of reason. According to many Christians 200 years ago, G-d said slavery was ok. According to many, G-d says racial bigotry is ok. But you just admitted that your intolerance of homosexuality is based solely and exclusively on your -religious faith-. Therefore, it has NO place in our schools. > >It isn't any less right than > > heterosexuality. I'd love to see ONE rational argument for saying > that > > homosexuality is wrong. I've NEVER seen such an argument. > > But then is your "god" rationality? By definition, G-d is supernatural, not rational. It's one of the reasons that I reject many of the supposed teachings of religion. > I am not trying to be mean - but my > standards are based on the word of God. The Bible and all religious law is only man's interpretation of the word of G-d. What if the people who wrote the Bible got it all wrong? What if G-d never intended you to believe those things? That's why G-d gave man free will, so he could choose his own morality. > Yours seem to be based on > rationality. It seems to me you have selected that as the "force" tht > rules > your life. > If you're saying that I rule my life with intelligence and common sense, thank you very much. I'm flattered. For I don't blindly follow something that I know if wrong. > > Schools should act rationally. That's also why they should teach > evolution > > as opposed to creationism. Evolution is scientific fact, whether > you like > > it or not. > > Umm....no, it is a theory. > See other thread... It's as much scientific fact as gravity. > >Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. > > Not so. If you truly wanted to pursue this, we could, but it does get > us > far afield and may bore everyone else to tears.... > There is some manufactured evidence of no credibility used to deny evolution. Similar to evidence that has been purpotedly found to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. You see... all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on by the mother. The differences in the DNA are due to varying mutation rates in select parts of the genome. A comparison of inter-species DNA shows vast repetition of sequences, proving the relationship between various species and the evolution between them. I could explain more, but then I might get boring <g> Now, going to the fossil record. You can clearly see speciation occuring over time. Furthermore, the fossil record directly contradicts a literal reading of six days of creation. > > > > > > > Quite honestly, you can teach them whatever you want. Your kids can > then > > choose to either listen to you or to the school. If they are > intelligent > > and moral human beings, then I honestly and hopefully believe, they > will > > side with the school. > > So you approve of the schools subverting my authority. Thanks a lot. > Yes, similarly... If you taught your kids that black people are savage animals, and they decide to side with the school over you, I would similarly approve of the school subverting your authority. The school should not be used to promote your bigotry. > > Your argument is the same advanced by racial bigots forty years > ago. They > > didn't want the schools to teach tolerance for racial minorities. > Many > such > > families taught their children bigotry at home. Many such children > were > > thankfully able to reject the bigotry they learned in the home. I > hope > your > > children have the good sense to reject bigotry against homosexuals. > > Bigots were (and are) wrong. Good arguments can be used to promote > bad > things, as you well know. > Intolerance of homosexuality is also bigotry. Bigotry whether along lines of race, or religion, or gender, or sexual preference, is still wrong. > > >> > No more than I would want > > >> > > a school deciding which religions are right or wrong. > > > > > >But don't you see - schools ARE making these judgements now. > > > > > > > No they aren't. At most, schools promote each person to think > rationally > as > > an independent human being. Which is quite noble and the schools > should > do > > more of. > > It may surprise you Havoc but I DO want my kids to think for > themselves. > And schools DO teach how to think and how to learn. I am a former > teacher > and also I think well of the public schools here where I live. I'm not surprised, but I am glad to hear it.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > Now you're confusing intolerance with statutory prohibition. I > don't need > > to tolerate alcoholism. I have no problem with a school teaching > that > > alcoholism or wrong, or that it's bad. I would have a major problem > with > a > > school teaching that homosexuality is "wrong" or "bad." > > But to stay true to your reasoning, you can't make a distinction. Who > are > you to judge whether alchoholism is good or bad? If the person gets > drunk > in his own home and doesn't bother you, why should you have a say? You're absolutely correct. But a school can teach that alcoholism is unhealthy (which it is). Similarly, a school can teach the dangers of drug use. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > principles exist. But I will give a somewhat random sampling of my > home > library: > > Metaphysics by Aristotle is a good place to start. Then read: > anything by Thomas Aquinas > Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkagaard > Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche > John Locke's Second Treatsie of Civil Government I knew I sensed a strong influence of Locke. > Common Sense from Thomas Paine > Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand > > (the non-rational philosophers like Hume & Kant have been ignored > although they too, based their philosophies on principles) > I recommend you give Kant a second look. Also take a look at John Stuart Mill and don't forget Rawls.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: >The religious are not supposed to persecute the unreligious, either. But > that is not good enough for you. > I'm too good a student of history.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > Wavemaker <wavemaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:8a180j01ro8@news2.newsguy.com... > > > > "havoc" wrote: > > > > > > To tolerate something is to accept it, and accept that it's not > "bad." > > > That is, while it might be wrong to you, to tolerate is to realize > that > > > it's not wrong for other people. > > > > That's too broad a definition of tolerance for me. IMO, you can be > tolerant > > and still believe that the behavior in question is wrong. All you > have to > do > > is recognize that people have the freedom to choose whatever life > style > they > > wish without interfering. > > > > For example, I think that abusing your body through excessive use of > > alcohol > > is wrong for everyone. However, if someone wants to choose that path > for > > themselves that's their choice. As long as their actions do not > impede my > > freedom, than so be it. > > I remember talking with someone about this concept. My mother smoked > and I > felt she was wrong (she had respiratory problems and lung cancer!). > Someone > told me I could accept that she would smoke no matter what I did, > without > APPROVING of it. I was not required to approve of behavior I thought > was > wrong. I was only required to realize that people had the right to > make > their own life choices. So why don't people have the right to make their own life choices regarding their sexuality?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Masked Man wrote: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:50:12 -0800, Helen & Bob > <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > |I am sure that the Tuskeegee airmen fought and died so that Bob Jones > University > |could practice bigotry. Yep, I'm real sure of that. > > Masked Man---->Of course not, but the point at which we disagree is > not why the Tuskegee airmen died, but whether Bob Jones University > practices bigotry.... > They didn't admit black students until the 1970's. They actively ban homosexuals from their campus. They didn't allow interracial dating till last week. They are openly anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish. Yes, Bob Jones Univerisity practiced, and continues to practice, bigotry.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56A47.5F399247@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > Then explain the number of divorces that are "no-fault" or > > "irreconciable > > differences." > > > > Very easily. Until recently, in most states, you weren't allowed to get > a "no-fault" divorce. Now that you are allowed to get a "no-fault" > divorce, it's become the preferred legal means. Which means there's no reason to work out difficulties.... > > > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to > > stay in > > a > > > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely > > it's not > > > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband > > regularly > > beats > > > the wife). > > > > There are times marriages cannot stand - but surely you would agree > > that > > most divorces aren't taking place because of abuse or adultery! > > > > Quite the opposite. Hopefully, the divorce occurs before the marriage > deteriorates into abuse or adultery. Wouldn't it be better if it were fixed instead? > > >Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of freedom > > > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad > > marriage. > > > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. > > > > And they have no motivation to try to fix it. > > > > That's bs. They have plenty of motivation to fix it. Divorce is still > quite difficult. If they have kids, the kids are a powerful > motivation. If they share property, then they have shared financial > interests. They have the $30,000 they spent on a wedding as > motivation. They have the high cost of lawyers for a divorce as another > motivation for staying together. There are tons of motivations to work > it out. Motivation for you, but these days it's almost as easy to change your mate as to change your car.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56C25.E1F59452@ucs.net... <Moral differences snipped> > How does your scope of morality cover more than mine? You might find > more things immoral than I do.. but your willingness to condemn moral > activities as immoral, means that you have a narrower morality, not > broader. OK, I think we were seeing it from different ends. > > > >> I believe our society is more moral today because of our > > increased > > > >> tolerance, because of less hate. No longer may individuals > > legally be > > > >> disciminated against by the government, on account of their > > skin. A > > man > > > >> like John Rocker gets mostly condemned by society, as opposed to > > > >> approved by it. While there is still plenty of violence in our > > society, > > > >> less of that violence is based on hate or ignorance. > > > > > > > >But it sounds to me that you are defining morality solely by > > whether or > > not > > > >we are tolerant. I think the fact we are less bigoted is a moral > > issue > > and > > > >a good thing, but it does not define the sum total of our morality. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human > > beings. Only? > > > I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher > > divorce > > > rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the > > empowerment > > > of women). > > > > Tell, me, what is respectful about vowing to be together "til death do > > us > > part" and then dumping someone just because it's easier to break up a > > marriage than fix it? > > First, you have an invalid assumption. If two people are in love, then > it is certainly easier to fix a marriage then to divorce. I don't know > any couple that has divorced on the drop of a hat. It has been known to happen....though I know someone whose getting a divorce, and glaciers have been known to move faster... > More importantly: How is it moral for society to coerce people to stay > together, even if they make each other miserable? Even if the husband > is beating the wife? Even if the two people are cheating on each other? > > > How does it respect the children to tear apart their > > home and their security? > > How does it respect the children to grow up in a house where the parents > hate each other? Where the parents fight all the time? > > > Methinks we differ on what constitutes respect. > > Yup... mine is the more moral perspective. <g> In your opinion.. ;-) Havoc, have we squeezed all we can from this topic?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C568D1.A5A83E8A@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > > Christianity was no more founded by Jesus than Judaism was founded > > by > > > Abraham. The religion was built by human beings long after they > > were > > dead. > > > > ??? I am surprised that you believe that. Maybe I misunderstood - do > > you > > believe in a God? > > > > Yes, I believe in G-d, at least most of the time. But the Bible (Both > Old Testament and New Testament), the Koran, even the Ten Commandments > were all written and recorded by man. So you don't believe in inspiration of God? > > > >> I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and > > Constitutional > > law, > > > >I > > > >> don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat > > of > > any > > > >> kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of > > Judeo-Christianity. > > > > And I don't want the religion of rationalism forced on my kids - so > > what do > > we do now? > > > > I knew you would say that. Are you Betazoid or Vulcan? ;-) >Rationalism isn't a religion. A religion, > by its very definition, attempts to explain the unknown by means of > supernatural forces. It also seeks to provide reassurance for people > that their life has meaning. (With promises of heaven, or > reincarnation, etc). Rational thought has nothing to do with > supernatural forces. Rational thought isn't meant to promise you a life > after death. Rational thought is merely using your brain and thinking > independently. You don't want your kids taught to use their own brains > that G-d gave them? Yes, but then what are you using as your philosopy of life? Everyone has something that they base their world view and behavior on - a belief system, if you will. Is that not a religion? > > > >> Every family has their own unique views on religion, so let it be > > > > taught > > > >in > > > >> the home and in the church (and in private schools). > > > > > > > >I have never advocated forcing anyone. The Christian army (if > > you'll > > > permit > > > >me) is strictly a volunteer one. > > > > > > > > > > I really hate that term. It makes me want to run for my life <g> > > > > Aw, don't. I'm not gonna hurt ya... ;-) > > I'm just looking at the Christian Armies of the past, which quite often > did kill and murder. (As did a plethura of other religious armies). Well, I'm not going to kill you.... ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56EC9.6E25EDBA@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless > > time > > travel got invented and I missed it. > > > > Quite to the contrary. Evolution has been scientifically and > empirically proven to the same extent as gravity. Just because you > personally don't understand the evidence (it's not as obvious as apples > falling from trees) doesn't mean that it's unproven. Having personally > conducted genetic experiments, I can assure you, there is no doubt that > evolution has occurred, and that evolution does occur. Furthermore, the > fossil record directly contradicts literal creationism. How so? And BTW, how do you empirically prove the beginning of the universe? > > > There > > > >is no fossil record evidence for or against it. > > > > > > > > > > On the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the fossil record. > > For > > > example, see the progressive development of human beings which can > > be > > found > > > in the record. > > > > That has been brought into question - again, this is an area that > > would be > > fascinating to discuss but would take us far, far, afield. > > > > > There is even more support in the genetic record, our DNA. > > Especially our > > > mitochondrial DNA. > > > > > > > > > -Havoc > > > Prior to law school, I received a degree in genetics. > > > (Yes, you should see my resume, lol) > > > > Actually, given the hints you've dropped, I am incredibly curious > > about > > it..... ;-) > > Genetics degree, law degree, litigation work, criminal work, teaching > (lsats, logical reasoning to prospective law students). I try to keep > busy. Wow! Were you a professional student or something?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:8a3sl8$2j2p$1@quince.news.easynet.net... > >> Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime > >> commitment and love seriously any more :( > > > >Agreed. People don't take their words seriously. They mouth > >them at the ceremony but figure they aren't bound to them. > > If they were absolutely bound to them, *no-one* would get married. > Who's to say how you'll feel about your partner 10, 20, 40 years down > the line? Having a rule saying you're only allowed to get married > once and it *has* to last for the rest of your life would put enormous > pressure on the whole institution and would probably result in the > concept of marriage dying a death. SIlver, I'm taking them seriously, and so is my husband....believe me, I've been putting him through some of "the worst" recently.. ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:8a3rvl$2i9m$1@quince.news.easynet.net... > Laura Ware posted... > >>Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. > > > >Not so. > > So life, the universe, mankind and everything was created and finished > in the time it takes me to receive a letter sent from London? (we have > a crap postal service - don't ask). Sure sounds that way.. :-/ But if we accept the existence of a God, why is it hard to accept he could create the world in 7 days? > I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Who says that > if God exists, his perception of time is the same as ours? It might > be a "Blink of an Eye" situation. One day for God is a few millennia > for us. Maybe, though I don't have a problem with the seven days.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: It's the aliens I tell ya (was "Re: :-(") - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:8a3s61$2ijq$1@quince.news.easynet.net... > >Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your > >roof). Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe > >cannot, unless time travel got invented and I missed it. > > Who says it can be tested? Gravity mightn't be gravity at all. It > might be an invisible alien forcefield that was constructed millennia > ago to stop us floating off into space ;-) The truth is out there!!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On 07 Mar 2000 16:04:32 GMT, shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl (Shammie) wrote: |Not at all! I'm saying that if you think that someone *else* is going to make |you whole and complete, then you are setting yourself up for a big letdown. |Understand this: you will attract someone who is on the same vibratory level as |yourself. So I think the more you work on developing your own self-esteem and |wholeness as a person, the more chance you have of attracting someone with a |healthy self-esteem and the more chance you will have for a long-lasting, |stable relationship, if that is what you want. Get rid of your neediness and |watch your life open up for you. Masked Man----->Wise words. Verified from experience. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Un-natural evolution (was "Re: :-(") - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Silverhawk" <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:8a3qh1$2gk9$1@quince.news.easynet.net... > >IIRC, the so-called "missing link" netween man and ape has still > >not been discovered. True, human beings have *adapted* over > >the millennia, but I wouldn't say there is a great deal of evidence > >to support the theory that we evolved from apes. Are related to, > >certainly, but evolved from? I must admit to being quite firmly on > >the fence where this subject is concerned. > > A branch of the ape species were hyper-evolved by aliens from Mars (or > some other planet), resulting in mankind. That's why there was such a > huge leap in evolution in such a short timescale ;-) > That must be it! <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Shammie <Shammie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <8a2jfq01iq3@news1.newsguy.com>, "Wavemaker" says... > > >"Techlab Photo Rescue" wrote: >> >> And, trust me.. drawing in one of Rhonda's replies won't help your >> cause.. most of us would give her a black eye just for spite, Whoa! Overboard. but then >> most of us have her killfiled for being unreasonable and irritating. I have never killfiled her. And lately she's been cool posting about Slanted Fedora and trying to help us out, not in the least unreasonable or irritating. I was even looking forward to meeting her. I was under the firm impression that our flame-wars with Ronda were history. >Don't count me in that group, dude. Same here!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (Shammie <Shammie_member@newsguy.com>)


In article <38C53511.6A894BE4@ucs.net>, havoc says... >Someone is bitter this morning <g> Am not! Au contraire, mon capitaine! >My grandmother refers to my grandfather and his friends as "the boys." >The youngest of "the boys" is 80.My grandfather still calls my >grandmother my pet names, most commonly, "Gorgeous." >And of course, they both drive themselves crazy not worrying about their >own health, but worrying about the health of the other. That is just adorable!! >> >-Havoc >> >Hopeless Romantic. >> >> Well I was one of those once. I much prefer my attitude now, because I >> can be >> really close friends with a guy and appreciate the hell out of him and >> love him >> for the individual he is without in the least bit expecting anything >> from him. > > Bull. You're a fellow water-sign... Argh!! Aquarians are AIR SIGNS, not water signs!! We are the water-bearer, hence the common assumption. I'm going to fine you for that. I'll see you at the Arbitration Hearing. You'll revert!! Never! (Had the same >thing in my last 'relationship' (I call it a relationship rather >loosely). I got tired of "good enough" with no expectations. Actually "good enough" can be a cool thing if you go by my definition...

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Wavemaker <wavemaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8a180j01ro8@news2.newsguy.com... > > "havoc" wrote: > > > > To tolerate something is to accept it, and accept that it's not "bad." > > That is, while it might be wrong to you, to tolerate is to realize that > > it's not wrong for other people. > > That's too broad a definition of tolerance for me. IMO, you can be tolerant > and still believe that the behavior in question is wrong. All you have to do > is recognize that people have the freedom to choose whatever life style they > wish without interfering. > > For example, I think that abusing your body through excessive use of alcohol > is wrong for everyone. However, if someone wants to choose that path for > themselves that's their choice. As long as their actions do not impede my > freedom, than so be it. I remember talking with someone about this concept. My mother smoked and I felt she was wrong (she had respiratory problems and lung cancer!). Someone told me I could accept that she would smoke no matter what I did, without APPROVING of it. I was not required to approve of behavior I thought was wrong. I was only required to realize that people had the right to make their own life choices.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8h6d9jbi714@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message ... > >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > >news:sc563c8dee6105@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> Helen & Bob wrote in message <38C293A3.9C862790@ix.netcom.com>... > > > >> It comes down to this..... I don't want a school teacher to tell my kids > >> they are going to hell, for holding the beliefs I've taught them. You > >> wouldn't want a school teacher to tell your kids that they are going to > >> hell, for holding the beliefs that you've taught them. > > > >Guess what, Havoc? I don't either. But I also don't want my child told he > >has violated school rules by bringing his Bible to school to read during > >lunch or that he is stupid for believing that the world was created by God. > >Can you tell me unequivicolly (sp) that this would not happen in today's > >climate? > > > Anything *can* happen. But under the current system, that's not supposed to > happen. The religious are not supposed to persecute the unreligious, either. But that is not good enough for you. >Of course, it's far more likely to happen if religion is permitted > in the school, with kids fighting about which religion is superior. Again, we disagree. Religion is out of favor in this country today among many with influence. The religious are being told to shut up.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8hgmghbi710@corp.supernews.com... > > Wavemaker wrote in message <8a180j01ro8@news2.newsguy.com>... > > > >"havoc" wrote: > >> > >> To tolerate something is to accept it, and accept that it's not "bad." > >> That is, while it might be wrong to you, to tolerate is to realize that > >> it's not wrong for other people. > > > >That's too broad a definition of tolerance for me. IMO, you can be tolerant > >and still believe that the behavior in question is wrong. > > You're confusing "tolerating" for "liking." > > All you have to do > >is recognize that people have the freedom to choose whatever life style > they > >wish without interfering. > > > >For example, I think that abusing your body through excessive use of > alcohol > >is wrong for everyone. However, if someone wants to choose that path for > >themselves that's their choice. As long as their actions do not impede my > >freedom, than so be it. > > > > > Now you're confusing intolerance with statutory prohibition. I don't need > to tolerate alcoholism. I have no problem with a school teaching that > alcoholism or wrong, or that it's bad. I would have a major problem with a > school teaching that homosexuality is "wrong" or "bad." But to stay true to your reasoning, you can't make a distinction. Who are you to judge whether alchoholism is good or bad? If the person gets drunk in his own home and doesn't bother you, why should you have a say?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8o5mrrbi711@corp.supernews.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message <4wYw4.2939$za2.83561@nnrp3.clara.net>... > >"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > >news:sc8ia5c3bi776@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> Schools should act rationally. That's also why they should teach > >evolution > >> as opposed to creationism. Evolution is scientific fact, whether you > like > >> it or not. Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. If > >> someone wants to teach their kids to believe in the tooth fairy, they are > >> free to do so. But don't make the school teach it. Let the school > sticks > >> to facts and rational thinking. > >> > > > >Actually (just to butt in here) evolution is not fact. It is a theory. > > Technically, you are correct. But for that matter, gravity is also a > technically a theory. > Both of these "theories" are universally accepted by the scientific > community. (Although the scientific community is divided upon some of the > specifics.) Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your roof). Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless time travel got invented and I missed it. > There > >is no fossil record evidence for or against it. > > > > On the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the fossil record. For > example, see the progressive development of human beings which can be found > in the record. That has been brought into question - again, this is an area that would be fascinating to discuss but would take us far, far, afield. > There is even more support in the genetic record, our DNA. Especially our > mitochondrial DNA. > > > -Havoc > Prior to law school, I received a degree in genetics. > (Yes, you should see my resume, lol) Actually, given the hints you've dropped, I am incredibly curious about it..... ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8ia5c3bi776@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message ... > > > >> > > > >> > > That would be like saying that one accepts Christian people, but > >> > not > >> > > their practice of Christianity. Obviously, homosexual behavior is > >> > what > >> > > makes someone a homosexual person. If you don't tolerate the > >> > behavior, > >> > > then you're not tolerating the person. > > > >Havoc, many people don't tolerate the practice of Christianity....with all > >due respect, you don't tolerate some of it's practices. > > > > That's unfair. I tolerate all of it's practices, except for those that > might themselves be intolerant. Still, I respect their right to administer > their own religion any way they wish. As long as they don't try to impose > those views on others. I am not trying to be unfair or disrespectful. Bear with me a moment. You claim to tolerate all of Christianity's practices (with a caveat), however: -- You would deny a teacher the right to read his Bible to himself in his classroom. -- You would deny (I suspect) the right of free speech to a student who wanted to include religious matter or a prayer in their valdictory speech. -- You would deny my right to believe what the Bible teaches concerning the fact that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. -- You might possibly deny me the right to share my faith with others, citing that as "intolerant." -- Connected with the above, are you saying that you would deny me the right to promote what I think is moral in the political and governmental arena? -- You have made yourself the judge over what is tolerant and intolerant, when I wish to use the Bible. This denies me, in the sense that you state that regarding homosexual behavior as sinful and wrong is intolerant. > >> > Tell me, Havoc, can you accept a liar while deploring the lie? An > >> > adulterer > >> > while being against the adultery? > >> > Besides, I would think that someone who was a homosexual would want to > >> > be > >> > identified by more than just one aspect of his life. > >> > > >> > >> Of course, just as a Christian would want to be identified by more than > >> just one aspect of his life. Which is why I strongly advocate teaching > >> tolerance of all people who are not acting immorally. (I don't promote > >> tolerance for murderers, for example.) And who decides what is immoral? > >I'm not sure about that. Being a Christian kind of permeates everything I > >do, so I'm not sure if it could be considered "one" aspect. > > > > So being a wife isn't an aspect of your life? Being a mother isn't an > aspect of your life? Being a woman isn't an aspect of your life? But in all those, my Christianity influences how I carry out those roles. It affects the kind of wife I am, the kind of mother I am, the kind of woman I am. > In that sense, your sexual preference probably affects your life far more > than your religion. How? > >> > Maybe you'd better define "tolerate.">> > >> To tolerate something is to accept it, and accept that it's not "bad." > >> That is, while it might be wrong to you, to tolerate is to realize that > >> it's not wrong for other people. > > > >Here is where we disagree. By this definition, you could not condemn > >murder, slavery, or anything else. Because you think it is wrong does not > >mean it is wrong for everyone. (At least that it how your logic comes > out). > > > > Then you don't understand my logid. Murder is wrong, it isn't right for > anyone. So I can certainly condemn it. Slavery is wrong, it isn't right > for anyone. I can certainly condemn it. To YOU and I these things are wrong. To some, murder is not wrong. So what standard do you use to condemn it? In some countries, slavery is legal. What standard shall we use to condemn it? Who sets the standards, Havoc? > My morality is based on rational thought (If you believe in G-d.. then you > should believe he gave us rational brains for a reason.). Actually, I do. I use my brain for debates like this, for one thing (and for trying to figure out how a replicator burns a pot roast <g>) >Even with > rational thought, there might be some moral ambiguity on certain issues, but > many other issues are very clear cut. To you. Maybe not to everyone. > Morality is built on the simple premise of respect for others. If you kill > someone, obviously you're not respecting their life. It is therefore > immoral. Street gangs kill those who betray them. They would reason that the betrayer showed disrespect first, therefore had lost their right to life. Rationally prove them wrong. > Slavery is permitted under biblical teachings, but it is still immoral, > because it fails to respect another individual's right to liberty, life and > freedom. Slavery WAS permitted under the Old Law, as were some other things. In the New Testament, a slaveowner is encouraged to free a slave (the book of Philemon) > >> > > If you want to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong, you > >> > are > >> > > entitled to do so. But I wouldn't want a school to be making the > >> > > judgement of right or wrong on such a matter. > >> > > >> > But by saying it's OK, are they not making such a judgement? > > > Here is our big difference of opinion. Homosexuality is OK!! There is NO > rational basis for saying that it's immoral. God says it is - that's rational enough for me. >It isn't any less right than > heterosexuality. I'd love to see ONE rational argument for saying that > homosexuality is wrong. I've NEVER seen such an argument. But then is your "god" rationality? I am not trying to be mean - but my standards are based on the word of God. Yours seem to be based on rationality. It seems to me you have selected that as the "force" tht rules your life. > Schools should act rationally. That's also why they should teach evolution > as opposed to creationism. Evolution is scientific fact, whether you like > it or not. Umm....no, it is a theory. >Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. Not so. If you truly wanted to pursue this, we could, but it does get us far afield and may bore everyone else to tears.... > If > someone wants to teach their kids to believe in the tooth fairy, they are > free to do so. But don't make the school teach it. Let the school sticks > to facts and rational thinking. > > >> > > >> > >> They are saying it's ok for some people. That's the same respect *you* > >> are asking schools to give to Christianity. You wouldn't want a school > >> to say that Christianity isn't OK for anybody. > > > >They are anyway, whether I want them to or not. But you are saying that > the > >school can tell my children that if I teach them that homosexuality is a > >sin, that that is not right. > > > > Quite honestly, you can teach them whatever you want. Your kids can then > choose to either listen to you or to the school. If they are intelligent > and moral human beings, then I honestly and hopefully believe, they will > side with the school. So you approve of the schools subverting my authority. Thanks a lot. > Your argument is the same advanced by racial bigots forty years ago. They > didn't want the schools to teach tolerance for racial minorities. Many such > families taught their children bigotry at home. Many such children were > thankfully able to reject the bigotry they learned in the home. I hope your > children have the good sense to reject bigotry against homosexuals. Bigots were (and are) wrong. Good arguments can be used to promote bad things, as you well know. > >> > No more than I would want > >> > > a school deciding which religions are right or wrong. > > > >But don't you see - schools ARE making these judgements now. > > > > No they aren't. At most, schools promote each person to think rationally as > an independent human being. Which is quite noble and the schools should do > more of. It may surprise you Havoc but I DO want my kids to think for themselves. And schools DO teach how to think and how to learn. I am a former teacher and also I think well of the public schools here where I live.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8ipa2sbi789@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message ... > > >> > >> Killing is wrong, regardless of whether or not its included in the > >> Ten Commandments. Worshipping "false g-ds" or failing to observe the > >> Sabbath are not immoral acts, again regardless of the Ten Commandments. > >> I happen to build my morality on reason, not on a supposed word of G-d. > > > >Hmm...in other words, my view of morality is broader than yours. > > > > I don't know how you came to that conclusion. My morality is based on a > rational world view. I would argue that such morality is far broader than > one based on any religion. You are willing to condemn something, just > because you believe you've been so instructed by your Faith. I would call > that a pretty narrow morality. Mine is broader because you define yours on a very narrow line of "respect" - and that seems to be conditional. Mine covers more ground because it deals more broadly with issues - yes, it involves what the Bible teaches but if you think I don't look these things over and give them some thought you don't know me. > >> I believe our society is more moral today because of our increased > >> tolerance, because of less hate. No longer may individuals legally be > >> disciminated against by the government, on account of their skin. A man > >> like John Rocker gets mostly condemned by society, as opposed to > >> approved by it. While there is still plenty of violence in our society, > >> less of that violence is based on hate or ignorance. > > > >But it sounds to me that you are defining morality solely by whether or not > >we are tolerant. I think the fact we are less bigoted is a moral issue and > >a good thing, but it does not define the sum total of our morality. > > > > I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human beings. > I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher divorce > rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the empowerment > of women). Tell, me, what is respectful about vowing to be together "til death do us part" and then dumping someone just because it's easier to break up a marriage than fix it? How does it respect the children to tear apart their home and their security? Methinks we differ on what constitutes respect.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:IyYw4.2942$za2.83497@nnrp3.clara.net... > "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:sc8ipa2sbi789@corp.supernews.com... > > > > I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human beings. > > I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher divorce > > rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the > empowerment > > of women). > > > > Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment and > love seriously any more :( Agreed. People don't take their words seriously. They mouth them at the ceremony but figure they aren't bound to them.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8oduhdbi7113@corp.supernews.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... > >"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > >news:sc8ipa2sbi789@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human > beings. > >> I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher divorce > >> rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the > >empowerment > >> of women). > >> > > > >Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment > and > >love seriously any more :( > > > > > I disagree. Love is timeless. As to a supposed shift in "lifetime > commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it seriously. Then explain the number of divorces that are "no-fault" or "irreconciable differences." > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to stay in a > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely it's not > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband regularly beats > the wife). There are times marriages cannot stand - but surely you would agree that most divorces aren't taking place because of abuse or adultery! >Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of freedom > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad marriage. > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. And they have no motivation to try to fix it. >For those > who do stay in a lifetime committment (my grandparents have been married for > 67 years), it is so much more special, because it is a committment that is > based on love and not coercion. 67? Cool......we just celebrated out 17th....hope we can last another 50 years....

