informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
278a90f7ce
textfiles/messages/YABBS/anarchy
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

29442 lines
1.1 MiB
Raw Blame History

From ziplock@yabbs Sun Nov 8 18:01:31 1992
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sun Nov 8 18:01:31 1992
In message re: @ & econ, optick said:
> The Americans did not act as they should have; Offensive and Brutal.
> The US Army fought basically a Defensive war, never launching any mjor
> offensives into North-Vietnam. A mistake that I believe will never be
> repeated by the American Army.
Get a clue, man, we had *major* offensives into NV. We bombed them into
the fucking stone age up in Hanoi. You all are just talking about
*ground* offensives. By your standard we had no offensives in Iraq
either. The fact that the NVA and the guerilla army were still able to
kick the US Army's ass in _high_style_ in the face of insane military,
civilian and infrastructure damage is a tribute purely to the conquest
of ideology over technology.
ÿ
From mute@yabbs Mon Nov 9 01:43:42 1992
From: mute@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Mon Nov 9 01:43:42 1992
If I remember correctly, the NVA did not kick the US army in high style.
The NVA suffered more casualties than we did, but they just didn't give
up. I don't know what the ratios were, but it was more than 1 NVA:1 US.
Vellmont
From ziplock@yabbs Mon Nov 9 04:20:34 1992
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: mute@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Mon Nov 9 04:20:34 1992
In message re: @ & econ, mute said:
> If I remember correctly, the NVA did not kick the US army in high style.
> The NVA suffered more casualties than we did, but they just didn't give
> up. I don't know what the ratios were, but it was more than 1 NVA:1 US.
Hmm, well guess it depends on how you consider "high style". I certainly
agree they suffered massive casualties. Total losses for the Vietnamese
population (not NVA, necessarily -- including civilians) have been
estimated between one and three million dead. Naturally our 50,000 don't
really compare to that. On the other hand, they won against really
incredible odds, using mostly weapons that they stole from their enemies,
without air support or chemical warfare, both of which were heavily used by
their opponents. They furthermore defeated not one but two foreign armies
-- ours and the French before us. I consider that quite a victory.
ÿ
From kapt-k@yabbs Wed Nov 18 14:47:32 1992
From: kapt-k@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: boosh
Date: Wed Nov 18 14:47:32 1992
Imagine what it would be like to be president. Wouldn't it suck?
Getting put in a room with a few agents to get your asshole and other
cavities searched before doing ANYTHING? Before going on TV, rehearsing
every single move you're going to make, every word, evrything. The
president is a neurotic fiend.
I saw him on TV the other day, escorting his wife onto a plane. He was
wearing a suit that looked like retirement clothes since he lost the race.
He held out his hand as a gesture of letting Barbara get on the plane
first. Then he followed her in. That took about 30 seconds. It probably
took about 3 hours to prepare and rehearse in a little room. It's sick.
From optick@yabbs Thu Nov 19 02:40:43 1992
From: optick@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Thu Nov 19 02:40:43 1992
If the NVA operated with weapons stolen from the enemy, Then how do you
explain the 500,000+ AK weapons that made their way into Vietname, Or the
sudden appearance of large amounts of RPG rockets? How about those Russian
pilots that ended up in Vietnam, How did they get there?
Bombing is not considered part of offensice actions. It's what is called
Strategic warfare where the object is to destroy factories, population
centers, and fixed military targets. Offensive actions involve pushing
back armies and capturing targest and masses of land.
From htoaster@yabbs Thu Nov 19 08:39:51 1992
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Thu Nov 19 08:39:51 1992
The problem with strategic bombing is that it usaully isn't so strategic
(look at the gulf war were we ended up killing more civilians
than military). Yes, it can be hard to decipher who is who, but that
doesn't give anyone the right to just kill people because they are with
military personel.
In broader terms (ie, offense and defense), strategic bombing certinally
falls into a sick offense.
htoaster
From charta@yabbs Wed Nov 25 12:54:07 1992
From: charta@yabbs
To: bricks@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Wed Nov 25 12:54:07 1992
All *real* anarchists are against capitalism, there are a few "wannabees"
who thinks anarchy is throwing bombs who maybe say they want capitalism.
Some of them (us?) wants "Marxistanarchy"..
From ziplock@yabbs Wed Nov 25 14:22:22 1992
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: charta@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Wed Nov 25 14:22:22 1992
In message re: @ & econ, charta said:
> All *real* anarchists are against capitalism, there are a few "wannabees"
> who thinks anarchy is throwing bombs who maybe say they want capitalism.
> Some of them (us?) wants "Marxistanarchy"..
The problem is defining what a "real" anarchist is since they always attempt
to defy definition by any means at their disposal. Noam Chomsky, for
example, says "all anarchists must also be socialists" but there are plenty
of anarcho-capitalists out there, ready to defend a fundamentally
libertarian ideology.
ÿ
From uufnord@yabbs Wed Nov 25 22:38:05 1992
From: uufnord@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: "real"
Date: Wed Nov 25 22:38:05 1992
defining anarchy? BLAH!
I don't want to be an anarchist because that would mean I'd have to belong
to something..
or as my friend Pete says, I'm not an anarchist because all anarchists
want to get rid of (or drastically change) the current government. I
don't believe in the government, so I guess I can't be an anarchist.
Just thought I'd share those two thoughts..
On a lighter note, I got to hear RMS Richard Stallman talk about his
version of "leftist anarchism". It's such a shame, too.. I have lost much
respect for Dr. Stallman.. Peace and Cooperation? Yuck!
The really funny thing during his talk (which was on behalf of the LPF for
the whole Software Patent thing) was that he described all manners of
idiocy in bureacracy(?) currently going on in lthe legislation of software
field, and he seemed to have a wonderful little plan which enabled him to
wipe away all these things, by throwing more bureacracy at it.. IT was
good. Y'all shoulda been there..
From buddha@yabbs Thu Nov 26 01:09:26 1992
From: buddha@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism vs. anarchy
Date: Thu Nov 26 01:09:26 1992
Capitalism is IMPOSSIBLE under a TRUE anarchy, as capitalism relies on
laws which protect private property. If LAW is abolished, there can be no
capitalism...
-Boo
From charta@yabbs Fri Nov 27 09:42:53 1992
From: charta@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Fri Nov 27 09:42:53 1992
Don't know how to quote...Can somebody tell me..?
Hmm, "anarcho capitalists", my opinion is that they ain't anarchists, it's
just a popular (right word?) name for liberals..
(Damn, my English is bad)
Well, do you think that anarchy is an utopia?
From charta@yabbs Fri Nov 27 09:46:23 1992
From: charta@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Fri Nov 27 09:46:23 1992
Are there many socialists in USA? Are there any socialistic parties?
From ziplock@yabbs Sat Nov 28 03:26:54 1992
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: charta@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sat Nov 28 03:26:54 1992
In message re: @ & econ, charta said:
> Are there many socialists in USA? Are there any socialistic parties?
Too many to count. There are "back to M-L" groups like Workers World,
anarcho-syndicalists like the IWW, Trotskyites like SWP, RWL, etc., Maoists
like Maoist Internationalist Movement, and the RCP (hah!), democratic
socialists like DSA and the Greens (sort of). You name it.
ÿ
From htoaster@yabbs Sat Nov 28 13:59:17 1992
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sat Nov 28 13:59:17 1992
To quote use the editor joe (you can't quote with the internal editor, I
jut haven't taken the time to hack it out). To select joe, hit j)oe from
the config menu. It only works with vt100 compataible terminals though
(very annoying).
As for socialist parties, there are a lot of them, but nothing that
widely known (ie, something that more than 50% of the people would have
heard of, all though in the us, 50%of america might not know what
socialism is either).
htoaster
From ziplock@yabbs Sun Nov 29 14:46:14 1992
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sun Nov 29 14:46:14 1992
In message re: @ & econ, htoaster said:
> As for socialist parties, there are a lot of them, but nothing that
> widely known (ie, something that more than 50% of the people would have
> heard of, all though in the us, 50%of america might not know what
> socialism is either).
Well the IWW (Wobblies) are quite well known among unionists, which is
a pretty big chunk of people, and when people say "The Communist Party" they
are usually thinking about the CPUSA, which was the main target of the House
Unamerican Activitees Committee investigations spurred on by Joe McCarthy in
the '50s. As it turns out, the CPUSA wiggled out of a lot of charges
regarding foreign contacts (with the Soviet Union) when many of those we
have now found out were true -- the CPUSA got a lot of money from the
Soviets, though not very recently. All that got uncovered after the Soviet
government collapsed and all sorts of records were made public.
ÿ
From ziplock@yabbs Wed Dec 16 21:43:27 1992
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: gathering
Date: Wed Dec 16 21:43:27 1992
From bbrigade@world.std.com Wed Dec 16 21:28:13 1992
MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL ANARCHIST GATHERING 1993
P.O. BOX 31889
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104
Hi, We're organizing a Mid-Atlantic (VA, WV, PA, DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY)
Regional Anarchist Gathering in Philadelphia in the Summer of 1993. We're
planning four days of workshops, networking, music, schmoozing and
cruising. Depending on the availability of space possible dates (all
Fridays through Mondays) are July 16-19, July 23-26, July 30- Aug 2, or
Aug 6-9.
We want to be in touch with as many folks in the region as possible, and
we need your help.
Right now we're compiling a mailing list and looking for financial
support. we'd like to find people willing to be local contacts who can
copy & distribute flyers and posters and generally let other people know
what is going on. We also need people to organize nasty, grungy rock 'n
roll shows and send us the money. Or, if you're in a band who would like
to play a benefit we organize, let us know that, too. Of course if you
can come by cash in any other ingenious ways, feel free to send it along.
Our organizing meetings are on the first Sunday of every month at 12:30
pm at 4722 Baltimore Ave, Philadelphia. for more information, call Wooden
Shoe Books at (215)569-2477.
-Philadelphia Troublemakers and Anarchists (PTA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please fill out this form & send it back along with any information you
think might interest us.
__ Add me to the mailing list. Add these people:
_________________ _________________ _________________
_________________ _________________ _________________
_________________ _________________ _________________
__ I want to be a local contact.
__ I'm interested in coordinating a workshop so send me info when you get
to that.
__ I'm sending you money because I know how expensive mailing stuff is.
By the way, here are some stamps, too.
(Checks or M.O.s should be made payable to Wooden Shoes Books.
Please mark on it that it is for the Gathering.)
==========================================================================
This electronic version re-created courtesy of the Boston Anarchist
Drinking Brigade. Please download, print and distrubute.
thanks,
blaine
==========================================================================
ÿ
From htoaster@yabbs Sat Jan 2 09:22:37 1993
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: new pres
Date: Sat Jan 2 09:22:37 1993
Bill is going to be inagurated in a few days...
htoaster
ÿ
From charta@yabbs Mon Jan 4 12:55:04 1993
From: charta@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: new pres
Date: Mon Jan 4 12:55:04 1993
Yo, I wonder if there are any socialistic computer groups
somewhere in the world, and how can i get in touch with them?
From silicon@yabbs Mon Jan 4 16:38:38 1993
From: silicon@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: gathering
Date: Mon Jan 4 16:38:38 1993
I will be there. Wooden shoe books is cool. I don't know about making
any other comittments though, right now.
- silicon -
From ducky@yabbs Mon Jan 4 21:30:16 1993
From: ducky@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: new pres
Date: Mon Jan 4 21:30:16 1993
heheh. . .apparently if you act fast by calling your congressman or
senator, YOU TOO can be the rpoud possesor of tickets to the inauguration
itself on the Capitol lawn. . .heheh. . .since it looks like i'll be in dc
at the time, mebbe i'l try & get tickets & then see if they let me in
dressed completely inappropriately. . .somehow i don't think this is the
sort of thing you'd wanna make too much of a scene at tho. . .the SS tend
to be a bit touchy about places where the prez is gonna be. . .go figger
. . .
anyone got any idea for creative anarchy at the inauguration? lately i've
been feeling kinda drained and not living up to my creative potential. . .
KD
From marquis@yabbs Tue Jan 5 07:45:11 1993
From: marquis@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: various
Date: Tue Jan 5 07:45:11 1993
Well, i am an Anarchist. Not the type that builds exploding flashlights or
tortures the neibours dog. More in the tradition of Proudhon and Kropotkin.
Blaines post looks sort of interesting.
NON SERVIUM!
...Md
ÿ
From tyrant@yabbs Fri Jan 15 23:07:05 1993
From: tyrant@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: gathering
Date: Fri Jan 15 23:07:05 1993
In message gathering, ziplock said:
> what is going on. We also need people to organize nasty, grungy rock 'n
> to play a benefit we organize, let us know that, too. Of course if you
> Our organizing meetings are on the first Sunday of every month at 12:30
Boy, a lot of mention of organizing an Anarchist meeting.
hehhe.
ÿ
From ziplock@yabbs Wed Jan 20 11:20:57 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Mailing list
Date: Wed Jan 20 11:20:57 1993
Watch for a new radical-left mailing list starting up in the next month, to
be announced in places like alt.activism, alt.society.anarchy, and
alt.society.revolution. Myself and many others are getting sick of the
Liberal dogshit that is ruling misc.activism.progressive and alt.activism
and we're going to do something about it.
Watch for alt.politics.radical-left, a new unmoderated group, to be proposed
in alt.config by the Autonome Forum dudes maybe today or tomorrow as well.
zip
PS: direct queries to pauls@umich.eduÿ
From exavious@yabbs Sun Feb 7 14:17:56 1993
From: exavious@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 7 14:17:56 1993
Hey, I don't know if this base is only for left wing anarchy.
If it is, I apologize for taking space. Otherwise I would
like to introduce myself.
I am Baron Exavious and I am a Republican anarchist. I
commit anarchy to give me power. I LOVE POWER!!!
E mail me at c_s01159@appstate.edu or change the end to
conrad.appstate.edu. The machine has temper tantrums.
From htoaster@yabbs Sun Feb 7 23:25:47 1993
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 7 23:25:47 1993
Hey, no problem about being a repub anarchist...in fact, this is really just
a political base, just wanted a name to get some people posting...
htoaster
ÿ
From buddha@yabbs Thu Feb 11 07:20:47 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Thu Feb 11 07:20:47 1993
OK- tried to write back to exavious, but he's passed on in the world. I
was just wondering how one 'commits anarchy' to 'get power'. Power usually
implies control over people which is anything but anarchy...
-Boo
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 00:31:23 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sat Feb 13 00:31:23 1993
Why on earth would anyone support a dead old idea like Socialism???
In essence you belive that YOU should work at the factory, but the
government should own it. Or You own it, but the government gets all the
profits while you get all the work of just running it.
Optikal
From buddha@yabbs Sat Feb 13 13:53:02 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sat Feb 13 13:53:02 1993
See the idea is that since the gov't runs it, all the money goes back into
running the country, and benefitting society, rather than just into some
old fat guys coke habit... Of course, it won't work because the
beaurocracy required to set up a socialist system would waste more money
on useless salaries than would be made through profits...
-Boo
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 23:19:52 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: uufnord@yabbs
Subject: re: "real"
Date: Sat Feb 13 23:19:52 1993
If you do not believe in government, then why do you find yourself
standing in line at the DMV to get license plates for your car? (if you
have one). You can disbelieve something but that cannot keep it from
exsisting. It is there wherether you accept it or not.
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 23:30:47 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism vs. anarchy
Date: Sat Feb 13 23:30:47 1993
I do not believe there will be capitalism under Anarchy, It would be
impossible. But I do believe it would be replaced by a system of
'Feudalism' and 'Monarchy'.
I like the idea of 'Feudalism' and 'Monarchy'.
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 23:33:45 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sat Feb 13 23:33:45 1993
The DEMOCRATIC party is nothing more than a Socialist party itself.
Just look at all the no good commie pinko bastards like Ron Brown, who run
it.
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 23:42:06 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: charta@yabbs
Subject: re: new pres
Date: Sat Feb 13 23:42:06 1993
Hmmm... I once wrote a textfile on Techniocracies. A Techniocracy is
where you apply the theories of government to running a BBS. In other
words, If you were running a BBS under a Socialist-Techniocracy then you
would be running it like a socialist regime. A techniocracy designed after
the U.S. would have a President (SysOp), A vice-President (Co-SysOp), A
congress, a senate, a judicial system, etc...
I think a BBS ran in such a way would be interesting for user
participation.
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 23:45:45 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: Mailing list
Date: Sat Feb 13 23:45:45 1993
AH! So you are a right-wing Socialist??
From optick@yabbs Sat Feb 13 23:50:59 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sat Feb 13 23:50:59 1993
To Exavious;
I am right-wing Anarchist myself... well sort of. I am an advocate of
feudalism, Some have called me a Fascist but I am not a rascist.
I love to make assaults on left-wing factions every time I get the chance!
Optical
From optick@yabbs Sun Feb 14 00:06:16 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 14 00:06:16 1993
That is why I believe the end result of anarchy results in feudalism.
When a government falls, the state it represented will break apart and
fragment into smaller states ruled central powers (kingdoms). If the U.S.
were to break up and fragment tommorow, some place like New York city
could become the 'Kingdom of New York' being ruled by the former Mayor who
is now Chancellor Bradly.
I believe that one day feudalism may return.
From buddha@yabbs Sun Feb 14 14:19:05 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 14 14:19:05 1993
Re: Anarchy --> Feudalism: I don't think that, if there was some huge
political collapse, present politicians would hold any power. The only
thing that ensures the Mayor power over his people now is a judicial
system which allows him to punish people who break laws. If that judicial
system were destroyed, he wouldn't have any more power. I think power
would fall into the hands of people who could enforce their beliefs by
beating others down... Then they'd become mercenaries, who would be hired
to protect individuals' private property in return for the sharing of the
property... In effect, the mercenaries would become lords (because they'd
control part of the land) under a king (the landowner who hired them all).
Then, I suppose, the mercenaries would grant land to people in return for
their working the land that the mercenaries were hired to protec (in
NY, I guess the mercenaries would hire people to clean the streets,
etc) Now is that monarchy? feudalism? both?
-Boo
From ziplock@yabbs Sun Feb 14 23:05:57 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Mailing list
Date: Sun Feb 14 23:05:57 1993
In message re: Mailing list, optick said:
> AH! So you are a right-wing Socialist??
eat me, cop.ÿ
From ziplock@yabbs Sun Feb 14 23:07:00 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 14 23:07:00 1993
In message re: Right Wing Anarchy, optick said:
> I am right-wing Anarchist myself... well sort of. I am an advocate of
> feudalism, Some have called me a Fascist but I am not a rascist.
You are a social darwinist, facist and racist.ÿ
From ziplock@yabbs Mon Feb 15 01:46:14 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Mon Feb 15 01:46:14 1993
In message re: @ & econ, optick said:
>
> The DEMOCRATIC party is nothing more than a Socialist party itself.
> Just look at all the no good commie pinko bastards like Ron Brown, who run
> it.
don't go around calling the democrats socialists, or us no-good commie
pinko bastards will get pissed. the democrats are capitalists; they are
just slightly more opportunist and disingenuous than the republicans.
you'll get all the mayhem and bloodshed you've come to expect optick, just
like in the last 500 years -- the republicans don't have a monopoly on it
yet.ÿ
From optick@yabbs Wed Feb 17 00:47:34 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Wed Feb 17 00:47:34 1993
You are 100% correct in your observation Buddha, If a huge political
collapse takes place I doubt any politicians will even survive! They will
be nearly the first ones executed or murdered. People would soon be
breaking up into small groups or roaming bands of nomads. Strong leaders
will eventually pop up and pull the people together. It will not be a hard
task pulling people together with terror-filled images of murderous
nomadic bands, starvation, and other such things lingering in the back of
their minds. Soon enough those leaders would be laying claim to land which
is to be farmed and lived on. The people will rely heavily upon the
knowledge, strength, and wisdom of their leader. And that leader will
eventually appoint an hier to replace him when he is gone (most likely a
good friend or family member). As these groups grow larger, the leaders
will see the need for more farmland and living space and it t(will
eventually lead to land aquisition from neighboring groups through means
of either conquest or negotiations. And no one can control that age old
hunger for power. soon you have one group that will formulate into one big
group that soon becomes quite a major Kingdom or Empire.
Thus you have Feudalism and Monarchy, Buddha. If the government collapses
tommorow (And I believe it's going to happen), the inevitable results are
going to be feudalism & Monarchy.
Optical
From optick@yabbs Wed Feb 17 00:49:45 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Wed Feb 17 00:49:45 1993
Cop??? HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Social Darwinist? Maybe, Afterall it is survival of the fittest!
Face it, Socialism don't work.
From optick@yabbs Wed Feb 17 00:57:31 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Wed Feb 17 00:57:31 1993
If the democratic party is not a socialist party in diguise, then will you
please write the chairman and tell them to quite dumping those old dead
socialist ideas all over the American people. Apparently you are not doing
your homework Ziplock, if you want I will enlighten you on the subject. I
think I know a little more about it than you seeing as how I live not more
than 50 miles from the democracy capitol of the world, and apparently
(from the picture you paint) you are living in another country.
Optical
From wurzle@yabbs Wed Feb 17 19:22:39 1993
From: wurzle@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Wed Feb 17 19:22:39 1993
I'm a little unclear by what you all mean by a "collapse" of the Amerikan
gov't. From the previous posts, I'm assuming you mean that D.C., the
Pentagon, and all government offices nation-wide just up and disappear, as
if by magic. (And all the people associated with them, of course.) The
aftermath of such a disappearance wouldn't be nearly as dramatic as you're
all describing anyway -- the grab for power and land would come from
overseas, and have little to do with home-grown revolutions. After all,
they have the big guns and know how to use them. If, say, the political
branches of government would up and go away, then we'd be under military
control overnight.... and, if for some reason, ALL governments and
militaries vanished, our fate would lie in the hands of the national and
multinational conglomorates.
Anyways... the point I'm getting at is that the aftermath of the collapse
depends highly on the nature of the collapse itself. And I doubt if the
government came to an end, many people would really notice. They're too
busy watching TV.
From optick@yabbs Thu Feb 18 01:07:53 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: wurzle@yabbs
Subject: re: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Thu Feb 18 01:07:53 1993
What makes you think it cannot happen Wurzle? The Roman Empire never
thought in their most wildest dreams that the Republic would be ruled by a
"King", but it happend! Even worse yet no Commander was allowed to entew3r
Rome at the head of his legion, but how quickly things can change. You are
living under the illusion that America (USA) is going to exsist forever,
but the cold, hard reality is that Empires rise and fall like the tides,
and so shall America fall into ruins one day and there is nothing anyone
can do to save it. What you are witnessing now are the seeds of
destruction just being conceived. -Riot(s), Over-Taxing, Moral decay,
Military resisting bequests of the government, "Multi-Culturalism",
"Political-Correctness", ect... -
Indeeed when/if America crumbles there will be other foriegn countries
who will make land-grabs here, but when America goes down, a great
majority of other countries will follow close behind. Think about it, the
world economy would collapse and alot of people will be unhappy. When
America finally does fall, the world will be drastically changed.
Optical
From buddha@yabbs Fri Feb 19 16:22:33 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:22:33 1993
Re: Anarchy --> Monarchy/Feudalism... So do you think that if there WAS a
political collapse, and we ended up in a monarchy, we'd again make the
transition to constitutional monarchy then democracy? Or do you think
something else would evolve?
-Boo
From buddha@yabbs Fri Feb 19 16:23:19 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:23:19 1993
Re: Socialism don't work... It's never really been tried.
From buddha@yabbs Fri Feb 19 16:28:46 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Fri Feb 19 16:28:46 1993
But there was no dramatic collapse of the Roman empire, like we're
talking. It's pretty silly to suggest that the political system in the US
will just *collapse* without anyone else coming in immediately to take
power. But the question is what if it did?
Also, whadda you mean by a social darwinist?
-Boo
From ziplock@yabbs Fri Feb 19 18:18:44 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Fri Feb 19 18:18:44 1993
In message re: Collapse? I think not..., buddha said:
> Also, whadda you mean by a social darwinist?
One who applies Darwinian evolutionary theory to human society, to justify
why those on top should stay there, by virtue of their biological and/or
social superiority. An elitist and reactionary dogma.ÿ
From dr. k@yabbs Sat Feb 20 16:39:18 1993
From: dr. k@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sat Feb 20 16:39:18 1993
You too? I am also a great attacker of those hanging out on the left wing.
I would probably call myself more of a National Socialist, but I can't get
into that Jew thing. Anarchy, though, is fun. Dr. K.
From ziplock@yabbs Sat Feb 20 20:48:40 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: dr. k@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sat Feb 20 20:48:40 1993
In message re: Right Wing Anarchy, dr. k said:
> You too? I am also a great attacker of those hanging out on the left wing.
> I would probably call myself more of a National Socialist, but I can't get
> into that Jew thing. Anarchy, though, is fun. Dr. K.
ok, great attacker, fire away and we'll tell you why you're full of shit.ÿ
From optick@yabbs Sun Feb 21 01:35:26 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 21 01:35:26 1993
I am sure if the process would repeat itself, But I am sure it would be
rather close. The main thing about monarchies of the past was that
religion played a key part. I am not sure if it would in the future or
not. However it may turn out you can be best assured the end results will
be more intense than the last. It may go so far as to where power
is always inherited in a darwinistic manner (survival of the fittest)
where power is acheived through domination and the removal of foes.
America just hasn reached the era in her history yet (I believe), But I
think that it may be inevitable.
I really would not call it Monarchism, I tend to lean toward centralism
acheived by divine right, or at least it will develop that way.
From optick@yabbs Sun Feb 21 02:00:45 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 21 02:00:45 1993
Sure it has, most of the nations of Europe have implemented it's
theories. The problem with socialism is it lives by the fantasy that ALL
people are equals and/or the working class are the ones that should be
embodiment of power, and success should be punished with burden. In
socialism there is no individualism, there is only collectivism. I used to
be a Socialist, But not long ago I stood before other fellow Socialists
and denounced Socialism (and socialist!), and renounced my Socialism.
Why did I do this? The answer to that is quite simple, It has become
quite clear that the Socialist Movement(s) have been identifying itself
more and more with other radical left-wing groups that I have a great
hatred for! Those left-wing groups being Liberals, Homosexuals, Feminists,
Marxists, Other Socialist groups, Democrats, Cultural
Awarness organizations, and enviromentalist! (Quite a liest eh?)
I might add I was quite sick and tired of left-wing politics altogether,
It is turning into one big cesspool of class-envy and criticism. Just ask
any socialist today, they are all blinded by class-envy and criticism of
the right, you can't have a political conversation with a Socialist
without Class-Envy or Criticism popping up somewhere in there.
Optical Illusion
From optick@yabbs Sun Feb 21 02:07:33 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Sun Feb 21 02:07:33 1993
Oh no! You're right, The Roman Empire did not come to a sudden climatic
(and dramatic!) end, It gradually fell apart over time, Decay as it might
be. What I mean by an abrupt end here in the U.S. would be more like the
end of the Republic in Rome. ie; Some great disaster or Assination that
would would split the people so badly that riots would a
break out, and eventually lead to armed conflict. State militias and the
army might split and in the end, the government as we know it would die
and the declaration of an Imperator would take place. America could
fragment into smaller states.
/s
From buddha@yabbs Sun Feb 21 13:11:09 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sun Feb 21 13:11:09 1993
Oh god... I smelled intelligence up until the part about "left wing groups
I have a great hatred for... Feminists, Homosexuals, Cultural Awareness
groups." WhatEVER. Go back into your little paranoid hole...
But what you were saying about religion aiding monarchy is definately
true... notice that during most revolutions (Russian, French) there was a
rejection of religion. Monarchs claiming "divine right" will not be able
to get much authority THAT way in the future.
-Boo
From optick@yabbs Tue Feb 23 01:06:38 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Tue Feb 23 01:06:38 1993
>why those on top should stay there, by virtue of their biological and/or
>social superiority. An elitest and reactionary dogma
So Ziplock, You think that success should be punished? That the children
of the successful have no right to enjoy fruit of their labor??? Ziplock
you have to understand that the rich do not get there by sitting on their
hands and doing nothing, and their children cannot help the fact that they
happen to be born into such a family. What are they to do, give up all of
thier money and start from scratch just to make a few envious people
happy?
Now tell me if I am right Ziplock, You believe that all classes high and
low should be made to pay their fair share of the burdern, Am I correct
in that assumption?
If I am correct, then please give me your definition of what "Fair" is?
Optical Illusion
From optick@yabbs Tue Feb 23 01:18:15 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: dr. k@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Tue Feb 23 01:18:15 1993
Well you don't have to be a Rascist to be Facsist Dr. K, The assumption
that all fascist are racsist is some garbage spread around by the
left-wing to discourage people and to generate hate for fascist movements.
It's been the ignorant follies of the Nazi party and the KKK that have
given the Fascists a bad reputation. Most right-wing groups should make it
a goal to alienate such groups as White-Supremascist, Nazis, and the KKK
and work toward the decline and dissolution of them. Race should NEVER
EVER play a part in political power. Any such groups that do make race a
or culturalism a central issue are doomed to failure. This is one of the
problems plaguing America today.
Optical Illusion
From optick@yabbs Tue Feb 23 01:33:19 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Tue Feb 23 01:33:19 1993
AHA! So you are a leftist! I knew it when you started pulling the same
old liberal/leftist tactic of protecting your ego by trying to insult
mine! Alright... which one are you? Are you the Marxist, the Homosexual?
The Feminist Feminazi?, The liberal?
I believe that it would still be possible for Monarchs to claim the
throne through divine right. If you think about the possibilities of a
cultural revolution taking place and the return of the Inquisition (I for
cultural revolution taking place, divine right becomes a possibility.
(The return of the Inquisition would be quite a site!) Otherwise power
would be achieved through the old-fashioned Roman way; The Army goes to
the highest bidder, and the losers get to fall on their swords!
Optical Illusion
From buddha@yabbs Tue Feb 23 18:03:34 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Tue Feb 23 18:03:34 1993
Yeah man, I'm a real hippie fag, you know I voted Green party last
election... Whatever. People of all political persuasions use insult as a
way of boosting their own egos, it was pretty weak of you to try + tie
THAT in with liberalism...
Fascism: 1. A political philosphy, movement, or regime ... that exalts
NATION and often RACE above the individual and that stands for a
centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and FORCIBLE SUPRESSION OF OPPOSITION.
Fascism is CLEARLY reliant upon either xenophobia or rascism, which pretty
much boil down to hatred because of IGNORANT prejudice (as opposed to
EDUCATED prejudice). Yes, it may make for a very successful dictator, but
what happens if you don't like him? Did you read the last part (in caps)
of the definition?
-Boo
From riben@yabbs Tue Feb 23 23:33:59 1993
From: riben@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: socialism
Date: Tue Feb 23 23:33:59 1993
from optik's writings, the most i can glean of his criticism of socialism
and his renouncement thereof is that it is not based on any real, concrete
objections, but rather he feels it is not fashionable (in his own circles)
to be socialist.
he has given no reasons for denoucing socialism, other than "it's a bunch
of dead ideas." it is a common misconception that "old" ideas are somehow
outdated, and "new" ideas are better (in all cases except those biblical,
patriarchal, or Clearly American). socialism is actually a much newer
idea than anything in force in this country. and how has it failed? look
at one of our big national crises: health covereage. people everywhere
are screaming about it, the president's wife is devoting her life to it,
and it's just a bad thing all around. why don't we hear the same
gripes in other countries? (to those unaware: nearly every other country
has a form of socialized medicine, including Canada and the UK)
From optick@yabbs Wed Feb 24 01:48:41 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Wed Feb 24 01:48:41 1993
Well, First of all you have not seen me making insults at
YOUR intelligence have you? Everytime I debate with a liberal and he/she
starts losing the argument, the same old ego defense comes up everytime;
"Oh you are just ignorant" or "You're just a bigot!". SAnd sure enough YOU
made the comment about about my intelligence when you felt your ego
threatend. It's quite typical, Liberals always tend to be
hypocritical.
Typical hypocrites you wonder? Well let's take one; Enviromentalist, They
are so fanatical about saving trees to make this world a better place to
are so fanatical about saving trees (to make this such a wonderful world
to live in), that they are willing to drive spilkes into trees which will
(and has) end up killing some innocent lumber worker who is just trying to
make a living to feed his family and get by. We need fascism to do away
with such fanatics who would risk the lives of people just to save a lump
of wood!
FASCISM
Let enlighten you here Buddha, It's easy to see you are only familar
with the old Webster definition of fascism. Fascism is Nationalism
in the highest degree, Fascist regimes seek isolation of their borders
which means no immigrant. (ie; America is for Americans only, No outsiders
allowed in), Fascism uses brutality to enforce law in some regimes. But is
that bad? I could form the Amercian Fascist Movement tommorow and it could
include people of all colors (Black,White,Oriental) and it's purpose would
would be anti-immigration and the promotion of American values only, which
means all those (foriegnors) living here now would have to abandon their
non-American cultures and accept the American culture.
The assumption that fascism has to be racially motivated is another
liberal (and left-wing) assumption. Why is that??? Because the liberals
and left-wing groups promote the most racist policy
of them all; Multi-Culturalism.
Optical Illusion
From optick@yabbs Wed Feb 24 02:01:52 1993
From: optick@yabbs
To: riben@yabbs
Subject: re: socialism
Date: Wed Feb 24 02:01:52 1993
And those countries you have named have dreadful health care
systems (America has the best in the world), and they have smaller
populations. When the government foots the bill, quality is going to
suffer badly. Army and Veteran hospitals are run by the government here in
America (just like regular hospitals in your great socialist countries),
And I will garuntee you this, if you ever go in a Army or Veteran Hospital
here, You will be BEGGING to get out!!! How much quality care do you think
you are going to get from a doctor who is being paid 5 bucks per hour???
Riben, Why don't you tell me of one country that has successfully
instituted the ideas of socialism? I have already told you why I denounced
socialism. It is nothing more that a philosphy based on class-envy and
ppunishment of the successful. The system of Socialism cannot define the
terms of what 'Fair' is.
Optical Illusion
BTW: Where is Ziplock???? I enjoy debating with him!
From buddha@yabbs Wed Feb 24 19:21:02 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: re: socialism
Date: Wed Feb 24 19:21:02 1993
America has the best health care in the world? Then why is it that
American health is so far behind countries such as Japan, Germany, etc? I
mea higher rates of heart disease, high blood pressure, and so forth.
Don't blame that on American super-consumerism... Its a product of people
not being able to afford normal treatment and medication. Health shouldn't
be a luxury, like cars or TVs... We need a health care plan modeled after
those in West Germany or Canada, where health is a right of EVERYONE, not
just the financially fit...
"America is for Americans only... promote American values??!?" Let me
explain something: no matter how right-wing you'd like to be, you'd be one
of the first victimized by fascism. Hacking, phreaking, and generally ANY
form of liberty which could undermine CAPITALI$M would be eliminated
by fascist control. The government intends to defend the $$$ which keeps
it powerful, hacking and phreaking make that $$$ unsafe, and if they
could, they'd crack down. Fascism would give them that chance. You could
say bye-bye to all your little hacking groups and so forth... You wouldn't
like it so much, then, would you?
Um, also-- "no immigrants?" America is a country of immigrants... Who are
you to say who's a true American.
-Boo
From lostboy@yabbs Wed Feb 24 21:22:05 1993
From: lostboy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: definitions
Date: Wed Feb 24 21:22:05 1993
I had an interesting conversation with a young man about his definition of
anarchy the other day. He flat out asked me, "Cool man. You're into
anarchy, huh? What kind?" I had no clue what he meant and told him so;
he responded: "I mean, are you into revenge, or guns, or explosives or
what?"
I was appalled. Obviously he had never really thought about anarchy and
decided to put it into a category with all of his negative emotions -
hate, anger revenge, etc. I infromed him that the true anarchist (in my
opinion) is one who is dedicated to overthrowing the status quo and create
a new structure based on the concepts of responsibility and personal
freedom. We had an interesting chat, since even after I told him my
viewpoint he continued on ranting about how he was "gonna blow this guy to
Hell and back" with his homemade explosives because the guy in question
insulted his girlfriend. And he called THAT anarchy!
From fredbisc@yabbs Mon Mar 1 15:40:58 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: to all the liberals and con
Date: Mon Mar 1 15:40:58 1993
...they spend the day sitting at swamps with fishing rods, thinking
themselves profound; but whoever fishes where there are no fish, I would
not even call superficial.
that's by friedrich nietzsche, a very profound thinker. hitler took some
of his doctrines and misinterpreted them for his own good. why don't all
you liberals and conservatives take these words and interpret them for the
common good. arguing amongst ourselves is useless. while we argue, they
take away. oh well, maybe it's just me, but i hate politics. anyone here
ever heard any of jello biafra's spoken word stuff? try to find some.
fredbisc
From buddha@yabbs Mon Mar 1 16:29:13 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: fredbisc@yabbs
Subject: re: to all the liberals and con
Date: Mon Mar 1 16:29:13 1993
Yeah, I've got Jello's "I Blow Minds for a Living". Wow. I haven't gotten
around to listening to any of his other stuff, but I LOVE it... What else
have you heard?
-Boo
From jasonlee@yabbs Mon Mar 1 19:49:39 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: re: to all the liberals and con
Date: Mon Mar 1 19:49:39 1993
Yeah, I've got that tape, too (hear that Fredbisc?). It's damn good.
I've heard a couple other of his spoken word stuff, but I don't remember
what the names of the tapes were. He seems to be a pretty nice guy, but
it doesn't seem like he does a lot besides talk.
I don't know, though. I could be wrong.
JasonLee
From fredbisc@yabbs Mon Mar 1 21:57:56 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: buddha@yabbs
Subject: jello
Date: Mon Mar 1 21:57:56 1993
that's his third spoken tape. he used to sing for the dead kennedys, and
has had projects with al and paul from the ministry (called LARD), as well
as DOA and nomeansno. also some other stuff i can't think of off hand.
hmmmm. his first spoken tape is mostly about censorship, although there
are some cool things about why he's glad the space shuttle blew up, and
how to choose band names. the second is about him getting sued for
distributing harmful matter to minors (he included an H.R. Geiger painting
in the dead kennedys frankenchrist record). ahhhhh, i could go on for
days. mail me on musak or whatever if you want more info.
From jasonlee@yabbs Fri Mar 5 13:43:42 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: fredbisc@yabbs
Subject: re: jello
Date: Fri Mar 5 13:43:42 1993
Hm...I really didn't know he was in Lard. I was listening to some of
their stuff in a bookstore, and the whole thing sounded familiar, but I
couldn't place it. Maybe I'll have to get some o that Lard stuff.
JasonLee
From kingpin@yabbs Fri Mar 5 23:17:36 1993
From: kingpin@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Novatel cellular phone part
Date: Fri Mar 5 23:17:36 1993
Hey I've been looking for this part for my Novatel transportable bag phone
for a while.. It is the plastic 's' shaped insert that goes inside the
bag to seperate the battery from the transceiver and from the handset
cradle..
Novatel doesn't make them anymore.. hmm.. if anyone has one available, I
will pay CASH (thats right.. real money) for it.. so let me know..
thanks..
Kingpin - 617
RDT Posse
From ziplock@yabbs Tue Mar 9 10:01:13 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: lostboy@yabbs
Subject: re: definitions
Date: Tue Mar 9 10:01:13 1993
In message definitions, lostboy said:
> I had an interesting conversation with a young man about his definition of
> anarchy the other day. He flat out asked me, "Cool man. You're into
> anarchy, huh? What kind?" I had no clue what he meant and told him so;
> he responded: "I mean, are you into revenge, or guns, or explosives or
> what?"
Hey, can I use this response you gave for the alt.society.anarchy FAQ?
ÿ
From novice@yabbs Sat Mar 13 17:42:14 1993
From: novice@yabbs
To: optick@yabbs
Subject: American culture
Date: Sat Mar 13 17:42:14 1993
A while back, you meantioned in your discussion of fascism that if America
were to "become fascist," (quite a feat...) then its borders would close
(I know this is simplified) and all of the AMERICANS inside would have to
embrace AMERICAN values, regardless of their ethnic origin.
The trouble being...then you have to define AMERICAN culture, and I thik
you'd have a hard time doing that without acknowledging the presence
of ethnicity in American culture.
Which, it seems to me, kind of negates the purpose of fascism, doesn't it?
...novice...
(LGILBER@opie.bgsu.edu)
From novice@yabbs Sat Mar 13 17:48:10 1993
From: novice@yabbs
To: lostboy@yabbs
Subject: re: definitions
Date: Sat Mar 13 17:48:10 1993
RE: Definitions of anarchy.
It's funny, isn't it...how definitions get *$&%ed up depending on who
wants to use what word to mean what and it what context? I've always
considered myself "anarchist," but (aside from recreational reading of The
Anarchist's Cookbook...mostly for the drug recipies..) I also always
considered it to be a purely personal thing. In other words..you don't
infringe on my rights, I won't infringe on yours. 'Nuff siad.
...novice..
(LGILBER@opie.bgsu.edu)
From gambit@yabbs Sun Mar 14 03:13:32 1993
From: gambit@yabbs
To: novice@yabbs
Subject: A's Cookbook
Date: Sun Mar 14 03:13:32 1993
Speaking of, any idea where I can get a copy of that? I've heard about it,
and it sounds like fun reading.
And Id have to agree, anarchy is almost entirelly a personal thing. It
can be interpereted and defined in enough different ways that almost no
two anarchists have the same ideas and beliefs.
Then of course, there's "Hey, we made a pipe bomb.. we're anarchists
now..."
No, boys and girls, no no no... sheesh.
From buddha@yabbs Sun Mar 14 14:34:18 1993
From: buddha@yabbs
To: gambit@yabbs
Subject: re: A's Cookbook
Date: Sun Mar 14 14:34:18 1993
The Anarchist's Cookbook can be ordered from a bunch of places, it's
usually $20+. Frankly, I don't think its worth it considering that the
info is 20 years old and better techniques for doing most of the stuff in
there can be found floating around cyberspace (for free, might I add). The
drug stuff is OK, but I have heard rumors about how accurate the recipies,
etc, are. You'd be better off ordering some of the more recent stuff from
Books-By-Phone or FS Books or Loompanics... Better info and price...
-Boo
From laurel@yabbs Sun Mar 14 23:10:04 1993
From: laurel@yabbs
To: gambit@yabbs
Subject: y
Date: Sun Mar 14 23:10:04 1993
Altough it says from "Laurel" it's actually novice and I just coudn't--for
some reason--log on with novice. However....
The only copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook that I've seen for sale was at a
coffee shop in town (this town is Bowling Green, Ohio...which is worse
than Dante's hell...) called Grounds for Thought. However, I think it's
gone now. The library where I work, which is the Popular Culture Library
at BGSU also has a copy, though I'm not sure if they let books out on
innerlibrary loan or not. It's about 100 pages...maybe I'll make one of
those illigal copies that we're warned against and bring it home.
It's hard to find, but I know it's still attainable, if not in print,
because the copy I saw at the coffeeshop was new.
...novice..
(LGILBER@opie.bgsu.edu)
From natepalm@yabbs Sun Mar 14 23:57:17 1993
From: natepalm@yabbs
To: laurel@yabbs
Subject: re: y
Date: Sun Mar 14 23:57:17 1993
hwy bother with the Anarchists cookbook, when you ahve the Jolly Rogers'
on line? I love that! I'mnot ever going to use any of it, either .because
it would be illegal. but I bought the Anarchists in Minneapolis (i'm sure
they've got lots of copies left) and it was 1/2 drugs (which I don't do)
and the rest was killing people (which I don't do..) so it was pretty
useless.
From novice@yabbs Mon Mar 15 20:58:06 1993
From: novice@yabbs
To: natepalm@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy
Date: Mon Mar 15 20:58:06 1993
RE: The Anarchist Cookbook
Yeah, it's half drugs (no comment) and half killing (which I haven't
done...yet), but it's interesting, and one should always keep an open mind
I think.
Maybe it's the weather, maybe it's the sunspots, maybe it's just middle of
the semester blahs....but anrachy--total--seems like a lot of fun right
now. I've decided to become a virtual person.
Appropriated song lyrics:
"We are living
In a virtual world,
And I am a virtual girl...
(Oh yeah) we're living
In a virtual world
And I am a virtual girl..
(hey hey hey
...novice..
From natepalm@yabbs Tue Mar 16 12:40:53 1993
From: natepalm@yabbs
To: novice@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy
Date: Tue Mar 16 12:40:53 1993
Oh, I never said that other people woudn't like it.. =^) I was jsut
saying that for waht i was looking for, the JR here is jsut about right.
and once again, i'll never use it... but total Anarchy would hit the spt,
methinks. I love it whan people say "In an anarchy, the strongest would
overpower everybody, and you'd be their slaves, blah blah, blah." wll
then, it wouldn't be proper Anarchy, would it?
Megadeths "Anarchy in the UK" is the best version, IMHO.
(no disrespect to the Pistols, of course..)
From enigma@yabbs Tue Mar 16 22:22:14 1993
From: enigma@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: freedom???
Date: Tue Mar 16 22:22:14 1993
Okay, I've got a little social commentary for you all:
Tomorrw, I go tto court to defend my right (?) to not be beat up by big
men w/ guns--namley, the cops.
The COPS broke into my home a month ago, chased me down when I tried to
run from them, (I'll stress right now that they had NOT arrested me at
that time) beat me up, took me into "custody" (we'll dispute the
definition of that later) took me to the station, threatened me some more,
and THEN arrested me for (you ready for this..........)
*******************RESISTING
ARREST***************************************************************
So, tomorrow I go to plead my side (thanks to the free university lawyer).
Granted, i did fight back when the cops tackled me, and they say that they
can arrest someone with out telling they are arrested and so, I was
arrested at the time I ran; however, I really have a problem with the
situation as a whole. Who gave them that right to break into my house (a
window inmy door got broken) and take me ito "custody" for something that
I didn't do AND isn't illegal! (I told someone I was going to kill
myself) Now, where the FUCK are my individual rights? What kind of a
nazi Police state are we really living in????
And those pigs have the nerve to go into the schools and brainwash little
kids how great the cops are and how everybody is supposed to TRUst them!!
Yeah, right.
From natepalm@yabbs Wed Mar 17 16:10:13 1993
From: natepalm@yabbs
To: enigma@yabbs
Subject: re: freedom???
Date: Wed Mar 17 16:10:13 1993
You weren't playing their little game. and you got busted for it. Ain't
our society grand? To pull stupid shit like that... did they have a
warrant? Did they say any anything before they busted in? Knock? Maybe
even a nice, "Hey. We heard you were going to kill yourself. don't do it,
ok?" My guess wiould be big no... but hey. Hope you get off...
From weezal@yabbs Thu Mar 18 00:46:56 1993
From: weezal@yabbs
To: gambit@yabbs
Subject: re: A's Cookbook
Date: Thu Mar 18 00:46:56 1993
In my town here, a couple of morons in their 20's blew up a Junior High
School girls restroom, and made another bomb that wouldn't work. Besides
that, they got caught.
I imagine they think they're anarchists.
From weezal@yabbs Thu Mar 18 00:49:29 1993
From: weezal@yabbs
To: natepalm@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy
Date: Thu Mar 18 00:49:29 1993
The only people who think anarchy is the strongest ruling and support it
are those who think they're the strongest. Someone needs to knock them
down a bit.
From mohawk@yabbs Thu Mar 18 01:33:34 1993
From: mohawk@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: A's Cookbook
Date: Thu Mar 18 01:33:34 1993
If anyone is interested in books like the Anarchists Cookbook, try
Loompanics, they have a pretty good selection of underground books, the
address is:Loompanics Unlimited, PO Box 1197 Port Townsend WA 98368, the
catalog costs $5. Amok also is an underground book distributer, their
address is: Amok, PO Box 861867 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles CA
90086-1867. The catalog is $9, but its 400 pages.
mohawk
From enigma@yabbs Fri Mar 19 20:54:20 1993
From: enigma@yabbs
To: natepalm@yabbs
Subject: re: freedom???
Date: Fri Mar 19 20:54:20 1993
You guessed it! No warrant, no REASON to arrest me, no response to the
fact that I told them several times NOT to come into my home, nothing
except a good old bump/cut on my head where theyrammed it inot the
sidewalk and arrest charges! Assholes!
As for my lawyer, he got them to chance it to disorderly conduct and told
me to accept that because there was no way I get off in a trial. Well, I
did and I got fined $125.00 for it. I'really pissed that I did that
becasue it's like admitting that I was wrong, when I know that I what I
did wasn't wrong! But, I can't change it now. I'm really pissed at this
whole society--it sucks, and ther's nohing I can do but go to Canada (amd
probably get fucked ther too). And you're right, for someone who's
supposed to be "protecting" me and convincing me to trust them and that I
shouldn't commit suicde, thay sure did a bang up job! I still have to
replace the galss they broke in my door!
From gambit@yabbs Sat Mar 20 15:15:01 1993
From: gambit@yabbs
To: weezal@yabbs
Subject: re: A's Cookbook
Date: Sat Mar 20 15:15:01 1993
Yeah, I live in the same place you do. Went to that school, actually.
Those guys were fucking morons, first oiff foor even doing what they did,
and second for getting caught doing it.
Sheesh.
From oderous@yabbs Sun Mar 28 22:43:12 1993
From: oderous@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re:Jolly Rogers
Date: Sun Mar 28 22:43:12 1993
hehe... speaking of this fine publication, some kid in Ohio was selling
Hardcopies of it in his middle school.... needless to say, a lot of people
were very upset, and a lot of kids/parents think that he's a maniac for
having it.
If only they knew that their 12-13 year old could waltz into
Waldenbooks/Community Newscenter and pick up the AC fer $22.50 , or
if have a modem, get 20 times as many equally (more) dangerous text files
as this.
odd
From fredbisc@yabbs Tue Mar 30 20:14:07 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: enigma@yabbs
Subject: re: freedom???
Date: Tue Mar 30 20:14:07 1993
my band played a show at my former high school one night and some off-duty
pigs were hired to act as security. well anyway during our set, the last
of the night, a couple (a bunch) of friends decided to mosh it up, or
closer to the truth act silly by dancing (strictly forbidden), well the
gist of the story is one of my friends got a flashlight busted (literally)
over his head, a maglight no less, and another got arrested for assaulting
a pig when he shrugged one's hand off his shoulder. fucking stupid. not
quite the same as your situation, but nevertheless a shining example of a
fucking pig's stupidity.
fredbiscuit
From johndeer@yabbs Wed Mar 31 14:50:54 1993
From: johndeer@yabbs
To: fredbisc@yabbs
Subject: re: freedom???
Date: Wed Mar 31 14:50:54 1993
how could your friend be charged with assaulting a pig when the pig was
off-duty? if the pig was off-duty, he would be charged with assaulting a
normal citizen. (actually, it's battery, not assault, but nobody's being
picky)...
john Deere
From fredbisc@yabbs Wed Mar 31 21:35:17 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: johndeer@yabbs
Subject: pigs
Date: Wed Mar 31 21:35:17 1993
i guess it was because the cop was in uniform. in any case, my pal got a
nice fine and a suspended sentence due to a judge who must love pigs. oh,
did i forget to mention that my friends had long hair?
fredbiscuit
From johndeer@yabbs Thu Apr 1 15:33:26 1993
From: johndeer@yabbs
To: fredbisc@yabbs
Subject: re: pigs
Date: Thu Apr 1 15:33:26 1993
damn longhairs....
:)
john Deere
From fredbisc@yabbs Sun Apr 4 19:34:42 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: johndeer@yabbs
Subject: re: pigs
Date: Sun Apr 4 19:34:42 1993
that's what the rest of my band said and shaved theirs off. oh well, at
least the pigs felt good about themselves, right?
fred...
From greywolf@yabbs Tue Apr 13 23:12:27 1993
From: greywolf@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: anarchy
Date: Tue Apr 13 23:12:27 1993
Boy oh Boy, we all seem quit intent on anarchy don't we? Not apost in a
fortnight?
From swami@yabbs Tue Apr 13 23:16:45 1993
From: swami@yabbs
To: greywolf@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Tue Apr 13 23:16:45 1993
In these days, I think libertarianism is the closest to anarchy
you can get. Maybe Clinton will give us cause, eh?
Swami
From fredbisc@yabbs Thu Apr 15 15:39:48 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Thu Apr 15 15:39:48 1993
i've just been saying too much. subscribe to the blue ball entrepreneur!
From tom@yabbs Thu Apr 15 22:47:30 1993
From: tom@yabbs
To: johndeer@yabbs
Subject: re: pigs
Date: Thu Apr 15 22:47:30 1993
what's funny is when i (being of longish hair) am nice to people...not
rude at least...they always act surprised...like people with long hair are
supposed to be always stoned and real obnoxious...
From greywolf@yabbs Fri Apr 16 01:02:47 1993
From: greywolf@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: blue ball entrepenuer
Date: Fri Apr 16 01:02:47 1993
what's the #?
From fredbisc@yabbs Fri Apr 16 16:31:51 1993
From: fredbisc@yabbs
To: greywolf@yabbs
Subject: re: blue ball entrepenuer
Date: Fri Apr 16 16:31:51 1993
e-mail to fln2jes@cabell.vcu.edu for an issue or just info.
fredbisc
From ziplock@yabbs Sun May 2 15:39:47 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: swami@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Sun May 2 15:39:47 1993
In message re: anarchy, swami said:
> In these days, I think libertarianism is the closest to anarchy
> you can get. Maybe Clinton will give us cause, eh?
Which is sorta moot since libertarianism isn't anarchy at all --
libertarians advocate destruction of the state, but no end to social
hierarchy that creates states.ÿ
From swami@yabbs Thu May 6 11:36:51 1993
From: swami@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Thu May 6 11:36:51 1993
Sure libertarianism isn't true anarchy, but for Joe American
it's a hell of a change. Gee, he might actually have to be
productive and think for himself. While I find many libertarian
ideas very interesting, I simply cannot see such a drastic depart
from current society.
Swami
From ziplock@yabbs Thu May 6 19:44:03 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: swami@yabbs
Subject: Libertarians
Date: Thu May 6 19:44:03 1993
For people who thing that anarchism and libertarianism have anything in
common, I recommend Bob Black's essay "Libertarian as Conservative". He
makes some decent points (though I don't support his every word). You can
ftp it or gopher it from uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in
/pub/Politics/Essays/Anarchyÿ
From bit@yabbs Mon May 10 08:50:08 1993
From: bit@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Mon May 10 08:50:08 1993
Couldn't the civilian deaths be because Saddam kept putting the things the
allies wanted to bomb in non military areas? I'm not too sure about this
though.
From jasonlee@yabbs Sun Sep 19 12:28:06 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: ....
Date: Sun Sep 19 12:28:06 1993
Hm, no anarchists this year?
JasonLee
From admiral@yabbs Sun Sep 19 18:10:21 1993
From: admiral@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: ....
Date: Sun Sep 19 18:10:21 1993
Nah, I guess they blew themselves up when they were trying to make
nitroglycerin or something. Hey, anybody know any good shit to pull?
Something that works good in small cities... I'm kinda bored here.. heh
llatta
From jasonlee@yabbs Mon Sep 20 14:17:05 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: admiral@yabbs
Subject: re: ....
Date: Mon Sep 20 14:17:05 1993
You could always try some billboard alterations, though that may take a
while, and requires a great degree of skill. The results are always
interesting. That's one way to defeat boredom.
JasonLee
From lobster@yabbs Mon Sep 27 19:00:09 1993
From: lobster@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: anarchy
Date: Mon Sep 27 19:00:09 1993
SystemSez>> No new messages in Anarchy in the US (why not post one?)
Ok.
Whenever I pass a metermaid on the street (Boston) I hum the theme to
Dragnet. Because they are so /<-RaD writing tickets and such.
Actually how about some useful information...all right...twice I got a
parking ticket, which was totally my fault. I parked on the wrong side of
the street when street cleaning was being done. $15 bucks or so. Ok now
I mean tWICE this happened. Get this: both times I appealed the ticket
(sent in a letter instead of a check) and I won both times. So if you get
a parking ticket don't pay it. Appeal it...even if it WAS your fault,
what is the worst they can do to you? Tell you are incorrect and tell you
to pay up. That's all really...
/*-- Lobster --*/
From xenon@yabbs Mon Sep 27 22:36:19 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: lobster@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Mon Sep 27 22:36:19 1993
Ya know, way-back-when I used to put $ in those damn machines. In the
space of a couple o' months, I recieved 3 tickets when my meter had
expired in the last 2-4 minutes. Sounds like some asshole was just
sitting there waiting. Anywayz, I put my last hunk o' change in those
damn rip-off meters October of '92 and have NOT gotten a single ticket
since then and I've been parking in the worst places. Actually, I rarely
park in a space anymore. I just stop at the side of the road and put my
blinkers on. Maybe that's why I haven't been ticketed...
--> Xenon
From admiral@yabbs Tue Sep 28 17:49:49 1993
From: admiral@yabbs
To: lobster@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Tue Sep 28 17:49:49 1993
I miss boston. Can't wait till december. I'm gonna be up there
staying with a friend. Gonna have shitloads of fun.... Anarchy rulez!
llatta
From lobster@yabbs Wed Sep 29 19:29:49 1993
From: lobster@yabbs
To: xenon@yabbs
Subject: parking meters
Date: Wed Sep 29 19:29:49 1993
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
since then and I've been parking in the worst places. Actually, I rarely
park in a space anymore. I just stop at the side of the road and put my
blinkers on. Maybe that's why I haven't been ticketed...
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
That's a good scheme. But if they see you there for over an hour
or so I'm sure they'd ticket you. What city are you in? Here in Boston
the BTD (people who hand out tickets) is a mutli-million dollar
business...I don't know that for a fact but seeing how many cars have thos
damn flourescent orange tickets on them, they must be raking in lots of
dough.
lobster
From xenon@yabbs Fri Oct 1 10:46:18 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: lobster@yabbs
Subject: re: parking meters
Date: Fri Oct 1 10:46:18 1993
Im in Ann Arbor and by the size and tech. advanced state of our great,
(ahem), police force, ya know they gotta get the moneyy from somewhere.
Damn meter maids w/ their little ticket computers.
Oh, I got a ticket once, but the meter-maid entered the last number of my
lisense plate wrong...too /<ewl...
--> Xenon
From wonko@yabbs Fri Oct 1 11:10:36 1993
From: wonko@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: parking
Date: Fri Oct 1 11:10:36 1993
i drive a large white Chevy C-20 van with Faller's Pretzel Co.
grafix plastered all over it. (my dad's place, company truck)
and i get to park in the neatest places. all i have to say is
that i'm delivering pretzels. just leave the blinkers on and i
can park just about anywhere in Reading,PA for ever. i get into
places free too. great thing this system of ours.
-wonko
From lobster@yabbs Sat Oct 2 20:35:57 1993
From: lobster@yabbs
To: xenon@yabbs
Subject: re: parking meters
Date: Sat Oct 2 20:35:57 1993
>> Damn meter maids w/ their little ticket computers.
Every time I walk past a meter maid I hum the theme to dragnet. pisses
them off
From lobster@yabbs Sat Oct 2 20:40:26 1993
From: lobster@yabbs
To: wonko@yabbs
Subject: re: parking
Date: Sat Oct 2 20:40:26 1993
>> and i get to park in the neatest places. all i have to say is
>> that i'm delivering pretzels. just leave the blinkers on and i
That's pretty damn funny.
Hey are you Wonko from Uncensored! BBS in the 914 area code (PEarl
River, NY)?
/*--Lobster--*/
From wonko@yabbs Mon Oct 4 14:48:02 1993
From: wonko@yabbs
To: lobster@yabbs
Subject: re: parking
Date: Mon Oct 4 14:48:02 1993
nope, where the sam hell is 914?? where the fuck is my area code/prefix
map?? can't find the damn thing. i don't call bbses much anymore.
simply because i live in the computer lab at school so i can have
access to inet. only boards i really ever called where in virginia.
Chiba City Blues & the otherone , damn can't think of the name.
fucking lag.
l8r all,
-wonko
From Dcypher@yabbs Tue Oct 5 11:55:27 1993
From: Dcypher@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Tue Oct 5 11:55:27 1993
Just want to see if I can leave a message, the college interface
I am using is all screwed up.
BTW: Anyone have a list of Outdials ??
Later, Dcypher
From phragger@yabbs Wed Oct 6 12:21:39 1993
From: phragger@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Wed Oct 6 12:21:39 1993
>BTW: Anyone have a list of Outdials ??
I'd be interested in one as well. ++phragger
From lobster@yabbs Thu Oct 7 12:11:00 1993
From: lobster@yabbs
To: wonko@yabbs
Subject: re: parking
Date: Thu Oct 7 12:11:00 1993
>> nope, where the sam hell is 914?? where the fuck is my area
914 is Rockland County, NY. Suburb area of New York City. Yeah now I
remember, the guy's name was Wonko the Sane. When I moved the 516 (Long
Island) some crazy phreak actually redirected a line back to that BBS so
you could make a local call from 516 to connect to the bbs in 914. It was
so fucking hilarious. God knows how he did it (phreaking's not one of my
specialties)
/*--- Lobster ---*/
From wonko@yabbs Thu Oct 7 12:25:26 1993
From: wonko@yabbs
To: lobster@yabbs
Subject: re: parking
Date: Thu Oct 7 12:25:26 1993
well, we found some interesting things. direct data lines to other
states. don't know how to use them, or if we can at all.
found this HUGE system in Reading, PA. about 10 dialin/dialout lines
setup as extender lines, and these fucking data lines to about 12 other
states.
-wonko
(the new local admin for fubar, yea)
From comrade@yabbs Fri Oct 15 20:22:43 1993
From: comrade@yabbs
To: xenon@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Fri Oct 15 20:22:43 1993
Well since this is anarchy...
What me and a friend do when we can't find a parking space is we park and
we smash the meter. We're only fucking over the city, and we can't put
money into a broken meter, now can we? So always keep a hammer handy...
jason
From swami@yabbs Sun Oct 17 15:04:50 1993
From: swami@yabbs
To: comrade@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Sun Oct 17 15:04:50 1993
Heh, I like that method of parking. I read about some dude who took
a professors parking spot, so the professor proceeded to ram him car
repeatedly into the other dude's car. Ahhh, nothing like letting
out a little aggression. So does the same method apply to mail boxes,
etc?
swami
From ACiD@yabbs Sun Oct 17 15:07:21 1993
From: ACiD@yabbs
To: swami@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Sun Oct 17 15:07:21 1993
bleh... i know this is wrong place but who gives a shit... you knkow some
good IRC sites with login / passwords?
From Phrancis@yabbs Thu Oct 21 19:49:46 1993
From: Phrancis@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Thu Oct 21 19:49:46 1993
What is going on here? I thought this was going to be a rippin'
anarchy/phreaking conference. Does anyone actually log on here?
Phrancis
From xenon@yabbs Thu Oct 21 22:11:09 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: Phrancis@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy
Date: Thu Oct 21 22:11:09 1993
no one but u...actually all the /<ewl bases are hidden from people like
u...heh
--> Xenon
From liqjesus@yabbs Thu Oct 28 17:52:49 1993
From: liqjesus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy mags
Date: Thu Oct 28 17:52:49 1993
I stopped by the latest Barnes & Nobles super-bookstore here in
boring Connecticut, and guess what I saw on the shelves? Anarchy Times,
Anarchy, and some other "anarchy" releated mags. Pretty disgusting.
In the old days, such info was confined to Communist bookstores in
the back room. Today you find it at Mc-Book's right next to TIME.
From horus@yabbs Fri Oct 29 00:22:36 1993
From: horus@yabbs
To: wonko@yabbs
Subject: re: phreaking
Date: Fri Oct 29 00:22:36 1993
phreaking iss sweet revenge. anyu of those lines goto Utah?
Damn I hate it went the t1 gets this slow. can't ever see what I'm typing
So did anyone here set any fires in CA for fun this week,
sure looked like someone wanted revenge.
From ziplock@yabbs Sat Oct 30 02:30:53 1993
From: ziplock@yabbs
To: liqjesus@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy mags
Date: Sat Oct 30 02:30:53 1993
That's a pretty irrelevant critique unless you're prepared to
tell us that the content of those journals has changed as a result
of becoming more available in the mainstream. Frequently finding one
libertarian on the staff at a bookstore (not a hard proposition) will
be adequate for them to initiate purchasing of radical literature.
Take it however you can get it.
From liqjesus@yabbs Mon Nov 1 18:07:05 1993
From: liqjesus@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy mags
Date: Mon Nov 1 18:07:05 1993
I'm not saying that the contents of the mags have diminished any
since they've hit the mainstream bookstores. Rather, I'm interested
in the fact that such mags are available at the local mall, and
we have bbs's around here getting busted for having h/p/a sections.
Sounds a little silly to me.
And I really don't think of Barnes and Nobles as the home of the
radical booksaleman.
-LJ-
From horus@yabbs Tue Nov 2 17:42:19 1993
From: horus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: fedbuster
Date: Tue Nov 2 17:42:19 1993
Did any one else catch the fact that most of the california fires may have
been set by someone calling himself FEDBUSTER? Apparently, the feds siezed
his property under the RICO act and now he has his revenge.
From jasonlee@yabbs Tue Nov 2 19:09:59 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: horus@yabbs
Subject: re: fedbuster
Date: Tue Nov 2 19:09:59 1993
Damn, that would generally be cool, though not for the people's houses he
destroyed. I just thing the federal search and seizure laws are not too
nice or constitutional.
JasonLee
From xenon@yabbs Wed Nov 3 02:21:54 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: fedbuster
Date: Wed Nov 3 02:21:54 1993
well, if a few more cases come to court, mebbe the feds would realize
people arent gonna stand for them stepping all over their rights...lets
hear it fer SJG!!! er, ummmm....
--> Xenon
From horus@yabbs Wed Nov 3 21:55:29 1993
From: horus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: fedbuster
Date: Wed Nov 3 21:55:29 1993
They have the game rigged. You cann't go to court to recover your property
seized under RICO unless you post a cash bond equal to 10% of the value of
what they seized, and they make sure they seize everything......
It's illegal as hell, but who's going to stop them. The Supreme court is
going along because 'drugs are such a bad thing'
Makes you want to shoot someone
From johndeer@yabbs Tue Nov 9 22:43:50 1993
From: johndeer@yabbs
To: horus@yabbs
Subject: rico
Date: Tue Nov 9 22:43:50 1993
yeah, RICO is one of those thigns passed during the big drug scare of the
80s. it allows them to confiscate anything and everything.. like if htey
SUSPECT you of dealing drugs, they can seize your hosue, your busxiness,
etc.. drive you into the ground.. fascits...
johnDeere
From LordGraf@yabbs Thu Nov 11 12:26:43 1993
From: LordGraf@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: rico
Date: Thu Nov 11 12:26:43 1993
Yea, I think it's about time for the revolution and the FEDS should be the
first ones up against the wall. Lets see how much fun they think it is
when they get executed without a trial.
LordGrafx - Viva Revolution.
From jasonlee@yabbs Thu Nov 11 13:27:20 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: LordGraf@yabbs
Subject: re: rico
Date: Thu Nov 11 13:27:20 1993
I don't know about execution. How about we just go to all their houses
and take absolutely everything they own, including their cats (a la Jock
Sturges).
JasonLee
From xenon@yabbs Thu Nov 11 17:20:45 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: rico
Date: Thu Nov 11 17:20:45 1993
OH! YES! what justice!!!
From horus@yabbs Fri Nov 12 16:00:48 1993
From: horus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: rico
Date: Fri Nov 12 16:00:48 1993
Maybe we could dig up the phone numbers for the FBI agents, and the
Judges, and make their life hell at 3:00 am every night. It's amazing what
sleep deprivatiojn will do to someone. ;)
From jasonlee@yabbs Sat Nov 13 18:40:21 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: horus@yabbs
Subject: re: rico
Date: Sat Nov 13 18:40:21 1993
Nah, that's not the thing to do. To combat them, you've got to use their
own weapons against them. Bring more problems to court, get as much info
as possible, and show how they allow semi-criminal behavior some places,
but not others. Making their life hell through prank calls only forces
them to hate "bad" people even more.
JasonLee
From Archon@yabbs Thu Nov 18 02:16:31 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Nafta Nightmares
Date: Thu Nov 18 02:16:31 1993
Can you believe??? Nafta was passed with the use of out right BRIBES!!!!!
what faith can you have in a system that is based completly on money, some
Senator some where got 10 Million Bux just to change his mind and vote fo
Nafta, some Representitive somewhere in the midwest, got a promise that
the current administration would not try and ban some pesticide that is
used massively on food that we are supposed to eat and is proven to be a
big cancer causin, ozone depletin chemichal, so there, as that awesome
song by the Whatchyamacallits, "Tonight We're Gonna Fuck Shit Up!!"" fuck
yeah, talk about Anarchy, Bike Nation- Mount up and Riiide!!! Yeehaw!!
This has been an Official Bike Nation CommuniQue!
Brought to you by The Grand Imperial Poo Ba, Wizard in Chief, The Cheif
Executive Commander of Bike NAtion, Archon Zeenophun and His Wonderful
Companion and Side Kick, My Little Persimon, Grand Imperator of Purple
Freak Nation, The Great Ambini Zeenophun!!!! So
there!
Ow Rezovwar!
From jealousy@yabbs Thu Nov 18 11:03:24 1993
From: jealousy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Thu Nov 18 11:03:24 1993
Yes, there are socialist and democratic socialist parties in the USA.
And they usually run candidates for President every 4 years
From xenon@yabbs Thu Nov 18 19:48:30 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: Nafta Nightmares
Date: Thu Nov 18 19:48:30 1993
archon you rabble rouzer...WASSUP d00d????
wass nafta ;)
--> Xenon
From jimjones@yabbs Sun Nov 21 22:18:42 1993
From: jimjones@yabbs
To: pooper@yabbs
Subject: Hi jesus
Date: Sun Nov 21 22:18:42 1993
Hi there jesus! Alvin asked if I knew you--she said you said we were both
insane and I agreed.
From Alvin@yabbs Mon Nov 22 15:12:50 1993
From: Alvin@yabbs
To: jimjones@yabbs
Subject: re: Hi jesus
Date: Mon Nov 22 15:12:50 1993
>Hi there jesus! Alvin asked if I knew you--she said you said we were both
>insane and I agreed.
She? It's he. not she damnit. get it straight.
Alvin
From FScruggs@yabbs Mon Nov 22 20:44:08 1993
From: FScruggs@yabbs
To: Alvin@yabbs
Subject: re: Hi jesus
Date: Mon Nov 22 20:44:08 1993
>She? It's he. not she damnit. get it straight.
But you're using Lucy Nollette's account.
From Alvin@yabbs Tue Nov 23 15:20:20 1993
From: Alvin@yabbs
To: FScruggs@yabbs
Subject: re: Hi jesus
Date: Tue Nov 23 15:20:20 1993
>She? It's he. not she damnit. get it straight.
>But you're using Lucy Nollette's account.
how the hell do you know that?!
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Nov 27 08:34:58 1993
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: true Americans
Date: Sat Nov 27 08:34:58 1993
Those of you who don't know who Real Americans are should look to who you
bastards took this country from. The White Man has been treading all over
the Indian ever since Columbus discovered the New World! You took the
land that belongs to no one and you have defiked it to the point that is
virtually unusable. You have depleted the resources of this country to
the point of extinction. Even if you wanted to give it back, we wouldn't
have it.
You have confined the Red Man to your concentration camps to the point of
extinction. The Red Man is forced to give up their culture and heritage
because the White Man doesn't want to remember. Well I've got news for
all of you, WE WILL NOT FORGET, NOR WILL WE FORGIVE. THE SPIRITS OF
GERONIMO, COCHISE, AND JOSEPH WILL LIVE ON!!!
From Cochise@yabbs Sun Nov 28 05:18:39 1993
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: true Americans
Date: Sun Nov 28 05:18:39 1993
Does anyone really know a true American?
From Maedhros@yabbs Mon Nov 29 16:39:03 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Mon Nov 29 16:39:03 1993
Hell no. It's just fashionable to be sensitive to the people who lose the
war.
Withdrawing in disgust is /\
is not the same as apathy. / \
-Slacker /----\
/ \
From horus@yabbs Tue Nov 30 15:39:22 1993
From: horus@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 15:39:22 1993
What makes you think indians are true americans, your just immagrants like
the rest of us. Just earlier.
From Paradox@yabbs Tue Nov 30 16:58:55 1993
From: Paradox@yabbs
To: horus@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 16:58:55 1993
The difference, my friend, is that WE were the first. We were here
LONGLONGLONG before your kind showed up and massacred us almost into
oblivion, stole our land and food, and put us onto "reservations", then
tried to "Americanize" us. We WILL come back wasichu.
From Maedhros@yabbs Tue Nov 30 18:20:35 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: Paradox@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 18:20:35 1993
Like the indians weren't hacking each other up long, long, long before we
got around to it? Bullshit, it's human nature to smash the weak when
there's resources to be gained. Does that make it right? Beats me, it's
hard to distinguish right and wrong, but there's definately fact and
fiction. The American indians weren't running some hippy retreat before
we got here. The strongest always ruled, we just one the last one. I
hate to sound pessimistic, but they've got two options: assimilate or
move over. Maedhros /\
/ \
To me, boxing is like a ballet, /----\
except there's no music, no / \
choreography, and the dancer's / \
hit each other.
-Jack Handy
From Paradox@yabbs Tue Nov 30 18:57:30 1993
From: Paradox@yabbs
To: Maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 18:57:30 1993
Fools like you are what make this sorry excuse for a country a shithole.
From Archon@yabbs Tue Nov 30 19:30:05 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 19:30:05 1993
Hell no. It's just fashionable to be sensitive to the people who lose the
war.
Thats bullshit. The reason that all the countries we fought in the last
50 years is because we put SO much money into completely destroying
enemy, like iraq, Viet Nam, etc.. the american governtment just spends
so much time and manpower to destroy these countries and plus the reasons
we were there in those countries in the first place were (and are still)
sinister reasons, to protect And enlarge the profits of American
Corporations. so there god dammit. so we have a moral imperitive to
support and try to protect these countries that are being crushed under
the boot of American Imperialism. and when the losing country is a place
like Iraq, we support people like the Kurds or the souther Sh'ite rebels,
so there.
Ow Rezovwar!
-Archon Zeenophun
From Cagim@yabbs Tue Nov 30 20:02:25 1993
From: Cagim@yabbs
To: Paradox@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 20:02:25 1993
Hey Paradox,
I personally have nothing against Indians...Really! But I think
there's one thing you're forgetting....Us newbies won the war! So you'll
be back? Guess what ? We'll be waitin' for ya! Now...I'm not sayin' I'd
condone or do myself what's been done to the Indian race but lets face it
....There WAS a war ....There was a Winner....And there was
a. So maybe your race was on the side of right....We had more than enogh
might to handle the problem...yeh. If you yourself want to be happy in
this life maybe you should learn to let go...just let go man...keep your
heritage if ya like I personally have no need of it (don't mean to devalue
it but it's yours not mine yeh?)...The harsh fact is yes there is racism
out there and unfair people and situations....that's life....you want a
freakin' invite? Hell...eat some fruit loops...take a poop...chill!
Cagim
From Maedhros@yabbs Tue Nov 30 21:10:18 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: paradox@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 21:10:18 1993
Hey man, like I tried to explain before- War's war. The indians weren't
that peaceful themselves, we just had the best tech. That's life. It's
people like me, coincidentaly, that make the world go 'round. I'm
realistic. Regardless of who's right or wrong, there won't be any indian
retributions. Period the end. As Cagim put it get on with your life.
I'm no hate monger, but the kind of attitude you project is what kills
people in L.A. as well as Serbia. Chill.
Maedhros /\
I'm for Mr. Reagan- / \
blindly. /----\
-George Bush / \
/ \
From Maedhros@yabbs Tue Nov 30 21:21:07 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 21:21:07 1993
>in those countries in the first place were sinister reasons
Okay, you're probably right on that one. Point conceded. But what does
this have to do with native Americans? We never claimed to be attacking
them forany reason but to kick them of their land. I mean it was no state
secret with all the plains farmers asking the feds to drive them further
back. The population at large supported resettlement of the indians to
open up more land for settlements.
Second of all, what is our moral obligation to other people. To protect
them? From who? Ourselves? Where should we start, burn the Whitre House
down? Wait a second, I think we may be onto something now! Hell, let's
educate the masses and hav a good old-fashioned coup!!
/\ Maedhros
/ \
/----\
From xela@yabbs Tue Nov 30 22:13:06 1993
From: xela@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Nov 30 22:13:06 1993
Even World War II was an excuse to increase American Profits. Roosevelt
knew he could scam money off the British with the land/lease program.
Also, by making America the most isolationist of nations at that time,
Roosevelt saw his chance to spread American Capitalist Dogma to other
nations; to turn them into sattelites, much like the Soviets did with
eastern European nations. By holding out, he was able to weaken thehold
that the British Empire held over trade at the time.
The USA government is nothing more than business interest. Foreign and
domestic policy over the decades continues to prove this true, and will do
so until the nation collapes into chaos and sweet anarchy.
"True" americans shouldn't worry about the fact that this country is a
shithole. They should welcome that fact, and the freedom such a premise
entails.
-Xela
-chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
From horus@yabbs Wed Dec 1 00:14:49 1993
From: horus@yabbs
To: Paradox@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Wed Dec 1 00:14:49 1993
What makes you think you were the first, as I remeber, back before your
people made it past the North west Ice sheets, the Red Oker people had
come here by boat. Your lot probably butchered them. Join the Immagrant
Opressors Club boys, and stop whinning.
From Maedhros@yabbs Wed Dec 1 00:28:32 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Wed Dec 1 00:28:32 1993
Maybe we should liberate the indians. We can start with Mexico. First
we'll rebuild their alters (can't have a big enough skull collection),
then we can rearm them so they can go about their simple agarian practices
of enslaving and sacrificing the neighboring tribes. Militocracy, in all
of its unbridled glory. Maedhros /\
/ \
/----\
I wish a robot would get elected / \
president. That way, when he / \
came to town, we could all take
a shot at him and not feel to bad.
-Jack Handy
From jasonlee@yabbs Wed Dec 1 23:24:53 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: Cagim@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Wed Dec 1 23:24:53 1993
Wow, what an amazingly stupid post. Here, I'll paste it in:
Hey Paradox,
I personally have nothing against Indians...Really! But I think
there's one thing you're forgetting....Us newbies won the war! So you'll
be back? Guess what ? We'll be waitin' for ya! Now...I'm not sayin' I'd
condone or do myself what's been done to the Indian race but lets face it
....There WAS a war ....There was a Winner....And there was
a. So maybe your race was on the side of right....We had more than enogh
might to handle the problem...yeh. If you yourself want to be happy in
this life maybe you should learn to let go...just let go man...keep your
heritage if ya like I personally have no need of it (don't mean to devalue
it but it's yours not mine yeh?)...The harsh fact is yes there is racism
out there and unfair people and situations....that's life....you want a
freakin' invite? Hell...eat some fruit loops...take a poop...chill!
Cagim
OK, so you agree that might makes right? What a wonderfully enlightened
person you are! Anyway, there was NO war, the US Govt basically organized
the genocide of the native americans in the early to mid-late 19th
century. They did what Hitler did to the Jews in 1939-45, only they had
the power (both military and economic) to avoid punishment for the crimes.
So, do you agree that what Hitler did was justifiable, simply because he
had more power than the Jews (also Polish, Catholics, gays, etc.) ??
Might makes right means that if I have a gun, I have every right to go and
kill you, your family, and everyone you know, simply becaus eI am
stronger.
That's all...
JasonLee
From jasonlee@yabbs Wed Dec 1 23:31:02 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: Maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Wed Dec 1 23:31:02 1993
Maedhros said:
econd of all, what is our moral obligation to other people. To protect
hem? From who? Ourselves? Where should we start, burn the Whitre House
own? Wait a second, I think we may be onto something now! Hell, let's
ducate the masses and hav a good old-fashioned coup!!
Oops, missed the left column.
Anyway, we have the obligation to protect the rights of everyone because
of several things: The Declaration of Independece, the Constitution, and
the Bill of Rights. Little phrases like "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness" and also freedom of speech, religion, property which we
stole from the native peoples. Granted, a lot of the original theft
occured before the documents I mentioned, but the most heinous
crimes happened after the US had been around for a while. At that time,
I believe native americans were considered US citizens, so the gov't was
acting illegally, unconstitutionally, and immorally in killing and
stealing.
Good luck in your backward ideas, Maedhros!
JasonLee
From Maedhros@yabbs Thu Dec 2 00:49:10 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 00:49:10 1993
So where exactly do your obviously far more enlightened ideas bring you
to. Is it our moral imperative to reposses Long Island, Oklahoma, and the
Mid-West for that matter and hand it back to its rightful owners. What
about the people who bought that land within the last few generations? Do
their rights figure into your plans at all? Or, are we to punish them for
the sins of their ancestors?
It's rather easy to sit on a moral high-horse and dictate ethics, but just
how do you intend to apply it? Let's assume you're right and I'm just an
ignorant butthead. Tell me how you are going to fix the problem. If
you've got all the answers, as you seem to imply from your critique of my
perspective, please share them.
Maedhros /\
/ \
Talk is Cheap /----\
-unknown / \
From robtelee@yabbs Thu Dec 2 00:49:26 1993
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 00:49:26 1993
To those who don't know, Indians were, and are treated like
second-class citizens.
From Keman@yabbs Thu Dec 2 01:05:28 1993
From: Keman@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 01:05:28 1993
woah ok I agree taking the land was unfair but uh hey life's unfair, it's
to late to correct the problem, there's not enough Indians left to
actually do anything, so we screwed you over no correction we screwed over
your grandparents grandparent's in other words it wasn't meant to be taken
personal, we needed the land to survive, as did you we didn't know you so
we took it stole it whatever it really makes no difference now, nothing
anyone can do about it...if ya don't like it leave, you don't have to
stay...now I'm not condoning what my ancestors did as right or wrong I
wasn't there I can't make a moral judgement on another man that I don't
know maybe it was a win/lose sort of thing either we survive or we
die...eh? did you ever think of the white man's point of view? also I
think your forgetting that not all white men were hostile and many worked
with Indians.....oh well you'll probably flame me for this post....
Later
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 07:22:07 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Paradox@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 07:22:07 1993
well whatever my ancestors did, Im here now, so we might as well make the
best of it, so dont go yellin at us, if we were the assholes you think we
are, we wouldnt be on this base. So quit yellin at us about what our
ancestors did, it doesnt solve anything. I think what the europeans did
to the Indians (both the asian and the american kind) is pretty shitty but
its all ready been done so what we should do is to try and stop those in
power from ever getting away with the same shit again. so there
Ow Rezovwar!
-Archon Zeenophun
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 07:31:22 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 07:31:22 1993
Okay, you're probably right on that one. Point conceded. But what does
this have to do with native Americans?
ok, Ill concede that backatchya, i wasnt talkin about the indian case that
was just plain Racist "ethnic cleansing". I was getting off the subject
and yellin at people like those who went around waving N. Vietnamese
flags back in the 60s. just it kinda makes me mad when people blindly
take the other side in US Vs Little Brown People conflicts even. well Im
losing my train of thought so ill stop talkin bout this now...
Ow Rezovwar!
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 07:33:23 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: xela@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 07:33:23 1993
Noam Chomsky is a keen Mutha Fucka!
From jasonlee@yabbs Thu Dec 2 12:26:32 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: Maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 12:26:32 1993
Maedhros said:
o where exactly do your obviously far more enlightened ideas bring you
o. Is it our moral imperative to reposses Long Island, Oklahoma, and the
id-West for that matter and hand it back to its rightful owners. What
bout the people who bought that land within the last few generations? Do
heir rights figure into your plans at all? Or, are we to punish them for
he sins of their ancestors?
(Damn pasting!)
I didn't try to provide a solution. I didn't say we should give the land
back to the native americans. We can't punish people for the sins of
their ancestors. We also can't run around saying "Oops! We fucked you
over! Tough." It's probably too late to solve the problem at all. I
just don't like people denying the legitimate complaints of people who
deserve to be heard.
Oh, I just thought I'd also say that I find the "We shall return!"
speeches equally silly as the "You guys were just weak!" lines.
JasonLee
From jasonlee@yabbs Thu Dec 2 12:37:59 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: Keman@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 12:37:59 1993
Keman said:
---
oah ok I agree taking the land was unfair but uh hey life's unfair, it's
o late to correct the problem, there's not enough Indians left to
ctually do anything, so we screwed you over no correction we screwed over
our grandparents grandparent's in other words it wasn't meant to be taken
ersonal, we needed the land to survive, as did you we didn't know you so
e took it stole it whatever it really makes no difference now, nothing
nyone can do about it...if ya don't like it leave, you don't have to
tay...now I'm not condoning what my ancestors did as right or wrong I
asn't there I can't make a moral judgement on another man that I don't
now maybe it was a win/lose sort of thing either we survive or we
ie...eh? did you ever think of the white man's point of view? also I
hink your forgetting that not all white men were hostile and many worked
ith Indians.....oh well you'll probably flame me for this post....
ater
Well, see the white man's point of view can be summed up in two words:
Manifest Destiny
See, at that time, we believed that God had given us the right to take
over the whole continent, so the US just traveled across the land, taking
whatever it could. We really didn't need a lot of the land, as you can
see by looking at population statistics for a lot of the midwest. Most
Americans live close to the east, south, and west coasts, leaving a big
chunk of the middle and north empty (I'm thinking of Wyoming, etc.).