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Techlab Photo Rescue <Techlab@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message news:38d48506.436102953@news.erols.com... > On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:43:23 GMT, kemosabe@skyenet.net (Masked Man) > wrote: > > >On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:06:27 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: > > > >|3. The Founders should not be treated as G-ds. > > > >Masked Man---->Neither should the Supreme Court. They've promulgated > >a few bad decisions over the course of our history. > > No question. > > > This whole business of separation of church and state is just one example.... > > What? So all non-Christians should leave the country? > > Please, MM .. tell me you don't have a swastika tattooed on your arm. > Please tell me you don't go out on the weekends to burn crosses on > someone's lawns. Tell me you don't advocate book burnings or civil > uprisings agianst people who think differently than you do. > > You know.. I like you. You often make sense, and you have a great > sense of humor. > > And I *know* that the items we are discussing can get heated > sometimes. These are things that we hold close to our hearts. I wonder > how we've all gotten to this point in a discussion that we're ready to > close off all communications with each other.. all over points of > view. We have? I haven't killfiled anyone over this yet.... ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:38C4E2CD.2DB3@yahoo.com... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > > This is unrealisitc though. In rural areas and the South the unspoken > > > > > reality will be that this is *prayer* time. The kid who is atheist, > > > > > agnostic, of a different faith or just doesn't want to pray will be > > > > > subject to the vicious peer pressure and ostracism that only the young > > > > > can inflict on each other. > > > > > > > > But how will they know what their peers are doing? AFAIK, Betaziods and > > > > Vulcans haven't hit the public schools yet... > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but what are you saying? Are you telling me kids don't notice > > > this stuff? Come on. > > > > Steve, if kids are standing or sitting quietly, no one can read their minds. > > > Not read their minds, of course not. But kids will pick up on who is > praying and who isn't. They'll see the kid who is silently mouthing the > words of a prayer and the kid who stares silently at his or her shoes. Since my silent prayers don't always involve mouthing I would be in trouble.. ;-) > They'll know from talk in the hallways and stuff who likes prayer and > who doesn't. Those kids rub elbows every day, they know who is > participating and who isn't...and will inflict peer pressure > accordingly. The minute of silent prayer isn't a vacuum, it's part of > the whole social milieu kids live in, and kids pick up on who likes what > and who doesn't. Don't you think it is equally likely that the kids who pray will get picked on by those who don't? > > > > >That's one of the reasons why the Supreme > > > > > Court originally found school prayer to be unconstitutional: the > > > > > unspoken and yet very real social pressure by the majority on > > minorities > > > > > which will have a chilling effect on the maintenance of differing > > > > > religious views. > > > > That was teacher led prayer, BTW - and I am not advocating that. > > > But peer pressure and social realities are still a proper part of the > analysis, that's what the Supreme Court will look at (in addition to > other matters, of course). > > > > > > There is pressure now for children to reject religion, Steve. By the > > > > majority of those in the entertainment industry. > > > > > > > > > Where and how is there pressure from the entertainment industry to > > > reject religion in schools to the effect that school prayer must be > > > restored as a remedy? > > > > ::Sigh:: OK, I plead guilty to not being clear. Let me take a moment to > > elaborate. > > In my view, rightly or wrongly, I think there is great pressure on kids to > > reject religion and morality. The entertainment industry is one example > > (which is why my family watches little network TV), and there is societal > > pressure. In some schools things are taught to children that go against the > > faith of their parents (evolution, for example) and they have no recourse. > > > How can anyone in their right mind reject evolution? Y'know, if you want me to get into that, I will, but remember you asked for it.... <eg> >Do people really > think all those old bones deep in the fossil layer don't mean anything? > To me rejecting the teaching of evolution is as bad as rejecting the > teaching that the world isn't flat. I plead guilty, Counselor - but I have a defense, if you have the time and patience for it.... ;-) > Anyway, as to the entertainment industry, it seems to me that they're > reactive rather than proactive. They'll produce whatever consumers want. > If shows like "Touched By An Angel" are successful, which they are, you > get them. > > > > Do I think a moment of silence will fix all this? I'm not quite that > > stupid. Do I think a moment of silence would be a constitutional way for > > schools to show respect (NOT preference) for religion? Yes. > > > But we all know that the moment of silence is really a way for the > religious right to skirt the Supreme Court's prohibition on school > prayer. It's very clever, and cloaked with professions of neutrality, > but come on. It is a way to stay in compliance with the Supreme COurt ruling, rather than flouting the law. Don't I get credit for that? > > Also, keep in mind that my kids are currently in public schools and if I > > found the situation intolerable they would not be. > > > > > > > Real world example: "Look, egghead didn't pray! And Jew boy put that > > > > > funny shit cap on his head. We'll kick their asses in the playground > > > > > after school, right guys?" Laugh if you want, but that's the reality > > of > > > > > the popular culture. > > > > > > > > I won't laugh or deny that that might have happened. But these kids > > need to > > > > be educated in the true meaning of the prayer they engage in. > > > > > > > > > I truly shiver at what you might mean by being "educated" in the violent > > > environment we know encompasses childhood. > > > > You misunderstood. I was referring to those who were praying and then > > turning around and making a mockery of it with the above comments. > > > Eek, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to mock you. You're OK. I haven't kicked you off my ICQ list. <g> >You're obviously intelligent, > educated and open to reasonable debate. Flattery will get you....hmmm.... >I was just inserting a little > humor to illustrate my point. > Respectfully though, I do think you're being unrealistic about the > brutal realities of childhood peer pressure. Please accept my apologies > if I was impolite: unlike Masked Man you seem like a reasonable person I > can talk to. It comes from participating in debates like this before, as well as being a teacher. And I think your problem with MM is not that he is unreasonable as much as he is very passionate on what he believes. > > > > And, there > > > > needs to be parental authority exercised. My boys know that in the > > unlikely > > > > event they would do the above, they would suffer far more at my hands > > then > > > > would be to their liking. :-) > > > > > > > > > I suspect your boys aren't atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.... > > > > It wouldn't matter. If they were guilty of bullying others because they > > thought differently I would punish them. Bullying is wrong, no matter what > > faith you hold or don't hold. > > > I agree, bullying is wrong. I would feel better, though, if I saw some > effort to prevent bullying in schools BEFORE instituting a minute of > silence. Then, seeing the results of such an effort, perhaps I could > revise my opinion. I just don't trust promises that bullying will be > prevented AFTER the right gets its minute of silence. Ah, something we can agree on. Break out the mocha lattes!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8h0dtbi761@corp.supernews.com... > > Laura Ware wrote in message ... > >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > >news:sc0s6slsee6152@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >> Laura Ware wrote in message ... > >> > >> >But you WERE merely pointing out the negatives. ;-) > >> >I would say that if Christianity were truly practiced by all who are > >giving > >> >it lip service, your picture of it would not be quite as negative. :-) > >> > > >> > >> I will readily acknowledge that some good has been done in the name of > >> Christianity. But I know my history, and realize that Christianity is > >among > >> the most murderous religions on the planet in the history of the world. > >It > >> was founded largely as an opiate of the masses, in order to justify the > >> oppression of monarchies by divine right. > > > >I disagree with your allegation. Christainity was founded by Jesus of > >Nazareth, the Christ. (I know we disagree on this) > > > > Christianity was no more founded by Jesus than Judaism was founded by > Abraham. The religion was built by human beings long after they were dead. ??? I am surprised that you believe that. Maybe I misunderstood - do you believe in a God? > >> One can be quite moral without Christianity, or without any other > >religion. > > > >I would agree that one could live a moral life and not be a Christian, > >though I recently made the argument that based on Scriptures that the love > >Christians show to others should (note: "should") outshine the love others > >show. > > > > And according to Jewish teachings, a Jewish person is supposed to live his > life in such a way to be more moral than all others....... And every > religion probably has a similar requirement. So here we go, all trying to > outshine each other. Of course, I find organized religion to usually be > immoral anyway. In many cases, you are correct (pick your jaw up from the floor; you read correctly <eg>). Many those who claim to be espousing organized religion twist it worse than a pretzel, and/or use it for gain. But not all of it is - not those who take God's word seriously. > >> I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and Constitutional law, > >I > >> don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat of any > >> kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of Judeo-Christianity. And I don't want the religion of rationalism forced on my kids - so what do we do now? > >> Every family has their own unique views on religion, so let it be taught > >in > >> the home and in the church (and in private schools). > > > >I have never advocated forcing anyone. The Christian army (if you'll > permit > >me) is strictly a volunteer one. > > > > I really hate that term. It makes me want to run for my life <g> Aw, don't. I'm not gonna hurt ya... ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (rorob@ipa.net)


On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 11:32:02 -0500, havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >Silverhawk wrote: > >> >>Bi-sexuality is a concept too far removed from my own >> >>mental/emotional setup for me to get my head round. >> > >> >Masked Man----->The one that baffles me is bi-females, who find >> >male homosexuality repulsive. There is something here I just >> >dont get.... >> >> <nods> That's pretty confusing too. >> > >That's the same as all the heterosexual males who find female >bi-sexuality appealing.Howard Stern has made a fortune on this very >concept. > >-Havoc > Well, I remember somebody saying once that one of the reasons for that was that straight men get to see naked women doing sexual things without the bother of having to see naked men at all let alone doing sexual things.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


havoc wrote: > > > If ALL people carried around a small atomic device, then they would be equal > as well. Yes, as there is no way to use a personal carry nuclear weapon without suiciding. > A gun is simply where you choose to draw the line. I tend to draw > mine differently. (At a rifle, which can easily be used for home defense, > but due to its size, is difficult to use in a crime). Don't believe that, either. (example from TV. The old Rebel (IIRC) tv western, where the personal weapon was a cut down Winchester 73. Cut down to hip holster size. ). A prized gang/Armed Robbery weapon is the Sawed Off shotgun. Extremely deadly at close range, very easy to conceal. Bob

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Silverhawk wrote: > >>Bi-sexuality is a concept too far removed from my own > >>mental/emotional setup for me to get my head round. > > > >Masked Man----->The one that baffles me is bi-females, who find > >male homosexuality repulsive. There is something here I just > >dont get.... > > <nods> That's pretty confusing too. > That's the same as all the heterosexual males who find female bi-sexuality appealing.Howard Stern has made a fortune on this very concept. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote: > > > IIRC, the so-called "missing link" netween man and ape has still not been > discovered. True, human beings have *adapted* over the millennia, but I > wouldn't say there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory that we > evolved from apes. Are related to, certainly, but evolved from? I must admit > to being quite firmly on the fence where this subject is concerned. > One of the most common errors (from the honest) or common lies (from the dishonest Religious Right -{as opposed to the honest Religious Right}), is that evolution teaches that man evolved from the ape. Darwin said that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape. There is tons of evidence that this is true. There is NO doubt that Man evolved. IF you, as a religious person, wish to take the stand that the Creators methodology in creating Man was evolution, very few reasonable people will argue against that. Some will, of course. Bob

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


havoc wrote: > Helen & Bob wrote: > > > Lisa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As I've said before I dont have a problem with guns per se, my > > husband owns > > > two or three which when the time comes he will explain to the > > children what > > > they are, how to use them and all the safety aspects that go with > > them etc.. > > > What I do object to is the ease with which they are given out and > > the lack > > > of control over where they are kept. You and I are perfectly sane > > (?) > > > sensible people who have respect for the guns as well as the world > > around > > > us, unfortunately though the same cannot be said for the rest of the > > world > > > and until a better way is found of deciding who is fit and capable > > to own a > > > gun then I still say take them away. > > > > > > > LISA > > > > and once the decision is reached as to who is fit and capable, do they > > get to go > > out and buy more? What if TPTB say that NO ONE is fit and capable > > unless they > > support TPTB? Your solution, though hearfelt, is a huge step towards > > tyranny. > > IMHO YMMV. > > Bob > > Bob, your argument leads to the conclusion that all guns should in > fact be banned. Since there is no good way to determine who is fit and > capable, and since we agree (I believe that we do), that pistols should > be kept out of the hand of certain unfit individuals (convicted felons, > for example), the only fair thing to do is not allow anyone to have a > pistol. > > -Havoc Then, only criminals will have them. Guns can be manufactured by the handy at home. So can ammo. In the early '50's, we made single shot .22's in metal shop in Jr. High School. Absolutely deadly at close range. Absolute power over an unarmed person. The Israelis made Uzi's in home machine shops in the '48 war. Havoc. Understand this truth if you understand nothing else. There is NO WAY to keep weaponry out of the hands of the criminal. The tightest gun controls in History were in pre ww2 Germany, and in the old USSR. The CRIMINALS had guns. You cannot disinvent the gun. Bob

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


> "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message... > > > > Who exactly do you mean by TPTB? The Government, The Police? > > > > In the UK, it would be the ruling class, depending who has the real, not titular power. In the US, we are speaking of both Federal and Local authority. For instance, a prime example of abuse of power by TPTB, was one of the questions asked in Mississippi in the '20' through the '50's to determine if the person was educated enough to vote. (real reason - to deny the vote to blacks) This question was asked by the local elections board. Question: Who passes the laws against Piracy? Most people do not know the answer. That question was not asked the white voters, just the Black. That is what I mean by abuse by The Powers That Be. TPTB does not just apply to Voyager staff. It has been around long before Voy was on the air. One decision that could be reached in the UK, for example, is that nobody of either Scots or Irish ancestry could be allowed to own a weapon. It would be stupid, unfair, and everything else, but it would be legal, depending on the actual power of TPTB. Bob

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Shammie wrote: > <snip> > Oh, you mean how the same neediness or lust draws people together in > the name > of love only to crash them down later when the tests of real life so > rudely > spoil all the fun? Someone is bitter this morning <g> > Or do you mean LOVE. Unconditional and everlasting, the wisdom of the > universe > revealed in the splendor of the night sky. > ( sorry, that's what I get for being Aquarian). > > <snip> > >Yes, you're absolutely correct. But again, compared to 1950, there > is far > >more opportunity to escape a bad marriage. (Though you are correct, > many > >still stay). > > Oh I see what you're saying. Yes, there are shelters for battered > women now, > for example, and it's not all so hush-hush anymore. Yay! Plus it's no > longer an > embarrassing "stigma" for men or women to have gone throught the big > D. > Precisely.... Do we really want to bring back the stigma of divorce, as a way of coercing marriages to stay together? <snip> > >Depends on the couple. I'm confident that for my grandparents, it is > > >probably based on both. (Just from seeing how they interact with each > > >other). > > They sound pretty cool! I bet they are very bonded after so many > years. It's > nice to hear about such mutual respect. > My grandmother refers to my grandfather and his friends as "the boys." The youngest of "the boys" is 80.My grandfather still calls my grandmother my pet names, most commonly, "Gorgeous." And of course, they both drive themselves crazy not worrying about their own health, but worrying about the health of the other. > >-Havoc > >Hopeless Romantic. > > Well I was one of those once. I much prefer my attitude now, because I > can be > really close friends with a guy and appreciate the hell out of him and > love him > for the individual he is without in the least bit expecting anything > from him. Bull. You're a fellow water-sign... You'll revert!! (Had the same thing in my last 'relationship' (I call it a relationship rather loosely). I got tired of "good enough" with no expectations. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Helen & Bob wrote: > > > > Bob, your argument leads to the conclusion that all guns should > in > > fact be banned. Since there is no good way to determine who is fit > and > > capable, and since we agree (I believe that we do), that pistols > should > > be kept out of the hand of certain unfit individuals (convicted > felons, > > for example), the only fair thing to do is not allow anyone to have > a > > pistol. > > > > -Havoc > > Then, only criminals will have them. Guns can be manufactured by the > handy > at home. Most common criminals are not quite handy enough to be making their own guns. (If they were, they'd be skilled enough to get honest work). Fact is, if you have strict enough gun control, you'll keep it out of the hands of most criminals as well. > So can ammo. In the early '50's, we made single shot .22's in > metal shop in Jr. High School. Absolutely deadly at close range. > Absolute > power over an unarmed person. The Israelis made Uzi's in home machine > shops > in the '48 war. Your common street corner drug dealer doesn't have a home machine shop. > Havoc. Understand this truth if you understand nothing else. There > is NO > WAY to keep weaponry out of the hands of the criminal. There is no 100% guaranteed way. But you understand this, if nothing else. With strict enough gun control, you can truly limit the availability of guns even to criminals. > The tightest gun > controls in History were in pre ww2 Germany, and in the old USSR. The > > CRIMINALS had guns. > You cannot disinvent the gun. Most of Europe has tight gun control and as a result has far less gun violence than found in America. I assume you don't dispute this simple fact. And while I might not be a big fan of everything about the USSR, that doesn't mean they were wrong about gun control. Their restraints on speech, their punishment of political opposition, etc. were their bigger problems. (And a stupid economic system). -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:38C53400.784098AE@ix.netcom.com... > > > > One of the most common errors (from the honest) or common lies (from > the > > dishonest Religious Right -{as opposed to the honest Religious > Right}), > is that > > evolution teaches that man evolved from the ape. Darwin said that > man and > ape > > evolved from a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape. There > is > tons of > > evidence that this is true. There is NO doubt that Man evolved. IF > you, > as a > > religious person, wish to take the stand that the Creators > methodology in > > creating Man was evolution, very few reasonable people will argue > against > that. > > Some will, of course. > > Firstly, I'm not a religious person. I'm *spiritual*, but there is a > difference. Secondly, I would like to see some solid proof that this > is so - > some things I take on faith (or hope), others, I just like to have > proof of. Take a look at genetic evolution, mutation rates, bottle neck effects, etc.... There is absolutely no doubt that evolution has occurred. Certainly, some of the specifics are open to debate but the evidence proves that G-d didn't create the entire earth, species and humans, all in six days. Now, as a person with some faith myself, I like to see creationism, the six days, etc... as just a metaphor for G-d's plan of evolution. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <38d588d0.437073071@news.erols.com>, > Techlab@photo-rescue.com > says... > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:13:00 -0800, D�sir�e Davis > > <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >Rights, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to > > >property are inviolate. > > > Rights are ALWAYS given to you. You don't 'take' them, you don't > > 'deserve' them, you don't 'earn' them, and you aren't 'born' with > > them. > > Patently untrue. Rights exist, because humans exist. This is basic > philosophy. You *always* have your rights. The only thing a > government > can do is recognize them or not. > > > No matter what you think, 'rights' are given to you by the people > you > > live with. (society, family, peers etc.. ) > > > To think otherwise is just foolish thinking. (yeah, it might look > > good in a book, but it just isn't reality.) > > Sorry, you are just flat out wrong. If "rights" were bestowed on > people > they wouldn't be "rights" at all, they would be "privileges" > > > > They are not given to you by the government, not > > >can the government take them away. Thus, they always trump > government > > >mandated safety. > > > This is complete and utter nonsense. Let's say I shoot you right > now. > > what are your rights now? > > By virtue of my existence, I have the *right* to my own existence, > thus > the right to my own life. That is not a right given to me by anyone > else, it is a right I have by virtue of the fact that I exist. If you > > shoot me, you are not recognizing my > right to life, but that hardly translates to "You don't have a right > to > life until given to you by someone" > > > Your family can claim rights after you're > > dead. If you survived, you could claim rights for your damages.. but > > > these rights are all given by the people in society. They are all > > after the fact. > > Not true. What is claimed "after the fact" is punishment for > violating > my rights in the first place. > > > > Rights (as you're describing them now) mean exactly nothing! They > > have to be respected to have any meaning. > > On this you are correct. Rights have no meaning unless enforced, > which > is why if you try to kill, enslave or rob me, I will try to stop you > because I have the right not to be killed, enslaved or robbed. > Since individuals have decided to join together and live in societies, > > people determined that it would be more efficient to have institutions > to > protect rights and punish rights violators. But regardless of the > existence or non-existence of the institutions, the rights still > exists. > > May I recommend Philosophy 101 or maybe Philosophy of Law 101 for you? > > D�sir�e- philosopher at large hmm....... Perhaps it's time you tried philosophy 102 Desiree <g> -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenn.NO.spam@hotmail.comTuvok.rules>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: > > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message > news:AHUw4.2073$yV1.457980@tw11.nn.bcandid.com.. > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:ojUw4.2639$za2.75801@nnrp3.clara.net.. > > > > > > Personally, I do not accept adulterers. I don't have a problem with > > > infidelity if the adulterer's partner is abusive or themselves > unfaithful. > > > But otherwise, infidelity is totally wrong, utterly hurtful and those > who > > > commit it I see as deeply dishonourable. > > > > Well, I do, but I wouldn't say that meant I hated the person. > > > > Well, IMHO, a person is defined by their actions... to act dishonourably is > to BE dishonourable. And to deliberately betray someone who loves you is the > most despicable act imaginable. The problem is, that as long as a relationship is working there is very little danger for infidelity... so more often than not an infidelity is just a sign that the relationship has not been stellar for some time anyway... and once it's reached *that* stage, no heart gets broken anymore. It might still hurt, but not kill you. Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > > > > As someone who works in criminal courts on a daily basis, I must > point > > out that the lines aren't nearly as black and white as you would > like > > them to be. In fact, based on your arguments, most of the violent > crime > > that comes before my court wouldn't be criminal, as most of the > violence > > is retaliotory in some way or another. (You get very few incidents > of > > violence that are 100% unprovoked). > > "laws exists for ...setting objective standards for the amount of > retaliation allowed..." > You're against standards, you want absolutes you previously stated <g>.But don't quote something, unless you're going to provide the source. > What this means, is that if you are in immediate danger then you can > protect yourself, but as a member of a civilized society you transfer > your right to retaliate to the courts once you are out of immediate > danger. This doesn't fit into your Locke philosophy (I think that's where you're getting it), of all rights stemming from the right to your own life. Where does that allow a transfer of rights to the Courts? By the same virtue, I can say that in a civilized world, we've transferred certain rights to the legistature, and thereby allow the legislation regarding certain property and actions. > Without this, you have anarchy, as every person will take it > upon themselves to "avenge" every action done to them in whatever > manner > they see fit, based on whatever whim they have. Laws are meant to be > objective, so that each person is treated equal under the law. > Individual retaliation beyond the amount prescribed by law would be > considered initiated force, not retaliatory. Ultimately, some one > started the conflict by initiating force. > Sounds as if you're doing an awful lot of balancing, despite your claim to the contrary. > I am not speaking of any particular government, since no government in > > the world is currently legitimate or principled. I am speaking of > what a > proper government *should* act like and what rational, > rights-respecting > people should expect from their government. > > D�sir�e- I belong to me, you belong to you > The government belongs to me and you,Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenn.NO.spam@hotmail.comTuvok.rules>)


Laura Ware wrote: > I have to clarify. I don't want any particular religion taught in school > per se; except possibly in a comparative religions class. I also don't want > my children to be made to feel that their faith must be left at the > schoolhouse door. That's *exactly* how I feel about it! :-) Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenn.NO.spam@hotmail.comTuvok.rules>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore wrote: > > "EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:E1Wv4.385$7F3.7659@nnrp4.clara.net.. > > "Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > news:38BFDFB1.8048C071@ix.netcom.com.. > > > BIG MISTAKE. Never try to use reason, logic, common sense, science, or > > knowledge > > > in a gun discussion. > > > Bob > > > > > > > Hmmm... that must be where I went wrong <g> > > > > Is it some unwritten law of Usenet, that there has to be a discussion > > (argument) about gun control and/or religion, in any busy NG, every few > > months? > > Yes, it is the same law that says we have to post more off topic than on > topic, discuss daily whether Harry is gay or not, how underused Tuvok is and > what a great actor Robert Beltran is <g> Why would we lie? <vbeg> Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (Julianna Feigl <glacierqueenn.NO.spam@hotmail.comTuvok.rules>)


Shammie wrote: > > No, lots and lots of women are still forced to rely on it. Especially when kids > are involved. Actually that's more the men's problem, since in most cases it's the mother who gets custody. So if a father doesn't want to see his kid(s) only on weekends he'll have to stick with their mother. (friends of mine got a divorce recently and the kids stay with their mother, but it's breaking their father's heart that he only has them over the weekend) Julianna -------- Tuvok: The main reason to watch Voyager!

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > > > Christianity was no more founded by Jesus than Judaism was founded > by > > Abraham. The religion was built by human beings long after they > were > dead. > > ??? I am surprised that you believe that. Maybe I misunderstood - do > you > believe in a God? > Yes, I believe in G-d, at least most of the time. But the Bible (Both Old Testament and New Testament), the Koran, even the Ten Commandments were all written and recorded by man. > > > > >> I know this as a matter of both personal opinion, and > Constitutional > law, > > >I > > >> don't want the school system forcing Christianity down the throat > of > any > > >> kids. Nor would I want an watered down form of > Judeo-Christianity. > > And I don't want the religion of rationalism forced on my kids - so > what do > we do now? > I knew you would say that. Rationalism isn't a religion. A religion, by its very definition, attempts to explain the unknown by means of supernatural forces. It also seeks to provide reassurance for people that their life has meaning. (With promises of heaven, or reincarnation, etc). Rational thought has nothing to do with supernatural forces. Rational thought isn't meant to promise you a life after death. Rational thought is merely using your brain and thinking independently. You don't want your kids taught to use their own brains that G-d gave them? > > >> Every family has their own unique views on religion, so let it be > > taught > > >in > > >> the home and in the church (and in private schools). > > > > > >I have never advocated forcing anyone. The Christian army (if > you'll > > permit > > >me) is strictly a volunteer one. > > > > > > > I really hate that term. It makes me want to run for my life <g> > > Aw, don't. I'm not gonna hurt ya... ;-) I'm just looking at the Christian Armies of the past, which quite often did kill and murder. (As did a plethura of other religious armies). -Havoc Not joining any religious army.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > Then explain the number of divorces that are "no-fault" or > "irreconciable > differences." > Very easily. Until recently, in most states, you weren't allowed to get a "no-fault" divorce. Now that you are allowed to get a "no-fault" divorce, it's become the preferred legal means. > > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to > stay in > a > > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely > it's not > > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband > regularly > beats > > the wife). > > There are times marriages cannot stand - but surely you would agree > that > most divorces aren't taking place because of abuse or adultery! > Quite the opposite. Hopefully, the divorce occurs before the marriage deteriorates into abuse or adultery. > >Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of freedom > > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad > marriage. > > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. > > And they have no motivation to try to fix it. > That's bs. They have plenty of motivation to fix it. Divorce is still quite difficult. If they have kids, the kids are a powerful motivation. If they share property, then they have shared financial interests. They have the $30,000 they spent on a wedding as motivation. They have the high cost of lawyers for a divorce as another motivation for staying together. There are tons of motivations to work it out.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (Wavemaker <wavemaker@my-deja.com>)


"Shammie" wrote: > > Understand this: you will attract someone who is on the same vibratory level as > yourself. So I think the more you work on developing your own self-esteem and > wholeness as a person, the more chance you have of attracting someone with a > healthy self-esteem and the more chance you will have for a long-lasting, > stable relationship, if that is what you want. Get rid of your neediness and > watch your life open up for you. Well said.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Un-natural evolution (was "Re: :-(") - (Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk>)


>IIRC, the so-called "missing link" netween man and ape has still >not been discovered. True, human beings have *adapted* over >the millennia, but I wouldn't say there is a great deal of evidence >to support the theory that we evolved from apes. Are related to, >certainly, but evolved from? I must admit to being quite firmly on >the fence where this subject is concerned. A branch of the ape species were hyper-evolved by aliens from Mars (or some other planet), resulting in mankind. That's why there was such a huge leap in evolution in such a short timescale ;-) Silverhawk [could be true, you never know] -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > > > I don't know how you came to that conclusion. My morality is based > on a > > rational world view. I would argue that such morality is far > broader than > > one based on any religion. You are willing to condemn something, > just > > because you believe you've been so instructed by your Faith. I > would call > > that a pretty narrow morality. > > Mine is broader because you define yours on a very narrow line of > "respect" - and that seems to be conditional. Mine covers more ground > > because it deals more broadly with issues - yes, it involves what the > Bible > teaches but if you think I don't look these things over and give them > some > thought you don't know me. > How is "mutual respect" a narrow line? I believe the Golden Rule is a Christian teaching (as well as Jewish). The Golden Rule": Treat thy neighbor as you would treat thyself. How does your scope of morality cover more than mine? You might find more things immoral than I do.. but your willingness to condemn moral activities as immoral, means that you have a narrower morality, not broader. > > >> I believe our society is more moral today because of our > increased > > >> tolerance, because of less hate. No longer may individuals > legally be > > >> disciminated against by the government, on account of their > skin. A > man > > >> like John Rocker gets mostly condemned by society, as opposed to > > >> approved by it. While there is still plenty of violence in our > society, > > >> less of that violence is based on hate or ignorance. > > > > > >But it sounds to me that you are defining morality solely by > whether or > not > > >we are tolerant. I think the fact we are less bigoted is a moral > issue > and > > >a good thing, but it does not define the sum total of our morality. > > > > > > > > I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human > beings. > > I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher > divorce > > rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the > empowerment > > of women). > > Tell, me, what is respectful about vowing to be together "til death do > us > part" and then dumping someone just because it's easier to break up a > marriage than fix it? First, you have an invalid assumption. If two people are in love, then it is certainly easier to fix a marriage then to divorce. I don't know any couple that has divorced on the drop of a hat. More importantly: How is it moral for society to coerce people to stay together, even if they make each other miserable? Even if the husband is beating the wife? Even if the two people are cheating on each other? > How does it respect the children to tear apart their > home and their security? How does it respect the children to grow up in a house where the parents hate each other? Where the parents fight all the time? > Methinks we differ on what constitutes respect. Yup... mine is the more moral perspective. <g>

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C502B7.6E819BA8@ix.netcom.com... > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > And if my kids had been involved in making you suffer Bill they would have > > been punished and made to apologize. Bullying is wrong. Period. > > How would you have known? Kids don't tell parents that they are being bullied, > because they are ashamed that it happens. The think it THEIR OWN FAULT when > they are bullied. Teachers don't notice unless it becomes a fight at recess. > There are bullies because nobody knows they are bullies except the other > children, who don't tell. > Bob You don't know my youngest. He informs on himself all the time. :-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:op8x4.3163$7F3.69009@nnrp4.clara.net... > Shammie, you do not give me much hope... are you saying that there is no > such thing as genuine lifelong love? *sniffle* There is Bill....I'm lucky enough to be experiencing it.... :-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > Technically, you are correct. But for that matter, gravity is also > a > > technically a theory. > > Both of these "theories" are universally accepted by the scientific > > community. (Although the scientific community is divided upon some > of the > > specifics.) > > Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your roof). > Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless > time > travel got invented and I missed it. > Quite to the contrary. Evolution has been scientifically and empirically proven to the same extent as gravity. Just because you personally don't understand the evidence (it's not as obvious as apples falling from trees) doesn't mean that it's unproven. Having personally conducted genetic experiments, I can assure you, there is no doubt that evolution has occurred, and that evolution does occur. Furthermore, the fossil record directly contradicts literal creationism. > > There > > >is no fossil record evidence for or against it. > > > > > > > On the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the fossil record. > For > > example, see the progressive development of human beings which can > be > found > > in the record. > > That has been brought into question - again, this is an area that > would be > fascinating to discuss but would take us far, far, afield. > > > There is even more support in the genetic record, our DNA. > Especially our > > mitochondrial DNA. > > > > > > -Havoc > > Prior to law school, I received a degree in genetics. > > (Yes, you should see my resume, lol) > > Actually, given the hints you've dropped, I am incredibly curious > about > it..... ;-) Genetics degree, law degree, litigation work, criminal work, teaching (lsats, logical reasoning to prospective law students). I try to keep busy. -Havoc Renaissance Man.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk>)


Laura Ware posted... >>Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. > >Not so. So life, the universe, mankind and everything was created and finished in the time it takes me to receive a letter sent from London? (we have a crap postal service - don't ask). I think we're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Who says that if God exists, his perception of time is the same as ours? It might be a "Blink of an Eye" situation. One day for God is a few millennia for us. Silverhawk -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - It's the aliens I tell ya (was "Re: :-(") - (Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk>)


>Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your >roof). Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe >cannot, unless time travel got invented and I missed it. Who says it can be tested? Gravity mightn't be gravity at all. It might be an invisible alien forcefield that was constructed millennia ago to stop us floating off into space ;-) Silverhawk -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38C4CD10.3C88@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > > > > > You are arguing "security" (if guns are banned, gun accidents can't > > > > happen) which is a common tact, but it still violates rights, and rights > > > > trump security every time. > > > > > > > > > Now that's just a bizarre thing to say. > > > > Rights, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to > > property are inviolate. They are not given to you by the government, not > > can the government take them away. Thus, they always trump government > > mandated safety. > > > Well, in the United States they're given to you by the Federal > constitution, the state constitutions and the common law. None of these > sources challenge reasonable police power regulation of those rights. > So, of course they're not "inviolate," though of course they deserve > high respect. I'm not talking about the Constitution. I'm talking about the rights I have by virtue of my existence. I don't need the government to tell me I have the right to not to be killed, enslaved or robbed. These rights exist because man exists. The only thing a government can do is *recognize* basic rights they can't bestow them. Rights are the province of the individual. A bunch of individuals have rights. Just because a bunch of individuals get together in a group (like, say, a government) doesn't suddenly give them new or different rights. A group has no rights that the individual doesn't have. Since individuals can't give rights to other's neither can a group or a society or a government. All a government can give (and thus take away) are privileges. "Rights" by definition cannot be given or taken away, only recognized or not. > > > > Philosophy, from which reason & logic spring, is never concered with > > > > "pragmatism" I.e. the details, it is only concerned with principles, and > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > it is not the fault of the philosophy if people fail to follow the > > > > principles, it is the fault of the people. > > > I KNEW IT. > > And this proves.... what? That I understand philosophy? > That you're getting your arguments out of a book or philosphy class. > You're a grad student, right? No, as I have said elsewhere. Simply that I have a brain, and the I recognize that we all have a philosophy. I don not need a book to tell me that I have a right to life. I do not need I book to tell me that no one else has the right to tell me what to do (and thus I don not have the right to tell anyone what to do) You have a philosophy that allows some people to dictate the behavior of others. Your philosophy allows for some people to violate the rights of others. Mine does not. > > That philosophy > > is based on principles and that pragmatism is the attempt to merge > > contradictory principles thus causing one side to surrender? > > > No. Think of it as like empirical testing, the trying-out in the real > world of an idea or belief. Well, if this is simply a numbers game, there are over 20,000 local state and Federal regulation regarding gun control. I *could* say "regulation isn't working" but I won't because that's not how you reach logic conclusions. > And as to "surrender" that's a scary comment. This isn't an exercise in > macho ethics in which one side must win or lose. But it is. If I hold the right to property to be inviolate, and you claim you can prevent me from owning a gun, even in a small way, then I must surrender my principle since you are saying it is *not* inviolate. > Don't be so black and > white. Without compromise and pragmatism, functioning societies would be > impossible. Untrue. You have yet to show how any of my principles are incorrect or how any of logic is faulty. > In the Soviet Union the communists tried to rigidly apply > their philosophical ideals and the result was millions of deaths and a > devastated economy. That's because Marx's philosophy was inherently flawed (it demanded people violate rights). To then expand that to say "no philosophy will ever work" is once again faulty logic on your part. That one philosophy didn't work is hardly proof that none will. I think you can do better than this. Come on Steve, try.... > > > > I have > > argued on principles from the beginning, something you are incapable of > > doing, yet is an absolute requirement for debate on any issue. > > > No, you've argued from a book from the beginning. You've gotten this > whole bit on principles from somewhere and thought it was really > profound, which is why I hear it every time we talk. Now what's the > book? You want the card catalog of my personal library? Yes, I read. I read philosophy and since philosophy is the study of knowledge, I most certainly will rely on it. Principles, which I also rely on, and are a fundamental part of every philosophy in existence, are statements which recognize a truth about reality. There is no philosophy in existence that isn't based on principles, Steve. A college educated boy like you should know that. The trick is finding the ones based on sound irrefutable principles (Descartes presented a pretty good way of doing that too). So, you want to know what book? I could be rude and offer you "Philosophy for Dummies" if all you are looking for is proof that principles exist. But I will give a somewhat random sampling of my home library: Metaphysics by Aristotle is a good place to start. Then read: anything by Thomas Aquinas Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkagaard Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche John Locke's Second Treatsie of Civil Government Common Sense from Thomas Paine Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand (the non-rational philosophers like Hume & Kant have been ignored although they too, based their philosophies on principles) Whether I agree with the philosophy presented or not (and in all of the above, I have at least one serious reservation about each). Point being, Every philosopher speaks of principles, Steve. The rights I speak of are classic liberal rights, first expounded on by Aristotle and returned to by philosophers during the Renaissance. Since you have such contempt for my ideas, I challenge you to actually refute them, instead of the moral indignation you throw around in place of rational argument. Show where I have made a logically error. Show me where my starting principle is false. Do that instead of just you saying you know I'm wrong and don't need to back it up because you are being "pragmatic" as if pragmatism is a magical panacea that automatically refutes logic. If you continue to deny reality by denying reality is based on principles then I will have no choice but to end this debate as it is a waste of my time to debate with someone who doesn't accept logic and rationality as valid. Since logic and rationality are based on principles, by denying principles (and thus reality) you deny logic and rationality, instead relying exclusive on what you "feel" to be right. If we abandon logic and argue emotionally, here is what we get: You "feel" gun control is OK. I "feel" it isn't. Now what? What makes your feeling more valid than mine? Since you have set the conditions of this debate to not include the rational or the logic, how do you know that your feeling is even valid at all? D���sir���e- I exist, therefore I think

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38C527C9.44138C36@ucs.net>, havoc@ucs.net says... > D���sir���e Davis wrote: I have always advocated this. What you are talking > about is the > > > difference between initiating force and retaliatory force. Initiating > > force (killing, raping, enslaving, stealing, restraining, threatening > > to > > do any of these) is always 100% wrong. However, once force has been > > initiated against you, you have the right to protect your rights by > > using > > force if necessary. Laws exist for the sole purpose of defining > > rights > > violations and setting objective standards for the amount of > > retaliation > > allowed for any particular rights violation. > As someone who works in criminal courts on a daily basis, I must point > out that the lines aren't nearly as black and white as you would like > them to be. In fact, based on your arguments, most of the violent crime > that comes before my court wouldn't be criminal, as most of the violence > is retaliotory in some way or another. (You get very few incidents of > violence that are 100% unprovoked). "laws exists for ...setting objective standards for the amount of retaliation allowed..." What this means, is that if you are in immediate danger then you can protect yourself, but as a member of a civilized society you transfer your right to retaliate to the courts once you are out of immediate danger. Without this, you have anarchy, as every person will take it upon themselves to "avenge" every action done to them in whatever manner they see fit, based on whatever whim they have. Laws are meant to be objective, so that each person is treated equal under the law. Individual retaliation beyond the amount prescribed by law would be considered initiated force, not retaliatory. Ultimately, some one started the conflict by initiating force. I am not speaking of any particular government, since no government in the world is currently legitimate or principled. I am speaking of what a proper government *should* act like and what rational, rights-respecting people should expect from their government. D���sir���e- I belong to me, you belong to you f o o d f o r b o t

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38d588d0.437073071@news.erols.com>, Techlab@photo-rescue.com says... > On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:13:00 -0800, D���sir���e Davis > <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Rights, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to > >property are inviolate. > Rights are ALWAYS given to you. You don't 'take' them, you don't > 'deserve' them, you don't 'earn' them, and you aren't 'born' with > them. Patently untrue. Rights exist, because humans exist. This is basic philosophy. You *always* have your rights. The only thing a government can do is recognize them or not. > No matter what you think, 'rights' are given to you by the people you > live with. (society, family, peers etc.. ) > To think otherwise is just foolish thinking. (yeah, it might look > good in a book, but it just isn't reality.) Sorry, you are just flat out wrong. If "rights" were bestowed on people they wouldn't be "rights" at all, they would be "privileges" > > They are not given to you by the government, not > >can the government take them away. Thus, they always trump government > >mandated safety. > This is complete and utter nonsense. Let's say I shoot you right now. > what are your rights now? By virtue of my existence, I have the *right* to my own existence, thus the right to my own life. That is not a right given to me by anyone else, it is a right I have by virtue of the fact that I exist. If you shoot me, you are not recognizing my right to life, but that hardly translates to "You don't have a right to life until given to you by someone" > Your family can claim rights after you're > dead. If you survived, you could claim rights for your damages.. but > these rights are all given by the people in society. They are all > after the fact. Not true. What is claimed "after the fact" is punishment for violating my rights in the first place. > > Rights (as you're describing them now) mean exactly nothing! They > have to be respected to have any meaning. On this you are correct. Rights have no meaning unless enforced, which is why if you try to kill, enslave or rob me, I will try to stop you because I have the right not to be killed, enslaved or robbed. Since individuals have decided to join together and live in societies, people determined that it would be more efficient to have institutions to protect rights and punish rights violators. But regardless of the existence or non-existence of the institutions, the rights still exists. May I recommend Philosophy 101 or maybe Philosophy of Law 101 for you? D���sir���e- philosopher at large