Oh, actually, I'm not sure what the populations were like in the 1800's,
before the popularity of cities. There were probably a lot more people
living there, farming the land. Still, we took a lot more land than we
ever used. There was never a question of need.
Also, the idea that we had a divine right to the land is pretty silly in a
country where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.
I really liked what you said about "If you don't like it here, just
leave." The fact is that, as bad as america is, there is really nowhere
better. America provides the most freedom of action than anywhere in the
world. It also gives the most flexibility and the most potential for
change, which is why so many people who complain about the country don't
leave. They see how much better this place could be, so they bitch about
it and people sometimes tell them to leave. Silly.
It is not enough to simply say "Life is unfair" and do nothing about it.
Life doesn't have to be unfair.
I guess I'll rest now...
Jasonlee
p.s. Sorry about the quoting...
From Cagim@yabbs Thu Dec 2 14:07:45 1993
From: Cagim@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 14:07:45 1993
Hey JasonLee...I didn't see a need for the flame butthead..but fine..BTW
Blow it out your ass!
So there was no War? I'm sorry all the U.S. Cavalrymen and settlers that
died during this non-war period were actually killed by the water?
Custard died while on manuevers? My aren't you the dense one! Genocide
...welp maybe that is what was intended..however you can see that the
American Indian is still with us so you can stop using that word since it
doesn't apply. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS. My
previous post was not meant to be taken as a flame. However light or
flippant I may have sounded ...I was simply tryin to make a point! Do
indians deserve better treatment than they're getting ...maybe. Who's
going to pay for it? The american people? Why? There are Indians out
there who insist that this land was theirs before we took it..and then in
the next sentence will claim that the land belonged to nobody. Let's face
it this is America...if you want to live here you must be american.
Cagim
From xenon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 17:05:35 1993
From: xenon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 17:05:35 1993
People get screwed over every day. Good people; just people. People who
dont deserve what they get. Thats the way its been, the way it is, but,
as for the future, who knows...probably jus more o the same...thats the
problem ya get fer havin so many diverse people on one small planet. it
makes life interesting.
i dunno what life is like fer indians. im not one. what i do know is
that they got, and still are gettin screwed in a major way. It makes
people mad when they get fucked with fer so long; it makes em violent. i
dont think violence is the answer, but i can see how people can be
oppressed to the point where it seems like the only way to be heard is
thru violence.
ok, da d00d said we will return and fuck you all...how ya expect people ta
react ta that? well, its obvious now...fuck you! wow...thats gettin us
places now...why not tell us how yer gettin screwed? concentrate on the
present...the now. im not sayin ferget the past, but dont live in it.
start with the here and now nd add the history as needed...
--> Xenon
From Jamesy@yabbs Thu Dec 2 18:12:04 1993
From: Jamesy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 18:12:04 1993
Who is "we" and "they?"
Is any one of you personally responsible for what is an inevitable
by-product of 18th and 19th century capitalist expansion due to the
social and economic transformation of Europe?
Anyway, where are the anarchists?
Looks like it'll have to be Anarchy in the UK - the original of course
At least here I can read get hold of loads of anarchist literature in
my own University Library. Nor is socialism a cultural taboo.
See ya!
Jamesy From Yorkshire - The Cradle of the Industrial Revolution.
From jasonlee@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:24:37 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: Cagim@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:24:37 1993
Cagim said:
o there was no War? I'm sorry all the U.S. Cavalrymen and settlers that
ied ng this non-war period were actually killed by the water?
ustard died while on manuevers? My aren't you the dense one! Genocide
..welp maybe that is what was intended..however you can see that the
merican Indian is still with us so you can stop using that word since it
oesn't apply. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS. My
revious post was not meant to be taken as a flame. However light or
lippant I may have sounded ...I was simply tryin to make a point! Do
ndians deserve better treatment than they're getting ...maybe. Who's
oing to pay for it? The american people? Why? There are Indians out
here who insist that this land was theirs before we took it..and then in
he next sentence will claim that the land belonged to nobody. Let's face
t this is America...if you want to live here you must be american.
There was no official war. History books don't record the fighting as a
war. Also, compare the number of deaths of US cavalrymen to death of
american indians. Kind of a big difference.
Also, the American people must pay to treat the Indians better because the
various Indian nations are considered wards of the state. Therefore, the
gov't has a responsibility to help and protect the nations. This, of
course, doesn't mean going so far as to give back land that other people
now own. Just because someone lives here, they do not have to give up
their own beliefs or customs (or land) to become an American.
JasonLee
From jasonlee@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:30:18 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: Jamesy@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:30:18 1993
s any one of you personally responsible for what is an inevitable
y-product of 18th and 19th century capitalist expansion due to the
ocial and economic transformation of Europe?
No, none os uf are, but that's no reason to avoid understanding that world
of the past, or denying that that world existed (and maybe still exists).
Er, that was a quote at the beginning. Here's another:
nyway, where are the anarchists?
ooks like it'll have to be Anarchy in the UK - the original of course
t least here I can read get hold of loads of anarchist literature in
y own University Library. Nor is socialism a cultural taboo.
My feeling is that anarchy would not work if we could somehow create one.
Basically, anyone with weapons would easily take over, and we'd have a
military dictatorship, which isn't too fun.
I like the idea of a rational anarchy (like the inet itself), but I doubt
it could work.
JasonLee
From robtelee@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:36:12 1993
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: true americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:36:12 1993
they didn't call Vietnam a real war either...Remember the words of
Georges Santyana "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
The American Indian has been getting the short end of it ever sincce
the White race set foot in North America. For you information, the
reservations were under the WAR Dept for a long time. It was only
relatively recently that The Bureau of Indian Affairs was transferredd
to the Dept. of the Interior. So now we rate the same treatment as
the Everglades and other "wildlife" reserves. Read Your HISTORY!
From Jamesy@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:37:01 1993
From: Jamesy@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:37:01 1993
Anarchy is a result of social tendencies not a creation
It is the natural progression towards decentralisation and the
mutual ownership of the means of production for the good of society.
It will not come through revolution as that creates power vacuums which
can easily be filled by dictators etc.
For more info read Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin.
--Jamesy
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:38:01 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: America bein the best place
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:38:01 1993
The fact is that, as bad as america is, there is really nowhere
better. America provides the most freedom of action than anywhere in the
world.
Part of the reason behind that is that everytime a place that was freer
and/or "better" than the US, we destroyed it, usually tho we just destroy
those governments that start on the path to being better than us cause by
doin that they will upset our beloved corporations profit margins. But as
long as your a pretty rich citezen who doesnt get to vocal about
protesting the US government, than it is true, you Are among the freest in
the world, the chosen people almost...
Ow Rezovwar!
-Archon Zeenophun
From Maedhros@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:41:49 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:41:49 1993
Ok, we got a little misunderstanding. I'm not trying to deny that the
indians have legitimate complaints, I'm simply saying that it's kind of
pointless to harp on it since nobody can or is going to fix it.
It's just one of those cruel jokes life plays on people and the only way
to deal with it effectively, in my opinion, is to brush yourself off and
get on with it.
Maedhros
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 19:51:41 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Jamesy@yabbs
Subject: anarchy/punk
Date: Thu Dec 2 19:51:41 1993
no one here was responsible for any actions of those back in the 18th
19th centururys, and none of us here are directly responsible for all the
fucking over thats goin on now, beyond buying products of companies that
fuck people over and eating meat (and Im still guilty of both myself) so
we cant blame each other for the gross missdeeds of those in control ,
today or yesterday, and Anarchy was really started in France and Russia in
the 18 hundereds, not in england with the sex pistols, tho englan used to
(still does??) have a very big Anarchist Scene, and you can find good
anarchist books in lots of librarys, and more for Xenons sake, the U of M
has a HUGE collection of Anarchist stuff, thats the U of Michigin to the
rest of ya all. and the US government has taught us americans that
what the system in the USSR was Socialism and that when ever a country
would try to go against the interest of US Profits, they to were
socialist, so of course they also teach us the Socialists are the army of
the devil out to rape our daughters and ruin our country. so of course
its taboo, ya silly goose!! <G>
Ow Rezovwar!
-Archon Zeenophun
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 20:02:14 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:02:14 1993
you said jasonlee
My feeling is that anarchy would not work if we could somehow create one.
Basically, anyone with weapons would easily take over, and we'd have a
military dictatorship, which isn't too fun.
I like the idea of a rational anarchy (like the inet itself), but I doubt
it could work.
I think it could, it worked in spain until hitlers bombers did some fly
bys, If we teach our kids Cooperation in stead of Football Competiveness,
then people would work toegether for the common good, Mutual Aid, think of
this planet as a life boat, and we are on that boat , there are only so
many resources, and a lot of guns say, if we were competitive we would
kill eachother and oppress eachother fighting over the limited resources,
but if we worked to gether we might be able to use those guns to kill a
few birds to eat, maybe do some good, mutual aid, my idea of an anarchist
society would be that for instance, you have a factory, everyone in that
well let me make it shorter and simpler, the Soviet Union without the
Communist party, thats anarchy to me, you have collectives and whatnot
everwhere that elect representitives to a higher tier of organizations
that eventually make up the national level, Look at an anarchist version
of the spanish Civil War, or i mean a book from that perspective and i
think youd see what i mean.
Ow Rezovwar!
-Archon Zeenophun
From Maedhros@yabbs Thu Dec 2 20:05:35 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: Jamesy@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:05:35 1993
Woah man, I have to correct you on something I'd ignore it, but I'm a
chemist and I don't like to see the fruits of the scientific community
twisted for political gains. The natural tendency for things to
decentralize is not anarchy, it's entropyAnd it no more applies to social
phenomenon than photosynthesis. The natural entropy of the world isn't
for you to break from traditional government, it's for your body to fall
apart and crumble into dust. The end. Society is NOT governed by natural
law. Government is a concept which exists only in your mind.
Maedhros
From Maedhros@yabbs Thu Dec 2 20:08:51 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: America bein the best place
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:08:51 1993
We destroy any country which is freer? Come on, that's groundless
propaganda. Mussolini was more creative than that! Cite your proof.What
does a country's internal laws have to do with the American GNP? I'm not
seeing the connection here.
Maedhros
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 20:10:05 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: Indians ARE being screwd
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:10:05 1993
I think we all agree that the American Indians were fucked by
the CIvilization, and are still being fucked by that same afore mentioned
group. right? we all agree? so please all you american indians, quit
yellin at us, im getting sick of it, so please, lets say we start workin
on how we can remedy the problem that we have, this is how i see the
problem:
The US Government is Fucking over alot of the world.
They are doin it in the name of MONEY
They are also Duping the American public into believing that the world
needs to be fucked over
and it is our duty, to try to stop them, in my mind at least
anyone differ in opinion?
Ow Rezovwar!
-Archon Zeenophun
From Archon@yabbs Thu Dec 2 20:16:40 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Jamesy@yabbs
Subject: anarchy
Date: Thu Dec 2 20:16:40 1993
For more info read Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin
[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[Russian frnch russian
yeah, im readin those guys right now, im in the middle of Kropotkins
memoirs, and also im in the middle of a book called "Anarchist Portraits"
by Paul Avrich, which is a pretty good cursury run thru of lotso anarchist
like Bakunin and Kropotkin. perty rad
Ow Rezovwar! -Archon
Zeenophun
From Rothanne@yabbs Fri Dec 3 02:55:40 1993
From: Rothanne@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Waah
Date: Fri Dec 3 02:55:40 1993
I'm really sick and tired of self righteous individuals bitching about
equal rights and shit like that!!!!!
What the hell am I suposed to do about it ? All any one is doing is
bitching about how shitty there pathetic little lives are. Do something
about it!
Me? I'm the middle-class white American male you fear the most. Either
do something about it or quit bitching. Fucking waah! I don't care.
Rothanne
P.S. Rot in Hell!
From Archon@yabbs Fri Dec 3 15:34:00 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: America bein the best place
Date: Fri Dec 3 15:34:00 1993
what i was refering to was Guatemala, the people of guatemala elected some
government that was actually makking real social gains, the only problem
from the american standpoint was that those gains were hurting the big
companies that used guatemala to make their money, so the US toppled the
government , and replaced it with a dictatorship, so the US investments
were safe. thats what i was refreing too, I think that i should rephrase
what i said tho, a country can make social reforms as much as they please
but if they step on the US investors then they get toppled by the us
government. we do pick on countries that are all ready cruel
dictatorships like Iraq and what not, but thats because their leaders
arent playing by our rules anymore. am i making more sense?
From Maedhros@yabbs Fri Dec 3 17:36:19 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: America bein the best place
Date: Fri Dec 3 17:36:19 1993
Bravo. Good point! That makes a hell of alot more sense. I'll have to
give you that round. Just remember when you post: I only know what you
type, not what you mean. While I don't think we give much of a rat's ass
what kind of governments the third worlds set up, you're right, we don't
care the point where we're willing to shoot them just as quick as anyone
else to make a buck. Ah, but doesn't capitalism make you feel all warm
and gushy inside, or maybe it's just that holiday spirit shinning through
:-)
Maedhros /\
/ \
/----\
/ \
From abort@yabbs Fri Dec 3 20:48:51 1993
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Fri Dec 3 20:48:51 1993
Hey I was being flame in #hack, hell I just jumped in to flame someone
else, so what kinda stuf happens here. Hopefully not the same lame
bullshit anarchy crap you find everywhere else whee everyone talks shit
but wont eat it. I havent read much yet, but please prove to me that you
guys are for real, and actually intelligent PLEASE.
From xela@yabbs Fri Dec 3 23:19:35 1993
From: xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: behavior control
Date: Fri Dec 3 23:19:35 1993
I'd like to discuss the methods by which American *society* (that is,
government, church, business [as if there is a distinction], etc.) shapes
individual behavior towards its ends, and how a logical development in
the education system could eliminate the resulting behavior control
society has. I am writing a paper and have read many behaviorists
(Pavlov, Skinner, etc.) and anarchists theories, but I have not seen any
convincing arguments that man can be educated *and* free. To be more
specific, how can education turn kids into productive auto-programmers?
I have a theory sitting in the back of my head at the moment, but I am
waiting to hear others points of view. Maybe they see the obvious I don't
see.
-Alex (xela) Reynolds
From Archon@yabbs Sat Dec 4 04:39:51 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: America bein the best place
Date: Sat Dec 4 04:39:51 1993
Things are fucked. All we have to do is change it, and we cant totally
say that the ends justify the means, but we gata do it or else tings would
be even more fucked, it aint bad now compared to what it could be. SO
there
Ow Rezovwar!
From Cochise@yabbs Sun Dec 5 05:00:15 1993
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: Rothanne@yabbs
Subject: Waah
Date: Sun Dec 5 05:00:15 1993
You don't know what the HELL fear is asshole!
I'm the one you fear the most so don't think for a minute
that we will ever forget it was pricks like you who forgot.
when we take your ass apart, then you will remember!
Cochise Lives!
From phragger@yabbs Sun Dec 5 09:56:38 1993
From: phragger@yabbs
To: Paradox@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sun Dec 5 09:56:38 1993
i just wonder, how many people did the indias kill slaughter and raepe on
they're way from africa to the us. they're no better than the rest of us.
nope. i aint american.
From jasonlee@yabbs Sun Dec 5 14:09:11 1993
From: jasonlee@yabbs
To: phragger@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sun Dec 5 14:09:11 1993
phragger said:
i just wonder, how many people did the indias kill slaughter and raepe on
they're way from africa to the us. they're no better than the rest of us.
--
Wow, I just kinda wonder what you're talking about. Supposedly, people
migrated out of Africa. Wait, I mean Homo Sapiens evolved about 100,000
years ago, so people maybe migrated out a few thousand years later. I
don't think any of the first migrations had much to with killing and
raping, since there was no out there to do that to. I think most
estimates put native americans on this continent about 25,000 years ago,
and it doesn't seem like at that time they would have had to go on a
rampage to get here.
JasonLee
From Archon@yabbs Sun Dec 5 16:23:23 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: chill out
Date: Sun Dec 5 16:23:23 1993
geez, cochise, chill out, go to some young republican gatherring and yell
at them. i dont think that anyone here is proud of what the europeans
did to the indians or any other of the earths little brown people that the
americans like picking on. so take your bullshit elswhere
goddammit
From Archon@yabbs Sun Dec 5 16:25:46 1993
From: Archon@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sun Dec 5 16:25:46 1993
i dont think that the real aweful types of oppression of people started
till the technology got alot better, like the europeans had a big
adavntage over the indians, and oh well, i lost my train of thought
From Maedhros@yabbs Sun Dec 5 20:18:23 1993
From: Maedhros@yabbs
To: phragger@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sun Dec 5 20:18:23 1993
Afraid, JasonLee's got a point on that one. In less they were into
bison, there wasn't a whole hell of a lot to rape on the way.
Aw shit, that bison thing was a joke guys. Please don't flame :-)
From Cochise@yabbs Wed Jan 12 05:29:04 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Return
Date: Wed Jan 12 05:29:04 1994
Cochise lives! It will be good to defend our heritage
again! Paradox, I await your next msg.
MAY THE GREAT SPIRIT KEEP YOU
COCHISE
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Jan 12 14:43:15 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: America bein the best place
Date: Wed Jan 12 14:43:15 1994
Archon said:
> Things are fucked. All we have to do is change it, and we cant totally
> say that the ends justify the means, but we gata do it or else tings
would
> be even more fucked, it aint bad now compared to what it could be. SO
> there
How should we change it though? People keep saying "Change, change!" but
how should it be done? I'm all in favor of reform, but we can't just go
crazily changing society without considering our actions.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jan 12 20:57:32 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: reform
Date: Wed Jan 12 20:57:32 1994
Here's the question, specifically, just what kind of reforms can 'we' the
people on this board (for starters) make to create a viable and visible
change within the framework of our government? I'm not talking about
broad sweeping generalizations like: Clean up the environment, reduce
urban crime and all that meaningless, politically right litany. It's
hollow, it's garbage, it makes you sound cool and sincere, but it doesn't
do or help shit! Talk's cheap. I'm in no position to create legislative
social reforms and niether is anyone else on this board, so it's pointless
to talk about it.
I'm talking about something on a smaller scale. Something that could make
a positive impact on the immediate. I'm not trying to start a fight, I've
been sincerely trying to figure this one out for a long time.
I haven't thought of anything practical to date. Sure, I could load the
shotgun, walk down the street, and shoot anybody that seemed like an
asshole. But, I probably wouldn't get very far, and besides, I'd probably
have to shoot myself too :-)
*Maedhros smiles as, for once the board unanimously agrees on something*
I'm fucking sick to the point of puking having to listen to the Yuppies of
Atlanta claim their neo-hippy roots, espousing brotherly love and
political correctness. Give a can of soup to the homeless on Thanksgiving
Day and plant a tree--It makes me want to stick a barrel up there noses
and wallpaper my bathroom with their brains! Get a clue, I live in this
crap.
Ah well, if all of Rome had but one Head.
Maedhros / 'A pig eats shit, but only
/-- when he's hungry.'
/ -Jane's Addiction
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Jan 13 13:04:02 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: reform
Date: Thu Jan 13 13:04:02 1994
Well, my basic philosophy is to treat everyone exactly the same. It may
sound hippyish, but I'm more content with my relationships because of this
idea. I try to accord everyone the same amount of respect and
understanding. I don't talk down to people (well, I do once in a while,
but I feel bad about it -- I'm not perfect). I got so mad listening to
this radio call-in show the other night where a kid called in and the
hosts of the show ere SO demeaning to her. I hate that kind of attitude.
Anyway, I think that if people tried to go from day-to-day with this idea
of generalized attitude/respect, the world would be a *slightly* nicer
place. This won't really fix all the evils, but for me, I feel more
comfortable with my psyche this way.
Does this make any sense? I hope so.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jan 13 14:42:23 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: reform
Date: Thu Jan 13 14:42:23 1994
Yah, I kinda forget to assume people are nice until I get to know them, it
seems you meet so many dense assholes that you just forget that
there'sother kinds of people out there. Well, there's solution number
one, anybody else got any ideas?
Thanks JasonLee, I'll give it a try.
Maedhros /
/--
/
From rothanne@yabbs Sat Jan 15 20:34:21 1994
From: rothanne@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sat Jan 15 20:34:21 1994
fucking waah! why the hell should I fear you, you stupid worthless piece
of shit? why the fuck are you so interested in my ass anyway? and what
is this shit about pricks lkike me forgetting. forgetting what that your
a worthless piece of shit you stupid. and what "we" are going to tear my
ass apart? Oh, you mean the drunk, unemployed dumb asses stuck in some
reservation whose ass we kicked into near extincktion about a hundred or
so years ago? Gee i guess you showed me what fear is. FUCKING START YOUR
PETTY REVOLUTION OR GO AWAY!
p.s. see you in hell
ROTHANNE
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Jan 16 01:54:51 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: rothanne@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 16 01:54:51 1994
I think someone was saying something about being nice or some weird
thing...
Oh, forget it.
JasonLee
(impklied smilies)
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Jan 16 12:52:59 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 16 12:52:59 1994
Well, I believe hate breeds hate. If I remember correctly, Rothanne's
first post came right after Cochise said all us 'whities' deserved the
emminent fate coming to us because my hypothetical grandparents did
something to his grandparents or something. Does that sound like
transferrence to you? While not very eloquent, I'm afraid Rothanne's got
a right to be a little anoid. Hell, I've got some German in me somewhere
down the line, why don't we nail me for this Hitler thing while whe're at
it :-)
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
p.s. Sorry JasonLee, I didn't last long, did I?
From rick@yabbs Sun Jan 16 15:29:08 1994
From: rick@yabbs
To: rothanne@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 16 15:29:08 1994
you talk brave for a man hiding his face behind a false name if you wish
to face the red mans nation then come out of your hiding plase and face me
on a field of battle....if not then did your hole deeper and shut up
From rothanne@yabbs Sun Jan 16 18:23:13 1994
From: rothanne@yabbs
To: rick@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 16 18:23:13 1994
look you idiot if you want to go fuck around with everyone who calls you a
fucking moron then you have alot of deep seated displaced anger. where
you not breast feed enough as an infant? Go rob a liquor store or
something. get a life.
I could care less about you or your fucking indian friends, the black
panthers, the kkk, the ss, the jews, the ira, the fucking world.
\
p.s. go fuck a buffalo or something. ROT IN HELL!
I'll be whatin
SATAN(ROTHANNE) fuck off
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Jan 17 01:48:27 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: rothanne@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Mon Jan 17 01:48:27 1994
OK, now that was interesting. You included "the jews" in your list of
organizations devoted (sorta) to violent political and social change. Why
is this? I can't recall ever being part of a goy-lynching mob or hunting
down people who eat pork. I'd just like to know the reasonsfor beingin
your rant^H^H^Hpost.
JasonLee
(implied smilies)
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jan 17 02:42:07 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: cochise@yabbs
Subject: indians
Date: Mon Jan 17 02:42:07 1994
Did yo read Rothanne's post? How'd it make you feel? I bet I know. No I
don't share all of Rothanne's viewpoints, but it brings up a good point.
I know exactly how pissed off it made you, as pissed off as I get when I
hear someone say what 'we' (the white Americans) did to someone. It's a
broad and fictitious stereotype which is invoked when ever someone wants
to be treated better than someone else or wishes to vent there anger on
someone. 'We' did this or 'we' did that. I can sum up all my
sociopolitical power fairly quickly: I'm a starving student who works two
jobs to put himself through school. I would have got a scholarship, but
I'm ineligible for most of the ones which aren't taken up because 'we'
decided that 'I', not in a minority, wasn't eligible. If I sound
resentful, sorry. It doesn't piss me off really, that's just life, you
take what your dealt. However, when someone talks to me of the injustices
'my' (whoever the hell they are, for the life of me I don't recall ever
meeting any of them) people have done to them, I'm afraid it falls on deaf
ears. Life not treating you fair, hey join the planet. At least your a
minority. You can get more help than I can. What do the indians want?
More money? Not from this 'we', this we doesn't have anything to take.
From the government? Good luck, they're three trillion in the hole. You
want to have an uprising? Fine, take the damn thing over. Careful
though, you might get what you ask for. I wouldn't take the government
over if you paid me. Well, ok, maybe if you paid me a lot, but I'd
probably regret it. But like I said, if you feel like you're being used
as a dartboard, it's probably a good assumption that you insulted and
unjustly accused someone of a crime simply because of their heritage. By
the way, that's racism.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From battlean@yabbs Mon Jan 17 11:03:48 1994
From: battlean@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Mon Jan 17 11:03:48 1994
About the jews. There are a few ppl there as well that could fit into
rothanes description. Jewish defense legua for istance.
Battle Angel
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Jan 19 10:37:37 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: battlean@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Wed Jan 19 10:37:37 1994
Battle Angel said:
About the jews. There are a few ppl there as well that could fit into
rothanes description. Jewish defense legua for istance.
I say:
OK, that's fine if he wants to specify a particular organization, like the
JDL or the Israeli gov't (although they are getting better). But just
adding "trhe jews" into the list seems to be a little weird. I've heard
way too many conspiracy theories about the Jewish people controlling the
(pick one)
a) media
b) banks
c) schools
d) government
e) everything else
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jan 20 17:33:12 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Thu Jan 20 17:33:12 1994
Hey, I had a chance to speak with Rothanne this week. Yes, we know each
other. It seems he freaked out when writing his post and ACCIDENTALy
included the Jews to the list. He's not online much, so he asked me to
clarify this mistake for him and apoligize. He was pretty embarassed
about it abd assures me it was coincidental. BTW, he said the rest of the
post was quite accurate.
Later,
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From NJDEVIL@yabbs Thu Jan 20 18:27:35 1994
From: NJDEVIL@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Thu Jan 20 18:27:35 1994
Seems that you're right. Some folks just have overactive imaginations.
From NJDEVIL@yabbs Thu Jan 20 18:34:19 1994
From: NJDEVIL@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Thu Jan 20 18:34:19 1994
Raven???
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jan 21 00:33:49 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: NJDEVIL@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Fri Jan 21 00:33:49 1994
Yep, it's me, some asshole took my callsign. But, what can you do, the
world's a twisted place. Who's asking, BTW?
Maedhros (Raven)
/\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Fri Jan 21 02:42:36 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Fri Jan 21 02:42:36 1994
OK, it's good to clear that up. See how calmly and rationally we resolved
what could have become a bitter war of hatred and misunderstanding?
Anarchy or no?
JasonLee
From battlean@yabbs Fri Jan 21 11:13:16 1994
From: battlean@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Fri Jan 21 11:13:16 1994
yeaah. i agree, but i just wanted to point out that there are bad ppl
there as well.
From honkfish@yabbs Fri Jan 21 11:41:47 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Hmmm
Date: Fri Jan 21 11:41:47 1994
Anybody know any good revolutions?
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jan 21 14:15:28 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: battlean@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Fri Jan 21 14:15:28 1994
True, but being a bastard is more a matter of personal choice, rather than
ethnic inheritance. The groups that were pointed out are not singled out
for their race, but rather for how they view their race against others. I
guess I'm saying that it's fine to love your roots, but don't use it as an
excuse to go stomping on others.
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From NJDEVIL@yabbs Fri Jan 21 17:46:57 1994
From: NJDEVIL@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Fri Jan 21 17:46:57 1994
assholes will be assholes!!!
From rick@yabbs Sat Jan 22 15:28:49 1994
From: rick@yabbs
To: rothanne@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sat Jan 22 15:28:49 1994
well it would seem that i struck a nerve....tsk.tsk. but you still want to
hide your pale white face behind a false name and drag on the coat tails
of your for fathers. well when you are ready to stop letting your
alligator mouth over run your humming bird ass then name the field and i
will bring the sprit of my fathers and kick your pale face ass....
apache's rise and revolt
no more blue coat boot dust for me
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Jan 22 22:08:02 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: rick@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sat Jan 22 22:08:02 1994
The only arghument I have with your (reasonable) threats to rothanne is
that you said he was hiding his "pale white face" behind something or
other. Referring to his race only implicates every other white person,
giving them ever more reason to hate you and, by extension, other native
americans. All this is really irrational, but that's how things work,
unfortunately.
Rothanne says dumb stuff, rick says dumb stuff, JasonLee doesn't make any
sense at all. Shit.
Anyway, it would be nice if all the worthless intense hatred could simply
be personal instead of including everyone in the destruction.
JasonLee
From dart@yabbs Sun Jan 23 00:07:32 1994
From: dart@yabbs
To: rick@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 23 00:07:32 1994
My philosophy (which is shared by all Special Forces members) is
"If you are not smart enough to see it my way, then you are too stupid
to be allowed to live." You bellyache about some pretty stupid shit.
You have a real problem that needs to be addressed. If you think
violence is the answer to the problems Native Americans have then
your brain needs an enema.
From laelth@yabbs Sun Jan 23 03:45:14 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: dart@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 23 03:45:14 1994
Dart:
While I shudder to think that you endorse a philosophy that
if carried to it's logical conclusion would mean the anhilation
of most of the people on this planet (I assume that most people
disagree with your views), I am comforted to note (given your
auspicious tenure with Special Forces) that you most likely lack
the mental capacity to forsee the consequenses of that philosophy.
That said, I must grant you a point. No doubt, violence is not
the best solution to the problems of Native Americans. This advice,
however, is extremely suspect when it comes from an ex (or, god forbid)
current member of special forces. Is it just me, or does it seem
hypocritical for the military man to say that violence isn't the answer?
Of course, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I might
hope that you had LEARNED from your experience in the military that
violence begets violence, and that other methods of problem-solving
are more effective (sometimes), and in our national/world interest
(almost always). But then I return to the philosophy of which you
seem so proud, and I put out of my head that you've learned anything
since basic training. How can you learn if you're always right?
-laelth |"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
|men (people, including Native Americans) are
|created equal ..." - Thomas Jefferson
| "The Declaration of Independence"
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Jan 23 17:57:39 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: rick@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 23 17:57:39 1994
Blue coats treading on you? Spirits of your fathers? What blue coats.
Man your not suffering from repression, you're suffering from acute
schizophrenia. Drop the tomahawk and get some meds. It's 1994, the
indians lost. The Vandals really shouldn't have invaded Rome, but I don't
see them doing much about it now.Impressive rhetoric, but Koresh was noted
for that as well. You want to have an indian uprising? Go ahead, you'll
be a two-minute plug on the 9 o'clock news. "Police kill nut in a 7-11,
more news at 11". If you really care for your people, do something
besides humoring your imagination with fantasy of revolution. Study
prelaw, help create legislation to protect and promote the wellfare of
your people instead of indulging yourself all day, typing bitter tyrades
and your fantasies. Or hurry up and go on the warpath and get shot. But
don't waste your life bitching and threatening. I'm not loosing any sleep
thinking about the great uprising and I really don't honestly think anyone
else is either. Just a suggesstion. Go ahead, flame away. Every day you
waste bitching and threatening makes your goal one day closer to
impossible.
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From Jughead@yabbs Sun Jan 23 21:51:43 1994
From: Jughead@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 23 21:51:43 1994
You bring up some good points however, just because a person has been
in the military dosen't mean he (or she) advocates violence. Most people
in the military detest violence because it is their blood that must be
shed. I think dart is full of shit when he (or she) gives their
philosophy but then turns around and states violence is not the
answer. Don't classify all people who serve their country as hypocrites
if they say "violence is not the answer.
From laelth@yabbs Sun Jan 23 22:49:51 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Jughead@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Sun Jan 23 22:49:51 1994
Jughead:
Please understand that I have the greatest respect for those
who serve their country. Public service is, in my opinion, one
of the most noble and selfless acts that a human being can perform.
I should add, however, that public service is lot limited to the
act of toting a gun, and being willing to kill for the red, white,
and blue. There are other (far more productive) ways to serve.
And, of course, not all people in the military advocate violence.
In fact, most of the people that I know who are in the military
could care less about being "military" in any way. Most of them
(that I know, at least) are there to get a good, federally funded
job, get free high-tech skills training, get money for college, etc.
Unlike our friend Dart, they don't want to kill anybody. They're
just trying to get a piece of the good life, like everybody else,
and the fact that they have to learn how to kill is just an
unavoidable and unpleasant hurdle that Uncle Sam compels them to
navigate. What's sad, for me, is that people have to undergo
this kind of brainwashing (training if you prefer) in order to get
a secure, well-paying job, and serve their country. Wouldn't it be
better if the government paid more people to build bridges, school,
homes for the homeless, etc., and paid fewer people to carry guns?
I'm an idealist, but I'm not so naive as to call for the complete
dismantling of the military. We will always find a use for a Dart;
we can use people who are willing to kill and be killed for the
state, but it's costly (too costly) to maintain these people. They
exact a high cost on our society ... almost $300 billion every year.
Couldn't the government better spend this money somewhere else? Let
people serve, but let them serve in a more productive way.
-laelth
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jan 24 00:06:56 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Mon Jan 24 00:06:56 1994
I'm not sure if I agree with you on that one Laelth. As much as I hate to
support such a vastly expensive military, in recent history we've seen
alot of suppossedly stable and well established governments take some
awful nose dives. Nobody would've expected, ten years ago, to see Kuwait
invaded or the Russian White House on fire. But there you have it. As
much as I hate to admit it, I sleep better knowing we have 'the best toys
on the block' and plenty of them. But you're right, we could do with a
little bit of cutbacks. For instance, we still watch Cuba like chicken
hawk. Last time I saw anything about Cuba on the news, I saw there
national parade. The damned army's riding bicycles because they can't
afford jeeps. I don't they they can throw a rock hard enough to be much
of a threat to Western civilization. And yes, I suppose they could do a
little civilian work. Hell, if anybody's drove through Louisiana on I-20,
then you know we could do with a little new asphalt (I had to go 50 to
keep my chasis of the road). As far as killing people goes, it depends on
who you're killing. When we pop of people for political gain, it makes
you kinda embarrassed to live here. On the other hand, when I see old
footage of Berlin caving in in flames, it makes me feel all warm and gushy
inside to know it was my country who helped destroy the place.
Raven /\ 'This calls for a careful blend of
/--\ psychology and extreme violence.
/ \ -Vivian (The Young Ones)
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jan 24 11:47:54 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Military Strength
Date: Mon Jan 24 11:47:54 1994
Raven, I have no wish to flame you, but your statement as the military
superiority of America having to complement social stability is complete
crap. Inside, this country is falling to pieces, as social deviants
follow their own set of morals. There is no relationship between safety
in the streets and the fact that 25% of the budget is spent on maintaining
a fat military.
Do you feel safe walking the streets of a city after dark? I don't.
Don't believe that the government is protecting people, because all it
protects is its own sorry ass.
-Xela
From rick@yabbs Mon Jan 24 14:10:45 1994
From: rick@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Military Strength
Date: Mon Jan 24 14:10:45 1994
amen
From honkfish@yabbs Mon Jan 24 14:30:15 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Militarism
Date: Mon Jan 24 14:30:15 1994
Ponder on these few passages...
The basic problems facing the world today are not susceptable to a
military solution. --John F. Kennedy
And, as everyone knows, the army is a poor training corps for democracy,
no matter how inspiring its cause. --Pierre Elliot Trudeau
I do like to see the arms and legs fly. -Colonel George S. Patton III
Hmmm..............
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Jan 24 15:05:21 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Military Strength
Date: Mon Jan 24 15:05:21 1994
Two questions:
1) Who are these social deviants? I assume you meant criminals.
2) This isn't really a question. On the subject of protecting people from
danger, the whole issue of crime prevention is not one of more and more
police and more and more prisons. If we take a look at the reasons that
drive people to crime, drugs, etc. then it is pretty easy to see that
super-enhanced para-military police forces will not solve anything.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jan 24 18:39:47 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Military Strength
Date: Mon Jan 24 18:39:47 1994
Ah, I seem to have failed in vocalizing myself properly. In answer to
your question. Yes, I do feel fairly safe walking the streets. However,
this has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of US law
enforcement. I'm just always left alone, and half the people who might be
a problem, I probably know. No, I'm not a macho asskicker, and I'm not
particularly proud of all the people I know, I'm simply from the city.
I've survived 25 years without a scratch (at least a serious one), and I'm
just what you would call numb. I don't think about what I can't control.
But, I'm straying from the main point. There's obviously a
misunderstanding about the contents of my post. I never meant to
insinuate that a military buildup was in any way corrolated to increased
domestic safety. The point was, as was evinced in my examples, that a
large military was a good defense against Outside (of the US) threats.
However, I would also point out that the military has served numerous
functions inside the country to ease civil unrest.
Honestly, I think a division of marines armed with heavy assault rifles
might have had just an teeny effect on the longevity of the LA riots. I
know I'd damn sure stop throwing rocks if I was looking down the wrong end
of an M-16. In addition, the military has also shown its willingness and
effectiveness in dealing with non-military crisis. They provided
architectural and humanitarian relief in the MidWest during the floods,
they helped rebuild a sizable portion of the Florida coast after the
hurricane, and we're likely to see their presence soon in LA if the damage
proves to be extensive enough.
So, in summary, although my main point was not the military's domestic
effectiveness, it has shown it's worth in that aspect as well. Certainly
I don't expect much help from the military if I'm being mugged, however it
does make me a little more comfortable to know that if the neo-nazis, or
any other violent, radical, lunatic group decides to go on a rampage, the
military will be more than happy to shoot them for me.
Also, I would also like to mention that although the military's budget
is incredibly high, it doesn't just reflect its size. It also reflects
its technological level. The Gulf War presents a strong justification for
their research spending. When our equipment and technology reach a level
which is so high that having a war with the third (at least then) army in
the world sees less wounded from combat then people shooting themselves in
the foot or falling off boats, its difficult to say the money wasn't well
spent. Should we have been there in the first place? As I've said
before, it's imaterial, because none of us could stop it. However, if
people were willing to go over there because their government ordered them
to, it seems to me that that government has the responsibility to protect
them to the best of its ability (i.e. funding research/development for
military technology.
Raven
P.S. My thanks for your well thought out criticisms, and I invite more.
It's a fool who only listens to himself. He'll never know when he's wrong
or has missed an important key to his thinking. Please, I invite more of
such critiques, it's a refreshing change to mindless flames. What do you
think of the argument. Am I missing something?
Later,
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jan 24 20:47:25 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: Militarism
Date: Mon Jan 24 20:47:25 1994
>Ponder on these few passages...
>The basic problems facing the world today are not susceptable to a
>military solution. --John F. Kennedy
...the executive Government of the United States, including the military
and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of
said persons... --Abraham Lincoln
>And as everyone knows, the army is a poor training corps for democracy,
>no matter how inspiring its cause. --Pierre Elliot Trudeau
The Sudentenland is my last territorial claim I have tomake in Europe.
--Adolf Hitler
It's intersting rhethoric, but it's rather easy to shell out quotes for
either side of the argument, and to quote my first philosophy teacher'
"Being dead doesn't make you an authority on anything, just a corpse".
I really didn't see a need to juxtapose anything against the Patton quote,
what can I say, if it's his job there's no law against liking it.
As far as the quotes themselves go:
1. Kennedy was right in my opinion. Unfortunately, you've used him
completely out of context. The problems of "today" are now about two
decades old. It might have applied to the Cold War, and it might even
apply now. However, it isn't what HE meant. If he were alive today he
would have the option of bringing you up on charges of slander. It might
apply now, but if so, YOU must validate the connection. You've expressed
no valid reasoning, only quotes from famous people who aren't alive to
make any kind of judgements regarding anything that's happened this decade
(actually, I don't know anything about Trudeau, so he could be alive for
all I know, but I doubt it- they're not nearly as effective to wuote in an
argument).
2. Once again I have to agree with the quote at face value; the military
is indeed a poor training ground for democracy. Few hills would be
conquered if everyone got to take a vote (I'd opt to forget about the
damned hill, and go for tacos). Fortunately, this is a bit irrelevant,
since most politicians and government officials are businessmen and
lawyers, not tank drivers.
Quite simply, if you speak rhethoric and don't back it with reasoning,
it's propaganda. Mussolini tried win a war with it, to not much avail.
Where are YOUR thoughts and YOUR words?
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From Jughead@yabbs Mon Jan 24 23:34:29 1994
From: Jughead@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Militarism
Date: Mon Jan 24 23:34:29 1994
I created a monster
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jan 25 01:45:28 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: xela@yabbs
Subject: welcome back
Date: Tue Jan 25 01:45:28 1994
Nice to have you back on the board. Didn't you ask a question a couple
months back? What was it? I tried to respond, but the system wipped out
your account, I think.
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jan 25 11:58:03 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Hmm...
Date: Tue Jan 25 11:58:03 1994
1. Safe on the streets?
You may feel safe on a dark poorly lit street, but I'm not sure that
that is the norm for the rest of society. I'm probably speaking way out
of line here, but I just don't see average folks like myself wanting to
get mugged, robbed, etc. Nor do I see the Armed Forces as a whole, with
the amount of money spent, as a deterrant to street crime.
2. The future nature of war.
My point in relating the miliary machine to domestic problems is this:
Outside threats will matter less as the military downsizes. A Marine
officer, who wrote an article on the four types of future "warriors,"
noted that outside *military* threats can be handled by a smalled US
military, but that economic warfare (say with the Japanese in the future),
or civil warfare (with the more radical psectors of society) will cause a
problem to the military. It simply isn't capable of dealing
with antagonistic forces from the inside, especially if a civil conflict
ever upscaled to a guerilla-style war.
As to the Marines dealing with a riot, a riot is simple violence
controlled by a mob mentality. A civil war would take on a different
flavor, I think.
3. The Armed Forces as humanitarian fighters.
All I can say on this matter is that the Armed Forces are not trained
to buil, but are more qualified on the art of
government-sponsored killing. (on = in, sorry)
4. The future dominance of America as a military power?
I believe it is unlikely. R&D would be useless without the means to
build the weapon at hand. As technology grows more and more computerized,
the US is dependent upon Japan and the other Pacific Rim nations for the
technical components which make up state-of-the-art weaponry. God help
this country if it ever got into a war with an Asian country.
I read this book by Akio Morita and another gentlemen whose name
escapes me at the moment called _A Japan that can Say No_. Apparently,
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has developed a fighter which can outmanuever
anything which theAmericans could throw at them.
-Alex
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jan 25 12:39:29 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Question...
Date: Tue Jan 25 12:39:29 1994
Basically, I asked how anarchy can exist without education controlling
the individual? Should one have to learn for one's self, even when a
child?
I saw (see) education as the big stumbling block which any argument
for free will cannot avoid.
-Alex
From honkfish@yabbs Tue Jan 25 14:02:47 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Militarism
Date: Tue Jan 25 14:02:47 1994
Thanks for replying but I wasn't actually making an argument...
Itseems you think I was trying to prove a point. It was just to provoke
thought, so how can it then be taken out of context?
Honkfish
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jan 25 18:20:08 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: Militarism
Date: Tue Jan 25 18:20:08 1994
Never mind then, sorry, I seem to have taken you out of context then :-)
Oops!
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From Destiny@yabbs Tue Jan 25 23:31:10 1994
From: Destiny@yabbs
To: Deaska@yabbs
Subject: *smile*
Date: Tue Jan 25 23:31:10 1994
Hi there. I just wanted to say hi while I was in here. I am sorry our
conversation got cut short this evening. The car almost left without me.
Thankfully it didn't. The movie was actually good. I'll chat with you
more later. Talk to you soon.
Destiny
P.S. Close your eyes and think of
everything I would have said to you had this been private. :)
From laelth@yabbs Wed Jan 26 01:16:11 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Bloated Military
Date: Wed Jan 26 01:16:11 1994
Maedhros:
The Kennedy quote that you and honkfish were talking about
seems pretty relevant to me. If I'm not mistaken, Kennedy was
deeply disturbed by the growing power and influence of what Dwight
Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex," the united
forces of the CIA, the military itself, and the many big companies
that got very, very rich on the cold war. Kennedy wanted to dismantle
their power, to divert resources to domestic issues, and to restore our
military to "PEACETIME" levels. Of course, we know where this policy
got Kennedy. He was killed for challenging the CIA, the military,
and big business (or so Oliver Stone argues in the movie _J.F.K._).
Given the demise of the Soviet Union I can see absolutely NO
legitimate excuse for spending the kind of money that we spend
on defense, especially considering that we're NOT AT WAR. Having a
large military during wartime is one thing, but during a time of
peace? ... with a budget defecit that's approaching $400 billion/year?
... with serious urban decay? ... with a rapidly deteriorating
Interstate Highway System? ... with rising costs of college tuition?
... on the verge of a new, national health care initiative? I mean,
really, can you justify maintaining our bloated military with all
these other pressing concerns?
A smaller, highly-technical force, a quick-strike military would
adequately meet our peacetime demands. We just can't afford to have
the government employ 2 million soldiers, though I agree that we should
protect our current (if fading) technical superiority.
In an interesting side note, President Clinton tonight in his
"State of the Union Address" buckled to the pressure of the military-
industrial complex and agreed to maintain the military at current
levels. And really, you can't blame him. He doesn't want to be
another Kennedy. Just goes to show who REALLY runs this country.
-laelth | "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
| influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-
| industrial complex. We must never let the weight of
| this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
| processes." - Dwight David Eisenhower in his farewell
| address to Congress before JFK took office.
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jan 26 01:44:24 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Bloated Military
Date: Wed Jan 26 01:44:24 1994
Kennedy plots? Paranoid much? ;-)
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
p.s. More coming soon. The lag time is awful tonight!
From Deaska@yabbs Wed Jan 26 01:50:39 1994
From: Deaska@yabbs
To: Destiny@yabbs
Subject: re: *smile*
Date: Wed Jan 26 01:50:39 1994
hehe, you wanna start off a revolution?
Keep the spirit Dest, you anarchist, you...
Deask'
PS. Mmmmmmmmmm
From Destiny@yabbs Wed Jan 26 10:12:43 1994
From: Destiny@yabbs
To: Deaska@yabbs
Subject: *smile*
Date: Wed Jan 26 10:12:43 1994
Ha ha ha...sooooo funny...talk to you soon...I'm off to shower and to
classes!
` Des'
From Justin@yabbs Wed Jan 26 19:53:52 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Wed Jan 26 19:53:52 1994
ok, now here's contribution to this section.
IMPROVISED GELLITANITE EXPLOSIVE:
Materials: Equipment:
Potassium Clorate Zip-Loc bags
Vaseline Galvanized steel pipe
Improv. Blasting Cap
Directions:
This is about the simplest thing that I know how to make. First of all,
spoon nine measures of potassium clorate into the zip-loc bag (making
sure that it is ground into a fine powdered sugar like density). Next
spoon in one measure of Vaseline (or petroleum jelly). Knead with hands in
the bag until a smooth, uniform paste is obtained. This can be detonated
with any commerical #8 or military blasting cap. Squeeze the mixture out
into the steel pipe, and cap the pipe. Allow for a small drilled hole in
one of the caps for insertion of the blasting cap. Another method is to
roll up the zip-loc bag (containing the explosive) into the pipe. This
will keep for longer periods of time.
Notes:
Of course this, and all further materials are for informational purposes
only. But if someone WERE to actually try these, the hardest thing to find
would probably be the potassium clorate. If you're in college, use your
own brains to steal some from the science department. I'll explain
"Science Lab" recon in the next few messages. This explosive is set off
by concussion, hence the blasting cap. I'll explain those later also.
I encourage questions and feedback, so drop me a line.....
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Jan 26 20:05:20 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Wed Jan 26 20:05:20 1994
Is this anarchy? ;)
JasonLee
From Case@yabbs Wed Jan 26 20:11:56 1994
From: Case@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Wed Jan 26 20:11:56 1994
aw man, that's just the ingredients to Plastic explosives...
I have about 200 different textfils on 200 different explosives, anybody
ever wants some, mail me: stmille@eis.calstate.edu
--=Case=--
From Justin@yabbs Thu Jan 27 11:28:32 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Thu Jan 27 11:28:32 1994
Is this anarchy? I don't really know, but I do believe in freedom of
information. I'm just putting on a few to those of you who have a passing
interest in the subject. You should be able to have access to this type of
paraphanalia if you so desire. By definition, anarchy is the absence of
government. The government used to regulate this kind of information, now
they regulate pornography. There's room for self-expression, do a degree.
Call it a celebration of what we can now openly learn. If you are
interested in this kind of material of self-reliance, and want to learn
more, look up the following authors: Ragnar Benson(trapping, manhunting,
survivalist guides), George Hayduke (get even, revenge, homemade
explosives, improvised weapons and their cacheing), Seymore Lecker
(Improvised Explosives, and Chemical Incendiares). All of these guys are
published through Paladin Press, Inc.
Above all, I don't want to offend anyone on this section. I'm curious
as to YOUR ideas, and am fully willing to listen. If you disagree with me,
tell me, don't get pissed off. I make plenty of mistakes. So far, I've
been getting pretty good feedback. I thank you. Keep it coming.
Here are some of the things that I know a little about. If you have any
curiousity, and want to know more about something, tell me, and I'll try
my best to tell all that I know.
How to get a new identity.
Improvised explosives
Improvised weapons
The compleat rogue
Improvised lock-picking
Weapons caching
International trafficking
reconnaisance
Easy and effewctive self defense.
Not that anyone would TRY any of these things. But hey, it's under our
freedom of speech rights to discuss these things.
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jan 27 17:21:03 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Thu Jan 27 17:21:03 1994
Well, I'm a chemistry major, so I have more than a passing interest in
explosives. Strangely, that section always seems to be missing from the
textbooks :-)\
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Justin@yabbs Thu Jan 27 19:46:35 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Thu Jan 27 19:46:35 1994
I casee why. I'm a biology major myself, but I've always had a passing
interest in such things. Too many movies as a kid, I guess. Being a
chemistry major, if you see something wrong in my data, please alert us to
it. -Justin.
From ching@yabbs Thu Jan 27 20:38:25 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Thu Jan 27 20:38:25 1994
Well, I'm an Arch major, so I don't know much about chemistry at all. Buit
I used to have a bunch of homemade smokebombs that would fill the enitre
neighborhood up with smoke. Problem was, I didn't, and sitll don't know
how to make these things myself. Have you ever heard of any good smoke
bomm formula's--this stuuff I had was made with what lloked like sugar and
maybe gas or vaseline. If you know about anything like that let me know,
so i can make some more and maybe cause some trouble.
ching
From Tele@yabbs Thu Jan 27 22:19:40 1994
From: Tele@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Thu Jan 27 22:19:40 1994
I totally agree with you, information should be available to the public.
Paladin is a great publisher,, ive beeen happy with everything ive bought
from them. I would like to see more of it typed up in .txt form though,
im not money bags, and im not about to do anything illegal for a $15 book.
Ive seen excerts from some of the books, but rarely the whole thing. A
good fairly political book to read is the "Handbook for volunteers of the
irish republican army". Im just an info freak, ill read anything i can
get.
From Justin@yabbs Fri Jan 28 14:04:32 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Fri Jan 28 14:04:32 1994
No problem. Here's an easy one. Very effective.
Justin's Hellacious Smoke Cannisters
Potassium Nitrate (drug-store)
Suger (Store)
Sawdust (Pencil shavings, etc. Pine sawdust is best)
Glycerin (drugstore)
Ok, what you do is simple. Grind up seven measures of potassium nitrate,
and four measures of sugar. Grind and mix well. But in in a bowl with
about eight measures of fine sawdust. Mix well. Next add in enough
glycerin to form a toothpaste consistancy (about six measures). Mix
thouroughly by hand until a smooth uniform paste has been obtained. Spoon
this fudge into an empty coke can. Cut a few holes in it to give it
breathing room. This can be set off by matchheads and fuse. It makes a few
seconds to to really catch up, but when it does, heh, a whole lotta smoke.
If you're using fuse, put a small pile of mixed Potassium Nitrate and
sugar, ground very finee (70% Potass. 30% Sugar) on tope of the fudge.
This will flame, and create enough heat to set it off. Or you can hold a
few matches to it until it catches.
From Justin@yabbs Fri Jan 28 14:09:39 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: Tele@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Fri Jan 28 14:09:39 1994
If you like the Paladin Press books, and want to find them cheaper without
ordering them, do this:
*-Look in your local newspaper, or closest large city. Find out when the
next Gun and Knife show is, and go to it. It costs about five bucks at the
door. More books than you can imagine. You can even thumb through them,
and such. Happy hunting!-Justin
Oh yes, they're also cheaper than they sell them in the Catalogues. For
instance, I picked up "New ID in America" for about $3.00. Also those
shows have fuze, black powder, etc. No ID needed if you're underage!
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jan 28 16:54:51 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: nitrates
Date: Fri Jan 28 16:54:51 1994
Just a quick chemical note on nitrates:
While nitrates make the most popular ingredient in explosives, this is
because of its inherently unstable state. For you home chemists, nitrate
is still an ideal substance, as its cheap, effective and easy to get to
acquire. On the other hand, there are some precautions you should take
when handling it.
1. If you are creating a compound, do it in a well ventilated area. With
a mixture this isn't necessary, as you're not altering the nitrates
structure. To tell if its a mixture or a compound, look at it when
mixing. If you can still make out the nitrate substance, then you're ok.
On the other hand, if the nitrate dissappears, it's probably a compound.
Many of these compounds form low-level toxins. It probavbly won't kill
you, but it'll give you a hell of a headache.
2. Mix with plastic utensils. Many nitrates will go off at the drop of a
hat (some will even go of if you drtop them). So handle them gently and
use plastic to avoid creating static electricity that might set it off.
Granted, most low-level explosives aren't that dangerous. However, you
might as well play it safe if you don't know what you are working with.
Have fun you anarchists you!!!
p.s. It's always preferrable, if possible, to find out what by-products
are given off in advance so you can take appropriate precautions. If you
can, consult a chemical reactions text for appropriate precautions.
Later,
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Fri Jan 28 21:59:06 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: pyrotechnica erattica
Date: Fri Jan 28 21:59:06 1994
-aw, hell! I haven't quitre figured out this mail thang(how do I quote
here?)-
Anyhow, thanx very much for the recipe; the neighbors will love it;)
like I said, I;m no chem major, but if you have any architectecture
questions I'd be gtlad to answer them. but i REALLY gotta go to the
bathroom now.
Thanx Again,
Ching
From Tele@yabbs Fri Jan 28 22:52:21 1994
From: Tele@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: nitrates
Date: Fri Jan 28 22:52:21 1994
:>Granted, most low-level explosives aren't that dangerous. However, you
:>might as well play it safe if you don't know what you are working with.
:>Have fun you anarchists you!!!
Thats a good point, i think people get caugt up in the idea of blowing
something up, that they totally forget thier brains at the doorr, so to
speak. Poor Man's James Bond Vol I points this out in a big way in the
opening pages.
tele
From abort@yabbs Sat Jan 29 00:04:03 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Tele@yabbs
Subject: re: nitrates
Date: Sat Jan 29 00:04:03 1994
Anyone ever read Temporary autominous Zones?
GOOD GOOD GOOD schtuff
ftpable at
wiretap.spies.com
From abort@yabbs Sat Jan 29 00:05:40 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: nitrates
Date: Sat Jan 29 00:05:40 1994
That Temp. Autonomnuos Zones is at this addres, LAG fucked up my last post
8(
wiretap.spies.com
Library/Document/taz.txt
From Justin@yabbs Sat Jan 29 01:24:32 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: Tele@yabbs
Subject: re: nitrates
Date: Sat Jan 29 01:24:32 1994
(Poor Man's James Bond) Great book. I was able to thumb through all three
volumes, at a gun-show. Very informative text.-Justin
From Cochise@yabbs Sat Jan 29 05:35:21 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Military Questions
Date: Sat Jan 29 05:35:21 1994
I have read with interest the debate on the uses of the military
in peacetime. My personal opinion is that under NO circumstances
should regular military forces be used on our soil. That is not
what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. They recognized
the need for a "well-regulated milita". This is what the National
Guard sprang from. That and a well armed citizenry.
The future of warfare is that of a localized conflict, confined to
a very small geographisc area. Look at the Persian Gulf War. A
prime example of what the future of warfare will look like.
As for what the "philosophy" of dart, as he stated earlier, thge truly
professional "soldier" only kills when they have to. Killing for the
sheer pleasure of killing went out with the introduction of the
pschological testing fo recruits. I spent time in The marine corps
and can attest to the fact that a homicidal maniac would not last
in the military. Some do slip thru the system. These are the exceptions
that prove the rule.
I have also seen some of the comments regarding Native-Americans. The
flamers I ignore because they contribute nothing to the discussion. I
have also been guilty of the same thing. Some commenst, however, deserve
to be made. The Native-Aamerican has been mistreated in this country.
(ex: "BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE). What I am asking is that as was
pointed out by MAEDHROS, all of us contribute to the alleviation of the
suffering of Native-Americans. Be sensitive to THEIR needs and do not
turn a deaf ear to their cries. If we do not listen, the crisis could
and will overwhelm us.
COCHISE -------->
"LET US COME TOGETHER AND SEE WHAT KIND OF WORLD WE WILL MAKE FOR OUR
CHILDREN"
-------->
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Jan 29 11:51:16 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Military Questions
Date: Sat Jan 29 11:51:16 1994
As for the military, it's true. The US military shouldn't have to be on
our soil. Unfortunately, I trust the national guard about as far as I can
kick them. Frankly, I was happier with the marines in LA then if the
guard would've been there. I think they've had more and better training,
and hence, were less likely to get nervous undr pressure than the weekend
warriors and kill someone by accident.
As for the indians. Great! Now you're talking. Give me something to do
to help someone out, besides rolling over dead for them, and I'll do what
I can. I think our generation has a different approach to 'helping out',
though. I prefer to help people on a personal level, but I get defensive
and aggitated when the federal government tells me to do it. Whereas I'm
personally fully in favor of dissolving the social security system, I've
never refused anyone who's asked for a little money. Hell, for that
matter, I don't like the government telling me to do anything. I think
it's reactionary, the state government here still regulates how we can
have sex. Damn, I think I'm straying from the topic. Oh well, I was in a
discussion about this last night with a friend and haven't been able to
get it off my mind.
Later,
Raven /\
/--\
/ \
From honkfish@yabbs Sat Jan 29 12:30:54 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: Tele@yabbs
Subject: IRA
Date: Sat Jan 29 12:30:54 1994
Re:handbook for volunteers of the IRA
I would just like to let it be known that the IRA are a set of sick
criminals who kill innocent children (warrington) for their aims.
Anything they do cannot be good politically.
Thanks.
From Justin@yabbs Sat Jan 29 12:54:59 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: nitrates
Date: Sat Jan 29 12:54:59 1994
I tried calling the wiretap.spies.com, and couldn't get on. I couldn't
even log on as a new user. Is this a "By Recommendation Only" thing? I'm
just curious. It sounded interesting, but I have no idea of how to set up
an account in it. If it's a private club, then I'll understand.-Justin
From laelth@yabbs Sat Jan 29 13:05:40 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: raven@yabbs
Subject: The U.S. Government
Date: Sat Jan 29 13:05:40 1994
No doubt.
The government of the State of Georgia is a complete joke, and I hope they
permanently get out of the lives of the citizens of the state. However, I
don't share the same feelings about the federal government. Once we admit
that there are real problems in this country, then we have to ask
ourselves who is best able to solve those problems. I just don't trust in
the generosity that you espouse, and that you claim our entire generation
shares. Before Social Security, before Aid to Families with dependent
children (welfare), before Unemployment Insurance, and before
Medicare/Medicade the private social services that tried to deal with
our domestic ills failed miserably. That's why we created these social
programs, to aid the people that the private charities could not or would
not help. Histoy has proven that you cannot rely on the generosity of the
rich, or even the middle class. In order to preserve domestic tranquility
(prevent a revolution) the government must provide some kind of assistance
to those that our society causes or allows to be poor, destitute,
unemployed, uninsured, etc.
It's popular right now to argue that the government is BAD, that it
can't do anything right, that it is unfailingly corrupt, and that people
would be happier without government interference in their lives (Rush
Limbaugh). However, we need to see who benefits from our believing
something like this. The rich and the powerful do. They benefit when we
(who outnumber them) give away our only check on their activities, namely
the government. We castrate our own power when we destroy or limit the
power of government.
I mean, do we really think that the government is that bad? What
would you prefer, a monarchy? ... a dictatorship? ... anarchy?
Who do we think we're kidding? We live the good life in this country,
under the protection of this government? People who argue against
government are either blowing hot air (telling people what they want to
hear), or they're hypocrites. Take your pick.
-laelth
From Justin@yabbs Sat Jan 29 13:12:03 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: IRA
Date: Sat Jan 29 13:12:03 1994
I visited the gorgeous country of Ireland last summer. Rolling hills,
great cliffs, georgeous place. I spent about two days hanging out around
St. James, Dublin. Great pubs, Guinness pub draught by the keg. Friendly,
happy, drunk people, and some fine women. Northern Ireland was a madhouse.
There were two shootings and a firebombing while i was there; both were
suspected to be the IRA, though they hadn't officially claimed
responsibility yet. It's a different culture there, and I wouldn't want to
be in the middle of it. When my friend brought up the subject of the book
"Handbook of the volunteers of the Irish Republican Army", I don't think
that he meant to condone what they were doing. On the contrary, he brought
up a very good facet of literature. If you were to have an interest in a
group, or a specific person, the best way to understand their beliefs is
to read their literature. The IRA have some interesting arguments and
their implementation of sobotage and geurilla warfare tactics are unique
also. Not that I agree with anything that the IRA does. I myself, do not.
Others are free to either believe in their cause, or not to. However, I do
not want to argue this point. There is no winning of that type of
argument. However, the interesting thing about seeing the other side of an
issue gives you a much better view of their motivations. Try
reading "Mein Kamph" by Adolf Hitler. It describes his struggle before he
came to power. It's propaganda, granted, but you also learn what motivates
a man like that. The context that my friend used the book was not meant to
promote the group, but rather to tell what parts of the specific book are
pertinant to our discussion. Take care. -Justin
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Jan 29 14:05:48 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: wiretap
Date: Sat Jan 29 14:05:48 1994
Justin, you have two ways of accessing wiretap:
1. You can access it via gopher. I believe it's in California, but
if you can't find it, just build a Veronica query on wiretap.spies.com and
it'll build you an access menu.
2. You can ftp to the site and download whatever you like. I believe the
ftp site is wiretap.spies.com, but if that doesn't work then try
ftp.wiretap.spies.com.
Your best bet is to gopher out there, find what you want and then ftp
there and get it.
Later,
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Jan 29 14:20:00 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: The U.S. Government
Date: Sat Jan 29 14:20:00 1994
Well, personally I'd say I'm neither. I'm definately not blowing hot air:
simply because I really don't care if my beliefs fit the status quo, or if
anyone else agrees with me (initially :-). Also I'm definately not
hypocritical. I've been eligible for both Medicare and Unemployment in
the past, and I've flat out refused it. The government has enough debt
without me whinning to it.
While I agree that, yes, the government shouldn't have their hands tied,
I believe it's growing to big for its own or our good. The one thing the
Federal government has shown itself incapable of doing is downsizing. It
just keeps growing and growing, finding new areas of life to control.
As far as my personal beliefs on charity and that of our generation, I
believe my opinion was a bit misinterpreted. I mentioned that our
generation seems to prefer to work on a micro scale. I didn't however,
mean to insinuate that our generation is uniformely charitable. My point
was mored along the lines that I don't think the Federal government has a
right to tell me who to support. If I feel like being charitable, I will.
If I don't, I won't. I just don't take the socialistic view you present
which seems to imply I have a moral imperitive to help others. If I fall
down, I feel its an individual's choice whether or not they want to help
me up. I don't think the police have the right to incarcerate someone if
they choose to simply walk on by (ZI mean this example metaphorically, of
course).
I do believe in anarchy to a certain extent. I think the government
should insure that I don't hurt anyone, but I don't think they should have
the right to tell me who I should be nice to or give aid to.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Jan 29 14:23:17 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: IRA
Date: Sat Jan 29 14:23:17 1994
Know your enemy, good point. Regardless of what you think of something,
it never hurts to understand it. A little more introspection would have
done wonders in Salem at one time.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jan 29 16:58:14 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Skinner
Date: Sat Jan 29 16:58:14 1994
For the anarchists out there, barring human tendencies not to
cooperate with each other, can there be such a thing as real,
unadulterated anarchy? I mean true free will, not government involving
itself with (or absolving itself of) the responsibilities of taking care
of poorer elements of society, not lower taxes, not less gun control, none
of that bull. I mean pure freedom; is it possible?
I am beginning to see a fundamental weak point in anarchist idealism:
education. You can absolve the power one man (or government) has over
you and your behavior, but how do you absolve one controlling factor
which produces anarchist philosophy in the first place? A teacher
educates by "
guiding" the student to "enlightenment." Isn't this "guiding" creating a
barrier to the student's ability to think for him/herself? If a teacher
chooses what material the student eventually studies, the future mind of
that student is shaped by the study material.
Can a more free and more equal State exist without the existance of
educated people? How does anarchic theory get around this loophole?
Anarchy is not Explosives 101, with lectures involving demonstrations
with the neighbor's trash cans. Its equal people, dealing with each other
on equal terms. Its not trying to look tough with painted leather jackets
and chains and crewcuts, its a way of behaving like you respect others as
well as yourself. How does education fit into this? Can it?
-Alex Reynolds
From honkfish@yabbs Sat Jan 29 20:11:09 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Skinner
Date: Sat Jan 29 20:11:09 1994
Anarchism cannot work on a purely individual level. It must have community
support. You have communities that organise themselves, and that is
anarchistic, because noone is telling them how to do it. The means of
production are owned and controlled by those who use it, and they benefitr
from that. In such communities education is still possible because it is
organised by that community and so the state is not involved. There is
still the question of who decides what is taught and how, but I supppose
that is up to "enlightened" people in such communities to decide. Such as
is decided can only really be beneficial to those in the community..
There are many, many questions sti;lll to be answered about feasable
anarchism, but think how much better such a society would be than our
present one.
Thanks,
James Hull
From Justin@yabbs Sat Jan 29 23:21:56 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Explosives 101
Date: Sat Jan 29 23:21:56 1994
You bring up some very good and valid points in your argument. I never
meant to imply that these lectures on explosives were the basis for
anarchy. On the contrary. These lectures are simply to "educate" people.
If someone has an interest, then I am most happy to share my accumulated
knowledge. If someone does not like them, then they don't have to read
them. Actually, the point that I found most interesting in building your
argument was the facet of learning. Can an uneducated society run on its
own accord? This is an interesting question. You can, to a degree be an
anarchist on your own level. The government is still there, but you just
disassosiate yourself with it. There are ways of avoiding the system.
Would an anarchist community work? Convince me. I'm willing to listen. In
my view, they would have to be educated. Possibly in philosophy. I suggest
reading Plato's Republic. All throughout the book Socrates debates the
different methods of government, or lack thereof. Keep yourself open to
all literature. As my friend aptly stated, you may not agree with their
argument, but you will understand them.....-Justin
From abort@yabbs Sat Jan 29 23:56:42 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: Explosives 101
Date: Sat Jan 29 23:56:42 1994
Whatever happened to real anarchy? you need to drop the intellectual
Marxist shit and get some real freedom going. The real anarchy is not the
product, it's the proccess. The most fullfillmetn comes from that brief
time when you are fighting and living free without laws. As soon as th
established powers are overthrown new powers real arise, thus bringing
more tyranny. That's the viuscuos circle of social evolution.
From Justin@yabbs Sun Jan 30 00:58:12 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Intellectual Marxist Bullsh
Date: Sun Jan 30 00:58:12 1994
A Marxist? I don't think so. Karl Marx believed in the "ideal" Communist
society of a community being run like a business. He wanted the profit of
the community to be divided equally among the people, if I remember
correctly. We've hardly brought up Marxism. Social evolution, if you
remember went from a timocracy to an oligarchy. This spurred the first
questions of a possible anarchist society. I appericiate your input, but
there are a few of us who were enjoying our discussion of the
philosophical ramifications of literature, idealist societies, and so on.
In order to understand our ponderances, ask yourself the following
questions: What is real anarchy? What is the purpose for anarchy if some
live only for the tyrranic raid? Take care.-Justin
From Justin@yabbs Sun Jan 30 01:05:55 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: free living
Date: Sun Jan 30 01:05:55 1994
If you read a few messages back, I brought up the same point that you did
on living free without laws. Anarchy can be achieved by the individual to
a degree. Just ignore the system. There are ways to ignore the
government.There are ways to disappear and not have to live under those
conditions set up by those who govern you. There is a wealth of knowledge
available to you. Paladin Press has several of books on that same subject.
If you are interested, I'd be happy to bring up some points on how to do
just that. Take it easy.-Justin
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Jan 30 13:20:07 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Sun Jan 30 13:20:07 1994
One of the prime requisites for establishing any kind of political
theory into a working system is being able to reconcile your beliefs with
reality. Specifically, there is no such thing as a pure political system.
There is no such thing as a pure capitalist country, neither is their a
pure socialist, and there won't be a pure anarchistic. Life itself, by
nature, is a compromise. As there are certain rules governing nature,
there are also certain rules governing mass action. This is not
necessarily an axiom, but it is generally held as a truth. It's proof
would take an additional paper, but I'll suply it if necessary. For the
oment, I'll continue as if you've granted me this argument.
Under the premise that no government is a pure 'color', it then becomes
necessary for the individual to select the 'shade' in which they feel
content. Balanced with this neccesity, is the need for survival. For if
the shade is to far from that of the community, the community will respond
in order to preserve itself. It is possible to apply these abstract
theories into a working personal system:
When one comes to a decision, some questions must be asked:
1. Is it illegal. This is normally the only question a law
abiding citizen need ask. The anarchist must delve further however,
because this is not necessarily an unnavigable obstacle.
2. What are the odds of being caught. The second question is the
likelihood of apprehension if the action is carried out. This is a
personal decision in which one must way the gains against the risks.
3. Does this hurt anyone? By definition, in anarchistic society everyone
has a right to personal freedom. Therefor, it must be established that
the law being broken is simply a law to unnecessarily impede personal
freedom. If, rather, it is a law designed to protect the freedom of
others, than the law would be acceptable and necessary by anarchistic
theory. But, isn't anarchy a lack of all laws Yes, but if all people
adhered to the principals of the theory, than they'll never jeopardize the
freedom of another and since the law will never be used, it doesn't matter
if it exist. Call me pessimistic, but I'd prefer the law was there just
the same.
While number three seems easy to digest, the other two are the root of
the compromise. No, it's not ideal, people shouldn't have to face
consequences for actions which don't hurt another. However, compromise is
necessary. The alternatives are revolution. While it might be right to
let everyone get high if they please, is it worth getting them killed
over? (Sorry, I'm sure there are better examples of personal freedom, that
was just of the top of the head)
I believe we must reconcile our wants and beliefs with the consequences
of our actions in order to find our most suitable environment.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Sun Jan 30 13:56:08 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: Community
Date: Sun Jan 30 13:56:08 1994
So are you proposing authoritarian communities which are "anarchist" in
the sense that they are smaller bodies of power? I do not see how this
resolves the problem though. Are means of production in the hands of the
community or the individuals who make up that community? If the education
is in the hands of the community and not the State, isn't that just
downsizing the power structure? Free thought is still crushed. I find it
antithetical to base a free society on the whims of "enlightened" citizens
controlling less-"enlightened" citizens.
I don't know whether society would be better off with or without
government, as government would hardly let us find out in the first place
which is better. Nor do I believe anyone else *knows* that an anarchistic
society would be better off. It is all a matter of conjecture and theory.
Let me know where I have strayed here,
Alex Reynolds
From Xela@yabbs Sun Jan 30 14:07:22 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: Explosives...
Date: Sun Jan 30 14:07:22 1994
As an 18 year old, I still enjoy blowing the crap out of stuff, so
your recipes are read with some enjoyment. Please share more of this
material, though I don't see terrorism (using explosives) as an effective
means to secure freedom. It just pisses off an already sadistic,
psychotic government.
As stated in my previous message, I don't believe an *anarchist*
community can work. By definition, a community states plural citizens.
That means cooperation, which means someone has to take power over others.
You mentioned Plato's Republic; should an anarchist society be run by an
"enlightened" philosopher-king? Smacks of a soon-to-be pompous,
easily-tyrannied monarchy to me.
How can one gain the knowledge of survival outside the society?
Thoreau states in Walden that man should be alone, away from society. But
how could he have lived in nature without the comforts and education (i.e.
his writing ability) which root from society. If one can avoid the
government, there are skills needed for that which involve training only
society can provide. Can man, in this day and age, survive on his own?
I doubt it.
-Alex Reynolds
From Justin@yabbs Sun Jan 30 14:34:54 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Anarchism and Walden...
Date: Sun Jan 30 14:34:54 1994
When I brought up Plato's Republic, I didn't mean to imply that a dispotic
Enlightened philosopher King should rule. This would be tyrrany. My point
was that Socrates pondered some of the very same questions that we are
asking ourselves about society as a whole. You also brought up an
excellent point with Walden. If I were to interpret the meaning of such a
text, I would have to say that in the idealistic view, the individual
would have to learn in society, to understand his fellow man, and nature,
and then he would want to seek the solace of nature. It's an excellent
work. I believe that another quote should be remembered. Thoreau also said
"Simplify, simplify, simplify....." I believe that the solace of nature
was to do just this. Likewise, on the anarchistic viewpoint, if we took
the anachistic society was actually just individuals who had taken nature
as a solace individually, would the purpose be achieved? Can man survive
on his own? It depends on what context. If he was learned in society, and
then chose to disassosiate himself from society, I wouldn't see why not.
These are worthy questions that we all seem to be asking. I'm interested
in seeing where they lead.-Justin
From Justin@yabbs Mon Jan 31 16:11:50 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: cosmos@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Mon Jan 31 16:11:50 1994
Sorry about the discussion page. I hit lag for awhile. You leftbefore my
lag went up...
From ching@yabbs Mon Jan 31 16:12:35 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchism and Walden...
Date: Mon Jan 31 16:12:35 1994
Actually, this isnt a reply to you r Anarchism in Walden letter, although
Walden is the closest anyone here has gotten to an accurate vision of true
anarchy. People keeep referring to "anarchy communities" which is by all
means an oxymoron. communities where the people are in charge is a purely
Marxist idea, and ole Marx would have a shit-fitif he heard about his
ideas being associated with anarchy. Also, you mentioned somehting aobut
profit in marxiswt communiteies. You're a bit off, though, since
Marxated a total elimination in profit in society. But I gotta go, I get
back to you later for more.
ching
From Justin@yabbs Mon Jan 31 16:34:16 1994
From: Justin@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchism and Walden...
Date: Mon Jan 31 16:34:16 1994
I never meant to imply that Walden stated an answer to anarch. Thoreau
stated that many problems could be solved by simplification. I brought it
up because we were looking at anarchist society on complex terms; There
were many "What ifs?" in our statements. I brought it so that we could
introduce the idea of "isolation" of the person. When a person is isolated
away from society, he no longer suffers oppression. The need for his
liberation is complete. Also, I don't think my point about an anarchist
society. I'm not speaking specifly about a community of anarchists, but
rather that there are a number of individuals who share the same ideas or
beliefs, even though they're free in thought, they might choose to group
together.....or maybe not. It might not even be chaotic. And the point
that I was also trying to make about Karl Marx's philosophy was that I had
never brought it up. Reread a few messages back, and you'll see that
someone else brought that up. It seemed totally unfeasibler to me. However
didn't the revenue (not profit) get divided (equally) among the people?
That was another point I failed to clearly state.-Justin
From paradox@yabbs Mon Jan 31 18:57:38 1994
From: paradox@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Waah
Date: Mon Jan 31 18:57:38 1994
I must agree with you.. my brothers, my message was intened to show that
we can make an uprising, we have the power within our hand, but WE MUST
LEARN HOW TO USE IT FIRST!. People like that statan-wanna be just show
their intellegence when they post stupid things like that... please, can
we stop talkting about this on here? If you wanna talk email, my address
is in my info file.
From honkfish@yabbs Mon Jan 31 20:00:31 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Community
Date: Mon Jan 31 20:00:31 1994
I didn't really say *who* should decide what is to be taught. It's a very
difficult question and I don't have the answer. When you say that this
would just be a devolving of power, is that not a good thing? You have to
be careful where and to whom that power goes. Little pools and small
spheres of influence are more desirable (in my view) than vast
concentrations of power in the State and has less potential for abuse.
This is the gradual path to social change, which is likely to involve the
least bloodshed and take a long time. If you want excitement, go for
bombs.
Conjecture about future Anarchist societies is fairly pointless at the
moment:no government would let us freely go down such a path.
Is there any *useful* method of achieving social change?
Need we blow everything up?
James Hull
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Jan 31 21:22:51 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchism and Walden...
Date: Mon Jan 31 21:22:51 1994
Justin said:
I brought it so that we could
introduce the idea of "isolation" of the person. When a person is isolated
away from society, he no longer suffers oppression. The need for his
liberation is complete.
------------------------
I think the problem of freedom through isolation brings up another
problem. Although the person would be liberated, he would also be lonely,
which is a point that Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. brings up in Slapstick (and a
couple other novels). Basically, man is a social animal, and therefore is
constantly lonely. A life in the woods might be intellectually
fulfilling, but it might also be boring and depressing. This might be a
problem with an anarchist society -- if the world becomes extremely
compartmentalized, individual interaction will follow. I can't exactly
predict how relationships would change, but paranoia, shyness, and
nervosity come to mind.
Anyway, to connect a bunch of these things together, please finger my
account at dirtboy@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu. There's a quote which kinda ties
some things up.
JasonLee
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 1 00:40:46 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: The U.S. Government
Date: Tue Feb 1 00:40:46 1994
Maedhros, et al.:
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you I've missed a fantastic
discussion, but alas it could not be helped. I was reading Heidegger.
In any case, I'd like to refer back to a message that I wrote last week,
#265 for those who are interested. I posed the question, who can best
solve the problems that face this nation? Need I list them?
Unemployment, Poverty, a crumbling infrastructure (sewers, roads, public
buildings, bridges), almos a quarter of all Americans have no health
insurance, we face a rapidly declining standard of living, we have
inherited almost $5 trillion of public debt, violent crime has reached
near-epidemic proportions, we have far more homeless people than we can
shelter and feed, poor immigrants are storming across our borders at
ever-increasing rates further testing the limits of our social services,
and THE LIST GOES ON!
Now, it seems to me that we face two choices: we can either ignore
these problems and say they don't exist, or we can DO something about
them. BTW, we chose to ignore most of these in the 1980s, and that's how
a lot of these problems got so far out-of-hand. We can't keep burying our
head in the sand, and pretending that all is well. It's not, and it's
getting worse. So, once we admit that our nation faces real, complicated,
and enormous problems, then we must ask ourselves who (or what) is best
capable, best-suited to DEAL with these problems. Who?
I do not believe that anarchy (in its ideal or "compromise" state) can
adequately address these concerns. If anything, anarchy would rob us of
our only tool that can work to solve these problems, the government.
Although ideal anarchy would offer unprecedented freedom, what's freedom
compared to a roof over your head, food in your stomach, a family, a job,
and security from those who would do you harm? How can freedom replace
these things? The government, yes the EVIL federal government in
Washington is, unfortunately, the best tool that we have at our disposal
for meeting the challenges that face us. No the government is not
perfect, but I want to see someone make a credible argument that another
institution can better address America's problems. Any takers?
Happy ruminations!
-laelth
From Cochise@yabbs Tue Feb 1 00:56:06 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy in General
Date: Tue Feb 1 00:56:06 1994
I read here that all of you are interested in anarchy. May I back this up
just a little? I believe that the very definition of Anarchy is lack of
any control over individuals. My interpretation of that would unending
revolution. The losses to all of us would be catastrophic. No, people,
anarchy is not what is needed in this country. What is needed in this
country is a return to what our country was founded on.
Our country was founded on several principles, the most important of which
was freedom from governmental interference. After the Revolutionary War,
our leaders formed a government that was not supposed to interfere in the
private affairs of the states, counties, towns, etc. on down to
individuals. Thomas Jefferson's philosophy was that the "government that
governs least, governs best." Hamilton, on the other hand, proposed a
strong central government. Hamilton lost, and in the years leading up to
1861, the Democratic party was at the forefront of individual rights.
Interpretations of the Constitution were very narrow, and were most often
decided in the favor of state or individual rights. Then came the
Struggle for Southern Independence. The states rights arguments got
tossed aside as no longer valid. The Democrats were seen as "the enemy"
in the eyes of every "freedom-loving" citizen in the United States.
That was the state of politics in this country until 1932. Along comes
F.D.R. and his "alphabet soup" of programs to get the United States out of
the Great Depression. Here is the beginning of Government control of our
lives. And the United States needed some of those programs AT THAT TIME.
But do we really need them now?
From Cochise@yabbs Tue Feb 1 01:03:59 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 01:03:59 1994
(sorry, terminal trouble)
Now we come to my present argument. What we need is to refuse to give up
to the govt any more of our rights. Refuse to let them control our lives.
In order to do this, we must elect only those candidates that will give
the power back to the people. Take back what rightfully belongs to us !
Take control of our govt, not by shrinking back to an isolationist
position but let your voices be heard ! SCREAM IT OUT, "WE WANT OUR
COUNTRY BACK!!!"
COCHISE LIVES ! ! !
---------->
--------------->
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 01:19:40 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: sex(see got your attention)
Date: Tue Feb 1 01:19:40 1994
laelth said, what is freedom compared to food in your stomach, and a
roof over your head. It's EVERYTHING more than just that. The govt
doesnt supply you with food or a roof, that's not part of it's job
anyways, so I dont see why you would call the government a solution. Hell
if the govt did that, your moving toward even LESS freedom.
Sad truth is, anarchy in the normal sense is not gonna do it. you
can't play thier game, you cant play the politics game. You have to use
what you have to make yourself free. THERE IS NO LAW, they ;lied to you
to make you behave. They told you to hate your body, they told you to
stay in line, .
THEY LIED. They made you believe that your oppressed, YOUR NOT. You
are the king of your own body. By playing their politic game of good and
evil, the distrust for your body and intuition that they put into is what
oppresses you. You are the king of your own body.
"There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path: already
your the monarch of your own skin........
By playing the game you are just oppresing yourself. Your playing the
good and evil thing, you are bieng blinded. Anarchy only leads to more
oppresion in it's current condition. HELL, rebel against anarchy, choose
sensuality and intuition. choose automony.
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 1 01:26:09 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Egocentrism
Date: Tue Feb 1 01:26:09 1994
Maedhros:
In the most friendly of terms, :-} , I want to accuse you of a bit of
egocentrism in your post #268. By that I mean that you missed a point
that I was trying to make, because you refuse to look at the world through
any set of eyes but your own. Egocentrism, an obsessive concern for the
individual, prevents you from looking at the world from the perspective of
a group. Let me explain by analysing your post. You wrote:
>I just don't take the socialistic view you present which seems to imply
that I have a moral imperative to help others.
No. I never implied, nor did I mean to imply that you had any
obligation to help anyone. I implied that WE as a society have an
obligation tho help those that WE see around us who are suffering because
or while WE enjoy the fruits of our society. There is a big difference
between YOU and the Federal Government (the agent of WE the People).
YOU have an obligation to pay your taxes, and to elect the people who YOU
want to represent you. Beyond that, you have no obligation. The
obligation of the Federal Government is another matter.
I would argue that WE, as a society, DO have a moral imperative to
help those that our society CAUSES or ALLOWS to be poor, homeless,
destitute, whatever. YOU, no doubt, disagree with this assertion. In
your post you said:
>I've been eligible for both Medicare and Unemployment in the past and
I've flat out refused it.
The implication of this statement is that everyone else should shut
up, grin and bear it, tough it out, or "get a job" and solve their own
problems. While I admire your conviction, I must again accuse you of
a kind of egocentrism. You seem to argue that the solution to poverty, to
unemployment, to the health insurance crisis, and everything else in the
world, is that everyone should be just like YOU! They should all do what
you did, tough it out, grin and bear it, get a job, etc. I just can't buy
that Maedhros is the model citizen that everyone should be taught to
emulate. It seems quite arrogant (to me) for you to suggest that everyone
else in America should live up to your standards. That's just not
reasonable, nor is it advisable. We need a more realistic answer for the
people who suffer from these VERY REAL problems.
In calm reflection,
-laelth
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 01:26:40 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 01:26:40 1994
"Scream it out, WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK"
I think ya got it wrong, missed a few ords there.
SCREAM IT OUT WE WANT OUR BODIES BACK.
Thats a bit better, gotta liberate yourself from your programming
before you can talk about reforming society.
a few replies to your last post Cochise.......
You think that the govt should be as it was in the beggining, I
disagree, I think we should just forget about them and get along
ourselves. You still believe that crap about total revolution bieng
horrible, about people dying in an endless bout of anarchy. It's not
true. that is the PUREST form of freedom. The only trouble is that the
PURE freedom is always followed up by a reaction, a reaction leading to
LESS freedom than before. It's not the revolution BUT the INSURRECTION.