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Shammie" <shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl> wrote in message news:20000307112424.02589.00000435@ng- > > Oh, you mean how the same neediness or lust draws people together in the name > of love only to crash them down later when the tests of real life so rudely > spoil all the fun? > Or do you mean LOVE. Unconditional and everlasting, the wisdom of the universe > revealed in the splendor of the night sky. > ( sorry, that's what I get for being Aquarian). > The latter... *sigh* > >-Havoc > >Hopeless Romantic. > > Well I was one of those once. I much prefer my attitude now, because I can be > really close friends with a guy and appreciate the hell out of him and love him > for the individual he is without in the least bit expecting anything from him. > Hey, you can have close platonic friendships with the opposite sex and still be a hopeless romantic! I am living proof! -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Shammie" <shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl> wrote in message... > >From: "EvilBill[AGQx]" > > > >Shammie, you do not give me much hope... are you saying that there is no > >such thing as genuine lifelong love? *sniffle* > > Not at all! I'm saying that if you think that someone *else* is going to make > you whole and complete, then you are setting yourself up for a big letdown. > Understand this: you will attract someone who is on the same vibratory level as > yourself. So I think the more you work on developing your own self-esteem and > wholeness as a person, the more chance you have of attracting someone with a > healthy self-esteem and the more chance you will have for a long-lasting, > stable relationship, if that is what you want. Get rid of your neediness and > watch your life open up for you. > Methinks your personal experiences have left you rather cynical <g> But then - I have been devastatingly hurt twice, because someone I had real feelings for didn't or couldn't reciprocate... and I still want to be able to find my soul mate... *sigh* Guess I'm just a hopeless romantic... -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C53400.784098AE@ix.netcom.com... > > One of the most common errors (from the honest) or common lies (from the > dishonest Religious Right -{as opposed to the honest Religious Right}), is that > evolution teaches that man evolved from the ape. Darwin said that man and ape > evolved from a common ancestor that was neither man nor ape. There is tons of > evidence that this is true. There is NO doubt that Man evolved. IF you, as a > religious person, wish to take the stand that the Creators methodology in > creating Man was evolution, very few reasonable people will argue against that. > Some will, of course. Firstly, I'm not a religious person. I'm *spiritual*, but there is a difference. Secondly, I would like to see some solid proof that this is so - some things I take on faith (or hope), others, I just like to have proof of. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C518E8.6DCB66A4@ucs.net... > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: > > > > The problem being, that, because divorce has become easier, people > > feel free > > to get married on a whim, rather than seriously saying, "This is the > > person > > with whom I want to share my life". Sure, people should be able to get > > out > > of a bad marriage. But to marry and divorce just because it suits them > > at > > the time, as a lot of people seem to do these days, is something I > > find > > quite repellent. > > I don't know many people who get divorced on a whim. (And for that > matter.. I know very few people who choose to get married on a whim. It > can take two years just for most people around here to plan their > wedding!). > Well, from where I'm standing, I see a lot of people who get into relationships for no other reason than physical attraction, or because they're scared to be alone - rather than out of a genuine, mutual love and respect. And, if people do marry for genuine love - how come half of them divorce and most are unfaithful? -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C502B7.6E819BA8@ix.netcom.com... > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > And if my kids had been involved in making you suffer Bill they would have > > been punished and made to apologize. Bullying is wrong. Period. > > How would you have known? Kids don't tell parents that they are being bullied, > because they are ashamed that it happens. The think it THEIR OWN FAULT when > they are bullied. Teachers don't notice unless it becomes a fight at recess. > There are bullies because nobody knows they are bullies except the other > children, who don't tell. When I was being bullied, I told the teachers all the time - they just never took any notice :( In fact, some of the teachers used to pick on me and single me out for much the same reasons as the pupils... IMHO bullies should be strung up by their (probably small and inconsequential) genitalia. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Lisa and Peter Dugmore" <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message... > > Who exactly do you mean by TPTB? The Government, The Police? > I think he means the Voyager staff <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message... > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message... > > > > Moi, generous? Methinks you're thinking of a different Captain <g> > > Nopers...::patting Captain Bill on the head:: > *blush* -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Shammie" <shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl> wrote in message... > > I think it is. Personally, I don't take it seriously anymore. And I think I'm > the healthier for that attitude. And no, I'm not jaded, I still absolutely > adore men, crave their company and will no doubt be "in love" yet again! But > I'm so through being shattered when it's over. > > >Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. > > Did you grow up in the sixties? I'm not mocking you, I swear I'm not. In fact I > agree that ok, yes they have a freedom to get out and pursue *something* again, > but I'm not sure I would call it love. Maybe I would say they are free to carry > their same baggage over into yet another doomed relationship in the pursuit of > the need to find somebody who will solve all their problems and guarantee their > happiness. Oops, next! > Shammie, you do not give me much hope... are you saying that there is no such thing as genuine lifelong love? *sniffle* -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8oduhdbi7113@corp.supernews.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... > > > >Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment > and > >love seriously any more :( > > I disagree. Love is timeless. As to a supposed shift in "lifetime > commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it seriously. > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to stay in a > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely it's not > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband regularly beats > the wife). Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of freedom > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad marriage. > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. For those > who do stay in a lifetime committment (my grandparents have been married for > 67 years), it is so much more special, because it is a committment that is > based on love and not coercion. > The problem being, that, because divorce has become easier, people feel free to get married on a whim, rather than seriously saying, "This is the person with whom I want to share my life". Sure, people should be able to get out of a bad marriage. But to marry and divorce just because it suits them at the time, as a lot of people seem to do these days, is something I find quite repellent. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8o5mrrbi711@corp.supernews.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message <4wYw4.2939$za2.83561@nnrp3.clara.net>... > > > >Actually (just to butt in here) evolution is not fact. It is a theory. > > Technically, you are correct. But for that matter, gravity is also a > technically a theory. Although one with a great deal of physical evidence to support it. > Both of these "theories" are universally accepted by the scientific > community. (Although the scientific community is divided upon some of the > specifics.) > > There > >is no fossil record evidence for or against it. > > On the contrary, there is certainly evidence in the fossil record. For > example, see the progressive development of human beings which can be found > in the record. > IIRC, the so-called "missing link" netween man and ape has still not been discovered. True, human beings have *adapted* over the millennia, but I wouldn't say there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory that we evolved from apes. Are related to, certainly, but evolved from? I must admit to being quite firmly on the fence where this subject is concerned. > There is even more support in the genetic record, our DNA. Especially our > mitochondrial DNA. > I'll have to take your word for that, since I know very little about genetics <g> > > -Havoc > Prior to law school, I received a degree in genetics. > (Yes, you should see my resume, lol) > <g> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] wrote: > "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:sc8oduhdbi7113@corp.supernews.com... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] wrote in message ... > > > > > >Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime > commitment > > and > > >love seriously any more :( > > > > I disagree. Love is timeless. As to a supposed shift in "lifetime > > commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it > seriously. > > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to > stay in > a > > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely > it's not > > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband > regularly > beats > > the wife). Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of > > freedom > > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad > marriage. > > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. For > those > > who do stay in a lifetime committment (my grandparents have been > married > for > > 67 years), it is so much more special, because it is a committment > that is > > based on love and not coercion. > > > > The problem being, that, because divorce has become easier, people > feel free > to get married on a whim, rather than seriously saying, "This is the > person > with whom I want to share my life". Sure, people should be able to get > out > of a bad marriage. But to marry and divorce just because it suits them > at > the time, as a lot of people seem to do these days, is something I > find > quite repellent. I don't know many people who get divorced on a whim. (And for that matter.. I know very few people who choose to get married on a whim. It can take two years just for most people around here to plan their wedding!). On the contrary though, many marriages of the past were more "whimsical" in that they were often arranged, or semi-arranged. They had nothing to do with love, but with a financial and status arrangement between the groom (and/or his family) and the bride's father. Yes, those marriages tended to last but not out of love, but simply because divorce was such a foreign concept for most people. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Helen & Bob wrote: > Lisa wrote: > > > > > > > As I've said before I dont have a problem with guns per se, my > husband owns > > two or three which when the time comes he will explain to the > children what > > they are, how to use them and all the safety aspects that go with > them etc.. > > What I do object to is the ease with which they are given out and > the lack > > of control over where they are kept. You and I are perfectly sane > (?) > > sensible people who have respect for the guns as well as the world > around > > us, unfortunately though the same cannot be said for the rest of the > world > > and until a better way is found of deciding who is fit and capable > to own a > > gun then I still say take them away. > > > > LISA > > and once the decision is reached as to who is fit and capable, do they > get to go > out and buy more? What if TPTB say that NO ONE is fit and capable > unless they > support TPTB? Your solution, though hearfelt, is a huge step towards > tyranny. > IMHO YMMV. > Bob Bob, your argument leads to the conclusion that all guns should in fact be banned. Since there is no good way to determine who is fit and capable, and since we agree (I believe that we do), that pistols should be kept out of the hand of certain unfit individuals (convicted felons, for example), the only fair thing to do is not allow anyone to have a pistol. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Silverhawk wrote: > >Can't you like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, depending > >on your mood at the moment? > > > >-Havoc > > But if after you've had your lunch, you're in the dessert line and you > > only have enough room in your stomach for one ice-cream, you'd have to > > choose either vanilla *or* chocolate. You couldn't have both > ice-creams (unless you wanted to spend the rest of the day feeling ill > > and/or throwing up down the toilet). > You might go for a scoop of each. Or if they ran out of chocolate, you might try the vanilla. Or you might normally prefer chocolate, but you'll take a high quality vanilla over a generic-brand chocolate. Or you might like vanilla during the summer and chocolate during the winter. I think for most people, they can find room for both flavors in their lives. Which is why I find both heterosexuality and homosexuality unnatural from an intellectual viewpoint. (I blame/credit my own heterosexuality on my socialization.) -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8ia5c3bi776@corp.supernews.com... > > Schools should act rationally. That's also why they should teach evolution > as opposed to creationism. Evolution is scientific fact, whether you like > it or not. Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. If > someone wants to teach their kids to believe in the tooth fairy, they are > free to do so. But don't make the school teach it. Let the school sticks > to facts and rational thinking. > Actually (just to butt in here) evolution is not fact. It is a theory. There is no fossil record evidence for or against it. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8ipa2sbi789@corp.supernews.com... > > I'm defining morality based on our respect for each other as human beings. > I divorce rate is quite irrelevant to morality. (Perhaps a higher divorce > rate actually shows a more moral society, as it demonstrates the empowerment > of women). > Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment and love seriously any more :( -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: "EvilBill[AGQx]" >> >Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. >> but I'm not sure I would call it love. Maybe I would say they are free to >carry >> their same baggage over into yet another doomed relationship in the >pursuit of >> the need to find somebody who will solve all their problems and guarantee >their >> happiness. Oops, next! >> > >Shammie, you do not give me much hope... are you saying that there is no >such thing as genuine lifelong love? *sniffle* Not at all! I'm saying that if you think that someone *else* is going to make you whole and complete, then you are setting yourself up for a big letdown. Understand this: you will attract someone who is on the same vibratory level as yourself. So I think the more you work on developing your own self-esteem and wholeness as a person, the more chance you have of attracting someone with a healthy self-esteem and the more chance you will have for a long-lasting, stable relationship, if that is what you want. Get rid of your neediness and watch your life open up for you.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: I have always advocated this. What you are talking about is the > difference between initiating force and retaliatory force. Initiating > > force (killing, raping, enslaving, stealing, restraining, threatening > to > do any of these) is always 100% wrong. However, once force has been > initiated against you, you have the right to protect your rights by > using > force if necessary. Laws exist for the sole purpose of defining > rights > violations and setting objective standards for the amount of > retaliation > allowed for any particular rights violation. > > As someone who works in criminal courts on a daily basis, I must point out that the lines aren't nearly as black and white as you would like them to be. In fact, based on your arguments, most of the violent crime that comes before my court wouldn't be criminal, as most of the violence is retaliotory in some way or another. (You get very few incidents of violence that are 100% unprovoked).

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: "havoc" snip love vs infatuation stuff >Agreed with everything you just said. (Including similar experiences... >that's what I get for being a Pisces). The "darling" of the zodiac! >But my point is that love is the same thing in 2000 that it was in 1950. Oh, you mean how the same neediness or lust draws people together in the name of love only to crash them down later when the tests of real life so rudely spoil all the fun? Or do you mean LOVE. Unconditional and everlasting, the wisdom of the universe revealed in the splendor of the night sky. ( sorry, that's what I get for being Aquarian). >>> As to a supposed shift in "lifetime >>>commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it seriously. >>I think it is. Personally, I don't take it seriously anymore. And I think >I'm >>the healthier for that attitude. >The reason you take it less seriously is because of your personal >experiences, not because it's 2000, instead of 1950. Well, I think the fact that it's 2000 *allows* me a much better time of it because of the experience of society as a whole over the last 50 years. I really don't think I could get away with my thinking if it were 1950. I'd be condemned and miserable. I'd be thinking of myself as a failure for not having held on to any one relationship. >Yes, you're absolutely correct. But again, compared to 1950, there is far >more opportunity to escape a bad marriage. (Though you are correct, many >still stay). Oh I see what you're saying. Yes, there are shelters for battered women now, for example, and it's not all so hush-hush anymore. Yay! Plus it's no longer an embarrassing "stigma" for men or women to have gone throught the big D. > it is a committment that is >>>based on love and not coercion >> >>Are you sure it's based on love, and not the security of familiarity >>outweighing the risk of the unknown? >Depends on the couple. I'm confident that for my grandparents, it is >probably based on both. (Just from seeing how they interact with each >other). They sound pretty cool! I bet they are very bonded after so many years. It's nice to hear about such mutual respect. >-Havoc >Hopeless Romantic. Well I was one of those once. I much prefer my attitude now, because I can be really close friends with a guy and appreciate the hell out of him and love him for the individual he is without in the least bit expecting anything from him.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:2iWw4.2821$za2.80179@nnrp3.clara.net... > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message > news:cEVw4.2194$yV1.511741@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:DQUw4.2702$za2.76933@nnrp3.clara.net... > > > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message... > > > > > > Would you killfile me, Captain? ::quivering lip:: > > > > > > Of course not, I know you'd always have a justifiable reason for flaming > > me! > > > ;) > > > > > > Wouldn't stop me flaming back, though. <eg> > > > > How could I flame such a generous Captain? [[[]]] > > > > Moi, generous? Methinks you're thinking of a different Captain <g> Nopers...::patting Captain Bill on the head::

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:sc8h98efbi786@corp.supernews.com... > Can't you like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, depending on your mood > at the moment? CHOCOLATE RULES!!!! ;-)

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl)


>From: "havoc" EB wrote: >Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment and >love seriously any more :( > >I disagree. Love is timeless. Well love in and of itself, yes. But love, what people think is love? ...is seriously flawed. I don't think most people have a clue as to what the difference is between love and infatuation, for starters. Ask me, I've been "in love" a dozen times already. And each one was "the one," the "soul mate," the "end of the line," my "twin soul," my "door to eternity," the one I would spend the "rest of my life with." Guess what? It's all bullshit! I'm not saying I wasn't seriously "in love." But I am saying that the idea of "timeless love" is more or less an illusion IF you mean it in the context of living happily ever after with your "one true mate." People just change and grow in different directions. I think the whole institution of marriage is in serious jeopardy for that very reason. Good luck if you can swing it, and more power to you. > As to a supposed shift in "lifetime >commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it seriously. I think it is. Personally, I don't take it seriously anymore. And I think I'm the healthier for that attitude. And no, I'm not jaded, I still absolutely adore men, crave their company and will no doubt be "in love" yet again! But I'm so through being shattered when it's over. >Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to stay in a >marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. That is so true. Those poor, conditioned, brain-washed folks. >(Surely it's not >moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband regularly beats >the wife). I don't think it's moral to preserve a marriage where the couple has lost respect for each other and don't even like each other anymore. Ew, I just shudder when I see couples bickering in public and putting each other down. What is *that*?! I get embarrassed for them. >Now, we are more secure as individuals, I question that. and our sense of freedom >is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad marriage. No, lots and lots of women are still forced to rely on it. Especially when kids are involved. >Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. Did you grow up in the sixties? I'm not mocking you, I swear I'm not. In fact I agree that ok, yes they have a freedom to get out and pursue *something* again, but I'm not sure I would call it love. Maybe I would say they are free to carry their same baggage over into yet another doomed relationship in the pursuit of the need to find somebody who will solve all their problems and guarantee their happiness. Oops, next! >For those >who do stay in a lifetime committment (my grandparents have been married for >67 years), it is so much more special, because it is a committment that is >based on love and not coercion Are you sure it's based on love, and not the security of familiarity outweighing the risk of the unknown?

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:S1Vw4.3065$DF2.774045@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > news:N_Uw4.4471$ad7.127518@news3.cableinet.net... > > > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:pVHw4.2330$DF2.627816@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > > > Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message > > > > news:2B19B854EC56804F.273773DF9E1779BE.04624C86FA8159B2@lp.airnews.net... > > > > On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:32:54 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" > > > > <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:xbkw4.1525$DF2.376914@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > >> > > > > >> Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > >> news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... > > > > >> > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Shammie wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >From: "Lisa > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > > > >> > > >> ;-) > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Amen!! > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why > > destroy > > > a > > > > >> > cool bad guy like that? > > > > >> > > > > >> And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD::: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >*whisks Ta' off into fluidic space* > > > > > > > > Lisa! And you call yourself a married woman! Dallying about in > > > > fluidic space with some other organism! For shaaaaaaaame! > > > > > > Hey, you leave her alone! > > > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > My hero <g> > > Hug? > > So long as its one of your special ones <g>

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: 8472 Rules! - (Ta'Teria <tateria@yahoo.com>)


Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message news:eL2x4.5151$ad7.142917@news3.cableinet.net... > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:S1Vw4.3065$DF2.774045@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > Lisa <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:N_Uw4.4471$ad7.127518@news3.cableinet.net... > > > > > > "Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > news:pVHw4.2330$DF2.627816@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > > > > > Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message > > > > > > news:2B19B854EC56804F.273773DF9E1779BE.04624C86FA8159B2@lp.airnews.net... > > > > > On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 08:32:54 -0000, "Lisa and Peter Dugmore" > > > > > <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Ta'Teria" <tateria@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:xbkw4.1525$DF2.376914@tw12.nn.bcandid.com... > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Steve Christianson <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > > >> news:38C1C66F.1C3D@yahoo.com... > > > > > >> > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Shammie wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >From: "Lisa > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> THE BORG WILL PREVAIL!!! > > > > > >> > > >> ;-) > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >Hah! Not over Species 8472 though!!!!!! > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Amen!! > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > 8472 was bumpin' until "In the Flesh." What a crappy ep. Why > > > destroy > > > > a > > > > > >> > cool bad guy like that? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> And with 8472 like Lisa... :::THUD::: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >*whisks Ta' off into fluidic space* > > > > > > > > > > Lisa! And you call yourself a married woman! Dallying about in > > > > > fluidic space with some other organism! For shaaaaaaaame! > > > > > > > > Hey, you leave her alone! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)) > > > > > > My hero <g> > > > > Hug? > > > > > > So long as its one of your special ones <g> [BO'lBH]

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Lisa and Peter Dugmore <lisa.dugmore@cableinet.co.uk>)


"Helen & Bob" <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C49A48.858DF723@ix.netcom.com... > > > Lisa wrote: > > > > > > > As I've said before I dont have a problem with guns per se, my husband owns > > two or three which when the time comes he will explain to the children what > > they are, how to use them and all the safety aspects that go with them etc.. > > What I do object to is the ease with which they are given out and the lack > > of control over where they are kept. You and I are perfectly sane (?) > > sensible people who have respect for the guns as well as the world around > > us, unfortunately though the same cannot be said for the rest of the world > > and until a better way is found of deciding who is fit and capable to own a > > gun then I still say take them away. > > > > LISA > > > and once the decision is reached as to who is fit and capable, do they get to go > out and buy more? What if TPTB say that NO ONE is fit and capable unless they > support TPTB? Your solution, though hearfelt, is a huge step towards tyranny. > IMHO YMMV. > Bob If they are fit and capable then there is no reason why they should not buy more, although if as you say people only want them for their own protection then one would surely be enough. Who exactly do you mean by TPTB? The Government, The Police? Why is control of something inherently dangerous in the wrong hands tyranny? If you dont agree with control over who buys them, then how would you feel about enforcing people to take courses designed to instruct them in the use and care of a weapon before issuing a licence ? Lisa

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: [OT] Prayer in School (was Re: :-() - (Wavemaker <wavemaker@my-deja.com>)


"Techlab Photo Rescue" wrote: > > And, trust me.. drawing in one of Rhonda's replies won't help your > cause.. most of us would give her a black eye just for spite, but then > most of us have her killfiled for being unreasonable and irritating. Don't count me in that group, dude.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Helen & Bob wrote in message <38C49D1E.8D840F55@ix.netcom.com>... > > >havoc wrote: > >> >> >> I honestly wish more pistol owners were like you. >> >> > I ALSO believe that the right to own a weapon is a basic tenet of >> > freedom. >> >> Here I disagree with your philosophy. Is there also a right to own a >> machine gun? > >Full auto weapons have been illegal (without a VERY strict federal license) >since 1934. The ONLY legally obtained full auto weapon used in a crime was >one owned by a police officer who went renegade. I do NOT, repeat, NOT >support general public ownership of full auto weapons, for many, many, many >reasons. >I do not own one. IF I had tons of money, I might have one. WHY, you may >ask. (go ahead, ask.) Because firing full auto weapons is fun. It is a >kick. What is NOT fun is cleaning the damn thing afterwards, it is a >hemorrhoid. Fun and joking aside ( and we were getting a bit heavy), I >agree with you re: full auto weapons. > >> How about a right to own a nuclear warhead in your >> basement? > >No. Because a error will really affect your neighbors. Now, if you can >pass the federal license test to have one, pass the FBI investigation into >your background, and can come up with the money to make your own, ( The govt >will not sell theirs), go ahead, you can have it. > >> Why does the right to own a weapon necessitate the right to >> own a gun? > >Because a gun makes two people equal. All the other weapons you mention >give the "big man" a definite advantage. > If ALL people carried around a small atomic device, then they would be equal as well. A gun is simply where you choose to draw the line. I tend to draw mine differently. (At a rifle, which can easily be used for home defense, but due to its size, is difficult to use in a crime).