Freedom doesnt have much too do with govt, when your mind is so filled
with their programming that you hate your body, your sexuality, that you
think your gonna go to hell if you fuck, that you believe in some idea of
right and wrong which doesnt exist and is solely defined by whoever is in
charge. THESE are what oppreses you, the govt has no real power over you
when you can free yourselves from your programmed fear of them.
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 01:29:55 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 01:29:55 1994
ACTUALLY I GOT IT WRONG TOO
it's
SCREAAM IT OUT WE WANT OUR MINDS AND BODIES BACK
that's a bit better.
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 1 01:56:56 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Justin@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Tue Feb 1 01:56:56 1994
Justin:
The anarchy that you describe in your post #275 doesn't sound much
like anarchy to me. It sounds more like civil disobedience. I admire
civil disobedience (particularly against a law that one finds morally
repugnant), but I don't see what good can come from the kind of random
disobedience that you describe, other than a little freedom that we must
purchase with jail time for needlessly breaking laws.
Furthermore, how can Paladin books teach you how to practice anarchy?
Isn't it obvious that Paladin books is a part of the current system
(capitalism), and that the system is making money off your desire for
freedom, and your sense of powerlessness? Capitalism has capitalized on
its enemies, and convinced them to buy products in the name of the demise
of capitalism itself. Paladin books can teach you how to BUY weapons.
Paladin books can teach you how to BUY survival gear. They can teach you
how to BUY chemicals, and equipment to make explosives. They can teach
you how to BUY tools that you can use to practice your trade. They can
even teach you to BUY more of their books, but they can't (and have no
desire) to teach you how to be an anarchist. Anarchy, as I understand it,
means the obliteration of the capitalist system altogether, and Paladin
books (which is profiting mightily off the current system) will never
teach you how to do this. All they can teach you is how to be a good
capitalist, and they're hard at work doing just that. In fact, you (and I
too) help them out by promoting their books.
Peace!
-laelth
From Cochise@yabbs Tue Feb 1 02:20:45 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 02:20:45 1994
I disagree with your position. In order to take our minds and bodies
back, we must have a starting point. I see that point as taking our
country back from the left-wing liberal establishment in Washington.
Look at what they have done for this country. They have amassed a debt
that is rapidly going to swallow this country in a mass of red ink. We
can no longer afford to subsidize the programs that have kept the boot of
the so-called "poor" on our throats for so long (since 1933).
There has to be a better way to use the resources of our country.
The liberal establishment have taken control of our schools and shoved
their version of history down our throats. The way they tell it, the
liberals were the savior of the human race. May I add that the A-Bomb was
developed while a liberal was the President ? (FDR)
Sure, take our minds and bodies back ! But first, TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK !
By the way, abort, Thank you for your post. Maybe it will open peoples
eyes.
COCHISE
------->
-------->
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 1 03:40:47 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 03:40:47 1994
Cochise:
Excuse me, but what left -wing liberal establishment in Washington are
you talking about? In case you're not aware of this, the U.S. has the
most conservative government of any nation in the Industrialized World.
That includes Japan, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, you
know, the economic powerhouses. Yes, of all these governments, ours is
the MOST conservative. Those of us who are REALLY on the left are quite
unhappy with what's been happening in Washington, so I don't know what
you're so upset about.
Let's take a look at the last few decades. Since 1968 Republicans
(conservatives) have controlled the White House for 21 years and the
Democrats (liberals, supposedly, but not really) have controlled the White
House for four years. If you want to blame someone for the state that
we're in blame the conservatives. After all, it was Reagan who cut taxes
and increased government spending in the 1980s. He gave us the national
debt. It is true that a Democratic House AND a Republican Senate passed
Reagan's 1981 tax code and budget, however, we must not lose sight of the
fact that Reagan was elected by a HUGE landslide. Congress was afraid of
Reagan, and for the first couple of years they gave him anything that he
wanted. As a direct result of changes initiated by Reagan in the early
1980s we got the ballooning federal debt (@$4.5 trillion now), we got the
S&L Scandal (we're still bailing out failing banks), the rich got a tax
break and got richer, the poor got poorer, and we got an expensive drug
war that failed miserably. You can blame this on some left-wing
establishment if you like, but the fact is that all of this came about as
a direct result of the policies of Ronald Reagan. True, we experienced
years of economic growth, but we'll be paying off Reagan's debt for
decades. I don't know about you, but I didn't get my $4.5 trillion worth
in the 1980s. I don't think that it was worth it.
You mention FDR in your post, and villify him as the demon who
initiated all these new social programs in the 1930s. You imply that we
don't need those programs now. What programs, specifically, don't we
need? It's very popular these days to run around screaming (very much
like Chicken Little) "cut spending! cut spending!" The fact is, there's
nothing substantial left to cut. We spend @$1.4 trillion/year. We
collect in taxes @$1.1 trillion/year, leaving us with a defecit of @ $300
billion/year. The entire defense budget is @$300 billion/year. Do you
want to completely eliminate the defense budget? We spend over $200
billion/year merely on the INTEREST on the national debt, and this payment
keeps going up becaust the debt keeps growing. We might (if we tried
very hard, and caused a lot of pain) be able to cut another $50 billion
from the budget, but this would still leave us with a tremendous defecit,
@$250 billion/year and rising.
Clearly this is a big problem, and there are no simple solutions,
although I've seen some childishly simplistic solutions passed of as
"realistic" on this very list. Please honor me, and yourself by
considering more carefully who you blame for your woes. Frankly, I wish
there were a left-wing establishment in Washington that you could blame,
but the fact is that true leftists are few and far between in this most
conservative of nations.
-laelth
From Cochise@yabbs Tue Feb 1 04:07:56 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 04:07:56 1994
I am a student of history, sir. I submit to you that it was not the
conservatives who got us into this mess. Look a the House of
Representatives. It has been dominated by liberals for decades. The
Democratic party has forgotten their roots. If the Democrats had left
well enough alone, their would not have been the problems that we see in
this country today (i.e. a balooning debt and the beginnings of a welfare
state). The liberal establishment in Washington is alive and well and
continuing to push their agenda of throwing money at problems until the
problem goes away.
The tax cut was needed in order to stimulate an economy that had stagnated
under Jimmy Carter. However, the Democrats would not cut any of their pet
projects in order to bring our economy into line. Therein lies the
problem. With no comparable cuts in spending, the debt got larger and
larger until it is now in the gigantic range.
Yes, FDR was responsible for many social programs that haunt us today.
I do not, however, cast him as a demon. He was exactly what this country
needed at that point in our history. I merely charge the Democrats with
not having the courage to cut programs when they become money-eating
machines which serve no legitimate purpose any more. As the Democrats
once believed, the care of the citizenry belongs to the states and not to
the Federal Government.
Thank You for your views. This type of debate is enjoyable.
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 1 11:39:51 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: Cut Spending! Cut Spending!
Date: Tue Feb 1 11:39:51 1994
Cochise, sir:
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Please consider this a
challenge: name some programs that you want to cut, that when eliminated
will save the government $300 billion dollars a year! Please. If the
answer to this problem was as simple as that, someone would have done it
long ago. There are no simple solutions, and cutting spending is only
a simple "buzzword-phrase" that conservatives feed to the American people
because that's what we want to hear. I'd rather our politicians stop
lying to us (sayng that we can cut spending to get out of this mess).
It's time for the truth.
-laelth
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 13:39:54 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Tue Feb 1 13:39:54 1994
You respect a bit o civil disobedience but you dont see how that helps
anarchy? Hmm perhaps cause anarchy doesnt do shit, but bring about more
control itself.
Automony is the only thing, and sad fact is it's can only be
temporary. We are up against odds that make it that way, and always will
be. There never will ba any time when all men are free and all have total
control over their destiny, that's not how the world works. It's goping
the opposite way.
ARTISTIC civil disobedience is the answer. Break laws, KNOW that you
ar a criminal and act like it. Not violenca against people, but violence
against institutions. Throw a brick thru a bank window, vandalize City
Hall, have your own book burning of books from the moral majorirty.
It's called POETIC TERRORISM. Use it to break the programming and
knock heads.
YOU can only free yourself, so di it by getting rid of the ludicrous
ideas of govt and control.
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 13:44:29 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 13:44:29 1994
HEYHEYHEY DONT BASH LIBERALS..
You know what you hould do? BASH THE FUCKIN WHOLE LOT OF THE BASTARDS
IN WASHINGTON. The idea that freedom can be obtained thru govt of ANY
type is ridiculous. It is impossible no matter who control the govt to
bring freedomedom to yourself and to others.
A starting point? Yeah ya need one, and it's not throwing preople out
of govt, its getting it thru your head(if its as thinkas mine can be it'll
take awhile) that thee is no need for govt or control af any type. throw
out the bathwater AND the baby. The baby is planted in your head. they
make you think that we need a controlling order in our lifew. They are
wrong. Like I sadi before, you are soveraign of your own body.
CHAOS NEVER DIED
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 13:46:25 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 13:46:25 1994
Why the hell are you talking about govt in the anarchy forum?
You too are wasting yourselfs flipping blame back and forth between
reps and dems and libs and cons. why the hell are ya doing it? It doesnt
matter WHO is in the govt, its the fact that the govts there that is the
problem.
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 18:49:31 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General
Date: Tue Feb 1 18:49:31 1994
I agree in part with Jefferson. His quote should be split into two areas,
though. First, the government should govern least with respect to
individuals in society. That is, they shouldn't interfere with what you
think, say, read, eat, fuck, stick in your arm, etc.
The other side of Jefferson's quote is that he said it way before the
industrial revolution, so that he could not foresee the era of big
businesses. Heavy government involvement is necessary in order to protect
citizens from corporate terrorism (lread The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair).
Also included in big business territory should be citizens who have
accumulated vast amounts of wealth. I.e. the rich should not complain
about being heavily taxed.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 21:38:51 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 21:38:51 1994
Actually, the current gov't seems more like it is allowing us our rights
than the previous ones did. With a Democrat running things (sorta), we
don't have wonderful people like Jesse Helms influencing the leadership
quite as much. Of course, we do have neat innovations like the Clipper
chip. I'm sure Clinton means well by endorsing the Clipper, but it won't
help much. Oh, one other problem with a liberal gov't is that
ultra-radicals like Catherine MacKinnon have more influence than under
Republicans.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 21:44:23 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: sex(see got your attention)
Date: Tue Feb 1 21:44:23 1994
What's all this about game-playing? The people you describe come out of a
bad novel. In one of my writing classes last semester, we workshopped one
story about a kid discovering he was gay. Unfortunately, every single
scene in the story described his amazing revelations! Homosexuality was
constantly on his mind.
People have lives. They do other things than fight and fight against the
government. That's what laelth meant when he talked about having a roof
over your head. What good is all your freedom going to do you when
you't have the basic ingredients of survival/occupation? The government
does supply a good bit of food and shelter to those who need it. Look at:
homeless shelters, soup kitchens, FEMA aid to victims of earthquakes,
floods, winter storms, etc. The government does a LOT of good, and
without the structure it provides, anyone even slightly "weak" would die
quickly, free though they may be.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 21:52:22 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 21:52:22 1994
Huh? Who's been in charge for most of the past 13 years? Liberals? Why
are we coming out of a recession now? Is it maybe because a liberal is in
charge and the programs that Congress can create will pass instead of
being vetoed?
About the A-Bomb, how much does it matter that a liberal was in charge of
the country? Do you think that a right wing leader, faced with scientists
who said "Yeah, we can build the most powerful, destructive weapon in
existence," would have done? "Nah, we'll just stick with tanks and
machine guns." Yeah right! BTW, FDR also kinda brought the country out
of the great Depression.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 21:57:04 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Tue Feb 1 21:57:04 1994
abort said:
have your own book burning of books from the moral majorirty.
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEVER, EVER, EVER BURN BOOKS!!
For more information on the "right" kind of book burning, read The
Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 22:00:43 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 22:00:43 1994
Once this government is gone, this government that keeps psychotic
criminals in prisons and mental hospitals, this government that provides
food, shelter, and economic assistance (though not nearly enough), once it
is gone, how long do you think most people will last?
Neighbors won't help. People are greedy, and they need a strong parent
(a gov't) to make them share. I think every child should be forced to
watch Sesame Street and only Sesame Street while growing up. When they
turn five, they should be allowed to watch the Star Wars Trilogy.
Eventually we'll have a nation of Jedis and we can dismantle the
government and live in peace, but until then, anarchy equals chaos.
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:36:57 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:36:57 1994
Ya think the currebt govt is allowing more rights? Hve you ever thought
of the implications of socialized medicine, and gun control on our rights?
OH but Clinton means well. BULLSHIT. The clipper isnt plausible because
the NSA meant well.
The current govt is REDUCING our rights under the guise of protecting
us.
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:41:05 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: sex(see got your attention)
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:41:05 1994
Re: slightly weak would die......govt aid etc...
Wrong they wouldnt die. People can help people, you dont need a govt
to do that. The govt is just creating dependents, pulling people in.
Freedom does not imply that everyone dies of hunger. THe pirate
free-zones had no trouble feeding themselves. People do not need a govt
to keep them safe and sound. That's just the dependency that is drilled
into our heads from birth. Even anarchist cant escape it.
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:44:00 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:44:00 1994
NEVER EVER BURN BOOKS.
I disagree. DESTROY the programming they put into you. Kill it at the
source. Use a weapon they use against them. It will have more impact on
them that way. PUBLICIZE it. Put it in their face. We wont accept any
more bullshit stories about how all drugs kill and are bad. WHY WHY WHY
let yourself be misinformed? It's not information in those books,
it's-information and control programs.
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:44:36 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:44:36 1994
I said the Clinton gov't is allowing more rights than did the previous
governments. I also do believe in gun control. We have the right to bear
arms, but we also have the right to be safe from those people who don't
know what they're doing when they buy them. If you can't handle a 5 day
waiting period, go buy your gun now and you won't have to wait when you
finally need one.
Socialized medicine infringing on rights? What, the right of people
without private health insurance to have access to health care is
unimportant?
Also, I didn't mean to imply that Clinton and the Clipper chip are ok,
simply because Clinton means well. Clinton thinks (for some unknown
reason) that lots of people are out everyday, illegally tapping phone
lines, listening to the suburban gossip of bored housewives, plotting
blackmail schemes. Encryption is meant to keep your thoughts away from
the gov't, but with the Clipper chip, they'll be able to listen right in.
What a stupid plan. They must think that everyone who wants to be safe
from gov't intervention must have something to hide. Yuck.
Anyway, besides the minor infringement about gun control, I don't see how
they are restricting our rights any more than usual. Liberals happen to
be more lenient when it comes to obscenity, freedom of expression, freedom
of speech, the press, etc.
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:49:42 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:49:42 1994
ANARCHY = CHAOS
MY you are bright. That's the point. Not chaos as in entropy but Chaos as
in the mystical form. The origin the tao.
"this govt that puts psychotics behind bars......feeds..protects."
THIS GOVT THAT POISONS PEOPLE WITH PLUTONIUM.
THIS GOVT THAT KILLED 50,000 MEN FOR NO REASON
THIS GOVT THAT CONBTROLS YOUR THOUGHTS THRU CENSORSHIP
THIS GOVT THAT OVERTHROWS DEMOCRATIC GOVTS SO IT"S BISINESS MEN
CAN DO BETTER UNDER A CONTROLLED MARKET(central america)
THIS GOVT THAT PUT JAPANESE IN INTERNMENT CAMPS
THIS GOVT THAT INVENTED THE A-BOMB
THIS GOV TTHAT TESTED THE A-BOMB ON UNKNOWING CITEZENS
THID GOVT THAT MISINFORMS IT'S POPULACE ABOUT DRUGS
THIS GOVERNEMNT THAT TAKES AWAY CITEZENS RIGHTS WITH ITS "WAR
ON DRUGS"
THIS GOVT THAT WASTES MILLIONS ON IT's FAT POLITICIANS
etc....
the verdict is in and it dont look good for the ole uncle Sam
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:54:04 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: sex(see got your attention)
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:54:04 1994
abort said:
Wrong they wouldnt die. People can help people, you dont need a govt
to do that. The govt is just creating dependents, pulling people in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is: people WON'T help people. They may help each other for a
little while, as in the LA quake scenario, but things quickly become
unstable and people turn greedy and mean.
OK, here's a scenario for what would happen to me if anarchy was suddenly
bestowed upon the country:
I would try to go home to my parents. I live 3 hours from school, so I
might bring some friends with me. First, I have to get out of Baltimore.
People are celebrating anarchy, so there's looting, etc. If I finally get
out and manage to steal a car and get home, I'm reunited with my family.
Now, we don't know how to forage for food, how to hunt, how to keep warm
(no power, remember?). Plu, some of my enemies from long ago find out I'm
in town. These people are generally violent, so they hook up with some
guns, come over, and either beat the shit out of me and my family, or kill
me, or whatever. If we had some organized gov't, I could call the police,
if we had some organized phone system, but we don't, since there's no use
operating a phone company when no one wants to pay. My neighbors can't
help us, since we're about in the same situation. What the fuck do we,
and the millions of other helpless people do? Even if we can get help
from friends, that help will disappear after a while, as the "new life"
becomes the norm. Things will seem as they always have, with people
generally greedy and uncooperative. Life, as they say, will suck.
JasonLee's current reading list:
The Jungle (Upton Sinclair)
The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood)
Lord of the Flies (William Golding)
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:57:11 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General contd
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:57:11 1994
socialized medicine, does not give people acces to health care as much as
you think it does. OK here are some points on it
1. It will create a HUGE fraggin buerocracy, a board will be made to
decide the medical decisions that go on inside that area of jusrisdiction.
they are the FINAL word on medical decisions. They are NOT elected
officials.
2. The socialized health care DOES NOT garauntee health care to the poor.
They must follow strict laws and guidelines in order to recieve care.
3. The entire controlling buerocracy are NOT elected officials.
4. The rights of citizens to see whom they choose are restricted(doctors)
5. The proffesional practice of doctors will be basically under the
control of the govt. Ask some canadian doctors about this point.
6. Youll be issued a medical card, ANOTHER, yes ANOTHER peice of
identification to make it allthe easier to tell of your coming and
goings.;
now gun control.
1. tThe CLEO clause gives the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county
to REFUSe ANY application for a handgun, NO REASON NEEDED. Already some
CLEO officers have said they will issue/allow no handgun purchases.
2. TThese Chief Law Enforcment officers have control over legal firearm
acces for their area. some are NOT i repeat NOT elected officials, but
appointees, depending on local govt. structure.
anything else?
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 1 23:58:29 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:58:29 1994
Destruction of books is analagous to destruction of ideas. Ideas, no
matter how bad, should never be destroyed, simply for educational
purposes. What will you tell the people you teach after all the bad ideas
are gone? "Oh, well there were once these bad ideas, but they're gone
now." That is as much misinformation as is contained in these books you
so vehemently hate. Use whatever insane literature you can get to
illustrate your point. Destroying the books only means you can't cope
with the opposing ideas of other people!
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Wed Feb 2 00:07:41 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: sex(see got your attention)
Date: Wed Feb 2 00:07:41 1994
YOU are making the assumption that anarchy will lead to everyone bieng
evil and downright horrid. With the freeing ourselves from govt, their
also comes a freeinf of the mind. THe freeing of the mind is what makes
you free. It's what makes yu realize life is to precious to kill poeple
even if there is no law. It is what will make you forget about greed and
help others.
It's not a one dimensional thing here we're talking about. With a
freeing of political bonds you have to free mental and spiritual bonds
also. That is why purely athiest anarchy is at a disadvantage. Because
SOME would not regard life as sacred as it is.
my reading list:
Batman comics
Encounters with Chaos -James Gulick Prf at Maryland(class book)
Irish Folk Tales
Te-Tao CHing
a few pornos
Unix System V - and introduction
and my potty book - Neuromancer
BUT who gives a frag what ya read anyways
From abort@yabbs Wed Feb 2 00:09:38 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Wed Feb 2 00:09:38 1994
Destroying the BOOKS, the sacred peices of paper ohhhhhhhh
is a symbol of the destruction of the control and misinformation they
breed into us. Rejoice in the fire.......
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Feb 2 00:37:41 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: free living
Date: Wed Feb 2 00:37:41 1994
I do not agree that books should be destroyed. The only way to fight
thinking and thought is with thought and thinking. Burning of books is
NOT the way to do that. Certain works can serve a useful purpose, that of
a bad example. Use our past to create a better future. We know what
doesn't work, so let's try something that does. Even Anarchy didn't work
in the past.
Anarchy, I believe, is defined as constant revolution. With that state of
violence a constant, violence against all would follow. We are not living
in the "enlightened" age of Locke, but in the early stages of Hobbes.
Think about it.
Awaiting Your Reply,
Your Obd'nt Servant,
Robert E. Lee
From Cochise@yabbs Wed Feb 2 00:59:52 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: Your last post
Date: Wed Feb 2 00:59:52 1994
Sir;
We could start by cutting the amount of people that are employed in order
to administrate these programs. I mean, look at the salaries that these
people get for tying up a system with immense amounts of paperwork.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the last President to actually cut
the bureaucracy was Herbert Hoover back in 1929-1933. That would be a
great start !
I mean, does it really take that many people to run this govt ?
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.
To my honored Opponent.
From Cochise@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:05:09 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Reply to your post
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:05:09 1994
I, sir, have my head on straight. I believe that change can be had
without your so-called "anarchy". It only takes people to think and to
want change without the violence you advocate. Would want my people to
come to your abode and take whatever pitiful possesions you have ? I
think not, my friend. Anarchy won't work because we as a people WANT some
kind of order in our lives...
Your reply to that ?
From Cochise@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:11:49 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: Reply
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:11:49 1994
You have a valid point. However the Consitution was also written before
the Industrial Revolution (but not by much). It is still used by our govt
to tread all over our rights by loose interpretations of what was meant.
I am advocating a strict interpretation of that document and especially
the clause defining the "rights of the Federal Govt and the rights of the
states".
Your thoughts are welcome on this.
From Cochise@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:15:32 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: Reply II
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:15:32 1994
Didn't we have one of the worst recessions in our history about the time
of Jimmy Carter? Reagan got us out of that one. The present "recovery"
was started under Bush. Clinton takes the credit for that and I think it
is bulls**t ! No, I'm afraid I don't buy into the garbage the media is
selling us.
Your comments, as always are welcome.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:34:25 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy *might* be bullshit
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:34:25 1994
Please allow me to read you all a quote on what got me
started about what freedom is and whether control over another can be
eliminated. I'll start first off by saying that I am not so sure that
even without a government smacking our hands (or shooting us in the
streets) we will be free of oppression from others.
The key word to the subject of control is *guidance*. How do we, the
social beasts that we are, deal with one another without guiding a
behavior pattern? "The teacher who merely selects the material the
student is to study or the therapist who merely suggests a different job
or change of scene has exerted control, though it may be hard to detect."
(Skinner, _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_)
It has also been mentioned before that anarchy is eliminating
capitalism in this country. I venture that anarchy would eliminate more
than that, but more to the point, what replaces it? Do we steal from
another? An argument stating that we have unlimited resources and can
feed, clothe, and shelter one another without any problems would be hard
to swallow. But say "anarchy" results and we are left with a libertarian
wet dream, so to speak, where government dissociates itself
from free-market behavior? "A free economy does not mean the absence of
economic control, because no economy is free as long as goods
and money remain reinforcing. When we refuse to impose control over
wages, prices, and the use of natural resources in order not to interfere
with individual initiative, we leave the individual under the control of
unplanned economic contingencies." (Ibid.)
So even without government, how do we keep from controlling, that is,
manipulating each other for the fulfillment of some goal(selfishness,
etc.)? Anarchy is more than giving the Man odd finger gestures, what is
to be done after to insure the individual calls his own shots?
-Alex Reynolds
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:40:36 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Reply
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:40:36 1994
Thank you for your post. Very thought-provoking. It seems I might agree
with your basic premise. What you say deserves serious consideration.
Again, Thank You....
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:57:29 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Anarchy *might* be bullshit
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:57:29 1994
I'd like to read a quote which started me thinking about free will and
whether a lack of government will be *true* freedom. First off I'll
say that even without a government to smack our hands (or shoot us in the
streets) I doubt that man will be free from control (manipulation).
The key word to the discussion of control is *guidance*. When the
government lowers taxes to promote private growth, it *guides* the
businesses into development in this country. At first glance, this would
seem like less control, but in essence the mode of control has shifted
from aversive, unfriendly control to favorable, friendly control. The
shifting of control is manipulation, it is guidance. The same example can
be read into many other actions the government takes to "promote" what it
would have you call freedom.
I'll bring myself back to my original example, which was education.
This, of all examples, is probably to the best because with or without
government, regardless of the economic and social policies that we choose,
we will eveentually have to educate our kids. "The teacher who merely
selects the material the student is to study...has exerted control, though
it may be hard to detect." (Skinner, _Beyond Freedom and Dignity_)
Even without aversive government politics guiding us from cradle to
grave, what about the economic policies we will have to face? I shall use
the "libertarian wet dream scenario," where to govt. has dissociated
itself from influencing free market economics. A free economy does not
mean the absence of economic control, because no economy is free as long
as goods and money are reinforcing [manipulative]. When we refuse to
impose control over wages, prices, and the use of natural resources in
order not to interfere with individual initiative, we leave the individual
under the control of unplanned economic contingencies." (Ibid.)
As far as social practices go, how about gun control? If the
government fails to manipulate me as far as the purchase of a handgun
goes, won't the armed criminal in the alleyway manipulate me?
My point is that, being social beasties, we tend to hovel together in
20th century versions of tribes. Our interactions with one another
are programmed into us; how can we escape manipulation? Should we make
manipulative effects as small as possible? Or as large as possible with
positive reinforcers (manipulators)?
}
s)?
Can we escape control?
-Alex
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 2 01:59:04 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: apologies
Date: Wed Feb 2 01:59:04 1994
Sorry, thought my message got lost so I retyped it. :)
Hope it doesn't put you to sleep.
-Alex
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 2 02:16:06 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: FDR, and "liberals"
Date: Wed Feb 2 02:16:06 1994
JasonLee said:
Huh? Who's been in charge for most of the past 13 years? Liberals? Why
are we coming out of a recession now? Is it maybe because a liberal is in
charge and the programs that Congress can create will pass instead of
being vetoed?
About the A-Bomb, how much does it matter that a liberal was in charge of
the country? Do you think that a right wing leader, faced with scientists
who said "Yeah, we can build the most powerful, destructive weapon in
existence," would have done? "Nah, we'll just stick with the tanks and
machine guns." Yeah right! BTW, FDR also kinda brought the country out
of the great Depression.
Well, actually WWII made the US into the industrial giant it was in
the 50s and 60s, in the process bringing the country out of the Great
Depression. FDR happened to be in power at the time.
Funny thing about politicians...whenever something good happens while
they are in power, they attribute to their great politicking skills,
regardless of whether it was attributable to them in the first place.
Reagan claimed he brought America out of a recession and also lowered the
price of gas. The recession, as with Clinton, happened to die just as
Carter left office. OPEC, not Reagan, was responsible for lowering gas
prices.
Remember, you may be a bleeding-heart liberal or a red-neck right-wing
fascist, but you're still a politician screwing with peoples lives. No
matter who you side with, you're still losing.
From abort@yabbs Wed Feb 2 13:06:24 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: FDR, and "liberals"
Date: Wed Feb 2 13:06:24 1994
WERLL this isnt what the subject/title line says so pay attention please.
Someone asked what we can do to escape the manipulation and control,
even without a govt. Also someone asked me if that in this state of
anarchy what I would think of someone stealing my schtuff, Thiscan answer
OTH of those questions.
Is anarchy purely a political thing? FUCK NO. It's spiritual and
MENTAL, I have said this many times but noone seems to have guts to
respond to the spiritual part. Nor do they seem to want to delve into the
mental liberation aspects. what the hell?
You are programmed from birth to believe what they tell you, to
believe that you need a controlling force in your life, to believe that
this is bad and that is good, you are tought to hate your bodies, and your
REAL respect for life is washed away under the tides of church and state.
you have to brea out of this and realize that there is no need for a
conrolling body to order us.
As for people breaking into my house after we instate this anarchy I
speak of. They wont. WHY? because the desire for property and for greed
is all thrown off when you liberate your mind.
Anarchist as youknow them focus on the political and sometimes the
mental, BUT you need to focus on all three aspects of the human, spiritual
mental and political. As a a matter of fact the political part isnt
neccesary once you are able to free your mind and spirit from their
programming and illusion of need of control. You can creat Temporary
Atomonous Zones, places the govt wont notice were you can do as you and
your fellows like. THen you come to the politics of trying to free the
others, but only after you free yourselves can you hep others. you can't
pull your friends out of the tar pit while you still are in it.
As for how can we get over the manipulation of groups. YOu can't
get over it until you realie that they have no power of you. THe illusion
of need of control is so strong in most people they dont even try andf
fight for their individualism.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 2 14:24:16 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Hmmm...
Date: Wed Feb 2 14:24:16 1994
Is anarchy a mental state? Certainly. You can call an anarchistic
group a Temporary Autonomous Zone, and give a song and dance about the
poetic nature of it, but it is anarchy nonetheless.
Is anarchy a spiritual state? What the hell is spirit? If you are as
adamant about the control of "church and state" as you say you are, why
would you replace one form of "spirituality" with another? The control
which was in the hands of the Church is now simply in the hands of whoever
defines spirituality, i.e. the author or representative of TAZ.
Also in your statement, you claim that humans are programmed for
obedience, while in the same paragraph, denying any effect that we *are*
programmed: "you have to brea {sic} out of this and realize that there is
no need for a controlling body to order us." This is a major jump from
"You are programmed from birth to believe that you need a controlling
force..."
"As for how can we get over the manipulation of groups. blah...etc."
You misunderstand my point completely. I was talking about the lack of
choice we have, not only when a govt. says "that's bad," but also when we
want to travel to the other side of the globe and have no transportation,
i.e physical controllers. Individuals can act as power bases,
manipulating each other for positive/negative (as far as you choose to
define +/-) as well as multi-billion dollar bureacracies. All this
manipulation is programming which psychologically we cannot escape from,
save death. Please read Pavlov and Skinner before you answer this point,
because an entire science of behaviorism has been created around the fact
that there is no such thing as free will; that we are programmable beings
(which is why we have evolved to this point) and that outr environmnet
directly and indirectly controls an individuals behavior. To make the
point even clearer, you have been programmed by a government, which you
don't like, to write your message, and to read TAZ. Such a government is
hardly likely to live long, but the point is it has manipulated you
to hate it.
-Alex
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Feb 2 15:51:51 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: Reply II
Date: Wed Feb 2 15:51:51 1994
Actually, the Recession we had during the Bush years was the WORST since
the Great Depression, according to virtually every news report I heard.
Now, don't go saying that the "liberal media" etc etc.
NPR happens to be much less biased than any other news media.
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Wed Feb 2 15:57:08 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Hmmm...
Date: Wed Feb 2 15:57:08 1994
You say that since I define anarchy as pertaining also to the
sopiritual I am putting the power into the hands of who the one
that defines the spirit. Not so. You are the soveraign of your own
bodyu. If that is the definition of spirit, then how am I controlling you
thru it? I am not, I am just defining it as I see it. My definition of
spirit does not controll or define YOU until you accept it or are
inundated by it's presence. WHICH by the nature of my definition is
impossible. It doesnt impose itself on you and inundate you. Now the
church representation of spirit is based on a hierarchy, a higer god above
humans, THATS why there is control over your spirit in it. My personal
belief is that you are soveraign over your own spirit, "As GODS are we".
You have noone to answer to but yourself. How does that put control over
you? It doesnt it destroys all contyrol, since you dont even have to
aswer to anyone except yourself, not a god, not another person. THe
church definition of spirit is rooted in a hiearchy, were you have to
answer to your sins, that's is control,. Control thru guilt and
fear-mongering.
As for the statement that a whole science of behaviorism has been made
on the basis that we have no free will, you say that Skinner and Pavlov
did their work on the basis that we have no free wil. Thjey never said we
didnt have free will, they simply showed that man can be programmed to
believe certain things. This doesnt destroy free will, it simply shows
that it can be suppressed by the proper input to the senses.
And your paragraph about by my stating "You have to break out of this
and realize theat there is no need for a controlling body to order" bieng
a huge jump from "you are programmed from birth to believe you need a
controlling force", what are you saying? It's the same statement, except
it one, I am saying BREAK out of this programming, you can do it.
Programming can be broken out of you know. And in the other one I simply
state that this programming exists. There is no huge leap there, just a
statement that this programming needs to be broken.
As for the physicallimiters, they are a given, but they are also
natural so there is no way to destroy them, it's called acceptance of
natural limitations, Chuang Tzu calls it "Bieng Wise". I in no way implied
that you need to stop the natural limiters, simply the unatrual limiters.
Such as passports, customs etc....
Yes, people can manipulate others for +/- means, BUT when you are fee
of the deires of greed and good/evil, which are all inventions of the
powerbase to keep you in line, and to make you fear your body and your
human intuition. you no longer desire to manipulate people. you REALIZE
the spirit as I tried to point out before. That you are soveraign of your
own body, and that each persons sovereignty is sacred.
As for the incorrect statement of amnipulation by the govt to make me
state these thing, and to read TAZ and all, you just killed your own
argument. Think about it..........................
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Feb 2 16:01:35 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: FDR, and "liberals"
Date: Wed Feb 2 16:01:35 1994
People's minds will be automatically "liberated" once the revolution
comes? If people are as "programmed" as you say, then no one will give a
shit about being liberated from the oppression of the government. You
have 250 million preprogrammed, greedy asshole citizens who don't care
about spirituality. That spirituality won't just suddenly come to them in
a moment of enlightenment. I know tons of people who live just to fuck,
or eat, or get high. Spirituality is one of the least important things to
Americans. Television is important. Beer is important. Sex is
important. How many of those things will be left over once capitalism is
dismantled? (BTW, sex is not just the act. There is a whole culture of
sex that is directly tied in to the media and industry)
JasonLee
From ching@yabbs Wed Feb 2 16:51:03 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Anarchy in General etc.
Date: Wed Feb 2 16:51:03 1994
Right now, there are about 330 messagees on this base and I've read to
about 295. That'a where I found laelth's messageabout what's wrong with
America. I haven't read the rest of the mesages yet, and I'm sorry if I'm
bringing the subject back up when the collective conversations have gone
far away, but I feel a need to reply to this message.
yes, laelth, you have got the story right; all the facts are there for
uys to see, and facts can't really be argued. But from these facts I've
decided that something very big is going to happen very soon in America.
Ask yourself this question: how are we going to fix the national debt?
Of course, there are a lot of answers out there, but none take into
account the inability o f the government to make decisions--especially big
ones. We're quickly spiraling otwards bankruptcy as a nation, but then
again, we are still the most expensive nation in the world, militarily.
people fight with there wallets n hand, and there are plenty of fights
in the world for the nation to get into. Fighting--if you win--is very
profitable; look at ancient rome. And we know that America will fight for
its wallets--look at trhe Persian gulf incident of just a few years ago.
Point is, what do you think that trillions of dollars are worth
to America--we killed over onehundred thousand people in Irag and Kuwait
for money, though we pretended it was a battle against tyranny and
aggression--though we haven't helped Bosnia, which is a victim of
aggression of horrible proportions. So when the bills get over our heads.
forget the previous sentence. So when we get in over our heads with the
bills, do you think that our civil rights and the rights of other antions
will not suffer? Watch out.
Ching
From abort@yabbs Wed Feb 2 21:13:45 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: FDR, and "liberals"
Date: Wed Feb 2 21:13:45 1994
Your right JasonLee, most people dont realize whats going on, and they
really dont care for 'revolution". But that doesnt mean I have to give it
up. I can help as many as I can, and free myself and those around me.
You see a wall, stretching for miles all around you. There is no way
out except thruogh it. What do you do? Do you sit there and be
complacent until someone else starts a push to break it down. or do you
just say fuck it and look for a beer and a babe. or do you scream about
it, but when the time comes cower in fear of the possibilities. what *i*
would do, it start pounding on that motherfuckin wall. I probably wont
get thru myself, but I could get some more people. And when we have
enough, and we can get enopugh "free" people then perhaps we'll be able to
break the wall. Problem is, everyones afraid of bieng trtuly free. I
admit that I myself am sometimes afraid, but it's what I want, and many
others want it too.
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Feb 2 23:45:58 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: FDR, and "liberals"
Date: Wed Feb 2 23:45:58 1994
The problem is, when you finally break through the wall, it will topple
over on you, crushing all the innocent people who have no involvement or
care in what you're doing. The only way to institute an anarchy is
through some popular decision, which would contradict the purpose of the
anarchy. No way to win and survive.
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Thu Feb 3 02:34:13 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: FDR, and "liberals"
Date: Thu Feb 3 02:34:13 1994
you know JasonLee, your rigth.
that's why you dont topple the wall into everyone is ready. Meanwhile you
work as much as you can to make yourself free.
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 3 12:08:15 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: The Near Future
Date: Thu Feb 3 12:08:15 1994
Ching:
Somebody, I forget who it was exactly, wrote a book in which he argued
that the Western Macro-economy (Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany,
the US, Canada, and now Japan) needs a war every twenty years or so to
stimulate the economy, and force corporations to modernize their machinery
and technology. Basically, the Western powers USE war as a means of
economic recovery. For example, World War II brought us out of the Great
(worldwide) depression. I'm not sure how I feel about this argument, but
I thought I'd pass it along. If you're right, and this argument seems to
support your position, then we may be in for a new war soon.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 3 12:42:14 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: What you read
Date: Thu Feb 3 12:42:14 1994
My dear friend abort:
I think what you read means a great deal. In fact, I think that
a lot of what's wrong with our society can be traced to the prime-time-tv
garbage in which most Americans wallow every day. Not surprizingly, I've
read everything on JasonLee's list, and nothing on yours.
I do, on the other hand, know a little about Chinese mysticism, Taoism
in particular. The "path" of the Tao is beautiful, sublime if you will.
It is an essential part of the Chinese way of life. However, the Chinese
recognize that an active spiritual life is not enough. That is why Kung
Fu Tse and his teachings (Confucianism) sprang up in connection with the
Tao. Along with serene spirituality, Kung Fu Tse argued that people must
also act ethically in social, political, and economic affairs. He
recognized that people are inherently social and political animals, that
we act together as groups, and that we needed some system, some code, to
regulate our interactions with one another.
So, here's what I'm driving at. It's great that you've read Lao-Tsu.
But that alone is not enough. The Chinese recognized this over two
millennia ago. This, by the way, is the source of the notion of yeng and
yang, that both, the spiritual, and the socio/political are necessary
components of human existence. Lao-Tsu is incomplete without Kung-Fu-Tse.
If you're interested in bringing some balance to your deeply spiritual
life, you might want to start with _The Analects_ of Confucious.
Happy reading!
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 3 13:03:30 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: The Budget
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:03:30 1994
Hmm...
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "bureaucracy." You say that
Herbert Hoover was the last president to cut the bureaucracy, but what
does that mean? If you're talking about government employees, I'd argue
that Nixon, by pulling us out of Vietnam, most drastically cut the number
of government employees. (Of course you know that our military employs
over 2 million people). But, I don't think that's what you mean.
Although the military is by far the BIGGEST bureaucracy around, most
conservatives want to preserve that bureaucracy. From my experience, when
conservatives cry about bureaucracy, they are really crying about social
programs that they don't like. BTW President Clinton lowered (by about
5%) the total number of government employees (both military and
non-military) last year! He is actually committed to reducing the size of
the Federal Government, although leftists like myself wonder if this is
suuch a good idea. Frankly, I'd rather see the government employ more
people, not less. The last thing that we need in times of high
unemployment is for the government to cut the number of people that it
employs. But I'm off the subject.
You say we need to cut the bureaucracy (cut spending! cut spending!),
but you still don't name a single program that you want to cut. Your
numbers just don't add up. We simply can't cut $300 billion dollars from
the federal budget without drastic consequences. As I've said before, and
will say again, "Cut Spending! Cut Spending!" is a lie that won't and cant
work. Politicians feed us this line of bull because that's what we want
to hear, but they know that the problem is far to serious to be solved
with spending cuts.
In quiet desperation,
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 3 13:15:02 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Socialized Medicine
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:15:02 1994
Here's a neat fact for you:
In a survey taken last year, the people of Canada (which has
completely socialized medicine - the government pays for everything)
were asked if they'd prefer to have a privatized system like the one in
the US. 95% said NO, that they liked their system better. (No joke!)
I'm always suspicious of those who cry about how bad socialized
medicine is. Many of them have a vested interest in the status quo. Many
of them are simply afraid to change. Many of them are purely greedy, and
don't want to pay more taxes. Most of them already have good medical
insurance, and don't care that a lot of us don't have any insurance at
all. In any case, socialized medicine is VERY popular in most of the
nations that have it.
Just a thought!
-laelth
From Xela@yabbs Thu Feb 3 13:51:39 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: what about...
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:51:39 1994
...Vietnam? That was a war which pushed air warfare into the jet age, but
it cost billions for the government to sponsor such R&D. Those
billions are still being payed for, becuasse the government gained no
territory or economic ground from it. The Gulf War cost us tens of
billions, even when other oil-consuming nations chipped in. No
significant economic growth could be attached to that war (at least I
doubt it). If we do go to war anytime soon, it would probably be
with Pacific Rim countries, which are growing faster and gaining more
international influence than America would tolerate.
My two cents,
Alex
From abort@yabbs Thu Feb 3 15:17:16 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Socialized Medicine
Date: Thu Feb 3 15:17:16 1994
hmm I have no vested interest, and Im more than willing to pay money to
help peple, so that's not my pick with socialized health care. Although
for some politicians and others I am sure dinero is the biggest factor.
It's just that it's adding more beurocracy to the deep pile we have u
there already. This democracy will have a lot of control over your
lives,and many of the poeple in it who will be making the prime decisions
are not elected, but appointed. I think if your gonna do it, find some
way to do it with no beurocracy and noone actually centralizing it, which
is pretty near impossible in our nation.
Yo are right about Kung Fu Tse bieng hand in hand with Lao Tzu, they
balance each other in that it was normal for younger people to follow Kung
Fu Tse teachings, but when they got older and grew out of the idea of
society, the would turn towarrd Taoism. Also there was a lot of
differences between the two. As a matter of fact it's funny that Chuang
Tzu uses Kung Fu(Confucous) as both a positice and a negative example in
his writings. BUT, he focused on the negative alot more, particularly the
classifications of roles etc.. But he also showed that Kung Fu was a wise
man in some aspects, and in plkaces used him as a sage to tell stories
relating the tao to those in power.
As for what your reading bieng important, I dont think so, as long as your
read. I dont watch T.V. actually, havent for close to four months. I
mean I watch CNN or watch a videotape her and there but T.V> as a pastime
is a nono, Inet has taken that over, and for the better definetly.
The poiojnt I have been trying to make all along, is that you cvant
hjust say, "ANARCHY D000D" and spount intellectual writings and quotes
etc... and expect anything to happen. Also, you cant expect it to happen
if all you do is break doent the govt. There has to be a fundamental
change in the mind and the spirit before we can exist in a non-control
society.
From Xela@yabbs Thu Feb 3 15:40:21 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Spirit
Date: Thu Feb 3 15:40:21 1994
Abort said:
The poiojnt I have been trying to make all along, is that you cvant
hjust say, "ANARCHY D000D" and spount intellectual writings and quotes
etc... and expect anything to happen. Also, you cant expect it to happen
if all you do is break doent the govt. There has to be a fundamental
change in the mind and the spirit before we can exist in a non-control
society.
According to our argument yesterday, saying "ANARCHY D000D" and
"spouting intellectual writings and quotes etc." would be the semantical
equivalent to stating "oh, I've read TAZ and Te Tao Ching = spiritual
anarchy, etc." How can you make a semantical choice between the two when,
according to what you said yesterday, they are fundamentally
the statement?
^---equivalent
You still not have reasonably defined the spirit in relation to power.
If you can say that spirit exists, what role does it play in prthe
programming of Man? How does liberation of spirit occur? Does the spirit
program itself to pretend it is free? What happens here?
Alex
From abort@yabbs Thu Feb 3 16:57:43 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Thu Feb 3 16:57:43 1994
Xela, shouting "ANARCHY D0000D" and "spouting intellectual writings" is
very different from actually working to meta-program yourself out of the
programming tha gramming you are currently in.
What goods is spouting intellectualism and quotes when your still
operating under the same parameters you always have been. You are talking
the talk, but not walking the walk. Now you can use the quotes and
intellectualism to support your course of action IF you have a course of
ction. Otherwise you are wasting air.
As far as explaining the spirituality, like I tried to explain before,
ITS A METAPHOR, a set of symbols to help a person relate to reality.
Science is just as much based in faith. Newton did all of his work for
the "glory of god". Also in order to DO science you have to except some
unprovable statements on faith. For instance, that your senses are not
decieving yu, that if you do this experiment under the exact same
conditions that the same outcome will happen. That "logic" is actually a
accurate representaion of the behavior of reality, the einstiens theories
are true, and that the theories that is based on are true...etc....
Science is based on some faiths.
The problem you are having is automatically and wrongfully equating
spiritualism with "worhsipping" which is a false assumption. Many eastern
religions do not worship anything or any bieng. There is no worshipping
involved at all, the "emlightenment" is gotten from within. This is were
you are making a mistake regarding your idea of spiritualism.
As i said before, spiritualism is a set of symbols to relate ourselves
to reality, same as science, it's just that science is more accepted in
the western world. Both are valid depending upon the views of the person
the symbols are doing the translating for.
So now to explain what I mean by freeing yourself spiritually, then
Ill compare it too freeing yourself in terms of science, and the idea of
programming and bad circuits as you speak in.
that willbe my next post.
From abort@yabbs Thu Feb 3 17:29:01 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Thu Feb 3 17:29:01 1994
OK I will start to explain this meta-programming in the terms of
science which many of you relate to better, than I will explain it in
terms of spiritualism.
OK, the brain as most scientist, and the people I have talked to here
believe, is programmed. For instance Xela says that is it programmed and
that we really have no free will. Then he also brought in the idea of Bad
Cirucuits. THese circuits are what are the crux of this meta-programming.
To simplify it let me bring in Timothy Leary's work on Brain Circuits.
He devised that there were really Eight circuits to the brain, from the
1st circuit, which is very animalistic, to the eitght circuit which was
very high level thought, higher than we accomplish right now, particularly
those dealing with dimensions higher that four etc... abstract stuff
basically. Now, he also described various techniques and drugs which have
effects on these circuits. For instance the fourth circuit, would
commonly be called lust, or love circuit. This can of course be
stimulated by an influx of hormones, particulalry in teenagers. Another
would be the sixth and seventh circuits, dealing with the perception of
reality and proccessing of information we take in from our senses. Drugs
that efect this are DMT, LSD, other psychedelics, AND certain types of
yoga. Yes yoge, particularly those dealings with heavy breath body and
mind meditation.
OK, now what happens in meta-programming is that you actively trying
to effect these circuits of your brain. One example is the taking of LSD
to expand the mind. This will have effects on the sixth and seventh
circuits. Effecting our perception of reality and our dealing with
sensual input. The idea of reeing yourself as I continually refer to, is
that you are meta-programming yourself, to no longer relyt on the control
mechanisms that we are brought under in society. You are meta-programming
your circuits into new and original formations. You are stimulating
experiences wich will effect you in a maner that will incite feelings
which are chemical reactions as Xela puts it, that will free ouy. That
will make you no longer desirous of relying upon a controlling device such
as the state, or church.
Thats a short explanation and I expect to get questions about it since
I dont really know how far you want me to go with the explanation.
NOW to realte it by using spiritual symbols and references. OK, you
want to free yor soul, you want to realize the freedom that can be yours.
But you've been programmed and made to believe that you need a control
device in your life, that you need to have someone guiding you. This can
be the idea of a soveraign bieng such as god, or in the idea of state.
You are fooled into believeing that you need a guide thru life. Also you
are tricked into seeing good and bad as definite. When they are not, good
and bad are subjective relations given to various actions and experiences.
The idea of good and bad stems from the need for a guide. Igf it goes
against this guide you are taught that it is bad etc...
Now what are you ganna do to free yourself rom this conmtrol. For
instance Taoism suggests that you forget the categorizations that man puts
on the tao, on the way. Zen Buddhism suggests that you clear your mind of
desires and wants. These are just examples. The thing is Xtianity is not
very good for this freedom because it and judaism and hinduism and more
conventional buddism, are based on a supreme bieng who you worship and ask
favors of. Taoism and Zen buddhidm, the power is drawn from within, and
you are not dependent on outside forces, Therefor you are truly free of
control. There is no supremne god to answer to in these
religion/philosophies. That is why they are truly free.
The point of this is that spirituality and science are both equally
capable of freeing yourself from control devices. I prefer touse a
combination of both since it speaks to me better that way. Science and
spirituality are both sets of symbols, both must be taken on faith.
Science is much easierly taken on faith since it is more recently
developed compared to rather ancient ideas of spirituality.
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 3 21:20:25 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Thu Feb 3 21:20:25 1994
I think, perhaps, we are missing part of the problem when we talk of
freeing ourselves from outside influences. While, yes, we have been
programmed to a large extent to feel the need for authority by society
itself; there are other factors at play here.
Mankind is a pack animal on an instinctual level. While most people
don't appreciate being compared to a pack of dogs, we are similar in many
respects.
First, we operate as a pack, and do not survive alone well. Yes, a
person can isolate himself from others to a large extent; but he cannot
totally remove himself from society (at least as a general rule). This
kind of action brings about mental instability often referred to as cabin
fever.
Second, and more to the point, a pack of animals forms under an
established leader or leadership. Why? It's instinctual and it helps the
community thrive. Similarly, humans tend to form leaders to give the pack
cohesion and to promote productivity. This isn't necessarily a form of
oppresion, but more along the lines of specialization.
Just as some people are better at repairing engines, some are better at
concerting the efforts of a group. Oppression comes when the leader is
incompetent or does not wish to make the packs goals his own. There is a
remedy for such a situation; often times this takes the form of
revolution. The leader is foprcefully thrown from his position. Thisa is
NOT always necessary however.
In the US we have the invaluable right of voting. If the majority of
the people want more freedom than they need to elect someone who will give
them more. Hell, knock yourself out and vote libertarian.
I'm straying way of course though. The point is that the security and
desire for authority and government isn't a purely human convention. It
is an evolutionary tool with which we have been designed to work with. It
is what has made modern society possible. (Along of course, with the
opposible thumb, which I would never want to sell short)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Feb 3 21:31:55 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Thu Feb 3 21:31:55 1994
The method you describe is interesting, but also useless for a lot of
people. I really haven't seen any compelling reason for me to try
"meta-programming to free myself from control." Why should I want this?
How will it help me accomplish what I want in my life? Just to give you a
hint of what I'd like to do, I'll tell you a couple plans I have.
I'd to become a writer, maybe even a great writer. I currently write
stories that come from the unpleasant things that arrive in my head. I
would also like to make movies out of some of these ideas. If I, and
everyone else, were to follow your spirituality idea, freeing ourselves,
then turning America into an Anarchic State, how would my plans turn out?
BTW, I'm still not quite sure how I'm controlled, since I try not to let
the world outside of my head bother me. I'm saying thought controlled,
not survival-controlled. I mean, I do understand the control inherent in
living in a society such as ours, but I don't see an immediate need to
escape from that control.
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Fri Feb 4 00:20:45 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Fri Feb 4 00:20:45 1994
well if you dont want to do it, experience meta-programming that is, than
nothing I can do will compell you to do it. Hmmm
Just wondering why you are talking about this in the anarchy forum. I
mean if yo are complacent with where yo are than why bother dealing with
us peple who arent? What will meta=programming do to your futture? Well
if you want o be a writer, than go ahead, if all this anarchy breaks out
and it ruins your career, then it sux for you man, live with it.
I sure as hell wont slow myself down because you dont want your
writing market to deteriorate and crumble, and I sure as hell wont slow
myself down because you dont se a purpose behind this.
From JasonLee@yabbs Fri Feb 4 01:26:06 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Fri Feb 4 01:26:06 1994
What I mean is: what is so all great about anarchy and spiritualism that
will improve people's lives? Why should we want to choose that over what
we have now? That is the whole point of this little area isn't it? What
is anarachy and how will it work and why? Well, I'm bringing up the Why
part.
OK, one might say: we need anarchy because government doesn't help too
much and people in power try to control your mind/pocketbook/whatever.
So, if anarchy is the answer, and to achieve anarchy, we all have to
gothrough this meta-programming business, which people on the whole won't
enjoy or desire, then why bother with anarchy at all? Isn't improving the
current government and also people's minds a simpler and more fulfilling
solution?
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Fri Feb 4 01:49:02 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Spirit
Date: Fri Feb 4 01:49:02 1994
why? Because I think that we could have a better life if we we're free
from the state and church as a control device.
How would it improve their lifes? Well I can answer for myself, i
would befe free of govt and state control. I am willing to give up the
benefits of this control, such as welfare etc... in order to have this
freedom.
From Xela@yabbs Fri Feb 4 14:36:34 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: The Mind
Date: Fri Feb 4 14:36:34 1994
Abort has said:
OK, now what happens in meta-programming is that you actively trying
to effect these circuits of your brain. One example is the taking of LSD
to expand the mind. This will have effects on the sixth and seventh
circuits. Effecting our perception of reality and our dealing with
sensual input. The idea of reeing yourself as I continually refer to, is
that you are meta-programming yourself, to no longer relyt on the control
mechanisms that we are brought under in society. You are meta-programming
your circuits into new and original formations. You are stimulating
experiences wich will effect you in a maner that will incite feelings
which are chemical reactions as Xela puts it, that will free ouy. That
will make you no longer desirous of relying upon a controlling device such
as the state, or church.
So by affecting the levels of chemicals inside your brain, utilizing
acid or yoga (i.e. controlling oxygen levels reaching the brain, placebo
effect, etc.), you are giving yourself the illusion you are free. This
does not mean that you *are* free. I can sum it up this way. I can feel
free, by reading books about freedom, or applying eastern religious
crutches to my mind, and it may feel like the real thing, but it isn't.
Freedom is not an atainable goal, regardless of which buttons you push (or
meta-circuits, whichever metaphor you prefer).
Programming is still control.
Abort has also said:
But you've been programmed and made to believe that you need a control
device in your life, that you need to have someone guiding you. This can
be the idea of a soveraign bieng such as god, or in the idea of state.
You are fooled into believeing that you need a guide thru life. Also you
are tricked into seeing good and bad as definite. When they are not, good
and bad are subjective relations given to various actions and experiences.
The idea of good and bad stems from the need for a guide. Igf it goes
against this guide you are taught that it is bad etc...
I have never stated that people need control, nor have I stated that
people need to guide me. What I have said is that people guide me
regardless of whether I "let" them or not. Programming can be very
subtle. My argument all along has been that even without the programming
of a sovereign, man, a social being, programs others in his interactions
with others.
I can smoke dope or pop tabs of acid all day long (which I recommend
:) ) and alter brain chemistry, but I still have to deal with others. Or
does your argument state that only a hermit is free?
Good and bad are subjective terms which a society deals with on its
own terms. Society can exist with or without government by a power
untiit, but it still creates morals and in that sense it programs the
citizen.
I'll conclude my argument with the next statement.
-Alex
From Xela@yabbs Fri Feb 4 14:53:04 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: The Mind, part 2
Date: Fri Feb 4 14:53:04 1994
Abort has said:
Now what are you ganna do to free yourself rom this conmtrol. For
instance Taoism suggests that you forget the categorizations that man puts
on the tao, on the way. Zen Buddhism suggests that you clear your mind of
desires and wants. These are just examples. The thing is Xtianity is not
very good for this freedom because it and judaism and hinduism and more
conventional buddism, are based on a supreme bieng who you worship and ask
favors of. Taoism and Zen buddhidm, the power is drawn from within, and
you are not dependent on outside forces, Therefor you are truly free of
control. There is no supremne god to answer to in these
religion/philosophies. That is why they are truly free.
"suggests"?
Sounds like programming talk to me. If a body of thougth suggests
thatt you believe it and follow it, i.e. worship it, then you are
programmed by it. Taoism sounds about as free as prison.
Abort has said:
The point of this is that spirituality and science are both equally
capable of freeing yourself from control devices. I prefer touse a
combination of both since it speaks to me better that way. Science and
spirituality are both sets of symbols, both must be taken on faith.
Science is much easierly taken on faith since it is more recently
developed compared to rather ancient ideas of spirituality.
The point is that spirituality, whether it can give illusion of
freedom or not (I still have not heard any reason why it should be in a
discussion of anarchy), cannot begin to be compared to science.
Man created science gradually, by building a foundation of truths
whiich we take for granted today but had to be sought out vigorously in
the days of science's youth. Man created science so he could grow more
and better food, keep his offspring healthy, and mature his reasoning
ability. Reason was, and is, the true basis of science. You cannot throw
a bible at a cancer patient and expect to heal him. You *can* however,
use biochemistry and immunology to elucidate the structure of the virus
which is responsible for the cancer, use computer science to develop a
computerized model of an enzyme which will catalyse the virus, and
ususe organic cheistry to synthesize a drug which will eliminate the
virus responsible. You cannot chant hymns whle throwing dice to see which
chemical you will use to remove heavy metals from a patients bloodstream.
You cannot meditate while people are starving because a new
antibiotic-resitant strain of wheat rust is destroying this years crops.
Spirituality can provide illusions, but it certainly does not provide
reality.
And therein lies the difference between science and spirituality.
-Alex Reynolds
From JasonLee@yabbs Fri Feb 4 16:37:16 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: spirituality (was re: mind)
Date: Fri Feb 4 16:37:16 1994
I have a basic problem with the use of spirituality to define anything.
In most people's cases, when I here them talk about becoming "more
spiritual" they really don't know what they're talking about. One nice
example is my little brother, who kept babbling about understanding his
spirituality. He told me that one day, he went out into a field and "felt
the earth rotate" as if this was some all-important moment of discovery.
People who talk spirituality are people who have suddenly discovered that
they have the ability to think about themselves and their place in world.
Since this is something I'm used to, since I'm constantly thinking way too
much, I'm never impressed by someone's talk of spirituality.
UNLESS the talk has to do with religion (mostly western) and a person's
relation to God. I deeply respect people who have faith and can back up
their beliefs without sounding like mindless sheep.
Nothing to do with Anarchy
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Fri Feb 4 23:18:16 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: spirituality (was re: mind)
Date: Fri Feb 4 23:18:16 1994
hmm lag is bad tonite
Over at ISCA, there was just about 500 posts debating spiritualism
versus science, or religion vs science. Thre came a midpoint when people
saw that both had merits. Spiritualism can do somethings that science
cannot. And science can do something that spiritualism cannot. Funny
thing is everyone agreed tht they both have uses, or actualy everyone knew
that sdcience had alot of uses, that's a given, but even then they
admitted that spiritualism, had uses also.
Certain people can talk about certain things better than they can talk
about other things. For instance to explain the "why" of a particualarly
strange experience, such as the one JasonLee gave about his brother, a
concept of spirit can explain it, as well as science can say that it's a
neurochemical reaction. DIfferent strokes for different folks.
Spiritualism doesnt mean a "religion" is t means acknowledgment that
there are things out there we can't touch or flesh out thru other things.
but this debate over the merits of it in relation to anarchy is dead since
ther is no waty 1. that we can agree ona definition fo spiritualism and 2.
there is no way for either of us to commun9icate to each other. We differ
on bases to far down to touch.
more coming.
From abort@yabbs Fri Feb 4 23:25:25 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: something
Date: Fri Feb 4 23:25:25 1994
I still nelieve that anarchy goes beyond just destruction of the govt.
I think that it touches on the mind, and the persons programming as well.
If you are made to believe that you need a control system then you
willnever attempt to live without one. The thing I believe is that you
can make your that you can make yourself realize that you dont need the
control system to live peacefully with others. You can also make yourself
realize that you can control your own destiny.
I think this is were our fundamental differences arise. You see that
we dont have free will, but I see that we do. you see the programming as
abolute, I see it as escapable. By escapable I mean that you can change
the programming or the circuits that is imprinted into you consciously.
If you can change it then to me that is free will.
From abort@yabbs Fri Feb 4 23:34:37 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: observation
Date: Fri Feb 4 23:34:37 1994
are we wasting time?
are we accomplishing anything?
I dont think so.
hmmm.
is ther anything we can do to change they way things work?
is there?
or is the programming to strong, not to overcome, but to change at all?
Is there ever gonna be a time when people arent reated like cattle? Will
there ever be a time when life is respected?
I mean this goes beyond the current debate here. I mean what can we
do to cause a change? Is it actually possible to make a difference at
all? IS there anyway that I can have a positive effect on the world?
im not sure. Sometimes I say YES, lets go out there and kick some butt.
Let's change the world, let's make the govt "behave' let's wake people up.
then there are other times when I just sorta sit there and go, "It's not
really worth it." those times hurt. Right now is sorta one of those
times. It makes you feel eally small and up against a big wall.
I think that sub-consciously my goal when I started this debate we are
having was to try and incite poeple to do stuff. I find that I got to
selfish actually. I was more worried about getting people to see my
point, then getting things acomplished. I think thats a pitfall we all
fall into sometimes.
SO..........IF ANYONE STILL FEELS LIKE DOING SOMETHING
8)
like an e-mag or something to attempt to make a splat on the wall, drop a
line here or something, or leave your suggestions
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Feb 5 01:04:37 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: spirituality (was re: mind)
Date: Sat Feb 5 01:04:37 1994
Hm, when I was telling the story about my brother, I meant to show that
what he was talking about was basically bullshit. Spiritualism just seems
to be an example of people thinking, which I don't consider much of an
accomplishment. I guess I don't see much in spiritualism beyond religious
bits, plus the attempt at trying to understand ourselves and our place in
the world a bit better. Anything more just seems phony.
JasonLee
From abort@yabbs Sat Feb 5 03:51:08 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: spirituality (was re: mind)
Date: Sat Feb 5 03:51:08 1994
JasonLee, thats the point I was trying to make though. trying to
understand our place in the world etc....... I just used it for a bit
more than that.
The point is that we try and do something. I dont know what by try
and organize or disorganize something. Try and accomplish things.
From laelth@yabbs Sat Feb 5 10:05:49 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Utopian Vision
Date: Sat Feb 5 10:05:49 1994
A Wraning: To abort and those who heed his call:
You've got a lovely definition of anarchy, there. Wipe away the
government, wipe away all vestiges of oppression, free the mind, free the
body, everyone living together in peace and harmony ...
Hogwash! If history teaches us anything it is that Utopian Visions
like the one you've got are VERY dangerous; they cause more pain and
oppression than the system that they replace. Remember, Communism
(Marxism/Leninism) is a Utopian political philosophy. Look what it caused
... 50,000 died in the revolution, Stalin killed off all his enemies,
conquered half of Europe, took away more freedom than he ever gave, caused
the cold war, etc. Milan Kundera, a Czec novelist, writes about his
country's conversion to Communism. He makes it very clear that the
Communists were true believers, good people deep down, who wanted the best
for their country. But they created a monster, one that they deeply
regretted for the rest of their lives. Kundera is far too clear ...
Utopia KILLS, be wary of it. BTW Hitler's Third Reich was a utopian
vision of an Arian Germany. The cost of his utopia was the massacre of
millions of Jews. Utopia must be purchased at a very high cost, and even
then, once purchased it never lives up to its promises of freedom and
happiness for all.
Your vision of anarchy sounds hauntingly similar to me. How many
people will have to die to realize your dream? ... 50,000? ... a
million? 10 million? Even then, what guarantee can you give that people
will be better off? How can you justify the cost in lives that it will
take to bring about your vision?
Be careful what you wish for ...
-laelth
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Feb 5 10:23:44 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: observation
Date: Sat Feb 5 10:23:44 1994
No, we're not wasting our time. Any belief worth having should be able to
stand up on its own merit in an argument.
We are testing our beliefs, hopefully before we act on them.
Maedhros
From Xela@yabbs Sat Feb 5 13:08:33 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: "Escaping" control.
Date: Sat Feb 5 13:08:33 1994
Abort said:
you see the programming as
abolute, I see it as escapable. By escapable I mean that you can change
the programming or the circuits that is imprinted into you consciously.
If you can change it then to me that is free will.
You mentioned the consuming of chemicals to alter reality. In effect,
you call this "reprogrramming of reality." I propose that altering your
programming in no way affects reality, but more it affects your
*perception* of reality. Claiming that escape is possible by altering
brain chemicals is like me saying "If i grub shrooms i can fly." If I
would try to fly off a building I would die; this is reality outside of my
perception of it. Programming *is* inescapable, the only other option
being suicide.
Meditation, drugs, etc. change *you*. They do not change reality.
-Alex
From CB@yabbs Sat Feb 5 14:32:40 1994
From: CB@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: Your posts
Date: Sat Feb 5 14:32:40 1994
I am a new user here. I was reading your posts and wanted to make some
comments. First, typing with a lag is for the birds. Second... Well as
for the "can we change/make a difference in the world?" Well I think so.
Not a monumental change mind you. Someone can make a monumental change,
but I would venture to say that neither you or I are the next King or
Gandi. [My beliefs] I think that changes begin at home. If you want
things different, change them for yourself. I know that you and I cannot
make all of the nuts who kill stop. No, the problems in this [american]
society are far too complicated for you and me to do it alone. But if we
first start with ourselves. Be good people, the best we can be. Be
contious of life, respect happiness. I used to worry about all of the
problems everywhere. While doing this I failed to recognize that I am a
pretty fucked up person. I am not very nice, to be honest I am intrinsicly
selfish. I think it has something to do w/ my relationship with my
father. That is not for now though. My point is that I would bitch about
all the problems in the world. I would shit on people for doing things
like using napkins. Yes, using napkins. I don't use them cuz they are
disposable. About the only disposable products that I don't try not to
use are things like toilet paper. BAck to the point. Being that I would
shit on people before I lived up to my expectations. NOw I am a
struggling person. I am doing my best to make my life the ideal. Sure I
am a shit sometimes but I am trying. I know this is unrelated but my
point is that if you want to see change, then change. Don
take on the whole worlds problems, just lend a selfless hand. If everyone
would have some charity we would be in a much better situation.
I will step off of the soapbox now. Thanks
Brinx
From CB@yabbs Sat Feb 5 14:40:07 1994
From: CB@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: political systems
Date: Sat Feb 5 14:40:07 1994
As everyone here knows about computer systems, probably.... The weasest
part of any computer security system is usually the human portion. This
is the same with politics. We live an a Utopian ideal too. Most contries
are/were at one point a dream or a vision of great peace and happiness. I
like to think this about the free nations anyway. But systems are great
until the humans get their hands on them. Any system is great. you can
lay out a hypothetical ideal in any system where everyone is happy,
wealthy and wise. The shit arrives when people actually use the system
and show us that it is very expolitable. Kind of like writing a program.
When you write it, it looks good. You run it, work out the obvious kinks
and then when you go to use it you find a shit load of flaws. I konw, I
know this is not a good programmer :) But I think I have made my point.
So let people have their ideals. We all know nothing works. But at least
we can dream.
brinx
From abort@yabbs Sat Feb 5 15:23:41 1994
From: abort@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: political systems
Date: Sat Feb 5 15:23:41 1994
hmmlealth, I get what your saying.
maKES SENSE.
I LEARNED A BIT
onward and upward
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Feb 5 19:01:33 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: A new base?
Date: Sat Feb 5 19:01:33 1994
Does anyone favor the creation of a psychoanalysis base? I guess it would
be a place to analyze ourselves and each other in relation to our small
parts of the world, whereas the Anarchy board examines us in relation to
the whole wide world. Anyone for it?
JasonLee
From htoaster@yabbs Sat Feb 5 21:15:47 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: A new base?
Date: Sat Feb 5 21:15:47 1994
In message A new base?, JasonLee said:
> Does anyone favor the creation of a psychoanalysis base? I guess it would
> be a place to analyze ourselves and each other in relation to our small
> parts of the world, whereas the Anarchy board examines us in relation to
> the whole wide world. Anyone for it?
sounds like a good idea to me. if anyone else wants it i'll add it next
time i take the server down.
alex
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Feb 5 23:41:39 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: A new base?
Date: Sat Feb 5 23:41:39 1994
It sounds like a good idea to me also. You have my vote.
BTW, thanks for this system. Some really thought-provoking things on here
robtelee
From ching@yabbs Sun Feb 6 17:44:40 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Sun Feb 6 17:44:40 1994
Just like a forest fire--necessary; unavoidable. As far as we think we are
from nature, we still pattern our lives and societies by natural
phenomenaa. nATURE IS A CYCLE OF BUILDING UP-burning down. So is mankind.
We have kept ourselves trapped in the animalisti cycle of greed that
nature needs to survive, but that we should be above. Ours has evolved
further into a cycle of hate.people believe thaqt matter and energy never
dissapear--the laws of conservation of energy and matter--but don't seem
to see the same thing from hate and greed. Thaat man who kills isn't
evi --he is carrying on the evil that the world hsas passed oin to him.
So we are all, the real killers--" Let he who is free of sin..." --and all
the money in the world, all the worlds wealth, is tainted with blood. As
we all hold a bit of that wealth--some more than others--we all help pull
the triggers of this world.Yesterday, 66 Bosnian civilians died--they were
TORN APART---in a mortar attack. It made me sick--even more sickening,
though, is the fact that it's all our faults--all peopole's, but we are
afraid to do anything. There is only one way to stop the cycle of hate
from tearing through human existence any longer. We must just let it
go--the money, the vengence, vanity, prejudice, greed, envy(and many
more). These things are killing us.
I don''t want to live a forest fire anymore.
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Feb 6 19:46:19 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Sun Feb 6 19:46:19 1994
Well, what do you suppose we do? Just burn up all our money? Sure, I'm
all for it.
JasonLee
From feotus@yabbs Sun Feb 6 20:24:27 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Sun Feb 6 20:24:27 1994
Nothing Shocking
"becasue of this thing, because of this thing, because of this thing
that's in me, is it not in you, is it not yor problem, baby to a mother,
YOU talk TOO MUCH to your SCAPEGOAT, wel that's what I think, He tells you
everyone one is stupid, well thats what HE thinks."
Hmm, JasonLee, burning manoy? Forgetting greed, forgetting all that
motivates evil and focusing on the good etc.. I think I've heard this
argument before.
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 7 01:09:13 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 01:09:13 1994
Sorry, your style is confusing. OK, a couple posts back, you said that
greed, money, violence, etc. are killing us. I agree. None of those
things are particularly helpful. But, what should we put in their place?
How will the substitutes make life more enjoyable or worthwhile? I think
this discussion has taken place somewhere before...;)
JasonLee
sorry for the smiley
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 7 08:08:26 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: A new base?
Date: Mon Feb 7 08:08:26 1994
I'll third or fourth that.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 7 08:12:26 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 08:12:26 1994
It's not so much the money, but the people who own it (Note: this is a
broad and unfair generalization used by the author, me, for literary
effect).
I DO NOT want to go to the bartering system. Hell, can you imagine how
many pigs a car would cost!
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From feotus@yabbs Mon Feb 7 08:40:55 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 08:40:55 1994
It's all Fnord from the Con 8)
Yep, it's money, send me all of yours and you'll be saved,
absofuckinlutely. Let me bear your wages of sin. Send me all your
negotiables.
It aint da money, but the assholes who worship it.
What is we gonna replace greed etc ad infintumumumum with?
How about niceness, consideration and real freedom, not Amerikan
bullshit "George Bush, ex cia pres, I was out of the loop" stuff.
How about large mass quantities of Ren & Stimpy.
13013 died for you, really he did
From Xela@yabbs Mon Feb 7 11:13:27 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: worship
Date: Mon Feb 7 11:13:27 1994
What will money be replaced with? Until you can find some other
controlling measure the masses will accept, you'll have a hard time
getting your ideas much further than this computer....
From Cochise@yabbs Mon Feb 7 12:02:53 1994
From: Cochise@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: worship
Date: Mon Feb 7 12:02:53 1994
They already have a system in place. PLASTIC ! ! ! All you have to do is
insert your card into a machine and it deducts credits from your account.
If that isn't replacing money, I don't know what is ! ! !
Cochis Lives !
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 7 15:10:55 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 15:10:55 1994
If we have goodness and niceness all around, what's the use of doing
anything? What I'm saying is that we need a really bad gov't (maybe not
REALLY bad) in power so we'll have something to fight against to give our
lives meaning. Whoops, I didn't mean just gov't. As long as there is
evil, there will be good and a purpose,. With all goodness, there's no
evil and hence no pyurpose.
JasonLee
From Xela@yabbs Mon Feb 7 15:48:22 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: credit cards....
Date: Mon Feb 7 15:48:22 1994
and money are one and the same. Perhaps you thought I was talking about
paper cash and electronic cash. No. I was talking about cash (money) in
general, as an economic tool of control.
-Alex
From honkfish@yabbs Mon Feb 7 16:07:57 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: Cochise@yabbs
Subject: re: worship
Date: Mon Feb 7 16:07:57 1994
It may not be cash but it's still MONEY!!
Most of the money in this world exists as numbers in computers, and flows
around the world money system under no controls. There is financial
anarchy out there, with no government having control over thousands of
billions of dollars. The markets destroyed the European Exchange Rate
Mechanism, putting back the cause of European unity considerably.
It's also unfettered capitalism, the money going where instant profit is
to be made.
With plastic, the authorities can keep tabs on you - exactly what you
spend, on what, where and when is recorded, but at least the end of cash
would mean the end of a certain amount of petty corruption (but not the
big stuff).
It's not so much money that is the problem, but the controllers of private
capital. The trust funds, multinational corporations etc all have an
inordinate amount of power because it is Economic power they control.
Money votes count the most. To deal with the greed money brings all you
have to do is sort out who owns the means of production.... an old tale
repeated often. Anarchist theory (as opposed to Marxist) would hold that
those who utilise the means of production ie the workers, should enjoy the
full benefit of their labour, and not have some surplus value extracted
from them by the owners/capitalists. This would include the State, who in
the old Socialist Eastern Bloc countries were State Capitalists, basically
acting as a monopoly.
Get that sorted, and you're well away....
Yours,
James
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 7 17:46:55 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: money
Date: Mon Feb 7 17:46:55 1994
Nah, I wasn't talking about cashmoney, G. I was talking about
capita--anything in the world that has a tangible value. Sure, burning
money would be fun-- especially if it belongs to the rrich--but that
misses my point. People care too much formaterial wealth in this country.
this greed keeps us from really having alot of fun with the money. For
instance( notice the smooth change of subjnect)...
....look at how we control technology--yes, w do control what we we
invent indirectly by what paradigm that the technology arises form. and
the most popular paradigms that receive money for technological
development ar the those that serve mainly business and defense. Now,
don't get me wrong , we do spend plenty of good research money for things
that we do need(i.e. medical research, superconductors), but how much
scintific power is squandered on defece and stuff that we don't really
need. Oh, never mind --i forgot my goddam point!!! Just ignore this
paragraph-- I didn't write it. Jus tthink about how we control technology,
then tell me what you think. Maybe then I'll remember what I was thinking.
Ugh,
Dr. Francis Ching (a.k.a Le Chien)
From feotus@yabbs Mon Feb 7 20:13:50 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: worship
Date: Mon Feb 7 20:13:50 1994
"Until you can find some other controlling measure the masses will accpt,
youll have a hard time getting your ideas much further than this computer
Hey Xela, I was being rhetorical
Money is here to stay, maybe not in paper form, but there aint no
shitting way your gonna get rid of it. My personal solution is to make my
self as independent of it as possible. For instance all my net-acces is
free, and I do mean free, I'm not a student, and I dont pay taxes etc...
I also am very minimalistic. I have my home system, a few of my fovorite
books and that's it. I dont have a bank acount, I keep it all in cash,
what little I have, and I dont have a car, nor do I desire one. I dont
plan on buying a house or property either.
You dont have to play by their rules all the time. you can minimize
the negative impact of greed on your life. Thats what I seek to do. I
dont say you have to do it, it's just what I do. It's my little part.
From feotus@yabbs Mon Feb 7 20:17:26 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 20:17:26 1994
No evil = no purpose?
are you assinine to say that we should always make sure there is a little
evil in the world, just so we can use that as a LAMO excuse for a purpose.
BULLSHIT.
One, there will never be a utopia, all you can do is maximize your
life in a way that has the most positive effect on others that you can
muster. you dont need evil to have a purpose, thats a pothetic plee for a
life.
you dont need a worse govt to spur us into action. Fight to improve
what we got now. I hope you were bieng facetious when you made that post,
otherwise you need to reexamine the value of human life perhaps.
I dont know what to say if you think we need evil to have a purpose in
life, except that I HEARTILY disagree.
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 7 21:30:16 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 21:30:16 1994
OK, so what do we have in a world minus evil? Note that evil doesn't just
mean bad guys out to screw up your life. Evil equals pain, which me
should have in our lives to give them some kind of meaning. Take away the
pain and you take away happiness. With nothing to compare pleasure to, it
has no value.
When all the people are nice, and we all help each other out, what are you
going to do with your life? A world like that is the Christian Heaven,
which I fear and despise. People who want the goody world without trouble
are simply afraid of being hurt. If that's the case, those people should
just die and go on to their (fictional) heaven. If not, deal with the
pain in your life and find some way to overcome it by the works you do.
Work towards a perfect planet, but realize at the same time that your goal
will never be accomplished. Acknowledging the futility of our lives is
what gives us power over the helplessness of our own mortality. Wow, I'm
rambling.
JasonLee
add one more to the reading list:
The Myth of Sysyphus by Albert Camus.
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 7 23:49:54 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Mon Feb 7 23:49:54 1994
While I think a justification of evil is subject to abuse, JasonLee's
basic premise still holds true. Your pain and trials is what helps to
define you. Show me an individual who's never known loss or pain and I'll
show you someone who's as shallow as a puddle. Life's not always fun, but
I'd sooner die than give up the parts of my life which have defined my
existence and my beliefs. If it was never dark do you think you'd enjoy
sunshine or just take it for granted and never notice it?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Tue Feb 8 13:03:49 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: someone has to pay
Date: Tue Feb 8 13:03:49 1994
There seems to be an underlying utopian thread in these messages
involving the abolishment of money, with the idea that sustenance (food,
drugs, clothing, housing, etc.) can be free. "For instance all my
net-acces is
free, and I do mean free, I'm not a student" -foetus. Well who pays for
it? It may not be you, but someone has to foot the bill for your network
travels. It may be that the cost is split up among the taxpayers who
support the government's involvment in technology, but i digress.
"You dont have to play by their rules all the time. you can minimize
the negative impact of greed on your life. Thats what I seek to do. I
dont say you have to do it, it's just what I do. It's my little
part."-foetus. You can mimnize your interaction with society, but someone
else must maximize theirs. There is no, and has never been, anything
such as a free lunch.
-Alex R.
From feotus@yabbs Tue Feb 8 15:44:46 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Tue Feb 8 15:44:46 1994
I never said that we would have a perfect world, I actually said the same
thing you just posted, that the world will never be perfect. you seem to
think that we need pain and evil in our lives in order to have a purpose.
i disagree totally. Not that it'll ever happen, but even in a utopia you
have meaning in your lives. Work toward what can make you happier and
others happier is allyou can do. If you try to set up a utopia for
everyone, your gonna fail. Cause not everyones utopia will agree. So all
you can do is try to set up your own private one, not by desensitizing, or
igno0ring things that hurt, but by working to minimize them.
So now the question is, how can you go about minimizing your "evil"
without causing more? My example would be my own personal way to dealing
with greed. I dont associate with money unless neccesary, which isnt
much. I have few possesions and kep it all in cash. That way I can
minimize the control people can excercise over me with money. I am happy
with very little so that's helpful, since I am not usually tempted by
riches etc..
As for other stuff, like rascism adn govt disparities, you need to
get active in the community, since those are external things.
From feotus@yabbs Tue Feb 8 15:47:48 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Tue Feb 8 15:47:48 1994
I think you both misintepretted me as saying that there will be a utopia
or something. What I am saying is that you need to try and minimize the
hurts. SURE they difine you, but they arent the ONLY thing to define you,
and they are not truly neccesary to have a purpose in life.
Without darkt there isnt light, without hurt there isnt joy, it's a
duality but neiother side is more responsible for defining you than the
other. I can say joy is just as responsible, Show me a person who has
never felt joy and I'll show you a shallow person.
Point bieng, you cant get rid of one without the other, but by
themselves they dont give you a meaning in yur life. They need to be
together in a duality, it's part of nature.
From feotus@yabbs Tue Feb 8 15:52:42 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Tue Feb 8 15:52:42 1994
DID I EVER SAY THERE WAS GOING TO BE A UTOPIA
FUCK NO, I said the opposire many times so far.
Ther eis no such thing as a free lunch, but your miussing the point I
was trying to make. First off net acces ins not a neccesity, and we all
know that food etc. are not free. BUT YOU CAN, minimize the greed etc.
that are involved with money. you will ne er get rid of it, but you can
minimize it.
I also never even said ther was a free lunch, you imply by my saying
that I dont pay for things, that I think they are free. Thats incorrect.
I know things are always goingt o revolve around money, buyt I am trying
to lesen the negative impacts of money upon myself. Thta's all, Im not
telling you to do it, I'm just giving an example of how I think you can
lesses negative things.
From Xela@yabbs Tue Feb 8 18:33:37 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Tue Feb 8 18:33:37 1994
Feotus babbled:
I also never even said ther was a free lunch, you imply by my saying
that I dont pay for things, that I think they are free. Thats incorrect.
I know things are always goingt o revolve around money, buyt I am trying
to lesen the negative impacts of money upon myself. Thta's all, Im not
telling you to do it, I'm just giving an example of how I think you can
lesses negative things.
When you lessen "negative things" for yourself, you increase them for
others. One man's profit is another man's loss. You may try to minimize
the impact society has on your life, but you maximize it for someone else.
This is not the basis for freedom an prosperity anyway.
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Feb 8 18:50:57 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: The Near Future
Date: Tue Feb 8 18:50:57 1994
OK, I agree with you there. The question of whether or not there could be
a utopia for everyone wasn't what I was addressing, I was just wondering
whether you agreed that the duality was necessary. It seemed to me
(perhaps mistakenly) that you saw no necessity for the existence of evil.
Oh well, Maybe we're not disagreeing on anything except what we think each
other means :-)
\
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Feb 8 18:57:32 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Tue Feb 8 18:57:32 1994
I must agree that saving money by such means as free net access is not
minimizing the evils of greed or money. To me, it seems to be one of the
root problems. We always seem to be finding ways to save money for
ourselves while gathering luxuries at the same time. There's nothing
wrong with having or wanting something. There's nothing evil in making
your life more comfortable or enjoyable. However, I fell you should pay
for these comforts yourself, through your own labor instead of having
someone else foot the bills.
If you don't then you're enjoying comforts paid for by the labors of
another. Isn't that the evil of greed?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From feotus@yabbs Tue Feb 8 22:20:34 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Tue Feb 8 22:20:34 1994
Hmm Xela, we seem to disagree one a point here. I attempt to minimize the
negative impact of things on myself. You say that by doing this I
maximize them onothers. Tell me, how does me not owning alot of stuff
hurt other people? How does me getting free net acces hurt other people?
Actually, it's not freee, I just dont pay for it, the University does and
the cost is so minimal when you realize just how many accounts they have
here unused. Not to mention the fact that this institution is a very
money oriented and documented rascist institution.
I fully ralize that there is an reaction to every action, but by
doing this, meaning by not having a car furniture bank account etc... who
am i hurting?
Perhaps we should all just not do anything for fear of somehow
unknowingly slighting some person overseas or next door. your arguments
suggest that we cant do anything for fear of hurting others.
From feotus@yabbs Tue Feb 8 22:27:22 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: yes & no
Date: Tue Feb 8 22:27:22 1994
Well Meadrhos you make a good argument that me aquiring free acces is
in some way evil, but I think perhaps I should have clued people in on my
motivation for this. Okay, to me infromation should be free, I believe by
geting net acces to as many people as possible we are doing this. I do
not mean free as in money wise, but free as in acces. Everyone should
have acces to this information on the net. I myself put up a BBS
containing much of the information on the net as I can pack on my HD, and
also lists of files etc.. from FTP sites, so people can request them and I
can go get them. i do this all free, because the institution here has
many acounts which are never used, I simply use on of them. WIth the
permission of the owner.
Also, I see it not as making others pay, you see even if I wasnt to do
this the money would still be payed, not only that, but this institution
that I operate from is far from som innocent little univ. THey are a
money groveling and very greedy intstitute, whith many cases of doumented
and institutionalized rascism, genderism, and corruption. WHile my use of
accounts may not do all hat much to stop these, it does do a tiny part.
So you see, I am not hurting someone, I am hurting something. And
this someting has it coming.
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Feb 9 20:49:19 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: yes & no
Date: Wed Feb 9 20:49:19 1994
Well, I'm not sure if what this institution's done to deserve anything,
but since you've always presented yourself as level-headed I'll grant you
the assumption that they had it coming. I don't know if two rights make a
wrong, but I'm not a good judge because it sure makes me feel good to
screw over someone who's "had it coming". But, more to the point, I was
worried about what precedence you might be laying down. While I'm sure
your net access in itself is rather harmless, I was worried about what
kind of lifestyle that thinking can create. For instance, using the same
justification, I could steal cable TV, credit card numbers (corporate ones
at least, as they don't hurt a someone but rather a something), and any
other of a number of things.
It's not that I think your thinking is wrong, it's just that I think
it's easily subject to abuse. Or, to put it bluntly, I don't think you
mean any harm, but living by your own applications, I could interpret them
to cause a lot of harm. While the act seems rational, the reasons seem
subject to abuse by another party.
BTW, congrats on the BBS. It's mighty nice to see so many pc systems
supporting BBS's for free. We've got a lot of them in my neck of the
woods and they bring in a lot of info for people not in college who
wouldn't normally have any access at all.
*Maedhros bows flourishing his ridiculously plumed hat*
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From laelth@yabbs Wed Feb 9 23:13:22 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Wed Feb 9 23:13:22 1994
Greetings all:
I've been out of the loop for a while, this time reading Jacques
Derrida, and once again I've missed a fantastic discussion.
Maedhros, I'd like to take issue with a general premise that you seem to
advocate in your post #390. While I sympathize with your feeling that
some people enjoy "undeserved" wealth and privelege in our society, I must
disagree with what seems to be your critreia for who deserves those perks
and priveleges. You assert that people should basically get what they
earn with their own labor, a seemingly reasonable assertion. However,
it's based on a faulty assumption. You assume that people who work hard
actually EARN or CREATE the wealth that they receive. This is patently
untrue.
From my experience, the fruits of society do not go to those who work
hard. You'll have a hard time convincing me that George Bush EARNS or
CREATES the $22 million dollars/year that he receives in salary (in other
words his net worth is more than 10 times higher, this is just net income
per year). Did he EARN this? Does he DESERVE it in any way? What about
the person who works two jobs, has no insurance, is trying to put himself
through school, and earns only $16,000 dollars per year? Presuming that
this person works twice as hard as the retired president, shouldn't he
earn twice as much? Is hard work really the system by which wealth is
distributed? No, of course not. Nevertheless, George Bush (and a lot of
other wealthy people) justify their greed by arguing that they EARNED
their position in society. They justify the fact that they are screwing
the rest of us, by arguing that they worked for what they got.
Conversely, they argue, that the poor people are to blame for their
situation because they refuse to work hard (a very popular, and very wrong
over-generalization). George Bush proves that hard work is NOT the way to
become wealthy, but rather a combination of luck and priveledge
(primarily) and, no doubt, hard work helps. However, there are a lot of
people who work very hard and will never be near as wealthy as Mr. Bush.
So what am I saying? I'm saying that the Puritan Work Ethic (work
hard, and the money will come), (God helps those who help themselves),
etc., is a philosophy that allows the rich justify their greed. That
philosophy keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. It is a long-held
vehicle of oppression. The puritan work ethic is a lie that the rich
people feed to the poor people to keep the poor working hard. In turn,
the hard work of the poor keeps the rich rolling in dough.
But if I read you correctly, you recognize that the rich people gare
getting more than they deserve. You're arguing that this is unfair, and
of course it is. No doubt you'd also argue that the poor people should
not receive any assistance from the government that they don't earn
through their own labor. In a utopia (dangerous place) perhaps hard work
would be the criterion that society would use for the distribution
of wealth. However, I prefer to discuss the real world. And in this real
world, where most wealthy people got there not from hard work but from
being born to it, or lucky enough to get it, or vile enough to rob others
of it, etc. ... in this world I refuse to criticize poor people for taking
assistance from the government that they didn't earn when the rich didn't
earn what they got either. I refuse to engage in that type of
hypocrisy. I think that the puritan work ethic invites us to this
hypocrisy in some very dangerous ways.
-laelth
From ching@yabbs Wed Feb 9 23:33:42 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Wed Feb 9 23:33:42 1994
You seem to hold not only some of the sanest views on this base, but aloso
ones that are the most like mine. That's cool.
Anway, you are right about the puritan work ethic as being a lie. I f
you look closely at history, there have been few major changes in
the major social castes( high, middle, low)--the only exception I can
think of is the rise of cities in middle age Europe. Almost any other
time, any promises of real change has been utter Bullshit.
But this is not what I really wan tot talk about right now. Right now
I want to adress something that always angers me: the religiousright. I
just finished reading an article about these crazed fascist bastards of
the cross, and I ready to put bullets through each and every one of those
lunatics heads. but then I would be at their levle. YOu see, what they
want to do is say tht they do actually know the true words of God, and
know these holly-rollers are going to deliver it to us unenlightened fold.
And do you know these worst part: just being able to look at this movement
and see that is anchored in greed and selfisness, and vanity. Here I
am, trying to come to terms with God and the concept of a savoir, and
now they are trying to tell me that if I don't see it their way, I'm going
to hell, and it's all for money--sons fo bitches.
Well, what do you think?
Dr. Francis DK Ching, AIA.
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 10 00:56:56 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 00:56:56 1994
Well, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. No, I don't think it's
right to take what you don't earn. However, you also caught another
point I was trying to make- everyone doesn't live by these rules,
especially a lot of the rich.
However, regardless of what the rich do, it does not necessarily justify
anyone elses actions. BTW, I'm not sure where Bush's money comes from off
the top of my head. If it's inheritance, fine, nothing wrong with making
your children wealthy if you can (I would if I could). If, on the other
hand, he earns it through business and he does business anything like his
son- Well, we oughta but a bullet in his brain and put him out of our
misery.
The main point I would like to bring to focus is that you cannot justify
immoral actions by the immorality around you. Of course, to accept
immorality in this case, you'd have to agree at least with the premise
that taking things for free at the expense of others is a basically "evil"
action. If you don't grant that premise, I fear I'll owe an additional
post on theft and immorality ;-)
BTW, are you insinuating that my ideals or possibly myself are Puritan
in nature? I take offense sir!
*Maedhros throws down his glove to defend his lack of honor*
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 10 01:05:18 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 01:05:18 1994
I never insinuated that good work ethics are guarenteed to work. I
simply said that I feel it is right and honorable. BTW, I'm aethiest. I
would prefer if noone confused my bizarre ramblings with anything
affiliated with religion. It is (Christianity) a political system founded
many centuries ago with the purpose of controlling and taxing the
ignorant. I must say that certain sects which will go unnamed (they're
based in Vatican City) have perverted one of the best philosophical
treatise ever written (the bible) beyond recognition.
If I have any spite, understand, it's not towards Christianity, but
rather the political organizations which have sprung up around it, using
it for there own selfish intents (i.e. churches and religious activists).
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From minutemn@yabbs Thu Feb 10 03:31:53 1994
From: minutemn@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 03:31:53 1994
While I will not question your atheism, for you have every right
to believe as you will. I cannot condone your vile and base slander
against the Roman Catholic Church. Holy Church has been the faithful
guardian of the teachings of Christ for one thousand years. As the bride
of our Lord, it has maintained, unbroken, the line of succesion of the
apostles, as well as the successor to Peter, Pope John Paul II. I regret
your ignorance that you display towards my faith, and worry about the
consequence it may have upon your soul. However,I trust in the
saving power of grace (wj=hich you have probably never heard
of) it states that even if one does not practice the faith 9or even a
faith) they may still be saved by the Divine Prescence in ways that are
beyond the power of mortal reasoning. I pray for your soul; and also that
perhaps one day you will understand that your anti-catholicism is just
another form of hate and bigoted, no matter how "intellectual" you may
make it seem
From feotus@yabbs Thu Feb 10 10:55:15 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: yes & no
Date: Thu Feb 10 10:55:15 1994
Yes, I must admit, that it is prone to abuse at time, and I have found
myself just barely wandering a little to far. But it's wierd now. I dont
really respect the laws of the U.S. at all to be honest. I dont follow
them. Hat doesnt mean I go out and break them, but it means that i rarely
factor them into my decisions, but i DO factor them into how I carry out
those decisions. I know Ima criminal in some peoples minds, so I'll make
sure to be and think like one. That doesnt mean I go and commit more
crimes, but I simply be carefull as hell 8)
It can lead to abuse at times, but you just have to think about
the stuff alot.
From feotus@yabbs Thu Feb 10 11:09:29 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: slander
Date: Thu Feb 10 11:09:29 1994
Minutemen- hehe take your religos flame war elsewhere. Wed ont feel like
turning this into the christian/religion bashing forum.
religions have uses, and so does intellectualism.
these can be discussed elsewhere. I myself find any organized religion a
blow to freedom, since it traps the persons mind into a single mode of
thought.
dont get me started flaming the church, you dont want too believe me, I've
dealt with fundie, liberals etc... I think I can handle flaming a rather
brash and stoopid idiot.
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 10 13:35:03 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 13:35:03 1994
Hmmm...
Perhaps we're not communicating effectively. I spent a great deal of
time arguing something that you just skipped over, and I want to go back
to it. My point was, I thought, that the entire notin that you "earn"
what you get is a myth. Noone "earns" what they have; people get what
they have because they were born to it, or lucked into it, or whatever.
The point is that the entire notion that one "earns" anything is a myth,
perpetrated by the wealthy, to justify why they have lots of power and the
rest of us don't. With the "earn" myth in tact, the wealthy can justify
their status by saying that they "earned" it, and the rest of us didn't,
and that makes it O.K. for them to live high on the hog while millions of
people are struggling to survive day by day.
Now, about accusations of Puritanism. In fact, sir, I'm accusing you
of something much worse. I'm accusing you of spreading and advocating a
philosophy that is a tool of oppression. In arguing that people should
"earn" what they have, you're playing right into the hands of the wealthy
and the powerful, aiding them in staying where they are, and helping them
to exploit the labor of those of us who are less powerful than they. With
this, sir, I pick up the glove and return it to you.
-laelth
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Feb 10 18:50:19 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 18:50:19 1994
Well, the way I deal with the "Go to hell" people is with pretty simple
logic. They tell me that I'm going to hell unless I repent, pay,
whatever. I say "OK, what if I do become a real nice Christian type?"
Well, then you go to heaven, which is the best place in the world! "Well,
if that's so, then I'm already in heaven. There's no place I'd rather be
than on earth, alive. If God wants to send me to heaven, then he'll just
have to let me live forever, which he won't do. So, he'll have to send me
to hell, which, paradoxically, would be the Christian heaven. Therefore,
God, if he is as they say he is, cannot exist, because he would have no
option in my case." Oh, they say. See you later, they say.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Feb 10 18:56:14 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: slander
Date: Thu Feb 10 18:56:14 1994
Minutemn is a brash and stoopid idiot? I can understand exactly his point
of view in that he doesn't want his religion bad-mouthed. There is a way
to criticize religion without becoming hostile or mean. Let us pray you
learn that way.
Oh, I like the equating of "fundie" and "liberals." Interesting.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 10 22:58:48 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: minutemn@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 22:58:48 1994
I honestly don't think my attacks against the Catholic church are bigoted.
At least, they seem no more bigoted than if I had attacked the KKK. The
Catholic church has, for centuries, preached love and practiced hate. Who
was it that spearheaded the attack against European tribesman in the
Middle Ages for refusing to accept an alien religion thrust upon them?
Who made a regular practice of burning scientist as witches for daring to
simply report the truth of their findings? Who, besides the Nazis, proved
themselves so skilled at the art of torture and mass murder (i.e. the
Inquisition)? Who excommunicated all of Britain, said they were all going
to hell and forced most of Western Europe to discontinue trade with them
because they were protestant?
Love? Please! When I speak of the Catholic church it is with disdain.
Not out of ignorance, but out of knowledge. I've had to study their
atrocities far too many times. It saddens me, even as a "nonbeliever",
that the teachings of so great a philosopher as Christcould be left in the
keeping of such a perverse institution.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 10 23:02:13 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: slander
Date: Thu Feb 10 23:02:13 1994
Damn, sorry feotus I replied to Minuteman in the heat of the moment before
I got to your post. Oops ;-)
Now, where were we?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 10 23:12:52 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Thu Feb 10 23:12:52 1994
*Maedhros picks up his glove, doffs his silly, foppish hat and draws a
rapier*
Sir, I believe I didn't address your ffirst point fully. I shall now
rectify that.
Firstly, I don't agree with your premise. While not all money is
"earned", this does NOT lead to the conclusion that NO money is earned, as
you stated in your last post. It is falacious to presume that since some
'A' is 'B', then no 'A' is 'C'. Or, since some money is not earned, no
money is earned.
Assuming it is actually possible to get a job, work and be paid, let me
move onto a different issue. I was originally addressing whether or not
it was right to take something paid for by another's labor. I need to
clarify that statement a bit. It is not right to take something paid for
by another's labor without their permission. This, I believe, is the
definition of theft as well. Clearly, such financial gain from a lottery
or inheritance is not covered under this definition.
Do you have a different opinion than this, or was I merely being
ambiguous?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 10 23:15:07 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: religion
Date: Thu Feb 10 23:15:07 1994
Sorry if my criticisms of Catholicism seem a bit acidic, it's a sore spot.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From feotus@yabbs Fri Feb 11 01:29:23 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: slander
Date: Fri Feb 11 01:29:23 1994
oh I was attacking and rude? hmm, no prob there, is this the boy scouts
8)
all the arguments I would have used against him had he choosen to keep it
up, would have been nice and quite little rational ones.
I equate fundie and liberal for two reasons. Note I said I have held
debates with all sorts of XTIANS, both fundie and liberal Xtians. Meaning
I have discussed various things with all of them. THATS why I used the
two, I never really even compared them actually.
but enough of this little ego/genital-size thread, it ont get nowhere
From minutemn@yabbs Fri Feb 11 01:49:43 1994
From: minutemn@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: slander
Date: Fri Feb 11 01:49:43 1994
I may be new to bbs's, so correct me if I am wrong. But I thought a flame
was when you used crude and insulting remarks against a person. In my
post, I had done nothing of the sort. If you found some personal slight
in my message, than I apologize, but the interpretaion of that is yours
and not mine. "Stoopid [sic] idiot", on the other hand, should most
definately be taken as a "flame". i do not hold that against you though,
as i realize we all say crude and malicious things without realizing it.
Feotus, if you did not wish to make this board a ground for Christian and
religion bashing, then why did you post such a thinly veiled attack
against organized religion in general, and my specific faith in
particular? I am in no way saying that you should believe every tennant
of the Catholic faith or even hold any particular views. All that I ask
is that you realize what you have said is hurtful and malicious, and that
i will not allow anyone to openly disparage what I hold dear without
rising in protest.
PAX TECUM,
minuteman
PS BTW, some people prefer to wait a few minute
before they reply to obviously baiting posts, instead of write in a state
of heated emotion. Whether this thread continues is up to you 8>
From JasonLee@yabbs Fri Feb 11 14:07:30 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: religion
Date: Fri Feb 11 14:07:30 1994
It's ok to criticize a religion, but not ok to criticize a person for
believing in that religion.
JasnLee
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Feb 11 14:39:50 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: religion
Date: Fri Feb 11 14:39:50 1994
My intent, albeit worse in many people's eyes, was to criticize an
institution, not a person. Minuteman, if this thread continues,
understand that I don't know you and have no intention of personally
attacking you. If it seems this way, it is simply a misunderstanding.
More specifically, ny problem is with the architecture and staff of the
catholic church, NOT its worshipers. The beliefs and tenants of the faith
I would not call into question. As I've stated before, I hold the Bible
in highest regards as a philosophical treatise and respect those that live
by its laws.
The root of my argument lies with those that have run the church in the
past and what actions they've caused and been a part of.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From laelth@yabbs Sat Feb 12 11:18:21 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Sat Feb 12 11:18:21 1994
In clarification:
I believe that wealth (things) is NEVER earned, not by the poor, not
by the rich, and not by the middle class. There's another mechanism at
work which decides how wealth is distributed in our society. Now I can't
say exactly what that system is, but I'm sure it's unjust. The notion
that one can go to work and "earn" money is the myth. You may go to work
and "get" money, but you didn't "earn" it in the sense that you "deserved"
what you got. George Bush just doesn't "deserve" $22 million/year, and
the poor, uneducated guy who's hodling down two jobs and is making barely
$20,000 per year doesn't "deserve" to be so exploited. You see, the words
"earn" and "deserve" go together. As long as you believe that people
"earn" money and wealth, then you will believe that the rich "deserve" to
be rich and the poor "deserve" to be poor. I simply cannot endorse this
point of view.
But, further, about the question of whether or not it is right to take
something that was "paid for" by another person's labor (without their
permission). First off, I don't believe that any individual in any way
"earned" the wealth (things) that they have. People don't "deserve" their
property in any way. I do believe that they "own" their property,
however, and are entitled to keep it if they obtained it with the
permission of society in general. I do not advocate individual acts of
theft or piracy against the property of individuals. What I do advocate,
however, is class-action theft if you will, namely taxes. I believe that
we as a political body have the right to sieze property and wealth from a
class of people (not individuals, singled out for particular punishment,
but a class of people who get paid similar ammounts of money per year).
This type of wealth-taking is just, in my opinion, and necessary for the
survival of the state. This is not "theft" according to your definition,
however, because citizens have given the government "permission" to tax,
have they not?
But, of course, it is unethical to take that which belongs to someone
else, but why are we even discussing this? What benefit can be gained
from a discussion of some ethical code that hardly anyone follows? As
beautiful as our utopian code may be, it is still utopian, not real, never
was real, and never will be. No universal law like that can (or should?)
be forced on everyone. If I remember correctly, that's how the atrocities
of the counter-reformation came about. The Catholic Church was so sure
that they had "the truth" that they were willing to torture dessenters in
order to help them "see the light" of their truth. Utopian visions (and
supposedly universal ethical codes) are dangerous.
Having said that, it occurs to me to try to discover who benefits from an
ethical code that says "it's wrong to take what you don't own?" Well,
since the poor own very little, and the wealthy own a lot, it seems that
the "don't take what you don't own" credo is just another tool of the
wealthy forced upon us all to protect their power and position. Once
again, Maedhros, I must accuse you of advocating and spreading a
philosophy that aids and abbets the rich.
*With that, laelth calmly draws his rapier and awaits the thrust of his
worhty foe.*
-laelth
From Xela@yabbs Sat Feb 12 14:13:05 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: da Bible
Date: Sat Feb 12 14:13:05 1994
There is a real problem with taking the bible by its word, especially
those versions which are not in the original Hebrew. Other versions in
other languages are *translations* and so can be interpreted in ways which
differ from the original intent, take that into account with all the
different versions of religions which use the bible, also take into
account the individual nature of the preacher, etc. What you have is
multiple interpretations of one thing, leading to internal dissent etc.
This leads to new religions all preaching hatred of anything different,
after all your religion doesn't go far unless it uses aggressive
advertising, no? So Xtianity dissolves and now there are baptists,
episcopalians, protestants, catholics, blah blah. All of which say that
the other groups will go to a lukewarm hell, while the nonbelieving
heathens will go to a really shitty hell, whatever that means. One
conclusion can be drawn from this chaos: religion is ambivalent, bigoted,
and useless.
I will even go as far as to say that my problem not only deals with
the religion itself, but its followers as well, who don't have the guts to
stand on their own feet and accept the tenets of teir individual faith
like mindless sheep to the slaughterhouse. I don't see the Nazi excuse of
"oh, I'm just following orders," as an excuse for following the arrogant
and psychopathic doctrines of death religions.
My 2 or 3 cents,
Alex
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Feb 12 18:28:49 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Sat Feb 12 18:28:49 1994
If no one earns anything that they supposedly work for, then what's the
purpose of doing any work at all? If I didn't earn the money I got at my
summer job, then why did my boss give me that money? I don't think it's
really possible to say yes/no on the question oof earning things. Sure,
there are people who don't earn their money, just as some people don
not receive what they deserve.
OK, so we have the question of Why Work? Well, in life there are two
systems of thought for motivation. You can run your mind on a Reward
System or an Achievement system. There was a thing on NPR during the
summer about people who were brought up with either system. Reward system
kids grew up to be people who wold only do work if promised osmething
material in return. Achievement kids do work for its own sake, not
expecting supreme gratitude in the form of wealth. When I listened to the
show, the Achievement people wounded much nicer.
OK, I believe in doing work for its own sake. I don't need monetary
compensation for my efforts. I do, however, appreciate being paid for
work that I do. I delivered pizza last summer, and I enjoyed doing it, so
I didn't bitch about low pay or working conditions or anything because I
enjoyed doing a good job. I didn't expect to get huge tips or bonuses or
anything, since one should not expect such things.
Most people don't operate on pure achievement. They expect to be wll-paid
for any and all efforts. Whether they earn what they receive or not is a
ver subjective thing, something that cannot be determined be a yes or no
on deserving wealth.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Feb 12 18:36:42 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: da Bible
Date: Sat Feb 12 18:36:42 1994
While your argument may apply to Christianity, it does NOT apply to
Judaism. Basically, Judaism does not concern itself with the notion of
hell and heaven. In the Jewish faith, when you die, you generally go to a
better place, no matter what. Everyone is invited to join in the Jewish
community. I should emphasize the word "community" here, since Judaism
concerns itself with building a strong community. Tradition, education,
and hard work are important for Jews, more than anything else. To say
that Judaism is included in your list of evil religions who care only
about condemning other ones is an example of an ill-researched conclusion.
Oh, one other nice thing about Judaism is that I can be both Jewish and an
Atheist. Neat, huh?
JasonLee
From Xela@yabbs Sat Feb 12 18:59:56 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: Look...
Date: Sat Feb 12 18:59:56 1994
Whenever people get religious they always stick up for their team; it's
part of the programming. Obviously you feel very strongly about Jewish
religion, but I would like to mention that Jews are known to not get along
with blacks and vice versa. Also, I would also like to mention that
Israel, a nation based on protecting the religion, is territory which once
belonged to someone else. This can be described as similar to
the Colonists taking native American land, no? So I think if Jews condone
the theft of territory from one culture, I think I can include it within
my definition of an evil religion.
To say
that Judaism is included in your list of evil religions who care only
about condemning other ones is an example of an ill-researched conclusion.
(Quote from you)
No, to say otherwise would not only be ill-researched, but arrogant as
hell to boot.
-Alex
, a very angered man when it comes to organized religion.
From ching@yabbs Sat Feb 12 19:24:18 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: da Bible
Date: Sat Feb 12 19:24:18 1994
Uh oh! you guys did a no no. You started talking about the bible and
religion in general. Now I'm not going to point the finger at anyone, but
you know who you are.
Don't you assholes know that metaphysical statements are "meaningless'
since they can't be proved or disproved by logical discourse. Of course,
some of you are just trying to figure out whether or not the Church is
guilty of various secular injustices--but since determining right and
wrong would be making a metaphysicla statemen, it would sitll be futile.
but you guys who are just doing the former, futile or not, you ar excused
from this reprimand. run along now.
And to whoever said, or implied, that you are more open minded because
you are an atheist needs to rethink this statement. Isn't it more open
minded to belive that, yea, something beyond logic could exist? Come on,
you cheesedick atheists, have a little imagination. Go for agnoticism, and
if you don't know what that word means, look it up(condescension) ;) then
again, if atheist are cheesdicks for the above reasons, so are the firm
believers in religion of some sort, except for for the fact that they are
making the safer bet in the metaphysical crapshoot.
And to feotus. Don't be such an arrogant ass to our new guest,
minutemn. He will learn to conform to our collective ideas if he thinks
that we like him ;)
And to tTonya harding. i don't care if you have big legs; you have a
great ass, and your mean--I'm in lust.
Dr. Francis F. Ching
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Feb 12 20:21:17 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: da Bible
Date: Sat Feb 12 20:21:17 1994
The following is meant for Ching in particular, so if you're religious,
please don't take offense:
Look here cheesedick (What's a cheesedick, by the way?)!
Your presumption of why I should adhere to agnosticism is ludicrous.
What if there is a God and I die. What am I going to say when I get to
Heaven? You think He won't know I'm just a fence-sitting pussy? Doubt
it. By definition, he is omniscient. Somehow I don't think I'll be very
welcome.
At any rate, your reasons for agnosticism are preposterous. In an
infinite universe it would indeed be falacious to presume something could
not exist. However, by the same pattern of logic, I could presume that
the whole cosmos was created from the fecies of the Giant Celstial
Antelope. It could be true, by definition, but you don't see me setting
up a shrine in the bathroom.
The bottom line is that religion is based on faith. If you don't have
any then you have no business being involved in any way with it. It
implies that you lack any confidence in your own beliefs. If you can't
have faith, at least have a spine.
I'd rather be friends with a devout Christian, Jew, or even a Satanist
then with an agnostic. At least they have confidence and character
(albeit a somewhat strange character, from my perspective).
If I die and there is a God then I'll have to say,"Well why the Hell did
you give me a brain and reasoning and no proof. Pretty shitty trick."
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Sat Feb 12 20:55:46 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Sat Feb 12 20:55:46 1994
*Maedhros attempts a swift parry*
Firstly, sir, you speak of another system at work instead of earning.
Unfortunately, you also say you don't know what it is. I'm afraid I can't
at the moment accept this theory. While I've stated that the system of
"earning" is indeed at work and have what I consider powerful empirical
evidence in support, you not only have not cited any evidence, but you
have not even defined your alternative. Without any definition or
evidence I'm afraid I can make no analysis of this alternative.
Secondly, you stated that people don't "earn" what they "deserve".
"Deserve" in the case of earning is a very subjective concept. What
someone deserves depends on an employer and overall needs of a business.
Also, the amount of available labor in a particular field is a variable.
Needless to say, there are a host of other variables, but they are not
necessary to cover at this time. The point is, you mistake "deserve" as a
constant. It is not. It is a variable determined by the needs and
sometimes the whims of society. Does Bush deserve to be wealthy and
powerful. Well, when he ran for office, it seems that a majority of
soceity set the variable rate of deserving very high. To establish a
relationship between work and deserving I'll submit:
E=WxD
E= Earnings
W= Time invested in work (Note: Sometimes employers opt for a fixed
income regardless of hours invested. In which case, they would set
W at 1 with a proportionately higher D value)
D= Any numerical value set as the current rate for a particular
occupation seet forth by both the employer and soceity)
Thirdly, you stated that it is not right to seize other people's property
(although, you yourself admitted that they didn't earn or deserve it?),
but it is alright to take property from a class. That's like saying I
couldn't rape a single woman, but it would be alright if I raped every
Upper Middle Class one in the US. Murder is a no-no, but genocides
alright? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The logic behind it is
that individual crimes are wrong, but are excusable on a mass scale.
Don't misunderstand, I think taxes are justifiable and legal. I don't
accept that there is a corrollary between theft and taxation, I simply
wished to address what I saw as a fallacious logical process.
Fourthly, you state that Utopian ideals are useless in the real world.
Once again, I beg to differ. I will grant you that a utopian society is
indeed unachievable. However, the discarding of utopian ideals seems
unnecessary and destructive. If one cannot have everything perfect, it
seems a bit childish to refuse to even attempt to make things a bit
better. Sure, the world won't be a perfect place, but why should that
stop anyone from striving to make the best of it. You stated a while back
that the rich should be taxed in order to make life better for the poor.
By your own attacks upon utopian ideals, what's the point? If we can't
help everyone of them and make all there lives perfect, why not just let
them all rot?
Finally, you asked who benifits from the presumption thqt it's not right
to take what you don't earn. In response, I would like to take a look at
who benifits from the presumption that it is alright to take what you
don't earn. Well, muggers, rapist, and thives would certainly prosper
under a Laelth revised political system. I suppose it would definately
open up new career doors for corporate raiders, military dictators and
George Bush's son as well.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Sun Feb 13 15:19:36 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: da bible
Date: Sun Feb 13 15:19:36 1994
ok, first of all, i don't have a clue what a cheesedick really is, though
I use it alot. I picked it up from some guy down the hall. I'll ask him
some day.
I was using it ottally in jest, though, so don't get offended.
Anyhow. when I said people shoul dbe agnostict, I also said they
should do so as opposed to just being atheist. I think that atheism is
totally prepoosterous, because you're claiming to know something that you
can't know. Religion, logically, would have the same defect. however, you
have a better chance of havingg an enjoyable afterlife if you bet on a
religion rather than nothing.
obviously, though , when talking about agnsticism, I should have made
it clearer for everyone to understand. You see, agnosticism, on a purely
philisophical level, isn't saying" uh, I don't know". It is recognizing
that you can't ever know whether or not god does exist. not in this life.
so, they simply don't acknowledge the quesiton.
And yes, religion is a faith issue--you have that right. just like
good ole Soren Kierkegaard, told us. We can't belive in religion
logically, logically we must be agnostic. the trick to religion is not to
accept it on a logical basis, but rather to make a leap of faith into it.
Point is--it's about time I gave on:)--is that I was not really even
trying to get into a religious arguement, they are useless and I refuse to
argue that point any further. i was just trying to get a group of people
, the atheists, to open their minds to the universe a bit. We live chained
in logic, it is a shame for anyone to not at least see that there could be
more to life than logic--maybe. So get off my damn back;)
le chng
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Feb 13 18:17:56 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Sun Feb 13 18:17:56 1994
Don't worry, I didn't take offense. Although I still want to know what
a cheesedick is ;-)
It would seem that I need to clarify myself as well however. When I say
that I'm atheist, I don't mean to imply that I know God doesn't exist. I
mean that I think it is so far removed to the realm of inprobability that
I have trouble taking the possibility seriously. I don;t know for sure,
but what's sure in life? As a scientist, I'm forced to make assumptions
given high enough probability factors. We don't know for sure, but we'd
never get anywhere if we waited on absolute truths.
Oh, I'm not really on your back. It's just impossible for you to see me
laughing when I type. I didn't mean for my message to come across as rude
or pissed off.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Feb 13 18:43:43 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Look...
Date: Sun Feb 13 18:43:43 1994
One of the strangest and most disturbing things about the tensions between
the black and Jewish communities is that Jews should be some of the most
natural allies of blacks. The similarities in the respective histories
correlate very well (slavery, etc.), and, in fact, Jews are one of the
only groups left willing to vote for a black candidate. Odd, and
annoying, and I don't have an explanation for it.
Re Israel, I would like to distinguish the unfairness of the existence of
Israel from the evils of other religions. In many forms of Christianity,
the bad things done were done by the Church, whereas in Israel's case,
there really is no central Church. Therefore, it is not quite the same
comparison to say that Judaism as a whole was responsible for the problems
of Israel.
Personally, I disapprove of the way that Israel has acted in the past
toward the people who used to live in that land. Finally, things are
starting to improve in that region. Maybe the people in charge there can
rectify the crimes their grandfathers and fathers committed and clear
their names.
Maybe I'm a little biased in this regard, I don't know. You tell me.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Feb 13 18:52:21 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Sun Feb 13 18:52:21 1994
There are multiple reasons for atheism. Some people (like me) choose
atheism because I cannot include the existence of God in my system of
thought. For me to believe or to not be sure of God's existence would
make me a person I am not. It just would not quite work for me to be
unsure of myself in this regard. I am definite about a few things in my
mind, but I do not believe in God, even if he does exist. :)
It is also just as acceptable to me for someone to choose agnosticism. I
don't buy that bullshit about having to make a choice and that not knowing
is pussying out. If you're not sure, you're not sure, and it would be
pointless to decide one way or the other just to seem solid to the
judgements of others.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Feb 13 19:26:08 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Sun Feb 13 19:26:08 1994
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I said that agnosticism was pussying
out, yes, but you didn't seem to notice the context in which the statement
was made. The comment applied to those who chose agnosticism simply
because they were playing it safe. I never meant it was spineless to be
agnostic. Oly that it was spineless to be agnostic because you fear the
ramifications of being wrong. I presumed it was clear in what context the
statement was made, but it appears I should have been more clear. Oops.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Feb 13 21:28:20 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Sun Feb 13 21:28:20 1994
Yeah, I understood it, but I felt that the way you said it, you were
blanketing all agnostics as having chosen the path for fear of being
wrong.
Ah, misunderstandings...
JasonLee
From minutemn@yabbs Sun Feb 13 21:54:06 1994
From: minutemn@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: religion
Date: Sun Feb 13 21:54:06 1994
What you must realize, Maedhros, is that the "architecture" of the church,
is temporal in nature (by that I mean the Vatican, Holy Church itself is
based on the communion of saints, which is the spiritual foundation of the
faith). You argue about some of the secular 'abuses" created by those who
are identified with the church. While of course, certainly the temporal
church has not been a perfect vessel at times for the message of Christ,
it must be remembered that neither is the temporal world, of which it is
part and must function. However, the bottom line remains, for over one
millenia the temporal church has stood as a witness to the grace of Jesus
Christ, imperfect though it may be.
PS I've been rushed for time
recently, and been unable to keep track of the different postings. I will
do my best to reply to all of them, although it will probably be in
aazard manner (I guess I should have replied to each before I read the
next one). Anyway, I am not rying to duck anyone, if I haven't replied to
an argument you have made in about 3 days or so from now, drop me a line
and refresh me of you argument. I will resopond to anyone, also, I
whold like to know more of the catholic Faith, clear up myths, etc.
All replies are welcome, I will do my best, to my last breath to defend my
faith, for to paraphrase the Bible "I fear no the terror by night.
IN HOC SIGNO
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 14 00:17:43 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Mon Feb 14 00:17:43 1994
Thanks for catching it. I don't want to be guilty of making untrue
generalizations.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 14 00:26:03 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: minutemn@yabbs
Subject: re: religion
Date: Mon Feb 14 00:26:03 1994
My problem with the secular "imperfections" is not that they're not
perfect. It is that these "imperfections" were premeditated with malice
aforethought. It is that these imperfections include torture, theft and
attempted genocide. It is that these imperfections caused much of the
anti-semitism still prevalent in Europe. It is that they sent a large
portion of the population of Europe out to die in the Middle East because
they decided it was of tantamount importance to own a strip of desert.
The only difference between the pompous, self-righteous, cruel dictators
of the Middle Ages and the catholic churchwas that the church had more
money and power.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
P.S. Once again I remind you that you are in no way defending your
religion. You are defending the aristocracy that claims spiritual
superiority above you.
From laelth@yabbs Mon Feb 14 00:37:25 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Deserve?
Date: Mon Feb 14 00:37:25 1994
Laelth smiles at Maredhros and says, "Lets be precise, shall we?"
*Parry #1*
It seems we misunderstood eachother once again. Most of your argument
is based on a statement which I intended to be humerous rather than
literal. When I said I advocated legal theft (taxation), I did not mean
that I condoned any crime perpetrated by the government upon a class of
people. In no way do I advocate class rape, or class murder, as I'm sure
you know. I'll forgive this feeble attempt to discredit me, but only
because it is so easily parried. In fact, the post to which you refer
makes very clear that taxation is OK only because the people have granted
the government the power to tax. They have not granted the government the
power to rape, although many states have legalized murder (the death
penalty). That debate, howver, must wait. For now suffice it to say that
I commit no logical fallicy here. The government has been granted by the
people the power to tax (not rape). Thus, taxation is OK. At this stage,
I feel you should go back to post #419. Most of your arguments are based
upon this *misunderstanding,* and little of what you say there seems
relevant once this issue is clarified.
*Parry #2*
Absolutely, deserve is a relative term. That's why I don't like using
it in connection with the word "earn." It's a dangerous combination. And
yes, thank you for creating the math that my argument lacked. I'll grant
you that E=W*D, but only where E=income (not earnings). "Earnings"
assumed that you "earned" what you got paid, which I don't believe. You
may have "gotten" x dollars, but you didn't in any way "create" that
money, or the wealth (stuff, things) that you can buy with that money.
Since you didn't create those things, then you didn't "earn" them.
In any case, all I said about the system that distributes wealth in our
society is that it's not fair. I'll grant that E=W*D may be the system
that decides how wealth is distributed, but is it fair? True, I speak
only from my own subjective point of view. Fair is a relative term (as if
some terms weren't?). Nevertheless, do you really want to argue that the
current system is fair? Do you want to argue that it's fair for Bush to
earn $22 million/year for doing nothing (at this stage of his life), while
the poor man from my example is earning less than $20,000/yea while
holding down two jobs? Is that fair?
Forgive me all. Maedhros pages me as we speak, but I shall return with
parry #3.
-laelth
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 14 01:34:00 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Mon Feb 14 01:34:00 1994
don't worry; i figured that you weren't really pissed off. I spend most of
my computer time laubhing, too==expexcially when I', crashing all the
storefront computers at Radio Sahc(excuse the last line, the text
woult come up on screen--I hate that.
But as for your atheism, we seem to unknowingly be in agreement. I
think its just a matter of how we each define certain key words, in
particular aethist(did I mispell that?)--but ours is a vague language. And
I don't ever bother to fight over the meaning of words--it's as much a
waste of time as arguing right and wrong. So then I guess it's time to
move on to another subject, if you have no objections....
Ching
"I'm really a white guy, seriously"
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 14 01:37:40 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Mon Feb 14 01:37:40 1994
I agree with you for on all the main ideas you expressed. One thing,
though. Beware of certainty(ooh! cryptic).
Ching
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 14 01:40:20 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Deserve?
Date: Mon Feb 14 01:40:20 1994
I'll take the liberty of replying to the first two points in advance.
1. I agree that your previous post DOES make clear your stand on
taxation. However, I would not go so far as to call it a feeble attack.
The weakness of the argument didn't lie on my deductions, but rather you
communication. It is important to remember that verbal and somatic
cues are not transmittable across the net. Sarcasm or jesting is best
refrained from unless you include notation to point out your meaning. The
only thing that came acroos was that you were waffling. This deserved a
reply.
2. Since the Middle ages, it has been rare that someone earns what they
create. Unfortunately, the barter system has outlived its usefulness.
It'd take a lot of pigs to buy a Cadillac. So, in its place, we have
instituted paper money. The money simply means that you've earned so many
pigs for your labor. It's just easier to fit in a wallet. It does not
constitute any less than an actual, physical product however, so should
still be treated as property earned. You seem hell bent for leather on
establishing that an employer handing you a check has nothing to do with
wether or not you did any work for him. An easy way to gather empirical
data for this theory would be to walk into a store you've never been in
before and ask for your check. If he gives you one, then there's
apparently no corellation. While you can argue that there is an unfair
correlation between work and earnings, it's a bit ludicrous to say that no
corellation exists.
As far as fair goes, you are correct in saying that it is subjective.
However, since everyone can't have there own interpretation of fair
implemented as a law, a compromise is necessary. The US handles this
compromise by letting it fall to a majority consensus. No, it's not
perfect, but it's as "fair" as it can get.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 14 01:42:14 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Mon Feb 14 01:42:14 1994
Here here, I'm in full agreement although I've not quite had my say out
with minuteman yet *evil grin*
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 14 01:45:02 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: minutemn@yabbs
Subject: re: religion
Date: Mon Feb 14 01:45:02 1994
How do you know it is the vessel now? Be careful. And quit using Latin,
we are all very familiar with trite Latin phrases--especially those of use
who studied for four years.
Ching
P.S. I have a good deal of theological knowledge that I usually keep to
myself, buy if you have any questions, I have a some knowledge of The
Church, and I have read some Augustine, Kierkegaard, and even some
Spong!--well I like him.
From laelth@yabbs Mon Feb 14 01:58:39 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: "Deserve?"
Date: Mon Feb 14 01:58:39 1994
*laelth returns to a lively discussion with yet another parry.*
Now let me see, where were we. Oh yes, the question of whether or not
it's useful to talk about a utopian moral code when, in fact, very few
people actually follow such a code ...
Sir, I never said that it was "useless" to talk about utopian moral
codes. I simply said it was "dangerous." People like Adolf Hitler are
famous for preaching morals. I can add to this list numerous
teleevangelists, popes, puritan witch-hunters. Do you really wish to
reside in their midst? Do you want to continue to repeat their tired
arguments? If so, count me out. We can argue till our faces turn blue
about how "all people" should behave. In doing so, however, I feel that
we secretly desire to force our own moral values on others. I will try,
vigilantly, not to join you in this endeavor.
I would prefer to respond to how people DO act. I would prefer to use
the government to make the world a better place. I would prefer to use
government as a means of equalizing some of the injustices that our
natures create. You know how this works right? Government, for the
people, by the people, etc.? Of course, lately (since 1776) government
here has mostly been for the rich, by the rich, etc., but I'm enough of an
idealist to believe that this can change.
*Parry #4*
Interseting turn-about. Rather than addressing my thrust, you
conveniently misunderstood me, and turned it around. I never argued that
it's OK to take what you don't earn. Shall I quote myself?
"I do believe that people 'own' their property, and are entitled to
keep it if they obtained it with the permission of society in
general."
This is pretty self-evident, isn't it? I shall forgive you (this time)
for misunderstanding me, but only under the provision that you respond to
the substance of my main argument.
*laelth thrusts*
As I have said before, and hope I will not have to say again, the
notion that one "earns" the wealth that one recieves is a myth promoted by
the wealthy which keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. The rich justify
the fact that they live the good life while others suffer by saying that
they "earned" their wealth and position. They believe that they "deserve"
what they've got because they "earned" it. Conversely, the poor "deserve"
to be poor, because they didn't "earn" the good life through hard work.
It is thus that the rich justify their position while at the same time
convincing the poor to work hard (in hopes of becoming rich, "earning" the
good life). Of course, millions of people work hard all their lives and
never get rich. The rich exploit the workers, get rich off of their
labor, and continue to live well while the workers (the vast majority)
struggle for survival. It is my contention that a philosophy which argues
that wealth is "earned" and therefore "deserved" is the principal force
guiding this injustice.
Once again, I accuse you of advocating and spreading a philosophy that
aids and abbets the rich and the powerful. How, sir, do you plead?
*laelth waits attentively as his opponent determines the severity of his
wounds.*
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Mon Feb 14 02:19:18 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: atheism
Date: Mon Feb 14 02:19:18 1994
Dear JasonLee and other gentle readers:
Let me tell a little story. I once dated a girl whose parents were
strong fundamentalist christians. They were very interested in my
religious beliefs and gave me a thorough grilling on the subject. I told
them that I was an atheist, and they didn't like this answer at all. In
fact, they kept grilling me on the subject until they could get me to say
that I wasn't sure if there was a God or not. Then they could label me as
an agnostic. I was less of a threat to their beliefs that way.
Nevertheless, reflection on that experience confirmed for me what I
knew all along, that I'm really an atheist. Here's why. Faith is a
matter of belief, not proof. Christians *believe* in the existence of a
supreme being, they can't prove it's existence. If they could, it
wouldn't be called "faith," which is belief without proof. In fact, there
would be no merit in believing in God if his existence could be proven.
It's essential to Christianity that Christians be "true believers," not
scientific fact-finders.
It is in this way that I can confidently call myself an atheist. I
"believe" as strongly as any Christian believes otherwise, that there is
no God, as described by Christianity. I can't prove this assertion, but
niether can they prove to the contrary.
Having said that, let me say that I hope there is an all-powerful,
all-good God. I hope I have an everlasting soul, even if it will be
confined for eternity to the flames of perdition (heaven sounds boring).
Nevertheless, I cannot help but believe that none of these exist. What I
believe is not a function of hope. It's a matter of faith.
Preferring to live in the here and now,
-laelth
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 14 03:04:50 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: "Deserve?"
Date: Mon Feb 14 03:04:50 1994
*Maedhros prepares to parry return blows*
Sir, you state that yu never said utopian ideals were useless. Allow me
to directly quote you from post #412:
What benefit can be gained from a discussion of some ethical code that
hardly anyone follows? As beautiful as our utopian code may be, it is
still utopian, not real, never was, and never will be.
Call me slow-witted, but I find it hard to believe that I have once again
grossly misunderstood your intent. It seems pretty clear that, at the
time, you didn't regard those ideals ass worth a second thought. I also
seriously doubt that you made this statement as well at an attempt at
levity. No sir, you are waffling once again.It will be difficult to
defend your points until you decide what they are.
*Parry 4*
I did indeed manuever away from your question. My apologies, I shall
rectify this problem now. Firstly though, I would like to defend my
cxounter-question. I hardly consider my question and the answer
inpertinent. I think it is extremely relevant who would benifit if we
removed the earn what you get mentality of our nation.
But, back to the point. Who does profit from the status-quo of working
and earning. Well, I for one. No, I'm not anything approaching wealthy,
but I am given the opportunity to reach that plateau. I work, my ass off
and don't get hardly anything to show for it. However, those rivch people
you despise do pay taxes and coincedentally put money in the financial aid
fund which is putting me through school. For some reason you seem to
think of them as despots. Not true. While, given my present situation,
it is more difficult for me to attain a better life, it is far from
impossible. I'm not being subjugated into poverty. On the contrary, the
rich are helping me pay for my education and thereby removing myself from
my current life.
What would hold me back from any kind of success, wqhich is wqhy I
brought up my counter-question in the first place, is if the status-quo
were not maintained. What would you have us dfo? Redistribute the
wealth? Demand equall compensation for all labor? Well, it certainly
worked wonders on the Soviet economy. Maybe we can be the next bankrupt
superpower. Where do I sign up?
*Maedhros assesses his wounds and is glad to find he remembered his mail
this morning*
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 14 03:40:53 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: da bible
Date: Mon Feb 14 03:40:53 1994
go easy on him, tough-guy :)
ching
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 14 03:43:05 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: atheism
Date: Mon Feb 14 03:43:05 1994
laelth has a good point. Let's all read Kierkegaard before tomorrow. Ok?
ching
:)
From Xela@yabbs Mon Feb 14 11:29:58 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: earnings and Ayn Rand
Date: Mon Feb 14 11:29:58 1994
This message is in no way an endorsement of Any Rand's philosophy, but I
am advancing it to you as something to think about.
You claim that the word earn can have no meaning as we do not create
anything:
"You
may have "gotten" x dollars, but you didn't in any way "create" that
money, or the wealth (stuff, things) that you can buy with that money.
Since you didn't create those things, then you didn't "earn" them.
"
There is something which separates us from other animals, in that we are,
for lack of a better word, industrialized. In other words, that which
natural endowment has failed to give us, we have created. Such useful
examples include bridges and cars, both ease transportation and improve
the general quality of life. Cars and bridges are not grown on trees, if
they were your argument woudl have merit, as both are man-made. As a way
of dealing with each other on this planet, and providing each other with
neccessary goods for existance, we have to build cars and bridges. They
cannot be grown by nature, they exist as an extension of Man, his mind,
and his strength. We also create the unit of currency, money, to equal
out and give value to goods. Money buys that which is created by Man.
Wealth is what you can create, be it cars, bridges, aeroplanes, etc. by
hand, by *your* hand.
In this sense, if you create wealth, i.e. work to produce goods, then you
earn wealth.
Whether you are altruistic or selfish is a matter of internal principle,
but the fact remains if you create wealth, you earn wealth.
Alex
From feotus@yabbs Mon Feb 14 17:25:06 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: minutemn@yabbs
Subject: re: slander
Date: Mon Feb 14 17:25:06 1994
Minutmen - well I've been offline for three days dueto power failures, and
when I came back I looked at the post and saw that maybe I was a bit
overly offensive. But I also believe that your post was a bit on the
"save the heathens side" It all is tied in to another debate I was
having on another BBS, it spilled over into here.
anyway, I'll draw this thread to a close.
THE END 8)
From feotus@yabbs Mon Feb 14 17:27:44 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: IM back
Date: Mon Feb 14 17:27:44 1994
WELL, I have been offline for three days due to an ice storm which
destryoyed a large portion of the power lines around here.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I regret that bieng the lazy person that i am, I sm jumping all the posts
betwee then and now(about 50) and am gonna start at HERE 8)
so I beg the pardon of anyone who specifically addressed me i this forum,
perhaps if you want you could address the point again, or in private mail.
Bieng on a few BBSs makes keeping up after a long absence VERY tiresome
8)
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 15 02:05:00 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: atheism
Date: Tue Feb 15 02:05:00 1994
That's pretty close to how I feel, re: existence of God. I would love for
there to be a God, so that I could really go on living after I die (though
I won't ever die, provable through mathematical induction (bad
mathematical induction)). I just can't convince myself to believe in
something like that, as it just seems so silly to my nature. Maybe there
will come a day when I'm capable of believing in God, but that day has not
yet arrived.
JasonLee
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 15 10:32:55 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: "Deserve?"
Date: Tue Feb 15 10:32:55 1994
*laelth wonders why maedhros keeps swinging in the air (missing the
point)*
Now, now maedhros, you must learn to not make such assumptions. You
accuse me of waffling on the usefulness of utopian visions. I admit, I do
waffle, on occasion, when it suits me, but in this case you've misread me
completely, as I must now demonstrate:
I wrote, "What benefit can be gained from a discussion of some ethical
code that hardly anyone follows? As beautiful as our utopian code may be,
it is still utopian, not real, never was real, and never will be."
Now, please, tell me, where in this piece do I state that it is useless to
talk about utopian moral codes? In fact I question that notion, rather
than making a statement about it. Later, howver, I do state specifically,
that it IS useful (for the rich and the powerful).
Is it useful for me? Only as a means of exposing how the wealthy exploit,
program, and manipulate the masses.
*next parry to follow in a separate note.*
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 15 11:29:29 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: earnings and Ayn Rand
Date: Tue Feb 15 11:29:29 1994
Alex,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, and thanks for wisely noting that you
do not advocate the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Perhaps some people "create" wealth (farmers, factory workers,
laborers), but even these are not pure examples. Factory workers do
not create the steel that they assemble together, farmers do not
create their own tools, etc. The way I see it, the people who "get" most
of the wealth (Capitalists, Industrialists, businessmen), don't create
that wealth at all. Thus, they don't "earn" the wealth that they get.
Nor do they "deserve" it in any way. Of course, I don't think that the
laborers that I mentioned "earn" or "deserve" the wealth that they get
either. Do you see what I'm driving at? "Earning" and "deserving" and
"creating" are completely meaningless terms when it comes to understanding
how wealth is distributed in our society. Let me repeat that. "Earning"
and "deserving" and "creating" are meaningless terms when it comes to
understanding how wealth is distributed in our society. Wealth is
distributed according to some other formula.
Maedhros and I have discussed what that formul might be in previous
posts. I can't say exactly what that formula is. All I can say about it
is that it's not FAIR. It has nothing to do with "deserving" the wealth
that you have because you "earned" it. It has more to do with insuring
that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. (At least, that's what
happens as a result of everyone believing that they "earned" their wealth
and status.)
It comes as no surprize to me that Ayn Rand most readily come to the
aid of those who wish to support the status-quo. I hope to never agree
with Rand on any philosophical point, and I'm glad that I don't in this
case.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 15 11:45:45 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Deserve?
Date: Tue Feb 15 11:45:45 1994
*laelth returns with a little quibble*
You said "Money just means you've earned so many pigs."
Are you kidding? You really want to argue to me that George Bush "earned"
22,000,000 pigs last year? What's a pig worth, anyway, $1,000? OK,
so you believe that Bush earned 22,000 pigs? BTW, I'm being serious,
here. If we say money represents what you "earn," then you have to
explain for me why George Bush worked less than most people , but earned
over 500 times more than the average worker in the US. I don't care
whether he earned money, pigs, or widgets. The fact is that he GOT five
hunderd times more than the average person. How did he "earn" this? How
does he "deserve" this?
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Tue Feb 15 12:43:29 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Who Profits?
Date: Tue Feb 15 12:43:29 1994
Aaaaahhhh ...
*laelth begins to see a chink in Maedhros' armor, a chink which reveals
the truth underneath.*
Maedhros said, very plainly, in his last post that HE profits from the
status quo. This comes as no surprize. Usually it's those that profit
from the status quo who defend it. Logical, no? This should also make us
suspicious of Maedhros' point of view, should it not? He's biased, and he
admits it. (We should admire his honesty.)
But the fact is, that despite what he thinks, Maedhros is exactly the kind
of person I'm talking about when I say that the rich use the "earn what
you get" philosophy to program the masses. He's been programmed. Look at
what he says, "I work my ass off and don't get hardly anything to show for
it." EXACTLY! That's precisely what the rich want you to do, work hard
for NOTHING, or very little. They get rich, Maedhros works hard.
Something is wrong here, isn't there? I'm not saying that Maedhros should
be lazy. What I'm saying is that I think people should be more fairly
compensated for the work that they do. That's all!
*finally, laelth jabs at the open chink in an attempt to deal a crippling
blow.*
Maedhros finally responded to my main argument in his last post. I have
accused him of spreading a philosophy that aids and abbets the rich, and
in his last post he finally acknowledged the truth of that accusation. He
defends the rich overtly (finally) in his last post by saing that they're
not despots. He lauds them for paying taxes and helping him get through
school. (Aaaawww ... isn't that sweet of those generous rich people?)
Who is he kidding? The rich (like the rest of us) avoid paying taxes as
much as possible, and believe me, they don't pay taxes out of generosity
or some noble principle. They pay taxes because they have to, and I say,
make 'em pay more! But the people who are really putting you through
school, Maedhros, are the poor and the middle class. The middle-class
aand the poor together pay a lot more in taxes. You should thank them for
your education. (Actually, you should thank liberals who continue to
fight for education funding in Congress. Believe me, the conservatives
would (and have) cut funds for education. No doubt, they'd cut the
education budget more if they could.)
Let me ask you some tactical questions, Maedhros. Do you really want to
defend the rich? Do you really find rich people so kind and generous?
Are you realliy enjoying the status-quo so much? Are you, perhaps, afraid
to change? Don't you see the programming that you espouse? Can you find
a way to work yourself out of this corner? Do you even want to get out of
it?
*laelth stops his brutal assault to parry.*
One final point, as for redistributing the wealth, yes. I think that this
would be a good idea, but I would not be so stupid as to advocate a system
like the one employed by the former USSR. In general, I steer away from
arguing that we can create a utopian system ofor wealth distribution. As
I have argued before, such a system would be dangerous. However, I do
believe that we can change the current system. I shy away from claiming
that I have the answers to the problems of the world. However, I can see
the problems with the status quo. I am compelled to address those
injustices when I see them. And from what I've seen, the current system
of wealth distribution in the US is unjust.
*laelth stands ready to parry the viscious onslaught that he knows will
follow.*
-laelth
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 15 15:54:27 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: earnings and Ayn Rand
Date: Tue Feb 15 15:54:27 1994
I'm not sure it's safe to say that businessmen, managers, etc. do not
create wealth. Although they don't directly create a product as a farmer
or factory worker do, they provide some framework for helping provide
equipment and resources for the people who do build osmething tangible.
In that way, they are indirectly creating the wealth from which they
derive their income. That is not to say, however, that they deserve what
they receive (standard disclaimer (should we designate stdio.h as the
standard disclaimer for that phrase? Oops, I mean stddisclaim.h)).
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Feb 16 01:10:47 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Who Profits?
Date: Wed Feb 16 01:10:47 1994
*Maedhros evaluates the scratch and wonders when Laelth's adrenaline rush
will where off enough for him to notice his left arm is missing*
Is George Bush earning all his salary. I will refuse to comment on this
question in the future as this is the third time I'm repeating it already.
Yes. Quite simply, his salary is based on those who pay him. Bush has
nothing to do with determining his net worth. Sure he can demand as much
as he likes, but hell anybody can do that. His worth is based on the
decision of his employers. Is his salary fair? It would appear to be
from the perspective of his employers. The bottom line is that whether or
not he's making to much is the business of those who are paying him, not
anyone elses. If you're footing the bill then fire him. If you're not,
then I don't quite understand what business of yours it is in the first
place. Quite simply, fair wages is determined by the employer. If you
don't like it quit. You seem to be under the delusion that there's some
kind of rich conspiracy. As I've gathered from your posts, you don't seem
to think of the rich as very nice people. Then why the hell would they
overpay him. They obviously think he's doing something deserving for his
wages.
You can argue that the common laborer is just as important, but it's a
ludicrous assumption. Gates at Microsoft makes about a thousand times as
much as one of his delivery drivers. However, if Gates quites, Microsoft
would be in a world of shit. If Bob the delivery guy pitched a fit about
his paycheck and left, somehow I think they'd survive. It's unskilled
work. Anybody with four limbs can do it.
If the delivery guy made as much as Gates, do you think anybody would be
dragging there ass through college. Damn few.
Do I profit from the status quo? Damned straight I do. Why? Because,
despite what your hell bent to believe, there is no conspiracy to keep me
poor, there is no repression of the masses and no (in case that's the next
accussation) the government is not hiding Elvis on Mars. I profit because
I'm willing to work with it. Do I start with an even chance? Nope. This
isn't some board game. We don't all start at GO with $200. Everybody
starts the game at a different place: some better some worse. You can
cry repression and say your not going to play the game and sure enough
it'll go on quite well without you and leave you behind. Or, you can get
off your ass and do some serious catching up. I'd prefer to catch up
myself.
The root of the problem seems to be that Laelth sees the world as a
Marxist era, repressionist regime. This isn't a labor camp. Education is
not even near approaching the level of unattainable. Noone is stuck where
they are, unless they won't put forth the effort. The idea that there's
some society of the rich plotting to keep everyone in their social strata
is a groundless myth propogated by underachievers who see internal
conflict as an easy means of personal gain at the expense of...well,
anything, as long as it's not theirs.
As for Laelth being suspicious of my personal bias...Is Laelth claiming
to have no bias in how wealth and payment is distributed? It would appear
so, as he seems to think this invalidates my opinions. Tis a truly great
day, for I have met the first mortal who has no personal opinion and is
not in any way influenced by money, work or payment.
As for my "programming"...Well, let's examine what programming I've
undergone. It appears that I've had some values or "ethics" instilled in
me. Well, I've been taught to work hard. I've been taught not to expect
instant gratification, as I think most have ny the time they reach
puberty. Oh, and horrors, I've been taught to be honest. Well, if we
throw away all that evil programming what does that leave. Slothfulness,
short-sightedness, no capacity for effort, and an indifference to honesty.
I think I'll stick with the programming. Although, I wish the best of
luck to my colleagues who are stronger than I who can break free of the
conditioning.
Lastly, do I find the rich kind and generous? Hell no! Neither do I
find the poor much better. If you carry the illusion that the poor are a
bunch of simple-minded, loving folk you don't get out much. I don't find
any class of people kind and generous and you're kidding yourself if you
do. That said, it seems that everyone, as a class, is pretty much out for
themselves. If a new program were introduced in this country, I seriously
doubt it would be for my benefit. At least now, I know what I'm working
with. God knows what the next bunch would institute. Better to stick
with the known problems than the unknown. Does change scare me? Hell yes
again. Things are bad enough without turning the reins over to a pack of
people who, when it comes to the bottom line, are just looking for an
extra piece of pie for themselves from the rapidly diminishing tray.
There is no altruism that motivates Laelth's cries of injustice, just
greed. As Laelth said himself, he doesn't have the answers to make it
right. What he does know is that someone else has goomething he wants and
he'd rather take it than "earn" it.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 16 13:09:38 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: damn
Date: Wed Feb 16 13:09:38 1994
Well that pretty much sums it up for me...hehheh
Well, almost.
"As for my "programming"...Well, let's examine what programming I've
undergone. It appears that I've had some values or "ethics" instilled in
me. Well, I've been taught to work hard. I've been taught not to expect
instant gratification, as I think most have ny the time they reach
puberty. Oh, and horrors, I've been taught to be honest. Well, if we
throw away all that evil programming what does that leave. Slothfulness,
short-sightedness, no capacity for effort, and an indifference to honesty.
I think I'll stick with the programming."
Your programming works, i.e. it fits in with what allows for survival and
prosperity in this culture. Obviously you have a lot to lose if things
change.
Laelth, I think you seriously need to reevaluate what it means,
economically, to earn. I think then you will see what wealth truly means.
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 17 11:53:21 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: What happened?
Date: Thu Feb 17 11:53:21 1994
*laelth doesn't know whether to crumple up and die, or pull maedhros'
rapier out of his stomach and keep fighting.*
Of a few things, however, I am certain. I got Maedhros mad, which means
I must have hit him pretty hard. His wound is deeper than he pretends.
Of this I am also certain: maedhros is no longer pretending to not be the
servant of the wealthy. Good. At least now we know where he's coming
from. We know what drives his ideology.
I am also certain that maedhros' ideology is dangerous. He's convinced
that everyone in the world should be "just like him," hard working,
honest, etc. And I'm tempted (oh so tempted) to agree with him. I won't
however, because I recognize to what end that philosophy leads. Hitler's
"final solution" was an attempt to do something like that, purify Germany,
get out those dishonest, cheating, lazy, good-for-nothing Jews. I simply
can't justify a philosophy that elevates my values above all others. I
have not the arrogance to insist that everyone in the US should be "just
like me." We must resist that kind of programming when we see it. We
cannot allow an individual or a class of people to believe that their
values should be emulated by all. For, if they had the power, they would
force us to be like them if they could. And if they couldn't force us,
they'd kill us.
*with that laelth draws out maedhros' sword and strikes a counter-blow.*
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Thu Feb 17 12:12:30 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: "Earn"
Date: Thu Feb 17 12:12:30 1994
But Alex, don't you see? I've been trying to help YOU to re-examine what
it means to "earn." That's why I've been saying it over and over. If you
choose not to listen that's your option, of course. But please, save your
economics lesson. You could use some boning-up yourself. :)
Just look at your programming for a minute. You work hard (you make the
rich richer through your labor). You're honest (you're not a threat to
take the rich people's property. They like you to be honest, but are the
rich people honest?). And lastly, you don't expect instant gratification
(no, or few rewards for your labor). It's hilarious for me to see you
middle-classed people defending your middle-classed values when those very
values are the mechanism by which you are exploited. And what's funniest
of all is that you don't even think you're being exploited. You're happy
to be a lackey for people who are enjoying the fruits of our society.
It is true that your programming will help you to survive. As long as you
work hard, are honest, and don't expect rewards for your labor (as long as
you do what the rich people want) then they'll allow you to live. They'll
give you a job making middle-classed wages, and they'll let you think that
you're happy collecting the products of capitalism (cars, houses in the
suburbs, computers, TVs, etc.). What you may want to ask yourself is
this: What have I lost in buying into this system? While I lived the
comfortable middle-classed life, how many people suffered in poverty as a
result? What have I really done by advocating the injustices of the
status quo? Couldn't I have done something else? Couldn't I have made
the world a better place?
Just a thought ...
-laelth
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 17 17:00:01 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: What happened?
Date: Thu Feb 17 17:00:01 1994
Firstly, yes I was pretty irritated. Fortunately, it had nothing to do
with being hit hard. I simply get infuriated when I have to repeat myself
over and over and over (as it seems you do too ;-)
Secondly, you stated that I'm "not pretending not to be a servant of the
rich". Funny, I seem to remember stating explicitly that I wasn't a
servant of anyone but myself. Laelth seems to put forth the attitude that
anything which doesn't challenge the system is giving into it. Amazingly,
I believe it's possible to accept something, not because I was told it was
good, but simply because I agree with it. No doubt, Laelth will attempt
to blame this on my "programming". Here's a completely novel concept:
Because something is accepted as right by the majority of the population,
it does not make it necessarily wrong. Laelth seems to still harbor that
deeply imbedded resentment for anything established which any 15 year-old
exhibits.
Thinking of the government as this omnipotent machine bent on absolute
control is a divorce from reality. You have no say? The rich control
everything? Let me ask you something. Did you vote? Did your candidate
get elected? I bet he did. Is he instituting these reforms you've been
talking about the liberals presenting? Imagine that!
I wonder how the rich could have let him get in government? Surely the
poor masses couldn't have elected him. They're pawns under the control of
big business. I wonder why Trump didn't have the CIA gun him down?
Surely, they control the military as well. Well, no doubt he won't get to
do anything with health care since it isn't in the best interests of big
business. What? His bills are passing? My God, I better get to the Bat
phone and call the Rich Society for Totalitarian Government to speak to my
local master and inform him of this. We'll sacrifice him on the great,
satanic capitalist alter to be sure!
Come on, stop kidding people. There's no oppression of the lower classes.
Sure, not everybody's in the same economic situation, but that's just
luck of birth. Fortunately, it's a fixable problem. There's no caste
system in effect.
By the way, big mistake comparing US ideals to Nazi Germany. Shouldn't
bring up the Jews. The Jews came over poor imigrants just like the rest
in the second wave of immigration.Fortunately for them though, they came
with the same ideals you say will get a person nowhere here. They're
honest, hard-working and patient. Thre rich welcomed them. Are they the
middle class servants you speak of? Hardly, their hard work and
determination paid off as I said it would. They have a higher average
income than white, Western European Americans. Now, how do you suppose
that happened. They must have caught the Secret Society of Evil
Capitalist Swine off guard as well.
Once again, I claim that Laelth's hedonistic ideals are self-serving
principles designed to acquire wealth and comfort without earning. We
should hardly be suprised though, as he clearly has stated he is not
familiar with the concept of "deserving" or "working for something".
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Feb 17 19:57:31 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: What happened?
Date: Thu Feb 17 19:57:31 1994
laelth said:
Hitler's
"final solution" was an attempt to do something like that, purify Germany,
get out those dishonest, cheating, lazy, good-for-nothing Jews.
----------------------------------------------------------
Actually, much hatred has been directed at Jews in all cultures because
they have NOT been lazy, etc.and have generally been more successful than
the natives. You are right, though, that Hitler (and others) painted the
Jews as greedy and lazy and unassimilable in order to get rid of them with
ease. It's funny that when people start to assimilate a new culture, they
are viewed with equal hatred as when the do not try to assimilate.
jasonLee
From feotus@yabbs Sat Feb 19 22:19:07 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: nazis
Date: Sat Feb 19 22:19:07 1994
anyone ever read Kurt Vonnegut's _mother Night_?
Nazis are in all of us. Don't put them on a seperate plane from us. I'de
be hard pressed to find a society thru history and in the present that has
not participated in such a "mass hatred' as the nazi's did. It happens
now too.
"because of this thing, becuase of this thing, because of this thing,
that's in me, is it not in you? Is it not your problem?"
-nothing shocking, Jane's addiction
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 21 01:10:15 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Mon Feb 21 01:10:15 1994
i think you're seeing thr eternal conflict that the learned greeks saw in
all men. they saw that all men haver a conflict between inner urges and
rational acting from the mind--something freud saw, too. So whose to judge
others?
ich von ching
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 22 02:00:34 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Tue Feb 22 02:00:34 1994
I'm pretty sure I've read Mother Night, but I don't remember the story.
Could you refresh me? I read nearly all his books about two years ago,
but I kinda burnt out on him.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 22 02:10:24 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Tue Feb 22 02:10:24 1994
arachnoi spouted:
The NAZI's are still amoung us. We call the present group of wacked out
liberal yoyo's Deomcrats, not National Socialist party. Whether its George
Wallace and the KKK, Kahone and the JDL, Farahkant(sp)? and the Black
Panthers, Al Gore and his tree, the gays, the socalist, every1 that was
ever a member of the american communist party, most of the decendants of
the africans slaves in the us, and most of the decendants of the slave
holders in the us, THESE PEOPLE REPRESENT A THREAT TO US ALL!
The embody all that was ever EVIL in our country. And they seek to ram a
'do it or else' facist goverment down our throats.
--------------------------------------------------
And I suppose you're one of the few right-minded fair people left in this
country? Honestly, how do all these people, who you've grouped together
so nicely, represent "all that was ever EVIL in our country"?
I'll pick out gays first of all, because that's probably the simplest
example of your lunacy. You are absolutely right. Those damn gays want
to force us to treat them exactly like we treat normal straight people!
How could they? I mean, I would never have sex with another man, so why
would anyone else want to? They shouldn't be allowed, they should be
shot.
(messy sarcasm off)
Now, please explain the threats that every single one of these groups
poses to american society. Use specific examples (documentable). Then,
please explain which groups of people are not a threat to our country.
It seems like you've pretty much gotten rid of everyone: blacks, jews,
homosexuals, far right wingers, left wingers. Who's left? Non-extremists
for Moderate Change (NEMC) ??
What's very interesting is that in condemning certain groups, you almost
inherently belong to another of those groups. Example: blacks are evil
(in your argument) which happens to be the same argument of the KKK, whom
you also seem to disapprove of.
OK, justify yourself.
JasonLee
From feotus@yabbs Tue Feb 22 02:14:39 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: hmm
Date: Tue Feb 22 02:14:39 1994
Mother Night is about an american who becomes a propagandist for the
Nazi's in ordere to spy better. He was a writer and an acepted nazi even
among the big guys. Well, anyways it's a more personal thing than ust a
nazi commentary. as a matter of fat it's very very much more than that,
and the Nazi aspect takes a back seat to soul searching and questions of
loyalty, human morality etc..
Arachnoi - I know you mean well, but tr and be a bit more concise and
realistic when condemning just about every damn person in the United
states 8)
From robtelee@yabbs Tue Feb 22 02:23:43 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: nazis
Date: Tue Feb 22 02:23:43 1994
I too would be interested in finding out what group arachnoi would belong
too. He seems to be against every one else.
BTW, have you had a chance to think about my post in Mind Games yet ?
I await your answer there. :)
As always,
Your Ob'dnt Sv'nt,
Robtelee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Feb 22 16:26:10 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Tue Feb 22 16:26:10 1994
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? WRT gays, how do
you categorize them as unnatural? I have no clue what you're talking
about when you say research into twins.
In addition, the diseases that affect gays affect straight people, too.
So, are all the various diseases created by gays to attack the striahg
world? You're telling me that thousands of people would just decide to
get a fatal disease and die just to ruin your precious little life? I
think your main reasoning in this respect stems from simple
closed-mindedness and bigotry.
I agree with some of your comments about Farrakhan and Co., but how can
you claim that nearly everyone of African descent in this country is a
danger to our ways of life (whoever "we" are) ?
The funniest thing about your attacking David Duke is that you sound just
like him! Except, of course, that he believes (slightly) in govt while
you do not.
Labeling him as a Democrat was pretty funny.
Anyway, you've given zero proof of your statements, so until you can back
some of them up, please save htoaster a few bytes of disk space and don't
post.
JasonLee
s
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Feb 22 18:47:24 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Tue Feb 22 18:47:24 1994
Anarchist? I'd hardly associate such narrow-minded, fundamentalist
propaganda with anarchism. Propaganda? Well, that's generally what you
call a blatant attack upon certain people for their beliefs, color or
religious background. Specifically, when this attack is made without ONE
SHRED of supporting evidence. It's a free country, so feel free to speak
your mind. Just remember to turn it on before you start typing. Let's
look at your allegations.
1. "I have nothing against gays". Bullshit. You're a raving homophobe
if I've ever seen one. "When all else fails scream the loudest that
you're just like the kid next door". Tell me, what kind of anarchist
feels a need for others to justify their lifestyles. "Hundreds of
diseases that afflict gays"? I'm sorry, in my ignorance I can't quite
remember which disease it was that heterosexuals are immune to which gays
aren't. Please enlighten us. "All of this doesn't represent a threat to
us as long as it stays on the seedy side of town". Did you ever think
that maybe if everyone had given a fuck when it was restricted to the
seedy side of town that maybe we could have kept the virus under control.
Did you think it was a plague from God maybe? That it would spare
straight little protestant white boys? "We", whoever you put in that
category, have earned this one. Reap it.
2. As for Farakhan, not much to say. Hate groups are hate groups. Put
'em in a field and let 'em kill eack other so the rest of us can go on
living.
3. Not that I have any great love for Democrats, but Duke a Democrat?
Can you really picture any of those tree-hugging, get back to the earth,
liberals running around in a pointed cap burning crosses? Get real. I
can't even picture it without dying of laughter. No, Duke was
a gone astray. (This isn't uncommon, by the way. ;-)
4. "I don't think government can solve any problems, it just supplies a
structure for us to live in". Huh? It can't? It does? Man, you're
arguing with yourself. You don't consider organizing a structure for a
tens of millions of people a problem. Can you do it? I sure as hell
can't.
Look, propaganda won't float here. Organize you ideas and SUPPORT them.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Feb 23 02:34:03 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: nazis
Date: Wed Feb 23 02:34:03 1994
I agree with your last post. arachnoi could use a little schooling in the
true history of the groups he mentions.
I do not know the exact origin of the AIDS virus. But a lokk at the
statistics show that it is fast becoming a leading killer of HETEROSEXUALS
in the western world. Also, AIDS deaths in the gay community is on the
decline over the past few years. As for the "hundreds" of other venereal
diseases, exactly which ones does arachnoi attribute to the gay/lesbian
community? I do not see myself as a supporter of the gay rights movement,
but I do believe in not fooling myself.
Farrakhan and Duke belong to the same group. They are after the same
things for their respective groups. Given the chance, either one would
put a bullet in ANYONE who would dare to disagree with them.
Just what does arachnoi want ? If you can come up with a definition,
please be so kind as to post it. I'm afraid that I can't figure out his
argument. There is no logic to it.
As always, I remain,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From minutemn@yabbs Wed Feb 23 08:14:31 1994
From: minutemn@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Wed Feb 23 08:14:31 1994
I think I found a group you didn't bash=the apathetic.
Then again, maybe that's because you figure they'd be the only ones who
would tolerate your senseless drivel.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Feb 23 12:02:47 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: WTF?
Date: Wed Feb 23 12:02:47 1994
What does all this shit about the nazis and fahrakhan have to do with
figuring out whether we should rule ourselves or not?
-Xela's 2 dollars
From feotus@yabbs Wed Feb 23 13:55:58 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: hehe
Date: Wed Feb 23 13:55:58 1994
this is truly an amazing forum
more pissing contests going on than just about any place I can think of
except for alt.cyberpunk.
"look propaganda won't float here"
we LIVE in a world of propaganda. Learn to swim
"when do we talk about wether or not we should rule ourselves"
you don't talk about it, you do it. Learn to walk
"the apethetic, or there bieng the only ones to accept arachnois stuff"
If the propaganda was luxurious too you, and it made you fel good, YOU
would believe it.
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Feb 23 17:13:36 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: hehe
Date: Wed Feb 23 17:13:36 1994
"we LIVE in a world of propaganda. Learn to swim."
We do. By not buying the mindless drivel in the first place. It's
everywhere? So are fools who think it has substance or meaning.
"You don't talk about it (self rule), you do it. Learn to walk."
There's been many fools throughout history who ruled without council.
Talk first. There's plenty of time for action.
"If the propaganda was luxurious too you, and it made you fel good, YOU
would believe it."
Unfortunately, a lot of people take that opinion. That's what makes it so
damned effective. I wouldn't recommend it though, it doesn't pan out well
in the end. Ever notice that the people who believe the crap end up
getting there asses bitten off. Italy (pre-WWII) claimed to have the
largest, most powerful navy in Europe. Funny, it didn't stop anyone from
sinking their whole fleet in under two months without a single casualty.
Divorce yourself from reality and your setting your ass up.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Feb 23 18:01:24 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: minutemn@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Wed Feb 23 18:01:24 1994
minutemn said:
I think I found a group you didn't bash=the apathetic. Then again, maybe
that's because you figure they'd be the only ones who would tolerate your
senseless drivel.
-----------------
Hey! I'm apathetic and I didn't tolerate it!
JasonLee
(smilies sold separately)
From feotus@yabbs Thu Feb 24 09:28:10 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: hehe
Date: Thu Feb 24 09:28:10 1994
well I don't have message quoting soI'll have to dothis by hand
Re: Propaganda, the sad truth, and note that I do not seek to promote
this state of affairs, is that we entertain ourselves to death. That is
what I meant to imply withthe learn to swim line. THat you have to accept
that there is this whole world of propaganda, and you have toswim in it
and operate in it to the best of your ability.
Re: Talking too much
this whole thing is actually funny. Talk is cheap. Now granted one
should not just go off and start reaking havoc, unless it's a particulalry
bad monday, but I'm often amused at the amount of "Yeah, Yeah let's do it"
and tha lack of "doing it". Now fo rhtose of you who frequent various
newsgroups, you may recognize this as the standard "(insert movement here)
is DEAD" attack. often perpetrated by those who are relatively new to
newsgroup or forum or even movement, and don't realize that things are
getting done out there. NOW, my statement about Talk meaning nothing and
walking bieng something,is a twist on that. I personally have no idea if
you guys actually do anything, but from the looks of this forum, oft times
it seems that discussions never really go anywhere, but often degenerate
into pissing contests. That's all the talk thing was meant to say, that
you shouldn't talk, but do. Of course doing can include planning.
Re: believeing propaganda. You read my statemetn as if I was saying that
believeing stuff because it sounds good is a viable option. NO, i did not
mean that, and anyone who knows me, which you don't yet(but no prob), will
know that I am actually quite the opposite of that. Once again, I was
statingthe current statues, nt advocating it. Today we are to busy
watching Tonya and Nancy stories to worry about anything. We fall for the
sappiest stories cooked up by our govt, we pander to nationalism evn when
it leads us to killing 50,000 young men, we succumb to propaganda from the
govt telling us that we are always the good guys. etc........ Sorrta like
the good example you pointed out about Italy.
all in all, the purpose of the original statement was to simply try and
stiop the oft times stupid bickering over pettiness and the pissing
contests.
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 24 11:20:19 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: hehe
Date: Thu Feb 24 11:20:19 1994
re: propoganda
Oops, my apologies, I just got out of a Calc test last night and was a
little trigger happy. I'll read more carefully next time.
re: talk
I seriously think this is an unfair ggeneralization. I try, along with
other board members I believe, to stick to things I do know and
do participate in. Notice my posts lack the seize the state mentality.
Not necessarily because I wouldn't like to, simply because I can't and
won't, at least now ;-) Although, you do make a valid point; argue about
what you can control.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 24 12:34:28 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Feb 24 12:34:28 1994
1. [You're a raving homophobe. {I love this word. It's such a
meaningless euphemism.}
- Well, what an added bonus. We get your views on modern sociology and
psychology to boot. I suppose all psychology is meaningless, or is it
just the parts you don't like to hear. Does it disturb you that a
professional science has a category for you which is listed as an
abnormality. Be nicer to the democrats, they have good programs for the
specially challenged. I won't bother citing the truth for my accusation,
it's already been presented in a previous post. Since you didn't
challenge the accusation, but instead made a rather poor attempt at
discrediting and sidestepping it, I see no reason to expand upon it.
2. {You got a cure for a virus, any virus?}
- Oops, I think I was talking to fast. Let me repeat myself for those who
didn't seem to understand the last post. If more people would have careed
what happened to the "seedy side" (Christ, talk about over worked
cliches), then we could have got an earlier start on controling and
researching the disease (that's AIDS, in case I lost you again). The
whole point, if you could gather it, is that we DON'T have a cure. We
might have, if we had started worrying about it earlier. BTW, I'm a
chemical genetics major, and as such I follow my fields research closely.
The best bet for destroying the AIDS virus lies with genetic
mainipulation/designing. Applicable research is being carried out with
marked success in Isreal. It is not being carried out in the US. I
attribute this mainly to the kind of idiocy you propogate with your
out-modded, false image of AIDS victims.
3. {Were you planning on locking them all up like the cubans?}
- This seems to be a false alternative falacy. Where'd you get such a
monumentously stupid idea. This isn't worth a full respoonse.
4. { Democratic party is a collection of every whacked-out fascist
group in the country.}
- My God, and we're still here under a democracy after all this time.
You forgot to call them the most ineffective fascists. Whew, thank God
they haven't got their shit toghether yet.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Thu Feb 24 14:03:57 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Feb 24 14:03:57 1994
Arachnoid, if you're going to answer my question, at least show some
intelligence and answer the question I asked. What the hell is your
point? I'm not even a Young Republican, nor would I affiliate myself with
that group or any political group, for that manner. All this crap about
AIDS, and Nazis, and Louey Fahrakhan has very little to do with anarchy.
Don't immediately reply to this; reread the posts and try to link this
with what the forum topic is, i.e. anarchy.
Until then get some sense into your head and stop generalizing folks.
Pissed off,
Alex Reynolds
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Feb 24 17:30:18 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Feb 24 17:30:18 1994
A random sample:
- My God, and we're still here under a democracy {Wrong, we be a
Republic, check your civics."
Are you really ignorant enough or narcissistic enough to think the exavct
name of our political system is something we're ignorant too.
You've shown that you have a decent vocabulary and a propensity for
assigning literature. Unfortunately, you've also shown a vacuous ability
for reasoning. I'm not really sure whether you've intentionally avoided
questions proposed to you, or whether you're just to busy talking to have
time to think.
In the last post you make a comment proposing a relationship between AIDS
research and the Human Genome project. Great, sounds interesting.
Where's the evidence. No doubt the answer is some assigned reading.
I'll let you in on a free lesson in debate and logic. If you propose a
premise, guess who the burden of proof lies on? You guessed it. Without
proof it's just babble. I don't mind being wrong, but someone else will
have to do the homework and give the report. Without a shred of proof,
we've just got someone who's filled up about five posts with idiotic
blatherring, written by someone who seems to consider himself quite
clever. Well, at least one person does.
If you can't handle an intelligent response, don't bother writing me. I
won't bother with it. There are people who work for their opinions here
who far more deserve the feedback. If I need this kind of babbling, I'll
babysit my little sister. Her skills show much more potential.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Thu Feb 24 22:13:38 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Thu Feb 24 22:13:38 1994
yikes! warped like wood.
From ching@yabbs Thu Feb 24 22:39:04 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Thu Feb 24 22:39:04 1994
to annnoying arachnoi all over the world.
Come on. Quit the silly game. I know that you are just someone trying to
fire up the people in this base with a bunch of fascist bullshit that you
don't even wholeheartedly subscribe to at all. You even had me going for a
little while, but you're too good ot be true. Someone this ignorant, yet
this vocal, on our board--well, that's a wet dream. Surely this is a
farce.
Now, I do appreciate your concern for wanting to liven things up in
this base, but come on--Fasscist democrats? orwellian democrats? Yes the
democratic party is a splintered group, but I don't think that it has
all the people you mentioned, and I don;'t think that they are a fascist
group
Would you call the following fascisit: the equal rights ammendment, the
motor voter bill, downsizing the armed forces? Which one of thes ideas do
youthink that NIetzsche, Mussolini, or Hitler would not vomit on. Well,
they're all ont the liberal agenda, and supported by many
democrats--though not all.
So here's two ideas for this board--one serious, one witty. let's
chang ethe name of the board--face it, we hardly ever talk about
anarchy(When I said board, i mean this message base). Secondly, let's
require that everyone who wishes to post in this base has at least read a
book once, or taken at least high school poli. sci. that oughtta take care
of Arachnoi. See ya, Spidey.
La ching
From minutemn@yabbs Fri Feb 25 03:42:34 1994
From: minutemn@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Fri Feb 25 03:42:34 1994
Well then, when we do not tolerate and stand against something, we are not
being apathetic. Are we?
God Bless,
minutemn
(I'll give away one of my smiles)
:)
From feotus@yabbs Fri Feb 25 08:20:22 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Fri Feb 25 08:20:22 1994
but yes, all the things he is talking about do hve stuff to do with
anarchy actually.
how?
note he made references to govt legislation etc.....
talked about inustices and hate groups, things which are a product of
control groups.....
on and on and on
hehe, i think it's funny you freaked at bieng called a Y. publican.8)
From feotus@yabbs Fri Feb 25 08:28:20 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Fri Feb 25 08:28:20 1994
"if you wanna babble etc......... (insert reply telling arachnoi he's an
idiot here)
hehehehe, you know you guyssound like a Men's club or something.
"hey you, don't babble this is a very important forum, we're on the edge
here you know sonny boy," in deep official voice.
hehehehehe, telling him he filled this forum with five babble posts.
hehehe, actually you guys responded to him, now let's figure three
responses ot each babble post, that's a grand total of about fifteen more
8) hehehe
let's post a sign, HEY YOUANARCHIST, DONT COM EIN HERE UNLESS YOU PLAY
NICE AND OBEY ALL THE RULES
hehe
From feotus@yabbs Fri Feb 25 08:31:04 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: ching rules
Date: Fri Feb 25 08:31:04 1994
hehe, I thinkyour funny ching. You said we should make it so you have
taken at least one political science class, and have read a book.
that's a gast, oops I mean ghast
hehe us H.S.ers
but yes, let's change the base to ego-pissing contests
From Xela@yabbs Fri Feb 25 09:10:04 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: jesus on a pogo stick...
Date: Fri Feb 25 09:10:04 1994
{Try reading what Jefferson said
on the subject, it has a lot to do with it. If you don't
understand, go back and do a little research}
Ok, so Jefferson related AIDS, National Socialism, and the Nation of Islam
to anarchy. My most humble apologies.
Yeah whatever, just try to keep your foot out of your mouth next time you
speak. Nothing personal.
Yours Most Sarcastically,
Alex
From Xela@yabbs Fri Feb 25 09:13:06 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: da name
Date: Fri Feb 25 09:13:06 1994
Foetus said:
"let's change the base to ego-pissing contests"
Probably better to change it to Babbling Pseudointellectual Bullshit
Artists.
Nah, too long.
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Feb 25 16:21:14 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: genetech
Date: Fri Feb 25 16:21:14 1994
Finally! I thank you for your informed response.