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Laura Ware wrote: > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:R%Vv4.381$7F3.7622@nnrp4.clara.net... > > "Steve Christianson" <stevechristianson@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > > > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > I suspect your boys aren't atheists, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.... > > > > I agree... I suffered terribly at school because my religious beliefs were > > different to those of the other kids. Little bastards. > > And if my kids had been involved in making you suffer Bill they would have > been punished and made to apologize. Bullying is wrong. Period. How would you have known? Kids don't tell parents that they are being bullied, because they are ashamed that it happens. The think it THEIR OWN FAULT when they are bullied. Teachers don't notice unless it becomes a fight at recess. There are bullies because nobody knows they are bullies except the other children, who don't tell. Bob

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Helen & Bob wrote in message <38C49700.BA6CB77C@ix.netcom.com>... > > >Masked Man wrote: > >> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:23:01 -0500, "havoc" <havoc@ucs.net> wrote: >> >> |We're a far more tolerant nation >> |than we were. >> >> Masked Man----->Which, of course, explains why a US Senator would >> enter a resolution to censure Bob Jones University for its doctrinal >> beliefs....we are less tolerant, not more, in the ways that matter >> most... > >I see. We were more tolerant when we had JIM CROW laws, poll taxes, the >KKK marching down the street in Washington DC, segregation, Separate but >"equal" school systems, several states where it was illegal for a black >to marry a white, etc., etc., etc. We were more tolerant then, right? >That's what you just said. >I'm beginning to think you call yourself the "masked man" because you're >ashamed to show your face. > >Bob > <applause for Bob> I was considering voicing my curiousity as to whether the mask was a white hood. -Havoc

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Shammie wrote in message <20000306235718.03548.00000629@ng-cj1.aol.com>... >>From: "havoc" > >EB wrote: >>Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment >and >>love seriously any more :( >> > >>I disagree. Love is timeless. > >Well love in and of itself, yes. But love, what people think is love? ...is >seriously flawed. I don't think most people have a clue as to what the >difference is between love and infatuation, for starters. Ask me, I've been "in >love" a dozen times already. And each one was "the one," the "soul mate," the >"end of the line," my "twin soul," my "door to eternity," the one I would spend >the "rest of my life with." Guess what? It's all bullshit! I'm not saying I >wasn't seriously "in love." But I am saying that the idea of "timeless love" is >more or less an illusion IF you mean it in the context of living happily ever >after with your "one true mate." People just change and grow in different >directions. I think the whole institution of marriage is in serious jeopardy >for that very reason. Good luck if you can swing it, and more power to you. > Agreed with everything you just said. (Including similar experiences... that's what I get for being a Pisces). But my point is that love is the same thing in 2000 that it was in 1950. >> As to a supposed shift in "lifetime >>commitment".... I don't think it's a matter of not taking it seriously. > >I think it is. Personally, I don't take it seriously anymore. And I think I'm >the healthier for that attitude. And no, I'm not jaded, I still absolutely >adore men, crave their company and will no doubt be "in love" yet again! But >I'm so through being shattered when it's over. > The reason you take it less seriously is because of your personal experiences, not because it's 2000, instead of 1950. >>Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to stay in a >>marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. > >That is so true. Those poor, conditioned, brain-washed folks. > > >(Surely it's not >>moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband regularly beats >>the wife). > >I don't think it's moral to preserve a marriage where the couple has lost >respect for each other and don't even like each other anymore. Ew, I just >shudder when I see couples bickering in public and putting each other down. >What is *that*?! I get embarrassed for them. > >>Now, we are more secure as individuals, > >I question that. > > and our sense of freedom >>is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad marriage. > >No, lots and lots of women are still forced to rely on it. Especially when kids >are involved. > Yes, you're absolutely correct. But again, compared to 1950, there is far more opportunity to escape a bad marriage. (Though you are correct, many still stay). >>Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. > >Did you grow up in the sixties? I'm not mocking you, I swear I'm not. In fact I >agree that ok, yes they have a freedom to get out and pursue *something* again, >but I'm not sure I would call it love. Maybe I would say they are free to carry >their same baggage over into yet another doomed relationship in the pursuit of >the need to find somebody who will solve all their problems and guarantee their >happiness. Oops, next! > I was just feeling cheesy when I wrote the post :) I'm a product of the 70's and 80's. >>For those >>who do stay in a lifetime committment (my grandparents have been married for >>67 years), it is so much more special, because it is a committment that is >>based on love and not coercion > >Are you sure it's based on love, and not the security of familiarity >outweighing the risk of the unknown? > Depends on the couple. I'm confident that for my grandparents, it is probably based on both. (Just from seeing how they interact with each other). -Havoc Hopeless Romantic.

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (Silverhawk <analog-kid@eidosnet.co.uk>)


>>Bi-sexuality is a concept too far removed from my own >>mental/emotional setup for me to get my head round. > >Masked Man----->The one that baffles me is bi-females, who find >male homosexuality repulsive. There is something here I just >dont get.... <nods> That's pretty confusing too. Silverhawk -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-07 00:00:00 - Re: Flame bait (was "Re: :-(") - (Silverhawk <analog-kid@eidosnet.co.uk>)


>Can't you like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, depending >on your mood at the moment? > >-Havoc But if after you've had your lunch, you're in the dessert line and you only have enough room in your stomach for one ice-cream, you'd have to choose either vanilla *or* chocolate. You couldn't have both ice-creams (unless you wanted to spend the rest of the day feeling ill and/or throwing up down the toilet). Silverhawk -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: Evil Bill: Tuvok wannabe? (was: Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-() - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message... > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:nHvx4.3773$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > > > > Only on this NG could a thread about gun control turn into a thread on > > religion that then turns into yet another thread on the existence or > > otherwise of true love! <g> > > Hey, we're a talented bunch!! > Very true :) > > How many threads on this subject have there been here since I arrived? > <eg> > > Quick, someone, turn this into a thread anout Tuvok! <veg> > > As you wish, my leige..... > Whoa, I'm a king now? Coolness! <eg> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:wBsx4.5906$yV1.1619707@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:kRgx4.3594$7F3.77820@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > :-( > > The problem being, how can you ever be sure your partner loves you? :( > > By their actions, Bill. I know Don loves me. The support he has provided > me these past difficult weeks, the way he provides for me and the kids, his > patience when I am in what I call, "fed-up mode" - these are evidences. > Of course, if he REALLY wants to show he loves me, he'll buy me a laptop... > <eg> > I suspect plenty of people have said that... and then found out their partner's been screwing their best friend... <bitter cynic mode off> -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:vBsx4.5905$yV1.1619656@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:tLfx4.3514$7F3.76583@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > In other words, if someone assaults you or someone close to you, you could > > assault *them*, but you couldn't kill them unless they actually killed > > someone close to you? Interesting interpretation. > > It was why Jesus' teaching was so radical - he espoused not taking vengence > at all. > I believe in vengeance, as a matter of honour... -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:bBsx4.5896$yV1.1619205@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message news:Q9gx4.3557$7F3.76927@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > I haven't got a Bible to hand to check the one in Timothy, but I'll wager > my > > translation is different from your there, too. > > Out of curiousity, Bill, what translation are you using? > It's called the "New World Translation"... the translators went back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts rather than relying on the mediaeval Latin ones, so I suspect it's more accurate than most. -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk>)


"Silverhawk" <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:8a5kc9$p87 > > > > That's not the way I interpret "bound to it"... the way I see it, > > marriage should be taken as a serious commitment, and the > > excuse "oh, we're not in love anymore" is bull. If a couple aren't > > in love *now*, then they never were. Real love *is* lifelong, so > > the way I see it, marriage should *only* be entered into when a > > couple genuinely love each other. Does that make sense, or > > am I just rambling on? <g> > > Well how do they know when it's *real* love then? I can't see how > anyone would know that 100% for sure. Hasn't anyone been in love, > thought "this person is *the one*", only to have things not work out? > And it's pointless you saying "oh in that case you never were in > love", because you think you are at the time. > You can *think* you're in love, without actually *being* in love... remember the teenage crushes? You think you're madly in love with someone, but three weeks later you wonder what the hell you saw in them. > Everyone changes as they go through life, so I think it would be > possible to fall *out* of love with people as a result of those > changes whether they've happened within you or your partner. > Really loving someone is different from being "in love", though... > Is anyone getting this? (you see what I mean, EB - no-one *ever* > agrees with what I have to say... you included). > Like I said on ICQ, that doesn't matter, as long as they respect your opinion, and your right to express it :) -- Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: 37464244 Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Wavemaker <wavemaker@my-deja.com>)


"D�sir�e Davis" wrote: > > > > > Metaphysics by Aristotle is a good place to start. Then read: > > > anything by Thomas Aquinas <snip> > I can & will reject out of hand any philosopher who does not accept the > primacy of existence (Kirkagaard excepted, but then he is more of > theologian than philosopher). Kant is the biggest exponent of primacy of > consciousness around and is thus rightly dismissed. Ok, D�sir�e, you've got to read Mortimer Adler. You would LOVE him! I suggest you read "How to think about God" and "Ten Philosophical Mistakes." Those books are like bibles to me in a way.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Masked Man" <kemosabe@skyenet.net> wrote in message news:38cdd198.4819889@news.mindspring.com... > Masked Man------>The timeframe serves as an example for us of our own > work week. Six days wilt thou labor; on the seventh day thou shalt > rest....just like God. Six days of labor? I can barely make it through 5!

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <sc2ec7m3ee678@corp.supernews.com>, havoc@ucs.net says... > Since we're now just going in circles, I will snip most of the post, not out > of malice, but just to try to wind this down. Sorry for the delay on this reply. I has spent about an hour & a half over he weekend composing a response when a power surge caused by the thunderstorm crashed my computer. It's taken a few days to not be upset about having to rewrite it all. > > D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > > <snip> > > Obviously, you're babbling without reading my arguments. I'm talking about > regulating possession, not banning ownership. There's a difference? If I own something, I possess it. If I own something, I have the right to possess it where ever I want. If I possess something without owning it, then I have stolen it from the rightful owner and that is already illegal. > > Secondly, you obviously don't understand the concept of "but for" causation. Of course I do. I also understand that it is a logical fallacy that carries no weight in a rational argument. To prove causation, you must show that the action had no other possible results then what did happen. To prove a rights violation, you must prove that a person, of their own free will took that action. Let's examine a gun shot victim: result: death. cause: a bullet damaging the body beyond it's ability to function. No other result but death is possible from this cause, so we move on. result: a bullet damaging the body beyond it's ability to function. cause: a bullet entered the body. This action has more than one possible result, so we can say that the cause of death was a bullet damaging the body beyond its ability to function as opposed to just "a bullet entered the body". However, no human action is involved yet, so to determine if this is a rights violation, we continue. result: a bullet entered the body cause a bullet was fired by a person, at the body. Here we have the first appearance of human action in determining causation. Even though this cause has other possible results (the person could miss for example, or the person shot could have a bullet proof vest) we can determine the cause of death (in regards to human action) to be that a person shot at the body since this is the first volitional act in the chain. No further causation is required. If we were to continue, we get this: Result: A bullet was fired Cause: a Trigger was pulled Cause: A gun was aimed cause: a gun was drawn cause: the person obtained a gun cause: the person became a police officer cause: the person went to the police academy cause: the person wanted to be a cop cause: the person has desires cause: the person was born cause: the person's mother & father had sex cause: the person's mother & father wanted to cause: the person's mother & father were born etc. Using "but for" causation I could say but for the shooter's parents being born, the victim would be alive and that would be a true logical statement. You wish to stop at "the person was issued a gun" and claim causation lies here despite that being no more logical a claim than saying the cause is sex or the existence of cops. To prove causation, no other possible outcome can result from the action said to be the cause. To proving owning a gun causes death, you must prove that no other result but death can result from gun ownership. That is, there must be a death directly associated with every instance of gun ownership. Have fun. <snip> > ...The government has a > legitimate interest in regulating the safety of both public and private > swimming pools. Just as the government has a legitimate interest in > monitoring the safety of restaurants, etc. Protection of the public has > always been, since the begin of civilzation, a legitimate government > function. The government does *not* have a legitimate interest in monitoring private property. Legitimate government functions are police for apprehending criminals, courts for trying and punishing criminals, and military to protect from foreign invasion. No other function is "legitimate" since it would require the violation of individual rights. Besides, you're wrong. Early civilizations were either Republican, based on non-rights violating law or dictatorial. In neither case was private safety much of a concern. In America, such laws have only come into being since the end of the industrial revolution at the beginning of the century. <snip> > Are you saying that an accidental death isn't a death? Of course not, but it's not a rights violation either. > Are you suggesting > that the government can only attempt to prevent intentional murders, but not > accidental killings?? Do you mean "accidental deaths"? There is no such thing as "accidental killing" "Killing" is a volitional act that requires a conscious mind to perform. "Accidental" means that the result wasn't intended and the action not volitional. I guarantee you, every so called "accidental shooting" was anything but. I could provide you with at least one rights violation somewhere in the chain, which would have nothing to do with mere ownership. > > > "rights" only apply to your own action. You are trying > >to dictate the action of others. > > So are you, but I admit I'm doing so. I am only saying what you *can't* do to other people- you can't kill them, harm them, enslave them, rape them or rob them. I am not telling anyone what they can do. <snip> > >Not inconsistent at all. The right to liberty does not include the right > >to violate rights. > But by your interpretation, the right to ownership trumps my right to life. > (Go ask any victim of an accidental shooting whether their right to life was > infringed by the possession of pistols). Review the rules of causation again. Ownership and life do not conflict thus neither "trumps" the other. Both exist simultaneously. Ownership does not *cause* death thus possession doesn't infringe on life. > > I know... I know what you're going to say. They're lives were taken by the > act of shooting, not by the pistol. But guess what: Shooting a person is > already illegal, yet these individuals still died!!! I know you're willing > to just shrug your shoulders and say that right to life doesn't include the > right to try to make the world a safer place. If someone dies in an > accidental shooting, oh well.... tough luck. If I decide to store a nuclear > reactor in my house and the entire neighborhood dies from the radiation, oh > well, tough luck. I am not willing to permanently sacrifice freedom for potential safety. This is a road that leads inevitable to dictatorship and Fascism. It leads to the government dictating what you can do with your own property and your own life on the presumption that the government knows best. That the government is the guardian of your welfare and the ruler of your actions. It leads to a society where people are only allowed to do that which the government specifically allows. <snip> > > But you've engaged in a balancing. The smoke still affects the neighbor's > property, even when the neighbor isn't outside, yet you concluded he could > b-b-q at such times. Why? Because you concluded that the effect on the > neighbor and his property was minimal at that time. Meanwhile, you > concluded that a person shouldn't be totally banned from b-b-qing on her own > property, just because it creates smoke. You engaged in a balancing, > whether you admit it or not. Neither person's rights have been infringed. If the neighbor doesn't want smoke in his yard ever, the effect on the owner of the BBQ may be that he can't use it unless he devises a method of preventing the smoke from traveling there. (Sounds like a job for an inventor- that's how progress happens) but he still can use it. You may call this bargaining or balancing or whatever you want, but no one's rights were ever violated in this scenario so it isn't the same as banning ownership of guns which is a clear rights violation. The comparison here would be: you are allowed to own a gun, just don't send any bullets my way. <snip> > >Sorry, this simply isn't true. Only conscious action by an individual > >with free will operating under his own volition can violate rights. > >Objects cannot violate rights. A hurricane is not violating your right > >to life. > A hurricane is an act of nature. If the government could regulate > hurricanes, I'd be all for it. What you really mean is if government could *control* hurricanes. To regulate it would mean to allow it some action but not others as if it had a choice. If it had volition, it would have rights, and thus a hurricane that killed you would be guilty of violating your rights with or without government regulations. <snip> > But if someone decides to carry around a container of the ebola virus on a > NYC subway, and it infects thousands of people as a result, their rights > have indeed been violated. Thus, a balancing of rights would be > appropriate: A law against carry ebola virus in open containers in public. A law against carrying an open ebola container in public would be OK because there is only one possible result from such an action- death. Ownership of the ebola virus isn't what caused the death, opening the lid in public was. By the same token shooting at someone is illegal, opening a jar of ebola is illegal. <snip> > OK.... So your saying that laws that prevent smoke from getting into your > lungs are appropriate? OK, well, I want laws that prevent bullets from > getting into my lungs or those of any other innocent person. Ok, how's this: just as you are allowed to smoke as long as you prevent the smoke from getting into anybody's lungs, you are allowed to carry a gun as long as you don't shoot anyone. > > Soooo...... It should be illegal to possess a pistol in a public place, Why? Do *all* pistols carried in public places cause death? No and > it should be illegal to possess or store a pistol within one thousand yards > of a child. Do children die by coming within 1000 feet of gun? Unless the gun is radioactive, I don't think so. <snip> > >> In most of Europe, even the police officers don't carry pistols. Diallo > >> would still be alive if he was in such a place.... so why don't you tell > >> Diallo how wonderful the world is with a proliferation of pistols? > > > >I have mentioned that I am not familiar with this case, so I can't really > >comment. I get the impression however, that this was someone shot by the > >police, yes? What were the circumstances? > > > I've repeated the circumstances several times. Further, it's been all over > the national news. It is a demonstration of your "head buried in the sand" > philosophy that attempts to ignore real-life consequences. For this I demand an apology. You have no idea what my work or home schedule is like. I do not generally watch the news because TV news is all sensationalism. That you immediately take my lack of knowledge one one particular sensationalized case out of the dozens that appear every week as some sort of moral failure on my part is uncalled for and insulting. > > Diallo was at the front steps of his home, when he was stopped by the > police. He had not engaged in any illegal activity. He pulled out his > wallet to show id. It was night time, police mistook the wallet for a gun > and shot Mr. Diallo. They fired 41 bullets, striking Mr. Diallo 19 times > and killing him. > > This would not have happened in any country with tight restrictions on > firearms. No, it wouldn't have happened if the police hadn't shot him. See, my version is much simpler, and much closer to the actual event. Using your logic I could say "This never would have happen had Mr. Diallo never been born" a statement no more or less valid than yours. "Stop gun violence by banning guns" has as much a logical, rational basis as "saying "stop gun violence by preventing babies" That is to say, both are valid statements that bring about the desired conclusion and both have the same amount of valid logic attached to them. You can only choose one over the other in a completely arbitrary manner. > It was unjust. Everyone agrees it was unjust. But a Jury found it wasn't > the fault of the police officers. They reasonably believed they were in > danger (that's a question of fact resolved by the jury). So his "right to > life" was violated... but not by the police. It was an accident. An > accident that would not have occurred but for the proliferation of guns in > America. > > So tell me..... According to you.... Mr. Diallo's death was an unavoidable > part of a living in a moral society? Sounds like a pretty immoral society > to me, where such "accidental" deaths are routine. As I said before, I do not believe his death was accidental. Based on what little I have gathered, the police over reacted even if he had a gun and was a vicious felon. That the jury let them get away with it is a fault of the court system that allows such use of force, not gun laws. <snip> > You previously stated that it's ok to prohibit possession of a lit cigarette > in public. Sounds like you're contradicting yourself, yet again. I said no such thing. I said it's OK to prohibit cigarette smoke from going into someone else's lungs. If the effect of this is that people don't smoke in public, fine, but it is not a ban on smoking. If an invention existed that stored the smoke for later disposal, then smoking in public would be fine. > > That's the problem with almost any extremist position..... As you attempt > to actually implement such extremism, you find yourself forcing square pegs > into round holes and contradicting yourself. I have never contradicted myself. You find contradictions because you are not reading what I am writing. > > > > >> >Pointing a gun at someone poses a grave danger. Legislatures can ban > the > >> >pointing of guns at people without violating any rights at all, > >> > >> But banning the guns will save more lives than doing it your way. And > you > >> did say that the right to life was primary. > > > >I will concede that it will save more lives, but only by violating > >rights. You argue that safety trumps rights. I disagree. Rights are > >involitile. They exist because man exists. Rights can neither be given > >nor taken away by anyone or any government. Thus rights trump anything > >else. > > > Rights are fluid and need to balance. You've said it yourself, even if you > refuse to admit it. Example, you've mentioned retaliatory rights. > Normally, an individual has a right to life. Yet, you've also stated that > the government can punish an individual utilizing the death penalty. So > apparently, you do believe that the right to life can indeed be forfeited > (taken away). > > Yet another of your contradictions. You fail to recognize the difference between initiating force and retaliatory force. If you initiate force against me, I can use force to resist. Lethal force if that is what is required. The government has the same rights as the individual (in fact, the government has *only* those rights that are possessed by the individual). Government determines what the appropriate amount of retaliatory force is for any particular violation. The use of retaliatory force does not violate the person's rights, because it was the person himself who gave up his rights upon committing a rights violation. That is, you can't kill someone and then claim the right to life for yourself. Your action of killing shows that you have rejected the right to life for everybody, including yourself. <snip> > >> >Show me how mere ownership (not use) infringes on any right. If I own a > >> >gun and never use it, I have not infringed on any rights at all and you > >> >cannot claim otherwise. > >> > >> A. You have contributed to the proliferation of guns which is what > caused > >> the death of Diallo. > > > >The death of Diallo was cause by the *action* of a person pulling a > >trigger, not by owning a gun. > > > > We can only prohibit intentional acts... Wouldn't you agree? Accidents > can't be effectively prohibited, since accident occurs without any intent. > Thus, in the Diallo shooting, the intentional act that could have been > prevented in the possession of firearms. No, the intentional act was the pulling of the trigger. You have to go with the intentional act that directly caused the result. Not one further own the chain otherwise we are back to preventing the intentional act of having children who may grow up to be gun owners or perhaps removing trigger fingers to prevent the firing of guns. > > >> B. Your pistol could get stolen and then used against me, even if *you* > >> never use the pistol. > > > >The rights violation against you is made by the person pointing the gun > >at you, not by ownership of the gun to begin with. > > > But I'm still dead because you possessed a pistol. No, you are dead because the thief shot you. Or, by your logic, you are dead because the thief grew up in a poor community and needed money to buy drugs, so what we really should do is ban being poor. <snip> > > How's that as the compromise. I'll support your ownership of a pistol. But > if your pistol ever kills anyone due to your negligence, then you have to be > put to death. Pistols don't kill people, so since it's rather unlikely my pistol will ever gains sentience and act on it's own, sure. Until then, the only person responsible for a gun being fired is the person pulling the trigger. And I will not take responsibility for the actions of another person. <snip> > >> There you go... 4 ways in which your possession of a pistol could > infringe > >> upon the right to life, even if you do nothing wrong. Not quite. What I asked you to prove was how owning a gun causes death. That is I point to a gun and say "I own that gun" and as a result, you drop dead with no other action on my part (or anyone else's). Since you haven't done that, the only conclusion that can be drawn is ownership of guns does not cause death. > > > >Key word being "could" Lots of things "could" be a rights violation. > >But the proper use of retaliatory force (which confiscating a gun would > >be) is only allowed *after* an initiation of force. Basically, you can't > >justly take my gun until I actually point it at you. (You can't > >implement punishment before the crime) > >> > > Oh wow...... I'm dead, but I should rest in peace knowing that your pistol > has finally been taken away. Sure, that's fair. So you believe we should arrest, try & convict people for crimes they might commit? By taking away a rightfully owned gun, that is what you are doing. You are enacting punishment (confiscation of property) without a crime to punish. <snip> > The government owns public roads. So the government, as the owner of the > roads, can require seatbelts. (You just said so yourself). By the exact > same reasoning, the government can prohibit the possession of pistols on > public roads and on government property. Such a prohibition would > effectively eliminate pistols, since you wouldn't be able to take it > anywhere without utilizing government roads. (How would you take it home > from the gun shop?) Aside from the unjustness of such a "safety" requirement (a gun in the gun is not a safety issue in the same way a seat belt is), people would simply use private roads or carry it over private property. Ultimately, what this seemingly endless argument has been about is you attributing to inanimatee guns, the actions of the people who use them. You say "blame the guns" and as punishment ban them. I say "blame the gun user" and as punishment lock him up. People can act without guns. Guns can't act without people. > >D���sir���e- who has no children to get shot > - Havoc- thank goodness <g> Because I can't. Jokes are fun, but be careful. D���sir���e- finally at the end