I'll reply when or if I feel I have learned enough to formulate a
response. Noone's begging for proof coincidentaly. It's simply that
noone wishes to hear you ideas without your reasons. (Please notice that
my response is being withheld until I feel I have enough evidence to
respond in an informed manner.
From honkfish@yabbs Fri Feb 25 19:55:44 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: oy!
Date: Fri Feb 25 19:55:44 1994
mini-essays politics hothouse ego precious elitist hilarious sidetracked
i-would-write-a-book-if-i-could-rub-more-than-two-ideas-together
This seems to be a Politics base. Choose the new title from the words
above.
(Go on, have a go at me then!!!!! How dare I interrupt your fine
discussion???)
hoho
From Xela@yabbs Sat Feb 26 12:33:19 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: oy!
Date: Sat Feb 26 12:33:19 1994
heheh
well i seem to have hit upon a nerve or two...
better probably to leave things as they are, still don't understand why
people babble so much and in the wrong places...
but that's just my babbling anyway....
xela
From Xela@yabbs Sat Feb 26 12:35:37 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Jefferson
Date: Sat Feb 26 12:35:37 1994
Ok smart ass, tell me what amazing sources you have acquired in the
process of relating Jefferson's deist theories to the AIDS epidemic, Louey
F., and the Nazis, and I'll research till my fingers bleed.
Sound a good deal?
Alex
From CB@yabbs Sat Feb 26 14:03:15 1994
From: CB@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: someone has to pay
Date: Sat Feb 26 14:03:15 1994
I like what you had to say their sir..... Makes alot of sense. It is
very easy to use the fact that an individual or company has too much money
as a rationalization. So as to not feel guilty for ripping them off. But
the point you stated I liked. It is not right to do this. Steeling is
steeling. A thief is a thief. And if I used this as a rationalization to
just get shit for nothing then I would perpetuate the bullshit and would
have no room to say what I am saying. To be honest I don't have room.
the ghe ideas involved with this concept are excelent.
brinx
From feotus@yabbs Sat Feb 26 14:04:50 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: da name
Date: Sat Feb 26 14:04:50 1994
"babbling Psuedointellectual Bullshit artists
hehe, that's the best one I have heard yet
score one for Xela
anyone interested in pirate radio? Me and a fw freinds are gonna start
a network of stations locallyt here. Basically we have a main station
and a bunch of others relay the transmission and spread it farther. Like
a relay race or something.
first episode is going to be a three hour or so loop tape of us saying
FUCK THE FCC
8)
From feotus@yabbs Sat Feb 26 14:09:03 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: you evil ruffian
Date: Sat Feb 26 14:09:03 1994
you vile cretin, how dare you come in here, didnt someone check you ID
card?
how humiliating to have such low-level scum in our midst. I bt you arent
even a college student. And we all know how much we love to listen to
self-important college students, sprouting back what their proffesor yells
at them.
geesh, what is this world coming too? How dare you interupt our politics
base. Aint nothing you can say, you are to uneducated, I mean even tho
anarchy is to benefit the uneducated also, you just better leave the
planning up to us intellectual elite here. Go back to your farm and we'll
tell you when we free you from the bad guys.
8)
From ching@yabbs Sat Feb 26 19:27:03 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: ching rules
Date: Sat Feb 26 19:27:03 1994
thankyou, feotus--and I like the name for the base alot. speaking of
pissing, gotta go...
cha ching
From ching@yabbs Sat Feb 26 19:39:42 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Sat Feb 26 19:39:42 1994
okay,stud, you're on!:) but first,let me tell you that I can't spend too
much time on the board every day, so lemme give you a few every day
instead. Shall we Begin..
1. The American Center for Law and Justice led by Pat Robertson.
2. The conservative wing of the Republican party, ifnot all of it.
3. Coalition for a Drug-Free America
4.
4. The right ot Life organization.
5. The Socialist Party of America
6. The Communist Party of America.
Now, gimme a day to think of some more and I'll get back to you. For now,
just try to digest those, Spidey.
CHING
From honkfish@yabbs Sun Feb 27 13:34:23 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: Ha Har!
Date: Sun Feb 27 13:34:23 1994
Hoho! Rose to the (hideously obvious) bait!!
So you're telling me what I can read and where I cannot poke my nose??
I put a few posts in from time to time and just because this one had the
faint whiff of irony abouti it you go apoplectic!!
Maybe you don't even know what irony means. Or if you do, you think it
means "like iron". This is a free base with free access of information and
you are not going to stop me with your self-righteous intellectual
posturings. This not being a seminar but a BBS, I feel people should be
entitled to float opinions from time to time and not provide a reading
list or bibliography to back up their ideas.
Like the bit about "uneducated"! What amazing insight you must possess.
Truly a non-judgemental person such as yourself I have not met before.
hodehodehodeho!!
Honkfish................................
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Feb 27 13:46:23 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: Ha Har!
Date: Sun Feb 27 13:46:23 1994
Uh, Honkfish, read feotus' post again. I hate yto speak for someone else,
but I'm pretty sure he was being facetious. You know, humor, haha...
Chill out,
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Feb 27 15:47:14 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis
Date: Sun Feb 27 15:47:14 1994
arachnoi wrote:
List every group u can think of that either wants to legitimise itself,
seek special privledges, or impose it's cause on others through goverment
intervention.
|||||||||||||
Every single group could be categorized under your headings.
"legitimise itself"
This is something all special interest (and broad interest) groups try to
do. An illegitimate group carries no power, so it is only natural for a
group of people to desire legitimacy in their operations.
This also leads directly into...
"impose it's cause on others through government intervention"
This is pretty much the only way to become legitimate. How else can a
group become legitimate than to have the government officially recognize
the cause/people through legislation. The problem with this is when you
have to decide if the group is trying to impose its cause on others, or if
the group only wants to be free of the caused imposed on it by others.
This goes right to...
"seek special priviledges"
Now, how do you define what is a privilege and what is a right? Where is
the boundary? To bring up the easy case of gays, do they have the right
to marry or join the military? Other people (straight) do have that
right. Now, I think arachnoi might say something about them being disease
spreaders, and if that's true, then why does our government allow retarded
people to marry? They might be looked at as spreading disease (faulty
genes). Basically, a lot of people think that if some people are allowed
to do what they want, then it will reduce their own expression of their
rights. I don't know where the boundary is, or exactly how to find it,
but I'm kind of partial to minority groups, whatever they might be.
I'm not, however, the one who decides these things (unfortunately).
So, to add things to the list:
The Republican Party
The Democratic Party
etc, etc.
JasonLee
From honkfish@yabbs Sun Feb 27 18:45:27 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Ha Har!
Date: Sun Feb 27 18:45:27 1994
sorry, got a bit carried away there..
Anyway, what's wrong with a quick rant to clear the sinuses???
(hehe)
I'm sure he didn't take it too personally!
see yuz
From ching@yabbs Sun Feb 27 23:46:05 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: organizaitons
Date: Sun Feb 27 23:46:05 1994
okay, now here ar e a few more, I'll fget back to you later with some
more....
--where were we? at #5 or #6? I'll just start these a #1--
1. Mthers Against Driving Drunk
2. The National Rifle Associationtion
0--Ihate computer lagg!!!!--
3. Almost any conservative, fundamentlaist church
4. Aryan Nation
5. Rythm Nation--this one's a joke:)
6. The American Civil Liberties Union
---so as soon as you like, we'll get down yto ythe nitty grit and fihue
out what all these groupps have in common--if anything.
cha ching
/s
From robtelee@yabbs Mon Feb 28 02:20:09 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: reply to post #476
Date: Mon Feb 28 02:20:09 1994
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier but I have not been near a
terminal in a few days and I am just now catching up on the recent posts.
Would mind giving me the EXACT issue of the JAMA that you got you
statistics from ? I would be interested in finding and using these
statistics in the next class I teach to Police Officers. Maybe that will
calm their fears of AIDS and they won't have to wear rubber gloves any
more, like the Doctors have advised.
Had you read my post a little closer, you would have seen that I did NOT
say that AIDS was THE leading killers. I stated that AIDS was BECOMING
ONE of the leading killers. (important difference there !) If you are
going to argue a point, please spend some time to notice subtle
differences. It changes the meaning of passages. Quoting out of context
is not a very good habit to get into !
I also see that you have chosen to ignore my other statement. This is the
one concerning David Duke and Louis Farrakhan being of the same stripe.
(I can change the wording because I made the original assertion !)
You need to really pay attention to what is going on around you. As I
stated earlier, Duke, Farrakhan, Kahane, et al are all of the same breed.
"Disagree with me at your peril." I would put them in the same boat as
Nazis and Communists. All are extremists and would "liquidate", "purge",
or whatever euphemism you care to use in order to silence the opposition.
The situation in Hebron is exactly what I am talking about. "You do not
ascribe to my beliefs, so you have no right to live." That is the same
thing as saying "stupid people should not be allowed to breed ! Where
will it all end ? Atilla the Hun tried it, Napoleon tried it, Hitler
tried it, just to name a few. There is no end to the madness.
I hope I have answered some of your questions. Please let me know if I
may be of service to you in the future.
Robtelee
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 28 09:43:12 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to post #476
Date: Mon Feb 28 09:43:12 1994
I think it's kind of unfair of you to say: "I would put them in the same
boat as Nazis and Communists." Communism is not all bad! It's just that
we've become so conditioned to a consumer based society that ownership now
means everything to us, and the idea that we might all work together,
sacrificing some of our own wants, is appalling.
We should also make a distinction between theoretical and practical
communists. Practical communists would be the ones you don't quite like.
These are the people who held power in most of the communist countries
we've seen. They are not especially nice people, but that doesn't
necessarily make communism bad.
The theoretical communists are harder to find. The example I like to use
is that of the Israeli kibbutz. These are miniature communist societies,
and they work fairly well, though there are still a few bugs in that
system.
All I want to say is not to condemn any movement based on its practical
expression (unless, as in things like Nazism, the practical
directly follows the theoretical).
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Feb 28 12:02:55 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to post #476
Date: Mon Feb 28 12:02:55 1994
I would agree with you to a certain extent. I wouldn't necessarily
consider communism "bad". This carries a conotation that communists as a
group actively seek to do "evil". From what I've studied of communism,
it's foundation principles are an attempt to do "good".
However, I feel that while it's not bad, it's certainly disfunctional. If
the Soviet Union is a representation of the effectiveness of a communist
society, it would seem that it was a terrible failure. In a society, it
would seem dangerous whenever incentives are removed.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From laelth@yabbs Mon Feb 28 14:33:27 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: Nietzsche
Date: Mon Feb 28 14:33:27 1994
My dear friend Ching, and other readers:
I've been off the board again, this time re-reading Aristotle and
Plato, with a little Henry Louis Gates on the side. I too have been
disturbed/bored by the current flame war between arachnoi and all takers.
I must, however, interrupt my silence for a point of clarification. I
don't normally get upset about this sort of thing, and I'm not really
upset now, but I feel compelled to argue that Nietzsche was not, nor ever
wanted to be, or even could have been a nazi or a fascist. It is true
that his works were appropriated by fascism as some kind of moral
justification for vile behavior. However, this resulted from intentional
"misreadings" of Nietzsche by the other people you cite (Hitler
Moussolini). Nietzsche, himself, was a pacifist, a leftist. His works
are very popular with leftist intellectuals. His philosophy is
liberating, kind-of "live and let live." From my reading of Nietzsche, I
find it hard to imagine that he would have condoned National Socialism as
it was practiced (perverted) by Hitler.
-laelth
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 28 16:30:48 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: late reply
Date: Mon Feb 28 16:30:48 1994
Ah, here's something to talk about: special privileges.
arachnoi said:
ERA. Without even getting into the faults of the ERA, its an attempt to
provide special privileges not available to everyone else. .
Now, does this really amount to special privileges? Last I heard women
generally made 80 cents for every dollar men made in the workforce.
Actually, in every study I've heard, women make less than men. Wouldn't
the ERA clear up that problem? Is it a special privilege to make as much
as the other half of the population? Or do you deny the reports, etc.
because they don't conform to your levels of reliability (the reports were
done by democrats, whatever, etc.) ?
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 28 16:33:25 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Mon Feb 28 16:33:25 1994
arachnoi said:
First coined in the 60's. nothing new here
If fact, the word 'psudeo' was big in the 60's.
-----------------------------------------------
Wasn't that also a Phil Collins song, too? The one where he goes:
Psu-Psu--Psudeo
???
JasonLee
smilies sold separately
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Feb 28 16:39:29 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: your list
Date: Mon Feb 28 16:39:29 1994
Actually, I already defined the list! Everything is included because you
used such broad specifications as to what should be included. Even the
group you belong to (whatever you are) is in the list of groups that:
a) seek special privlieges
b) impose its cause on others through government intervention
c) What was the other one? Damn, it's not in my scroll back buffer.
Anyway, it's there.
So, the list is complete. Sorry to see you go...
JasonLee
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 28 18:01:33 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to post #476
Date: Mon Feb 28 18:01:33 1994
I hate to to bother you in the middle of a good arguemnet, but I have to
make one small correction; your conception oif communism is a bit off--but
it's still a lot closer to correct than most other americans ever get. You
see, the communists that were in power are not necessarily
non--theoretical; as a matter of fact, they were really supposed to be
very theoretically communist, according to Marx. Marx recognized tha t
people couldn't go straight to the communist utopia right after the
uprising of the proliteriate. Thus he came up with something called the
:dictatorship of the proliterate" in order to make the transformation from
capitalism to communism possible. Marx himslef advocated putting
an authoritarian government in power until it was no longer needed to
keeep order in the world.
About the big division in the communist party is over whethter or not
the entire world should be revolutionized, or if those countries that have
turned to communism should concentrate only on their own area.
cha ching
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 28 18:10:19 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Mon Feb 28 18:10:19 1994
yea, and I bet those fascist coast gaurd fucks wereall democrats, too!
::):):):):):):):):):)
From ching@yabbs Mon Feb 28 18:17:29 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Nietzsche
Date: Mon Feb 28 18:17:29 1994
yes, you have a point; Nietzsche should not be put in the same group as
hitler--not too closely, anyway. Other than that, I'm not going to
argue anything about Nietasche. He's much too complex too ever put him in
a single political categ, I was just using him for those parts of his
ideas that are indeed fascist in nature.
later
ching
From honkfish@yabbs Mon Feb 28 19:48:43 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: Point of interest
Date: Mon Feb 28 19:48:43 1994
As you may well be aware, most Marxists do not consider the Soviet Union
to have been a Communist society. They see the Revolution betrayed (as did
Trotsky and that's why he got a pick axe in the head) and the State become
a State Capitalist, the ownership of the means of production being in the
hands of a ruling elite. Marxist-Leninist theory was quite different from
Marx's original, Marx saying that the revolution was most likely to
succeed in an advanced industrial nation (such as Britain and Germany) not
in a pre-industrial one with a minority proletariat. In fact, a lot of his
analysis was quite useful but his predictions off the mark.
Despite not being a Marxist myself, it still irritates to see the collapse
of the Soviet bloc held up to demonstrate how "Communism" doesn't work: It
wasn't tried!
yours in the vanguard etctetc
-honk
From robtelee@yabbs Tue Mar 1 03:16:45 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: 517
Date: Tue Mar 1 03:16:45 1994
You, my dear person, are the one who needs practice. You make assertions
and then make no attempt to substantiate your "facts." I don't know where
you got your higher learning, but we were required to show sources for any
information we cited in a paper or in a discussion. You want to prove
something to me, you need to show me where it is. If you will do that,
then I will admit I was incorrect in front of all here.
As for comparing the Democrats to Duke, Farrakhan, and Kahane, where did
that come from. The Democrats are well known to throw money at any
problem that comes along. Duke wanted to dis-enfranchise blacks.
Farrakhan wants to dis-enfranchise Jews and whites. Kahane wanted to
"liquidate" any and all Arabs. Democrats ? Try looking at a political
spectrum sometime ! These beliefs belong to fascist organizations. The
Democrats fully support the pluralistic society that are diametrically
opposed to those of the groups and individuals you mention.
As mentioned above, and in other posts, why don't you get a clue ? In an
informed debate on issues, one does not resort to name-calling. In your
case, it really shows your lack of respect of differing viewpoints.
As always,
robtelee
From feotus@yabbs Tue Mar 1 12:01:46 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: r@yabbs
Subject: re: Ha Har!
Date: Tue Mar 1 12:01:46 1994
honkfish, hahahaha I rise to your spurious and dum post, either you
ddiidnt see my sarcasm or I just dont know what I am talking about 8)
no of course humans cant read here, you have to be a super-k-r4d political
genius anarchist if you eant to post ehre you vile uneducated proletariat
scum dog of my mothers knickeers.
nowe dont you get any ideas about anarchy until us leaders tell you just
how to do it you here, (paradoxparadoxparadox)
hehe, gee obvious sarcasm can be so fun 8)
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Mar 1 13:16:29 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to post #476
Date: Tue Mar 1 13:16:29 1994
ching said:
About the big division in the communist party is over whethter or not the
entire world should be revolutionized, or if those countries that have
turned to communism should concentrate only on their own area.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, Democratic nations never concern themselves with this
question. We (the US, at least) believes that everyone NEEDS democracy,
and that anyone who wants to run under something else are political
heathens. In many cases we're no better than Catholic missionaries,
invading "primitive" countries and introducing them to our "modern" way of
life.
This is not to say that democracy is the worst form of government, and
that we need to try something else. Actually, I think it is probably the
best (maybe socialism, too?), but that doesn't mean it's the best for
everyone.
JasonLee
(btw, thanks for the additional communism info)
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 1 21:29:28 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to post #476
Date: Tue Mar 1 21:29:28 1994
good arguement, but don't dog the communists, and don't ever put them in
bed with the Nazi's
thanx
ching
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 1 21:35:24 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Tue Mar 1 21:35:24 1994
actually, I think arachnoying meant "pseudo", as in pseudo-intellectual,
which would surely be an exaggeration of arachnoi
cha-ching
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 1 21:40:21 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: Point of interest
Date: Tue Mar 1 21:40:21 1994
yes, you are correct. My point is that theoretically, the dictatorship of
the proliteriat is supposed to be run by idealist communists. But russia
is a really bad example of coommunism in action.
ching
P.S. i'm going to start spelling communism "kommunism" so that people will
see the light side of it:)
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 1 21:42:38 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: @yabbs
Subject: re: reply to post #476
Date: Tue Mar 1 21:42:38 1994
much obliged, much obliged.
ching
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Mar 2 00:25:04 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Communists
Date: Wed Mar 2 00:25:04 1994
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Soviet form of govt a
Socialist form and isn't that a different form from communism ?
Also, i used that simile to show extremism from both ends of the political
spectrum. No offense meant.
As always,
robtelee
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Mar 2 06:55:02 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: Communists
Date: Wed Mar 2 06:55:02 1994
This to clarify what i meant in my earlier post. Extremism was my
purpose.
I was attempting to show arachnoi that it exists at both ends of the
political spectrum.
As Always,
robtelee
From honkfish@yabbs Wed Mar 2 14:16:43 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: Communists
Date: Wed Mar 2 14:16:43 1994
If you asked the Miners in Poland or textile workers in China a few years
ago whether they were in even a Socialsit nation I don't think they'd
agree... They were still being exploited, just by other elites. THEY
certainly had no control over the means of production. Revolution
Betrayed....
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Mar 5 05:50:36 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: Communists
Date: Sat Mar 5 05:50:36 1994
You are correct in your assertion. I agree that the common worker of
either nation would have considered themselves part of a "Socialist"
nation. The theorists of both nation would have said that they were still
evolving into a "pure" Communist form of govt. (sorry but my second
sentence should read "common workers would NOT have considered
themselves...) I don't think that a "pure" form of communism could be
established. To me, it smacks of a utopia, and these have never worked.
Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
robtelee
From honkfish@yabbs Mon Mar 7 20:09:21 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: Communists
Date: Mon Mar 7 20:09:21 1994
OK a quicky...
Utopias have never been tried so therefore cannot have worked.. most
utopist writers spouted rubbish anyway about ideally organised societies,
which after analysis were worse than the one they were supposed to
replace.
Communism could exist but not within the context of the current dominant
global ideology (I sound like a lecturer now):ie not in a bubble as the
outside would always seep in through media etc. This is why communes tend
to disintegrate after a generation at the most.
Wholesale changes in "values" would have to occur ie non-aquisative, even
altruistic tendencies employed on a societal scale. (I probably made that
word up but never mind).
When the oil runs out and the poor have decided they've had enough then
something may happen... but not yet..
Anytime,
James.
From honkfish@yabbs Tue Mar 8 09:24:23 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Bobbins
Date: Tue Mar 8 09:24:23 1994
Hmm handy... I'll remember the that for the rest of my days. Dr.Who is no
match for you!
Build us a time machine. <----- new point to ponder
From honkfish@yabbs Tue Mar 8 09:28:42 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: Bobbins
Date: Tue Mar 8 09:28:42 1994
Sorry - that message was in the wrong board--- got lagged up for a minute
and all was chaos..........
Should have been in Mind games...
Apologies again....
From honkfish@yabbs Sun Mar 13 19:36:54 1994
From: honkfish@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Utopia
Date: Sun Mar 13 19:36:54 1994
Since nothing much has been posted how about a discussion of the
usefulness or otherwise of Utopias?
I think they serve a purpose in that they provide an "ideal" society for
which we might aim. But does this mean we should tailor our methods to
meet the concept, or tailor our utopia to meet our methods....
><>
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Mar 14 10:20:38 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: honkfish@yabbs
Subject: re: Utopia
Date: Mon Mar 14 10:20:38 1994
I like the idea of working towards a utopia, as long as no outlandish
effort is made to really bring the thing into being. I believe in
idealism, but that idealism should not be naive, and should even be a
little cynical. A utopian goal should always be our destination, and to
lower the standard is lazy and greedy.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Mar 15 00:19:51 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Utopia
Date: Tue Mar 15 00:19:51 1994
I think I agree with JasonLee. While a utopian ideal gives life meaning,
structure and purpose, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking it can be
realized. A utopia is like a perfect form. We can express it
mathematically but it is impossible to achieve physically. Yet, we can
still use that perfect form as a model to create something which
approaches its perfection.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From feotus@yabbs Tue Mar 15 17:18:40 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: utopias, Those Brave New Wo
Date: Tue Mar 15 17:18:40 1994
Well, when talking about Utopias as bieng a goal for a society youhave to
ask some really important questions.
1. WHO'S Utopia are we gonna head for? Your utopia may be my living hell,
my utopia could be Nazi Germany to you. The majorities utopia could be
the erradication of the minority, the minorities utopia could be the
overthrow of the majority. You cannot really aim for a global, national,
statewide, or even local, and IMO not even a household utopia in any real
sense because just about anything involving more than one person leads to
conflicts, granted some are minor in some cases, but s you increase in
scale you get more and more discrepencies.
Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_ depicts a great utopia too some
poeple, but to freedom loving individualists or humans(as the story in
some ways psays) do not function well in a strictly classes hiearchal
society. And the soma can only be so strong. As soon as you decide which
utopia your globe, or nation or state is going to shoot for you are
disenfranchising another person from their utopia. Utopias IMO are a
personal idea of a societal structure. The key is that it is personal
trying to control societal, which usually bumbles upn a few bazillion
individual rights of those not in agreement. Remember that the Nazi's
were headed for a utopia, of course a jewish person at the time would have
disagreed quite a bit with it. What makes your utopia different from the
Nazi one?
2. Where do you draw the line betwen shooting for, and shooting at( as in
dissedents)? How far are you willing to go to enforce a utopia? My
answer personally is only as far as it effects noone bnut me. IMO you can
only create a personal utopia, which defeats this discussion in some ways,
but then again, the originbal post never made any requirments for the
utopias.
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 15 20:59:00 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: the list
Date: Tue Mar 15 20:59:00 1994
you'll have to forgive me about the list, I've been very busy rapping thi
quater up[ at Tech, and I'll be gone for another week and a half on my
spring break--I think. here's a few for the list until then, if you still
care.
1. Didready say NORML
1. let me try that one again. did I already say NORML ?
2.
dam the lag!!!
2. TheJunoir Classical LEaguew
3. The society fo Wmone Engineerss--or Women Engineers if the computer
isn't lagging like hell. Okay, that's enough for now. this lag is gettingo
on my nerves!!!!!!!!!
Later...
Probalbly Much Laater...
cha-ching
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Mar 16 13:48:47 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: utopias, Those Brave New Wo
Date: Wed Mar 16 13:48:47 1994
1. I think that, although good and evil are subjective, a government has
to take some sort of stand and decide on certain absolutes to use. Once
the absolutes have been decided (hopefully through some fair process), the
goal of the utopia becomes clrified a bit. Unfortunately, this leaves out
or destroys other people's visions of the utopia.
I think that what politics is is arguing over whose definitions of good
and evil are correct. When one side has power, it pushes the development
of the country in that direction a little. Then when another group holds
power, the country moves towards that a little. What we end up with is a
cluster of semi-conflicting utopian collectives, none of which work
together especially well, but which make the people involved in them quite
happy. At least, that's where we are right now. I don't know how things
will go in the future.
2. Utopias should not be enforced, except to keep general order (violent
crime should be controlled, for example). Above all, nothing should be
enforced against dissenters, since a good utopia should have processes
extant to allow and to deal with dissent. If a utopia cannot stand the
power of dissent without becoming fearful, it is not a utopia at all.
JasonLee
From arachnoi@yabbs Sun Mar 20 16:10:37 1994
From: arachnoi@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Sun Mar 20 16:10:37 1994
[528][robtelee]
You, my dear person, are the one who needs practice. You make
assertions and then make no attempt to substantiate your "facts."
I don't know where you got your higher learning, but we were
required to show sources for any information we cited in a paper
or in a discussion. You want to prove something to me, you need
to show me where it is. If you will do that, then I will admit I
was incorrect in front of all here.
{Hahaha, Another Young Replublican! Your a big boy now, noone is
gonna give u any thing, except maybe the shaft for being so stupid.
If u want to be treated like a school boy, go hang out in Social
Misfits. Otherwise, the only way u are ever gonna learn anything is
"DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH". Come back when u have learned something.}
As for comparing the Democrats to Duke, Farrakhan, and Kahane,
where did that come from{go back and try reading the posts}. The
Democrats are well known to throw money at any problem that comes
along{or buying their way into the hearts of their constituants}.
Duke wanted to dis-enfranchise blacks. Farrakhan wants to dis-
enfranchise Jews and whites. Kahane wanted to "liquidate" any and
all Arabs. Democrats ?{YES, EVERY MOTHER'S SON OF THEM} Try
looking at a political spectrum sometime !{I did, they are or were
all card carring members of the Democratic party} These beliefs
belong to fascist organizations{EXACTLY!!!!}. The Democrats fully
support the pluralistic society{WRONG! Ask the Rainbow coallition
how pluralist they are} that are diametrically opposed{WRONG
AGAIN, THERE ARE ENCLUSIVE OF THE GROUPS I MENTIONED} to those of
the groups and individuals you mention.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Soviet form of govt
a Socialist form and isn't that a different form from communism ?
Also, i used that simile to show extremism from both ends of the
political spectrum. No offense meant.{hahaha, Are u so far left
and myopic that u see two EXTREME LEFT goverment types as an
extreme spectrum of left and right?}
This to clarify what i meant in my earlier post. Extremism was my
purpose. I was attempting to show arachnoi that it exists at both
ends of the political spectrum.{Well u failed}
From rick@yabbs Mon Mar 21 06:29:52 1994
From: rick@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: pardon me please
Date: Mon Mar 21 06:29:52 1994
i apologize for this small interruption but i am seeking information.
if there is any one out there that might be able help me i would
appreciate it. i am seek any information about the winchester .22cal rifle
known as a gallery gun. made in the early 1900's it was a pump action
weapon. i am looking for an approximate value and any other info i can get
please send all replies via yabbs e-mail
thank you for your time
rick
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Mar 21 23:28:33 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Mon Mar 21 23:28:33 1994
(nothing quoted, cuz I'm forced to use yucky DOS)
I think you kind of missed the point. Wasn't ching (or did someone say
this in a different post?) saying that Soviet communism wasn't really
communism the way Marx intended, and that they were more socialist/facist?
(My point of view is that political/economic systems that are based on
unskilled worker systems of economics are no longer any good.
Intelligence and high-tech ability and creativity are now important.)
JasonLee
From rick@yabbs Wed Mar 23 04:37:38 1994
From: rick@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: .22 pump
Date: Wed Mar 23 04:37:38 1994
thank you!!!
From Archon@yabbs Wed Mar 23 06:10:01 1994
From: Archon@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Wed Mar 23 06:10:01 1994
Im an ararchist punk. i create anarchy all the time with my freinds,
smashing the state where ever we go. I like what they ha goin in spain
in the thirties or whats his face from the ukraine in the 20s. snyndicate
of unions committees comunes, neighborhoods, hospitals, etc. with a
emphasisis on self-dependancy. boycott corporations.
From Archon@yabbs Wed Mar 23 06:12:45 1994
From: Archon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Wed Mar 23 06:12:45 1994
when the oil runs out america wont be able to function as it does now,
alot more than just poor people will starve, but if you dont depend on big
supermarkets for food, or you have enough stashed away then you might live
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Mar 24 23:35:09 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: soviet
Date: Thu Mar 24 23:35:09 1994
Well, on the subject of communism, everyone should go see Godard's "La
Chinoise." I saw it today, and I'm still not sure what it's all about,
but it's kind of all about communism...strange movie...
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Mar 24 23:39:02 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: brother
Date: Thu Mar 24 23:39:02 1994
Hm, one BBS I used to call talked alot about rational anarchy. Would you
call the Internet a rational anarchy? The only problem with them is that
it relies on the hope that the people in charge are smart and fair and
won't try to exert control over the other "states" in the organization.
JasonLee
From Zbadba@yabbs Sat Mar 26 23:33:35 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Rational Anarchy
Date: Sat Mar 26 23:33:35 1994
The internet is a example of "rational anarchy." It won't stay this way,
though. I predict within 2 years there will be a US federal gov't agency
to oversee the internet. I predict in 2 years 6 months, it will become a
mass media dominated pay-as-you-go turnpike, and then I will unplug my
computer from the wall, and weep. The glory days are gone already. This is
the beginning of the end.
From feotus@yabbs Sun Mar 27 12:06:43 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Rational Anarchy
Date: Sun Mar 27 12:06:43 1994
'this is the beggining of the end"
I would say it's another start. More poeple meansthat there are more
memes flying and data zooming. THe problem is your signla to noise raion
is gonna go all to shit. Just look at what has happened in like
alt.cyberpunk since aol got news acces. So many moe asswipes are going to
get in on the shit. BUT then again so many more people with good ideas and
great concepts are gonna get on too. The big thing is that as soon as
this sucker get's a larger amount of people on it,you can bet your sweet
ass that advertisers are gonna flock too it. I mean what better place to
advertise than the net where you have the wealthier, more hip portion of
the culture waiting already. All I am going to say is your ass better be
damn damn good at programming filters for mail news etc... Otherwise
youll get flooded off and loose it.
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Mar 27 17:56:26 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Sun Mar 27 17:56:26 1994
when the oil runs out america wont be able to function as it does now,
alot more than just poor people will starve, but if you dont depend on big
supermarkets for food, or you have enough stashed away then you might live
I'm not sure if I can agree with this statement. It seems to cut
resources a bit short. Yes, we use oil for just about all our energy
needs. This is mainly due to the fact that we've already done the R&D for
it though. There are plenty of alternative energy resources we haven't
begun to tap. Personally, I wish the damned oil would run out. It'd
force the US to pay for the R&D and the conversions necessary
for implementing new resource technologies.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Mar 27 18:01:37 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Rational Anarchy
Date: Sun Mar 27 18:01:37 1994
The internet is a example of "rational anarchy." It won't stay this way,
though. I predict within 2 years there will be a US federal gov't agency
to oversee the internet.
The US Federal govt. CAN'T control the internet. While it may be
powerful, the internet is worldwide. Many of those sites are owned by
private companies and foreign governments. If the US attempts to control
and oversee their protion of the internet it'll make a lot of
otheres uneasy. If they get uneasy and sever internet ties with the US
than most every company who owns a politician will be jumping down
congress' throat. Since it hasn't been attempted yet, this is merely an
hypothesis, not a fact. But, I feel it's a likely one.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From issachar@yabbs Sun Mar 27 21:11:28 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: archon@yabbs
Subject: re
Date: Sun Mar 27 21:11:28 1994
be leary of those who make claims such as, "i'm a ..." i suppose you would
enjoy the widespread poverty and exetremely poor standard of living that
went w/ spain and the ukraine during those times. self-dependency is
impossible, for, as even Hobbes conceeded, humans are social creatures.
would it be possible for you to live completely by your own labors? doubt
it, and any line you draw saying that dependence on this is ok and on this
is not would be completely arbitrary, so i don't see how you can criticize
our system on those grounds.
From issachar@yabbs Sun Mar 27 21:14:34 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: archon@yabbs
Subject: re
Date: Sun Mar 27 21:14:34 1994
when oil runs out from foriegn countries, we will maximize our output from
alaska and texas. when those too are empty, solar energy, natural gas, ans
synthetic fuels will begin to get their fair share of use in the places we
depend upon oil now.
how is a supermarket directly dependent upon oil for the prices of food?
From issachar@yabbs Sun Mar 27 21:16:05 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re:brother-yeah right!
Date: Sun Mar 27 21:16:05 1994
i think that if anarchy broke out, me and mine would kill every person
that agitated me in any way.
From issachar@yabbs Sun Mar 27 21:17:22 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: jasonlee@yabbs
Subject: re
Date: Sun Mar 27 21:17:22 1994
right on, sunshine!
are you a philosopher?
From issachar@yabbs Sun Mar 27 21:21:56 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re
Date: Sun Mar 27 21:21:56 1994
in the course of western philosophy it has been hotly debated as to
whether people can rule themselves. people like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes,
Locke, and Mill didn't think it was possible, and they have a plethora of
arguments as to why they think it wouldn't work. i won't hash those
arguments up here, but you should take a look at Plato's Republic,
Aristotle's Politics and especially Tomas Hobbes' Leviathan. perhaps you
could then make a convincing case for anarchy since you assert that it
would be the best case "government"!
From ching@yabbs Mon Mar 28 09:26:27 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Mon Mar 28 09:26:27 1994
Once again, a fine demonstration of ignorance, only this time you're
taking on the kommunists and not the democrats. Have you been so well
duped by the conservative propaganda of this government that you believe
kommunists are fascist blood thirsty barbarians--unlike our
own citizens(yeah, right).
I'm not even sure where to start with you about clearing up your
misconceptions of Marxists principals. Sure, they are flawed in some very
important areas, but you aren't even close with your analysis. Why don't
you try this: go to your local library--ask a friend where it is--find a
copy of the communist Manifesto--or perhaps Das Kapital if you're an
ardent reader(I doubt this)--read the book(or books), then come back with
a more educated opinion. Or, if you're too lazy to do that, then I'll be
happy to tell you what I know some other time.
ching
From ching@yabbs Mon Mar 28 09:45:13 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Mon Mar 28 09:45:13 1994
Actually stud, I'm a member of the majority power holders in this country.
I am a white, strait, anglo-saxon male. I believe in God and I don't go
around causing others troubles, or breaking laws. I'm in college and I'm
not a Democrat. I read 1984--I really wonder if you did--and it scares the
hell out of me. I'm basically a Libertarian--Not officially though. I
believe that therepeople are incapable of knowing right or wrong and
incapable of understanding our complex world, and no one has the
answers--just geusses. Every great person in history thought he had the
answers and was probalbly a fool for it--Marx, Nietzche, Hitler, Julius
Caeser and Jesus all probalbly fumbled.
I am the last person who wants to see a Orwellian society in place. I
wish you were on my side, but you don't even know what you are talking
about. You know what kept Oceania the way it was--Orwell said it
himself--it was the preservation of the class system. Along with that was
extreme patriotism and racism. I don't believe in preserving the class
system, and I don't practice racism. If any group blacks, arabs, gays,
atheists, communists, or whatever want the full rights of citizenship in
this country, I'm all for it. Can you say the same? Can you say that you
are against the class system and racism, or are you the fascist,
stereotyping little punk that you seem to be with your irrational tirades
against the Democrats adn the Kommunsists.
ching
From ching@yabbs Mon Mar 28 10:01:08 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Rational Anarchy
Date: Mon Mar 28 10:01:08 1994
Come on, is that it? Is that al the great arachnoi is pinning his hopes
on? I keep getting the feeling that you are a waste of good grey matter.
ching
From ching@yabbs Mon Mar 28 10:01:56 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Rational Anarchy
Date: Mon Mar 28 10:01:56 1994
finally someone with some foresight!!
From Xela@yabbs Mon Mar 28 10:39:16 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: issachar@yabbs
Subject: supermarkets and energy
Date: Mon Mar 28 10:39:16 1994
you said:
"how is a supermarket directly dependent upon oil for the prices of food?
"
Well, I can think of a number of things which make supermarkets dependent
on oil, and a more expensive oil would be reflected in the price of the
food it sells. For example, all the plastic packaging which the
supermarket uses (not even the packaging for processed food) for bagging,
for meat packaging, for bakery packaging, for milk bottles, etc etc. Then
there are the costs of running open refrigerators which hold frozen and
refrigerated goods...that consumes massive amounts of energy, which is
directly related to the cost of oil. If the price were to increase, in
order to make the All-Godly profit the sprmkt. would without a doubt raise
food prices in concert.
Let me know if this seems too far-fetched, but I think that is why.
Alex
From Xela@yabbs Mon Mar 28 10:44:38 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: ah..wait a sec
Date: Mon Mar 28 10:44:38 1994
"You know what kept Oceania the way it was--Orwell said it
himself--it was the preservation of the class system. Along with that was
extreme patriotism and racism."
^^^^^^^
Racism? I have a hold of a hardbound edition which I seriously doubt is
abridged in any way. Could you please point to the pages which make any
reference to racism as a mechanism for the preservation of the State?
Perhaps you are mixing Brave New World with 1984, but 1984 never made any
mention of subjugation of races.
-Alex
From issachar@yabbs Mon Mar 28 17:06:25 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: supermarkets and energy
Date: Mon Mar 28 17:06:25 1994
yes, after i thought about it you are right. i used to work for a major
food chain so i had to laugh when i saw that. but my comments about
alternative energy sources still apply. ;)
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 29 12:04:55 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: supermarkets and energy
Date: Tue Mar 29 12:04:55 1994
also, don't forget the cost of bringing the food to the store in trucks
planes, boats, rockets, catpults, whatever...
later
chingt
From ching@yabbs Tue Mar 29 12:14:43 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: ah..wait a sec
Date: Tue Mar 29 12:14:43 1994
oh contrare! It's been about a year since I read 1984--maybe longer, but
there are two events that I can think of right off the bat. first , in the
book that winston is given--it's by goldstein, right?--there is a
complete explanation of how Oceania works. One of the pillars of this
society, it says, is the extreme provinciality. there is no communications
between Oceania, eastasia, and Eurasia--not for the lower and middle
class, at least--and the status quo is kept by the constant state of war
between them. And as we all know war brings racism, and patriotism--now if
youdon't agree with the term racism, then let's just say hate. the
goldstein book even says something directly about racial hate--and when I
say racial, I mainly mean between citizens of the different nations.
The other instance is much more subtle. During Hate Week--or maybe
just before--the government has a public hanging of some of the enemy's
soldiers. The soldiers receive jeers and slurrs from the hateful crowd.
Why? because they are the enemy. Why are they the enemy? because they are
different.
ching
From issachar@yabbs Tue Mar 29 20:56:19 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Tue Mar 29 20:56:19 1994
yes, your first point isright to the point thank you very much. i don not
think that humans are capable of the second alternative that you have
proposed, but that is my position, i really cant back it up w/ an
argument, but like i said, see thomas hobbes' leviathan.
your answer to the energy problem is good, i have to give you credit, but
it applies to either the state we are in now or your ideal anarchist
state, so do YOU have any answers to it? also youu cannnot take into
account any radical new developments in this field! but then again
neither can anyone else...
From Xela@yabbs Tue Mar 29 23:29:18 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: well
Date: Tue Mar 29 23:29:18 1994
I have read the book many times, and I still believe that the book makes
no reference to racism. Hatred, yes. Racism, no. You can interprete
scenes of hatred as racism, but then again anybody can claim hatred is
manifested in other means, such as hatred of different sexxual
preferences, or religion (as the bookk mentioned, Goldstein was remarked
as having a "Jewish" facial characteristics, as if his relgion was
something to be defiled). Hatred shows itself in many forms in 1984, but
I do not be,lieve that racism is one of those forms.
But not to nit-pick your main point, which was that hatred is one
mechanism for the preservation of totalitarian State. Which I agree with.
:)
-Alex
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Mar 30 18:25:55 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: issachar@yabbs
Subject: re: re:brother-yeah right!
Date: Wed Mar 30 18:25:55 1994
issachar said:
i think that if anarchy broke out, me and mine would kill every person
that agitated me in any way.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is why I don't like anarchy.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Mar 30 18:28:33 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: issachar@yabbs
Subject: re: re
Date: Wed Mar 30 18:28:33 1994
issachar said:
right on, sunshine!
are you a philosopher?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Just an amateur...
What did I say anyway to acquire the nickname "sunshine"? :)
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Mar 30 18:34:48 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: ah..wait a sec
Date: Wed Mar 30 18:34:48 1994
Xela said:
Racism? I have a hold of a hardbound edition which I seriously doubt is
abridged in any way. Could you please point to the pages which make any
reference to racism as a mechanism for the preservation of the State?
Perhaps you are mixing Brave New World with 1984, but 1984 never made any
mention of subjugation of races.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you're right. If you want an example of a distopian story that
covers class, race, politics, and class, try Margaret Atwood's The
Handmaid's Tale. To me, that view of the future is thousands of times
more likely to occur than 1984. Also, Somebody Zamyatin, a russian, wrote
a book called We that described a future society based entirely on
mathematics. The Handmaid's Tale seemed the most dangerous and immediate
future, though.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Mar 30 18:39:11 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Wed Mar 30 18:39:11 1994
Arachnoi said:
Right on!!!!!!!!!!!! Now can u stick to those ideas when some group comes
along and says, "You had better advantages than me, so give me special
privileges to even up the score."? And can you separate your opinions
about the vocal movements for privilege from the people they claim to
represent? I can. It seems u can't.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Once again, you make absolutely no distinction between natural and
consitutional rights and special privileges. Are you sure that you don't
harbor some irrational and emotional distaste for these groups, and that
you cast off their desires as "special privileges" instead of rights?
Please give a nice concrete example of how you decide that these groups
want "special privileges" and not just rights that have been denied until
now.
JasonLee
From ching@yabbs Thu Mar 31 01:47:54 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Mar 31 01:47:54 1994
Your little soapbox over communism was very profound--I give you an A for
that(communism is a lboody revelotion followed by a tyrranical period
befor the Utopia, which I don't have fatih in)--but you have it the wrong
perspective tunderstand what the marxist is thinking. You see the marxist
sees in history some 5, 000 years or so tha feudal and Capitalistic
systems has brought murde and suffering to the masses. He sees how
peasants were made to be slaves, raped, bought and asold, sent to die in
wars for maney. The Marxists sees this and thinkiks to himself, "HMMM.
Perhaps if I were to kill off alll the capitalists in the world and all
their allies and set up a communisrst system, then there will be no more
war, murder, rape, and slavery. Sure, the transitionwill be very bloody,
many will die, but that number is grossly outweighed by the number that
have suffered and will suffer under capitalism"
ching
From ching@yabbs Thu Mar 31 01:51:22 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Mar 31 01:51:22 1994
me flaming new ideas? let me ask you how long your gonna cling to that
silly idea--how long have you already? Look, you said yourself it's
something like thrirty years old. I hardly call that a New Idea. Whhy
don't you go invest you r time into looking for new theories and answers,
instead of taking them from some old text. There are plenty of fresher
insights in the world.
ching
From ching@yabbs Thu Mar 31 01:56:11 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: well
Date: Thu Mar 31 01:56:11 1994
Well, I really think that it all relates mainly to how people perceive the
world racism. For a long time rascism was tconsidered a word that
described hatred between othere nations. dI don't want to fight over the
meaning of the word--that's a waste of time--and I think you see waht I'm
taliing abouut anyway/ I am going back through lingual analysis ideas
right now to see what they say about this type of disagreement/
later,
shing
From issachar@yabbs Thu Mar 31 17:14:46 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: re:brother-yeah right!
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:14:46 1994
well iwas speaking off the cuff. im not violent, id be one of the first to
die...
From issachar@yabbs Thu Mar 31 17:15:14 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: re
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:15:14 1994
i like your train of thought.
From issachar@yabbs Thu Mar 31 17:30:28 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re:reading in political phi
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:30:28 1994
assuming that anarchy submits all soveriegn power to the people themselves
what exactly does that mean? "no system is fullydemocratic unless
citizens have the open ability to defend their own ideas and criticize the
policies of others... (contemporary philosophy XIII;11.1). well how then
do we decide upon projects that forces the people of a geographic area to
cooperate? (dams, power plant, bridges, roads,etc.) many of these projects
incorporate funds and manpower from a rather large geographical area, but
in an anarchist system, one wqould have no obligation to support such
projects. how would you propose to
"get things done?"
now, anarchy is based upon the principle that people are capable of, and
have the right to decide what is best for themselves, or their own
interest (tell me where does these "right" come from, can you give an
argument?). now in a anarchist society, who in the hell is going to
settle disputes between two people's best interests??? no government, no
judges to decide! For example, say a road must be built from one city to
another for some reason or another. say i do not want that road to cross
my property. noone can force me to give up my land, yet in the interests
of all people, the road would be a god send. who's interests are greater
and who can decide that? noone, so how can society progress?
i'd really love to know where any kind of 'right' that a person has, comes
from... any takers???
From Xela@yabbs Thu Mar 31 17:43:29 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: issachar@yabbs
Subject: re: re:reading in political phi
Date: Thu Mar 31 17:43:29 1994
"....the road would be a godsend. who's interests are greater and who can
decide that? noone, so how can society progress?"
Depends what you consider progress to be...
If you think having a highway run though your yard is progress, if you
think having heavy-metal and radioactive waste in your backyard is
progress, then by all means have an authoritarian govt. slapping you
around to tell you what to do...
Progress doesn't neccessarily mean more of xyz (industry, roads,
consumer goods) at least in my honest opinion. Read Peter's Principle and
you'll see what progress means in today's society...
-Alex
From issachar@yabbs Thu Mar 31 18:50:57 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: re:reading in political phi
Date: Thu Mar 31 18:50:57 1994
im thinking in terms of the progress of the entire human race. that isn't
the point of myargument, although. for lack of a better example, just take
this one for granted. the problem i outlined still stands!
--iss
From JasonLee@yabbs Fri Apr 1 02:41:55 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: issachar@yabbs
Subject: re: re:brother-yeah right!
Date: Fri Apr 1 02:41:55 1994
issachar said:
well iwas speaking off the cuff. im not violent, id be one of the first to
die...
++++++++
Me too. That's why I get mad when people talk about how wonderful
anarchy would be. You just need one crazy, and there's no system to
punish him or prevent further acts of violence. Except, of course, for
the good old death penalty.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Apr 1 15:58:27 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Fri Apr 1 15:58:27 1994
Only one problem with the concept of everyone being capable of destroying
the earth. We'd all be dead ny now. The theory lies on the presumption
that We're all rational beings who would use the device simply as a
deterrent. If just one person thought it would be a great way to commit
suicide or was just simply insane and couldn't rationalize the effects of
their actions, then we'd all die. Sure, we could decide who got to have
the "ray-gun", but isn't that what we do right now? In fairness, I'd
assume I missed something as most of your post recently have been fairly
sound. So please explain this "ray-gun" theory a bit more.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Apr 1 18:55:18 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Fri Apr 1 18:55:18 1994
Sounds extremely fascist. Not that I mind though, I'm a fascist myself.
However, it doesn't seem to be an anarchistic setup. But hell the grounds
between the two often gets shaky. If you act against someone who seeks a
conflicting goal from your own, then it's anarchistic many times.
However, if you act against that person with some other, like-minded
individuals then it appears to become fascism. But to the point, it
doesn't seem like pure anarchy. It seems more like resting the power from
the present holders and turning it over to a regime of technocrats with
equal authority amongst themselves. It kind of reminds me of the old
Soviet party regime (although, admittedly, they didn't have near as much
power to destroy arbitrarily without the rest of the party's consent).
As far as an elite force to weed out the unfit...God, I don't know whether
to applaud or cringe. There's nothing I'd like better than to be able to
weed out a lot of dead weight from the planet. Unfortunately, I wouldn't
trust anyone but myself to decide who's to be removed (yes, I'm
egotistical enough to think my decisions would be best, after all I am a
fascist :-)But how could we decide who's to decide who needs to be
removed? I think part of the problem is that any such action brings up
less than fond memories of the holocaust. Of course, killing isn't really
necessary. Plato thought anyone who's not productive should just be
"kicked over the city wall". I guess I just don't see how anyone could
implement such a program in the name of 'good'. Granted, it doesn't need
to be implemented for any moral objective, but I don't think most people
would support it without at least the illusion of morality as a driving
factor.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Fri Apr 1 21:42:14 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Fri Apr 1 21:42:14 1994
"Only one problem with the concept of everyone being capable of destroying
the earth. We'd all be dead ny now. The theory lies on the presumption
that We're all rational beings who would use the device simply as a
deterrent."
I wonder, have you read Fail Safe?
-Alex
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Apr 2 01:35:53 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: special privs
Date: Sat Apr 2 01:35:53 1994
Um, I said natural AND constitutional rights. You can put down the first
as unenforcable, but the second stands. Now, answer the question I asked,
please. Is your distaste for the people you suggest utterly unbiased, or
do you have preconceived feelings about certain groups that cause you to
cast off their desires as "special privileges"?
Oh, I do like your example, though. I would agree that the funding of
their school is probably unconsitutional. But, it is unfair to just say
that since they want the school for Hasidic kids, then it must be a
special privilege. Are all these kids from the same area of the city? If
so, aren't the parents' tax dollars paying for public schools that their
kids either aren't going to or aren't getting the help they need at? If
it comes down to a decision where they've chosen to build a new school (or
program) because the other facilities happen to be inadequate (I'm talking
about physical, not religious care here), then the school might stand as
a "right" or lawful and constituional. If, though, there are other
schools that could just as easily take care of the kids, then the school
is probably illegal. If the reality lies somewhere between these two, the
judges get to decide, not us.
How are white men excluded from being hired at the FBI? I hope you've
chosen your word "exclude" carefully...
JasonLee
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Apr 2 02:38:54 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: special privs
Date: Sat Apr 2 02:38:54 1994
I am familiar with the story regarding the school and the Hasidic Jews.
To the best of my knowledge, the entire township is made up of Hasidic
Jews. They wanted a school for their retarded children that was in line
with their beliefs. The news media focused on that aspect the story.
As for the discrimination against white males in the F.B.I., I am afraid I
have not heard about that one. Maybe arachnoi will "enlighten" us and
give us the source for that little tidbit of information (if he can).
robtelee
From ching@yabbs Sat Apr 2 04:11:29 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: flames
Date: Sat Apr 2 04:11:29 1994
very good point--let's btring in some new things for the people to think
about--Communism really has some bugs in it. That's why it's been shelfed
all over the worlod.
ching
From ching@yabbs Sat Apr 2 04:14:54 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: dripping in blood kommunist
Date: Sat Apr 2 04:14:54 1994
Perhaps. It's all in how you look at it. You see it your way, and plently
of commies see it their way. But I really wouldn't worry abnout communism
for at least another 20 to 30 years--at the very least.
ching
From laelth@yabbs Sat Apr 2 04:21:35 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: special privs
Date: Sat Apr 2 04:21:35 1994
I'd like to ask arachnoi a few questions, and by the way, I'm not really
interested in arachnoi's response. These are open questions:
Where do you get all this "raw, factual data" that you spew?
How do you find the time to write all these posts?
Do you have a life?
Do you have any friends?
Do you even have a job?
Or is someone paying you to monitor this base and respond with this
propaganda?
Or is it "none of the above"?
Come on, folks, lets explore this question. Why, exactly, is arachnoi
such a bitter, disgruntled, and disturbed person?
In a state of profound curiosity,
-laelth
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Apr 2 04:24:14 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: special privs
Date: Sat Apr 2 04:24:14 1994
Thank You kind sir...You ask some VERY relevant questions. I would like
to see the answers to those questions my self.
robtelee
From laelth@yabbs Sat Apr 2 04:46:25 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: my pleasure
Date: Sat Apr 2 04:46:25 1994
Why thank you, it's always nice to know that there are other
intelligent and curious people out there, but there was one question that
I forgot to ask:
Why are we wasting our time responding to arachnoi's arguments?
I mean, it's the same thing over, and over again. How many times is
he going to tell us that over 50% of the world's population lived under
kommunism? How many times must Ching say (Russian communism isn't
Marxist communism. Russian communism was totalitarianism (Stalinism).)?
Face it people. Arachnoi just doesn't get is it.
-laelth
From feotus@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:07:12 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: ouch
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:07:12 1994
this board is biting it hard guys
sounding like a bunch of psuedo-intellectual beatnick anarchist debator
wannabes
oh well
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:10:11 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: up against the wall
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:10:11 1994
arachnoi said:
{As Ching inferred in msg 594, some societies have no need or desire for
certain types of ppl. Sounds like u think u will be one of the first to
get blown away ;) }
+++++++++++++++++++++
I know that smiley is there, but this really annoys me. I'm a writer,
hoping to make movies eventually. So, mainly I use my imagination. Is
that essential to the world? Should I be killed just because I don't want
to build bridges or roads or something? In Schindler's List, this was
described pretty neatly, where Jews who were teachers or artists or
musicians were classified as non-essential and promptly sent off to camps.
I don't especially want that to happen.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:13:54 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: dripping in blood kommunist
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:13:54 1994
arachnoi said:
{Isn't amazing how the things we detest, we learn to
embrace. As I said before, over half the world was under
the jackboots of kommunmism in the 80's, none were
progressing to that utopia, but all were stuck in a rut
of 'war, murder, rape, and slavery'. They all had become
the thing that they had set out to destroy.}
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But, didn't we ask the question before about whether or not these
countries were really communist? Were they following pure Marxist
principles or had they abandoned some of the ideals for short-term
solutions (which turned into long-term problems)? If they don't really
fit pure communism, then you can't classify them as communist.
You of all people shoulld agree with this, after saying that David Duke
was a democrat even though he ran on the republican ticket. Just because
something carries a certain label does not mean the label is accurate.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:18:34 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:18:34 1994
arachnoi said:
I don't think I can extrapolate all the theorys about the progression to
the final anarchy with posts on here, but alot of them plan a progression
to that state that also eliminates the crazys up front. In otherwords,
only the technocrats would get it first. And among them there would be an
elite secret group to go around and squelch the dangerous.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is there to stop the elite secret group from destroying non-dangerous
people, people who like different colors or music or food or who want to
have abortions or who want to have sex with people of the same sex? How
is this group kept in line?
Is there a super-elite, super-secret group to police them?
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:22:24 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:22:24 1994
maedhros said:
Plato thought anyone who's not productive should just be "kicked over the
city wall". I guess I just don't see how anyone could implement such a
program in the name of 'good'. Granted, it doesn't need to be implemented
for any moral objective, but I don't think most people would support it
without at least the illusion of morality as a driving factor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There was a short story by either Arthur C. Clarke or Heinlein that talked
about a society like this. It concerns a young man who has somehow defied
the strict social laws of society, so he gets kicked out into the outside,
where there is no government, and no protection. I don't remember the
final outcome, though. I think it made the point that even some sort of
protective government is better than none at all.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:26:41 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: special privs
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:26:41 1994
laelth said:
Do you have a life?
Do you have any friends?
Do you even have a job?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now this really isn't fair. I don't especially like arachnoi, but to
question his lifestyle is completely unfair. That's the same kind of
argument he might use against someone else, so it is off-limits.
laelth also said:
Why, exactly, is arachnoi such a bitter, disgruntled, and disturbed
person?
+++++++++++
Now, this is an acceptable question. If he has some weird sort of life
history that would explain his not-so-nice beliefs, then I think we'd like
to know it.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 3 15:29:58 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Sun Apr 3 15:29:58 1994
feotus said:
this board is biting it hard guys sounding like a bunch of
psuedo-intellectual beatnick anarchist debator wannabes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh shut up! OK everyone, lets just post messages saying "Yeah, dude.
Anarchy is cool....yeah...anarchy! I hate the government!"
Discussing anarchy brings up all sorts of sub-topics, and if you can't
handle the extraneous material, you can go somewhere else and praise it
without thinking about it all you want.
This is a semi-academic topic. It's pointless to just take some action in
favor of anarchy (or anything) without having thought about the
consequences.
Sheesh.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Apr 3 18:40:09 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Sun Apr 3 18:40:09 1994
Maybe...maybe not. But tell me, how did you achieve such an advanced
intellectual capacity which allows you to see everyone for what they are?
Seems to me that the only person justified in calling everone else a bunch
of pseudo-intellectual wannabes would have to be a hyper-intellectual
"is-be". Or is this a meager attempt at trying to poster as an
intellectual by stating that you've transcended all these feeble debates?
Perhaps we have a pseudo-intellectual wannabe trying to impress everybody?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \ "Those who talk the most, normally know the least."
-Maedhros' philosophy professor
From Xela@yabbs Mon Apr 4 11:38:26 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: funny thing...
Date: Mon Apr 4 11:38:26 1994
"Maybe...maybe not. But tell me, how did you achieve such an advanced
intellectual capacity which allows you to see everyone for what they are?
Seems to me that the only person justified in calling everone else a bunch
of pseudo-intellectual wannabes would have to be a hyper-intellectual
"is-be". Or is this a meager attempt at trying to poster as an
intellectual by stating that you've transcended all these feeble debates?
Perhaps we have a pseudo-intellectual wannabe trying to impress everybody?
"
Funny thing I read somewhere: "Those of you who think you know it all
annoy the hell out of us who do."
-Alex
From issachar@yabbs Mon Apr 4 12:49:56 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: phuck all anarchists
Date: Mon Apr 4 12:49:56 1994
well, what if i believe that something other than life is the most
extrordinary thing in the universe? do you have access to all the
knowledge of the universe? then how can you assert that life is the most
extraordinary thing? if you believe in God, then He is the most
extraordinary thing, and your reunion with Him in heaven is second on the
list of extraordinary things, duh! if you don't beleive in God, then
perhaps you do think that highly of your own life, but not necc. so,
because you could believe in someother high power.
and besides, rights do not come neccesarily from extraordinary life. and
if they do, you havn't made the connection clear to me.
phuck you too.
From issachar@yabbs Mon Apr 4 12:51:04 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 12:51:04 1994
you must not be intellectual, jealous much?
From feotus@yabbs Mon Apr 4 12:57:38 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 12:57:38 1994
you flame to soon JasonLee
it's not that I dont mind the extranuous topics, because hell they arent
even extrenuous, but w're not even talking about anything here. most of
it is just one-upping one another and then THINKING you've discussed
stuff.
oh well
From feotus@yabbs Mon Apr 4 13:00:16 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 13:00:16 1994
"perhaps you're a psuedo-intellectual wannabe trying to impress everyone"
1. i never said I transcended it
2. your logic fails because it can reciprocate unto yourself, you
psuedo-intellectual wannabe that must have rised above me to call me
that.. geesh
like I said in the post to JasonLee it's not that I dont like talking
about stuff, but just like this post Im writing now, and the post the
prompted it and the one before that ad nauseum, it's nothing more thana
bunch of one-upmanship.
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Apr 4 13:42:54 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 13:42:54 1994
>1. i never said I transcended it
Never said you did say it. I said it was necessary for your opinion to be
worth much. If you don't then you had no business saying it in the first
place.
>2. your logic fails because it can reciprocate unto yourself, you
psuedo-intellectual wannabe that must have rised above me to call me
that.. geesh
Wrong friend. Somehow I'm not seeing any parallels whatsoever between my
saying your statement was pretentious and you assuming yourself capable of
evaluating the writings of the entire board. Anyway, I'm not looking to
make a drawn out flame war out of it. Just don't appreciate someone
jumping into the middle of an ongoing debate to show his ass and look
cool. If it's stupid, drop the board. If I remember correctly, none of
the post aside from the ones you've attracted these last few days were
addressed to you anyway. So if you want to join in a discussion, please
feel free to jump in. If not, make silly remarks elsewhere please.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Apr 4 13:47:57 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Mon Apr 4 13:47:57 1994
Only problem...well it's actually not a problem per se...it doesn't sound
like an anarchy. A technocracy peeks my interest, but wasn't the original
idea you were supporting anarchy?It sounds awful totalitarian to me.
While the technocrats themselves seem to enjoy quite a bit of freedom, it
seems that it would extend to a relatively minor percentage of the
population.Perhaps I've just jumped to a lot of false assumptions. We're
you driving at more of an authoritarian govt. run by an anarchistic
minority?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Mon Apr 4 16:16:17 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 16:16:17 1994
ooh! well arent' you just god's gift to debate, Mr. Buckley. Well, why
don't you show us the way, tough guy.
ching
From Xela@yabbs Mon Apr 4 16:43:43 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Mon Apr 4 16:43:43 1994
"Xela, although the capillary discharge X-ray laser doesn't meet the
criteria taht it can be made in the basement from cleaning supplies,
knowedble individuals can make it when the plasma recombination probs are
fixed. In otherwords there are Rayguns being developed. What do you do
now?"
I hand the loony bin my membership card and sail the seas of cheese.
Thank you very much! Next!
From feotus@yabbs Mon Apr 4 17:00:51 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 17:00:51 1994
hehe, but dearrrrrrrr I HAVE participated in this board, and I DID drop it
before, I was just checking in again, and not much has changed.
and no being part of it does not make my statement about it worthless, if
so, than we'de never wake form the safe paradigms, and we'de keep hitting
our heads against walls.
From feotus@yabbs Mon Apr 4 17:01:45 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: ouch
Date: Mon Apr 4 17:01:45 1994
"why don toyu just show us the way"
now what kinda statement is that for an anarchist to make?
hehe
your chains are toooo easy to pull
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Apr 4 17:51:05 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: don't phuck with anachists
Date: Mon Apr 4 17:51:05 1994
arachnoi said:
Let's face it. The first person to come up with the RAYGUN will have total
control. Then if it is distributed only those with ability enough to make
it will be able to participate. The technocrats of course. Finally, the
orginal conspirators will have a vested interest in doing some quick
weeding before things get too out of hand, and someone weeds them ;)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Does that mean there can't be any crazy technocrats? Intelligent people
can also be very evil, and very insane. Once the raygun exists, it will
quickly be copied and spread through the whole world UNLESS their is some
type of governmental control. That type of control is impossible of
course, because the means of control would be to use the raygun.
Things get out of hand too quickly no matter what, especially in cases
involving rayguns.
JasonLee
From Xela@yabbs Tue Apr 5 11:11:38 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: goddamn it...
Date: Tue Apr 5 11:11:38 1994
I used to have respect for you people... :)
Rayguns? Where the hell does this come out of? A sci-fi novel? Let's
not be like the MUDders and lose track with reality...
As usual, my opinionated opinion...
Alex
From feotus@yabbs Tue Apr 5 19:12:22 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: rayguns
Date: Tue Apr 5 19:12:22 1994
swithc rayguns with internett
think about it, many to many global communications at a very low cost
relativly speaking that is.
every computer is a printing press
every computer is a publisher
the many are the media, no longer monopolized by the few and powerful
MEDIAGODS
only prob is, getting as many people as possible acces to it
cant rememebr who said it but
"when everyman can read, and the press is truly free, than man is safe"
or some variation thereof.
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Apr 5 22:58:33 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: rayguns
Date: Tue Apr 5 22:58:33 1994
The quote I believe you're thinking of is by Frederick Douglass:
Something like:
"Once you learn to read, forever will you be free."
I think that's how it goes.
Oh, Mega-sorporations still control much more of the media than do
we little subversives. :) At last count, the number of comanies was
around 24 and falling...
JasonLee
From Trace@yabbs Wed Apr 6 06:45:35 1994
From: Trace@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: graffiti/tagging
Date: Wed Apr 6 06:45:35 1994
Anyone out there do graffiti or tag?
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 7 13:08:42 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Apr 7 13:08:42 1994
arachnoi said:
{After the smoke clears, and the original crazies are wiped out, then it
is Mutual Assured Destruction MAD for all. No longer is it one country
pitted against another, but all mankind is capable of total retaliation.
Under such a culture of vendetta, family and friends become very important
elements of survival. The threat that someone's brother could blow u away
in the night for what u did to someone, becomes a very civilizing force.}
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, it doesn't. In such situations people end up not caring whether
they live or die. Check out inner city gang members. Do they really
believe that no one will retaliate against them for some murder. No, it's
expected that you'll be killed in a horrible, sad way. Have gang wars
made anyone more civilized because they've been living under a death
threat? I doubt it.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 7 13:11:53 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Apr 7 13:11:53 1994
arachnoi said:
Rights aren't real. They are changed or suspended at the whim of
government.
+++++++++++
Well, it depends on how the government establishes those rights. The US
Constitution and the declaration of independence make it clear that people
already possess several rights. Those documents just try to list them all
in case they are in danger of being taken away. Whether it does this
successfully or not is not what I'm talking about.
Anyway, the main idea in US gov't is that the rights existed before the
government.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 7 13:19:45 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply1
Date: Thu Apr 7 13:19:45 1994
arachnoi said:
What a loaded question! Again I say U have confused my detest for
political demands by appropriations junkies, that would screw us all for
their own personal gain, with the race of the ppl that make such demands.
I have many friends and acquaintances from all the races and religions
that U claim I HATE. And U assume I'm not a member of one of these
groups." U wouldn't be looking for a hook to apply any of your possible
latent Race Baiting desires on, now would you? Not that U would have any.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was just wondering, since it hels to know a person's background when
arguing with them. I'm not exactly sure where your biases lie, yet.
Maybe in the past, you got some girl pregnant, and you wanted her to keep
the baby, but she had an abortion, so now you oppose abortion. Or maybe
she had the baby, but gave it up for adoption and a gay couple adopted it.
So maybe then you'd dislike homosexuals. These are just examples - I'm
not assuming anything. ;) It's just interesting to see why a
person the way they do.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 7 13:27:08 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply1
Date: Thu Apr 7 13:27:08 1994
arachnoi said:
Aren't the other families in the same
school district tax payers too? Doesn't the school system
have a fiduciary responsibility to provide equal level of
services to ALL members of the school district? When a
middle class Black Family with a handicapped child moves
into the area, what are u gonna tell them? They are the
wrong race and religion so they can't attend the local
school, but have to go elsewhere?}
If u can't see the special privileges, I'll list them
1) A school sperate from the ones the school district
provides for everyone else, especially other races, using
funds that would normally help all the children.
2) A school that excludes all but Hasidic jewish children
3) A publicly supported school that has a religious
curriculum, where other schools can't even have a prayer
in class, and administrators have a fit when the students
talk about having a Bible Club.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First off, I said that I did think the school was unconstitutional. I
just wanted to look at arguments from the other side.
I see your point, but I guess I was thinking that everyone in the district
was Hasidic. Oh! On point 2), are Hasidic kids excluded? Have any
nonHasidim tried sending their kids there? That would be an interesting
thing to look at before making a decision. If there's a Hasidic
curriculum, and non-Hasidim want their kids to follow it, will they be
shut out?
Actually, point 3) is the one I most oppose. Teaching of religion
anywhere outside of family life is absolutely unconstitutional in my view
(except in colleges, etc. Don't be picky). People just seem to forget
about that separation of church and state sometimes. It's really too bad.
Wait, maybe I should retract my unconditional condemnation of religion.
It might be okay to discuss religion in various world history classes. I
just mean that I don't want religion taught TO kids. That's it.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 7 13:30:22 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply2
Date: Thu Apr 7 13:30:22 1994
arachnoi said:
{My first point was: that with so many Kommunist countries and groups in
the world in the 80's, more than half the world was involved, is not 1
legitimate enough to be called Communist? Are they all just
Bait-and-Switch Hucksters/tyrants? My second point was: Is this due an
intrinsic flaw in Marx's theories?}
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think most of them were bait and switchers, though. There is obviously
an intrinsic flaw in Marx's theories: he overlooked greed. I guess he
thought he could deny an unsavory part of the human spirit. Oops! Looks
like he as wrong. I do believe, though, that people aren't always greedy.
If given the chance, many people can develop non-selfish lives. Doesn't
happen too often, though.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 7 13:33:24 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply3
Date: Thu Apr 7 13:33:24 1994
arachnoi said:
{So kick it into gear and use it!} [referring to my imagination]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey, that's kind of personal, isn't it? You've never read any of my
fiction, so you wouldn't quite know, would you? As for the things I write
on this board, I think about them a lot, but I come up with different
things than you. I try to imagine a little how the "other side" feels
(specifically, in the Hasidic school question); is that not using it?
JasonLee
From issachar@yabbs Thu Apr 7 16:33:52 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re:rights
Date: Thu Apr 7 16:33:52 1994
well, if in the anarchist state each person governs himself, then each
person is an individual government. now the decisions of each person
direct the will of that person towards an end. this movement from a
decision to an end is called a means. to get from a means to an end
requires force. you said a force is essentially a right, evn though
anarchists have force they dont need rigghts. well if this force is the
same thing as a right, i think that anarchists have rights to everything
they decide for themselves. HENCE, they have SELF-PROCLAIMED and
SELF-MOTIVATED rights. how do you justify these RIGHTS???
arachnoi, try harder...
hehehehehe 8)
From issachar@yabbs Thu Apr 7 16:39:36 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re:the bill of rights
Date: Thu Apr 7 16:39:36 1994
jasonlee is right, the founding fathers of this country believed that
everyone held certain rights from birth. the bill of rights does not set
out to give people certain rights, the founding fathers believed that we
had already had these rights. people against the bill of rights argued
that a bill of rights would only hide other rights that people had but
that were not listed in the bill of rights. nevertheless it passed, but
only to set out the more important rights that the founding fathers
believed were most important to the public at large.
(they do not, however, justify why they believe people have any rights at
all!)
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Apr 7 19:10:51 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Apr 7 19:10:51 1994
In defense of Arachnoi's position, this doesn't necessarily mean that
rights are real. The govt. has asserted that people have certain
inaliable rights. However, this assertion is based largely on assumption.
The main assumption being that the people who drafted the Constitution
weren't expecting the people to question this assumption as it wasn't in
their best interest. The only way to back up this claim is through the
use of religious doctrine. It cannot be proved conclusively that there is
such a thing as good, evil, or inherent rights through argument. These
concepts are seen to vary too much from culture to culture. There very
nature is relative and therefor impossible to define in only a single
term. Through religion, it can be argued that the supreme law (or law of
God) has set forth the exact definition of good and evil and has set down
what rights everyone is entitled too. Unfortunately (or maybe not), there
is supposedly a distinction and seperation between church and state, so
this argument cannot be brought to bear. Without the support of religious
"evidence", these inaliable rights are merely arbitrary assumptions of a
governing body which contain no truth or validity outside of that
governments existence.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Apr 7 19:16:49 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Personal attacks
Date: Thu Apr 7 19:16:49 1994
Don't mean to sound holier than though (and I'm not without blame myself),
but can we keep the personal insults and attacks to a minimum. I'm not
trying to do any finger pointing. If you don't like what someone has to
say, please refute their argument, not call them a jerk.
Thanks,
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Sat Apr 9 12:19:27 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Sat Apr 9 12:19:27 1994
I wonder, have you read Fail Safe?
-Alex
{After the smoke clears, and the original crazies are wiped out,
then it is Mutual Assured Destruction MAD for all. No longer is it
one country pitted against another, but all mankind is capable of
total retaliation. Under such a culture of vendetta, family and
friends become very important elements of survival. The threat that
someone's brother could blow u away in the night for what u did to
someone, becomes a very civilizing force.}
But have you read Fail Safe? Don't try to do a song and dance about it;
if you have you'll understand why I am asking this, and if you haven't...
well, read it.
-Alex
From feotus@yabbs Sat Apr 9 18:39:15 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: personal summation
Date: Sat Apr 9 18:39:15 1994
I am going to addres sme different points in this post, so it jumps around
but shouldnt be too hard to follow
rights: IMo it doesnt matter anymore wether these rights are god given,
or provided by the govt etc.. Since apparantly the govt has decided that
it doesnt need to abide these rights anymore. It just takes them away and
calls it protection.
this brings up another topic
Clipper/Skipjack
I am sorta surprised not too see any discussion of this topic on this
board. What do you guys think of it? And please don't jsut say, "it sux"
etc.. give good arguments please, otherwise when you have to defend it
against those who support it you'll be up shit creek with only an unformed
hatred to use.
MAD: By the time we reach that point, there will be little civilization
to speak of, at least in any form recognizable to us. Even then
civilization is only a human construct. Sure we have superpowers now that
could blow us all to bits, but when you have individuals with the
capability it wont take long befroe something nasty happens. Big forces
lke US/USSR and the other archtypal superpowers have checks and balances
to better control these capabilities, but an unstable individual doesnt.
All in all it should be a neat fireworks show.
From laelth@yabbs Sun Apr 10 04:57:19 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: yawn
Date: Sun Apr 10 04:57:19 1994
Sorry folks,
I kinda suspected that arachnoi would respond poorly to
my half-jesting questions about his investment in this board.
I also tried to "head him off at the pass" by telling him that
I wasn't interested in his answers to my questions. He chose to
give us some answers anyway, but they weren't really answers, were
they? Given his rather defensive replies, I'd guess that I hit him
a little too close to home. Sincerest apologies for that, arachnoi.
Nothing personal, ;)
Next point: this board has gotten a little self-righteous, hasn't
it? Why so much censorship? Why so many people telling us what is
and what isn't appropriate? Who are they to mandate what should and
should not be said? Isn't this supposed to be some kind of "free"
forum of communication? Just a thought ...
Good point: Ok, all the boring stuff aside (this is a statement of
personal preference, not a mandate about what you should or should
not do. Please, feel free to bore me to tears, but I reserve the
right to call you boring), the stuff about the ray gun is really
interesting. Here's my two cents about the ultimate weapon. Only the
powerful, entrenched entities (govenrments and big businesses,
institutions with a strong investment in the status quo) have the
resources to develop the really powerful weapons, and the new
technologies. Thus, any new weapon (if it's powerful) will be strictly
controlled by the govt. that produces it. Take nukes, for example.
The Oppenheimers of the world (technocrats) get the shaft while the
govt. that bankrolled their research gets the power and the control
over the weapon. Who has F-16s? The technocrats that designed them?
No, the govt. keeps control over weaponry very efficiently. The same
will be the case for the ray gun. No matter who designs it, the govt.
will insure that it controls the weapons construction and distribution.
It's pointless, therefore, to discuss what people will do "when they get
the weapon," because they won't, at least not until "the powers that be"
have a better weapon.
In the spirit of free exchange,
-laelth
P.S. Think about it people. Perhaps a flame every now and then is really
appropriate.
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun Apr 10 14:16:15 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: Clipper/skipjack
Date: Sun Apr 10 14:16:15 1994
Well, I thought the whole reason for wanting to have encrypted phone
service was so that the gov't can't listen in on you. Personally, I don't
give too much of a shit if some 14 year old listens to me talk to my mom
on the phone. I do care if the person listening works for the FBI. So,
having all the keys available to the government completely defeats the
purpose of encryption anyway.
A better thing to do is to have the private phone manufacturers hold all
the keys, and only by a court order can the FBI get access to a particular
key. i understand that they sometimes need to listen in on people (Gotti,
etc.).
JasonLee
From Zbadba@yabbs Sun Apr 10 15:56:16 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Clipper/skipjack
Date: Sun Apr 10 15:56:16 1994
I will never use a fone with a clipper chip in it. Hell, I don't use
anything with DES either (if I have a choice). Given past history, it
is extremely unlikely that the government will be responsible with the
keys to the phones. What happens when another Joe McCarthy comes along?
(Well, first I leave the country, but that's irrelevant.)
As it stands now, I trust no encryption. I don't even trust the algorithms
I write. If it's really that important or "dangerous," I don't write it
down. It stays in my brain, which to my knowledge, is the only place where
it can not be eavesdropped on. If I *have* to tell someone (rare), it's
face to face, *not* over the phone.
From maedhros@yabbs Sun Apr 10 20:17:11 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: yawn
Date: Sun Apr 10 20:17:11 1994
In message yawn, laelth said:
> The Oppenheimers of the world (technocrats) get the shaft while the
> govt. that bankrolled their research gets the power and the control
> over the weapon. Who has F-16s? The technocrats that designed them?
> No, the govt. keeps control over weaponry very efficiently. The same
> will be the case for the ray gun. No matter who designs it, the govt.
> will insure that it controls the weapons construction and distribution.
> It's pointless, therefore, to discuss what people will do "when they get
> the weapon," because they won't, at least not until "the powers that be"
> have a better weapon.
You were out of the thread for awhile, so let me update you a little
before any confusion sets in. The premise behind the fictitious raygun
was that it would be a device which is easily and cheaply constructed out
of commonly available materials by anyone with the know how to put it
toghether (i.e. the technocrats).
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From feotus@yabbs Sun Apr 10 22:52:01 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: enctyprtian
Date: Sun Apr 10 22:52:01 1994
well Zbabda the whole idea of encryptian is to allow COMMUNICATION. It's
fuyckin hard as hell to communicate something that is only in your brain
unless we're mindreaders 8)
So the whole deal is that since you have to get it to someone else, you
want to stop the unwanted people from getting to it, hence encryptian.
I owuld not trust DES, I would trust 3DES. I also would trust PGP, which
uses RSA for the key exchange and to encrypt the session key fopr
IDEA()International Data Encryptian Algorithm). I would NOT trust the
Clipper, due to the key escrow. BUt att is just the tip.
What about the FBI Telephony bill? Requiring that all networks contain
back doors for eavesdroppping. NOW first off this adds to capabilities.
they can due heavy traffick analysis(which is very helpful) with no
warrant. meaning they can then know who your talking too, when etc.. how
often and all that other stuff WIHTOUT a permit. Also the procces for
getting apermit is centralized into one branch so it's even easire than
before.
From Zbadba@yabbs Sun Apr 10 23:31:19 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: enctyprtian
Date: Sun Apr 10 23:31:19 1994
Like I said: I supress urges to talk about "dangerous" things with other
people. If I have no choice I first try to meet face to face. If I can't I
reevaluate how important it really is. I really don't have a lot to say
that could get me into any real trouble with the powers that be. But what
I do I keep very close to my chest. I realize that my email is read, that
my network traffic is monitored, etc. I accept it, and get around it. And
if the net is the only way, then I trust my programming more than DES,
or RSA because it is unique, and not a common algorithm.
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Apr 11 15:46:03 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Herd Mentality
Date: Mon Apr 11 15:46:03 1994
In message Herd Mentality, arachnoi said:
> {Yeah, but they only expect the retaliation to be random.
> Just 1 or two of the whole will get it. Herd Mentality.
> What if the risk is that the whole crib will get nuked?}
I think the risk is the same. I've never noticed the herd mentality in such
situations. In most of the articles and interviews I've read, it's some guy
saying, "Yeah, I've had three or four friends killed, and sooner or later,
it'll be me." I don't really call that a herd mentality, just because the
conception of ties within the group are so loose. If gangs were
well-organized, meaningful organizations, then the killings would be less
random and what you say would be true. As it is, though, the death is still
random and meaningless, hence your plan would not work (as a side, was your
plan the technocrats watching and weeding bad people out, or were we
discussing the RAYGUN plan? Either way, the idea doesn't work, as evidenced
by the gang warfare scenario).
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Apr 11 15:52:59 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Mongers & Baiters
Date: Mon Apr 11 15:52:59 1994
In message Mongers & Baiters, arachnoi said:
> anything. ;) It's just interesting to see why a person
^^
> Those ppl that define who or what they are, and therefor
> others, by their race, are racists. By their politics are
> partisan. By their religion are fanatics(should be a
> better word for this). By their wealth are snobs, and the
> list goes on and on. The personal info u request is
> clearly to aid u in your own desire to flame. Try using
> your mind instead.
Please note the smiley. The desire to know about your past is of almost no
interest to me, but you cannot deny that a person's past may have influence
on their present ideology! This started because laelth wanted the FBI rap
sheet on you, but he went too far.
In addition, I don't recall trying to bait you, and I have no wish to flame
you. My quick calculation of flames in the past is about: 2, maybe? In any
case, I just wondered what in your life has affected your thinking. I'll
open up my life to questioning, to make it even, if you'd like. ;)
Oh, one more thing, the refusal to acknowledge that there are OTHER people
who base their perception of the world on race does not make one racist.
There's an amazing display of this sort of behavior in Ellison's Invisible
Man, the best novel since the second world war, supposedly (and IMHO, too).
Above all, relax.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Apr 11 22:09:11 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Mongers & Baiters
Date: Mon Apr 11 22:09:11 1994
> case, I just wondered what in your life has affected your thinking. I'll
> open up my life to questioning, to make it even, if you'd like. ;)
>
Very well, tell me about your mother ;-)
-Dr. Ziggy Fraud
(Shouldn't this thread go to mindgames?)
From laelth@yabbs Tue Apr 12 00:15:52 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: yawn
Date: Tue Apr 12 00:15:52 1994
Hey, thanks for the update on the raygun, but my point was that no
powerful weapon will *ever* be easy to assemble and easy for the general
populace to own. The govt. will see to it that it prevents the people
from gaining that kind of power.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Tue Apr 12 00:35:32 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: ray gun
Date: Tue Apr 12 00:35:32 1994
O.K., to go over this point again, take arachnoi's example of the atomic
bomb ... sure, the knowledge of how to build one is readily available, big
deal! You don't see people running around with 5MT briefcase bombs, do
you? No, of course not. As I said, and as is the case with any powerful
weapon, the government contols its production and distribution (or
governments and corporations do). The same will happen for the ray gun.
Now, to head off acounter-argument that I know is coming. The govt. and
corporations have it easy controlling the A-bomb because uranium/plutonium
are so hard to refine into fissionable material. O.K., but if the
materials for the ray gun were readily available (which I doubt will
happen) then the govt. would work overtime to suppress the knowledge.
They'd even go so far as to assassinate the relevant university
proferrors, graduate students, etc. who were involved in the project. The
CIA, I believe, would make it its #1 priority to contain this knowledge,
and I supect that they would be very successful at it. In any case, the
technocrats would be as powerless as they are now, no change, status quo
forever, amen.
Makes you kind of nauseous, doesn't it?
-laelth
From issachar@yabbs Tue Apr 12 11:30:42 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: anarchy
Date: Tue Apr 12 11:30:42 1994
well, i've been thinking about what you've been saying on this base,
arachnoi, and i`m sad to say i know that anarchy would never work. since
i've thought about it, anarchy would be a grand idea, think about it, no
government to control your lives. however, you don't have to go very far
to encounter the hatred, prejudices, and vices of people in our society,
in fact, you don't even have to leave yabbs to find prejudiced fools
degrading a particular group of people(you know who you are, no names
needed). it saddens me to see that over all these years, we as a race
of people, haven't learned a thing. it seems like we will always destroy
ourselves...
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Apr 12 16:14:46 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Mongers & Baiters
Date: Tue Apr 12 16:14:46 1994
In message re: Mongers & Baiters, maedhros said:
> Very well, tell me about your mother ;-)
>
> -Dr. Ziggy Fraud
My mother? I'll tell you about my mother!
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
JasonLee
From feotus@yabbs Tue Apr 12 21:48:37 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: clipper chip
Date: Tue Apr 12 21:48:37 1994
you are sadly misinformed sir. read some more.
1. the Clipper is NOT going to be used by the governemtn for any
classified info. So your hacker paradise is ruined there. They would
have no easier acces to the classified info.
2. THERE IS NO KNOWN BACKDOOR. There is Key ascrow, which is a FRONT
door really. There is no secret way in, the NSA doesnt need that when
they have the keys to your front door. Also, since they are not releasing
the algroithm you cant do cryptonalysis in a standard sense on it, tho you
can do keyspace attacks etc..
3. The next step after Cliupper is to outlaw or severly restrict all non
sanctioned crypto, thus rendering us to the mercy of clipper, unless we
make ourselves criminals(which I have no personal objection too, but the
rest of my fellow citizens may)
Your idea of a hacker paradise after Clipper is installed is one rooted in
misinformation and basic lack of any real knowledge about the issues. So
apparently you are lying when you sid you ahve been over it a thousand
times before.
now would you like a real discussion or will you spew mroe screed?
From feotus@yabbs Tue Apr 12 21:53:27 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: harumph
Date: Tue Apr 12 21:53:27 1994
arachnoi - I find it hard pressed than any educated phreak would be so
misinformed about clipper.
JasonLee - nice BladeRunner wuote 8)
issacheart- I think it was you who stated that anarchy wouldnt work.
Your simplifying things a little too much I believe. There are more than
one kind of anarchy. There is plain chaos, adn then there is the TAZ,
etc.. about a dozen different types of anarchy really that I can think
of. Which one are you refering too?