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38C6D46E.36B25CE3@ucs.net>, havoc@ucs.net says... > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > > In article <38C57B9A.AEB413E8@ucs.net>, havoc@ucs.net says... > > > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > > > > > > principles exist. But I will give a somewhat random sampling of > > my > > > > home > > > > library: > > > > > > > > Metaphysics by Aristotle is a good place to start. Then read: > > > > anything by Thomas Aquinas > > > > Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkagaard > > > > Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche > > > > John Locke's Second Treatsie of Civil Government > > > > > > I knew I sensed a strong influence of Locke. > > > > I like Locke, but he is far from perfect. > > > > > > > Common Sense from Thomas Paine > > > > Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand > > > > > > > > (the non-rational philosophers like Hume & Kant have been ignored > > > > although they too, based their philosophies on principles) > > > > > > > > > > I recommend you give Kant a second look. Also take a look at John > > > Stuart Mill and don't forget Rawls. > > > > > > > > I can & will reject out of hand any philosopher who does not accept > > the > > primacy of existence (Kirkagaard excepted, but then he is more of > > theologian than philosopher). Kant is the biggest exponent of primacy > > of > > consciousness around and is thus rightly dismissed. > > > > D���sir���e- existence exists > > So perhaps before you dismiss people who disagree with you as > ignorant of philosophy, you should recognize that they might simply > prefer different philosophers, that you so abruptly dismiss, though they > are well respected in most philosophical circles. > > Havoc > Who Can Trade Rhetoric with the Best of Them. > If one person is starting from a primacy of consciousness position, then it is impossible for me to have a rational discussion with them. It's like trying to run MacOS on an IBM. D���sir���e- how about trading facts? f o o d f o r b o t h u n g r y f r I g g I n b o t

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:8a5kc9$p87$1@quince.news.easynet.net... > >> > Agreed. People don't take their words seriously. They > >> > mouth them at the ceremony but figure they aren't bound to > >> > them. > >> > >> If they were absolutely bound to them, *no-one* would get > >> married. Who's to say how you'll feel about your partner 10, > >> 20, 40 years down the line? Having a rule saying you're only > >> allowed to get married once and it *has* to last for the rest of > >> your life would put enormous pressure on the whole institution > >> and would probably result in the concept of marriage dying a > >> death. > >> > > > > That's not the way I interpret "bound to it"... the way I see it, > > marriage should be taken as a serious commitment, and the > > excuse "oh, we're not in love anymore" is bull. If a couple aren't > > in love *now*, then they never were. Real love *is* lifelong, so > > the way I see it, marriage should *only* be entered into when a > > couple genuinely love each other. Does that make sense, or > > am I just rambling on? <g> > > Well how do they know when it's *real* love then? I can't see how > anyone would know that 100% for sure. Hasn't anyone been in love, > thought "this person is *the one*", only to have things not work out? > And it's pointless you saying "oh in that case you never were in > love", because you think you are at the time. > > Everyone changes as they go through life, so I think it would be > possible to fall *out* of love with people as a result of those > changes whether they've happened within you or your partner. > > Is anyone getting this? (you see what I mean, EB - no-one *ever* > agrees with what I have to say... you included). Whoa - wait a sec. I agree partially here. You can fall out of love with a person, but if BOTH partners are committed and have a deep love for each other - you can withstand and survive changes. It generally only fails when it doesn't involve a committment from BOTH parties involved. If you are both willing to ride with the changes, then your love only deepens. > > > Silverhawk > -- > "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams." > A close friend of mine wrote a very nice Trek fanfic based on that above quote. She titled it, "Dreamers and Music Makers." Micaela

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:fgBx4.4099$7F3.89459@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message > news:bBsx4.5896$yV1.1619205@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:Q9gx4.3557$7F3.76927@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > I haven't got a Bible to hand to check the one in Timothy, but I'll > wager > > my > > > translation is different from your there, too. > > > > Out of curiousity, Bill, what translation are you using? > > > > It's called the "New World Translation"... the translators went back to the > original Greek and Hebrew texts rather than relying on the mediaeval Latin > ones, so I suspect it's more accurate than most. You are correct on that one Bill. No offense to the traditional Bible of the South (KJV) - but that one IS a version - the name says so. The New World Translation was done from the original or as close to original manuscripts as possible, preserving the original context and meanings of the scriptures along with making them easy to understand in a modern language. If it helps, here is the verse from Timothy quoted directly from the NW Translation - 1 Tim. 1:9, 10: (vs 9) in the knowledge of this fact, the law is promulgated, not for an unrighteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, lacking loving-kindness, and profane, murderers of fathers and murders of mothers, manslayers, (vs 10) fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching > Not wanting to step into a religious debate - but I just thought I would help you out there, EB. Mic > -- > Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile." > EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/; ICQ number: > 37464244 > Remove KILL-THE-SPAM from my email address to respond. > Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950 > >

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Masked Man wrote: > On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:50:12 -0800, Helen & Bob > <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > |I am sure that the Tuskeegee airmen fought and died so that Bob Jones University > |could practice bigotry. Yep, I'm real sure of that. > > Masked Man---->Of course not, but the point at which we disagree is > not why the Tuskegee airmen died, but whether Bob Jones University > practices bigotry.... > Who was that masked man? If banning mixed race dating is not bigotry, what, pray tell, is it? Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Laura Ware wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C56A47.5F399247@ucs.net... > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > Then explain the number of divorces that are "no-fault" or > > > "irreconciable > > > differences." > > > > > > > Very easily. Until recently, in most states, you weren't allowed to get > > a "no-fault" divorce. Now that you are allowed to get a "no-fault" > > divorce, it's become the preferred legal means. > > Which means there's no reason to work out difficulties.... > > > > > Quite the opposite. In prior generations, people felt coerced to > > > stay in > > > a > > > > marriage, no matter how horrible that marriage might be. (Surely > > > it's not > > > > moral to preserve a marriage, where for example, the husband > > > regularly > > > beats > > > > the wife). > > > > > > There are times marriages cannot stand - but surely you would agree > > > that > > > most divorces aren't taking place because of abuse or adultery! > > > > > > > Quite the opposite. Hopefully, the divorce occurs before the marriage > > deteriorates into abuse or adultery. > > Wouldn't it be better if it were fixed instead? > > > > >Now, we are more secure as individuals, and our sense of freedom > > > > is greater, that an individual isn't forced to rely on a bad > > > marriage. > > > > Instead, they have a freedom to get out and pursue love again. > > > > > > And they have no motivation to try to fix it. > > > > > > > That's bs. They have plenty of motivation to fix it. Divorce is still > > quite difficult. If they have kids, the kids are a powerful > > motivation. If they share property, then they have shared financial > > interests. They have the $30,000 they spent on a wedding as > > motivation. They have the high cost of lawyers for a divorce as another > > motivation for staying together. There are tons of motivations to work > > it out. > > Motivation for you, but these days it's almost as easy to change your mate > as to change your car. AH, unless the couple are agreed before the divorce, especially if there is $$$$$$ involved, the lawyers fees can be incredible. divorce is usually a financial disaster for both people involved. I have seen that in too damn many marriages. Luckily, my wife and I are still in love, and there's not enough to tempt the lawyers. Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > > SIlver, I'm taking them seriously, and so is my husband....believe me, I've > been putting him through some of "the worst" recently.. ;-) Actually, there is evidence that easier divorce laws have reduced the rate of spousal murder. Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (Bill Crawford <koichi@fastlane.net>)


On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:56:39 -0700, "Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net> wrote: > >"TheFlinx" <theFlinxx@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:8a4kaq$o82$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net... > >> Hey, who said it was cheap champagne, I spent over $4.95! > >Cold Duck, by any chance? Hey, as long as it's not Night Train... - Will, sticking with Jolt

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C6B608.DF7821B9@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:38C670FC.E87E48FD@ucs.net... > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > > > news:scbcdbmbi738@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > Masked Man wrote in message > > > > <38cf85f9.180436929@news.mindspring.com>... > > > > > >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > > > > > ><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >|Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality > > is > > > > wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > >Masked Man---->That much, at least, I can answer: > > > > > > > > > > > >Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with > > womankind: > > > > it > > > > > >[is] abomination. (KJV) > > > > > > > > > > > >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth > > with a > > > > > >woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall > > > > surely > > > > > >be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further proof that the world would *not* be more moral if we > > adhered > > > > > > > > > strictly to the bible. Laura... you don't believe that a > > homosexual > > > > > > > > should > > > > > be put to death??? > > > > > > > > Nope. I don't believe adulterers should be put to death either. > > But > > > > havoc, > > > > this is part of a law that is null and void for us today. We are > > > > under the > > > > New Covenant, not the Old! > > > > > > Speak for yourself. You are under the New Covernant, I'm > > technically > > > under the Old. And MM stated that the Old still applies to > > Christians > > > unless directly changed by the New. > > > > MM, in this case, is incorrect. :-) > > Well, according to two Reverands that I know, MM is essentially > correct. > > -Havoc Romans 10:4 - For Christ is the *END* of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness. > >

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Masked Man wrote: > On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:21:20 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > |Well, we can pretty much discount the Leviticus ones, since Jesus' > |commandments would supersede the ones God gave the Israelites. > > Masked Man---->It is commonly accepted hermeneutics that the Old > Testament is still binding on us today (for example, Thou shalt not > kill, etc.) unless specifically superseded by New Testament doctrine. > In my Bible, Christ never repudiated these words.... > > -- > > Who was that masked man? more current translations of the ancient writing translate that commandment as "Thou shalt not Murder". There is a world of difference between "kill" and "Murder" Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:aeBx4.4096$7F3.89010@nnrp4.clara.net... > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message > news:wBsx4.5906$yV1.1619707@tw11.nn.bcandid.com... > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:kRgx4.3594$7F3.77820@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > :-( > > > The problem being, how can you ever be sure your partner loves you? :( > > > > By their actions, Bill. I know Don loves me. The support he has provided > > me these past difficult weeks, the way he provides for me and the kids, > his > > patience when I am in what I call, "fed-up mode" - these are evidences. > > Of course, if he REALLY wants to show he loves me, he'll buy me a > laptop... > > <eg> > > > > I suspect plenty of people have said that... and then found out their > partner's been screwing their best friend... > <bitter cynic mode off> True. It happens, trust me. But you can still have the faith in love and be willing to risk your heart again. If you don't - you will know what might be out there.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote: > h. > > > > That's not the way I interpret "bound to it"... the way I see it, marriage > should be taken as a serious commitment, and the excuse "oh, we're not in > love anymore" is bull. If a couple aren't in love *now*, then they never > were. Real love *is* lifelong, so the way I see it, marriage should *only* > be entered into when a couple genuinely love each other. > Does that make sense, or am I just rambling on? <g> > The problem is recognizing what "True Love" is , especially when you are a youngster, and the hormones freely flow. I married at one month before I turned 31. This August, we celebrate our 33d anniversary. I also know NOW that when we got married, we only thought we were in love, and truly had no idea what it was. I think we are now beginning to understand. I cannot conceive of living with any other person than my wife. ( of course, sometimes, in an argument, I have different feelings, but they pass rapidly). Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:vHvx4.3784$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:xmhx4.3624$7F3.78385@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > I disagree - love is an emotion: quite simply, a deep, unselfish caring > > > about the happiness of another person. When that is *combined with* > > > infatuation and romance, you get "romantic" love - without the > infatuation > > > and romance, it's platonic love :) > > > > Yep! How did you get so wise? > > > > Me, wise? Nah, just opinionated. <g> Good opinion. :)

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:wHvx4.3785$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message > news:qarx4.380$Mm3.393765@feed.centuryinter.net... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:OQgx4.3593$7F3.77989@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > That's not the way I interpret "bound to it"... the way I see it, > marriage > > > should be taken as a serious commitment, and the excuse "oh, we're not > in > > > love anymore" is bull. If a couple aren't in love *now*, then they never > > > were. Real love *is* lifelong, so the way I see it, marriage should > *only* > > > be entered into when a couple genuinely love each other. > > > Does that make sense, or am I just rambling on? <g> > > > > No, you aren't rambling. That makes perfect sense. But again - it takes > > two to make things work and sometimes it only takes one to destroy it. > > > > true... but then, that obviously means that one partner doesn't really care > about the other and therefore shouldn't have married them in the first place > :( Yep. But you can't blame the other partner for that if THEY married with the best intentions at heart and did all they could to make things work. But it takes two.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"Mike. H." wrote: > "Techlab Photo Rescue" <Techlab@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message > > > > No criminal record, extensive training in firearms, firearm safety > > course, even weekly target practice at the range with many of the > > officers of this small town police force. Still, the best he would > > issue is a "Firearm Identification" card, since he had no choice in > > the matter. > > Dude sounds brain damaged. BTW, what exactly is a "Firearm Identification" > card, and what "privileges" does it offer? Second question: Where does this despotic Sheriff ply his trade, i.e., what town, state?? Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:yHvx4.3787$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message > news:G4rx4.378$Mm3.393528@feed.centuryinter.net... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:pp8x4.3164$7F3.69009@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > The problem being, that, because divorce has become easier, people feel > > free > > > to get married on a whim, rather than seriously saying, "This is the > > person > > > with whom I want to share my life". Sure, people should be able to get > out > > > of a bad marriage. But to marry and divorce just because it suits them > at > > > the time, as a lot of people seem to do these days, is something I find > > > quite repellent. > > > > I agree. Marriage is serious and should never be taken lightly. It is > > meant to be a lifelong commitment and it hurts when it doesn't turn out > that > > way. But it can and does happen. It is a brave person that can take the > > risks involved. > > > > I'm not sure I'd ever be able to take that risk... paranoia would always get > in the way... > Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:yHvx4.3788$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > message... > > > > > > Although it also demonstrates that people don't take lifetime commitment > > and > > > love seriously any more :( > > > > Some still do. > > > > Where? Where??? *looks around surprised* > <g> *whack* Plenty of people. Me for one.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:zHvx4.3789$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message > news:m3rx4.377$Mm3.393270@feed.centuryinter.net... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:kRgx4.3594$7F3.77820@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > :-( > > > The problem being, how can you ever be sure your partner loves you? :( > > > > You know, EB. You just know. Well not always. SOmetimes it takes > getting > > burned badly to know, but then ..... > > > > But can you ever *really* be sure? Without being a Vulcan or Betazoid, that > is... > There are NO guarantees in life. But it is something called having faith in another person. Yes, it doesn't always work out. It hurts like hades when it doesn't. But you can survive and move one without it jading you. Especially if you grow personally from the experience and become a stronger individual in the process.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C717C9.7DA52D82@ix.netcom.com... > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > > SIlver, I'm taking them seriously, and so is my husband....believe me, I've > > been putting him through some of "the worst" recently.. ;-) > > Actually, there is evidence that easier divorce laws have reduced the rate of > spousal murder. > Bob > Thank God....

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... >> >If one person is starting from a primacy of consciousness position, then >it is impossible for me to have a rational discussion with them. It's >like trying to run MacOS on an IBM. > Perhaps, but in this case, you're running DOS, while I've got the superior MacOS <g> By the way... if I don't understand causation, then you can blame me for the problems you perceive in the justice system. For I write the instructions that explain the concept of causation to juries. I won't challenge your film-making abilities, I ask that you respect my ability within my own profession :) -Havoc

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Most of your post is gibberish... so I will just reply to one point that says it all: D���sir���e Davis wrote in message ... > > >Ok, how's this: just as you are allowed to smoke as long as you prevent >the smoke from getting into anybody's lungs, you are allowed to carry a >gun as long as you don't shoot anyone. But if the smoker can't guarantee that smoke won't get into someone's lungs, then he can't smoke in public? He can only smoke in public if he is capable of preventing the smoke from getting in anybody's lungs. That is your position? By the exact same logic, possession of pistols must be prohibited. Since it is impossible to guarantee that bullets from that pistol might get into somebody's lungs. (Even without any intent by the legal owner/ possessor of the pistol bullets could get into someone's lungs). Just one more point I can't resist making... >> >> So tell me..... According to you.... Mr. Diallo's death was an unavoidable >> part of a living in a moral society? Sounds like a pretty immoral society >> to me, where such "accidental" deaths are routine. > >As I said before, I do not believe his death was accidental. Based on >what little I have gathered, the police over reacted even if he had a gun >and was a vicious felon. That the jury let them get away with it is a >fault of the court system that allows such use of force, not gun laws. > So in your world, there is no such thing as an accident. The Jury found that under the circumstances, the police reasonably feared for their lives and were justified by their use of force. Yes, they all agreed Mr. Diallo was innocent. But the police really and honestly thought they saw a gun. The Court system didn't fail, if those facts are indeed accurate. It was just a tragic accident. Your so-called philosophy discounts the possiblity of accidents. One more look at your smoking argument, just to prove that the logic I used to disprove yours was indeed accurate: >> You previously stated that it's ok to prohibit possession of a lit cigarette >> in public. Sounds like you're contradicting yourself, yet again. > >I said no such thing. I said it's OK to prohibit cigarette smoke from >going into someone else's lungs. If the effect of this is that people >don't smoke in public, fine, but it is not a ban on smoking. If an >invention existed that stored the smoke for later disposal, then smoking >in public would be fine. I'm not banning pistols. You may use them in the safety of a target range. As long as you don't carry them on the streets, where they might get fired accidentally. >> >> That's the problem with almost any extremist position..... As you attempt >> to actually implement such extremism, you find yourself forcing square pegs >> into round holes and contradicting yourself. > >I have never contradicted myself. You find contradictions because you >are not reading what I am writing. >> Now everyone can see the contradictions, as plain as night and day. One more: >> The government owns public roads. So the government, as the owner of the >> roads, can require seatbelts. (You just said so yourself). By the exact >> same reasoning, the government can prohibit the possession of pistols on >> public roads and on government property. Such a prohibition would >> effectively eliminate pistols, since you wouldn't be able to take it >> anywhere without utilizing government roads. (How would you take it home >> from the gun shop?) > >Aside from the unjustness of such a "safety" requirement (a gun in the >gun is not a safety issue in the same way a seat belt is), people would >simply use private roads or carry it over private property. > Yes, to me, and to the statistical evidence, the proliferation of guns is definitely a safety issue. Second, there just aren't enough private roads out there. I doubt you could get from point A to point B without crossing a public road at some point. And I doubt the NRA is going to buy out and maintain the entire road infrastructure, just to allow people to own pistols. Checkmate, Havoc

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"EvilBill[AGQx]" wrote: Bill, I just read 6 posts from you, all of them around 30 lines. All of them, each and every one, show that you sent them at about 1 second apart. How do you do that?? Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


Laura Ware wrote: > Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:38C67F08.98BF6796@ix.netcom.com... > > > > > > > > > > > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:GUcx4.4172 > > > > > > > > Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your roof). > > > > Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless > time > > > > travel got invented and I missed it. > > > > > > > Evolution cannot be tested, (and that's why its considered a Theory), but > > indications of it can and have been observed. Prime example is a moth in > > England that over a 100 years changed its color from white to black to > blend in > > with the black of the coal soot that was coating English trees and houses. > In > > the last 50 years, as England has cleaned up it heating, and the coal soot > is > > disappearing, the moth is turning back to its original color of white. > Now, > > that is not considered evolution, but rather adaptation. Adaptation is > part of > > but not the sum of evolution. > > > > Secondly, there is lots and lots of archeological evidence of larger > animals in > > the past (dinosaurs, etc.), which indicate evolution. IF there is no > evolution, > > and creationism is correct, then the Deity is a joker, planting false > evidence > > around the planet. Your choice. > > Or they didn't survive the flood. ::shrug:: Are you implying that Noah DIDN'T get two of every animal, as it says in the Bible? Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"Mike. H." wrote: > > > > Yeah .. it sucked. > > > > I moved on. > > Sounds good to me. That seems pretty restrictive. But then again, I live in > the Wild West. We don't like alot of laws out here. <g> Mike's not kidding. You still see open carry in Arizona. I saw it in Los Angeles as late as '53. Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com>)


"Mike. H." wrote: > > > > > Yeah .. it sucked. > > > > I moved on. > > Sounds good to me. That seems pretty restrictive. But then again, I live in > the Wild West. We don't like alot of laws out here. <g> To go just a little further on open carry, I used to open carry as late as 1972 in California. Night fishing, with my wife, I always had a .38 revolver on my hip. Had some discussions about fishing with local Deputies, while the pistol was on my hip. Nothing was ever said. (beyond discussing guns once in a while). Bob

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (TehTigre <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:mHvx4.3772$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "TehTigre" <TehTigreNOSPAM@centurytel.net.invalid> wrote in message > news:_rqx4.374$Mm3.390943@feed.centuryinter.net... > > > > EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in > > message news:RTfx4.3531$7F3.74480@nnrp4.clara.net... > > > > > > What I'd like to know is, how come the mother almost always gets > custody, > > > even though it's often she who has been unfaithful? (statistically, > women > > > are more likely to be unfaithful than men) > > > > In what country? Not the one I hail from .... > > > > In Britain. Well, that's what I heard, anyway. > > And when it is the mother that's been unfaithful, my point is, it's setting > a bad example for the kids if she gets custody... Hehe - I ain't touchin' THIS one. But I see your point and can agree.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: closing thoughts and prayer - (Robrey <robrey@mailbag.com>)


[snip] > > That said, I wish to share with everyone a Jewish prayer for the United > States of America. I don't condone prayer inside of schools, but this isn't > a school. And this prayer, for me, sums up much about how I feel about this > wonderful nation**********: > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ______ > Lord, G-d of our fathers, as we gather to pay homage to the founders and > builders of this, our country, we ask Thy blessing. With courage and > vision, they made of these United States a land of freedom and opportunity. > For all that they have so firmly established, we render thanks unto Thee. > "Our lines are fallen in pleasant places; yea, we have a goodly heritage." > > We are grateful for the faith that made fearless, and the courage that kept > firm these valiant men and women. Above all, we are grateful that the > spirit of Israel's Prophets so lived in their hearts that they knew all men > are created equal in Thy sight, by Thee endowed with the imperishable right > to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > > In tribute to the Founding Fathers of this blessed Republic, may we strive > to keep these United States forever righteous and just. May ours be a land > where none shall prey upon or exploit his fellowman, where bigotry and > violence shall not be tolerated, where poverty shall be abolished, and all > men live amicably as brothers. > > Vouchsafe unto us, O Lord, wisdom equal to our strength and courage equal to > our responsibilities, to the end that our nation may lead the world in the > advancement and fulfillment of human welfare. > > May all nations become aware of their common unity and all the peoples of > the world be united in the bonds of brotherhood. > > Amen. - "God of our fathers, known of old, Lord of our far-flung battle-line, Beneath whose awful Hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget-lest we forget! The tumult and the shouting dies; The captains and the kings depart: Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and a contrite heart. Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget-lest we forget! Far-called, our navies melt away; On dune and headland sinks the fire: Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget- lest we forget! If drunk with sight of power, we loose Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe, Such boastings as the Gentiles use, Or lesser breeds without the Law- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet, Lest we forget-lest we forget! For heathen heart that puts her trust In reeking tube and iron shard, All valiant dust that builds on dust, And guarding, calls not Thee to guard, For frantic boast and foolish word- Thy Mercy on thy People, Lord!" "RECESSIONAL" --Rudyard Kipling Politically Incorrectly, Robrey ...<g> Couldn't resist... :) -- "The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism, Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to communist policy; it is not a side effect but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly and just as openly put them to practice." --Alexander Solzhenitsyn

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Robrey <robrey@mailbag.com>)


havoc wrote: {snip] > > I have zero interest in preserving the religious history of this nation if > it means keeping this country a Christian nation. I'm not Christian, I have > no interest in ever being Christian, I don't want my children to learn > Christian, religious based principles or history. Are you saying that since > I'm not Christian, I should have less rights than you? I have zero interest in preserving the public schools of this nation if it means preserving socialist 'political correctness'. I'm not a socialist, I have no interest in ever being a socialist, I don't want my children to learn socialism, socialist based principles or Marxist "history" and the dialectic. Are you saying that since I'm not socialist, I should have less rights than you? Sardonically, Robrey -- "...The worst thing is that we live in a contaminated moral environment. We have fallen morally ill because we became used to saying one thing and thinking another. We have learned not to believe in anything, to ignore each other, to care only about ourselves. Notions such as love, friendship, compassion, humility or forgiveness have lost their depth and dimensions; for many of us they represent nothing more than psychological idiosyncrasies, or appear to be some kind of relic from times past, rather comical in the era of computers and spaceships. Only a few of us managed to cry out loud that the powers that be should not be all powerful....The previous regime, armed with its arrogant and intolerant ideology, reduced man to a means of production and nature to a tool of production. Thus it attacked both their very essence and their mutual relationship. It reduced gifted and autonomous people to nuts and bolts in some monstrously huge, noisy, and stinking machine, whose real purpose is not clear to anyone..." ---Vaclav Havel, Inaugural Address, 1 January, 1990

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Techlab Photo Rescue" <Techlab@photo-rescue.com> wrote in message news:38cbec52.528096806@news.erols.com... <snip> > I remember exactly, specifically and otherwise. The chief of police > told me that he would NEVER authorize a 'permit to carry ' under ANY > circumstances, and he was the ultimate authority on the matter. The > permit to carry licence was not a state issued permit, but a local > one. He didn't agree with the idea that a private citiczen would carry > a weapon, and he didn't even allow his own police officers to carry > weapons when off duty. > > Believe me, I checked it. He was the authority in this town, and his > decision was upheld. Ah, so this was a "concealed carry" permit. Sorry, I was thinking it was a standard gun permit. That makes a little more sense. Although, I still don't necessarily like that one man can unilaterally decide who gets guns and who doesn't. But, that is probably best left up to the state and local municipalities to decide for themselves. > >> And there was no appeal > >> process. Since I was going for a private investigator's licence, I had > >> to move to another town in order to apply for a permit to carry. > > > >I think I would have moved to another town just on principle alone. What you > >describe is ludicrous, IMNSHO. > > Perhaps it was ludicrous. (but there has never been a gun related > crime in that town for over 300 years.. so I can't dismiss it out of > hand..) I have to agree. > >BTW, what exactly is a "Firearm Identification" > >card, and what "privileges" does it offer? > > The "Firearms Identification Card' (FID) is a permit to buy certain > types of weapons.( In some states) (ie.. non handgun) It allows > you to purchase ammunition for certain kinds of weapons, allows you to > purchase certain types of guns (mostly rifles,. but some other stuff > like low yeild, low calibre stuff that you would feel comfortable > using to teach your kids how to shoot.. or keeping the dogs out of the > henhouse..) > > I'd say that it's a licence to buy a gun, as log as your mommy's apron > strings are still attached... > > Yeah .. it sucked. > > I moved on. Sounds good to me. That seems pretty restrictive. But then again, I live in the Wild West. We don't like alot of laws out here. <g>

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"Shammie" <shamtrek@aol.compizzagrl> wrote in message news:20000307194755.03549.00000789@ng-cj1.aol.com... > >From: "Mike. H." > > >I know what you mean. I fell in love at least 100 separate times this > >weekend. <g> > > Oh, you must have been in New Orleans, then, at the topless Mardi Gras. Actually, I was in Las Vegas. Soon to be known as the next Silicon(e) Valley. And to stray slightly. On the way North out of town I saw this billboard that stated in huge letters "Do you know who your child's father is?". It was some kind of advertising for a company that does type matching & DNA services. Only in Vegas. > >Wow, you're sexy when you make sense. <g> > > Are you trolling me? > *bonk* Who me? Never. <g> > >> But I'm so through being shattered when it's over. > > > ><swoon> Will you marry me? <g> > > No, let's just have wild sex, then you go home. <swiftly running to airport> > After snacks, of course... Spicy chicken wings with blue cheese? ::thud::

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - ("Mike. H." <mhantz@micron.net>)


"TheFlinx" <theFlinxx@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8a4kaq$o82$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net... > Hey, who said it was cheap champagne, I spent over $4.95! Cold Duck, by any chance?

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm too good a student of history. > > > > > > No - you have too jaded a view of the religious. > > > > The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, even the Holocaust. > > How did the Holocaust enter into this? As far as I know, Hitler was > not a > Christian! Yes, he was. And Germany was a Christian nation, as was Italy. Every single person who stood by and did nothing shares in the blame, not just Hitler. > As to the others, I have already agreed that people have used religion > to > their own ungodly ends. Do you say rational thought has never been > misused? > > <snip> > > > Am I jaded? Perhaps I am. But I'm jaded because of the historical > > facts. > > I wonder how you would react if you saw Christianity truly lived in > someone's life. You mean *your* version of Christianity, which you believe is the true version. Those who have murdered in the name of Christianity (Or in the name of Judaism, or in the name of Islam) also all thought they were practicing the true version. I've seen plenty of people who live very noble lives. Some were religious Christians (I never said Christians were automatically bad), some were religious Jews, some were non-Religious, some were agnostic, some were atheist. Further, I'm not too crazy about *your* version, since you've stated that your version doesn't include tolerance for homosexuals. -Havoc If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > > My comparison is more accurate. Would you object to a teacher > reading > > Playboy magazine while students are in the room? You see, you build > > > your argument on the assumption that the Bible (and the Koran, etc) > > aren't offensive or objectionable materials. But to many people, a > > Bible might be just as offensive as a Playboy magazine. > > Bible as offensive as a Playboy mag????? That's a new one. Yup, to many people. Myself included. You just assumed that since you love the Bible, nobody else could have a problem with it. Fact is, the Bible can be quite offensive to many people. > Besides, a good reason not to have a Playboy mag in school would be > the age > factor - underage kids aren't supposed to have access to it. > I didn't say anything about giving kids access to it. Just like you said in your argument for the Bible. The teacher reads it at his desk, where the kids can't see anything other than the cover. > >So, both > > Playboy and the Bible are reading materials that might be offensive > to > > some people. And both are Constitutionally protected reading > > materials. I would treat them both the same way, in this respect. > > > > > > > -- You would deny (I suspect) the right of free speech to a > > > student > > > > > who > > > > > wanted to include religious matter or a prayer in their > valdictory > > > > > > > > speech. > > > > > > > > Fairly correct. The student would not have the right to preach > > > religion > > > > as part of a school event. (OTOH... I'm not going to give a kid > > > > > detention for a passing statement about their faith in G-d, etc, > > > > etc. > > > > > > But is that not a stifling of free speech? > > > > > > > No, the student's free speech is preserved. He can say whatever he > > wants, just not on the school grounds. The Freedom of Speech was > never > > meant as an absolute. > > Graduations are not always held on school grounds, though. > But regardless where they are held, they are school sponsored events. > > Yes, I do realize we are not going to come to agreement on this > point. > > I do hope I've made you think (as you've made me), and re-examine > your > > beliefs. Ask yourself, if we know that the Bible isn't perfect, > what is > > the reason for condemning homosexuality? Is there any good reason? > > Your assumption is flawed. I don't "know" the Bible is imperfect. > So you believe we should have slavery? You believe we should execute homosexuals? You don't have to reply to these rhetorical questions. But I will note you have still not provided a single reason to support condemnation of homosexuality. If the Bible said that you should execute your first born, would you do it? Of course not. Well, the condemnation of homosexuality is the same thing, unless you can think of one good reason for it. > > > > > > > > As a civilized people, we are capable of using our intellects to > > > > decide > > > > what is or isn't wrong. If we relied on the bible, we would > still > > > have > > > > slavery. > > > > > > Not so! I and a number of people rely on the Bible, and if you > don't > > > count > > > what my kids claim I put them through, I don't have slaves. ;-) > > > > > > > Obviously, you don't rely *exclusively* on a literal reading of > > everything in the Bible, or else we would still have slavery. > > Not exactly. I STUDY the Bible, rather than just read it, taking > context > and audience and time and what it says in other places into account. > Whoa... One moment every word in the Bible is the gospel truth. Now, you are relying on only studying the bible. OK, in your studies of the bible, what is the *reason* for condemning homosexuality? > <snipping some of this because it is getting HUGE> > > > Again, we do. In one of its moments of wisdom, our Constitution has > > > something called "Equal protection." Essentially, it means that all > > > people should be treated equally, unless there is a rational basis > for > > doing otherwise. For example, there is a rational basis for > treating > > someone convicted of murder differently than an innocent person. > But > > there is no rational basis for treating a white person differently > from > > a black person in military service, for example. > > But not everyone...how shall I put this.....agrees on what is > rational. > Agreed, there is room for some difference. Yet, you haven't stated *any* rational basis for the condemnation of homosexuality. While, there is some room for difference on what makes a *good* reason. You haven't offered anything that even comes close to a good reason. The only reason you've given is, "The Bible says so." It's like the old... "If the Bible told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" > <More snips> > > > > > > > Here is our big difference of opinion. > > Actually, we have a number of big ones.. ;-) > > >Homosexuality is OK!! > > > There > > > > > is NO > > > > > > rational basis for saying that it's immoral. > > > > > > > > > > God says it is - that's rational enough for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a matter of faith. Not a matter of reason. According to > > > > many > > > > Christians 200 years ago, G-d said slavery was ok. According to > > > > many, > > > > G-d says racial bigotry is ok. > > > > > > > > But you just admitted that your intolerance of homosexuality is > > > based > > > > solely and exclusively on your -religious faith-. Therefore, it > has > > > NO > > > > place in our schools. > > > > > > > > > >It isn't any less right than > > > > > > heterosexuality. I'd love to see ONE rational argument for > > > saying > > > > > that > > > > > > homosexuality is wrong. I've NEVER seen such an argument. > > > > > > > > > > But then is your "god" rationality? > > > > > > > > By definition, G-d is supernatural, not rational. It's one of > the > > > > reasons that I reject many of the supposed teachings of > religion. > > > > > > Everyone has something that they rely and lean on, something that > sets > > > their > > > life course. What is yours, havoc? > > > > > > > My intelligence, given to me by G-d, developed by my parents and my > > education. > > Let me ask this another way. What in your life fills the role that my > faith > fills for me? > My life is quite full. Filled with love, family, friends, career, and even faith. So I don't understand your question. If you're asking what guides my morality, I already told you. (My intelligence, developed by the guidance of my parents and my education). > > > > > I am not trying to be mean - but my > > > > > standards are based on the word of God. > > > > > > > > The Bible and all religious law is only man's interpretation of > the > > > word > > > > of G-d. What if the people who wrote the Bible got it all > wrong? > > > What > > > > if G-d never intended you to believe those things? > > > > > > I believe that a God powerful enough to create his word would be > > > powerful > > > enough to preserve it. As for the interpretation argument - yes, > if > > > you > > > yank verses out of context here and there you can misinterpret the > > > > Bible > > > quite easily. The Bible needs to be taken as a WHOLE, and looked > at > > > in > > > context, not just a verse here and there. > > > > > > > My point is, what if the people who actually *wrote* the Bible got > it > > wrong? What if they accidentally ommitted certain parts, or > > accidentally re-wrote certain parts? Then even when you looked at > the > > whole thing, you'd still be wrong. Man is imperfect (one of the > > precepts of Judeo-Christianity). Since man recorded the Bible, it > would > > make sense to man probably made errors in recording it. (Haven't > you > > ever played a game of telephone?) > > Yes. But that's where inspiration comes in. > And the Lord is inspiring me to talk some sense into you. <g> Wouldn't you feel stupid if you meet your maker one day, and he says to you, "I sent you Havoc to try to show you the way. Why didn't you listen???" <g> > > > > This has always bothered me about religion. You think G-d is a > pretty > > good guy, don't you? Well, if he's so good, then why is he sooooooo > > > vain??? (This is equally true of Judaism and Catholocism). One > > wouldn't consider a dictator to be very benevolent if he ordered > people > > to bow down and worship. So why does organized religion insist on > such > > devout worship? Shouldn't G-d be more concerned with our morality > to > > our fellow man, as opposed to whether we "turn to G-d." In > > Christianity, you won't go to heaven unless you've accepted Jesus > into > > your heart. In Judaism, Christians won't go to heaven, mostly > because > > they are worshipping a false G-d. Why should G-d mandate that he be > > > worshipped? > > I notice you weren't comfortable addressing this one. Can't explain to me why G-d, who we're supposed to admire and such, would be sooooo vain? > > This is now a theological discussion, not moral or philosophical. > But > > now the pragmatic side: Organized religion demanded strict rules of > > > worship as a way to gain control over the people. > > > > > Here > > > > > Yours seem to be based on > > > > > rationality. It seems to me you have selected that as the > "force" > > > tht > > > > > rules > > > > > your life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're saying that I rule my life with intelligence and > common > > > sense, > > > > thank you very much. I'm flattered. For I don't blindly follow > > > > > something that I know if wrong. > > > > > > Neither do I <eg> > > > > > > > Other than Faith in the Bible, you haven't stated a single reason > why > > the condemnation of homosexuality is right. > > > > > > > > Schools should act rationally. That's also why they should > > > teach > > > > > evolution > > > > > > as opposed to creationism. Evolution is scientific fact, > > > whether > > > > > you like > > > > > > it or not. > > > > > > > > > > Umm....no, it is a theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > See other thread... It's as much scientific fact as gravity. > > > > > > > > > >Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. > > > > > > > > > > Not so. If you truly wanted to pursue this, we could, but it > does > > > get > > > > > us > > > > > far afield and may bore everyone else to tears.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is some manufactured evidence of no credibility used to > deny > > > > evolution. Similar to evidence that has been purpotedly found > to > > > deny > > > > the occurrence of the Holocaust. > > > > > > Also not so....but your mind seems set in concrete in this. > > > > > > > You see... all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA, which is > > > passed > > > > on by the mother. The differences in the DNA are due to varying > > > > > mutation rates in select parts of the genome. A comparison of > > > > inter-species DNA shows vast repetition of sequences, proving > the > > > > relationship between various species and the evolution between > > > them. I > > > > could explain more, but then I might get boring <g> > > > > > > So you are saying that because we all have similar DNA we evolved? > > > > > > > > That's extremely overly simplistic. I'm saying you can actually see > > > where the DNA has changed, you can measure the mutation rates, you > can > > even see evolution in action on a microscopic level. > > How is our DNA different from, say, 100 years ago? > If I still had my old genetics textbooks, I could give you better answers. For example, I could tell you that the nucleotide sequence on chromosome number three has mutated, resulting in an adenine where there used to be a guanine. Our genome differs from 100 years ago based on rates of mutation. Most of these changes are not visible to the naked eye. Of course, some are visible. For example, humans are taller than they were 100-200 years ago. The small toe has been getting smaller and smaller over the last thousand years. > > > > Now, going to the fossil record. You can clearly see speciation > > > > > occuring over time. Furthermore, the fossil record directly > > > contradicts > > > > a literal reading of six days of creation. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > Explained in another thread. To summarize: Earth is billions of > years > > old. Homosapiens are thousands of years old. Meaning, there was no > > > life whatsoever on Earth for billions of years. Human life began > *very* > > recently compared to the age of the earth. That's more than six > days of > > creation. > > But how were these dates determined? (Probably answered in other > thread) Carbon dating which is very accurate. Also, depth of buriel. For example, if one fossil is found close to the top layer of soil, while the other is found two hundred feet below, then we know that the two fossils were not created at the same time. We can extrapolate the difference in time based on our knowledge of changes in geology, mathematic principles, etc. I'm always amused when someone turns to the supernatural for an explanation, simply because they can't "see" or "understand" the science. The best example is the Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment for microscopic type illnesses, but something obvious like a broken bone, they permit medical treatment. -Havoc

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:38C670FC.E87E48FD@ucs.net... > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > > news:scbcdbmbi738@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > Masked Man wrote in message > > > <38cf85f9.180436929@news.mindspring.com>... > > > > >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > > > > ><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >|Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality > is > > > wrong? > > > > > > > > > >Masked Man---->That much, at least, I can answer: > > > > > > > > > >Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with > womankind: > > > it > > > > >[is] abomination. (KJV) > > > > > > > > > >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth > with a > > > > >woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall > > > surely > > > > >be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Further proof that the world would *not* be more moral if we > adhered > > > > > > > strictly to the bible. Laura... you don't believe that a > homosexual > > > > > > should > > > > be put to death??? > > > > > > Nope. I don't believe adulterers should be put to death either. > But > > > havoc, > > > this is part of a law that is null and void for us today. We are > > > under the > > > New Covenant, not the Old! > > > > Speak for yourself. You are under the New Covernant, I'm > technically > > under the Old. And MM stated that the Old still applies to > Christians > > unless directly changed by the New. > > MM, in this case, is incorrect. :-) Well, according to two Reverands that I know, MM is essentially correct. -Havoc

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: It's the aliens I tell ya (was "Re: :-(") - (Silverhawk <silverhawk@force10.eidosnet.co.uk>)


>> >Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your >> >roof). Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe >> >cannot, unless time travel got invented and I missed it. >> >> Who says it can be tested? Gravity mightn't be gravity at all. >> It might be an invisible alien forcefield that was constructed >> millennia ago to stop us floating off into space ;-) > >The truth is out there!! Or indeed in here :-) Silverhawk -- "For we are the music makers, and the dreamers of dreams."

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Techlab Photo Rescue wrote: > >> I'm not sure about some states, but > >> where I come from, a licence to carry is given at the discretion of > > >> the local police chief. In my town, I was told not to apply, > because > >> he would never approve such a licence. > > > >Do you remember what the specific reasons behind the denial were? I'm > > >genuinely curious why they (he) would not license you based upon the > >background and training you describe below. > > I remember exactly, specifically and otherwise. The chief of police > told me that he would NEVER authorize a 'permit to carry ' under ANY > circumstances, and he was the ultimate authority on the matter. The > permit to carry licence was not a state issued permit, but a local > one. He didn't agree with the idea that a private citiczen would carry > > a weapon, and he didn't even allow his own police officers to carry > weapons when off duty. > > Believe me, I checked it. He was the authority in this town, and his > decision was upheld. > I handle the local pistol licensing in my own community, and I pretty much share the policy. With the exception of retired police officers, almost nobody gets a "full carry" permit. Technically, they can appeal the denial to the Appellate Court. But I've never seen the Appellate Court reverse such a denial. -Havoc

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C670FC.E87E48FD@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:scbcdbmbi738@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > Masked Man wrote in message > > <38cf85f9.180436929@news.mindspring.com>... > > > >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:53:36 GMT, "EvilBill[AGQx]" > > > ><evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > >|Where in the Bible does it outright state that homosexuality is > > wrong? > > > > > > > >Masked Man---->That much, at least, I can answer: > > > > > > > >Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: > > it > > > >[is] abomination. (KJV) > > > > > > > >Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a > > > >woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall > > surely > > > >be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (KJV) > > > > > > > > > > Further proof that the world would *not* be more moral if we adhered > > > > > strictly to the bible. Laura... you don't believe that a homosexual > > > > should > > > be put to death??? > > > > Nope. I don't believe adulterers should be put to death either. But > > havoc, > > this is part of a law that is null and void for us today. We are > > under the > > New Covenant, not the Old! > > Speak for yourself. You are under the New Covernant, I'm technically > under the Old. And MM stated that the Old still applies to Christians > unless directly changed by the New. MM, in this case, is incorrect. :-)