From Xela@yabbs Wed Apr 13 02:21:43 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Fail Safe
Date: Wed Apr 13 02:21:43 1994
"... And acidents [sic] do happen, but what do u [sic] do if the raygun
exsits? [sic]"
The atom bomb can be deployed by numerous means, all of which require
technology and science beyond high-school physics classes. If humans are
imperfect, so are the machines they create.
Do you honestly believe that if government exists by the time ray-gun
technology comes around, they will allow the schmuck on the street to own
one? I seriously doubt it (I don't know about you...).
And in any case, discussion about a non-existent weapon is as hypothetical
as the philosophic concepts you are all fronting; noone knows how people
react to new technologies... who thought that the computer would end up
being used for entertainment, for example? Those of you endlessly
discussing rationales for people's hypothetical behavior might do well to
put yourself in the shoes of the inventors of ENIAC (to push the example
further). They had no clue that their brainchild would create an
entire industry. As with you, you have no idea what the social product of
a ray-gun would be; it is mere speculation and guesswork.
My 2 cents,
Alex
From Xela@yabbs Wed Apr 13 02:30:40 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: legitimacy
Date: Wed Apr 13 02:30:40 1994
I am writing a paper on the rationale for and against anarchy, using texts
from psychology classes and math classes (game theory), etc. I would like
to ask a philosophic question about legitimacy and the ways it manifests
itself in twentieth century society (i.e. technological advances aiding
the State in its monitoring of the people "for their own good" etc.). The
Clipper encryption chip has been mentioned, but I am looking for more
concrete answers which are applicable to everyday life (I am assuming that
the Clipper isn't well known).
-Alex
From feotus@yabbs Wed Apr 13 14:15:52 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: legitimacy
Date: Wed Apr 13 14:15:52 1994
well the CLipper is well known actually
also the FBI Telephony bill is another big sucker.
gun control
basically go to the eff gopher server and start diggin, they'll have
plenty on Cliper and the FBI Telephony bill, a formidable bill indeed,
requiring tht all networks install backdoors for law enforcement, and also
allows law to doEXTREME traffic analysis, meaning they can get info on
who, when,how, where from, you call, connect, send etc.. all of this
info, which is very usefull and also infringes on your privacy a whole
lot, canbe gotten WITHOUT a warrant if the FBI telephony bill is instated.
hell they can do it now, but the FBI telephony bill will allow them to do
it without even going to the physical site, which they had to before, they
just call up and are patched in. talk about Big Brother.
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Apr 13 15:31:41 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: harumph
Date: Wed Apr 13 15:31:41 1994
In message harumph, feotus said:
> issacheart- I think it was you who stated that anarchy wouldnt work.
> Your simplifying things a little too much I believe. There are more than
> one kind of anarchy. There is plain chaos, adn then there is the TAZ,
> etc.. about a dozen different types of anarchy really that I can think
> of. Which one are you refering too?
I think, if all forms of anarchy relinquish control on the various crazies,
then none of them will work. To retain some measure of control over people
who would kill, steal, rape, destroy, etc. for no reason would make the
anarchy not an anarchy (there would be government). I don't think we can
assume that the crazies will stay dormant, and if we do, we're fooling
ourselves.
JasonLee
From issachar@yabbs Wed Apr 13 17:39:35 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: what i said
Date: Wed Apr 13 17:39:35 1994
well, none in particualr, and all of them. you see the situation was one
where i was just accosted on yabbs for supposing to be of a certain race,
or merely being in cahoots with this certain group.
it just plain baffles me why intelligent human beings can't even recognize
members of their own species.
then i was thinking about what's discussed on this board, and just figured
if people can't get over somthing that's plagued this country for years,
and the entire planet to be sure, how can we live peacefully? it was off
the cuff, but it was just a thought.
there's only one race---the human race.
:|
From issachar@yabbs Wed Apr 13 17:44:57 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: legitimacy
Date: Wed Apr 13 17:44:57 1994
well, i think that if you're going to talk about anarchy, you should go
back to the writings of john stuart mill, thomas hobbes, aristotle, plato,
and rousseau as to why governments are created in the first place and what
the function of that gov't should be.
also, doesn't the basic nature of human beings factor in here? i mean, are
humans by nature good and moral? or is the state of nature one of war, as
hobbes said? i think that the state of nature is an important thing you
should talk about here, because the legitimacy of anarchist states rests
on human behavior outside the bounds of gov't. see also, social contract.
my 2 philosophical cents,
iss
From issachar@yabbs Wed Apr 13 17:46:35 1994
From: issachar@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: harumph
Date: Wed Apr 13 17:46:35 1994
i think you hit the point i was getting at! where racism is at the lower
end of the spectrum, at the other you have murderers, rapists, and other
common trash...
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 14 23:15:35 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: herd mentality
Date: Thu Apr 14 23:15:35 1994
In message herd mentality, arachnoi said:
> {I think your wrong. Nobody joins a gang to Die. Most ppl
I think the assumption is that they'll be killed anyway, so one might as
well be in a gang and try to have some measure of protection.
> join for protection, a substitute for dysfunctional
> single parent families (and two parent families too),
> and/or power. Violence and death follow as a result of
> what they do. In a way gang bangers are true proto-
> anarchist. And they solve problems directly. i.e. "U phuq
> with me or my homies, and I'll phuq U up". They just
> don't have the raygun yet to make the next step. Anyway,
> they are under the same stress as a gazelle. The gazelles
> are doing their best to make sure they are not the next
> entree at some lions' table, and the reality of danger
> determines their social interaction. Change that danger
> significantly, and they either change their social
> behavior or they perish. This is the root of Rational
> Anarchy, or so I think}
Is that a herd behavior, though? Gazelles generally don't take revenge on
the lions, and they don't really try to stay away from the danger. Herds of
animals will graze somewhere, then run away when attacked. That's kind of a
big difference from gang society.
Also, since the links between gang members seem so ephermeral (we live on
the same block, so lets be in the same gang) that the herd has no
consciousness of its situation. There's just a knee-jerk reaction to any
perceived threat to the group. It doesn't sound like some roaming herd to
me, I guess.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 14 23:22:40 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: crazies
Date: Thu Apr 14 23:22:40 1994
In message crazies, arachnoi said:
> {The difference is that the ppl involved would be the
> ones responsible for their own lives, and retribution
> against the Crazies. In other words, U don't wait for the
> cops to show up, U blow the villian away. Or U hunt him
> down. It becomes very personal. Instead of a handful of
> cops, every1 is a cop. This type of anarchy is called
> Fronterism.}
That's what I was saying! It's a delusion to think that U might not be a
crazy, just hiding it. Since you have all this power (a gun, a raygun,
whatever) you can go kill someone (or everyone) for no reason. What stops a
group of people from becoming crazies and killing all "dangerous" people
with blond hair? Wouldn't if they didn't come for you, but came for your
sister? What if the crazies are thousands strong? How do you feel if there
is no higher authority to prevent individual tragedies? What I'm saying is
that Frontierism does not have to be fair, it can be just as wrong and
hurtful as any crime. How many people's lives will be miserable under this
system? What if the group of crazies prevents weapons from being
distributed to some area? Iff you notice, this starts to become a
governmental system (though a very primitive one). Basically, there's no
way that people live for long without forming posses, then enforcement
agencies, then lawmaking organizations. Simply because someone is weak, or
does not wish to live in a violent world does not mean they should be
abused.
We should pretty much thank Bog that the US is at least slightly protective
of the "rights" of people who can't do it themselves.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Fri Apr 15 19:50:38 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: crazies
Date: Fri Apr 15 19:50:38 1994
In message re: crazies, arachnoi said:
> U don't need a posse. 1 can stand against many with this gun. U can blow
> away a whole band of these crazies with one shot. Any time these guys
> riase up, it's your own responsibility to suppress them.
That assumes you have some sort of authority. If, as you say, you have this
weapon that can get rid of lots of crazies (which the crazies also have),
then your only protection is to kill everyone in the whole world! The other
thing is that if they have a big enough group, your resistance makes it look
like you're the one who's rising up! That means that, under your system,
the crazies have the responsibility to get rid of you.
JasonLee
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Apr 15 20:26:48 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: herd mentality
Date: Fri Apr 15 20:26:48 1994
> Is that a herd behavior, though? Gazelles generally don't take revenge on
> the lions, and they don't really try to stay away from the danger. Herds of
> animals will graze somewhere, then run away when attacked. That's kind of a
> big difference from gang society.
> Also, since the links between gang members seem so ephermeral (we live on
> the same block, so lets be in the same gang) that the herd has no
> consciousness of its situation. There's just a knee-jerk reaction to any
> perceived threat to the group. It doesn't sound like some roaming herd to
> me, I guess.
>
> JasonLee
>
I think part of the lack of communication is a misnomer caused by the term
"herd mentality". Herd mentality is something possessed by herbivores
(which we are not). I think human reactions equate more closely to "pack
mentality". An analogy would be that my girlfriend has this thing about
wanting a pig. I personally interacted with a pig and found it to be a
rather pathetic animal. It ran away, so I backed it in a corner. The
damned thing just started to squeel and roll its eyes. Any carnivore
worth its weight would've torn my arm off for scaring the shit out of it
like that (yes I know wild boars are an exception, but it's just a $%#@ing
analogy :-)
At any rate, while I still believe that there would be one genious
"technocrat" loony who would end it for us really quick, I don't believe
we'll fall prey to gangs kamikaziing. Gangs are formed to make life
better for themselves in a world, they perceive, will not let them do it
legally. They understand their survival rates, they're realist, but they
join toghether to lessen that rate.
Damn, I make a lot of claims. Keep in mind (to be fair) that this is
personal conjecture, not fact. However, I feel there is strong evidence
in support of this view.
Adios
**********************************************************************
Raven /\
/--\ "If there's a new way, I'll be
/ \narchists Inc. the first in line. But it better
work this time." -Megadeth
**********************************************************************
hehe...finally got my .sig up and running since I switched to a pico editor.
From ching@yabbs Sat Apr 16 20:37:38 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: got on
Date: Sat Apr 16 20:37:38 1994
Finally I've been able to get on this damn board! Between Tech crashing
its new system and the board being flooded, I haven't been on in weeks. I
noticed that I 'm about 50 or 60 messages behind everyone else, so I won't
even bother looking throuhg them--i can't even remember what I was arguing
about last. So if anyone has any issue that they took up with me a little
while ago and still wants a reply, please semd me a new post and I'll
bitch at you for a bit. Also, if anyone would like to tell me what the
latest bickering is over, please semd a post.
Thanx
Ching
From feotus@yabbs Sun Apr 17 11:10:06 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: clipper
Date: Sun Apr 17 11:10:06 1994
that was really some beautiful bullshit that you let fly about the govt
using STu-etcetc.. and getting a crack for it froma isreali spy.
you must read alt.religion.kibology no?
8)
From feotus@yabbs Sun Apr 17 11:19:45 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: nsa:cia:frontierism
Date: Sun Apr 17 11:19:45 1994
First, you show a very poor knowledge of the US Intelligence agencies.
Your damn good at spouting bullshit about it, that's about it, tho some of
it does hide a few bits of truth.
Your rational anarchy with the raygun isx a model that would never work
IMO, since all it takes is one crazy in disguise, or one normal person to
be pushed over the edge etc.. People arent born into two catagories
CRAZY/SANE. The whole model of anarchy seeems to be pothetically
contrived froma pulp science fiction story.
the NSA does no domestic srveilance, you don't have to worry about
them(officially that is 8)
the sniff many sites and scan e-mail at some large service providers, not
NSA, but FBI and other agencies that have domestic jurisdiction. The NSA
and CIA has good HUMINT, but even better COMINT.
those gov and .mil sites that you mentioned and even put a little smilee
after to try and insinuate that you were involved are childsplay man.
If it's a NSA system that is meant to be secure you would never even find
it. Read up on the Orange Books to find out how they do security there.
and don't try to impress people with your phreak/hack skills since they
seem limited at the best.
From Xela@yabbs Sun Apr 17 12:12:50 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: orange books
Date: Sun Apr 17 12:12:50 1994
where can one find these orange books?
-alex
From feotus@yabbs Tue Apr 19 21:20:28 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: hacktic
Date: Tue Apr 19 21:20:28 1994
in reference to rational anarchy:
What would happen if instead of a ray-gun it was something moe along
the line of a communication, that was unjammable, and "unbreakable" Would
this be more conductive to anarchy than a weapon would be? Or perhaps
instead of a weapon it was the ability to completely protect oneself, or
isolate onself? I would think that that would be more productive thana
weapon.
CIA/NSA/HUMINT/COMINT: NO I do not know what a STU-phone is, I have never
had much interest in this field, tho now it has been piqued.
The thing that worries me more than their inability to speak farsi, is
their ability to maintain records of all transactions over a particular
sum 15000 I believe, and their plans to track even lesser transactions in
the near future. Strictly from an internal perspective this is more of t
threat than the NSA's ability ot break cypher XYZ etc... Since this does
not require any huge amount of computer power, relatively speaking,m and
it is already in place and is accepted by our citizens. No need to spy on
us when they czn get all the info they need without a warrant, simply thru
good cross-referencing.
h/p world: I find it hard to believe that you recieved that breaker from
the place you said, but oh well. And as for the otehr flammage, guess I
deserved that considering the tone of my post. NO im not a r0dent either,
im a \/\/ 4 3 r z pup actually, with full certification and all, and even
papers saying im an ASCII currier. You don't believe me? Look here it
says i'm in k-rad group #8876.
From Zbadba@yabbs Wed Apr 20 19:26:32 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: NSA, etc.
Date: Wed Apr 20 19:26:32 1994
As a point of interest, the NSA does not (openly) connect their systems to
networks (Too much of a security risk, obviously). Same with classified
DOD systems: you (assuming you are no mere mortal, but have
ultra-k00lrity clearance) bring every bit of computer data and every
program in on tape. (The exception to this is Dockmaster, but that is a
non-classified system anyways).
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed Apr 20 20:24:57 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy/comm
Date: Wed Apr 20 20:24:57 1994
In message anarchy/comm, arachnoi said:
> 2) The ATF thinks Religious groups are nuts too. They storm Waco
> with machine guns firing, shoot each other, and about 10 unarmed
> civilians. The 7-day adventist also go get their guns and shoot
> back. So they then try to blind them with lasers, keep them up at
> night with sound, and gas their children. Nice guys! In the end
> someone, whether it was the tanks ripping holes through the place
> and starting a fire, or self inflicted, the ATF and FBI wouldn't
> let the firefighters any where near the place until it was burnt
> to the ground and every1 was dead. I know U have heard this over
> and over again, but the question is, what will U do when the feds
> decide it's your turn, Hacker/Warez puppy?}
If it were me, I think I'd just sell out and give up rather than die
unhappily. Martyrdom is not for me.
JasonLee
From Quetzal@yabbs Thu Apr 21 00:56:24 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: reply
Date: Thu Apr 21 00:56:24 1994
I think geo-thermon energy is also a good alternative for energy.
-------------^ thermo
From feotus@yabbs Fri Apr 22 20:02:54 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: anarchy/comm
Date: Fri Apr 22 20:02:54 1994
when they decide it's my turn?
well mostly pray.
As individual communication does little good against the govt if it
decides that it wants you dead, communication still has power when used by
the whole. Basically because it deseminates ideas to the masses.
no, not Warez at all, they dont make Linux warez anyways.
From feotus@yabbs Fri Apr 22 20:12:01 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: flame
Date: Fri Apr 22 20:12:01 1994
well I sorta deserved that flame, I made the assumption that you didnt
know what you were talking about, which was a "overjudgment" of sorts.
But since you mentioned the comm. tech of the military, did you know that
for awhile they were using a box that was basically nothing more than a
souped up HAM operators set in a pretty case and upped the price to $500
8) Also they had a BANYAN Vines network in their tanks, where
each(not all actually) were nodes on the network. The use of civilian
tech suggests that IMO at least that what we use is not allthat far
behind. granted their are somethings we civilians can't do, like measure
our computing power in acres like the NSA.
I have alonger reply to the idea of communication instead of a weapon for
the RayGun, rational anarchy thing.
AS I said before, as an individual it would do me little good, simply
because of the nature of communications itself, it just don't work with
only one person 8)... But as a group it can be really powerful,
particularly a many-to-many network like Inet. For instance there are
possibilities for everyone to become a publisher, writer, journalist etc..
and to reach alot of people. Jsut look at some of the abuses and see how
many it touches when people flame the abuser.9Greencard, MMFast)
So as a whole group communication can be IMO just as powerful as a
weapon, and less threatening to the world(tho don't confuse me as some
granola eater talking about the spirit of gaia ad nauseum...) the problem
is that the communication needs to reach alot of people, not just your
little group, like your warez group, or your religious cult, etc.. but
whole nation/states. Imagine the power of the MEDIA monopolists. they
have most of America eating out of their hands.
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon Apr 25 22:53:09 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Raygun
Date: Mon Apr 25 22:53:09 1994
In message Raygun, arachnoi said:
> networks. They even admitted that they lied to and
> tricked the State of Texas to get the choppers. So what
> good did all this info do? The Hillbillies are still in
> the Whitehouse and it's still business as usual. In fact
> they have added laws to further disarm the general
> public, we wouldn't want the ppl taking over now would
> we.}
They can take over. They just have to wait five days before they do it. ;)
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Apr 26 12:57:09 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: five days
Date: Tue Apr 26 12:57:09 1994
In message five days, arachnoi said:
> {True, but wars have been fought and won in a shorter time ;) Ask the
> Isrealis. BTW, what's your answer to the question of what U would do?
> what would U say to your 3 yr old duaghter before the gov kills u all?
> Theoretically speaking of course}
That's a tough question. Disturbing, too. I don't really know what I'd do.
I'd assume that they would, before killing us, make some offer to sell out
our ideas and give up. That's what I'd probably do. If there was no
option, I don't know what would happen. It wouldn't matter what I'd say, in
that case.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue Apr 26 13:02:12 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: what would U do?
Date: Tue Apr 26 13:02:12 1994
In message what would U do?, arachnoi said:
> More importantly than what U would U say. What would U do to ensure that U
> are not a victum of the gov? If they decided like the nazi's that U were a
> philisophical threat, and that U and your family should not be allowed to
> survive your arrest
So, if I knew they'd be after me? I'd leave the country. Fast as possible.
If I was well known enough, I could survive for a while (look at Salman
Rushdie). If not, I might still be able to get along. There have been many
people in the past (and present) who've survived attempts to shut them up.
People like Nelson Mandela, Rushdie... Can't think of any more just now.
I think, generally, that you can take two paths in your life: one where your
job/whatever consists of uncovering the criminality in the government, and
another that generally doesn't have much to do with politics. My current
plans lean more towards the second choice. It's not because I'm scared or
anything. It's just that what I enjoy doing does not necessarily make me a
potential threat to the government.
What about you? What would you do if the government wanted to put you down?
JasonLee
From pixy@yabbs Wed Apr 27 23:12:58 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Wed Apr 27 23:12:58 1994
well, since no one has botherd to post for a little while, I'll throw in
my two cents. the domecrats must go before they socialize this nation, and
the republicans must go before they bible-thump us all over the head.
thankyou.
pixy
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Apr 28 00:47:05 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Thu Apr 28 00:47:05 1994
In message <no title>, pixy said:
> the domecrats must go before they socialize this nation, and
You're about 50 years too late to worry about that...
We're already socialist. Ever heard of social security?
> the republicans must go before they bible-thump us all over the head.
Show me a Republican who can get into Heaven and I'll show you...Hell, I
don't know what I'll show you. It doesn't matter, I won't have to show
you anything anyways...
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ching@yabbs Thu Apr 28 00:49:38 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Thu Apr 28 00:49:38 1994
i dont' thinki you quite understand the ture genius of pixy:)
ching
From ching@yabbs Thu Apr 28 00:50:25 1994
From: ching@yabbs
To: ching@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Thu Apr 28 00:50:25 1994
ture=true ching lacks that true genius the pixy has;)
ching
From Lacey@yabbs Thu Apr 28 03:35:15 1994
From: Lacey@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: <no title>
Date: Thu Apr 28 03:35:15 1994
I agree I agree I agree
Let's just put them all on a little island and leave them to rot and die.
We should destroy them completely before they destroy us.
I don't like being fucked by the government and that seems to be the only
thing that they are capable of doing.
Lacey
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu Apr 28 22:54:18 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: shot it out ;)
Date: Thu Apr 28 22:54:18 1994
In message shot it out ;), arachnoi said:
> ....I'd assume that they would, before killing us, make
> some offer to sell out our ideas and give up.{Convert or
> Die! I take it U would rather be a live slave than a dead
> freeman. How quickly we forget the lessons of the past.
> Go read Sparticus.}
The thing is, I don't know what I'd do. I'm just not too sure I'd have the
strength to resist the pressure to sell out. I'm kinda thinking of the end
of 1984, and how I would react to that situation.
> So, if I knew they'd be after me? I'd leave the country.
> Fast as possible....{U are assuming that U have
> foreknowledge, and can escape a manhunt. Most of the
> cases I've seen on the news were surprise attacks, and
> used overwhelming force.(At least what they thought would
> be overwhelming force)}....I think, generally, that you
Of course I was assuming I knew they'd be after me. If they came for me, I
would not resist arrest (well, that depends a bit). I feel like I have to
have some measure of trust in our system (as shaky as it is) even though
that belief is illogical. Unfortunately, I can't give up on some of my
idealism. To do so would be to give up on my whole identity and my history
to date. Can't do that.
> can take two paths in your life: one where your
> job/whatever consists of uncovering the criminality in
> the government, and another that generally doesn't have
> much to do with politics.{This makes no sense.} My
It does make sense. Are telephone sanitizers political agents? There is a
difference between being a literary critic and being a writer of subversive
literature.
> current plans lean more towards the second choice. It's
> not because I'm scared or anything. It's just that what
> I enjoy doing does not necessarily make me a potential
> threat to the government. {Hahahaha, what makes U think
> that U are so innoxious? Just by being someone with
> computer access, U are a potential hacker. Just by being
> on this conf. U are potential anarchist. Just by being a
> Democrat U are a potential rebel rouser. Regardless
> whether it's true or not. Some moron probably has U on a
> list already. Big Brother may not be smart, but certainly
> can be overwhelming} What about you? What would you do
So, the answer to the threat of being discovered is to cultivate powerful
friends. In the hacker world, you can't trust your friends, because most
people are kids. In an academic world, the level of trust is much higher
because the stakes are not so high. In a situation like that, about the
only danger is something like HUAC or the McCarthy hearings. We can only
hope public witch hunts like those don't occur again (Waco doesn't count,
since the branch Davidians were not part of the mainstream).
> if the government wanted to put you down? {Well, even
> though I know how to make a 500 megaton H-bomb from a
> rail gun and about $100,000 worth of chemicals, as I
> mentioned before I'm living on my overdraft so that's
> out. Anyway, that sort of weapon is strictly a self-
> destruct device anyway. I do not think I could kill
> innocent ppl (AIDS victims) in order to make super bio
> weapons. Anyway, they would be just as hard to handle as
> an H-bomb. So If they came after me, there would be no
> hope of a stalemate. I guess I would run for the border
> too. To get there, I would have to get past the ring of
> gunfire around my house. I would not have any qualms
> about using field expedient gas and explosive weapons to
> quickly suppress the original group of attackers, and to
> get out before their reinforcements arrive.(WACO made
> themselves another Alamo, they should have gotten out
> after the ATF begged for a cease fire.) One point is very
> important. Before U can do this, U have to have the
> materials and knowledge at hand first. In other words, Be
> Prepared. I know this makes me sound like one of those
> survivalist nuts, but then that's what we are talking
> about. Surviving. I've been thinking recently about using
> animals. A couple years back, I helped a psych major
> Fourier analyze a encephalogram. I think I can figure out
> a way to stimulate the emotions of animals with implants,
> especially attack dogs. Maybe an army of 10-20
> controllable dogs would make a window for escape. :) Just some odd ball
> musings}
See, I don't think I could do that. I'm not quite a pacifist, but I don't
believe in using violence or weapons to save me. If I die or get punished
for what I believe in, then so be it.
JasonLee
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Apr 30 01:31:32 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: run for the border
Date: Sat Apr 30 01:31:32 1994
Cops faking evidence ?! You been reading too much left wing propaganda !
I do realize that in *some* cases this does happen. But *please* give uss
some credit for some intelligence of our own. Not every police officer is
the crooked nazi you make them out to be. Some of them really do give a
shit about the system and the people that live in it. SO LIGHTEN UP !
From feotus@yabbs Sat Apr 30 12:43:14 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: stuff
Date: Sat Apr 30 12:43:14 1994
robtlee - arachnoi is attacking the system, not the individuals. The
system itself is inherently corrupted, while individuals may not be. Tho
from my exp. with the localcops, they usuallyt are, not soopa mobstrers or
anytrhing, but extremely racist and prejudiced.
clipper - yup, they are requiring any trnsactions done with them(tht arent
classified cause they dont even trust it) to be done with Clipper equip.
Now consider the amount of industry with govt contracts, then figure who
would want to by two sets of communications equipment, and you'll see
that the maufactururs and a large portion of industry will be using the
lipper. Then you have a de fact standard because so many influential
companies are using it,and if you want to comm. with them, you should use
it, and then after tyhat it ust spreads, and of course it's
allvolountary....sheeea
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Apr 30 14:03:54 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Sat Apr 30 14:03:54 1994
In message run for the border, arachnoi said:
> {Since when does it matter that the ppl at WACO were mainstream? Are U
> main
> stream? Am I main stream? NO. In fact any1 can be made out to be a
> crackpot fringe group by both the gov and the media. Next, faith in the
> system? You got to be kidding. Between cops faking evidence, killing
> innocent ppl, and basically acting like mobsters, just local law
> enforcement is a little more than just dangerous. Add in the FEDs and
> their Idea that a dead suspect is a guilty suspect, not being able to
> defend ones' self, Ur in BIG trouble if they come after U. If U do
> surrender, expect to live with some guy named Bubba for the next 25 yrs.}
Actually, I am pretty mainstream (although some people would argue about
that). What I meant is that the Wacoans were not in the public eye until
the FBI went after them. They had no friends outside their compound. If
your life involves working with people and organizations around the country,
and if your work (whatever it may be, writing, film, music, politics) gets
some publicity, then it complicates the FBI's attempts to "get" you.
Think about Lyndon LaRouche, though. He's a bit crazy, but the gov't got
him on legitimate charges and pout him away without killing him. He's even
free now. If he hadn't had as much exposure as he already did, they
could've tossed him in jail (or killed him) forever.
He's not necessarily a wonderful person, but he is an example of how the
system is not completely corrupt.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat Apr 30 14:05:31 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Sat Apr 30 14:05:31 1994
In message stuff, feotus said:
> clipper - yup, they are requiring any trnsactions done with them(tht arent
> classified cause they dont even trust it) to be done with Clipper equip.
> Now consider the amount of industry with govt contracts, then figure who
> would want to by two sets of communications equipment, and you'll see
> that the maufactururs and a large portion of industry will be using the
> lipper. Then you have a de fact standard because so many influential
> companies are using it,and if you want to comm. with them, you should use
> it, and then after tyhat it ust spreads, and of course it's
> allvolountary....sheeea
I think it's time to start stocking up on traditional telephones. Is it
possible to have a normal->clipper connection work?
JasonLee
From feotus@yabbs Sun May 1 09:02:42 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: clipper phone
Date: Sun May 1 09:02:42 1994
"is it possible to have a normal=>clipper connection work?
wel that depends on who makes the phones. TheClipper is not really
thephone, just a hardwired chip that is in the phones.
Most liekly yes, since it would probably be a horrendous marketing idea t
make it impossible to call all of your non-clipper freinds
From JasonLee@yabbs Sun May 1 14:13:06 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: clipper phone
Date: Sun May 1 14:13:06 1994
In message clipper phone, feotus said:
> "is it possible to have a normal=>clipper connection work?
>
> wel that depends on who makes the phones. TheClipper is not really
> thephone, just a hardwired chip that is in the phones.
>
> Most liekly yes, since it would probably be a horrendous marketing idea t
> make it impossible to call all of your non-clipper freinds
OK, that's good. Some time in the near future, I'll buy lots of normal
phones, so when the Feds try to decode my conversations, they'll be decoding
normal voice instead of encrypted data! Haha!
JasonLee
From robtelee@yabbs Mon May 2 14:17:31 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Mon May 2 14:17:31 1994
It will take more than just the pitifully few cases that you cite to
convince me that there are so many dirty cops out there. I know because I
am a cop and I also train Police Officers. I don't train my cops that way
and I would be among the first to turn them in.
From Columbo@yabbs Mon May 2 20:32:10 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Mon May 2 20:32:10 1994
I too am a police officer and take my job very seriously. I've *NEVER*
faked evidence on someone or lied in court to convict someone. I know
there are some dirty cops around but most feel about their job as I do
mine. Law enforcement is one of the least respected job there is but
if you ask a dedicated officer why they do the job many of them will say
they want to take scumbags off the street. We certinaly don't do this job
for the money. Just think how *really* bad our society would be without
any cops. If you think all cops are bad, then try living without any.
From pixy@yabbs Mon May 2 20:48:00 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Mon May 2 20:48:00 1994
yIn message re: run for the border, Columbo said:
> I too am a police officer and take my job very seriously. I've *NEVER*
> faked evidence on someone or lied in court to convict someone. I know
> there are some dirty cops around but most feel about their job as I do
> mine. Law enforcement is one of the least respected job there is but
> if you ask a dedicated officer why they do the job many of them will say
> they want to take scumbags off the street. We certinaly don't do this job
> for the money. Just think how *really* bad our society would be without
> any cops. If you think all cops are bad, then try living without any.
Now you're talking. let's eliminate the police force, give everyone a gun
and let order find itself instead of forcing a false order. Now i don't
have any criticism of police--they do their job well--but the waysin which
they are used bothers me. Without the governmetnt misusing the police,
personal liberties would be returned, criminals would face the angry mobs,
and law abiding citizens would not feel helpless towards the criminal
elements--i know in this state, if you shoot an assailant when your life
is not in danger(the criminal isn't shooting or stabbing at you or holding
his weapon in your face) you become a felon. who is the vict? who is the
criminal?
pixy
From Columbo@yabbs Mon May 2 23:03:21 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Mon May 2 23:03:21 1994
That may work for a while but before too long things would get out of
hand. There has to be some type of control somewhere. There has to be
somewhere or someone to turn to when a person is victimized. The court
system we have in this country really sucks sometimes but, it's a lot
better than some countries I've seen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a
bleeding heart. I feel what is going to happen in Singapore is a good
thing and wish it could happen here. If it did, maybe we wouldn't have the
problems we have here today. I do not totally disagree with what you said,
but we have to have *some* control.
From maedhros@yabbs Tue May 3 01:14:35 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Tue May 3 01:14:35 1994
In message stuff, feotus said:
> robtlee - arachnoi is attacking the system, not the individuals. The
> system itself is inherently corrupted, while individuals may not be. Tho
The US system of govt. is NOT inherently corrupt. It's an attempt at
creating a system in which the greatest amount of freedom is possible
while still maintaining social order. Because of the flexibility and
freedom inherent in the system, it is, however, susceptible to abuse. If
you experience any corruption, don't vent it towards the 'system' but the
people who've been VOTED into power to run it. Sure, not all those people
were voted into positions of power. However, the ones who weren't were
placed there by people who were.
Sure, not all people within the system are corrupt. It would be assinine
to make such broad assumptions. However, a whole body does not have to be
cancerous to kill a person.
It might be a bit nit-picky, but I like to keep the 'system' seperate from
its administrators. The Constitution was drafted with the primary motive
of creating a fair, unrepressive system in which to live under. Any
failings with it are more likely due to its administrators then its mechanics.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Tue May 3 01:37:00 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 01:37:00 1994
In message re: run for the border, pixy said:
> they are used bothers me. Without the governmetnt misusing the police,
> personal liberties would be returned, criminals would face the angry mobs,
> and law abiding citizens would not feel helpless towards the criminal
Personal liberties returned?! What do you think would happen to LA if the
police stopped patroling? The gangs would all retire and everyone would
go on to leave a peaceful, pastoral existence. Personal liberties? Hell,
noone would have the liberty to walk outside without deciding whether it
was worth the risk of being killed. As far as angry mobs go...I'd rather
put my fate in the hands of the police. The average human isn't all that
bright and a far sight from rational. How many innocents do you think
mobs would 'bring' to justice along with the guilty. The moral majority
with policing authority? I'd kill myself (and hopefully a lot of them
with the proper chemicals) before I stuck around. It'd be just like cozy
old Salem. That's not liberty.
> elements--i know in this state, if you shoot an assailant when your life
> is not in danger(the criminal isn't shooting or stabbing at you or holding
> his weapon in your face) you become a felon. who is the vict? who is the
> criminal?
So if you stop someone who was going to, say, rape a child and then kill
her (worse case scenario for dramatic effect :) it would be illegal to
harm him if he gives up. Hell, you want mob justice, give it to the
police. They're the ones who know where the problems are. Give 'em
fucking automatics and let 'em clean this shit hole up. Sure, they fake
evidence occasionaly. Yet, at the same time they're criticised for this,
you advocate sentencing without a trial by a mob. I don't even know why
the police do what they do. They don't get paid shit and their job's to
be shot at defending ungrateful people. Hell, I don't know what drives
them, but if they want more power, they've got my vote.
If you feel like they're trampling your freedom, you're barking up the
wrong tree. They're upholding the law not creating legislation. If you
don't like the laws they uphold, go bitch at a Congressman. Honestly,
it's some of the silliest and most common transference ever perpetrated.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From pixy@yabbs Tue May 3 12:54:23 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 12:54:23 1994
In message re: run for the border, Columbo said:
> That may work for a while but before too long things would get out of
> hand. There has to be some type of control somewhere. There has to be
> somewhere or someone to turn to when a person is victimized. The court
> system we have in this country really sucks sometimes but, it's a lot
> better than some countries I've seen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a
> bleeding heart. I feel what is going to happen in Singapore is a good
> thing and wish it could happen here. If it did, maybe we wouldn't have the
> problems we have here today. I do not totally disagree with what you said,
> but we have to have *some* control.
oh, now youve done it. forget the part abou eliminating police--i was just
using that rhetorically to point out the misgivings of the american
justice system--you said that that kid is getting what he deserved. Stand
back, i'm pissed now--where's my goddamn soapbox?
First of all, when you think of a beating you probalbly think of
dad gettin ga switch from the back yard and giving you a few good lashes
and maybe a little soreness on your ass for a day or two. Caning is
different. when you can someone, you don't use the switch. You get a 6
foot piece of rock-hard bamboo from the back yard, the biggest, meanest
bastard in town, and he slaps you across the lower back--not the butt--as
hard as he can putting all his 200+ pounds into it. Nerve damage and
paralysis are common results of this "good thing", and death is a decent
possibility too. Five or six swings could kill. Usually it just breaks and
fractures a few little vertabrae. Also if the pain is too much and you
pass out during the caning due to the unbearable pain--this is
common--they will wait till you wake again in order to continue so that
you feel every blow.
and these injuries are on top of the ones you receive at the hands
of the creul and uncivilzed gaurds at the prison as they "coerce" your
confessions.
and let's look at that lax that the kid in Singapore broke. A
plain old graffiti law? hell no! That is a law that the city(dictatorship)
passed in 1966 as an anti-sedition law. Is that a good thing? Do you even
understand sedition? It was created so that the government could beat up
on dissenters. This kid just happened to break it when he spray painted a
rich man's Mercedes.
So you really want to see that kind of bullshit in America? You
really are a fascist son of a bitch who wants to beat fuckin' children for
breaking the anti-sedition laws of an oppressive government. If you do,
then I feel sorry for your mother ever having you. The fact that so many
americans do challaenges my faith in democracy and evaporates the pride i
have in being and american. Every american should want to put a bullet in
the heads of those in power in Singapore.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Tue May 3 12:57:52 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 12:57:52 1994
In message re: run for the border, maedhros said:
> Personal liberties returned?! What do you think would happen to LA if the
> police stopped patroling? The gangs would all retire and everyone would
> go on to leave a peaceful, pastoral existence. Personal liberties? Hell,
> noone would have the liberty to walk outside without deciding whether it
> was worth the risk of being killed. As far as angry mobs go...I'd rather
> put my fate in the hands of the police. The average human isn't all that
> bright and a far sight from rational. How many innocents do you think
> mobs would 'bring' to justice along with the guilty. The moral majority
From pixy@yabbs Tue May 3 13:01:45 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 13:01:45 1994
hmm. i wonder wher ethe rest of my message is.
Any way, i said get rid of the police as a rhetorical device. I don't
really advocate getting rid of cops, i was just voicing my complaints
about eh american justice system and why it doesn't work. the cops aren't
the real problem, i think, it's the system that commands them.
pixy
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue May 3 14:01:21 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 14:01:21 1994
In message re: run for the border, pixy said:
> Now you're talking. let's eliminate the police force, give everyone a gun
> and let order find itself instead of forcing a false order. Now i don't
> have any criticism of police--they do their job well--but the waysin which
> they are used bothers me. Without the governmetnt misusing the police,
> personal liberties would be returned, criminals would face the angry mobs,
> and law abiding citizens would not feel helpless towards the criminal
> elements--i know in this state, if you shoot an assailant when your life
> is not in danger(the criminal isn't shooting or stabbing at you or holding
> his weapon in your face) you become a felon. who is the vict? who is the
> criminal?
Um, everyone with a gun would not help matters any. I've pointed out before
that an angry, irrational group of people can destroy thousands of innocents
simply because they have guns. Doesn't work. I don't want to live my life
having to worry about someone putting a gun to my head for no reason.
JasonLee
From pixy@yabbs Tue May 3 16:34:40 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 16:34:40 1994
read the message i left for maedhros before you get all hot under the
collar.
pixy
From Columbo@yabbs Tue May 3 21:46:17 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Tue May 3 21:46:17 1994
Put a bullet in their head's you say ? Simply because you disagree with
the way they punish their lawbreakers ? That is a fascist remark itself.
How would you like it if the government of Singapore or Iraq or whomever
began putting bullets in the heads of our leaders because they diagreed
with the way we treated our convicts ? Oh, but thats different.... we
don't abuse our prisioners.... Who are we to tell another country how they
punish their lawbreakers ? People in U.S. prisons are treated to color
T.V., free meals, many get a college education and tie up our legan system
(I mean legal system) all at tax payer expense. Many convicts make a
mockery out of our judicial system and do not take it serious. I think
what you may be trying to say is the punishment should fit the crime. I
agree with that but, in this case we are not talking about U.S. law. How
another country doles out punishment for people *convicted* of a crime
should be left up to them. If someone from Sinapore tried to tell us how
to deal with one of it's citizens we had in jail, we would basically tell
them to go fuck themselves. The "kid" you refer to is 18 years old and
responsible for his actions. While his punishment may seem harsh to us,
the judicial system there has something this nation lacks.... respect.
From feotus@yabbs Wed May 4 10:05:37 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: clipper phone
Date: Wed May 4 10:05:37 1994
"ill be a bunch of normal phnes so that when the feds listen to me, they
will be decrypting normal voice"
this must be a troll or something right?
i don't think they will be that stoopid.
if it is a troll, i'm hooked, anyone got a barbed fishing hook remover?
From feotus@yabbs Wed May 4 10:08:53 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: clipper phone
Date: Wed May 4 10:08:53 1994
"clipper will have no effect ont he H/P scene.."paraphrase since I dont
have teh client running.
Well Clipper itself would not really harm teh H/P scne much, BUT the thing
is, Clipper doent just come by itself, we get the neato FBI Telephony
bill, and other great bonuses from Bill.
Also there ismore out there than the H/P scene too.
Well the thing about if they are stoopid enough to use it, they deserve to
lose their privacy is a platitude. They don't know about the Clipper,
they actually think they will be safe because they are EDUCATED. So
that's an important thing to do, educate people about it so they know, and
knowing is half the battle(Gi Joe.....)
From feotus@yabbs Wed May 4 10:17:49 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Wed May 4 10:17:49 1994
As I said the system is fucked.
A system base don freedom, that still hasnt passed the ERA?
A system that is the voters responsibility, but it continually cheats
votes, disenfranchising them, ripping them off, and lying to them(rem. the
Jesse Helms sending out postcards to minorites telling them if they lie on
their voting registration they will go to jail, tho he never sent them too
whites, can you say "scare the opposition?" )
A system whichh is NOWHERE near the one that we founded long time ago,
it's concept of the constitution and rights is dead and buried, under the
guise of "protection? amd business.
Hell we set up a business organization that is simply made to make
individuals not responsible for what there money-making schemes
do(corporations) The investors are not held liable, even for things that
they institute and do.
The base elements of the system themselves are totally fucked, even if you
take out the elected people.
Now if yu wnat to say that the original system as dafted by the old fucks
back then is good, than just remember that blacks were only 2/3rds a
person and women were less than that, not too mention various other
sundries.
Also if your trying to say that we should be angry at the peole, I tell
you tha it's the system itself that is corrupting the people,and the
voters and the officials. At it's basest level the American govt is
fucked up. We have ledft all the ideas that the foundingpops had, and
we're no longer comparable to the sysem that they set up way beck when.
so again, the system is fucked.
From feotus@yabbs Wed May 4 10:27:12 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Wed May 4 10:27:12 1994
" the judicial system has respect, something we lack ehre)paraphrase, but
accurate you'll agree, froma messga from Columbo
First, where do you draw the line between respect of culture(singapores)
and violations of civil rights? Do you let women beburned and killed by
their husbands LEGALLY in India? Do you let Hitler punish tose jews who
broke his laws(hehe)? You have to draw the line between violation of
human rights, and respect fora culture. It's a hard decision to make.
As pixy pointed out, the caning thing is a lot mroe than your little mind
could handle. You probably thought it was just a whipping, so did I so I
supported it at first, but when I found out what a caning really is, it to
me is a a violation of human rights. Possible deatha nd maiming for a
vandal? That isnt strong punishment, that is blatant overpowering and
overkill to sya the least. It dosnt generate respect at all, it generates
mass fear of the system, just what they want to do.
Will you continue letting the Chinese govt kill dissedents simply because
you buy their story "That's how we do things oer here, in China we have a
different view of human rights" Chinese are still humans, so it can't be
that much different. Besides the ideas thatthey are claiming to base
thier human rights on are dead even int heir own culture long ago.
It';s not a question of their system enforcing respect, it's a question of
their system purposefully evoking fear in even the innocent, and having no
concept of human rights. nd I don't mean just American human rights, I am
talking about the international standards, the global ones that are free
from Americanization.
From Columbo@yabbs Wed May 4 11:08:23 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Wed May 4 11:08:23 1994
If I had not spent the last 15 years dealing in the criminal justice
system, I might feel different. But there is an utter disrespect for our
criminal justice system. Our court system is a joke. We have murderers,and
such (as I'm sure you're already aware) running around our streets after
being released from jail. Some have learned a lesson and sin no more,
however, many end up back in jail as repeat offenders. Mr. Clinton's 3
strikes and you're out plan is a joke. Why give a person *3* chances ?
Sure, the system in some countries are based on fear, but I remember and
old saying when I took my first college course years ago... Fear and
respect walk hand in hand. We really should clean up our system first
before we try to tell another country (no matter how fucked up their
system may seem to us) how they should run theirs. If you break the law in
another country, you must be perpared to face their judicial system. That
in itself would be enough to scare me into abiding by their laws. Think
about what would happen to a citizen of a foriegn country who spray
painted a car here. They would laugh at their punishment. I don't think
anyone here is laughing at the man in Singapore. Maybe it will open some
eyes and let people see no matter how screwed up our system is, it's alot
worse elsewhere.
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 4 14:38:00 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: clipper phone
Date: Wed May 4 14:38:00 1994
In message re: clipper phone, feotus said:
> "ill be a bunch of normal phnes so that when the feds listen to me, they
> will be decrypting normal voice"
>
> this must be a troll or something right?
>
> i don't think they will be that stoopid.
>
> if it is a troll, i'm hooked, anyone got a barbed fishing hook remover?
Yes, it was a troll, but wouldn't it be neat if the Feds got so used to
listening to encrypted communications that they failed ot recognize normal
voice/data? :)
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 4 14:49:49 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Wed May 4 14:49:49 1994
In message re: stuff, feotus said:
> As I said the system is fucked.
No, everything you complained about points to incompetence in the managers
of the system, not the system itself. Think about it like some UNIX system,
like the IRIX system at my school. Taken as a blank slate, there is nothing
wrong with IRIX 4.whatever (except for a couple security holes, but ignore
that for the time being). The system has lots of open possibilities and
could be a cool place to compute. But, the system managers have decided to
severely limit people's time on the system, install only the most basic
newsreaders, deny access to fun things like IRC, and basically complicate
the situation. Now, would you blame this on IRIX? Is it the fault of the
people at SGI that using the system one day during peak hours means that I
can't use it for a couple days afterwards? No, the people who run the
system and use it to their advantage are to blame, not the system itself.
> Now if yu wnat to say that the original system as dafted by the old fucks
> back then is good, than just remember that blacks were only 2/3rds a
> person and women were less than that, not too mention various other
> sundries.
Yes, and now that's changed. THe Constitution is a living document, capable
of change to reflect a greater understanding of humanity. What exactly is
it about the Constitution that makes the system screwed up? Is it the
writing of the text, or people's interpretations of it? How is the system
itself incorrect (I was going to say imperfect, but I will concede that it
is not)? If you are going to continually blame people for the state of the
system, then point out specific areas of the Constitution that have allowed
those screw-ups! That will prove that the system is fucked, not just
pointing at bad people who have abused and misused the Law.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 4 15:06:58 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Wed May 4 15:06:58 1994
In message re: run for the border, Columbo said:
> If I had not spent the last 15 years dealing in the criminal justice
> system, I might feel different. But there is an utter disrespect for our
> criminal justice system. Our court system is a joke. We have murderers,and
> such (as I'm sure you're already aware) running around our streets after
> being released from jail. Some have learned a lesson and sin no more,
> however, many end up back in jail as repeat offenders. Mr. Clinton's 3
> strikes and you're out plan is a joke. Why give a person *3* chances ?
You're right that the plan is a joke, but you're saying it for the wrong
reason. Chances should not factor into the decision. Having only 3 chances
(or less) will not prevent crime. In fact, it will overcrowd our already
overburdened and underfunded prison system. Since they barely have any
money to begin with, prison conditions will worsen and we'll be at the state
of throwing people in dirty, unhealthy dungeons. Just because a person
commits a crime does not make them less human.
The solution, IMHO, is education, both in the prison and outside. Are
educational courses required in prison? THey should be, if they're not.
How many college grads do you see on the streets, mugging, raping, and
killing. THe prison and crime situations will not be solved until the
social problems that perpetuate crime are eradicated.
Do rich, smart people committ the same crimes that scare people? I find
people who try to deny the link between poverty and crime and violence
slightly misguided. What else could be the cause? Race? Yeah, right.
Culture? Maybe a little, but the popular culture of violence is more a
reflection of that life than a cause of it.
> Sure, the system in some countries are based on fear, but I remember and
> old saying when I took my first college course years ago... Fear and
> respect walk hand in hand. We really should clean up our system first
Just because it's an old saying does not make it true.
> before we try to tell another country (no matter how fucked up their
> system may seem to us) how they should run theirs. If you break the law in
> another country, you must be perpared to face their judicial system. That
> in itself would be enough to scare me into abiding by their laws. Think
> about what would happen to a citizen of a foriegn country who spray
> painted a car here. They would laugh at their punishment. I don't think
> anyone here is laughing at the man in Singapore. Maybe it will open some
> eyes and let people see no matter how screwed up our system is, it's alot
> worse elsewhere.
I laugh at him for not knowing the law. That doesn't mean he should be
subjected to inhuman treatment. This country's attitude toward the world is
hypocritical (well, not SO much since Clinton is in power). During the
Reagan years, we worried about other countries in the world becoming
communist. We felt we had the power and the righteousness to get involved
and interfere with those countries. At the same time, we ignored human
rights violations around the world, saying that we should not tell other
countries how to run their judicial systems. I'm not so sure how it is now.
Did Clinton deny MFN status to China? I hope so, even though it would
strain relations with N. Korea. Whatever our country does, I want it to be
consistent, not hypocritical and jumping around between opposing policies.
JasonLee
From pixy@yabbs Wed May 4 21:08:44 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Wed May 4 21:08:44 1994
In message re: run for the border, Columbo said:
> Put a bullet in their head's you say ? Simply because you disagree with
> the way they punish their lawbreakers ? That is a fascist remark itself.
that's all i'm gonna quote, you should remember the rest.
Obviously the reading with phonics program has not reached your
neck of the woods. If it had, you might have read my whole post.
You heard me say that i would like to put a bullet in the heads of
singapore's leaders, but you obviously missed the part aobut their law
being an antisedition act--big word, you probalbly skipped it--and the
presence of singapore's government as an oppressive regime. what kind of
fascist is against singapore's style of government? If you could actually
explain how my comments make me a fascist, them i will personally
apologize for my entire arguement.
Second, since when have we required that all americans respect
anohter contries style of ruling. Isn't that what the cold War was all
about, and that bullshit in Irag that the average american ate up with a
spoon. What kind of freedom loving american would tolerate the oppression
of anyone in the world. the idea that another country is oppressing its
citizens and we as americans have to respect that makes me totally sick. I
dont' know about you. but american citizenship is not a requirement for me
to care abot yours or anyone elses rights. I say freedom to all humans.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Wed May 4 21:10:59 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: run for the border
Date: Wed May 4 21:10:59 1994
go, feotus. we thinking folk need to stick together.
:)
pixy
From maedhros@yabbs Wed May 4 22:30:42 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Wed May 4 22:30:42 1994
In message re: stuff, feotus said:
>
> A system that is the voters responsibility, but it continually cheats
> votes, disenfranchising them, ripping them off, and lying to them(rem. the
> Jesse Helms sending out postcards to minorites telling them if they lie on
> their voting registration they will go to jail, tho he never sent them too
> whites, can you say "scare the opposition?" )
But we have to vote these people into office for them to have any effect
on us. You seem to know what was going on. Why didn't everyone else?
> A system whichh is NOWHERE near the one that we founded long time ago,
> it's concept of the constitution and rights is dead and buried, under the
> guise of "protection? amd business.
I think I know what you're driving at here, but could you give me an example?
Which concepts have we buried in the name of business or protection?
> Hell we set up a business organization that is simply made to make
> individuals not responsible for what there money-making schemes
> do(corporations) The investors are not held liable, even for things that
> they institute and do.
I'd have to disagree there. While white-collars have an annoying habit of
ending up on 'tennis prisons', they don't simply escape the law.
> The base elements of the system themselves are totally fucked, even if you
> take out the elected people.
If you concede the original framework of our government as just, which I
believe you have, then any changes, for better or worst, could only be
caused by elected officials. i.e. no officials, no change for the worse.
The two are inseperable. We might be at the mercy of the govt. But, it
is the government we placed in power.
> Now if yu wnat to say that the original system as dafted by the old fucks
> back then is good, than just remember that blacks were only 2/3rds a
> person and women were less than that, not too mention various other
> sundries.
I think you're just fucking with me on this issue and really know the
reasons for those concetions. However, I'll humor you and reiterate some
grammer school history.
The original Constitution was drafted in the midst of the war for
independance. The Southern states relied on slavery as a means of
production at the time. It was the South, in fact, which wanted blacks to
count for any kind of vote. The North was flat against any votes for
blacks. Why? Because it was strictly a political move on the South's
part for adding extra Congressmen to the US govt. As far as the real
issue of slavery was concerned: There was much infighting about it.
Howver, the threat of not being able to pull the Union toghether on the
issue forced it onto the backburner so to speak. If the issue had stopped
the creation of the Union there would be no US.
The issue was, however, taken back up in the Civil War, you will remember,
and addressed more adequately.
As far as women's suffrage: No country on this planet let women vote at
the time. I'd hardly address it as a unique concern of the US. It was
simply an acceptable norm. You''' remember that that was also addressed
at a later time.
> Also if your trying to say that we should be angry at the peole, I tell
> you tha it's the system itself that is corrupting the people,and the
> voters and the officials. At it's basest level the American govt is
> fucked up. We have ledft all the ideas that the foundingpops had, and
> we're no longer comparable to the sysem that they set up way beck when.
The system corrupts everyone? Well, there're two options if the system
corrupts everyone:
1. Outlaw amendments. That way no one can change the system. Of course,
if you did that, then slavery would still be legal and women couldn't vote.
2. Decide that people can't handle freedom without being corrupted and
institute a nice fascist regime to handle all the day to day thinking for
people. (Coincidentaly, that happens to be my favored solution.)
> so again, the system is fucked.
Actually, I'm not disagreeing. Judging from the officials we've seen
enter office, I'd say the average person is far to stupid to vote. I say
we give them a goddamned I.Q. test to see whether they're competent to
help form our government.
Maedhros,
/\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Wed May 4 22:42:37 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Singapore
Date: Wed May 4 22:42:37 1994
I had the pleasure of watching the little shits Dad on TV today
wondering how they could still punish his son after the US govt. condemned it.
Many people wonder why foreign countries hate the US. This is a prime
example. US citizens like to roam the planet like they own it. When you
go to a foreign country, know damn well that you are subject to its laws.
If you don't like it, don't go or don't break their laws.
The crap about Singapore justice being barbaric is irrelevant. They
have just as much right to run their country as they please as we do.
Whether it is barbaric or not is all a matter of cultural perspective.
That word's something most Americans aren't familiar with. Most Americans
assume their ways are right and that's that. Bullshit. There is no right
or wrong, just beliefs. If you think differently, prove it. Quantify it.
Show me in no subjective manner what is right or wrong. No pulling the
'God says so, it's faith bullshit either'. I bet you can't do it.
Until you can, right and wrong is irrelevant. The only thing left is that
a bunch of Americans are pissed that an American is ACTUALLY subject to
another country's laws simply because they're tearing up shit in someone
else's land. That's life. That's independance. Live with it or stay home.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Thu May 5 13:11:11 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Singapore
Date: Thu May 5 13:11:11 1994
Well the kid got his ass beat, so it's not an issue anymore...
Back to the usual intellectual bullshitism, peoples...
-Alex
From Columbo@yabbs Thu May 5 20:04:18 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Thu May 5 20:04:18 1994
Well, it's a moot point now. I do wish to respond to something you said in
your last message to me. You felt as if I called you a fascist. I don't
have to resort to insulting someone like some people. I never said your
comments made you a fascist. When you made the comment about putting
bullets in the heads of Singapores leaders, I responded by saying that it
was a fascist statement..... thats all.... you don't have to read anything
else into it. From this country's point of view, many nations could be
guilty of violating human rights. Most Islamic nations could be considered
barbaric by the way they deal with their lawbreakers. It's their country.
If I don't agree with their laws, I don't go there. This is all I'm going
to say on the matter. We each have our opinion so, let's leave it at that.
From JasonLee@yabbs Thu May 5 23:07:25 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Thu May 5 23:07:25 1994
In message re: Singapore, Columbo said:
> else into it. From this country's point of view, many nations could be
> guilty of violating human rights. Most Islamic nations could be considered
> barbaric by the way they deal with their lawbreakers. It's their country.
> If I don't agree with their laws, I don't go there. This is all I'm going
> to say on the matter. We each have our opinion so, let's leave it at that.
In fact, the US could be guilty of violating human rights. It's just that
no one would dare investigate us, and no one could enforce such an
investigation.
JasonLee
From feotus@yabbs Fri May 6 17:47:42 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Fri May 6 17:47:42 1994
we seem to agree ona lot of points, its our defintion of "system" that is
a little non-agreeing.
I see the system as the whole shebang, the voting problems, the crooked
officials, but you see the system as the underlying organization, which
doesnt include the things that corrupt it.
it's semantics basically.
we both agree tho that things just dont be lookin to good der boy
From feotus@yabbs Fri May 6 17:51:49 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Fri May 6 17:51:49 1994
cultural perspective would not make, the branding of woemn "okay" because
there culture made it OK.
Like I stated before it is a fine line between cultural tolerance, and
moral ignorance. Where do we draw the line between fighting for huan
rights, and infringing on other cultures? I myself cant give any hard
answers to that one.
But damn if it didnt piss me off to see that guy act lieif America
condemnded it, it must be wrong. The thing is, we cant sayit's wrong
simply cause we disagree with it from our american perspective but it
could be considered inhuman from the perspective nuetral to it, like the
plain human perspective, or a international perspectiuve.
the point is you cant just let govts opress people because they ssay its
in their culture, but you cant force culture to p[ick up malls, tv
gameshows and capitolism cause we ant em too.
I mean PolPot, Argentinia etc.. all of these places and regimes are known
as human rights violators, regardless of their culture. Ithink we need ot
lookat the line we are drawing.
From pixy@yabbs Fri May 6 20:03:07 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Fri May 6 20:03:07 1994
very well, the matter is dissmised, then, with only two more points for me
to offer:
1. I read into everything because nothing is perfectly straightforward or
2-dimensional.
2. You won't find me in singapore unless i'm going ot put a bullet
through the heads of those in the government.
one more: "like some people" i use name calling. It's part of the game of
rhetoric. In the spirit of Frederick Nietzche, i prefer not to call things
make taboos for myself such as saying name-calling is bad. Why restrict
yourself from something that can help you win?
thank you,
pixy
From Columbo@yabbs Fri May 6 23:28:40 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Fri May 6 23:28:40 1994
Otay Buckwheat.... fair enough...
From maedhros@yabbs Sat May 7 14:21:10 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: stuff
Date: Sat May 7 14:21:10 1994
In message re: stuff, feotus said:
> I see the system as the whole shebang, the voting problems, the crooked
> officials, but you see the system as the underlying organization, which
> doesnt include the things that corrupt it.
> it's semantics basically.
>
> we both agree tho that things just dont be lookin to good der boy
I'd definately agree it's simply semantics. However, our different views
of what constitutes the 'system' probably has an impact on how we think
the problem can be solved. If you take the system as a whole, people
running it included, then it needs to be scraped. However, if you take
them as seperate entities, the system doesn't need an overhaul-Congress
just needs a large bomb.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Sat May 7 14:32:48 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Sat May 7 14:32:48 1994
In message re: Singapore, feotus said:
> cultural perspective would not make, the branding of woemn "okay" because
> there culture made it OK.
But that is exactly my point. Who's to decide what is right or wqrong for
another culture. I think branding sounds pretty damn sick, but that's
simply an opinion not a fact. If it happens at home, damn well bet I'd
fight it. But, it's not my right to impose my moral beliefs (regardless
of how valid they might seem) on an outside independant state.
> Like I stated before it is a fine line between cultural tolerance, and
> moral ignorance. Where do we draw the line between fighting for huan
> rights, and infringing on other cultures? I myself cant give any hard
> answers to that one.
I didn't mean to imply that all we can do is watch 'human rights'
violations when they occur. I just mean we have no right to say we're
going to stop someone outside of our country from commiting what we
consider a crime in the name of morality or human rights. If we're going
to screw with another country, fine, but do so honestly. When's the last
time our country went to war because someone did something that pissed us
off. All I'm asking for is honesty. Why don't we just say. "Hey, you
irritating me, I think we're going to bomb you. What excuse do I have for
it? How's the largest military on the planet waiting to do our bidding
strike you for a reason. Fucking cut it out or we'll trash you." Hell,
if it's what we mean then say it! If we can't tell the truth and still do
it then maybe we need to reevaluate our right to intervene.
> But damn if it didnt piss me off to see that guy act lieif America
> condemnded it, it must be wrong. The thing is, we cant sayit's wrong
> simply cause we disagree with it from our american perspective but it
> could be considered inhuman from the perspective nuetral to it, like the
> plain human perspective, or a international perspectiuve.
Basically, we seem to be agreeing. Except you seem to base your
evaluations on the severity of the situation whereas I think it's immaterial.
> the point is you cant just let govts opress people because they ssay its
> in their culture
I agree, if it's bad enough, bomb the bastards. But, if we do, then be
honest. Hold your head up high and say,"You're an asshole and I'm going
to blast the shit out of you for it!"
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat May 7 17:15:28 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Sat May 7 17:15:28 1994
In message re: Singapore, pixy said:
> one more: "like some people" i use name calling. It's part of the game of
> rhetoric. In the spirit of Frederick Nietzche, i prefer not to call things
> make taboos for myself such as saying name-calling is bad. Why restrict
> yourself from something that can help you win?
Oh, that's really great. If you win because of name-calling, have you
really won at all, or have you just beaten your opponent into psychological
submission to your point of view? Just because your emotional make-up is
sturdier than someone else's does not make you right.
Name-calling is ok, as long as it is good-natured. If it gets serious, it's
just silly and pointless, but I don't object to casual insults. You are a
dummy.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Sat May 7 17:21:50 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Sat May 7 17:21:50 1994
In message re: Singapore, maedhros said:
> I agree, if it's bad enough, bomb the bastards. But, if we do, then be
> honest. Hold your head up high and say,"You're an asshole and I'm going
> to blast the shit out of you for it!"
I like this way of thinking, but it'll never, ever happen. The whole idea
of politics is to appear to be on both sides of the game, to seem both angry
and amused, involved yet distant.
I differ with you a bit, though, on our involvement in the affairs of other
countries. I believe we should get involved when human rights problems pop
up. SOme people would expand my position to say that we should impose our
view of the world on everyone else. It doesn't have to be that way, though.
It should be possible to oppose (and maybe intervene) in human rights
violations without fucking with the government of the country. I'm kinda
thinking of our old mission of stopping communism wherever it might lurk.
We should allow government their own control and culture, but those controls
should not end up violating the rights of the citizens. I can see that this
is nearly impossible, but it's interesting to figure out.
JasonLee
From pixy@yabbs Sun May 8 21:39:50 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Sun May 8 21:39:50 1994
In message re: Singapore, JasonLee said:
>
> Oh, that's really great. If you win because of name-calling, have you
> really won at all, or have you just beaten your opponent into psychological
> submission to your point of view? Just because your emotional make-up is
> sturdier than someone else's does not make you right.
> Name-calling is ok, as long as it is good-natured. If it gets serious, it's
> just silly and pointless, but I don't object to casual insults. You are a
> dummy.
Well, forgive me if this offends you, but it sounds to me like you learned
morality from After School Specials. I do appreciate your questioning of
what is really winning--something i ponder alot--but you went downhill
from their. first of all, what in the hell are you trying to judge right
from wrong for? Do you think you have the power of judgement over all
others--i shutter at the possibility. And come on, do you reall think that
name calling is pointless? the minds of the masses are controlled by
simple names and catchphrases--"no new taxes", "o-zone man", "generation
X" people eat the shit up. Why not take advantage of that power to suit
your goal?
Why don't you go tell someone else how to act--i'm not interested.
pixy
From Jughead@yabbs Sun May 8 22:25:18 1994
From: Jughead@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Sun May 8 22:25:18 1994
How does name calling help you win an arguement ? Does that mean the
person who does the best name calling wins the arguement ? I don't think
so there, rubberneck... ;
From maedhros@yabbs Sun May 8 23:34:18 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Jughead@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Sun May 8 23:34:18 1994
In message re: Singapore, Jughead said:
> How does name calling help you win an arguement ? Does that mean the
> person who does the best name calling wins the arguement ? I don't think
> so there, rubberneck... ;
Judging from recent political races I'd have to say yes. The one with the
better comeback wins. Maybe that's why everything is so screwed up.
People actually do think like this.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From pixy@yabbs Mon May 9 15:24:53 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Jughead@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 15:24:53 1994
In message re: Singapore, Jughead said:
> How does name calling help you win an arguement ? Does that mean the
> person who does the best name calling wins the arguement ? I don't think
> so there, rubberneck... ;
From pixy@yabbs Mon May 9 15:30:50 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Jughead@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 15:30:50 1994
In message re: Singapore, Jughead said:
> How does name calling help you win an arguement ? Does that mean the
> person who does the best name calling wins the arguement ? I don't think
> so there, rubberneck... ;
Oh come on, i shouldn't even have to answer this one. Let me answer with a
question: if name-calling is so useless, then why in the hell did you use
it in the very same prompt in which you criticized it. Sure, you were
trying to show how ludicrist it is--or perhaps just being ironic and
funny--but you still had a purpose for it. Perhaps you need to ask
yourself such things before you write instead of going with what your
kindergarten teacher always told you about name-calling. I mean even a
mildly intelligent hypocrite wouldn't have done something he was
condemming in the very same post. It does make me laugh though.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Please don't waste my time with bad arguements,
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Mon May 9 15:34:18 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 15:34:18 1994
In message re: Singapore, maedhros said:
> Judging from recent political races I'd have to say yes. The one with the
> better comeback wins. Maybe that's why everything is so screwed up.
> People actually do think like this.
Now you're talking; i'm glad to see someone else on this base knows how
the minds of the masses are controlled.
thanks,
pixy /\
/___\
/ \
/ \
P.s. i'm sorry i duped you symbol; i just always wanted to sign that way.
It won't happen again:)
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon May 9 15:39:13 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 15:39:13 1994
In message re: Singapore, pixy said:
> Well, forgive me if this offends you, but it sounds to me like you learned
> morality from After School Specials.
Hey! I learned my morality from Sesame Street, thank you very much! After
School Specials - Sheesh!
> I do appreciate your questioning of
> what is really winning--something i ponder alot--but you went downhill
> from their. first of all, what in the hell are you trying to judge right
> from wrong for? Do you think you have the power of judgement over all
> others--i shutter at the possibility. And come on, do you reall think that
> name calling is pointless? the minds of the masses are controlled by
> simple names and catchphrases--"no new taxes", "o-zone man", "generation
> X" people eat the shit up. Why not take advantage of that power to suit
> your goal?
> Why don't you go tell someone else how to act--i'm not interested.
Hey, I didn't tell you how to act. I was just saying that when an argument
degenerates into pure name-calling, then it becomes pointless. If insults
are used to augment one side, you fuckhead, then it helps a lot and I don't
see why anyone would have a problem with it. Name-calling for the sake of
insult seems childish, though. Take, for instance, various members of the
Nation of Islam. Their excuse for the insults they level at Jews (hook
nosed, lox-eating, bagel-eating bloodsuckers) is that they have been so hurt
that they can only insult. It doesn't seem to me a sign of intelligence or
righteousness to just throw out that shit.
As for the use of simple names and catchphrases, those are great, but again,
when an argument is based only on its PR, it becomes worthless. This is
more about the philosophy of debate than about telling someone how to act.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Mon May 9 15:42:48 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 15:42:48 1994
In message re: Singapore, pixy said:
> Oh come on, i shouldn't even have to answer this one. Let me answer with a
> question: if name-calling is so useless, then why in the hell did you use
> it in the very same prompt in which you criticized it. Sure, you were
> trying to show how ludicrist it is--or perhaps just being ironic and
> funny--but you still had a purpose for it. Perhaps you need to ask
> yourself such things before you write instead of going with what your
> kindergarten teacher always told you about name-calling. I mean even a
> mildly intelligent hypocrite wouldn't have done something he was
> condemming in the very same post. It does make me laugh though.
> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
> Please don't waste my time with bad arguements,
Pixy, do you know how to argue?
Jughead's name-calling was so meaningless, I completely ignored it. That's
why he put it in, just for the sake of being useless.
I think the kind of arguments you're looking for are most often found on
alt.flame.
JasonLee
From pixy@yabbs Mon May 9 20:23:04 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 20:23:04 1994
I see your point about an arguement degenerating into name calling. Alot
of things people do can be done wrong--biking for instance. I got hit by a
car the other day on my way to the park--my bike and myself are fine, but
you should see the minivan i hit. I was not riding like i should. Does
that mean that bicycle riding is wrong? no, jsut that i wasn't doing it
right.
Name calling is the samein that respect--i can be fun and helpful
when done right, and it can fuck you upwhen you do it wrong--just like
anyhing else we do. My point is that we shouldn't make taboo's out of
anything, this is a characteristic of mediocre men.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Mon May 9 20:31:02 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Mon May 9 20:31:02 1994
In message re: Singapore, JasonLee said:
> Pixy, do you know how to argue?
> Jughead's name-calling was so meaningless, I completely ignored it. That's
> why he put it in, just for the sake of being useless.
> I think the kind of arguments you're looking for are most often found on
> alt.flame.
Now, Jasonlee, you should know better than that. You just said for
yourself that he put that in there for a reason--just like i said. Now
take that logic one step furhter and you will find yourself saying,"Hmm. i
guess that name-calling can be used for a purpose."
I refer everyone to Ecclesiates.."for all things there is a purpose under
the sun"--your version might be different.
And why the hell should i find somewhere else to argue--where is the
anarchy in the "Anarchy in the U.S." base, anyway. I'm no one to flame
here without good reason, but this isn't a friggin' country club, either.
My 2 cents worth,
pixy
From maedhros@yabbs Tue May 10 00:07:26 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Tue May 10 00:07:26 1994
In message re: Singapore, pixy said:
> In message re: Singapore, maedhros said:
> > People actually do think like this.
>
> Now you're talking; i'm glad to see someone else on this base knows how
> the minds of the masses are controlled.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. That is, in fact, why I think a
competency test should be designed for potential voters. Presentation
above substance- it makes me ill. It's kind of sad that you have to play
the bullshit games to get in office. It probably scares or disgusts the
best candidates out of ever running.
> P.s. i'm sorry i duped you symbol; i just always wanted to sign that way.
> It won't happen again:)
*grin* No prob. My normal email .sig is /\
/--\
/ \narchists Inc.
Kind of a bizarre oxymoron. It seemed a bit presumptuous on this board,
however, since I think there are a lot more hard core anarchists here then
myself.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From robtelee@yabbs Tue May 10 02:24:39 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Tue May 10 02:24:39 1994
As of 12:58 a.m. John Wayne Gacy joined his "buddy" Ted Bundy in Hell.
Lord bless the state of Illinois for doing us the favor of helping Mr.
Gacy on his true reward.
And for those of you who don't believe that the death penalty works, think
about this. At least Gacy won't be murdering and mutilating any one else.
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue May 10 11:32:25 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Tue May 10 11:32:25 1994
In message re: Singapore, pixy said:
> Now, Jasonlee, you should know better than that. You just said for
> yourself that he put that in there for a reason--just like i said. Now
> take that logic one step furhter and you will find yourself saying,"Hmm. i
> guess that name-calling can be used for a purpose."
What's interesting is that his use was to illustrate uselessness.
Does that mean that name-calling has a use? ;)
> I refer everyone to Ecclesiates.."for all things there is a purpose under
> the sun"--your version might be different.
> And why the hell should i find somewhere else to argue--where is the
> anarchy in the "Anarchy in the U.S." base, anyway. I'm no one to flame
> here without good reason, but this isn't a friggin' country club, either.
No, don't go away. I was just frustrated... or something. Finals, you
know. Your arguments sounded like you preferred flame boards, though.
Well, sorta.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue May 10 11:34:56 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Tue May 10 11:34:56 1994
In message re: Singapore, maedhros said:
> Unfortunately, I have to agree. That is, in fact, why I think a
> competency test should be designed for potential voters. Presentation
> above substance- it makes me ill. It's kind of sad that you have to play
> the bullshit games to get in office. It probably scares or disgusts the
> best candidates out of ever running.
Sorry, but I don't think that will ever happen. Personally, I'm glad it
won't. The potentials for abuse of a competency test are infinite. Who
decides what questions are put on the test? What if the questions are
socially/economically/racially biased? Can you say Jim Crow?
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Tue May 10 11:37:54 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Tue May 10 11:37:54 1994
In message R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :), robtelee said:
> As of 12:58 a.m. John Wayne Gacy joined his "buddy" Ted Bundy in Hell.
> Lord bless the state of Illinois for doing us the favor of helping Mr.
> Gacy on his true reward.
Bye-bye. We'll miss you. BTW, did anyone see the painting JW Gacy did for
the movie poster of Hated: GG Allin and the Murder Junkies? Pretty nifty.
> And for those of you who don't believe that the death penalty works, think
> about this. At least Gacy won't be murdering and mutilating any one else.
If he'd been kept in prison for the rest of his life, he wouldn't be
murdering or mutilating anyone else either. Did his death deter others from
committing similar crimes? If anything, the exposure he got glamorized his
atrocities, possibly giving others similar ideas. I'm not saying the death
penalty is wrong. I think it's perfectly fair to use it, but it should not
become a cop-out to rehabilitation.
JasonLee
From pixy@yabbs Tue May 10 13:39:52 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Tue May 10 13:39:52 1994
In message re: Singapore, maedhros said:
> Unfortunately, I have to agree. That is, in fact, why I think a
> competency test should be designed for potential voters. Presentation
> above substance- it makes me ill. It's kind of sad that you have to play
> the bullshit games to get in office. It probably scares or disgusts the
> best candidates out of ever running.
Unfortunately, i have to agree with your point, too. People aren't fit for
democracy, not yet anyway. The right to vote should be merely a tool of
the people to check the government, not to rule the government. Perhaps,
though, a competency test would be the way to implemnt this, but don't
forget the jim crow laws and the poll taxes of the nineteenth century that
kept blacks out of government--the government can and probalbvly would
take advantage of a situation like that.
pixy
P.S. please don;t ask me how i think we should alleviate this problem, i
haven't come up with any solutions yet. but i'll keep thinking abouty it\
From pixy@yabbs Tue May 10 13:43:22 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Tue May 10 13:43:22 1994
In message re: Singapore, JasonLee said:
> What's interesting is that his use was to illustrate uselessness.
> Does that mean that name-calling has a use? ;)
Hmm. i don't know. Souns lik we is startin' ta get inta sum o' dat eastern
philosophy mumbo jumbo. ;)
Yes. i think it does in all seriousness. Kinda weird how that works. hmm...
pixy
From maedhros@yabbs Tue May 10 21:06:47 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Tue May 10 21:06:47 1994
In message re: Singapore, JasonLee said:
> Sorry, but I don't think that will ever happen. Personally, I'm glad it
> won't. The potentials for abuse of a competency test are infinite. Who
> decides what questions are put on the test? What if the questions are
> socially/economically/racially biased? Can you say Jim Crow?
>
> JasonLee
>
I don't think it'll ever happen iether, unfortunately. However, I'm quite
aware of the potentials for abuse already and have given it some thought.
IQ tests have never been under the line of fire as regards to their racial
and/or social bias. I'd expect to have the APA design it and create a
national sociological review board to test it for bias. Just a thought
*sigh*. Can't see how it could possibly make things worse.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Tue May 10 21:09:43 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Tue May 10 21:09:43 1994
In message re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :), JasonLee said:
> If he'd been kept in prison for the rest of his life, he wouldn't be
> murdering or mutilating anyone else either. Did his death deter others from
> committing similar crimes?
Doubt it, but it sure as Hell made me feel all warm and bubbly inside. I
and my friends are planning a wake for him this weekend. Just wish they
wouldn't have waited so long to fry the bastard.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From robtelee@yabbs Tue May 10 21:22:28 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore reply
Date: Tue May 10 21:22:28 1994
You, sir, are correct in your statements regarding Jim Crow. In the early
part of this century, certain people were excluded from voting because
they may support the "wrong" candidate. These sanctions took the forms of
literacy tests and poll taxes. The Supreme Court overturned these
oppresive measures. Now, with certain resrictions, just about anyone can
vote in this country. The candidates we have to choose from is the price
we pay for a free electorate.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt,
RobtELee
From robtelee@yabbs Tue May 10 21:39:48 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Tue May 10 21:39:48 1994
My wife and I were discussing your post referenced above. My wife is from
Great Britain. As you know, Great Britain does not have a death penalty.
My wife, however, supports the death penalty. She makes a valid point in
with rehabilitation, society becomes the test lab and we are the guinea
pig. Offenders are "rehabilitated" and then turned out on society, on us.
Do we really want to take a chance on some of these people being "all
better?"
Do we want a repeat of Charles Manson, John Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas, and
from Great Britain, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley and The Yorkshire Ripper?
I do not think that society as a whole, would care for this.
Another note was that even people who are against the death penalty could
not or would not defend Gacy and play on sympathy to prevent Gacy's
execution.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From pixy@yabbs Wed May 11 19:53:37 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Wed May 11 19:53:37 1994
i hope they killed him in his clown suit and buried him under his old
house--fitting. And i still think we sould all observe 18 and one half
minutes in honor of richard nixon.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Wed May 11 19:56:16 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Wed May 11 19:56:16 1994
Oops, make that last sentence on the last post read: and i still think we
sould all observe 18 and one half minutes of silence in honor of richard
nixon. And when i die, everyone should use flagrant typos and errors in
everything they type for a week in hionr of me--and not use caps either.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Wed May 11 20:03:30 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 11 20:03:30 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., robtelee said:
> Do we want a repeat of Charles Manson, John Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas, and
> from Great Britain, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley and The Yorkshire Ripper?
> I do not think that society as a whole, would care for this.
don't forget Charles Bronson, cagney and lacey, henry lee summer, and from
great britain, greg brady, Myra N. dwoskins(think about that one a bit and
it'll come to you), and the Yorkshire terrier. I think society as a whole
would care little for these, either :}
Pixy(I'm feeling weird today)
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 11 20:07:27 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Wed May 11 20:07:27 1994
In message re: Singapore, pixy said:
> Hmm. i don't know. Souns lik we is startin' ta get inta sum o' dat eastern
> philosophy mumbo jumbo. ;)
>
> Yes. i think it does in all seriousness. Kinda weird how that works. hmm...
Yeah, I agree with you.
I wish there were more study done on the philosophy or uselessness and
triviality. I really enjoy things that have no purpose. There's a kind of
joy in the lack of a point.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 11 20:11:48 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Wed May 11 20:11:48 1994
In message re: Singapore, maedhros said:
> I don't think it'll ever happen iether, unfortunately. However, I'm quite
> aware of the potentials for abuse already and have given it some thought.
> IQ tests have never been under the line of fire as regards to their racial
> and/or social bias. I'd expect to have the APA design it and create a
> national sociological review board to test it for bias. Just a thought
> *sigh*. Can't see how it could possibly make things worse.
I think it would generally make things worse. To require some competency
test would be to decide that the majority of people are stupid. I can't
agree with the idea that the mass of people are hopelessly lost in a sea of
idiocy. Though it may seem that most people ARE that way, that doesn't mean
that we should assume that in general people are mindless. Why not look at
why they are so dumb? I think that most stupidity is produced by a lack of
education. If we had schools that promoted independent thought, and that
were staffed by competent, well-paid teachers, I doubt we'd have this
problem. Let's try this solution before we decide that America is
hopelessly stupid.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 11 20:13:39 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Wed May 11 20:13:39 1994
In message re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :), maedhros said:
> Doubt it, but it sure as Hell made me feel all warm and bubbly inside. I
> and my friends are planning a wake for him this weekend. Just wish they
> wouldn't have waited so long to fry the bastard.
They didn't fry him. It was death by lethal injection. Apparently, the
tube with the poison coagulated, and he was left sitting there with a
stopped up tube in his arm for a long while. THey had to go in later and
splice another, working tube on to kill him. Incomptent illinois bastards.
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 11 20:16:36 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore reply
Date: Wed May 11 20:16:36 1994
In message re: Singapore reply, robtelee said:
> You, sir, are correct in your statements regarding Jim Crow. In the early
> part of this century, certain people were excluded from voting because
> they may support the "wrong" candidate. These sanctions took the forms of
> literacy tests and poll taxes. The Supreme Court overturned these
> oppresive measures. Now, with certain resrictions, just about anyone can
> vote in this country. The candidates we have to choose from is the price
> we pay for a free electorate.
I always thought the thing we should do is this (suggested by Jello Biafra):
Have a "None of the Above" candidate on the ballot. If this person wins,
then you have to hold a new election with all new candidates. Why not? The
problem with that is, who rules in the meantime?
Another thing that would help is to force the media to adhere to the equal
time laws. They seem to be generally discarded in order to show the two
main candidates (dems and reps).
JasonLee
From JasonLee@yabbs Wed May 11 20:27:53 1994
From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 11 20:27:53 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., robtelee said:
> My wife and I were discussing your post referenced above. My wife is from
> Great Britain. As you know, Great Britain does not have a death penalty.
> My wife, however, supports the death penalty. She makes a valid point in
> with rehabilitation, society becomes the test lab and we are the guinea
> pig. Offenders are "rehabilitated" and then turned out on society, on us.
> Do we really want to take a chance on some of these people being "all
> better?"
What if someone really is rehabilitated? Do we want them to spend the rest
of their lives in jail, living off taxpayer money, or should we kill them
in the first place, never giving them the chance to become new people? What
if you committed a murder in the heat of passion? Would you agree to go to
jail if you knew you'd be put to death? There is no way to classify
criminals as a group. The rehab and judgement of a person's ability to
return to society should be determined individually, not by some parole
board that simply looks at behavior. Unfortunately, to do this would
require a lot of money, which would in turn require higher taxes. Since
people consider paying taxes a purely evil affront to their existence as
citizens, they must live with overfilled, underfunded prisons and unrehabbed
criminals released onto the streets. An increase in death penalties is not
the answer, and we can't just stick people in poor prisons to rot.
Committing a crime and going to jail means you give up certain rights. One
that you don't give up is your right to be treated like a human being.
> Do we want a repeat of Charles Manson, John Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas, and
> from Great Britain, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley and The Yorkshire Ripper?
> I do not think that society as a whole, would care for this.
These are not examples that I would've used. I know Gacy and Manson are
serial killers, so I'm assuming the others are, too. None of these people
were put in jail and released, I believe, so why bring these up, except to
argue in favor of a death penalty for crazies? I don't think their deaths
will deter similar crimes, though, because the things that drove them to
murder are not "typical" criminal instincts (typical ones being anger,
hatred, greed, etc.).
> Another note was that even people who are against the death penalty could
> not or would not defend Gacy and play on sympathy to prevent Gacy's
> execution.
This works in favor of what I said. They've decided on an individual basis
that this is someone who does not deserve to live.
I'm not sure if I understood the full intent of your post. Did I correctly
interpret you as arguing in favor of a broader death penalty?
JasonLee
From Colonel@yabbs Wed May 11 22:38:05 1994
From: Colonel@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 11 22:38:05 1994
Often, prosecutors will not push for the death penalty even with the
merits of the case warrant it. Politics...... Also, why wait 14 years to
execute someone ? Isn't justice supposed to be swift ?
From robtelee@yabbs Wed May 11 23:46:19 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: :)
Date: Wed May 11 23:46:19 1994
nice to see a sense of humor...i enjoyed it.
(notice no caps in this post :) ?)
From Slutty@yabbs Wed May 11 23:57:57 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Wed May 11 23:57:57 1994
I agree about killing and buryinr Gacy in his clown suit and under his
house but that thing about 18 1/2 minutes to honor Richard Nixon is a
little far g=fetched. The man was an absolute asshole and a crook to
boot. I think he should rot in hell with Gacy.
From maedhros@yabbs Thu May 12 00:44:43 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Thu May 12 00:44:43 1994
In message re: Singapore, JasonLee said:
> I think it would generally make things worse. To require some competency
> test would be to decide that the majority of people are stupid. I can't
There is a difference between deciding something and recognizing something
which simply exists. The term idiot is not an arbitrarily used insult
(although English has bastardized the word quite well), it's a standard
(along with moron and a few others) category of low scoring intelligence
quotients. I'm not deciding anything. If I'm wrong, then I invite the
majority of the population to prove me wrong.
> agree with the idea that the mass of people are hopelessly lost in a sea of
> idiocy. Though it may seem that most people ARE that way, that doesn't mean
> that we should assume that in general people are mindless. Why not look at
Ah, but I don't want to assume anything. I'd much prefer to gather
quantifiable evidence either to support or destroy my theory.
> why they are so dumb? I think that most stupidity is produced by a lack of
> education. If we had schools that promoted independent thought, and that
> were staffed by competent, well-paid teachers, I doubt we'd have this
> problem. Let's try this solution before we decide that America is
> hopelessly stupid.
Firstly, you are confusing stupidity with ignorance. Don't blur the
lines. Ignorance is cureable, stupidity is not. Intelligence quotient
testing (which is what I wanted to base the testing on) measures innate
conceptualization, learning and cognitive ability. Ideally, the test has
nothing to do with education.It doesn't measure if you know anything, just
if you are capable of learning. If the inner workings of a national
government are beyond the cognitive grasp of someone, why the hell would
you let them run it. You wouldn't turn of the operation of a fission
reactor to a five year old. So, why would you turn the government over to
someone who doesn't understand it?
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Thu May 12 00:46:29 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Thu May 12 00:46:29 1994
'course, it might help just a teesy weesy bit if people were willing to
pay for good schools. I can only speak for my area, but the people
here care for athletics over academics. You can rip the guts out of the
science department if you feel like it (or make us use old outdated
equipment) but hell will freeze over before even one sport gets cut back.
People around here complain about the academics of our system going down
the toilet, but when a millage forthe schools comes up, those same people
are the ones who rejecft it. OF course, since proposal A passed, our
sales tax went up, there's higher taxes on cigarretes, and most
importantly, property taxes have been capped. hERE'S HOPING OUR SCHOOL
STAY AT THE same level they are now (damn caps lock). *sigh* Of course,
I'm just a naive college student so I wouldn't know anything. NEvermind
that I had to suffer and am still suffering shitty michigan schools....
natalie
From maedhros@yabbs Thu May 12 00:48:11 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Thu May 12 00:48:11 1994
In message re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :), JasonLee said:
> They didn't fry him. It was death by lethal injection. Apparently, the
Just a figure of speech. Buying the big needle just doesn't have the same
catch to it as frying :-)
> tube with the poison coagulated, and he was left sitting there with a
> stopped up tube in his arm for a long while. THey had to go in later and
> splice another, working tube on to kill him. Incomptent illinois bastards.
The clog didn't happen until the second injection. He was already
unconscious from the first. He didn't even notice. Too bad :-(
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu May 12 00:52:53 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Slutty@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Thu May 12 00:52:53 1994
In message re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :), Slutty said:
> I agree about killing and buryinr Gacy in his clown suit and under his
> house but that thing about 18 1/2 minutes to honor Richard Nixon is a
> little far g=fetched. The man was an absolute asshole and a crook to
> boot. I think he should rot in hell with Gacy.
Asshole and a crook to boot? I think I'm missing something. Just how
does this distinguish him from any other president. I just don't like him
because he got caught. Corruption I can tolerate, but stupidity and
sloppiness in a president? How are you supposed to conduct foreign policy
when you can't even trick the senate? Tricky Dick my ass :-)
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu May 12 00:58:54 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Singapore
Date: Thu May 12 00:58:54 1994
In message re: Singapore, Natalie said:
> 'course, it might help just a teesy weesy bit if people were willing to
> pay for good schools. I can only speak for my area, but the people
> here care for athletics over academics. You can rip the guts out of the
> science department if you feel like it (or make us use old outdated
> equipment) but hell will freeze over before even one sport gets cut back.
That's because we let the same people we allow to vote also enter college.
Why? Beats the hell out of me. Might as well send my dog through
college, he'd probably get more out of it.
This sound familiar:
"Uh prof., can we move the test to next Wednesday, I've GOT to go to a
concert tomorrow."
Buy a fuckin shovel pal. Learn a trade you can handle.
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
From Columbo@yabbs Thu May 12 01:19:41 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: Slutty@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Thu May 12 01:19:41 1994
Richard Nixon was still a good president but, he made the mistake of not
telling the truth when he should have. By the time he told *part* of the
truth, it was too late. As far as him being an asshole, that comes with
the job. The president is the biggest asshole in the whole country....
Guess that makes him the Head Asshole.
From pixy@yabbs Sat May 21 20:00:26 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Slutty@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Sat May 21 20:00:26 1994
I'm going to write ontop of what you said because my editor is acting
strange. oh well
anyway, that thing about nixon was meant to be a joke--maybe you cauught
it maybee you didn't. It's okay either way. i'll explain later.
In message re:
R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :), Slutty said:
> I agree about killing and buryinr Gacy in his clown suit and under his
> house but that thing about 18 1/2 minutes to honor Richard Nixon is a
> little far g=fetched. The man was an absolute asshole and a crook to
> boot. I think he should rot in hell with Gacy.
From pixy@yabbs Sun May 22 04:03:10 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Sun May 22 04:03:10 1994
did anyone get that 18 and one half minutes of silence thing i said about
nixon? I was just wondering.
pixy
From laelth@yabbs Tue May 24 04:10:23 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: JasonLee@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Tue May 24 04:10:23 1994
Does it bother anyone else on this board that we are the ONLY nation in
the industrialized world that regularly executes its criminals? We do so
while also having the highest rate of violent crime of any industrialized
nation - so much for deterrence.
What does the death penalty say about us? To me it says that we're lazy
and selfish. Rather than doing what's hard (dealing with the root causes
of criminal behavior) we'd rather do what's quick and expedient -
kill 'em and kill 'em fast. We don't want to be bothered with the
despair, hopelessness and poverty that our society creates. We want to
sweep all that ugly stuff under the rug - until it comes back to haunt us
in the form of an astronomically high crime rate.
We've had the death penalty for a long time in the U.S. It never stopped
crime in the past, and it won't stop it in the future. All it does is
make people feel good (as Maedhros reminds us) while making us look
barbaric and uncivilized. Is it worth it?
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Tue May 24 04:24:13 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Tue May 24 04:24:13 1994
A good president? Please!
O.K., he went to China. Big deal! The massacre in Tienamin Square proves
how useful it was for us to establish diplomatic relations with China.
Please, arachnoi, dig into your endless archives and retrieve your
evidence. What was "good" that Richard Nixon did for America?
Precious little, I warrant.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Tue May 24 04:36:42 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: I.Q. test
Date: Tue May 24 04:36:42 1994
Although I'm tempted to agree with the basic premise of Maedhros' argument
(that the smart people should run things), I don't think that his I.Q.
test can accomplish that goal. Only 50% of the voting age people in this
country vote in a presidential election, and I'd bet that most (over 90%)
could pass his test. Let's face it, it's the smart people (the educated
people) who are more likely to vote. The less-smart people (the
less-educated, often mostly poor people) are far less likely to vote.
I think that things would pretty much stay the same, unless he made the
I.Q. cutoff very high, say around 140, where only the REALLY smart people
can vote. But this, of course, is beyond the realm of possibility.
Besides, I'm not sure that the benifits of having the smart people run
things outweighs the cost of losing our pseudo-democratic ideals.
-laelth
From Badger01@yabbs Tue May 24 16:41:42 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Tue May 24 16:41:42 1994
Well, as far as I'm concerned, at least I lived to see a world without
either Gacy OR Nixon. Good Enough.
Matthew Rossi
"The oldest and strongest of emotions is fear, and the oldest and
strongest fear is fear of the unknown."-H.P. Lovecraft
"I think I'm a Teapot, son." My father.
From Badger01@yabbs Tue May 24 16:47:14 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Tue May 24 16:47:14 1994
The Death Penalty has only one benefit. It shows people exactly what they
don't know about executions. The only problem I have with it is that not
enough people get to see them, and still think it is a neat and easy
solution to the tremendously violent aspect of humanity. Violence
countered with violence isn't especially effective, but it does show the
limited brainpower of humanity. But a few people deserve to die, I will
say that. In the case of a Gacy, let the victims families alone with him
for half an hour. That should be the sentence.
Matthew Rossi
"You know, I'd like to see a world where we all were brothers."
"That's really going to make dating hard."
From Badger01@yabbs Tue May 24 16:53:24 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: I.Q. test
Date: Tue May 24 16:53:24 1994
Why do people continue to assume that intellect will make for good
leadership? My father, a genius if ever one existed, is completely
incapable of balancing a budget or performing political analysis, and is
hopelessly naive. I, on the other hand, am capable of doing those things,
but I would never consider myself an intelligent person. The simple fact
is that no one type of person, be they gifted or otherwise, will alter the
direction that we are traveling in all that significantly. We need a type
of groundswell of comprehension for that.
Matthew Rossi
"My mind hates my body
My body hates my soul
I close my eyes and fight
Inside my own black hole"--Black Flag, The Bars
"I am the spirit that denies Forever!"--Johann Goethe, Faust
From Badger01@yabbs Wed May 25 12:05:45 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 25 12:05:45 1994
Not that I care, but what could Billary do?
He hasn't the moral authority of an anemic snake.
He got elected because the other two were a raving madman and the
incumbent during economic hardship. As history shows, a monkey can beat
the incumbent in a split-vote depressed economy situation.
Badger
Matthew Rossi III
"Come in under the shadow of this red rock,
and I will show you something different from either"
T.S.Eliot, THE DEATH OF ST. NARCISSUS
From maedhros@yabbs Wed May 25 12:06:24 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 25 12:06:24 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., arachnoi said:
> [835][laelth]
> ----
> Does it bother anyone else on this board that we are the ONLY
> nation in the industrialized world that regularly executes its
> criminals? We do so while also having the highest rate of
> violent crime of any industrialized nation - so much for
> deterrence.
It bothers me immensely. What the hell's wrong with the other countries? :)
I'm not sure I agree with your line of thinking here. You seem to think
that since we have suck an astronomically high crime rate, the death
penalty is innefectual. Who said the death penalty was instituted as a
deterrent. I, personally, couldn't give a flying fuck less is it deters
any would be criminals or not. The desath penalty is reserved for people
who, with malice aforethought, ended another individual's life. Reform?
Deterrence? Fuck that! Revenge!
I seriously doubt if someone shot one of your loved ones in cold blood for
profit or the sheer fun of it, you'd be worried about the death penalty's
relative effectiveness as a deterrent. We're not talking about social
control or reform-we're talking about justice. If you don't agree with
this, I'd be forced to assume (granted that this is just an assumption)
that noone in your family has been murdered and you are incapable of
pacing yourself in their shoes. I know sure as hell, that if it happenned
to me, I'd demand blood debt. If you didn't fry him, you'd sure as hell
have to lock me up when he came out on parol, because I'd kill him myself.
Sorry about the flagrant appeal to emotion. I know it's a falacious
backbone for an argument, but it's difficult to stay objective on this
topic. It is, after all, inherently based on emotions and perspective .
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Badger01@yabbs Wed May 25 15:26:10 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 25 15:26:10 1994
Maybe the revenge thing is true, maybe not. I myself don't bleed for the
madmen and killers of this world, but then again I may be one. And also,
who the hell in this corrupt material obsessed cruel callous unconcerned
world has the right to vengance? How come, if revenge is a sufficent
motive, do we kill those who commit murder with that as their reason?
Again, I'm neither pro nor con, and I am sick of all of the people who are
chargd with murder comnstantly coming up with reasons why it is not their
fault, but no nation or government has a "right" to revenge against its
citizenry. Only the victim, not his family or friends, even, only the
victim, and in this case the victim is dead.
BADGER01
"Walk the bone stamp on the trail of stone."
From feotus@yabbs Wed May 25 17:26:58 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 25 17:26:58 1994
geesus man a HP Lovecraft, a Goethe a Black Flag, and a TS Elliot quote,
tell me you arent my other alter ego please..... the onyl thing your
mising is a WS Burroughs quote, particularly on his stance towards capitol
punishment.
Anyone ever read _Naked Lunch_, Burroughs work while he was adicted to
heroin, it's a satire of addictions,r eligions, buerocracies, and the deth
penalty also. He doe s agood satire of it, comparing it to slasher blue
movies, where the whole nation gets a huge erection adn a charge out of
sending soem guy to his death, its a G rated nationally covered blue
movie, straightwith the black transvestie Slashtubitch.
Execution isnt about justice, its about a bunch of closet S&M freaks in
suburbia getting there rocks off when some guy bites it, it's real live
movie stuff, straight with drma and _Hard COpy_ sensationalism.
"garaunteed to come three times as the noose snaps his neck"
From maedhros@yabbs Wed May 25 17:27:22 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Wed May 25 17:27:22 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., Badger01 said:
> who the hell in this corrupt material obsessed cruel callous unconcerned
> world has the right to vengance?
Vengeance isn't a right, it's an act. Who has a right? Whoever can get
away with it.
> How come, if revenge is a sufficent motive, do we kill those
> who commit murder with that as their reason?
Isn't that rather obvious? It's hard to have any social control if people
are allowed to exact vengeance without going through the proper channels
of the law. Shit, everybody would be shooting at everyone if there wasn't
some set of rulesx to go about it. Simply put, a group of objective peers
are charged with deciding whether or not an action merits revenge. Once
again, it seems rather obvious.
> fault, but no nation or government has a "right" to revenge against its
> citizenry.
The govt. doesn't decide, so the point is rather mute. A group of peers
(these are normal citizens, NOT govt. employees, decide whether a person
is fried). Hell, even if the govt. did decide, it's not some seperate
entity. You elected the people running it.
> Only the victim, not his family or friends, even, only the
> victim, and in this case the victim is dead.
So if I shoot someone and they die, I should be immune to revenge? They
can only seek revenge if my aim was off? Are you sure you thought that
statement through fully? If I steal something, should I only be
prosecuted if the attempt fails? That's etting some bizarre precedence
don't you think? What'd you mean by that?
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Thu May 26 00:34:40 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Thu May 26 00:34:40 1994
beatniks. blah. they can bite my left big toe.
of course, i am a flower child pacifist myself so...
please don't kill me.
natalie
From feotus@yabbs Thu May 26 02:02:08 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Thu May 26 02:02:08 1994
WS is as tad bit older adn wider than just the beatnick movement, be
thankful I didnt whip out the colleg freshman neccesity(sarcasm) On The
Road and quote some Kerouac. 8)
or even worse, _HOWL_
i'm not a beatnick myself .
From Natalie@yabbs Thu May 26 03:15:20 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Thu May 26 03:15:20 1994
howl makes me projectile vomit. moloch my ass. and i use On The Road for
toilet paper. right along with the love song of j alfred prufrock.
boy, is this ever off topic. oh well. i think you anarchists will live.
please don't kill me.
natalie
From Aquinas@yabbs Thu May 26 12:28:08 1994
From: Aquinas@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Stuff is stuff
Date: Thu May 26 12:28:08 1994
Yeats would like Burroughs
Aquinas/
From Badger01@yabbs Thu May 26 12:46:12 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Thu May 26 12:46:12 1994
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate it's contents."--Good ol' LOvecraft. I grew up
down the street from his grave. As fat as some of Burroughs work gets, I
like some of it, mostly the JUNKY era stuff or the Deposition Concerning
more so than Naked Lunch, which isn't my bag...I guess I'm prurient that
way. And now..CLAUDE MCKAY!
"The tides, the wharves, the dens I contemplate,
Are sweet like wanton loves because I hate." From the White City.
BADGER01
Matthew W Rossi III
"The dullard knows that he is mad.
Tell me if I am not glad!" T.S.Eliot--Lines for an old man
"Where I walk, LOng Life.
One to be feared I am.
There is danger where I walk."--Navajo Traditional,Song of Black Bear
"The destruction that brings an eagle from heaven is better than
mercy."---Robinson Jeffers, Fire on the Hills
"Morphine hits the backs of the legs first, then the back of the neck, a
spreading wave of relaxation slackening the muscles away from the bones so
you seem to float without outlines, like lying in warm salt
water."---William Burroughs, Junky
From Badger01@yabbs Thu May 26 12:59:21 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Thu May 26 12:59:21 1994
First of all, finding the peers has been and will always be
one of the biggest exercises in futility, especially today. And if you
honestly think that juries today are anything but government appointed
stooges doing what they've been screened out by defense and prosecution to
do, than you are wrong. I, in the past I admit, said how I thought crime
should be handled, via a mob of outrages peasants wielding torches.8)
Seriously, while a lot of what I said was sarcastic rambling, I do think
that this nation, and indeed all nations, could do without all the law and
legal systems they have. Just throw them out. Give people a good hard shot
of Anarchy, and see what develops out oif the melange. Fourier would tell
you that there'd be Phalanstere's all over the world within a week, and
while I disagree, having a much more pessimistic view, I can't PROVE that
he's wrong.
And you are rightwhen you say that vengance isn't a right. Therefore the
civic policy should not include it. When you actually have people running
for office on a pro-death penalty platform, you know they are just using
the gullability of the sheep and not trying to add anything positive.
In closing, I say anarchy and lawlessness are the way to go.
BADGER01
Matthew W Rossi III
"The wheel of the quivering meat
Conception
Turns in the void expelling human beings"--JAck Kerouac, Mexico City Blues
"Great is the Battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie."---Stephen Crane, War is kind
"My body of a sudden blazed;
And twenty minutes more or less
It seemed, so great my happiness,
That I was blessed and could bless."--William Butler Yeats, Vacillation"so
I may do the deed
That my own soul has to itself decreed"--John Keats, Sleep and Poetry
From Natalie@yabbs Thu May 26 14:13:51 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Aquinas@yabbs
Subject: re: Stuff is stuff
Date: Thu May 26 14:13:51 1994
but I don't have to. I'm a romantic at heart. Yeats, Keats, Shelley,
Blake, Millay, Plath, and Shakespeare. Those are the ones who touch my
soul, not incessant drugged up ramblings. Although Rimbaud is pretty cool
too....
natalie
From feotus@yabbs Thu May 26 17:06:57 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Stuff is stuff
Date: Thu May 26 17:06:57 1994
so who is more mysoginist? Yeats or Kerouac? that's a tough one huh..
I think your bieng a bt too critical Nat, not too mention unoriginal in
your remarks about toilet paper and such.....
of course we all know that Daniel Steele is the mistress divine of
literature of our age.
From Natalie@yabbs Thu May 26 18:55:33 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: Stuff is stuff
Date: Thu May 26 18:55:33 1994
do you think i really givea flying fuck about who is more misogyinist? I
truly don't care. PC can suck me.
I wasn't trying to be original w/ my toilet paper comment, i wastrying to
make a point. do you want original? ok...
I make my very own tampons out of "On The Road" and Eliot.
Better?
don't you know ANYTHING??? *FABIO* is the best thing to happen to
literature since...since...Johanna Lindsay!
sarcastically yours....
Natalie
From maedhros@yabbs Thu May 26 21:41:08 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Thu May 26 21:41:08 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., Badger01 said:
> First of all, finding the peers has been and will always be
> one of the biggest exercises in futility, especially today. And if you
> honestly think that juries today are anything but government appointed
> stooges doing what they've been screened out by defense and prosecution to
> do, than you are wrong.
Sorry, I'm not quite following this. They're screened by both the defense
and prosecution in order for the juries to be filled with people who will
act as the government wants them to?
1. Exactly how does the government appoint juries. You've made the
accusation, but I'm not sure if you've cited any proof of this. Possibly
you're using the last part of this paragraph as proof. If so, that leads
me to point two.
2. You say that the prosecution and defense both screen the jurors to do
what they're "supposed to do". Uh, if I remember correctly, their isn't a
whole hell of a lot which the prosecution and defense BOTH want a juror to
do. Last I remember, they want the jurors to do completely different
things. i.e. vote guilty and vote innocent. Is this just a logical
"slip" or are you claiming that the prosecution and defense are in secret
cohorts to "fix" all trials in the U.S.?
> And you are rightwhen you say that vengance isn't a right. Therefore the
> civic policy should not include it.
The civic policy should include anything the majority of people living
here want to institute as policy. You claim to be an anarchist, but your
policies are fascist. If you don't believe in vengeance, then don't press
charges if someone shoots you. Express your anarchism. However, when you
think public policy should be modeled on your own beliefs- that's not
anarchy, that's fascism. In summary, you said,"If something isn't a
right, civic policy should not include it." This isn't in the
Constitution. You've simply expressed a wish to arbitrarily rewrite a
legal system which decides the fate of millions.
> When you actually have people running
> for office on a pro-death penalty platform, you know they are just using
> the gullability of the sheep and not trying to add anything positive.
What? Call me a sheep, but I thought they were offering the public what
they wanted. That's how a democracy works right? Who gives a shit if he
thinks he's adding anything positive or not. If I vote for him, it's his
job to make policy according to my wants, not to critique my moral fiber.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Thu May 26 21:43:43 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: literary reviews
Date: Thu May 26 21:43:43 1994
Guys, please. Could you move the literary dissertations to a more
appropriate board. It's a pain in the ass to slog through when the lag's
running high (as it most often times is).
Thanks,
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Thu May 26 21:47:28 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: literary reviews
Date: Thu May 26 21:47:28 1994
ok maed :)
From Badger01@yabbs Fri May 27 12:57:52 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Fri May 27 12:57:52 1994
Giving people what they want is not Democratic( and we don't live in a
democracy. A democracy is where all the voters vote on everything. We
don't do that. And I wouldn't preess charges if some one shot me. I
haven't when they've shot AT me. I'd take care of it, or my friends
would.) A jury is selected in two ways, Maedros. First, the Jurisdictioon
appropriate to the crime sends summonses to the prospective jurors. Then,
they are screened by the defense, then the prosecution, finally they are
placed after we have made sure that they are as ill-informed as possible.
Finally, perhaps in a perfect world prosecution and defense would NOT be
after the same thing. But more often than not they are. They want to send
the "Guilty" party out of there and get on with their overworked lives.
The defense wants a plea, the prosecution wants a win, that's all. There
is no such thing as a Opposed defense anymore. Often, they plead you out
and go to lunch.
This is a fact. As far as me being Fascist, I'd never force my will on
anyone. Including yo. This is a computer network, not real life. I can say
my more aggressive thoughts here and not worry about implementation. I do
consider myself an Anarchist, and I live that way. But I have to live in a
world where people who are long dead have made the rules, and people who
don't care about anything enforce them. Damn right I think we should just
tear it all down.
BADGER01
Matthew Rossi III
"The mind has shown itself at times
Too much the baked and labled dough
Divided by accepted multitudes."
--Crane, THE MARRIAGE OF FAUSTUS AND HELEN
From feotus@yabbs Fri May 27 18:13:08 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Fri May 27 18:13:08 1994
To Badger01 refering to civil policy
Maedhros said thus
"The civic policy should include anything the majority of people living
here want to institute as policy. "
this is untrue. The rights of the minorites must always be preserved even
under the face of the majorites opinion. True that ina democracy, which
is a load of shit anyways, majority should rule, as long as it doesnt
violate the rights of the minorities. But we havent lived ina democracy
for awhile, we live in a mediacracy now.
"
"What? Call me a sheep, but I thought they were offering the public what
they wanted. That's how a democracy works right? Who gives a shit if he
thinks he's adding anything positive or not. If I vote for him, it's his
job to make policy according to my wants, not to critique my moral fiber.
"----
Yes your not a sheep your just ignorant of how politics works and are
holding an outdated and network television view of democracy. When you
elect an offical, you don't elect a platform, you elect a person who is
supposed to up[hold what he believes is true, it's in the oaths and all.
granted nowadays your view is mroe corect as a measurment of our current
govt, that they do waht they can get away with to please the sheep, and
they go on platforms supported by the largest lobbying forces that they
can find. So Actually the reality of the situation is that both you and
Badger are correct, yes they do go on a platform designed to appeal to the
sheep, and yes they don't bother to uphold what they believe to be
true,but democracy, or at least how it is outlines int eh constitution
doesnt work quite that way in DESIGN. Of course we can all guess what I
have to say to DESIGN, phbtbtbtbtbttt.
From maedhros@yabbs Sat May 28 01:55:43 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Sat May 28 01:55:43 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., feotus said:
> To Badger01 refering to civil policy
> Maedhros said thus
> "The civic policy should include anything the majority of people living
> here want to institute as policy. "
>
>
> this is untrue. The rights of the minorites must always be preserved even
> under the face of the majorites opinion.
Oops, sorry. You're right of course. My fault. I was pushed for time
and made a greivous overgeneralization. You obviously got the jist though.
> "What? Call me a sheep, but I thought they were offering the public what
> they wanted. That's how a democracy works right? Who gives a shit if he
> thinks he's adding anything positive or not. If I vote for him, it's his
> job to make policy according to my wants, not to critique my moral fiber.
>
> Yes your not a sheep your just ignorant of how politics works and are
> holding an outdated and network television view of democracy. When you
> elect an offical, you don't elect a platform, you elect a person who is
> supposed to up[hold what he believes is true, it's in the oaths and all.
> granted nowadays your view is mroe corect as a measurment of our current
> govt, that they do waht they can get away with to please the sheep, and
> they go on platforms supported by the largest lobbying forces that they
> can find. So Actually the reality of the situation is that both you and
> Badger are correct, yes they do go on a platform designed to appeal to the
> sheep, and yes they don't bother to uphold what they believe to be
> true,but democracy, or at least how it is outlines int eh constitution
> doesnt work quite that way in DESIGN. Of course we can all guess what I
> have to say to DESIGN, phbtbtbtbtbttt.
I see what you mean. I'm not ignorant of the nuances, just bad at
expressing myself completely. I'm actually quite aware of how the system
works and how it was meant to work and the differences in between. I
(personally mind you) just don't care much for the procedures, as long as
the outcome is what I want. I fully realize that officials don't make (at
least the vast majority of them) decisions based on deep-seated moral
imperatives-they're just kissing voters asses. The final line though, is
whether they do what they say. As for their reasons, they're irrelevant.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Sat May 28 02:19:35 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Sat May 28 02:19:35 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., Badger01 said:
> and we don't live in a
> democracy. A democracy is where all the voters vote on everything. We
> don't do that.
You're yanking my chain right? Surely, I'm not going to have to explain a
representative democracy on a politically oriented board.
> And I wouldn't preess charges if some one shot me. I
> haven't when they've shot AT me. I'd take care of it, or my friends
> would.)
Your friends? I thought they didn't have any business seeking revenge.
That was your first affirmation, was it not?
> A jury is selected in two ways, Maedros. First, the Jurisdictioon
> appropriate to the crime sends summonses to the prospective jurors. Then,
> they are screened by the defense, then the prosecution, finally they are
> placed after we have made sure that they are as ill-informed as possible.
Ill-informed? Colorful use of language. I think you meant to say, "Not
coming into a trial with prejudiced views on the defendants innocence or
guilt" though. I'll be damned if I'd want any of my jurors fresh from a
night of watching hard-copy or any other prime time trash about my case.
> Finally, perhaps in a perfect world prosecution and defense would NOT be
> after the same thing. But more often than not they are. They want to send
> the "Guilty" party out of there and get on with their overworked lives.
> The defense wants a plea, the prosecution wants a win, that's all. There
> is no such thing as a Opposed defense anymore. Often, they plead you out
> and go to lunch.
> This is a fact.
I'll grant you a fact-they probably do eat lunch between trials, although
most attornies I know seldom have time. As far as the rest goes-it
substance is true to an extent, but it's intentionally (I hope)
misleading. The reason so many plea bargains are passed is so the courts
can have adeqaute time to deal with more serious crimes, such as murder.
I call it misleading, because the main point of this thread was ABOUT
capitol punishment. Either you're trying to manipulate "facts" out of
context, or you've lost sight of the original argument.
> As far as me being Fascist, I'd never force my will on
> anyone. Including yo. This is a computer network, not real life.
There are real people and real beliefs on the other end of your modem.
Are you saying that you are not sincere? It's a form of mass media. It'd
be a really bad day if Kopel got the same idea one day and decided a WWIII
announcement would be a really good joke. Extreme, yes, but it serves as
an illustration.
> I can say
> my more aggressive thoughts here and not worry about implementation.
Action starts with ideas and ideas start with communication. Ask Mussolini.
> I do
> consider myself an Anarchist, and I live that way. But I have to live in a
> world where people who are long dead have made the rules, and people who
> don't care about anything enforce them. Damn right I think we should just
> tear it all down.
...and replace it with what? Anarchy, nothing? Depend on your fellow
man's basic benevolence and intelligence. Let me know before it happens,
so I can buy plenty of shells.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 1 18:45:30 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Wed Jun 1 18:45:30 1994
Okay, Okay point well taken and agreed upon to a certain extent...
I still don't think the man deserves an entire day to remember him or
18 minutes of silence...but each person is entitled to their own opinion
slutty
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 1 18:47:30 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: R.I.P. Mr. Gacy :)
Date: Wed Jun 1 18:47:30 1994
Nixon was an asshole not because he did all of those things but because
he lied about it even after he got caught. I can never understand that
He wasn't sorry for what he did he was sorry he got caught....and.....
Yes that does make him HEAD ASSHOLE!!!!!!!
Slutty
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 1 18:52:01 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Wed Jun 1 18:52:01 1994
If you really believe that Nixon's only mistake was trusting the people
that he hired and trying to cover for them then you really don't know
much. Those were only 2 of his mistakes...The list is long and as far as
I'm concerned it tells exactly what type of asshole Nixon was.
Clinton on the other hand is getting a raw deal just like everyone else
who suddenly comes into the national and international light. I say leave
Clinton alone. He's made some bad decisions but he's trying to make up
for them. Nixon made some bad mistakes and tried to cover them up. There
lies the difference between these 2 men!!!!!!!
Slutty
From Columbo@yabbs Wed Jun 1 20:34:43 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: Slutty@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Wed Jun 1 20:34:43 1994
The American made the mistake by electing Clinton president... But, he's
the President.... he knows what is best for us.... or so he says. We've
really done it this time..
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jun 1 23:06:03 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Wed Jun 1 23:06:03 1994
In message re: tricky dick, Columbo said:
> The American made the mistake by electing Clinton president... But, he's
> the President.... he knows what is best for us.... or so he says. We've
> really done it this time..
Now, i'm not going to defend Clinton and his administration--as an
objectivist, i have mainly problems with them. However, i do feel that
people have been duped onto a very dangerous bandwagon of Clinton bashing.
People hate the guy not for any solid reason, just because it seems that
everyone else does. Of course, what president isn't the butt of a million
different jokes? I realixe that, but with clinton it's different--people
seem really afraid that he is going to really destroy america.
But that's the beauty of the system--unless he were to start a nuclear
war, he can't do much to ruin the country. the system works slowly. this
is great becuase it keeps uncle sam out of my life. Also, the structure of
the bill of rights is geared toward limiting the government from imposing
tooo many rules on the government.
So don't be afraid of clinton--he's harmless and will probalbly be gone in
a year or two. Be afraid of the religious right; they have no respect for
the constitution. They would make the bible and their own self serving and
warped interpretations of scripture of the constitution.
From |@yabbs Fri Jun 3 12:06:26 1994
From: |@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Constitution
Date: Fri Jun 3 12:06:26 1994
As far as the Supreme Court are concerned, there is no such thing as
the US constitution. Conservative judges interpret the law in such a way
that whatever the democratically elected government decides to do it can
do because the people have "decided" to give them the power. Liberla
judges interpret the law in their own way - basically making up the
constitution as they go along. Ever since the Federal Reserve started
printing dollar bills during the civil war (the Federal authorities are
restricted to coins) there has been no such thing as the constitution.
It's not supposed to do things like Medicare and Medicaid.... But if you
say these things they will obviously have to be denied or legitimacy
begins to be lost......
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jun 6 14:05:12 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Mon Jun 6 14:05:12 1994
It will never happen. And there is a real person on the other end of this
line who has been through a lot lately, bit by bit I have little patience
with those who criticize me for thinking and saying what I think as ifd I
should have some kind of editorial board attatched to my mouth. Whop
As far as the reak I hate to type as far as the relative benevolence of
our system, I'b been in it. I've seen it. Have you?
BADGER
M Rossi III
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jun 6 21:29:27 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: John Gacy R.I.P.
Date: Mon Jun 6 21:29:27 1994
In message re: John Gacy R.I.P., Badger01 said:
> It will never happen. And there is a real person on the other end of this
> line who has been through a lot lately, bit by bit I have little patience
> with those who criticize me for thinking and saying what I think as ifd I
> should have some kind of editorial board attatched to my mouth.
If you have little patience with being criticized, why are you writing on
a discussion board? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm honestly trying to
figure out what you're talking about. A simple misunderstanding. Most
people write to this board to argue for their beliefs. My mistake. Your
right. The end. Better?
> As far as the reak I hate to type as far as the relative benevolence of
> our system, I'b been in it. I've seen it. Have you?
Nope, I'm an exchange student from Antarctica. I was hoping for a reply a
bit more relevant to my questions, but I guess that'll have to do. I
shall bother you no more, as that seems to be your wish...
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From ratshade@yabbs Tue Jun 7 02:25:46 1994
From: ratshade@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: Clinton administration
Date: Tue Jun 7 02:25:46 1994
"The structure of the bill of rights is geared toward limiting the
government"
But what about when the Government blatantly destroys and ignores the
Bill of Rights? (for example: The Weaver incident, the Lawmaster incident
, and the Waco massacre; all conducted by our own government, all in
violation of Article IV and Article V, and all occurring within the past
couple of years.)
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated...'
--Article IV, Constitution of the U.S. of A.
'No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law...'
--Article V, Constitution of the U.S. of A.
See also Article VI.
RatShade
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 7 12:37:49 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: BIGFOOT
Date: Tue Jun 7 12:37:49 1994
you know, i think that this name calling of clinton has gone on quite long
enough. true, he isn'tt he beswt president we've ever had, but none ofthe
ones in my lifetime have been much better. they've all screwed us over
one way or the other. so let's grow up just a bit and try to find ways to
get aroundthe government, or at least make it better...after all, we will
be running the country in a few years...let's havea good plan for it....
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 7 19:48:22 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Tue Jun 7 19:48:22 1994
oh please. little girl? i thin not. granted, i may be a bit naive, but
that can be corrected. congenital stupidity cannot. and i really don't
give a shit who runs the country as long as they leave me alone to do what
i want. if it ain't hurting anyone else then they can't stop me
from doing it. i think YOU'RE the one who needs to grow up, what with
your pathetic attempts to insult everyone who's opinion you happen to
disagree with. disagree all you like, but try to do it logically and
rationally.
natalie
(the resident pacifist...*smirk*)
From martylee@yabbs Wed Jun 8 03:44:54 1994
From: martylee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Wed Jun 8 03:44:54 1994
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 8 11:57:42 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Wed Jun 8 11:57:42 1994
hmmm...so far all you've managed to do is attempt to insultme. if you
want to do that, you're going to have try a lot harder. Hmmmm...how
odd...so far I've been able to do whatI want, no one's trried to stop me.
Maybe I justhaven't been trying hard enough to get myself killed by
the government. I'll put that atthe top of my listofthings to do in the
near future, ok? And btw, I don't believe in world peace...I knowit
isn'tpossible. I believe in innerpeace. That's what I mean when I call
myself a pacifist. And I will do anything to maintain or regain that
inner peace, ncluding violence. A sheep I am not.
natalie
From Neonazi@yabbs Wed Jun 8 16:24:25 1994
From: Neonazi@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Wed Jun 8 16:24:25 1994
I agree with your acessment of the current administration. Natalie, on the
other hand needs to grow up. When the New World Order takes over, there
will be no place for people like her. The people who follow the new world
order will be put out to rule the world and the weaker people should be
cut out like a dangerous cancer.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 8 16:31:02 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Wed Jun 8 16:31:02 1994
For someone who seems to be as arrogant as yourself, you sure have weird
statistics...
Clinton got elected with 46% of the elctorate, Bush 42, and Perot about 15
with the other parties getting the rest.
Also, your definition of fascism is a littweird, as you include an
economic system as a equivalence statement with political tyranny. If
such is the case, you failed to include capitalism as an inherent
politicoeconnomic tyranny. Try to make a distinction between economics
and politics next time.
You seem to let your emotions cloud your attempt at objective statement.
Quit it; you are making a fool of yourself.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 8 16:34:14 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Neonazi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Wed Jun 8 16:34:14 1994
New World Order? If the capitalists haven't rewritten history yet, I seem
to recall Bush having said that. Isn't Bush a hero of yours and
arachnoids? Stop insulting us with your ignorance.
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 8 17:08:55 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Neonazi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Wed Jun 8 17:08:55 1994
No room for ppl like me, eh? Well, the arts are always the first to go, so
I might as well resign myself to the ovens. I'm not essential, you know. I
wonder if you think that ppl like Michelangelo or Shakespeare or Da vINCI
or Yeats were nonessential as well. Kill the artists and intellectuals
first. Then see what happens. And btw, shithead, go see "Schindler's
List" It looks like you need a little bit of educating. But then again,
you can't teach those who don't want to learn, and it's fairly obvious
that you don't.
natalie
From feotus@yabbs Wed Jun 8 19:27:50 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Neonazi@yabbs
Subject: flamebait right?
Date: Wed Jun 8 19:27:50 1994
Your name is flamebait right?
you choose it so people would waste time flaming you right?
comeon it;'s gotta be that.
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 8 19:46:53 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: flamebait right?
Date: Wed Jun 8 19:46:53 1994
well, we're hoping it's that. butthen again, what do I know? I'm jsut a
weakling artist who doesn't deserve to be allowed to live.
natalie
From Cat@yabbs Thu Jun 9 10:29:04 1994
From: Cat@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: artists
Date: Thu Jun 9 10:29:04 1994
the artists are always the first to go, well if they start going, i'm
killing myself first, because then what's life worth living for? to sit
around and listen to the rantings and ravings of a bunch of silly
politicians and religious leaders who don't have a clue and are just as
lost as everyone else so they try to make up for their inadequetness by
playing god? i think not. better to be dead. i'll be happy to go
first...at least we won't be around for the "whimper". *grin*
-tammie
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jun 9 12:10:41 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Cat@yabbs
Subject: re: artists
Date: Thu Jun 9 12:10:41 1994
true, tammie, very true...i don'tthink i'd want to stick around to see the
rough beast...*grin* (had to do it...)
natalie
From ratshade@yabbs Thu Jun 9 16:08:03 1994
From: ratshade@yabbs
To: Neonazi@yabbs
Subject: Re: NWO
Date: Thu Jun 9 16:08:03 1994
>When the New World Order takes over,
>The people who follow the new world order will be put out to rule the
>world and the weaker people should be cut out like a dangerous cancer.
1. What exactly is this "New World Order", and how is it going to
"take over the world" as you imply?
2. If the 'weaker people' are so much weaker, how are they dangerous?
3. After the greedy and the arrogant take over the world and wipe out
all of the nice people, all the world's beauty, and all freedom,
then what's left for you?
RatShade (Who doesn't have to lash out in anger and take over the world
to get what he wants.)
'
'The stupid use brute force because they haven't the brainpower to
conceive of any other ways to do things.' --some guy on a talk show
'Like selfish, whining babies throwing a temper tantrum at the world.'
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jun 9 16:32:02 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Neonazi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Thu Jun 9 16:32:02 1994
In message re: little girl, Neonazi said:
> I agree with your acessment of the current administration. Natalie, on the
> other hand needs to grow up. When the New World Order takes over, there
> will be no place for people like her.
NewWorld Order? Yikes a Reagenazi :)
You know, I wouldn't mind an overhaul of the present administration
myself. However, please clue me in as to why we need to throw the lit.
majors in concentration camps. No place for lit. and the arts? Who would
create all that post-apocalyptic crap you've evidentally been wheening
yourself on. Round up the KKK, Black Panthers and NeoNazi'a and put a
bullet through their idiotic heads? Now there would be a much more
productive start.
> The people who follow the new world
> order will be put out to rule the world and the weaker people should be
> cut out like a dangerous cancer.
HAHHAHAHA!!!! If these people are so weak why the fuck is your new world
order still doing guest spots on Geraldo instead of ruling their empire.
The Nazi's babble as much as Mussolini (and conquer about as much).
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Ant@yabbs Fri Jun 10 00:59:01 1994
From: Ant@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazi=damn democrat
Date: Fri Jun 10 00:59:01 1994
get a fucking life
art is...shit, i don'teven have to words to tell you whatart means to
humanity. and you obviously aren't smart enough to figure it out.
anyhow...there have been times when literature has been the only thing
stopping me from putting a bullet in my head (and i know you wish it
didn't stop me)
natalie
From Fuckit@yabbs Fri Jun 10 01:15:45 1994
From: Fuckit@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Read a book II
Date: Fri Jun 10 01:15:45 1994
I, Fuckit, shall speak for Xela, as lag has logged me out...
That said...
"Xela go back to class, u need it. Def: Electorate - A body of Qualified
voters. If u count only those who bothered to vote, yur numbers are
correct...."
Tell me why I should bother to consider those who *didn't* bother to vote?
How is their voice relevant to your point, if they *chose* NOT to have a
voice? Someone certainly needs to class.
"The basic premise of capitalism is FREE enterprise and association..."
Let me quote a favorite psychologist of mine:
"...where the members of an unorganized group exchange goods and
services under informal contingencies, an economic instituition or
agency clarifies special roles - such as those of employer, worker,
buyer, and seller - and constructs special types of *reinforcers*
[emphasis added], such as *money and credit* [emp. added again].
B.F.Skinner, Beyond Freedom and
Dignity
If you have ever cracked open a psych. textbook, or taken a psych. course,
you will understand the significance of the word "reinforcers," which has
serious behavorial implication to what you claim about capitalism, which
you maintain is "free" in some sense. Instead control is taken out of the
government's hands and put instead into the hands of those who have money,
which are accepted psychological reinforcers; they influence or detain
certain types of behavior, which can hardly be called free.
"think about your answer before you make a fool of yourself"
I'm not worried about my image to you. However, someone who fails to
spell correctly *intentionally* doesn't seem to show much smarts himself.
I've quoted a respectable Harvard psychologist; I've made my point.
Insult me all you wish, but you still have nothing to back yourself up
with.
I'm waiting.
From Fuckit@yabbs Fri Jun 10 01:17:59 1994
From: Fuckit@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: 0ne-dimensional
Date: Fri Jun 10 01:17:59 1994
"How very One-dimensional of you."
How ignorant of you to assume anything about my political, economic, and
social views...
At least you are using punctuation. Now you need to work on
capitalization; we are not speaking German here.
From Ant@yabbs Fri Jun 10 02:18:40 1994
From: Ant@yabbs
To: Fuckit@yabbs
Subject: re: 0ne-dimensional
Date: Fri Jun 10 02:18:40 1994
*applause*
couldn't have said it better myself.
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jun 10 13:43:58 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: anal retentive today?
Date: Fri Jun 10 13:43:58 1994
"...;they influencfree. Under your premise air an reinforcer, and we are
dictated to by that gas. The tyrant!}"
Ok, I'll try to decode this as best I can (your English is very poor).
In a sense you have grasped at least one aspect of reinforced behavior,
the one coming from our natural environment. Again, you impel me to read
a book while you ironically try to ridicule accepted psychology. I shall
repeat the name and author so you may enlighten yourself (only if you
choose, though; I'm not your mother, thank God): "Beyond Freedom &
Dignity" by B. F. Skinner. Meanwhile, think about how gravity reinforces
your behavior if you doubt the validity of your own words.
"'...yourself'{exactly stupid}"
What? Again, I have literature and a whole branch of science on my side
while you, however, have only mere insult. If you are as objective as you
claim, you would see the predicament you are in.
As far as I'm concerned, you have added nothing to your point, and this
discussion is over until you show a few flickers of intelligence.
X
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jun 10 14:03:18 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: 3rd grade mentality
Date: Fri Jun 10 14:03:18 1994
"{I know exactly what u are, and its LAME}"
OH ho! So you know more about me than I do! What, do you work for
the NSA or something? Give me a break; you have the mentality of a 3rd
grader: "you're stupid! no I'm not! yes you are! no I'm not!"
Jesus Christ.
"{Hahahah still anal retentive are we? HAve U learned to count yet?}
As a science major, I hear of complaint after complaint of the lack of
proper writtem mechanics of the scientist's written works. Because
a scientist's work speaks for him, I would like my work to be viewed
favorably, if possible, and I see proper grammar only helping me.
You may see it as anal retentiveness, I see it as not being a lazy,
incompetent, illiterate mongoloid. Either way, it is a matter of faith,
right? So you accept what you want, and I'll do the same, and we'll live
happily ever after.
If you read my origanl quote, you'd have read: "Bush 42, and Perot about
15..." At that time I was working on memory and not math skills, and I
was wrong. But my point about the uselessness of those who choose not to
vote in this matter stands, and you have yet to explain yourself.
^^^^^^^ = original, sorry.
When you fail to stoop to third-grade mentality again, and you provide
clear, concise, and readable arguments, then you will have my respect.
Otherwise you are just another ignorant rabid dog I have to put down.
Take your pick, man.
X
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jun 10 20:02:45 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: art is temporal
Date: Fri Jun 10 20:02:45 1994
i'm sorry, but I think you're oh so very wrong. They pyramids have
survived thousands of years, along with many many many of
the accompanying artworks (the gold is anotherstory). The Sistine Chapel
was painted by michelangelo 500 years ago. Shakespeare is hundreds of
years ol. The Iliand and the Odddyssey are thousands of years old. And
if you can't look upon MIchaelangelo's "David" and "La Pieta" without
feeling any wonderthen there is something wrong with you.
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jun 10 20:04:22 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: 1-d + anal retentive
Date: Fri Jun 10 20:04:22 1994
anal retentive is good. especially when you're an anal retentive over
achiever. butthen again, you don'thave the intelligence to even consider
overachieving...so...*shrug*
natalie
From Zbadba@yabbs Sat Jun 11 01:53:28 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: pacifism
Date: Sat Jun 11 01:53:28 1994
I can't recall who it was (and I'm too lazy to look) that said something
equating pacifism with apathy (I beleive "like sheep" was the
phrase used). To said individual, I would like to ask:
Have you ever read the works of Ghandi or Thoreau?
Do you know what it means to be a pacifist?
I am very much a pacifist. I will not use physical violence to resolve any
conflict. Anyone who says that there is only one way out of a given
situation is very much mistaken.
Neither will I be silent about my views. If an attempt is made to push me
aside (as a sociological metaphor), I will resist without violence, in the
tradition of pacifists before myself (like Ghandi, who achieved his ends,
ultimately).
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jun 11 09:07:31 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: pacifism
Date: Sat Jun 11 09:07:31 1994
zbad...that was arachnoid, in response to my claim of beinga pacifist...
natalie
From feotus@yabbs Sat Jun 11 17:21:17 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: once again
Date: Sat Jun 11 17:21:17 1994
why is it that the majority, almost to the point of elusivity, of the
anarchist movement contains naught but white males?
what si the duality between anarchy and the monarch(or in our case, the
"system")?
Why is the majority of anarchy based on reactionary athiesm and the
worshipping of rational? WHy does it in most cased eny any "higher levels
of consciounce"?
From Zbadba@yabbs Sat Jun 11 22:28:26 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: once again
Date: Sat Jun 11 22:28:26 1994
re: "Why is the majority of anrachy based on reactionary atheism" etc
Interesting.
I guess I must not fit with the "majority of anarchy" then.
My guess is that the "majority of anarchy" (as you see it) is an
extreme, in its own way similar to puritanism: the rejection/denial of
instinct. The only difference is that instead of worshipping a diety (as a
concrete idea), "they" deify logic. Vis-a-vis "reactionary atheism."
Don't get me wrong. I'm neither puritan nor atheist. I'm really an
agnostic, in the sense of the word that I believe that it is impossible to
know or verify the existence of any higher power, but at the same time, it
is impossible to deny the possibility that higher power(s) may exist. Thus
I waste little time on theological debate.
I don't consider myself a die-hard anarchist (or a die-hard anything, for
that matter), because I recognise that history is cyclical, and
ultimately, any system will fall.
I'm more in favor of anarchy mainly because it's quicker. No mucking about
with a power structure. Just let things fall as they may. Dadaist
government.
babble babble babble.
Z.
From feotus@yabbs Sun Jun 12 12:57:15 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: once again
Date: Sun Jun 12 12:57:15 1994
Dadaist govt would be amusing 8)
note I didnt say ALL, just the majority, and I think we can agree that the
majority of anarchist are white males. Not all tho.
me i'm not an anarchist, and if you need to label me besides "feotus' you
could if you wanted to classify me as an Ontological Anarchist, or a
"rootless cosmopolitan" ala Hakim Bey's TAZ.
it is cyclical tho isnt, and to me it seems that the only real liberation
comes from the fight to change, and after that change is made it sinks
back to the same drudgery and a new "system" emerges usually more
oppressive than the previous on I think a way to get around that, and to
leave your life besids some ideological dream of eventually being "free"
and thus wastiung away your life on something that is really impossible
unless you free yor own mind, is too "forget" the vacuous state. Your
internal police are much more tyranical than any puritanical law or govt
legislature.
From pixy@yabbs Sun Jun 12 22:02:42 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: ratshade@yabbs
Subject: re: Clinton administration
Date: Sun Jun 12 22:02:42 1994
In message re: Clinton administration, ratshade said:
> But what about when the Government blatantly destroys and ignores the
> Bill of Rights? (for example: The Weaver incident, the Lawmaster incident
> , and the Waco massacre; all conducted by our own government, all in
> violation of Article IV and Article V, and all occurring within the past
> couple of years.)
>
That's a good question. I don't really have a strong answer for that one.
Let me give it a whirl. One thing before that---those Articles you
mentioned are really ammendments--but it doesn't change the nature of your
question.
The constitution doesn't always get upheld. The rules it makes in the
system of checks and balances doesn't gaurantee that the rights and the
correct order of the constitution will be upheld, it just makes it much
more likely. You see, the separate branches of the government don't have
to check each other over matters of constitutionality if it doesn't want
to. Take for instance the old Flag burning law. Both congress and the
president had approved this obvious assault against the provisions of
Amendment I, but if the court had not execised its power, the bill would
still be in place today. The constitution is no real gaurantee of freedom
and justice, but it is something to put in the face of the gowernment when
it acts unjustly.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Sun Jun 12 22:10:56 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Sun Jun 12 22:10:56 1994
In message re: little girl, Natalie said:
> oh please. little girl? i thin not. granted, i may be a bit naive, but
> that can be corrected. congenital stupidity cannot. and i really don't
> give a shit who runs the country as long as they leave me alone to do what
> i want. if it ain't hurting anyone else then they can't stop me
> from doing it. i think YOU'RE the one who needs to grow up, what with
> your pathetic attempts to insult everyone who's opinion you happen to
> disagree with. disagree all you like, but try to do it logically and
> rationally.
I do agreee with your sentiment on personal liberty. I also agree with an
earleier post where you said you haven't really noticed much change in
your life. One of the reasons for this is because the government is
designed to work as fast as radioactive decay. Thank god for this, or else
we'd have the govenment all over us by now.
Another reason for this is the constant cynicism of people like arachnoi.
Though i really wonder about some of what he says, i do like the fact that
he does not trust the government. Any freedom loving american will
endlessly smear the leaders of the government.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Sun Jun 12 22:15:39 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Neonazi@yabbs
Subject: re: little girl
Date: Sun Jun 12 22:15:39 1994
In message re: little girl, Neonazi said:
> I agree with your acessment of the current administration. Natalie, on the
> other hand needs to grow up. When the New World Order takes over, there
> will be no place for people like her. The people who follow the new world
> order will be put out to rule the world and the weaker people should be
> cut out like a dangerous cancer.
You called natalie a weak person--maybe you should reread the above post,
especially the fourth sentence: "...the people who follow", Neonazi. Are
"the people who follow" now the strong ones? Maybe you need to find out
who you are serving--i think you've been duped.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Sun Jun 12 22:20:48 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: 0ne-dimensional
Date: Sun Jun 12 22:20:48 1994
In message 0ne-dimensional, arachnoi said:
> {Agian u are trying to pigeon hole. I have no love for the 'Lets
> Make A Deal' Republicans either. They just do less harm than the
> Democratic swine, and are totaly out off power right now, so u don't
They just do less harm than the democratic swine? I don't know. Why don't
you elaborate on that one before i reply.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Sun Jun 12 22:35:23 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: art is temporal
Date: Sun Jun 12 22:35:23 1994
In message re: art is temporal, Natalie said:
> i'm sorry, but I think you're oh so very wrong. They pyramids have
> survived thousands of years, along with many many many of
> the accompanying artworks (the gold is anotherstory). The Sistine Chapel
I'm sorry Nat, but i gotta go with arachnoi on his point about the
temporality of art. Life is temporary, so logically it seems hard to
beleive that the temporal could produce something eternal. Art is
temporary, it won't last forever. Just like you and me it tires of
fighting the destructive powers of decay and eventually returns to it's
original state--dust.
But perhaps that's the beautiful thing about it is that it does decay. It
is the emotional and even spiritual process we undergo in creating it
followed by it's certain decay and destruction. I don't see how this is
unbeautiful. Art's like a totally mental reproduction of life, and subject
to the same rules for better or for worse.
I don't think i'd want it to be eternal anyway. I tend to fear the thought
of eternity and the power of anything that could exist incessantly.
O Tempora
pixy
From Zbadba@yabbs Mon Jun 13 01:27:38 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: feotus@yabbs
Subject: re: once again
Date: Mon Jun 13 01:27:38 1994
re: internal police
Did I say anything about internal police? No, I don't think I did.
Who exactly are you talking to in that message? Don't address it to me if
it's not written to me. I am well aware of all you wrote, and I though
I'd written to that effect previously.
From feotus@yabbs Mon Jun 13 14:33:12 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: once again
Date: Mon Jun 13 14:33:12 1994
i was talking too you, and agrteeing with you for the most part
From pixy@yabbs Tue Jun 14 00:44:25 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole
Date: Tue Jun 14 00:44:25 1994
Okay, i see what kind of Republicans you're talking about. I just wondered
if you were talking about the Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Jesse HElms
type Repyblican or the William F. Buckley type. I Think those Pat
Robertson types would be a horrible choice for America. I like the
capitalist ideas, but i would rather have political freedom than economic
freedom, and the Pat Robertson tupe of Republicans would rather have
economic freedom--That's just not cool :)
pixy
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 14 01:18:25 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Psychology class; try it.
Date: Tue Jun 14 01:18:25 1994
If I had your mentality I'd have told you to go fuck yourself blue in the
face. But I won't stoop to your level; I see you as a very ignorant
person, while being quite smug and arrogant. You are a challenge to me,
arachnoi, and when I'm through you'll have either quit or have cracked.
That said and done...
"hahahaha, xela, your posts are always such a mix of illogical dribble,
the temptation to beat you over the head with your own words is
irresistable."
1. In the past few messages you have yet to show the illogical nature of
my arguments.
2. You have yet to come up with a logical argument of your own.
So the only question in my mind is: Do you know what the fuck a logical
argument is?
"but then you said 'orignla' cut and paste...this one in here"
1. You are either blind or illiterate; I made a correction at the end of
my message concerning that word. A quick check of that message
will verify the fact.
2. I don't deliberately go out my way to look illiterate. Any mistakes I
make are typographical in nature; this editor doesn't allow for correction
very easily. Which doesn't excuse my sloppiness, but it doesn't excuse
yours either.
"...so you won't have a chance to pretend to some learning...too bad you
don't apply the same effort to thinking."
1. Enlighten me then, O Great Lord Muck, and quit digressing with
insults.
"hahaha, little school boy. This isn't 'The Young Republicans' this is
the Anarchy Base, go play with the other teenie boppers."
1. You certainly assume a great deal about me for one who claims to be
cognizant of a great deal:
a. You were wrong about the political affiliation; I have none.
b. You assumed I could make no distinction between the Young
Republicans and the Anarchy forum. Wrong again.
c. You assumed I was a teenager. Strike three and you're out.
"I agree that ALL governments and social/economic relations require
aspects of behavior which limit one's freedom"
So you were agreeing with what I was saying. Ok, now we're getting
somewhere.
"...In other words, there is a freedom zero baseline that noone can get
below...Freedom then becomes a degree of freedom allowed above the
baseline"
You made the claim that capitalism is the only free system, and now you
are waffling by saying that only certain levels of freedom exist. My
claim is that, by themselves as a philosophic element, capitalism and
communism do NOT, by any means, qualify as encouraging, or even allowing,
freedom. Both use behavior control techniques.
"...Who cares about an intrinsic [baseline] constant that no one can do
anything about?"
I never brought this up, as I feel that freedom is an illusion, but since
you brought it up... If you are to make an argument that certain degrees
of freedom exist, then you should care about that constant; your argument
rides upon it! Without rigorously exposing and defining that mystical
caonstant, I have only your word that your argument is correct.
Until then, you have some homework to do.
Ta,
X
From feotus@yabbs Tue Jun 14 08:23:53 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: previous questions
Date: Tue Jun 14 08:23:53 1994
hey arachnoi, I saw your responses to my questions abou the majority of
anarchists bieng white males, and also on the mysticism, or "reactionary
atheism" and the problem is IM very very limited on time now so I'll only
b able to lightly glaze the donuts.
Of course not all are white, but I don't think you can deny that the
majority of them are white males, usually between the ages of
13-2something. Of ocurse the "real" ones go on while their older, but at
times it's little more than a fad for teenagers, and that is no way to
make changes.
reactionary atheisms: the kind that Nietzche rags on all the time ya know.
The stuf that Hakim Bey talks about. The purely rational anarchist, who
thinks that zoon logikoon is the only way to live. It's the reaction to
the extreme religousness that preceeded it. only it isnt the onyl form of
anarchy possible. there is ontological anarchy as well, or "mystic' nd NO
mystic doesnt imply an order at all, and mystic DOESNT imply new age
assholes spewing shit & shinola. More like recognition of the emotions of
life, and a passion of rliving, or a recognition of the irational, or to
better put it arational.
to paraphrase F. Nietzche - the gratest liberation is overcoming the self.
i wont be able to comment on your responses for awhile since i'll be
traveling.
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 14 09:14:54 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: art and the physcotic
Date: Tue Jun 14 09:14:54 1994
i don't think it's very nice of you to make fun of my voices.
let's see...i never said that egypt was gonna last forever, i was just
pointing outthat of WHAT REMAINS of their art, religion, philosophy, etc.
has a lot of meaning, etc. for me.
i have looks at the sistinechapel since the restoration, and quite
frankly, i think it looks better. of course, i'm not a big fan of murky,
sark, hard to see pictures.
i've read extensively in shakespeare, he happens to be one of my favorite
writers. and if you knew anything at all, you'd know thatthere only about
10 themes in ALL of literature. (No, i can't name them) So basically
everyone is ripping off the greeks. all bill did was write aboutthose
themes in a manner that was timeless. which is a lot more than a lot of
modern writers can do.
homer. if that's what survived, then imagine what's gone. for me,
history is a lesson to be learned, that we mustn't let the mistakes ofthe
past be repeated in the present. all that the burningof the library in
ALEXANDRIA (not constantinople you schmuck) tells me is that we have to be
aware that human nature is capricious and greedy and that we as a race
have a nasty tendency to wipe out things that are different from us. or
don't agree with what we think. or don't look how we look. or don't love
who we love. or don't believe what we believe. so on and so forth. (and
i never said the iliad and odyssey wasfact. duh.)
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 14 09:19:21 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Psychology class; try it.
Date: Tue Jun 14 09:19:21 1994
xelalex, you are awesome.
natalie
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Jun 14 12:13:02 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Homer
Date: Tue Jun 14 12:13:02 1994
I'm surpised nobody here has brought up the issue of who wrote the Illiad
and the Odyssey.
About the only thing most modern lit. scholars can agree on is that they
weren't written by the same person, or even one person. The stories were a
part of the oral tradition for hundreds of years before they were written
down. so it is wrong to attribute them to one "Homer."
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 14 14:56:25 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Tough being born mongoloid?
Date: Tue Jun 14 14:56:25 1994
...and quit digressing with insults {having a problem making a consistent
stand?}
Not at all. You are ignorant, smug, and arrogant. You cannot make a
logical argument to save your skin. You are a challenge to me. All of
these are facts, not insults. If they were meant to be insulting, they
wouldn't be true.
{Word? There were several mispellings in that sentence alone...}
List them. I'll check.
{...Most of the post was riddle with poor grammar and spelling mistakes.}
Then we'll have an independent party check my messages and your messages.
In the end it will be clear who is more adapt at writing a coherent
sentence; you'd lose simply on your appalling spelling, not to mention
your frequent misuse of tempus and contractions.
{...U still fail to follow through on your argument, and think what
implications it has.}
Man, I've been writing about the philosophy of freedom for a couple years
now. In the process I've aquired numerous texts, and I've had several
experiences with power structures. If I fail to follow through on an
argument, at least I am qualified enough to say that I have one and can
defend it.
You, on the other hand, have no argument. Simply put, you throw insults
and expect people to take you seriously. Step back for a moment and look
at the both of us. Which one would you, honestly, think have more
credibility?
{...What U say is far more important than how long it takes, or how you
say it.}
Absolutely wrong. What you say can only be taken seriously when you say
it well. Would Hitler have gotten as far as he did, had he not been as
eloquent as he was? This is not to say that I aspire to be Hitler, but to
make the point that people listened to him because what he said was well
planned and executed.
{...Who said anything about your political affiliation?...}
You did.
{...This was a rhetorical statement of your mindset.}
Bullshit. Stop trying to weasel your way out of what you said.
{...Act anal retentive like the "Young Republican" crowd and we will start
calling u Skippy}
We? You mean there are more of you? Damn, if you're going to start
calling me Skippy, I guess I'd better give up!
{...Like wise, if u can't muster the competence of a teenie bopper, then
emotionally I guess you still are one.}
Well, for someone who thinks calling me Skippy affects me, you have a lot
of nerve calling me immature.
{As usual you're being sloppy. Go back and read the original post, and
try to concentrate this time.}
You claimed that capitalism encourages more freedom than communism. So
then you claim that levels of freedom exist. Then you say that those
levels are a constant which has no bearing on this argument, because they
all factor out. Therefore that"constant" is equal throughout all systems
which regulate levels of freedom, otherwise it wouldn't factor out.
Therefore, the levels of freedom for both capitalism and communism are
equal, and both have the same "level of freedom." You just contradicted
yourself.
"There are NO govts. of social/economic systems that 'qualify as
encouraging, or even allowing, freedom.'..."
^^^^^^^^
But then you say:
{There are only degrees.}
You agreed with my claim that govts., social and economic interactions do
not allow for freedom. Then you say there are degrees. Again you
contradict yourself.
{here's the root of your inability to think logically...}
Excuse me?
{Everything here is a direct consequence of what you thought was
important. Yet U can't put it together.}
I just did.
"Until then, you have some homework to do. {your right there}"
^^^^
Contractions. Review them before you come back.
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 14 16:36:42 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Burn Lib, Burn
Date: Tue Jun 14 16:36:42 1994
i've heard those stories about shakespeare, and wuite frankly, i don't
givea flying fuck who the 'real' shakespeare was.(^^^quite) all i know is
that i like it.
movig from shakespeare to michelangelo. ok, granted, the sistine chapel
may look a bit cartoonish. butyou can'tdeny the power of 'david' or 'la
pieta'. i like his sculptures the best, even tho he couldn't sculpt a
woman to save his life (look at some of the naked women he's done...they
look like he'sstuck breasts on men...very strange looking).
so....if i write a piece of great literature, and then decide to tell
everyone it's fact, does that in anyway diminish it's artistic value? and
while we're at it, what do you call heinrich schliemann's discovery of
troy? a hoax? he proved that there was a troy, and it was sacked (many
times, even). things may not have happened exactly how homer says they
did, but it's kind of cool to think that there really was a helen... and
lots of writers extrapolate on historical fact to create something
different. i know i do it quite a bit...
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 14 16:37:40 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Got it
Date: Tue Jun 14 16:37:40 1994
uh...i think you meant facetious, not facias. at least try to get the
majority of the letters right...
natalie
From pbj@yabbs Tue Jun 14 17:14:25 1994
From: pbj@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: just a question
Date: Tue Jun 14 17:14:25 1994
just a question ...does the act of doing an illict drug at say..a party
make parties illegal or just the substence?..i'm confused how the police
can shut down a party when people other than the organizers bring in their
own sources of "recreation" obviously i am awhat is commonly termed a
raver although i do not personally use drugs can i get arrested for just
being at a party where there are substnces of an illegal nature? if so
how long can i be held and what is their probable cause...just a thought
to ponder......
pbj
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Jun 14 18:31:50 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: re: just a question
Date: Tue Jun 14 18:31:50 1994
Guilt by association, essentially. I believe the legal term
is "collective possesion." i.e. if you are standing in a circle with some
friends, and one of them has a joint, and when a cop comes along, that
person throws the joint in the middle of the circle, so that the cop
cannot identify the "culprit," you could all be hauled in on a "collective
possession" charge.
Depending on the type and amount of substance, it could be serious. In the
example above, the charge would likely be a misdemeanor (posession of less
than 20g of marijuana). But if you are at a party and someone brings kilos
of coke to sell, you could be in some deep shit.
From robtelee@yabbs Tue Jun 14 19:12:41 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: re: just a question
Date: Tue Jun 14 19:12:41 1994
The police will haul all of you in for questioning to see if ownership can
be determined. If no ownership can be proven, in most cases, all of the
suspects will be turned loose with some stern warnings. In your other
scenario, one of the attendees would probably have turned the party in so
the raid would take place. The police would in all likely hood know who
was responsible for the drugs being in the vicinity. BTW if you have a
trace of narcotics in your system, you cand be THEORETICALLY, arrested for
poss of a controlled substance. (under Georgia law). As stated before, be
very, very careful who you party with.
From pbj@yabbs Tue Jun 14 23:13:12 1994
From: pbj@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: school
Date: Tue Jun 14 23:13:12 1994
okay this board is called Anarchy in the Us right? Well the fucking
government hasd screwed me over royally tonight...no I'm not gonna bitch
about taxes or health care, or even the police...no i'm bitching about my
fundamental right to an education...okay here's the story...
Currently i am a 16 year-old highschool drop-uot who has been attending
night school funded by a district about 30 miles away from my house. I
have never attended public high school in Illinois except for now but
because of tax laws my parents still have to pay for someone else to go to
school in my district...fucked up....anyway, I was told tonight, along
with aporx. 50 other styudents in my hs completion program that the state
fucked up once again and twisted some surveys thatr other students took
last fall and told our district that if they didn't pay for a bunch of
stuff that we "said" we wanted that they were going to shut down the state
funding of the program..well needless to say the district doesn't have the
money for the new stuff ( stuff we don't want and don't need) so about
50-60 people were told tonight that we can no longer go to school. in my
school we had teachers and it was free allowing single moms and the poor
to get a diploma and better their lives. we are the only program in the
area that has that kind of a program...all other ones are correspondence
or something else. our was the best... well anyway if anybody knows of
something i can do to get my dreams back let me know or let somebody
know about this atrocity and help us do something about it....thanx
pbj
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jun 15 02:34:40 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole
Date: Wed Jun 15 02:34:40 1994
In message re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole, arachnoi said:
> {Hmmm. can u have one without the other? Usually it goes the other way.
> First economic freedom, and then follows political freedom. What kind of
> system would have political freedom and not economic freedom, and what
> would that mean?}
It is a goood question--i really don't know how you can have one without
the other. But both the major parties in america seem to think you can. My
thinking is just that the political freedoms--freedom of speech, religion,
privacy, and so on--are much more important than laissez faire economic
conditions. So basicall, if I had to choose between socialism and the
Limbaugh Republicans ideal of a free enterprise yet strong christian
nation--both of which fit together like peanut butter and jellyfish--i
would be reading das kapital every day.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 15 11:00:38 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: re: school
Date: Wed Jun 15 11:00:38 1994
How about taking the GED and going to community college?
X
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 15 12:02:33 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Got it
Date: Wed Jun 15 12:02:33 1994
hmmm...i didn't know it was plagiarism to fictionalize a historical
event...let's see....'julius caesar', 'antony and cleopatra', and all the
shakespearean histories are based on historical fact...but he more than
likely changed around the facts to suit his needs...
and i justread a wonderful, immensely learned and detailed book called
'gospel'. one of the best books i've read in ages. anyhow...the author
made up a lost gospel of the bible, 'the gospel according to matthias'...
he used a lot of actual historical facts (this book had in index...and
it's fiction) buthe used them for his own purposes, to create the illusion
thatthere was a 'gospel of matthias'. i believed it...i knew he made it
up, buthe did such a good job with backing it up w/ fact and actual
occurences it looked real...so is the book any less a piece of art because
he used history for his own purposes? i don't think it diminishes the
value in any way, shape, or form...hell, if you can make people believe
that your fiction is fact, aall the more power to you...
natalie
From Jeremiah@yabbs Wed Jun 15 12:37:00 1994
From: Jeremiah@yabbs
To: pbj@yabbs
Subject: re: school
Date: Wed Jun 15 12:37:00 1994
That's rough man, I'm sorry to hear about that... If I find any info
I'll leave you some E-mail...
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 15 14:01:27 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Wed Jun 15 14:01:27 1994
I honestly can't believe how you feel about Clinton. I think he is one of
the best things to happen to this country. Sure he's young and naive but
that does not mean that he is not capable of preforming the job to the
best of his ability. Some people think he's a little kid with a long list
of things that he has tried to keep hidden but if you think about
everyone in the world hides things that they think are going to harm them
in any way. All that shit about him having an affair and sexually
harassing women who worked for him is just a crock of shit because the man
is not that stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!
We really haven't done anything yet but if you think about it I really
believe we could have done worse. Could you imagine if Bush had been
re-elected and we had Dan Quayle roaming the halls of the White House
again?
There's something for you to think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:)
Slutty
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 15 14:16:05 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed Jun 15 14:16:05 1994
It's people like you that fuckin' piss the shit out of me!!!
You walk around trying to find any and everything wrong with a person and
you never take the time to look at what that person is really about!!!!!
Ok I may have been making the same generalization about Nixon but I really
don't think Nixon was a very bright man. You on the other hand are the
type of person who looks for other people's faults and then bring them up
whenever anyone says anything that would slightly contradict what you have
been saying since day one!!!!!!!!
I resent that comment that you made about me not being much brighter.
How fuckin' dare you make a comment like that about me. You don't knoiw
me and have decided to make a judgement based on the fact that I don't
believe in what you believe in. In the future I would appreciate it if
you would keep from making such comments about me or anyone else that you
don't know!!!!
In the mean time:
FUCK YOU!!!! KISS MY ASS!!!! GO TO HELL!!!!
Slutty
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 15 14:18:12 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Yur a real big idiot
Date: Wed Jun 15 14:18:12 1994
EAT SHIT AND DIE ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!
You really don't know miuch and because of that you need to keep your
mouth shut before more of the little bit of intelligence you have leaks
out!!!!
Slutty
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 15 14:19:58 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: BIGFOOT
Date: Wed Jun 15 14:19:58 1994
Thank you!!!!
From Slutty@yabbs Wed Jun 15 14:24:10 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Stop the Insults!!
Date: Wed Jun 15 14:24:10 1994
So far all you have managed to do is insult people like you are god and
have all the answers. I think its about time that you realized that you
don't have all the answers and people will get tired of your insults and
they are not going to put up with you shit forever!!! So leave everyone
here alone. Just because you don't agree with them or they don't agree
with you does not mean that you have to attempt to make them feel like
they don't amount to anything in this world.
So chill ot or Fuck off!!!!!!!!!!
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 15 15:29:54 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Got it
Date: Wed Jun 15 15:29:54 1994
"I actually ran those post through a spelling checker, to appease the anal
retentive demands of Alex Reynolds, the Netaxs cry baby."
1. Crybaby is one word.
2. The word "those" refers to plural objects. You wrote "post" and not
"posts" as it should have been.
3. Thank you for at least showing some responsibility for your posts.
:) Yours anally,
Xela P. Reynolds
(now if you're really clever, tell me my middle name)
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 15 15:40:57 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Burn Lib, Burn
Date: Wed Jun 15 15:40:57 1994
"things may not have happened exactly how homer says they did...and lots
of writers extrapolate on historical fact to create something different."
A neurobiologist called William Cavin hlds in his book "The Ascent of
Mind" that elements in the Bible may be directly attributable
to meteorological events, including a drought which occured after "the
Garden of Eden" took place (temporally speaking). He speculates that
mythologists at the time took the contrast of a lust, vegetated paradise
(Eden) to the desert wasteland (outside) which resulted from a drought and
destroyed the vegetation. It was put into storybook form, the Bible, and
became a "bestseller."
Art often imitates life; in fact, isn't that its purpose?
X
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 15 16:28:12 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Got it
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:28:12 1994
*snigger*
*chortle*
*snort*
*rolls on the floor laughing*
i love you xela. will you marry me?
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 15 16:29:53 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Burn Lib, Burn
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:29:53 1994
but of course it is...wouldn't have it any other way...butthen again...how
do you explain non allegorical sci fi (cause a lot of the 'golden age'
stuff is very allegorical)? or, dare i say it...ts eliot?
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 15 16:33:12 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Burn Lib, Burn
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:33:12 1994
hmmm...i adore the sphinx...it is one of my favorite images in
literature...(gee, i wonderwhy? what with me beingthe resident Yeats
disciple and all...)...i saw a cool show on the sphinx a few months ago
(made even cooler by that fact that it was hosted by charlton
heston...*smirk*) that tried to explain a lot of the things we're so
confused about...but i mustadmit, i wasn't really payingtoo much
attention, the sphinx is such a powerful image for me...
natalie
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jun 15 16:41:43 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: None of you get it
Date: Wed Jun 15 16:41:43 1994
You are all fighting over trivialities, and you refuse to see that all of
us are granted less freedom or liberty than Strep A. What does any of this
bickering solve? Nothing. We'll all be the puppets of a tyrannical; system
all our lives unless we over throw it violently and even then all we'll be
able to do, brutish beasts that we are, is impose a worse one. We are
doomed. There is no such thing as freedom, pre-determinism and psychology
and atheism and religon have stripped it away from us and our illusion of
liberty is only that, a platonic shadow on a wall. We are all going to
die. There is nothing else. We have nothing, are nothing, and to nothing
we shall return.
This planet, this country, is taking the lives of all my friends. If it
keeps it up, I'm going to start wondering if I need to stick around
anymore.
BADGER01
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 15 18:34:35 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Wed Jun 15 18:34:35 1994
Boy, I feel like running a marathon after that... :)
Once you begin to see how hopeless the concept of freedom is, it makes you
wonder whether you should be motivated enough to live.
See you next time around the cycle,
X
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jun 15 19:15:48 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Wed Jun 15 19:15:48 1994
"...objectivity is not just a social virtue. It goes beyond
openmindedness to opposing views, and it goes beyond sensitivity to the
cognitive needs of others. The ability to step back from our train of
thought and examine it critically is a virtue even if we are not
interested in communicating it. It is a virtue because it is the only way
to check the results of our thinking, the only way to avoid jumping to
conclusions, the only way to stay in touch with the facts. The results of
our thinking cannot be any better than the processes by which we arrive at
them. There is no Book of Life with answers in the back where we can see
whether we got it right. Good thinking is a self-directed,
self-correcting process, alert to the dangers of hasty judgement, and
never afraid to ask-or answer-the question "why?" Once again, this is
partly a matter of attitude, a matter of choice, and logic won't make the
choice for you. But it will give you the tools you need. It will give
you a compass to steer by." -David Kelley
To be so bold as to answer a question itterated at this board so often
lately-what is the point of this arguing?. Argument, or critical
discussion as I prefer to call it, are the necessary exercise requirements
of a healthy, agile (for the most part :) mind. It is a process by which
one refines his ideas, hones his proofs, and validates his conclusions.
Is it an exercise for all? Definately not. If the thought of someone
saying your conclusions are false throws you into fits of ire, then stay
clear. It's necessary to be (1) firm in your beliefs and competent in
defending them and (2) at the same time, be capable of acknowledging
something you hadn't considered in the first place and being able to admit
that mistake.
What's the primary purpose of the board? Damn good question. I can't
speak for all, but I can tell you it's primary importance to me. The
board is a testing ground for new ideas. I feel competent in
understanding alot on my own. However, I also can recognize that I'm far
from omniscient. The board gives me a chance to see things from others'
perspectives. It gives me an invaluable chance to assemble a "think tank"
to try to turn over anything I might have missed. One thing I've never
found tolerable is the company of a person who's afraid to support their
opinions, yet they're still willing to spout their conclusions to you all
day. An opinion from someone like this is less than worthless. They have
come to a conclusion, but they're unwilling to share or argue the logic
which provided it? How did these people make it to the top of the food chain?
Granted, the board sometimes runs into tangents which have little to do
with critical thinking (discourses about someone's probable sex life or
sentence structure), but hey, tempers sometimes flair. It's natural. It
always dies down eventually and the board goes onto more worthy pursuits.
...which brings up the purpose of antagonists. Like I said before, if
someone challenging your views pisses you off, what the hell are you doing
here? Unsubscribe and join channel "Blind Right". Face it, this is for
people with confidence in themselves who are willing to stand under the
line of fire. If it's too hot...
Hell I don't know how to put it any simpler. I'd write a damn charter for
the board if this wasn't the Anarchy base (any form of governing document
would probably be met with by the resident anarchists with immediate
destruction of my dwelling, slaughtering of my cattle and defilement of my
woman :)
Just one person's opinion.
As usual, all comments welcome.
Yes, even you Arachnoi, like you need an invitation :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
Ps. If the world's doomed and all our actions are for not, then why don't
we just get some fucking razorblades and vacate this ball?
From Columbo@yabbs Wed Jun 15 19:23:09 1994
From: Columbo@yabbs
To: Slutty@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Wed Jun 15 19:23:09 1994
Well, I received a first hand look at Mr. Clinton when he was still a
candidate for the office of president. He was giving a speech. and had a
two hour layover beforehand so he had a little time to waste and we spoke
with each other for 5 or 10 minutes. He seemed like a very intelligent man
but, he had a very bad temper. He shouted at some of his staff and could
be heard throughout the whole wing of the building. He seemed very
childish and very vain. (A makeup artist was even called in at the last
minute for him) All that was beside the point. I find it very hard to
respect a man who when he was younger, went on record as saying he LOATHED
the military and now, he states he wishes he could participated in the
D-day invasion because he LOVES the military. He has also said because he
is the president, he knows whats best for us. (paraphrase) What's wrong
with this country was not all his doing but he is not making things
better. I'll probably get flamed for saying this but, I love this country
and feel like there is none greater. We have freedoms that many countrys
only dream about *including* the freedom to say what we feel about that
very same government. Sure we have many problems but they can be corected
if someone has the balls to do so. A good start would be to have someone
in office that people could respect and not question their credibility.
You mentioned in your last post to me about having Mr. Quaile running
around the White House. I'd feel much more comfortable having him run
around the White House than having Ms. Clinton running around.
I'm sure Mr. Clinton tries hard and is probably frustrated as hell at
everyone questioning him everytime he turns around. I would never want the
job because, no matter how hard you tried, you can never please everyone.
I'm one of those now who is displeased and can't wait for 1996 when
hopefully we will have the chance to get on the right track. Right now, I
can't see that happing with the administration we have in power.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 15 21:01:47 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Hitler and Hawking, pt.1
Date: Wed Jun 15 21:01:47 1994
{Spelling! He who lives anal retentive, Dies [sic] anal retentive!}
I'd rather die anal retentive than illiterate.
{...tell us [sic, unless you are schizo] more how GREAT u [sic] are, and
then tell us [sic] why u [sic] can't count, spell, form grammatically
correct sentences, chk [sic] your facts, or logically present an
argument.}
I never claimed greatness, but I did present the reason why I am credible
and knowledgable *enough* to take part in this discussion. You have yet
to show any credibility; as far as I know, you have the credentials of a
televangelist.
{...What Hitler had to say was important than how loud he shouted it...}
Let me quote the political theoretician Dr. Harrah Arendt:
"The 'magic spell' that Hitler cast over his listeners has been
acknowledged many times, latterly by the publishers of 'Hitlers
Tischgespraeche' [Hitler's Table Talks]...This fascination--'the strange
magnetism that radiated from Hitler in such a compelling manner'--rested
indeed 'on the fanatical belief of this man in himself"...
Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he
pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain
chance to be believed. In modern society, with its characteristic lack of
discerning judgement, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who
not only holds opinions but also PRESENTS [emph. added] them in a tone of
unshakable conviction will not so easily forfeit his prestige, no matter
how many times he has been demonstrably wrong." (pg. 3, Totalitarianism)
The presentation plays an integral part in getting the message across, and
especially in Herrn [no spelling mistake, take German] Hitlers case.
To be continued...
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 15 21:17:39 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Hitler and Hawking, pt.2
Date: Wed Jun 15 21:17:39 1994
{...Dr. Hawkins is my example...}
Well, your example was a respected physicist before Lou Gehrig's set in.
Of course he would have been listened to. In fact, his 'voice-box' speech
distinguishes him beyond and above other theoretical physicists; it is his
'trademark,' if you will. It makes him an individual, and adds to his
thoughts, at least to the general public, who made a bestseller out of his
book. I'm not sure how his assistants and co-workers see his speech
impediment, and I doubt that YOU know either.
{As usual your sloppy and illogical mental processes have led u [sic]
astray...}
I think I need to create a macro for [sic] every time I argue with you.
I really think so.
{Misquote!}
I quoted what you quoted from me. If I screwed up, I didn't do it
intentionally (like some people).
{No, my premise was that depending on the type of government, they
allow differing degrees of freedom...}
You are either changing your tune, or you have no fucking clue what's on
your own mind.
Assuming the above is accurate, you still have yet to define, or realize
in some physical way, what this constant is for each authoritarian
structure; i.e. to what degree does the authoritarian structure affect and
shape the constant, what it is, etc.
Or you don't know what the constant is because:
a. You have no clue what it could be.
b. Or, you are starting to realize that all such mystical 'constants'
are actually equal, and effect each authority 'zero baseline' the same
way. In effect, capitalism is as free as communism.
Or you are trying to bullshit me by switching stories on me, which is
likely as you cannot defend the above claim.
{Is your problem concentration or just understanding?}
You could ask most logical-thinking people, and they would have just as
hard a time concentrating on your contradictory and weak arguments.
{l8r Skippy}
I thought you might have grown out of diapers by now; I guess not.
From Zbadba@yabbs Wed Jun 15 23:33:39 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Stop the Insults!!
Date: Wed Jun 15 23:33:39 1994
Re: "90 I.Q. crowd at the unemployment line"
Last time I was tested, my IQ topped out at 166, and I'm quite unemployed.
Time to grow up- your "screw the poor, the unemployed, the
disenfranchised" attitude just won't wash. Why? Because the poor outnumber
the rich by a factor of 300 or more.
To paraphrase Doogie Adams, "When the revelotion comes, you jerks will be
the first against the wall."
I don't think you've ever led a rough life, my friend. Have you ever even
been out of the country? Have you ever bothered to investigate the
conditions of life outside your gentrified world? You, sir, are too
comfortable. It's easy for you to proclaim the merits of laissez faire
because you are on the long end of the stick.
Try the other life for a while. It would be an education.
Zb
From Zbadba@yabbs Wed Jun 15 23:39:05 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Wed Jun 15 23:39:05 1994
Freedom's not a really good reason to "endure" life.
I live for pleasure. It can be emotional, sensual, or (rarely) sexual.
It's all the same.
The quest for pleasure naturally leads to the quest for freedom
(i.e. dissatisfaction with regulation- "If I were free to do such and
such, I might enjoy it. the pleasure might be worth it.) Mankind is a too
optimistic species.
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jun 16 00:11:19 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Thu Jun 16 00:11:19 1994
i know that *I'm* looking at an unemployment line simply because the only
things i excel in (creative writing, medieval history, religion (interpret
as you wish), and french) are not what employers look for in an employee.
So I will continue to go to school and work at a McJob (*gag* I hate D.
Copeland but that's such a nifty, useful word) until I get published and
convert everyone to my world view...*smirk*...not really. I'll justbe
content to have a book published. Acually, at this point, I just want to
come up with a concrete topic for my Honors thesis....gee...a thesis in
creative writng....blah....oh, the next 2 years are going to be SO fun...
natalie
From pixy@yabbs Thu Jun 16 01:46:28 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole
Date: Thu Jun 16 01:46:28 1994
Okay, I do see your point. But the big problem i have is that the laissez
faire economics can infringe on personal liberty more than it can
ultimately spurn it in some cases. Notable exceptions such as renaissance
europe and modern china do exist, but let's look at the homefront and how
business effects freedom. Companies in america have the unofficial power
to regulate the speech of employees, search employees without probalble
cause(drugtesting), and a few other things i can't think of right now(I
always enjoy a drink or two when messaging and it sometimes effects the
thinking--especially when it becomes four or five). Anyway, do you see
what i'm talking about? And people really do have to take it--as they said
countless times in The Grapes of Wrath: "A man's gotta eat."
pixy
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 16 13:06:48 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: So...
Date: Thu Jun 16 13:06:48 1994
...basically all life is good for is self-satisfaction?
Kinda shallow to me.
X
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jun 16 15:05:37 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Thu Jun 16 15:05:37 1994
>Ps. If the worlds soomed and all our actions are for not, then why don't
>we just get some fucking razorblades and vacate this ball?
I don't know. Some trapped animal, probably the reptile brain that all
humans
still have down in their cerebrum, stops me. It is afraid to doe.
I just can't seem to get past my fear of death.
I try to, but I can't. Last night I was in a terror because I was feeling
faint after eating a bag of potato chips and I was afraid they were
killing me, so I tried to keep from going to sleep. I am afraid to die,
and see no point to living.
My fellow human beings are bestial, naked, and squatting in the desert
eating their own hearts and liking them because they are bitter, and
because they are their hearts, and I don't know what to do anymore.
BADGER01
All apologies to Stephen Crane for the paraphrase
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jun 16 15:09:38 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Thu Jun 16 15:09:38 1994
oh boy! let's talk about the ray gun some more!
natalie
(and btw, i am not a mindless dolt)
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jun 16 15:12:24 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Stop the Insults!!
Date: Thu Jun 16 15:12:24 1994
On the whole IQ vs Unemployment issue, I'd have to agree with you.
But I finally accept that I will never be helped by anyone.
I envy your passion.
Here is an anecdote: I walked into my socialism, anarchy and communism
class two years ago and told a person named Bob that I was beginning to
think that with a reapplication, some of the socialist ideas of Owen might
be doable, and would help the economy. He said, and I quote, "Fuck that!"
I asked him why, and he revealed to me that anyone who doesn't make at
least fifty thousand a year is worthless, according to him and his family.
I was even more shocked when several others in the class supported him.
Their rallying cry was "Fuck the poor." I make less than seven thousand a
year (This expensive college education is being paid for by a trust fund
my rich grandfather left just for the purpose. I grew up lower middle
class myself) I realized that these people would as soon shit on me as
talk to me.
What does that mean?