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C6687F.2466F0F9@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:38C57D06.A782CAE4@ucs.net... > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > >The religious are not supposed to persecute the unreligious, > > either. > > > But > > > > > > > that is not good enough for you. > > > > > > > > > > I'm too good a student of history. > > > > No - you have too jaded a view of the religious. > > The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, even the Holocaust. How did the Holocaust enter into this? As far as I know, Hitler was not a Christian! As to the others, I have already agreed that people have used religion to their own ungodly ends. Do you say rational thought has never been misused? <snip> > Am I jaded? Perhaps I am. But I'm jaded because of the historical > facts. I wonder how you would react if you saw Christianity truly lived in someone's life.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C67094.472B8103@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > ah, so many points, so little time..... > > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:38C57903.B64D185F@ucs.net... > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > > > > > Incorrect. If the teacher is on his or her lunch break and there > > are no > > > students in the room, the teacher can read Playboy for all I care. > > > > And reading it silently with students in the room? My sister asked me > > if I > > would object if the book in question were the Koran, or a book about > > Fung > > Shui (sp). My answer was no. > > > > My comparison is more accurate. Would you object to a teacher reading > Playboy magazine while students are in the room? You see, you build > your argument on the assumption that the Bible (and the Koran, etc) > aren't offensive or objectionable materials. But to many people, a > Bible might be just as offensive as a Playboy magazine. Bible as offensive as a Playboy mag????? That's a new one. Besides, a good reason not to have a Playboy mag in school would be the age factor - underage kids aren't supposed to have access to it. >So, both > Playboy and the Bible are reading materials that might be offensive to > some people. And both are Constitutionally protected reading > materials. I would treat them both the same way, in this respect. > > > > > -- You would deny (I suspect) the right of free speech to a > > student > > > > who > > > > wanted to include religious matter or a prayer in their valdictory > > > > > > speech. > > > > > > Fairly correct. The student would not have the right to preach > > religion > > > as part of a school event. (OTOH... I'm not going to give a kid > > > detention for a passing statement about their faith in G-d, etc, > > etc. > > > > But is that not a stifling of free speech? > > > > No, the student's free speech is preserved. He can say whatever he > wants, just not on the school grounds. The Freedom of Speech was never > meant as an absolute. Graduations are not always held on school grounds, though. > > > > -- You would deny my right to believe what the Bible teaches > > > > concerning the > > > > fact that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. > > > > > > Absolutely and totally incorrect. You have the right to believe in > > the > > > tooth fairy, if you so wish. But I don't want the schools to teach > > kids > > > to believe in the tooth fairy. > > > > I have a lot more quarters since my kids outgrew the tooth fairy.. > > ;-) > > > > > > -- You might possibly deny me the right to share my faith with > > others, > > > > > > > > citing that as "intolerant." > > > > > > Not exactly sure what you're saying here, but you are incorrect. > > Even > > > the KKK has the right to share their beliefs with others. But I'm > > not > > > going to let the KKK begin to recruit in schools. > > > > I'm not fond of the word "recruit" in regard to religion, but I > > withdraw the > > objection. > > > > > > -- Connected with the above, are you saying that you would deny me > > the > > > > right > > > > to promote what I think is moral in the political and governmental > > > > > > arena? > > > > > > Incorrect, even the KKK has the right to petition the government. > > > > > > > -- You have made yourself the judge over what is tolerant and > > > > intolerant, > > > > when I wish to use the Bible. This denies me, in the sense that > > you > > > > state > > > > that regarding homosexual behavior as sinful and wrong is > > intolerant. > > > > > > > > > > It is intolerant. Just like regarding blacks as inferior is also > > > intolerant. Just like regarding non-Christians as sinners would be > > > intolerant. You can't give state any rational basis showing that > > > homosexuality is *wrong.* So.. to condemn a behavior as wrong, only > > on > > > the basis of religious bigotry, is in fact intolerant. > > > > ::Sigh:: Then in this, you will have to call me intolerant by your > > standards. I disagree, but that is why this thread exists in the > > first > > place. > > > > Yes, I do realize we are not going to come to agreement on this point. > I do hope I've made you think (as you've made me), and re-examine your > beliefs. Ask yourself, if we know that the Bible isn't perfect, what is > the reason for condemning homosexuality? Is there any good reason? Your assumption is flawed. I don't "know" the Bible is imperfect. > > > > > > As a civilized people, we are capable of using our intellects to > > decide > > > what is or isn't wrong. If we relied on the bible, we would still > > have > > > slavery. > > > > Not so! I and a number of people rely on the Bible, and if you don't > > count > > what my kids claim I put them through, I don't have slaves. ;-) > > > > Obviously, you don't rely *exclusively* on a literal reading of > everything in the Bible, or else we would still have slavery. Not exactly. I STUDY the Bible, rather than just read it, taking context and audience and time and what it says in other places into account. <snipping some of this because it is getting HUGE> > Again, we do. In one of its moments of wisdom, our Constitution has > something called "Equal protection." Essentially, it means that all > people should be treated equally, unless there is a rational basis for > doing otherwise. For example, there is a rational basis for treating > someone convicted of murder differently than an innocent person. But > there is no rational basis for treating a white person differently from > a black person in military service, for example. But not everyone...how shall I put this.....agrees on what is rational. <More snips> > > > > > Here is our big difference of opinion. Actually, we have a number of big ones.. ;-) >Homosexuality is OK!! > > There > > > > is NO > > > > > rational basis for saying that it's immoral. > > > > > > > > God says it is - that's rational enough for me. > > > > > > > > > > That's a matter of faith. Not a matter of reason. According to > > many > > > Christians 200 years ago, G-d said slavery was ok. According to > > many, > > > G-d says racial bigotry is ok. > > > > > > But you just admitted that your intolerance of homosexuality is > > based > > > solely and exclusively on your -religious faith-. Therefore, it has > > NO > > > place in our schools. > > > > > > > >It isn't any less right than > > > > > heterosexuality. I'd love to see ONE rational argument for > > saying > > > > that > > > > > homosexuality is wrong. I've NEVER seen such an argument. > > > > > > > > But then is your "god" rationality? > > > > > > By definition, G-d is supernatural, not rational. It's one of the > > > reasons that I reject many of the supposed teachings of religion. > > > > Everyone has something that they rely and lean on, something that sets > > their > > life course. What is yours, havoc? > > > > My intelligence, given to me by G-d, developed by my parents and my > education. Let me ask this another way. What in your life fills the role that my faith fills for me? > > > > I am not trying to be mean - but my > > > > standards are based on the word of God. > > > > > > The Bible and all religious law is only man's interpretation of the > > word > > > of G-d. What if the people who wrote the Bible got it all wrong? > > What > > > if G-d never intended you to believe those things? > > > > I believe that a God powerful enough to create his word would be > > powerful > > enough to preserve it. As for the interpretation argument - yes, if > > you > > yank verses out of context here and there you can misinterpret the > > Bible > > quite easily. The Bible needs to be taken as a WHOLE, and looked at > > in > > context, not just a verse here and there. > > > > My point is, what if the people who actually *wrote* the Bible got it > wrong? What if they accidentally ommitted certain parts, or > accidentally re-wrote certain parts? Then even when you looked at the > whole thing, you'd still be wrong. Man is imperfect (one of the > precepts of Judeo-Christianity). Since man recorded the Bible, it would > make sense to man probably made errors in recording it. (Haven't you > ever played a game of telephone?) Yes. But that's where inspiration comes in. > > >That's why G-d gave > > > man free will, so he could choose his own morality. > > > > This statement (taken out of context <g>) is true in part. God did > > give us > > a free will, to choose the path we walk. But the purpose of it was > > not > > simply for man to choose his own morality - it was in the hope that > > man > > would turn to God out of his own choice, for this is the kind of > > relationship God seeks. He does not want robots! > > > > This has always bothered me about religion. You think G-d is a pretty > good guy, don't you? Well, if he's so good, then why is he sooooooo > vain??? (This is equally true of Judaism and Catholocism). One > wouldn't consider a dictator to be very benevolent if he ordered people > to bow down and worship. So why does organized religion insist on such > devout worship? Shouldn't G-d be more concerned with our morality to > our fellow man, as opposed to whether we "turn to G-d." In > Christianity, you won't go to heaven unless you've accepted Jesus into > your heart. In Judaism, Christians won't go to heaven, mostly because > they are worshipping a false G-d. Why should G-d mandate that he be > worshipped? > > This is now a theological discussion, not moral or philosophical. But > now the pragmatic side: Organized religion demanded strict rules of > worship as a way to gain control over the people. > > > Here > > > > Yours seem to be based on > > > > rationality. It seems to me you have selected that as the "force" > > tht > > > > rules > > > > your life. > > > > > > > > > > If you're saying that I rule my life with intelligence and common > > sense, > > > thank you very much. I'm flattered. For I don't blindly follow > > > something that I know if wrong. > > > > Neither do I <eg> > > > > Other than Faith in the Bible, you haven't stated a single reason why > the condemnation of homosexuality is right. > > > > > > Schools should act rationally. That's also why they should > > teach > > > > evolution > > > > > as opposed to creationism. Evolution is scientific fact, > > whether > > > > you like > > > > > it or not. > > > > > > > > Umm....no, it is a theory. > > > > > > > > > > See other thread... It's as much scientific fact as gravity. > > > > > > > >Creationism has as much rational fact as the tooth fairy. > > > > > > > > Not so. If you truly wanted to pursue this, we could, but it does > > get > > > > us > > > > far afield and may bore everyone else to tears.... > > > > > > > > > > There is some manufactured evidence of no credibility used to deny > > > evolution. Similar to evidence that has been purpotedly found to > > deny > > > the occurrence of the Holocaust. > > > > Also not so....but your mind seems set in concrete in this. > > > > > You see... all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA, which is > > passed > > > on by the mother. The differences in the DNA are due to varying > > > mutation rates in select parts of the genome. A comparison of > > > inter-species DNA shows vast repetition of sequences, proving the > > > relationship between various species and the evolution between > > them. I > > > could explain more, but then I might get boring <g> > > > > So you are saying that because we all have similar DNA we evolved? > > > > That's extremely overly simplistic. I'm saying you can actually see > where the DNA has changed, you can measure the mutation rates, you can > even see evolution in action on a microscopic level. How is our DNA different from, say, 100 years ago? > > > Now, going to the fossil record. You can clearly see speciation > > > occuring over time. Furthermore, the fossil record directly > > contradicts > > > a literal reading of six days of creation. > > > > Why? > > > > Explained in another thread. To summarize: Earth is billions of years > old. Homosapiens are thousands of years old. Meaning, there was no > life whatsoever on Earth for billions of years. Human life began *very* > recently compared to the age of the earth. That's more than six days of > creation. But how were these dates determined? (Probably answered in other thread)

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Moving on (was: Re: :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C665DB.2959298E@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:scbcs0gtbi7126@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > Laura Ware wrote in message > > <7kfx4.4625$yV1.1229474@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>... > > > >havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:38C56C25.E1F59452@ucs.net... > > > > > >Havoc, have we squeezed all we can from this topic? > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure we'll get a resounding applause (and a sigh of relief) with > > my > > > simple answer: "Yes." > > > > Ok, let's discuss something less controversial: How bad will this new > > episode be? :-) > > I'll tell you after I see it. > It should be great though... How could it be bad with the arch nemesis > of the Borg? The Mighty Borg that could threaten the entire Starfleet > with a single cube? Such an imposing and mysterrious enemy should make > it a great episode. > > -Havoc > One Sarcastic Morning. Yes, I have noted you think Voyager needs a visit from Dr. Kevokian.. <eg>

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:38C67F08.98BF6796@ix.netcom.com... > > > > > > "Laura Ware" <laware@strato.net> wrote in message news:GUcx4.4172 > > > > > > Gravity can be empirically tested (drop something from your roof). > > > Evolution cannot and the beginnings of the universe cannot, unless time > > > travel got invented and I missed it. > > > > Evolution cannot be tested, (and that's why its considered a Theory), but > indications of it can and have been observed. Prime example is a moth in > England that over a 100 years changed its color from white to black to blend in > with the black of the coal soot that was coating English trees and houses. In > the last 50 years, as England has cleaned up it heating, and the coal soot is > disappearing, the moth is turning back to its original color of white. Now, > that is not considered evolution, but rather adaptation. Adaptation is part of > but not the sum of evolution. > > Secondly, there is lots and lots of archeological evidence of larger animals in > the past (dinosaurs, etc.), which indicate evolution. IF there is no evolution, > and creationism is correct, then the Deity is a joker, planting false evidence > around the planet. Your choice. Or they didn't survive the flood. ::shrug::

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:xHvx4.3786$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > I'll never understand human beings... *sigh* Of course not. You're.....hmm, I forget. Which species are you this week?

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C6677D.FF0E3831@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > news:38C57D6C.40589EA0@ucs.net... > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > Here is the difference between what I am saying and what I hear you > > saying > > in this area: > > In my view, I do not have to "accept" behavior I feel is wrong. I do > > not > > have to say, "Well, I'm against it, but if you are all for it, then > > it's > > gotta be OK!" I NEVER had to approve my mother's smoking. I did not > > have > > to support it by word or deed. I merely had to support she had the > > right to > > choose whether or not to smoke. I have this same view concerning > > sexuality. > > As I understand you, however, that does not go far enough. To truly > > approve > > and accept my mother, I would have to say it was OK for her to smoke. > > That > > I could not disapprove of it, that perhaps I should support her in it. > > > > I admit this particular example is a very touchy area for me, as my > > mother > > died at least partially due to this habit. And in the name of your > > view of > > tolerance, I would have to approve it? NO! > > With all respect for the memory of your mother, you've just made the > point. The smoking partially killed your mother. I wouldn't ask you to > approve of something that kills. Homosexuality does not hurt or kill > anyone (No more so then heterosexuality). Havoc, I believe spiritual harm is just as devestating, if not more, than physical harm. You don't. It's come down to that simple. ::shrug:: I'm not sure what more benefit you and I will get pursuing this particular line of thought.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message news:38C663F8.43E4694F@ucs.net... > Laura Ware wrote: > > > Bozo the Evil Klown <evilklowwn@aol.comedy> wrote in message > > news:20000307190645.02590.00000722@ng-fs1.aol.com... > > > Laura Ware doth write thus: > > > > > > >> So life, the universe, mankind and everything was created and > > finished > > > >> in the time it takes me to receive a letter sent from London? (we > > have > > > >> a crap postal service - don't ask). > > > > > > > >Sure sounds that way.. :-/ > > > >But if we accept the existence of a God, why is it hard to accept > > he > > could > > > >create the world in 7 days? > > > > > > > For another, the fossil record indicates A) that some species > > appear/evolve > > > millions or billions of years ahead of others, rather than all known > > > > organisms > > > appearing within seven days of each other. > > > > How are we determining time in this (it's been a long time for me in > > this > > debate - I need to review!) > > > > Carbon dating is pretty efficient. As are other techniques, including > location of the fossils within the earth, etc.If creationism is 100% > literally correct, then for some weird reason, G-d went around planting > evidence to the contrary, just to fool us. That prankster, G-d. Or that God created a mature Earth, just as Adam was created as a mature man and not a baby? And of course God has a sense of humor - I exist, don't I? ;-) > > B) Most known species in the fossil > > > record are extinct; if such species were "planned" only to be > > discarded, > > this > > > does not indicate a Creator who's forte is thinking things through. > > > > COuld blame the flood for that. > > Blame the flood for species that went extinct in the last 100 years? > I think not. Nononono! I meant in the past. Species going extinct in the last 100 years is the fault of man not taking care of the planet, which is a shame. Let me ask you a question about this evolution business, havoc: Can you point to the evidence that shows: a) A non-human transforming into a human, or b) A non-human giving birth to a human?

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Evil Bill: Tuvok wannabe? (was: Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-() - (Laura Ware <laware@strato.net>)


EvilBill[AGQx] <evilbillKILL-THE-SPAM@nutter.swinternet.co.uk> wrote in message news:nHvx4.3773$za2.104991@nnrp3.clara.net... > "Bill Crawford" <koichi@fastlane.net> wrote in message... > > > > *ahem* Okay. I'm a bit of a cynic. But I'm also a romantic, perhaps > > too much so for these fscked-up self-serve do-it-yourself times we > > live in. (I'm an anachronism, and damn proud of it!) Do I believe in > > true love? HELL yes. But it's not easy. It's not supposed to be-- > > and that's part of its charm, and its curse... > > > > Only on this NG could a thread about gun control turn into a thread on > religion that then turns into yet another thread on the existence or > otherwise of true love! <g> Hey, we're a talented bunch!! > How many threads on this subject have there been here since I arrived? <eg> > Quick, someone, turn this into a thread anout Tuvok! <veg> As you wish, my leige.....

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (evilklowwn@aol.comedy)


Laura Ware doth write thus: >> For another, the fossil record indicates A) that some species >appear/evolve >> millions or billions of years ahead of others, rather than all known >organisms >> appearing within seven days of each other. > >How are we determining time in this (it's been a long time for me in this >debate - I need to review!) Without digging (literally <G>) my geology book out, there's several dating techniques used, including radioisotope decay, sedimentary rock formation, and others. We've been here long enough for the moon's rotation to be tidally locked to its orbital period. >B) Most known species in the fossil >> record are extinct; if such species were "planned" only to be discarded, >this >> does not indicate a Creator who's forte is thinking things through. > >COuld blame the flood for that. Even if you invoke the flood to explain the extinction of aquatic species, that whole idea of an omnipotent Being throwing a temper tantrum and destroying virtually all the ecosystems of a planet always used to crash my suspension of disbelief from my earliest days reading the Bible. A Being such as that should be medicated, not worshipped. He-Who's-Noticed-How-God's-Wrath-Has-Been-Toned-Down-These-Last-Few-Millennia ***************************************** Janeway was rather dubious when Neelix volunteered to work as Ship's Counselor..... but there were a *lot* of grieving crewmembers in need of counseling after Neelix's catastrophic stint as a Security Officer.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: A Blink of God's Eye (was "Re: :-(") - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:38C663F8.43E4694F@ucs.net... > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > Bozo the Evil Klown <evilklowwn@aol.comedy> wrote in message > > > news:20000307190645.02590.00000722@ng-fs1.aol.com... > > > > Laura Ware doth write thus: > > > > > > > > >> So life, the universe, mankind and everything was created and > > > > finished > > > > >> in the time it takes me to receive a letter sent from London? > (we > > > have > > > > >> a crap postal service - don't ask). > > > > > > > > > >Sure sounds that way.. :-/ > > > > >But if we accept the existence of a God, why is it hard to > accept > > > he > > > could > > > > >create the world in 7 days? > > > > > > > > > > For another, the fossil record indicates A) that some species > > > appear/evolve > > > > millions or billions of years ahead of others, rather than all > known > > > > > > organisms > > > > appearing within seven days of each other. > > > > > > How are we determining time in this (it's been a long time for me > in > > > this > > > debate - I need to review!) > > > > > > > Carbon dating is pretty efficient. As are other techniques, > including > > location of the fossils within the earth, etc.If creationism is 100% > > > literally correct, then for some weird reason, G-d went around > planting > > evidence to the contrary, just to fool us. That prankster, G-d. > > Or that God created a mature Earth, just as Adam was created as a > mature man > and not a baby? > And of course God has a sense of humor - I exist, don't I? ;-) > > > > B) Most known species in the fossil > > > > record are extinct; if such species were "planned" only to be > > > discarded, > > > this > > > > does not indicate a Creator who's forte is thinking things > through. > > > > > > COuld blame the flood for that. > > > > Blame the flood for species that went extinct in the last 100 > years? > > I think not. > > Nononono! I meant in the past. Species going extinct in the last 100 > years > is the fault of man not taking care of the planet, which is a shame. > Not every exctinction in the last 100 years in the fault of man. The fossil record shows that many animals have gone extinct over time, and not all at the same time. You can't blame the flood for all exctinctions, since many of the exctinctions are seperated by tens of thousands of years. (By the way... according to creationism, the earth is only a few thousand years old, which is obviously incorrect.) > Let me ask you a question about this evolution business, havoc: > Can you point to the evidence that shows: a) A non-human transforming > into a > human, or Sure... Homo Erectus became homo-sapien over time. The fossil record is replete with such evidence. > b) A non-human giving birth to a human? That's not exactly how evolution works. But mitochondrial DNA does show that there was a first homo sapien female (mitochondrial DNA is special because it is passed down only from the mother), that evolved from other ancestors of mankind. Evolution doesn't mean that apes were giving birth to homo sapiens.

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (havoc <havoc@ucs.net>)


Laura Ware wrote: > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > news:38C6677D.FF0E3831@ucs.net... > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > > havoc <havoc@ucs.net> wrote in message > > > news:38C57D6C.40589EA0@ucs.net... > > > > Laura Ware wrote: > > > > Here is the difference between what I am saying and what I hear > you > > > saying > > > in this area: > > > In my view, I do not have to "accept" behavior I feel is wrong. I > do > > > not > > > have to say, "Well, I'm against it, but if you are all for it, > then > > > it's > > > gotta be OK!" I NEVER had to approve my mother's smoking. I did > not > > > have > > > to support it by word or deed. I merely had to support she had > the > > > right to > > > choose whether or not to smoke. I have this same view concerning > > > sexuality. > > > As I understand you, however, that does not go far enough. To > truly > > > approve > > > and accept my mother, I would have to say it was OK for her to > smoke. > > > That > > > I could not disapprove of it, that perhaps I should support her in > it. > > > > > > I admit this particular example is a very touchy area for me, as > my > > > mother > > > died at least partially due to this habit. And in the name of > your > > > view of > > > tolerance, I would have to approve it? NO! > > > > With all respect for the memory of your mother, you've just made the > > > point. The smoking partially killed your mother. I wouldn't ask > you to > > approve of something that kills. Homosexuality does not hurt or > kill > > anyone (No more so then heterosexuality). > > Havoc, I believe spiritual harm is just as devestating, if not more, > than > physical harm. You don't. It's come down to that simple. ::shrug:: > I'm not sure what more benefit you and I will get pursuing this > particular > line of thought. How is a homosexual spiritually harmed? Be careful...... If you say, "Because the Bible says so"... Then by that reasoning, you also shouldn't tolerate other religions, since they are spiritually harmed as well, according to the Bible. So, if you tolerate Judaism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc, etc, then by the same reasoning, you should be willing to tolerate homosexuality. On the other hand, if you refuse to tolerate homosexuality, because they are spiritually harming themselves, then by the same reasoning, you shouldn't tolerate any religion other than Christianity. -Havoc

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38C56A0C.752E@yahoo.com>, stevechristianson@yahoo.com says... > X-No-Archive: yes > > > > havoc wrote: > > > > > May I recommend Philosophy 101 or maybe Philosophy of Law 101 for you? > > > > > > D���sir���e- philosopher at large > > > > hmm....... Perhaps it's time you tried philosophy 102 Desiree <g> > > > > -Havoc > > > Did I call it or what? Philosophy major/grad student. I knew it: no real > world experience. > I fail to see why you are so pleased with your self. I was a film major. I have a BA in telecommunication and Film. I read philosophy on my own because I recognize its importance to daily life. I am 31, thus I have 31 years of "real world experience" whatever that means. You seem to think that anyone who reaches conclusions different from yours can't have reached them by their own thought process but has in fact been brainwashed by college philosophy classes, which actually tend to teach the moral relativity you espouse. D���sir���e- a mind of her own

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: OT-Timeless Love: Dream or Reality? was :-( - (TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com>)


Ta'Teria wrote in message <2zkx4.6995$DF2.1159251@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>... > >TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:8a4kaq$o82$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net... >> >> Ta'Teria wrote in message ... >> > >> >TheFlinx <theFlinxx@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >news:8a4b9t$nof$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net... >> >> >> >> Shammie wrote in message >> <20000307194755.03549.00000789@ng-cj1.aol.com>... >> >> >> >> >No, let's just have wild sex, then you go home. After snacks, of >> >course... >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Great, all I got was my face slapped. >> > >> >Yes. But Unlike you, he didnt show up at her door with a bottle of cheap >> >champagne and a condom and say "Hey, I was in the nieghborhood..." >> >> >> Hey, who said it was cheap champagne, I spent over $4.95! > >It was the thin brown bag that gave it away... > My mistake was not checking my notes, it's Allie who's a sure thing after a few rounds of champagne, with Shammie I think I needed to get a few more cosmopolitans into her. Besides even though the champagne was cheap the condom was top of the line, it even had ribs!

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (kemosabe@skyenet.net)


On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08:25:44 -0800, Helen & Bob <chil-out@ix.netcom.com> wrote: |Secondly, there is lots and lots of archeological evidence of larger animals in |the past (dinosaurs, etc.), which indicate evolution. IF there is no evolution, |and creationism is correct, then the Deity is a joker, planting false evidence |around the planet. Your choice. Masked Man---->There is a third choice: we have misread the empirical evidence, the theological documentation, or both in combination. -- Who was that masked man?

2000-03-08 00:00:00 - Re: :-( - (D�sir�e Davis <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <38c6abf5.511617015@news.erols.com>, Techlab@photo-rescue.com says... > On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:48:07 -0800, D���sir���e Davis > <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >In article <38d588d0.437073071@news.erols.com>, Techlab@photo-rescue.com > >says... > >> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:13:00 -0800, D���sir���e Davis > >> <HBeachBabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> >Rights, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to > >> >property are inviolate. > > > >> Rights are ALWAYS given to you. You don't 'take' them, you don't > >> 'deserve' them, you don't 'earn' them, and you aren't 'born' with > >> them. > > > >Patently untrue. Rights exist, because humans exist. This is basic > >philosophy. You *always* have your rights. The only thing a government > >can do is recognize them or not. > > I disagree. Rights are an idea. Everyone must agree on them in order > for it to work. Everyone? Every single person on the planet? Or just everyone in my society? Everyone on my block? So if one person in Southern Mongolia decides he doesn't accept rights, then suddenly, nobody has them? > The only reason we have any rights at all is because > other people recognize the idea and extend it to us. You are confusing the existence of rights with their recognition. > >Sorry, you are just flat out wrong. If "rights" were bestowed on people > >they wouldn't be "rights" at all, they would be "privileges" > > I don't think you can adequately definee either without using the > other in the definition. (My dictionary doesn't either.) > > >By virtue of my existence, I have the *right* to my own existence, thus > >the right to my own life. That is not a right given to me by anyone > >else, > > Yes, it is. It is 'given' to you by the laws which state that you have > this right. (ie society) So before law exist no one had the right to live? You are giving the power of your life over to other people. I refuse to do that. Law or not, I have the right to life. > > it is a right I have by virtue of the fact that I exist. > > Without someone to recognize the right, it doesn't exist. It most certainly does exist, that person simply doesn't recognize it. I can't recognize what a Vietnamese person is saying. Does that mean they are speaking gibberish? Things exists whether we recognize them or