Maybe nothing. Maybe that people are inherently evil. Maybe that they need
to be educated.
I don't know anymore.
BADGER01
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jun 16 15:16:47 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Thu Jun 16 15:16:47 1994
Why are we comparing IQ's? I'm not saying Natalie is doing it, but
what difference does it make? I know people who have written great works
of literature, built massive structures, changed the world for the better
without knowing what their IQ's are.
I still say that the only government is none. Because there is no
difference.
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jun 16 16:17:46 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Chaos
Date: Thu Jun 16 16:17:46 1994
well, to change the subject...
i got a letter from my best friend today, who happens to be the most
brilliant person i know...and she came up with this cool theory about
order and chaos...so i'm gonna quote from her letter and see what
happens...
"I was thinking aboutreality. Thinking about chaos and disorder. If
science seems to be making our universe, and in fact our world, more
understandable and orderly, doesn't that mean we could be headed for
chaos? This is due to my reading an article in _Omni_. The more closed
and cause-effect things seem, the more possibilities there might be.
Perhaps (HARE-BRAINED THEORY ALERT!) the appearance of order is just a way
to shut down the faith of the human mind in certain things, to limit the
possibilities. Take the curse, for example. Very few people in
industrialized nations believe in curses anymore, so they don't work. Not
thatthey didn't work to begin with. They did. Who knows how many things
that's happened to? Food for thought. What's really out there that we
aren't allowed to see?"
--Jennifer DeFord
hmmmm....this made me think...how about y'all?
natalie
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jun 16 19:30:24 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Chaos
Date: Thu Jun 16 19:30:24 1994
My own personal chaos theory.
Living things function by the random firing of neurons in their cerebral
matter, be it a fully developed brain or just a pile of ganglia in a worm.
Now, tthese neural firings are supposedly chaotic, according to
scientists, with fairly unlimited range and no discernable pattern. Then
how do we think? How do we correlate ideas? Chaos is just ultimate order,
and order is the ultimate manifestation of chaos. Check out thermodynamic
law.
Or maybe I'm just bullshitting. You guys can figure it out.
Badger01
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jun 17 00:48:04 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Foot in your mouth, again?
Date: Fri Jun 17 00:48:04 1994
{Skippy!...
Spiderman! *shrug*
...this sounds like u!...
Well, most folks would have said the quote fit you better, since you have
this preconceived notion in your head that you are always right. Go
figure. *shrug*
...BTW didn't Hitler also paraphrase your original post? That meant the
old rich, mainly jewish bankers, blah blah...}
So now I'm an anti-Semite? Boy are you out of line. You better back your
claim up, or you'll lose even more credibility [as if you have any left to
lose].
{BTW get a real account. BBS accounts are lame at best. They are for
housewives and H.S. students}
Once again I am happy to say that you have put your foot into your mouth
. If you have the 191 I.Q. you claim you have, you'd have done at least
some half-rate research. But I guess I can't expect that from a dumbass
like you, anyway. *shrug* Oh well, next topic.
Seriously, do some research. I have another real account I use
infrequently.
{I guess it's your inability to understand that's lacking...}
You sure guess quite a bit for someone as smug as yourself. If you *know*
that I don't understand something, quit saying that you guess I don't
understand anything, and *tell* me what I don't understand. Otherwise we
are just exchanging worthless hot air.
{I did a little, but u didn't catch it...}
I probably missed it (assuming I did) because you also claimed that "such
a constant doesn't matter since it factors out of everything." To
'loosely' paraphrase your messages.
{Everybody can't have something for nothing all the time. There have to
be producers... I'd tell you more, but...}
But what? It's called Prisoner's Dilemma. Heard of that? It's where
some statisical element of the population takes advantage of a public good
at the expense of the whole. Basic game theory explores the economic
features of the equilibriums [of certain variables, like capital, goods
produced, etc.] which result from the selfish taking advantage of an
altruistic system. It's covered even in behavioral biology; Dawkins even
covers ESSes in his books. You really insult yourself when you assume I
know nothing; you really do.
I'd tell you more, but it looks like you've got a bit of reading to cattch
up on [catcch = catch].
Later Spidey.
X
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 17 01:27:01 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Fri Jun 17 01:27:01 1994
In message re: None of you get it, Badger01 said:
> Why are we comparing IQ's? I'm not saying Natalie is doing it, but
> what difference does it make? I know people who have written great works
> of literature, built massive structures, changed the world for the better
> without knowing what their IQ's are.
I'm not necessarily saying IQ does make a difference. Ipersonally feel it
does, but that's a different argument altogether. Your statement,
however, is a non sequitur.
What does knowledge of your IQ have to do with its rating? For example, if
my IQ is 170, how does my knowledge of this affect the rating? It's a 170,
regardless, correct?
> I still say that the only government is none. Because there is no
> difference.
What does this have to do with intelligence quotients? Is this an
unrelated aside? Are you saying that you can see no recognizable
difference between the current government and a complete lack thereof?
I'd consider that completely unsupportable. You can see no difference
between the causes and effects in my life if I was, say, a serial killer?
I'd go through life with the same repurcussions regardless of whether the
US govt. was in power? Please pick your words a bit more carefully in
order to stay on tenable ground. Stay on topic, narrow your conclusions,
give supporting evidence, and think.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 17 01:49:27 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Chaos
Date: Fri Jun 17 01:49:27 1994
In message Chaos, Natalie said:
(Nat, of course these comments are meant for your friend :)
> If science seems to be making our universe, and in fact our world, more
> understandable and orderly, doesn't that mean we could be headed for
> chaos? The more closed and cause-effect things seem, the more
> possibilities there might be.
This assumes that science "creates" order. This is hardly the case (at
least there is no justifiable evidence to lead to this conclusion).
Scince merely finds order that already existed. By inference, this would
suggest that the possibilities are NOT multiplying, we're just noticing
more of them now. Since there is no evidence that science can either
"create" order or chaos simply through observation, the conclusion seems
unjustified.
> Perhaps the appearance of order is just a way to shut down the
> faith of the human mind in certain things, to limit the possibilities.
Once again, this is ascribing powers of change to sensory observation.
Given no supporting evidence, this seems to be a groundless claim.
> Take the curse, for example. Very few people in
> industrialized nations believe in curses anymore, so they don't work.
Non sequitur. This one'd give Aristotle a cardiac. If I didn't believe
in the existence of guns, I bet you could still kill me with one. The
author is attemting to ascribe power over the physical world through
belief. Neat theory, but she would have to show a lot of evidence to
support that claim (of which she gives none).
> Not that they didn't work to begin with. They did.
Once again, a nice theory, but unless she's an expert in this field (and
she'd have to be a minor deity to qualify for that), then it's a
groundless statement lacking evidence and, hence, merit.
If you can send her this response I'd like to get her to try and expand
and try to support this theory though (it could be interesting).
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Zbadba@yabbs Fri Jun 17 01:54:34 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: So...
Date: Fri Jun 17 01:54:34 1994
"...basically all life is good for is self-satisfaction?
Kinda shallow to me."
Self satisfaction needn't be shallow. Think for a moment about your
motives in making that comment? If you think back far enough, the motive
is self satisfaction. Warm Fuzzies, if you will.
Just because I don't engage in mindless acts of drunken, orgiastic
debauchery doesn't mean self satisfaction doesn't drive my actions;
rather that I seek my pleasure on a higher level, and can even take
pleasure in pain. (not of the physical variety, mind you)
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 17 01:56:14 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Chaos
Date: Fri Jun 17 01:56:14 1994
In message re: Chaos, Badger01 said:
> My own personal chaos theory.
>
> Living things function by the random firing of neurons in their cerebral
> matter, be it a fully developed brain or just a pile of ganglia in a worm.
> Now, tthese neural firings are supposedly chaotic, according to
> scientists, with fairly unlimited range and no discernable pattern.
True to a point, but essentially incorrect. Individual firings APPEAR
random. However, analysis of macro-scale firings do not support your
claims. If there were no discernable patterns, we would not know what
areas of the brain control which functions. Hell, we've been able to map
macro-scale firings (or activity) for quite some time now
(electroencephalography).
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Zbadba@yabbs Fri Jun 17 02:14:49 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Insult the Dolts!
Date: Fri Jun 17 02:14:49 1994
"{166 I.Q.? All that horsepower and no transmission."
I doubt you know me well enough to judge. IQ's merely a measure of
potential, as you correctly infer, regardless.
"Go back and read the posts on "The poor will be the first to
starve". We have beat this one to death already."
Well, forgive me, I didn't realize that topics of philosophy lived and
died at your whim on this bbs. To think of the responsibility in wielding
such power. I'm glad that's your job, not mine.
"You are right! I have made my way as I go. All the way from the
bottom to the top."
Eh? Kindly elucidate; I was unable to parse the above contradiction. You
first agree that your life has never been "rough" then tell me that you've
built your life all by your lonesome?
Well, I'll assume for the moment that you think you have "made the journey
from the proverbial bottom to the proverbial top" all by yourself.
Got news for ya, bud. Noone does. You are where you are today because of
the aggregate efforts of those around you, in addition to your own. Ever
heard the quote "No man is an island"? Well, it's true. Anyone trying
to project the image that they have "made it on their own" is at best
misguided, and at worst, a fraud and a charlatan.
"U.S. Appalachians and S.W. Indian reservations, CA, MX, Japan,
Nigeria, Caribbean, Middle East. Been around enough to know that
your life is what u make out of it, and not what some1 gives to u."
See above. Now read this:
No one can "give you" a "life." And life is, indeed, "what u make out of
it." It's a shame you have such a limited perspective on life. That the
be-all and end-all goal is some nebulous concept of "success." I find you
quite pitiable in that respect. I've traveled to many of the places you
mentioned, and many others you didn't. Pray, did you learn anything? Or
were you too focused on how "inferior" the lives of the people
you encountered were? Where in these places did you go? (Where in the
Middle East? What indian reservation? What part of mexico? What section of
the appalachians?) I am curious. I have many questions- one for every
answer You've got, plus at least one more.
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 17 04:10:09 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Insult the Dolts!
Date: Fri Jun 17 04:10:09 1994
In message re: Insult the Dolts!, Zbadba said:
> Well, I'll assume for the moment that you think you have "made the journey
> from the proverbial bottom to the proverbial top" all by yourself.
>
> Got news for ya, bud. Noone does. You are where you are today because of
> the aggregate efforts of those around you, in addition to your own. Ever
> heard the quote "No man is an island"? Well, it's true. Anyone trying
> to project the image that they have "made it on their own" is at best
> misguided, and at worst, a fraud and a charlatan.
While I'd grant you are correct in this statement, I would like to attempt
to flesh it out a bit. True, noone "makes" it without any outside help,
but there are varying degrees of aid. For myself, I feel I can claim my
acomplishments as largely self-achieved. Granted, I have the emotional
support of a woman and the occasional "grant" from relatives. However,
with a mother somewhere in New England (don't ask me where) and a father
across seas (we don't speak), I feel justified in claiming my
accomplishments as my own. Is it technically correct? No. However, the
misuse of the phrase seems an acceptable abuse of language. It seems
there are varying degrees of aid one can receive, and after a certain
level of neglect a person can claim themselves independant for better or
for worse.
> It's a shame you have such a limited perspective on life.
> That the be-all and end-all goal is some nebulous concept of "success."
I'm having trouble finding anything wrong with this concept. Perhaps we
just have different definitions of success in mind. Success (from my
perspective) is doing what you do well. Taking pride in your work and
striving to be the best at it. Success itself is not a goal, it is a
description of how well and completely you've acheived your goal.
For instance, I'd consider Ghandi's be-all end-all goal was success in his
goal to finding a non-violent solution to the British. If success wasn't
an all consuming need, I don't think he would have had the strength to
acomplish his goals. In that light, I'd view his obsession for success as
a merit, not a flaw.
Perhaps the merit or lack thereof of an obsession for success lies less
with the obsession itself and more with the person's underlying goals.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jun 17 09:13:11 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: So...
Date: Fri Jun 17 09:13:11 1994
"Self-satisfaction needn't be shallow."
Point is, it is *often* a shallow pursuit. I won't argue whether it
should or should not be such, as that gets into selfishness versus
altruism; a real pit of snakes, that is. But it seems to me that
the singular pursuits of one for the selfusually end up increasing the
misery of another.
"....rather that I seek my pleasure on a higher level, and can even take
pleasure in pain."
Then you are a rare case; most seek self-gratification on a mindless
level.
Pain is evolutionarily successful because it teaches lessons. I think
that our brain is built to 'enjoy' pain on various levels, because it adds
to our survival potential by being emotionally satisfying *and* giving an
appropriate lesson.
L8r,
X
From pixy@yabbs Fri Jun 17 16:48:19 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole
Date: Fri Jun 17 16:48:19 1994
yyIn message re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole, arachnoi said:
> Your point is taken, but is it due to laizze faire
> economics? remeber back in the days when gov was smaller and
> less intervention in domestic policy?
> U can even include the days of JFK, when heroin and
> LSD were rampid. Ppl would go to work stoned out of their gourd,
> but little was done about it. As gov got bigger and bigger, they
> made demands on buisness, and buisnesses instituted draconian
> policies to keep their employees in line. I don't think u can pin
> most of that on laizze faire. It still looks like 1984 Socalism
> too me.
I don't know about that. Go back beyond JFK to the times of the Robber
Barrons. Back then, you had to work your ass off for pennies a day and all
the rich really had all the power over us--even more than now. 43% of the
nations wealth was in the hands of 1% of the population. Without
government intervention in the formn of the antitrust act, it would have
been long before the entire nation was owned by 1 person. I thin freedom
would be in serious jeopardy in such a situation.
YOu see, when Adam Smith first prescribed laissez farie economics in his
book, The Wealth of Nations, he thinking was that no one could ever win a
monopoly in a free economy--perhaps he was inspired by the way ecosystems
seem to balance themselves out. However, capitalism is a winnable game.
Just like social animals compete for dominance over their group,
capitalists compete for ultimate dominance over the human race. I think
with real laissez faire economics we would end up with a social system
like that of wild animals: one absolute leader with everyone competing for
his spot. freedom would suffer.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Sat Jun 18 02:47:41 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: xela @yabbs
Subject: nature
Date: Sat Jun 18 02:47:41 1994
Okay dumbfuck, let's talk reality here and see if any of my ideas sink
below the lead walls you call your skull.
You made the humiliating error of agreeing with natalie about peae coming
through anarchy. *now listen this time!!!* The world, no matter what kind
of political or economic system runs it, is in a state of disequilibrium.
Here we go nice and slow to explain that last statement: The world has
limited resources. All animals have basic needs and desires, much more
than the world can satisfy. This creates an unbalance that cause
competition and killing and fighting and all the other things that make
the world tick. If all the forces in the world were balanced, there would
be no progress or change. We are defined by the adversity and imperfection
of life, and the limits it puts on us.
This arguement really founds itself on the fact that we both have
different connations attached to the word peace. The above is how i see
the world. By the way i define peace, i see that there is none inherent in
human nature or any other nature. You see it a different way, fine. Let me
hear it. But I'll be much more receptive if you drop the bullshit insults.
I await an intelligent reply--hopefully,
pixy
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jun 18 12:11:51 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: nature
Date: Sat Jun 18 12:11:51 1994
hmmm...i never said there was peace thru anarchy. all i said was that
when i wnet into nature i found a lot of peace, not a bunch of mindless
killing and stupidity. geez.
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jun 20 02:08:04 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: ok d00d
Date: Mon Jun 20 02:08:04 1994
"Okay dumbfuck, let's talk reality here and see if any of my ideas sink
below the lead walls you call your skull."
Ok, let's.
"You made the humiliating error of agreeing with Natalie about peace
through anarchy. *now listen this time!!!*"
First you are insulting Natalie by assuming that she has no right to speak
her mind [even as Nat claims later that she never made such a statement].
Then you assume that I said, or agreed with, the statement "peace through
anarchy," which you claimed to be false [regardless who said it]. I then
said: "anarchy through anarchy." You then said that there can be no such
thing as peace associated with anarchy. I then said: "Quit the bullshit;
nobody knows what it would be like if anarchy existed, as noone has tried
it." I don't *know* whether peace can co-exist with anarchy; I can only
speculate such. You can only speculate, as well.
"The world...is in a state of disequilibrium...[and] has limited
resources"
If the world is in a state of disequilibrium, evolution would probably
never have progressed further than the basic amino acids and RNA, because
life [as far as it has evolved] depends upon the multiple states
[variables: food, weather, population, etc.] of the world following a
chaotic attractor, an equilibrium of sorts which follows in cycles. This
is not metaphysical bullshit either; you can find biological cycles on the
molecular level, such as the Krebs cycle [prducing usable potential] and
the Ornithine cycle [turning excess amino acids into excretable urine],
all the way to a macro scale, such as the nitrogen cycle [where nitrogen
funnels its way through the atmosphere and legumes and over again]. The
original gene structure, stable enough to survive the primordial soup, was
able to shape itself around the equilibrium of the world's thermodynamic
states, taking advantage of what it could and evolving as it did into life
as we know it today.
Resources is a funny word. I am tempted to look upon this word in its
original sense, that is, its economic definition, and say that the concept
of "limited resources" only exists because we humnas are ignorant and do
not know how to live within the cycles of life [or we don't want to?].
Its probably enough to say that the world has so much of x, y, and z, and
has made do for about 4 billion years, so why can't we do as Earth does?
"...this creates an imbalance that causes competition and killing..."
Your mistake is in looking at each competing animal as an entity in and of
itself, killing for food. You do not look at the genes [which we all
have] which created the animal in the first place. The genetic code is
blind to your values system of "killing" and "competing;" it only sees
food and the potential to reproduce itself when it gets that food.
Your morality is your own business, but that morality doesn't create any
imbalance except in maybe the health of your mind.
Pt. 2 to come....
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jun 20 02:26:34 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: ok d00d, pt. 2
Date: Mon Jun 20 02:26:34 1994
"...if all the forces in the world were balanced, there would be no
progress or change..."
Time for a little physics lecture, I think. If you take a point charge at
one particular equipotential, say +10V, and move it to an equipotential,
say +5V, you've created an "imbalance" in the equation; you have to
perform work to move that point charge to resolve the imbalance. But if
you move that charge at +5 back to +10, your *net* work done is zero. The
slate is wiped clean. In order to facilitate my point, I'll expand the
world to mean the universe.
In the universe, the total amount of energy is a constant; if you change
gas into mechanical potential [i.e. your car], you don't get all the
energy stored in the hydrocarbon molecule: you get say 20% and the rest is
converted into heat, sound, etc. energy...but if you add up all the
percentages of all the conversions, you get the original energy back.
None is lost, it is converted.
If it were lost, you would have your "disequilibrium" and the law of
conservation of energy wouldn't hold [perpetual motion machines would be
possible].
Let's look at thermodynamics and more specifically entropy, to further my
point. The universe, as current theory holds, is running towards a heat
death; entropy seeks order and order seeks entropy until the two converge
at zero. The universe, as a whole, has "entropy + order = 0" to work
with. Locally, on planet Earth, we are fortunate enough to be a local
concentration of ordered energy. This allows us to convert our higher
forms of energy into heat + consumer products [moving cars, the cars
themselves, etc.]. But taking the entire universe into consideration, we
are an anomaly at best, with our pocket of order being turned into heat
energy, the lowest form of energy.
So to make my point, change on our planet is possible, because we have
ordered energy with which to convert into other things + heat. But the
balance remains; we cannot add energy to the equation...
"We are defined by the adversity and imperfection of life, and the limits
it puts on us."
I believe that we define ourselves and our concepts of life, and not the
other way around. To do so implies a higher being.
X
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jun 20 11:56:08 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Mon Jun 20 11:56:08 1994
This is an Anarchy board, and your telling me what to do?
I don't think so. And I wasn't really making a point, I was asking a
question I'm sincerely curious about. Yes, your life would be the same no
matter what gov. was in power. The reason is, whether we live in a
dictatorship of a republic, our lives are not our own. We are dictated to
anyway.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jun 20 12:04:50 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Just a thought...
Date: Mon Jun 20 12:04:50 1994
I was looking around and noticing how impressed all of us
are with ourselves and how much we know and our viewpoints, myself
included, and it occured to me how little I do know. How truly sad and
uneducated I am, and how untenable my thoughts are in their shallowness.
(Now, before you savage me like a wolf exposing his throat to the pack,
hold on.) It seems that I think I know something, when in fact, I do not.
Socrates was right. I know nothing. There is nothing that I have seen that
I can be sure of, nothing I have felt that cannot be mistaken, nothing
that I have read that cannot be a lie. Perhaps the world is flat. I don't
have the knowledge to truly say. I know absolutely nothing.
And therefore, I finally found a kernel of wisdom to call my own.
Or at least one I can steal from the greeks like so many before me.
Badger01
Hey, everybody, relax. Insults don't make you correct, and being right is
transitory when you end up dead anyway. Not that I actually know that
death is the end.
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jun 20 13:33:53 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: None of you get it
Date: Mon Jun 20 13:33:53 1994
In message re: None of you get it, Badger01 said:
> This is an Anarchy board, and your telling me what to do?
Wrong. I'm just asking you to give a little thought to your post and TRY
to support them.
> matter what gov. was in power. The reason is, whether we live in a
> dictatorship of a republic, our lives are not our own. We are dictated to
> anyway.
Do you sincerely think your life would be no different in a dictatorship?
I don't know how you envision a dictatorship, but speaking for myself, if
I was tunning a dictatorship noone on this board would be breathing by now.
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jun 20 13:44:37 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Just a thought...
Date: Mon Jun 20 13:44:37 1994
In message Just a thought..., Badger01 said:
> I can be sure of, nothing I have felt that cannot be mistaken, nothing
> that I have read that cannot be a lie. Perhaps the world is flat. I don't
> have the knowledge to truly say. I know absolutely nothing.
>
> And therefore, I finally found a kernel of wisdom to call my own.
> Or at least one I can steal from the greeks like so many before me.
No insult intended, but I'm not sure I'd call that wisdom. Are you sure
Socrates didn't mean "Never assume you know everything, or you'll be
incapable of learning" as opposed to "you're hopelessly ignorant and will
remain feebleminded till death". How long could our world support itself
if everyone decided they knew nothing and just sat down contemplating
their own feebleness?
Well, all the scientist would've went home long ago, so you wouldn't be
here. In fact, all the inventors would've given up as well so you
wouldn't have anything to plug your machine into anyway.
The point is, all these great philosophers who've ruminated on the
stupidity of humanity have done so with the patronage of those who are
willing to learn and work with the faculties they possess.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Jun 20 19:57:40 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: The proof is in the pudding
Date: Mon Jun 20 19:57:40 1994
i don't have to prove a damned thing to you, you anacephalic inbred
pedantic puerile excuse of a human being...
(and boy, do i feel better now....)
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Jun 20 20:08:21 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: PREDATORS - The Movie
Date: Mon Jun 20 20:08:21 1994
that's it. you accused me of watching barney. no one does that and
survives. i can't believe i have to spell every little thing out for you.
1. Granted, *as far as we know* humans are the only salient beings on
this planet. So, therefore, in our arrogance, we call animals
mindless and worth less than ourselves.
2. However, humans kill each other, sometimes for survival, but not
usually. The Inquisition was instituted to kill those who
disagreed with the Catholic Church (and what a bastion of purity it
was.) The Holocuast was intituted to wipe out anyone Hitler
didn't agree with. (on a side note, isn't it ironic that
thousands of Christians were put to death by the Romans? and that
once the Christians got on top they decided to wipe out everyone
who disagreed with them? including other christians...but I
digress.)
3. Animals, on the other hand, USUALLY (there are some notable
exceptions) kill others to survive. To defend what is theirs, to
eat, things like that.
4. Therefore, there is balance in the animal world. Animals do what
they must to survive, and humans do not, as a general rule. Humans
have a nasty tendency to get in a position of power and then abuse
it. (the Church, the French Monarchy, even the United States)
Is that clear enough for you?
natalie
From Slutty@yabbs Mon Jun 20 21:26:50 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Stop the Insults!!
Date: Mon Jun 20 21:26:50 1994
Fuck You!!!!
I am sick and tired of hearing all the shit that you have been giving me
isn't there something better you could be doing with your time?
But you know what I'm not going to stoop to your level anymore because the
more you open your mouth the dumber and more ignorant you sound!
As far as I am concerned you can fall off the face of the fuckin' earth
and the rest of us reall wouldn't give a shit!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Slutty@yabbs Mon Jun 20 21:30:57 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: Columbo@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Mon Jun 20 21:30:57 1994
Okay. You have made a valid point and I know that the man does have his
downfalls but I also believe that the man has the ability to turn things
around for this country and make things better. He may not be doing a
very good job of it now and he may not get another chance at it in 1996
but I think if he is given the chance he will do some good.
From Slutty@yabbs Mon Jun 20 21:31:49 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: re: Stop the Insults!!
Date: Mon Jun 20 21:31:49 1994
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Jun 21 00:10:46 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Insult the Dolts!
Date: Tue Jun 21 00:10:46 1994
"Another sheep abdicating his humanity. Try, saying something
new!"
Not sure what you're trying to say here. It made little sense in context.
"Point 1) You are right. Everyone in the U.S. ..." blah blah blah etc.
I'm not just talking about the US, my friend. It's not the only example.
"Support" need not be monetary. You mention the Kalahari Bushmen; They
survive because of the emotional support each clan member receives from
others in the family unit. You're taking a very limited perspective again.
"... [the bushman] would tell you that it's us that haven't got the idea"
I agree. I don't think anyone has the "right idea." No, not even myself.
I'm very much a relativist.
"So with all that's available to u, why are you standing ..." etc.
I'm not, dipshit. Never assume. I just said that I was unemployed, not
that I was on the dole.
"Hahahaha...working and money are bad... now gimme the check"
Ignoring the assumption here, I will address another gross error. I merely
said that I you seem to place so much on "success" (whatever that means to
you), that you are ignoring the process. Life, if you will. Again, you are
reading what you want to see, not what I wrote.
I didn't even mention work or money, neither of which are "BAD" (as you
have tried to put those words in my mouth).
"I didn't say their lives were inferior?"
And I didn't say I was on the dole, dumbass.
Next.
"Outside the US, ppl make their own lives."
Whadda crock o' shit. I frankly don't believe you learned much in your
"travels" (though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume they
are not fictional). First of all,read what I wrote above. No-one makes it
on their own. Not monetarily, not emotionally, not socially. Noone.
Because humans are *social* animals. *Not Solitary*. To survive we need
food, water, and shelter, but to grow, we need social contact. Money can
provide the first three, but there is no replacement for emotional
support. I digress. Also, the US is by far not alone in it's dole system
(Which you should also have learned in your "travels") (incidentally, I
don't favour a dole system by any means).
Take off your green-tinted glasses. You place so much emphasis on money
that you are missing the rest of life.
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Jun 21 00:22:47 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Levels
Date: Tue Jun 21 00:22:47 1994
"There are no truly FREE gov types. Only differing degrees of oppression."
What's the difference between freedom and oppression? The concepts are
transient at best. I think you've just slipped into the absolutist trap.
You mention anarchy, and how it curtails freedom by forcing moderation in
behaviour. However, you fail to mention it "grants" the "freedom" to use
your shotgun at will. By the same token, an absolute police state will
curtail "freedom" by taking away said weapon, but then "grant" "freedom"
from having to kowtow to some kook with a 10-gauge.
Back to the drawingboards....
From pixy@yabbs Tue Jun 21 00:56:51 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole
Date: Tue Jun 21 00:56:51 1994
In message re: bad ole Democrats, lame ole, arachnoi said:
> {I agree that there are excesses in the system, and maybe it would
> have turned to 'Winner take all'. We will never know. The gov
> stepped in before the balancing forces of anarchy were able to
> react. Robber Barons were beginning to be assassinated, and ppl
> were being to rise up in arms, etc. Ppl didn't get better wages
> from gov, but from ppl like Ford, realizing workers are also
> consumers. Anyway, we are rapidly losing our economic freedoms,
> and the problem today is that we have political rather than
> economic despots. What are we gonna do with a Prez that steals the
> towels? :) I love this story. The executive towels and robes, along
> with 14 of the staffer's robes and towels from the U.S.S. George
> Washington were pinched during 'Sticky Fingers' Clinton's visit.
> The man is the president of the United States of America, and still
> steals the towels out of his room.}
Anarchy is a complex subject. It has a confusing nature about it--it is
nothing, yet is treated like an entity. I am flustered to define it, and
when one tries to, unbelievably impassible incongruities and disagreements
erupt. Who knows what would have happened with the Robber Barrons in
anarchy. I've even thought that we are ultimately in anarchy, but we humor
these political machines out of sheer laziness. Who knows?
Pixy
P.S. I could be emperor of the planet and I'd still try to steal
everything i could from my hotel room--it's just plain old fun:)
From pixy@yabbs Tue Jun 21 01:02:55 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: xela @yabbs
Subject: messages
Date: Tue Jun 21 01:02:55 1994
Sorry i haven't replied to your message yet. I'll get to it real soon. You
have some real good looking arguements, but it's a real long one. So give
me a few more days. thanx
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Tue Jun 21 01:13:57 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: messages
Date: Tue Jun 21 01:13:57 1994
I've noticed a lot of flaming on this board as of late, and i know alot of
people are probalbly bitching about it or getting ready to bitch about it.
I say fuck that. Flaming is fun: profanities, personal insults, and any
other little offensive and tabooish rhetorical devices. Yea, intelligent
arguements are useful and productive,too, but it's nice to see the
dogma--the norms and the worthless etiquettte(misspell?)--of modern
society caste aside. Now we're talking anarchy.
pixy
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jun 21 06:14:47 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: messages
Date: Tue Jun 21 06:14:47 1994
In message re: messages, pixy said:
> I've noticed a lot of flaming on this board as of late, and i know alot of
> people are probalbly bitching about it or getting ready to bitch about it.
> I say fuck that. Flaming is fun: profanities, personal insults, and any
> other little offensive and tabooish rhetorical devices. Yea, intelligent
> arguements are useful and productive,too, but it's nice to see the
> dogma--the norms and the worthless etiquettte(misspell?)--of modern
> society caste aside. Now we're talking anarchy.
> pixy
>
>
I couldn't agree more you son of a leprous, puss lactating bovine.
May your camels be born with three humps.
:)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 21 07:14:52 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: messages
Date: Tue Jun 21 07:14:52 1994
ok, flaming may be lots of fun (which it is), but it rarely produces
logical argument, which you seem to want. all flaming does is attempt to
make the flamee angry, so they then respond with a flame, and so on and so
forth. which is why i try not to do it...but every once in a while i
can't resist, you pieces of canine excrement...:)
natalie
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Jun 21 18:24:19 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Insult the Dolts!
Date: Tue Jun 21 18:24:19 1994
"Go back and think about, maybe your neurons will make a
connection sometime soon."
Cop-out.
"If u are going to change the original intent...then say so."
The "unemployed but not an idiot" bit was just a hook into a larger
debate.
"U said it as a response rto a post about unemployment line/dole...that
was deceptive."
I've little sympathy for you. You're the one who assumed. Never assume in
a debate.
"Only later did you admit that u were on the graytrain [sic] that your
'Trust Fund' provides u."
Fabrication. Where you pulled this from, I've no idea.
"U have lost all crediability [sic] on this point."
I frankly don't think you qualified to judge.
"Poor little rich boy..." blah blah.
More fabrication. Pointless and inane.
"you're unemployed because you are lazy."
Where'd you pull this from? No, you are wrong. I am unemployed because I'm
leaving for the summer to do some theatre work, and I won't be able
to a regular job. You know nothing about my personal situation, so don't
pretend.
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Jun 21 18:27:03 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: 10 guage = law
Date: Tue Jun 21 18:27:03 1994
"What's the diff. between light and dark?...zero sum determination...what
you have left is [sic] your freedoms."
Give me an example of an "absolute" freedom. Theoretical physics is not
always analogous to philosophy.
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jun 21 18:57:39 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: animals
Date: Tue Jun 21 18:57:39 1994
1. You somehow managed to get this out of my post: "If we are promintent
(salient) then animals not being prominent are subservient".
I never said anything about animals being lesser than us. That is your
assumption. As Zbadba said, don't make assumptions in a debate. Animals
are different from us, not subservient. Being different is not a bad
thing, as you make it sound to be.
2. If you will not, i said that there are notable exceptions to the
general rule that animals don'tkill for the same reasons humans do.
Primates are one example. Chimpanzees have been known to hunt others of
their kind in what seems to be a kind of war. Also gorillas and macaques.
Many predators (usually hte ones that treavel in packs) have social
slystems. Which include status. Much like in human situations, the
leadership of the group may be challenged and overthrown. But you don't
exactly see wildebeest or gazelles fighting with each other over who is
boss.
3. I never watch the original Star Trek. Je deteste William Shatner. I
was only stating a (so I thought) fairly obvious fact about human nature.
I would have thought that you towering intellect (which puts me to
shame...why I even think I can challenge you is quite beyong my puny
mental powers) would have figured this out. Humans are capricious. We
are not by nature a benevolent or peaceful species. We like to have our
way...and it can't go on. We are literally destroying our planet. We may
not have to wait for World War 3, we may just run out of resources to
survive...(and since NASA has become a total waste of time and money we
have no where else to go)...humanity may cease to exist and we won't have
anyone to blame for that but ourselves.
natalie
From Egwene@yabbs Tue Jun 21 19:54:02 1994
From: Egwene@yabbs
To: Slutty@yabbs
Subject: re: tricky dick
Date: Tue Jun 21 19:54:02 1994
But just how much ability does clinton have? I mean if somebody doesn't
put their foot down and do something about the stuff thats going on in N.
Korea we could all be in trouble.
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 21 22:25:42 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: reply to 1012
Date: Tue Jun 21 22:25:42 1994
"There are no truly FREE gov types."
So stop narrowing your "truly FREE" concept to merely political
authoritarian structures, expand your understanding of "freedom" to
economic, theological, and myriad other authoritarian structures, and you
are agreeing one-hundred percent with me.
All that is left is for you to make the logical step of not limiting
yourself simply to governments...
Until later, Spidey.
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 21 22:29:52 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: messages
Date: Tue Jun 21 22:29:52 1994
No problem, take your good time. I like well-thought out arguments
[coughing in arachnoid's general direction].
Until you are ready,
Xela.
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 21 23:01:59 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: reply to 1007
Date: Tue Jun 21 23:01:59 1994
{Improper quotation technique and Misqoute!...}
I did misquote, but in effect you labeled me as an anti-Semite. I will
let the readers decide on that; as far as I can see, my misquotation
affected the meaning of only the first part of the sentence: "the men old
bankers, mainly jewish bankers...[men = mean]," changed to "that meant the
old bankers, mainly jewish bankers..."
The meaning and intent of the second part of the sentence clearly accuses
me of being anti-semitic. You have this to answer for.
{BTW, get a real account}
And I told you to use your 191 I.Q. to do some easy research. Any moron,
yes, even you Spidey, can find out the truth.
{...the key word here is 'infrequently'}
Really? Are you so sure of yourself to assume how I use my account
privileges?
So I use my school account during school, as I do not have legal access to
my school dial-in, and I use a local BBS to telnet. Very practical to me,
and besides, I get to use my school account infrequently during the summer
should the need arise. Otherwise, why bother?
There, I've had to tell you. You won't have to strain your brain anymore.
{I did [explain why Xela is wrong], over and over and over.}
Go back to your messages and re-read them. Your claim is false; you'll
find your insults instead.
I'll say it again: Stop wasting hot air and give me a logical
counter-argument which is coherent and complete enough for me to attack.
At least I do the same for you.
{EVERYBODY can't have something for nothing all the time...}
The Berliners seem to be getting by with their city transit system, which
theoretically could be something for nothing. Read up on it while you're
working on that tan of yours in the Carribeans.
{BTW, 'Spiderman' scored some six figure EFTs...}
There are two points I'll make about this.
First, I could care less about your financial pursuits. If you get
bed-in-breakfast every morning and beautiful whores every night, great.
Hell man, I'm even happy for you. Hope you get cholesterol poisoning from
the eggs benedict and VD from the sluts. But that aside...
Second, you make a big deal about how you can't get something for nothing,
then you brag about six figures from shuffling paper. I can't wait to
hear how you justify taking money for creating nothing of substance (more
insults?).
I can't wait, Spidey.
Xela (currently earning five dollars an hour in a useless service economy,
watching Wall St. shuffle worthless paper for a living).
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 21 23:06:38 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: messages
Date: Tue Jun 21 23:06:38 1994
Flaming is fine as long as it is presented with a clear-cut, coherent, and
logical argument.
When it exists without such, it reflects badly upon the flamer.
I'll leave it at that. Those who will read this know who it applies to.
X
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jun 21 23:13:30 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: *you* should be taking...
Date: Tue Jun 21 23:13:30 1994
...zoology
"hahahahahah, u desperately need to take a zoology class. Predators do
not just kill for food. MOST also kill for dominance..."
Nope. Killing of the own species most definitely is NOT an ESS. War
among the same species is only seen among higher primates, and killing
young is less prevalent than you are led to believe.
Animals rarely kill their own species; it just doesn't keep the gene pool
spreading, and so it isn't evolutionarily favored.
Go back to school, Mr. 3lit3.
X
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jun 22 01:15:40 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to 1007
Date: Wed Jun 22 01:15:40 1994
In message reply to 1007, Xela said:
> The meaning and intent of the second part of the sentence clearly accuses
> me of being anti-semitic. You have this to answer for.
Technically speaking, he didn't. He pointed out some parallels between
your philosophy and nazism. i.e. different targets-same architecture.
Hell, I'd have to admit that I'd be overjoyed at the thought of attorney
"showers" :) That aside though, I don't think he actually made the
statement you're accusing him of. Granted, there are some not to vague
inferences to be made from his post. But, hey, that's the treacheries of
the English language (as I'm sure some of you are well acquainted with :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jun 22 03:30:55 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: messages
Date: Wed Jun 22 03:30:55 1994
In message re: messages, maedhros said:
> May your camels be born with three humps.
Well, I don't know. I can't think of what could be better than three good
humps. Except maybe one with yo momma.
pixy
P.s. of course that was a joke; i'd never do that nappy ass ho!
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 22 08:15:09 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: reply to 1007
Date: Wed Jun 22 08:15:09 1994
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. He said what he said, and I
am making it clear how I have interpreted it.
Not that it matters anyway; I think this is a useless divergence. I just
want it clear that his accusations hold no water whatsoever, and that it
reflects more on him than it does me.
X
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 22 15:03:59 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Barney!
Date: Wed Jun 22 15:03:59 1994
you're not even worth my time. you aren'teven bothering to read my posts,
or event hink about the nuances i put in my words. you see what you want
to see, not what's there. you have convnced yourself that i am a know
nothing bleeding heart liberal and nothing i say or do will change your
mind. therefore, i'm not even going to waste my time tryingto convince
you of something that you will never even want to see.
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 22 15:06:30 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill the Young
Date: Wed Jun 22 15:06:30 1994
"The males only intend for their own prodigy to survive"??
talk about needing a dictionary. theword you want is progeny, not
prodigy.
is english your secod language or something? you speak worse than the
roommate i had freshman year, and she was from thailand...
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 22 15:06:49 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: stretching the truth?
Date: Wed Jun 22 15:06:49 1994
i said the original
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 22 16:11:31 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: second language
Date: Wed Jun 22 16:11:31 1994
uh...i never use the wrong words, and i never misspell on purpose...it's
just that my typing sux...
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 00:42:53 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Suffer the Children
Date: Thu Jun 23 00:42:53 1994
"Evolution is more geared for the genetic continuation of individuals and
their superior adaptations, not the status quo, i.e. species."
Read "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. If
what I understand of his writing is correct, your views conflict with his.
And credibility comes into play here. *shrug*
"War starts with brainless bacteria."
Give me examples of such species.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 00:53:40 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: I'm a bigot?
Date: Thu Jun 23 00:53:40 1994
"Anyway, does accusing someone for taking or acting like a NAZI, makes
him/her an Anti-Semite."
The particular brand of national socialism which the Germans adopted the
first half of the twentieth century seems to be predisposed towards
anti-semitism, among other hatreds.
Again, you said what you said, and you clearly associated me with the
mentality of people who join the KKK, Black Panthers, etc.
As I said before, this reflects more on you than me when you assume how I
think and feel, especially when you make an error of this magnitude.
"So relax Xela...I'm just pointing out your own bigotry..."
Would you relax when someone assumes about you?
Also, how am I a bigot? I've never gone out of my way to make a
particular group of people suffer, at least not consciously and
intentionally.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 01:01:48 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Spidey screws up again...
Date: Thu Jun 23 01:01:48 1994
"Maedhros got it right."
Your later message conflicts with this one. You must be trying to weasel
your way out another screw-up, surprise, surprise.
"They pay taxes, taxes, and even more taxes!"
Of course. Do you know of any industrial nation that has no tax system?
It happens that Germany is intelligent enough to funnel public revenue
towards basic entitlement.
But to get back to the point, BVG (the Berliner transit company) is a
private interest, taking revenue from ticket sales and tax incentives,
much as other private sector businesses do.
"They get what they pay for."
Is this an example of one of your complete and coherent arguments?
Expand a bit, Spidey. Stretch the axons a bit.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 01:02:57 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: hmm?
Date: Thu Jun 23 01:02:57 1994
You'll have to repeat the message...it got deleted.
X
From Slutty@yabbs Thu Jun 23 11:19:00 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Get a brain slutty
Date: Thu Jun 23 11:19:00 1994
Neither of us is, You are!!!
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jun 23 12:06:07 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: deleted msg
Date: Thu Jun 23 12:06:07 1994
In message deleted msg, arachnoi said:
> The lag got soo bad that most of the msg was messed up. i deleted it, will
> post later
Well, shit! I was all excited. I thought one of us came up with
something awful enough to get censored. Well, back to the drawing board :)
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 14:08:20 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Big Nuts = Energy-costs
Date: Thu Jun 23 14:08:20 1994
Your point about how the chimp with the biggest balls wins only goes so
far. Will the evolution of chimps progress until male chimps have to drag
their baggage with them? Most likely not the case; you'll find that
statisically, what helps those genes reproduce will be found over a
gaussian distribution ('bell curve') of the population. So, in a sense,
successful selfish genes end up being the status quo, i.e. what we label
as the "species."
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 14:19:16 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: atrocities are atrocities
Date: Thu Jun 23 14:19:16 1994
{Since it was a mediocre atrocity against the jews/gays/morons...} blah,
blah
So you define a level of atrocity based on property damage, i.e. city
salting? I examine each atrocity in its own light, taking into account
every factor I can. If I solely examined the horror of a massacre, would
Hitler be Pee-Wee Herman compared to Stalin?
{"non sequitor"}
Play devil's advocate for a moment, and see yourself in my position. If I
had been accused of rape, for example, wouldn't I want to absolve myself
of guilt, assuming I was innocent?
{Do you have to make someone suffer in order to be a bigot, or just
espouse a particular bias or hatred?}
I didn't realize that the two events occured independently. I've always
seen particular prejudices associated with someone's or some group's
mental or physical suffering.
X
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jun 23 16:05:12 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Big Nuts = Greedy Genes
Date: Thu Jun 23 16:05:12 1994
they never told me nothing about monkey balls in MY anthro course....all i
know about monkey balls is that they were used in virility improving
procedures back at the start of this century. calledthe voronoff
procedure, it consisted of removal of the man's testicles, to be replaced
by those of monkeys...mon cher yeats had this operation...however, what
woman wouls want to sleep with a man who had monkey testicles??
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 23 22:38:03 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Weasels and other pests....
Date: Thu Jun 23 22:38:03 1994
{Wrong again, but if you think so, describe how u thing they conflict.}
You claimed you haden't labeled me an anti-semite by agreeing with
Maedhros, but before that you said that I, including the rest of the human
race, was a bigot. No contradiction?
Theoretically, the way Berlin's transit system works, the Berliners could
get your something for nothing; it would be possible for them to board a
train without purchasing a ticket. What keeps the system in check are
spot checks and the honour system.
"They get what they pay for."
When you can describe how investors add manufacturing value to raw
products, then such a statement is justifiable. Otherwise, it is
shuffling paper.
X
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 24 00:11:41 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Weasels and other pests....
Date: Fri Jun 24 00:11:41 1994
In message Weasels and other pests...., Xela said:
> {Wrong again, but if you think so, describe how u thing they conflict.}
>
> You claimed you haden't labeled me an anti-semite by agreeing with
> Maedhros, but before that you said that I, including the rest of the human
> race, was a bigot. No contradiction?
Sorry Xela. Have to jump in again. Their is a flaw in your reasoning I
must point out. Hopefully it'll clear up why you and arachnoi are not
agreeing on this point though.
In essence you've taken arachnoi's argument-
Nazi's are anti-semites. => Nazi's are bigots.
and assumed the inverse is true-
You are a bigot. => You are an anti-semite.
You've taken a conditional sentence, reversed the antecedent and
consequence and assumed that the inverse is true.
Logically, however, this is incorrect. The only correct method
available for reversing a conditional statement is by replacing the
propositions with their denials. Or, assuming the contrapositive of the
conditional statement.
i.e. the only other statement which is true is:
~(You are a bigot) => ~(You are an anti-semite)
or
You are not a bigot => You are not an anti-semite.
The structure is (p=>q)=(~q=>~p).
Plug some other propositions in and it'll look clear if it doesn't already.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:20:52 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Just a thought...
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:20:52 1994
Having just read Socrates, I know what he said, Maed.
I have it right in front of me, and he said that
"I am known as wise, but it is not so, and I sought to disprove the
oracle, doubtless that it meant some other Socrates, yet when I spoke to
the Politicians, who surely must have more wisdom that this poor old man,
I saw that they, too, knew nothing, yet did not know it...and therefore
were righteous and angered with me when I pointed this to them." From An
Auden transaltion of the Apology. It goes on for far longer than I have
patience to type...Find either the Auden or Tomasson translation: Although
they are different in appearance and syntax, the meaning comes through.
Socrates searched Athens, asking everybody, and found that although nobody
knew anything true, just like he knew nothing, they did not even know
THAT, which meant that the oracle was true, for he was indeed the wisest
man. He knew ONE THING> They knew nothing.
That's all, there is no more to say. As far as dictatorships go, Stalin
let a lot of intellectuals live: He killed just enough to keep them too
afraid to act. The people he HAD to kill were the unthinkers, those who
act on the ideas of others. And the motivators. Not the Intellegencia.
Them he let live, knowing what our government knows: Most of them are too
spineless to oppose inhumanity and evil in their leaders.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:30:00 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Levels
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:30:00 1994
>Under anarchy, being on the wrong end of my Semi-Auto Ithaca Magnum -10
shotgun will seriously curtail your freedoms.
There are so many ways to repond. In the past, i'd go with an emotional
outburst, screaming (Or typing :>) Something Inflammatory about that only
being an ephemeral concern, a pure smoke in shadow comparison. But now,
I'll just say this:
Not if I have my Ingram, you won't. Or my Kevlar Insert vest. :>
Seriously, what do I care about the possibility in an anarchy for people
to run around with guns and threaten me. THEY ALREADY DO! They would in a
dictatorship, be it fascist, monarchistic or Communist, they do in
soialist counties and social democracies, they do here. There is no
escaping it. We have laws that are observed in the breach. We have a tired
infrastructure. WE ALREADY HAVE ANARCHY! I have enough firepower back at
my safe-pad to blow the fucking local police station UP! Sorry about the
obscenity. None of this dickering means bubkiss.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:31:31 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: PREDATORS - The Movie
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:31:31 1994
Just on Part Two of your attack:
The Christians deliberately inherited and maintained Roman institutions
and ideals. It wasn't IRONY that they repeated their oppressors actions:
It was PLANNED that way.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:38:11 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: anti-semitism
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:38:11 1994
An interesting Addendum: The Palestinians in the West Bank
occuse the Jewish Set6tlers there of Anti-Semitism against the Arabs.
(Due to the fact that "Semite" and "Semitic" are LANGUAGE based terms,
their claim is possible. Arab languages are every bit as semitic. As is
German, an Indo_Europen language with a basis in the language of Germanic
and Scythian tribesmen who once lived in the mountains of Kazakhan)
So just about anyone can get hit with it nowadays.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:41:55 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Suffer the Children
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:41:55 1994
Evolution SUCKS! HEHE HEH HEH HEHE HEHE.
Sorry. I just, as the only quadroped on the board, feel that you
two-legged types are fixated on being "Evolved" and so forth. (NOT an
accusation, so don't send venemous flames out. I didn't intend to insult
anyone.) Seriously, evolution is a biological process, and has it's good
and bad effects. For instance, human evolution has "gifted" you humans
with an underdeveloped skeletal framework, muscles that never achieve
maturity, and nasty tempers.
Us Badgers think you guys are all nuts anyway. And to shoot us for our
skin is sill. It looks horrible on US. What do you think YOU look like in
it?
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:47:08 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Something Bad Enough...
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:47:08 1994
Cannibalism is fun. I like to eat steaming gobs of badger meat and taste
it quirming its bloody, platelet drenched way down my throat. I like to
eat BABY badgers, preferblay alive, and taste them squiggling there way
down my throat.
(Now, if I were human, that's make you sick, but because it's BADGERS, I
bet it doesn't even get deleted. And no, I don't REALLY do any of that. I
like rabbits mostly, with the occasional double cheese pizza.)
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:50:28 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Big Nuts = Energy-costs
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:50:28 1994
Oddly enough, accoring to a survey out of UCal Irvine (I think..I don't
have it here) Theree is evidence that TWO species of Humanity are evolving
out of the one we have now...A group with low fat ratios and enhanced
immuno-bio stats....and agroup with toxin tolerance and accelerated neural
processors...I'll bring it in here Monday and tyope it up...It was quite
fascinating. You humans should stop changing so. We badgerts have been the
same for millions of years (Well, we used to be BIGGER....but the really
big ones all took off to the center of the earth.)
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:54:56 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: atrocities are atrocities
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:54:56 1994
>Would Hitler be Pee-Wee Herman compared to Stalin?
I sometimes think that STalin makes the Christian belief in Satan seem
tepid. This is a guy who killed 66 Million Russians, 15 Millian of the
other republics citizens, 4 Million Jews and Poles (Not to mention that
his aiding in the conquest of Poland helped Hitler get his hands on most
of Europe's Jews, anyway) and an unconfirmed number of Gypsys and Asians.
(In fact, the numbers I quoted are unsure, and change yearly, always going
up, never adjusted down. They keep finding blood and bones in the
Motherland's soil. Russia is so damp with the blood of the innocent that I
truly believe that if there is a spiritual being named God, he must weep
there.)
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jun 24 10:59:01 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Weasels and other pests....
Date: Fri Jun 24 10:59:01 1994
Not that I disagree with your logic (Which seems correct. I checked with
my collection of Philosophy texts) but I just wanted to say that the whole
term Anti_Semite is so muddy now, that some members of the PLO claim that
it is possible. (Check Abu Nidals speech on Jewish Anti_Semitism in any of
the Terrorist Chic Mags)
I don't get how people can hate each other so much they'll give speeches
about how they don't hate each other, the other hates THEM. :>
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jun 24 14:18:50 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: PREDATORS - The Movie
Date: Fri Jun 24 14:18:50 1994
well i like to think of it as irony. not likethey hada master plan or
anything. sheesh.
natalie
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 24 17:24:04 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Just a thought...
Date: Fri Jun 24 17:24:04 1994
In message re: Just a thought..., Badger01 said:
> Socrates searched Athens, asking everybody, and found that although nobody
> knew anything true, just like he knew nothing, they did not even know
> THAT, which meant that the oracle was true, for he was indeed the wisest
> man. He knew ONE THING> They knew nothing.
As for Socrates' words, I stand corrected. Thank you for the well thought
out reply and my apologies. Still, however, I find the exact meaning of
the words vague (or just wrong, from my point of view). While it is true
that it is ignorant to presume you know everything, I find it unreasonable
to say that you know nothing. I have 5 fingers. This I know. I consider
it a fact. Impossible to prove maybe from the trendy pessimistic
philosopher's (those metaphysical idoits who try to claim that nothing can
be proven to exist) point of view, but still a rather childishly simple
observation. To say that nothing can exist beyond knowledge of self is to
divorce oneself from reality. You can stand in front of an active volcano
(to steal one of my favorite examples from Rand) and deny it's existence
all day, but it'll still kill you.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jun 24 17:31:30 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Levels
Date: Fri Jun 24 17:31:30 1994
In message re: Levels, Badger01 said:
> Seriously, what do I care about the possibility in an anarchy for people
> to run around with guns and threaten me. THEY ALREADY DO! They would in a
> dictatorship, be it fascist, monarchistic or Communist, they do in
> soialist counties and social democracies, they do here. There is no
> escaping it.
Ah, but once again, we come to a central theme of late: degree.
It's true, amny of these problems are prevelant already, but to what
degree. Do you not see the likelihood of being shot tomorrow increasing
if the govt. was done away with. The police don't do their jobs
perfectly, this is true (not that I blame them entirely for this problem
either). However, how long do you think the L.A. riots would've lasted if
their weren't any such thing as law enforcement? Granted, citizens might
have banded toghether to stop it, but what would have been the
consequences of that? War in California?
> WE ALREADY HAVE ANARCHY! I have enough firepower back at
> my safe-pad to blow the fucking local police station UP! Sorry about the
> obscenity. None of this dickering means bubkiss.
Once again, this goes back to my central point. A matter of degree.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jun 25 00:03:40 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: monkey balls
Date: Sat Jun 25 00:03:40 1994
beats me...i guess he wanted to be real popular with the ladies *snigger*
but i still love him...
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 01:16:58 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: you misunderstood me
Date: Sat Jun 25 01:16:58 1994
{until the next adaptation comes along and makes big balls irrelvant, and
chimps are pushed aside the evolutionary path for what comes next.}
My point about the big balls growing bigger was that at some temporal
stage, there exists an equilibrium between having a particularly
well-suited size balls for optimal reproduction and being able to drag
those balls around. The bell curve peak shows where peak ball size
occurs, with bigger ball size detracting from the chimps ability to
perform other life-duties, like food-gathering, tool-making, etc. and
smaller ball size detracting from the chimps ability to spit out the most
sperm, therefore reproducing to a lesser extent.
This equilibrium, and its corresponding bell curve, provides insight to
what we define as a 'species'.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 01:18:07 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: have another beer, d00d
Date: Sat Jun 25 01:18:07 1994
Smoke up, Johnny. :)
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 01:31:52 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: All men are rapists
Date: Sat Jun 25 01:31:52 1994
1: "Stalin make Hitler look like a Boy Scout...The degree of atrocity is
very relevant."
2: "Does their [NOW] screaming 'All men are rapists' at u mean much?"
3: "I think your argument falls apart when applied to ppl U find hard to
defend. i.e. PPL your own prejudices put on the other side of the fence,
whether they deserved it or not."
1: I disagree. To quantify atrocity is like saying humans are only worth
.98 cents of minerals; it ignores the worth of all the thinkers who were
shot because of one man's version of how it should be.
2: Yes it does. If NOW would hold such a position, it makes an assumption
of my behavior towards all women in general. You know how I feel about
assumptions made about me.
Now whether I could do anything about it is another story entirely.
Meaning strikes a balance between my two observations.
3: Not really. You are assuming that I hold the position that "I hate all
people who hate." I feel sorry for them; that is about all I can do,
other that take violent action towards them, which I don't think I'm
capable of. At least, not yet. *shrug*
X
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jun 25 01:40:07 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: you misunderstood me
Date: Sat Jun 25 01:40:07 1994
i can't BELIEVE we're debatingthe size of monkey balls
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 01:40:17 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: evolution as metastable
Date: Sat Jun 25 01:40:17 1994
I agree that evolution is a metastable equilibrium. However,
when zoologists use Linnaeus' system of classification, they assume that,
relative to the human lifetime, "species" are stable enough to survive
classification. There are approx. one million species of insects, and
etymologists [I believe that is the correct word] speculate that there are
millions more which have not yet been given a genus species yet. This
speculation in and of itself assumes that environmental conditions are
stable enough for current species to exist [removing for the moment our
involvement with altering our thermodynamic systems].
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 01:49:17 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: well...
Date: Sat Jun 25 01:49:17 1994
...believe it, honey, balls are a hot topic here. ;)
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 02:01:50 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: hmmm...
Date: Sat Jun 25 02:01:50 1994
"...'The Selfish gene' is geared to the propagation of superior individual
adaptations, and not the species as a whole."
If this is the case, pure selfishness would have been the singular game,
or ESS, of the 'Prisoner's Dilemma.' There would have never been the
evolution of social behavior, which exists to propagate as many copies of
one gene as possible [i.e. through cooperation]; this is the
pareto-optimal result of Von Neumann's Prisoner's Dilemma, and
statisically the most favored of all strategies, which is why, for humans,
cooperative tendencies have been promoted above negative selfishness
strategies: the environmental situation has chosen teamwork (for humans)
because it works.
Maybe cooperation won't provide the biggest 'payoff' in the future, but
that will depend upon the environmental situation we put ourselves in, and
what strategies will be promoted by that environment [environment meaning
resources for continued survival and reproduction].
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jun 25 02:03:59 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: degree of control?
Date: Sat Jun 25 02:03:59 1994
Wouldn't the degree of control which you and arachnoid claim exists,
depend on the psychological degree to which a man *feels* free, and not to
an outside factor?
X
From Xela@yabbs Sun Jun 26 00:58:34 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: logic statement
Date: Sun Jun 26 00:58:34 1994
"You've taken a conditional sentence, reversed the antecedent and
consequence and assumed the inverse is true."
Spidey accused me of anti-semitism, denied it, then accused me of being a
bigot. Both accusations untrue, and neither justifiable in any way.
The logic of your statements is correct, however, it didn't work out how
you said it did.
X
From Slutty@yabbs Mon Jun 27 12:48:35 1994
From: Slutty@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Fuck off asshole!!!
Date: Mon Jun 27 12:48:35 1994
I get sick and tired of hearing your shit and I'm sure everyone else gets
sick of it as well.
So piss off!!!
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jun 27 17:24:05 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Just a thought...
Date: Mon Jun 27 17:24:05 1994
Re: The Active Volcano Metaphor: In a manner of speaking, you are
absolutely correct. In a limited, physical way, it WILL kill me. But as we
have already gone on about, what does that mean? Hopw do I know that that
will happen when I have never observed it? How can I trust my
observations? What do I really know, and HOW DID I LEARN IT? The questions
may SEEM obtuse, but you need to ask them in order to insure that you are
acting correctly> I don't mean to say that nothing is real, Just that
everything should be questioned and that all knowledge should be suspect.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jun 27 17:28:34 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Levels
Date: Mon Jun 27 17:28:34 1994
There is no difference in degree.
(Sorry I don't have what you said in my response: If I did, I'd never be
able to get this thing to type.)
In a fascist country, all the barbarism would come from the state, wich
holds us down and insures it's power.
In an anarchy, all of the barbarism will come from tjose with the most
guns, who will hold us down and insure their power. The difference is in
WHO does the oppressing!
In the case of the LA riots: If there were more cops, they would have been
the ones commiting violent suppression against humans. The way it was, it
was the mob who did so. If there were LESS cops, armed citizens would have
been the ones assaulting their fellow man.
We live in the equivelant of a bear/bull fight. The only difference these
forms of govenment make are in how hobbled each animal is before said
death sport is engaged in. The result is the same.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jun 27 17:31:06 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Bigger balls yet
Date: Mon Jun 27 17:31:06 1994
I forget which whale it is, but one oif the endangered speies has balls
bigger than baby elephants.
Makes that whole Lawrence poem logical, huh?
BADGER01
ps: Badgers have internalized testes (We keep inside until time to use
em.)
.
From laurent@yabbs Tue Jun 28 10:14:36 1994
From: laurent@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: All men are rapists
Date: Tue Jun 28 10:14:36 1994
Just don't know it seems so stupid ! All men are certainly noy
rapists like all women are not bitches
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jun 28 20:51:17 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: words of a fool
Date: Tue Jun 28 20:51:17 1994
HAHAHA....There's a future for you in journalism Arachnoi!
That reminds me, have you ever seen a little mass market book called Bushisms?
With such classic Bush lines as:
(On a tour of Aushwitz with several German officials)
"...Wow, they sure were big on cremations weren't they"
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 29 01:14:43 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophilet
Date: Wed Jun 29 01:14:43 1994
"Why aren't you making a fuss about that part of being a Nazi?"
Simply because in one sentence you neatly packaged me with all the
"conspiracy" experts who have a grudge against wealthy Jews. If you'd
like, I can quote the message again, but this is tedious: You still have
yet to defend what you claimed about me.
Also, this is totally straying from our discussion. But if its
neccessary, I can keep going.
[its = it is]
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 29 01:25:47 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: agreement?
Date: Wed Jun 29 01:25:47 1994
"You end up agreeing with my point without admitting it...
U responded with...BVG...U did the same thing with the selfish gene."
Wrong on both counts. But I'll assume that your 191 I.Q. can read twice
and I'll leave it at that.
"...The book definitely points out how its adaptation and the propagation
of the individual is most important..."
The book most definitely does *not* point that out; that is a gross
misunderstanding of the content of his book. He argues that the *gene*,
shaped by its environment, evolves to program the robot host, i.e. our
body (as an example), to behave in the most optimal way to propagate the
*gene*. You are looking at the organism and not the gene which programs
*for* that organism. Please, before you catagorically denounce what I've
just said, *please* read the book again. If you finished his argument,
leaving with that position, you have seriously misunderstood his position.
"Do U use the Freudian Slips as a debating technique?"
I thought such a logical individual as yourself would have denounced Freud
as a quack, as most of modern psychology has, but since you're behind the
times, my answer is no.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jun 29 01:38:16 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: social groups
Date: Wed Jun 29 01:38:16 1994
"Hahahahaa, ask Natalie. I infer...that by letting Society preserve the
STUPID, and even giving them jobs in the government we are headed for
destruction..."
According to "free" market economics, even the stupid will have a place in
the private sector, right? (A low place, but they will be in the power
hierarchy nonetheless) And under "free" market pressures, we should be
heading to Randy Rand's old Utopia in a mountain, right? Since we are
headed towards (we = U.S.A.) a gradually totalitarian consumer power base,
the stupid won't bother you anymore.
But I digress. As I have said before, the GENE programs for (what we
label) the species. It programs for statistical behavior IN ORDER TO
PROPAGATE ITSELF WITH THE HIGHEST FIDELITY AND MAXIMAL COPIES. If the
environment promotes genes towards social, and not individual, behavior,
then those genes (i.e. human genes, to use a tired example) will reproduce
optimally when it configures itself (figure of speech: genes don't
configure themselves, they evolve) to program for SOCIAL behavior. In OUR
case, it happened that SOCIAL genes evolved over INDIVIDUAL behavior
genes, in order to copy itself to the highest degree. When the
ENVIRONMENT promotes INDIVIDUAL genes, then your example works.
X
From miuky@yabbs Wed Jun 29 04:19:16 1994
From: miuky@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: and genes
Date: Wed Jun 29 04:19:16 1994
i walk on my little toe too
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jun 29 11:57:41 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Slaughter in a grave...
Date: Wed Jun 29 11:57:41 1994
It seems that this whole OJ Simpson debacle is so important
to the nature of our lives that NBC is going to have a story about him on
in Prime Time every day THIS WEEK! (I iknow, I'M bringing him up, but
only inavoidably. One can't discuss a bad decidion without mentioning the
decision involved.) Does anyone CARE if this ex-jock murdered his wife or
not? and exactly WHY is it a big case? Seem's to me that it won't set a
single precedent.
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 29 13:36:18 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Wed Jun 29 13:36:18 1994
ummm...please leave the ufo conspiracy experts out of your listing of
bigots. last time i checked, believing in ufos wasn't bigotry.
natalie
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jun 29 19:57:21 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: words of a fool
Date: Wed Jun 29 19:57:21 1994
In message words of a fool, arachnoi said:
> {Hmm... Seems to be a trend here.
> "Don't insult me for being an imbecile" and then
> "So Piss off!!!" or "Fuck off!!!". I guess limited minds have
> limited resoures.}
OUCH!!!! Hung by her own rope--that's a real pisser.
pixy
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jun 29 22:38:19 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Wed Jun 29 22:38:19 1994
but not ALL ufo experts are bigots, only some are. the ones who are
bigots are a subset of the larger set of ufo experts.
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 30 00:08:55 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Thu Jun 30 00:08:55 1994
"..yet U continue to fixate only one part of their Big Brother Schemes."
Christ on a pogo stick, do I have to quote what you said, word for word?
Guess I'll get around to it soon.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 30 00:13:51 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: selfish genes are individua
Date: Thu Jun 30 00:13:51 1994
You are focusing on the individual, attributing its behavior to the
individual and NOT the gene which created it. Read the book again; the
gene does whatever it can, either through individual or mass selection, to
propagate itself to the higest degree. This can include communal
behavior, such as suicidal altruism (in the case of worker bees) which
could hardly be selected on an individual basis.
I'll say it again: Read the friggin' book; you really did not get the
point.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 30 00:23:20 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: the quote
Date: Thu Jun 30 00:23:20 1994
Here it is, the quote of message 980:
{Skippy! this [sic] sounds like U[sic]!..That the mean old rich, mainly
jewish bankers, industrialists and such, had all the money and the power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and the gov [sic] should take it for the ppl [sic].
Deny it if you want, but you said what you said. Htoaster can back up the
fidelity of his stored messages.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jun 30 01:37:32 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: the quote
Date: Thu Jun 30 01:37:32 1994
replace "That the mean.." with "That meant the.." as I did before
X
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jun 30 18:37:44 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: ufo crackpots
Date: Thu Jun 30 18:37:44 1994
*shrug* I just happen to be a fan of "the X-Files". Agent Mulder is my
god. anyhoo, the idea of aliens is really really cool...
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Tue Sep 22 05:28:14 1903
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: so long folks
Date: Tue Sep 22 05:28:14 1903
Arachnoi: See ya dude; it's been swell.
Natalie: See ya in the fall.
Cat: Love ya babe, I'll get mail to you somehow. :)
Cos and the rest of the gang... I'll see you all when internet gets a
little cheaper :) (just got the phone bill, hehehe).
Bye...
X
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jul 1 09:25:59 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Fri Jul 1 09:25:59 1994
Why I am entering this fray I'll never know, but anyway:
Hitler derived a substantial amount of his "Aryan" gobbledegook from the
actual Arians (NOT THE Christian Heretics) who conquered India around the
time of the Rig Veda. He borrowed heavily from their sacred symbols, such
as teh Swastika, and some of their more colorful myths, (Although I'd
never heard the livestock fucking one before...new one on me.) and weaved
in a lot of rascist, sexist, bigoted tripe that dirtied a perfectly good
dead religon, and called it his Master Race theory. BTW, he hardly came up
with it on his own, either...he simply wasn't that clever. He had dozens
of full time psychologists, philosophers, scientists and others making
this shit up for him. The one moted philiosopher he used (Which is ironic,
because this man HATED anti-semites and racists, saying they were
irrational, and he was right) was Nietzsche, but he was hardly the only
person whose life work was distorted and twisted by Aryan Bullshit.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jul 1 09:32:12 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: ufo crackpots
Date: Fri Jul 1 09:32:12 1994
Don't worry. Not all of those who are UFO Crackpots are Bigots. I'll say
this, and bear the slings and arrows or Arachnoi, for this reason. The
most dedicated ones don't believe the Government knows any more than they,
and don't believe that aliens influenced our Civilizations any. They
believe simply taht there are aliens out there somewhere, and that they
can be found. They are called astronomers, or RTA specialists, (Radio
Telescopic Accumulatihdhhd
Sorry about that. Radio Telescopic Accumulation) Who scan space for radio
traces of possible aliens, not just quasars and pulsars.
Badger01
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jul 1 16:24:52 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: ufo crackpots
Date: Fri Jul 1 16:24:52 1994
In message re: ufo crackpots, Badger01 said:
> Don't worry. Not all of those who are UFO Crackpots are Bigots. I'll say
> this, and bear the slings and arrows or Arachnoi, for this reason. The
Well, somebody's gotta bear the slings and arrows, since Xela's gonna be
off for a while. I spent last semester in the crosshairs, so it's
somebody elses turn *grin*
Take care Xela, see ya in the fall.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 1 19:40:43 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: ufo crackpots
Date: Fri Jul 1 19:40:43 1994
i nominate badger for the ESTEEMED position of arachnoid's punching bag.
*grin*
natalie
From pixy@yabbs Sat Jul 2 02:16:53 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Sat Jul 2 02:16:53 1994
In message re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles, Badger01 said:
> with it on his own, either...he simply wasn't that clever. He had dozens
> of full time psychologists, philosophers, scientists and others making
> this shit up for him. The one moted philiosopher he used (Which is ironic,
The scary thing about the Aryan mowvement is that the psycologists,
philosophers and scientists Hitler had on his side WEREN'T just making
this stuff up--they believed it. It makes a really interesting example of
the Kuntian paradigm theory in effect. Here you had a bunch of guys who
had a vague paradigm(theory) about the human race in general and were abel
to practically develop a whole twisted science to conform with it. It
starts to make me think...Hmmm...
I'll get back to you on this one...
pixy
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Jul 2 04:00:31 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: UFO crackpots
Date: Sat Jul 2 04:00:31 1994
My opinion is that it is the height of arrogance to believe that the human
race is the ONLY example of "intelligent" life in the entire universe. To
me, that is the height of conceit. What do all of you think ?
Just a thought on a long, slow night.
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:06:06 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: @@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:06:06 1994
you are correct in the assumption that order is maintained out of the
willingness of the people to acquiese to a system of justice and
enforcement. Politicians are only those figureheads we entrust with the
mechanisms to ensure order. If the end of civil society should arise,
they would be brushed aside like sandcastles in face of the rising tide.
Those who hold power, real power (the use or the threat of force) will
rein supreme. Feudalism would have to develop over time through
the or conglomeration of petty thugs.
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:14:05 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: @@yabbs
Subject: re: Collapse? I think not...
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:14:05 1994
Sorry about the lateness of this response. The problems that you have
cited as those that will bring impeneding doom onto the US (outside of the
ultramodern examples of pc and mc) have plagued mankind since the first
divisions of labor and the birth of the city state. Even during the glory
days of the Republic there were riots and even a slave revolt. The U.S.
still enjoys a great amount of social cohesion when compared to the rest
of the world; ie Latin America, central Eurasia, not even mentionaing
Africa. Read Paul Kennedy's _Rise and Fall of the Great Powers_ a
brillant history of yesterday's empires (while fundamentally failed in
predictions) for a historical basis of global power dynamics.
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:17:18 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: @@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:17:18 1994
ahmen on denouncing the New Left, the umbrella of the petty
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:23:36 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: @@yabbs
Subject: re: Right Wing Anarchy
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:23:36 1994
fascism doesn't necessarily have to rely upon xenophobia or racism they
can use religion, class, or many other tools to divide its target from the
general community to give vision and unity to the masses. Fascism draws
upon the most base emotions (the darker side) of human nature to unite
through hatred/greed/averice/etc. The hatred only masks the bankrupt
nature of their totalitarian ideology.
7:-)
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:28:42 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:28:42 1994
While the media loves to focus on ethnic cleansing in the former
Yugoslavia and condemns it as the genocide that it is, it [the media]
fails to realize the connection with the "founding fathers". If it
declares Bosnian Serb leaders to be war criminals it would also have to do
the same for W.T. Sherman, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren who all
had a part in the American version of ethnic cleansing.
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:35:21 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Archon@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:35:21 1994
Archon you been watching "JFK" and other Oliver Stone conspiracy flicks
for too long, my man. American Imperialism went out of vogue as a form of
disrespectful saying in the early 1980's. You might remember that time.
It was when all those countries we were "subjugating" in East Asia began
to experience the strange phenomena of 10% GNP, setting up democratic
institutions, and bringing human rights standards to the developing world.
Strange, I don't remember the "people's utopias" in Europe and Asia
having any of the 3.
-Patton
From Patton@yabbs Sat Jul 2 14:47:32 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: xela@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sat Jul 2 14:47:32 1994
Xela, the truth is that FDR wasn't holding anything back in his aid to the
Brits during WWII. He was fighting tooth and nail to get the U.S. in the
war! He was fighting the ultra-isolationalist US Congress (shame on you
old time GOP) to get into the fight. He signed on at the Atlantic
Conference without telling the Senate which had Constitutional authority
to ratify the signing of treaties. He unilaterally declared a naval war
by giving the US fleet order to sink German U-Boats out to a [I believe]
1000 mile limit. A little outside our littoral waters, don't you think?
He wanted a Pearl Harbor more than anything; of course he wanted it from
the Germans and was caught completely off guard by the Japanese. He was
itching for war.
And yes, FDR wanted to spread capitalist dogma. And he was very
successful in doing so with Bretton Woods which has had the effect of
causing the greatest explosion in economic development the world has ever
seen. Yes, FDR and then Truman are completely guilty in providing a
monetary, trading, and development [this is where we get the IMF and World
Bank] system that has helped the world. Ask the people of Tawain if they
would rather be under domination by the P.R.C. or the democratizing,
prosperous, free trader that they are today. Tough choice.
-Patton
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jul 2 19:46:57 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Sat Jul 2 19:46:57 1994
hmmm...imperialism, eh? i much prefer to call it manifest destiny *smirk*
of course, i find the idea of imperialism abhorrent, but some of it's so
damned funny...esp british imperialism in africa...gotta love them pith
helmets...
natalie
From Death@yabbs Sun Jul 3 12:57:57 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: yabbsfest
Date: Sun Jul 3 12:57:57 1994
Everybody (or almost everybody) here on yabbs wonders what everyone else
is like in "real" life... To this end, I'm announcing that a bunch of us
have gotten together to organize a party!!! We've decided that at some
as yet undetermined point in time, anybody from Yabbs that wants to is
invited to come to Pittsburgh, the birthplace of Yabbs, where we will all
get together for a weekend or so of fun :> The reason the time is still
undetermined is because we need everyone who wants to come to let us know
when would be a good time for them... Email me with questions, comments,
suggestions, and what time would be good for you at: death@cyberspace.org
See you there!!!
--Death
PS... I put this message in every base on the off chance that EVERYBODY
might actually get to see it :>
From Patton@yabbs Tue Jul 5 08:43:20 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: true Americans
Date: Tue Jul 5 08:43:20 1994
If you love watching the Brits run around in pith helmets, watch the movie
"Zulu" starring Sir Richard Burton and a very, very young Micheal Cain.
It show the wonders of fighting in heavy wool in colors that clash so
horribly with the outdoor decor all in temperatures of over 110 degrees.
Makes "Platoon" look like it was filmed in air conditioning.
-Patton
From robtelee@yabbs Tue Jul 5 22:49:01 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: "Zulu"
Date: Tue Jul 5 22:49:01 1994
That is one of my all-time favorite movies. However, I feel I must
correct a small error. Sir Richard Burton did NOT star in the movie. He
spoke the narration at the beginning and the end of the movie. The movie
actually starred Stanley Baker and Michael Cain. BTW, the music in the
movie is some of the best I have ever heard! Try to imagine the Zulu war
chant being done by 5000 Confederate soldiers at the 125th anniversary of
the battle of Gettysburg in 1988 (all out of sight of the tourists :)) It
was a sight to see and hear !
I remain,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From Patton@yabbs Wed Jul 6 07:58:58 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: "Zulu"
Date: Wed Jul 6 07:58:58 1994
Finally, someone who loves this film as much as I do! You're right about
Richard Burton, he wasn't the engineer; my bad. What most people find
hard to believe is that so few were victorious over so many winning
against odds we find unimaginable. There is a way to order a print of the
famous painting depicting the final stages of the battle, but I don't
rmember exactly how. It was through a book called _Famous Last Stands_
or something (book was lame).
Thanks for the correction.
-Patton
From Patton@yabbs Wed Jul 6 08:05:16 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re:True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 6 08:05:16 1994
Question: Does any political party in the United States really support
freedom? Or can any political party truly support freedom? And if your
answer is no to any of the above, why do you continue to support these
groups with your time and money if they only take from you your freedoms?
I know people want to share their opinions on this!
-Patton
From feotus@yabbs Wed Jul 6 08:28:49 1994
From: feotus@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 6 08:28:49 1994
well, I don't support any party, not dem. not rep. not libertarian, not
noone. I sorta just droppped out of politics forever. Too boring, and
meaningless. Don't vote, don't pay attention to the hype, excpet in
certain situations were decisions are made that may affect me. And even
now i find it to boring to debate about, I mean gosh I got alot f stuff to
do just living. And I don't men work and shit, I mean exploring and
having fun. The way this monolithic state works I can live int he cracks
of the church-state law indefinetly with a bit of skill and foresight.
I think that is true freedom......
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jul 6 09:02:39 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Wed Jul 6 09:02:39 1994
I know what a paradigm is, Pix. :)
I play Magic: The Ascension.
Badger01
Not the card game.
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jul 6 11:25:20 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Wed Jul 6 11:25:20 1994
I was going to say that I have a Nietzschiean view of freedom, but that'd
be a lie. Freedom is, in the strictist interpretation of the word as I use
it, the ability to make ones own decisions uncoerced. The decisions
themselves may be forced by the situation I find myself in, but the
choices are mine, and that indcates freedom to me.
Badger01
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Jul 6 21:18:29 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: "Zulu"
Date: Wed Jul 6 21:18:29 1994
You might try "Militaire Promotions" 6427 W. Irving Park Road, Suite 160M,
Chicago Illinois 60634. They offer a BBC documentary on the Zulu war.
They may be able to get the print you want. Please let me know how you
turn out with them.
I remain,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Jul 6 21:37:21 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 6 21:37:21 1994
I view freedom as something that cannot be "total." Freedom is something
that cannot be total. What would happen if all persons would have that
total freedom ? I do not trust all citizens to have the responibility to
care for others. I see citizens as basically the same way as Hobbes did
in "Leviathan". I look on government to control SOME of man's baser
instincts.
I do not however see the govt role as pervasive. I see a more
Jeffersonian in nature. If I choose to mind my own business, I want govt
to leave me alone. I fully ascribe to the antebellum politics of the
"Old" Democratic party. The states should be the ultimate authority on
law and what is done for the citizens. The federal govt should only
provide for the common defense, tariffs and so forth. This would be a
strict constructionist view of our Constitution.
The present-day Republican Party are saying some of these same things.
They propose that the states should take on more responsibility of
providing fro their citizens. The governors of these states, primarily
Democratic, cry that they can not do that without federal help. Where
are we supposed to get the money from ? I believe that we will eventually
reach a saturation point when there will be no more resources to draw from
and that govt will eventually take over EVERY aspect of our lives. That
is something I would resist to the every end.
I hope this answers your question and you can see it from my perspective.
Your further comments on this topic, as always, are welcome.
I remain,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt,
robtelee
From Patton@yabbs Thu Jul 7 08:51:22 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 7 08:51:22 1994
Dear RobtELee-
I very much enjoyed what you had to say about true freedom. To clear
something up for me, I didn't quite understand your use of _Leviathon_ by
Hobbes to justify the continuation of personal freedom. If you view man
as driven by the basest of desires, then why wouldn't you support them
giving up their freedoms voluntarily to be managed by the state (in the
large sense)? If I read into it correctly, you view the fed. gov. as not
a benign instrument of paternalism, but as a self-serving and expanding
entity bent on fulfilling its own agendas regardless of beneficience. So
even though the people do not have the responsibility to handle their
freedoms, they should not be "managed" by another entity, right?
As for being outside the reach of government, it is sad to see how far
that reach has become. I forget the President who said it, but they said,
that it was a right for people to be left alone if they so choose.
Again, thanks for the comments.
-Patton
From Patton@yabbs Thu Jul 7 08:55:02 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Thu Jul 7 08:55:02 1994
Badger 01-
But if you do not have the freedom to choose your situations, you are
closed to a multiple of variables from which to choose. Therefore someone
is limiting your options and thusly denying you the freedom to choose
uncoerced by outside factors. Someone is excercising their power upon
you.
-Patton
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 7 13:19:45 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Thu Jul 7 13:19:45 1994
Life isn't perfect, Patton.
IS freedom true if it is only a theoretical modle? Or is the freedom you
can actually have the truer freedom?
Badger01
From pixy@yabbs Thu Jul 7 18:13:35 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 7 18:13:35 1994
In message re:True Freedom, Patton said:
> Question: Does any political party in the United States really support
> freedom? Or can any political party truly support freedom? And if your
> answer is no to any of the above, why do you continue to support these
> groups with your time and money if they only take from you your freedoms?
>
Try the libertarian party. they are as good as it gets in this country
regarding political parties. I so far approve of all the actions of the
libetarian party that i've seen to date, and i plan to vote mainly
libertarian in upcoming elections.
Now, if you want to get into the philosophy of freedom, things get
overwhelmingly complex. do remember that freedom is a word in the english
language, and as such can be defined in almost anyway anyone wants to
define. For instance, if i want, i'm sure i could define the word
"freedom" as something you get through complete servitude if i wished.
It's hard to have a good discussion over word definitions.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Thu Jul 7 18:16:40 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles
Date: Thu Jul 7 18:16:40 1994
In message re: nazis=homophobs, xenophiles, Badger01 said:
> I know what a paradigm is, Pix. :)
>
> I play Magic: The Ascension.
>
> Badger01
> Not the card game.
Huh?
Have you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn? I
didn't think too many had yet.
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Thu Jul 7 18:22:52 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Thu Jul 7 18:22:52 1994
In message A strange Viewpoint, Badger01 said:
> I was going to say that I have a Nietzschiean view of freedom, but that'd
> be a lie. Freedom is, in the strictist interpretation of the word as I use
> it, the ability to make ones own decisions uncoerced. The decisions
> themselves may be forced by the situation I find myself in, but the
> choices are mine, and that indcates freedom to me.
tsk. tsk. tsk.
You're not one of those free will nuts, are you? Come on, any position
other than a determinist position is insane. You are confessing that yourself
unconsciously. Look back at your above post and tell me if the decisions
are really yours if the situation dictates them. I don't care about the
freedom interpretation--I refuse to argue over it's definition--but I
don't think you can defend your claim to free will.
pixy
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 7 18:41:04 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Thu Jul 7 18:41:04 1994
>but I don't think you can defend your claim to free will.
First off...Didn't claim free will, claimed I made uncoerced decidions.
Vast difference. Nobody FORCED me to decide as I have. I made those
choices without undue (Undue, meaning no more than reasonable) influence
from anyone. That isn't the same thing as saying I have Free Will.
(I do, but that post in particular wasn't saying that.)
Second...Thomas Kuhn is not the first person to use the word Paradigm to
mean an idea set or theory. Robert Pirsig does so often in his work, such
as Lila or Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, David Gallohan does
in his works about screewriting....Kuhn didn't invent it.
Badger01
Exercising my free will, which I didn't mention in my A Strange Viewpoint
post, but I certainly DO have, and will go on about in the future, if I
want to...Maybe not, I don't know.
From robtelee@yabbs Thu Jul 7 23:47:32 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 7 23:47:32 1994
Hobbes sees man as driven by his baser desires. Therefore there must be
some govt control. I see the govt as exercising SOME control but not the
pervasive amount that they exercise now.
I hope that this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had.
As always, your comments are welcome.
I remain,
Your Ob'dnt Sv'nt
robtelee
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 8 10:19:31 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Fri Jul 8 10:19:31 1994
Good point, Pixy. I actually phrased it vaguely to see what definitions I
would get. But I assumed that a majority would be from the school of John
Locke and the founding fathers.
-Patton
-Live Free or Die!
From alarm@yabbs Fri Jul 8 15:37:12 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Fri Jul 8 15:37:12 1994
pixy,
You are claiming that anything but a determinist insterpretation is wrong?
Modern physicists and philosophers of science seem to think that quantum
mechanics leads us to understand the universe as based on truly
indeterminate characteristics. I wrote my senior paper on Quantum
Mechanics and Probability Theory, so if you would care to enlist evidence
to support your view I would be happy to look at it.
Determinism went out with Newtonian Mechanics.
IMHO,
alarm
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 8 15:54:40 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Fri Jul 8 15:54:40 1994
"Determinism went out with Newtonian Mechanics."
Read up on Bell's Theorem. Determinism is alive and kicking...
X
From laelth@yabbs Sat Jul 9 01:19:36 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sat Jul 9 01:19:36 1994
There are more important things than freedom. Freedom is a myth, anyway,
as pixy has noted. We perpetrate a lot of injustices in the name of
"freedom." Perhaps our society would be healthier if, instead of freedom,
we prized things like "duty," responsibility," "fair play," or
"tolerance."
Freedom serves as justification for a lot of the problems that our nation
faces like greed (the freedom to make all the money I want, no matter who
I hurt in the process), violence (the freedom to kick somebody's teeth in
if they deserve it), selfishness (the freedom to look out for my own
interests, and to hell with everybody else), need I go on?
People get involved in politics for lots of reasons, but the search for
"freedom" is not a particularly political goal. Politics isn't about the
individual so much as it is about collective bargaining, getting along,
building a society, working together. And that's what's wrong with
"freedom." Freedom, as a national Ideal (which it is in America), is
pulling us apart at a time when we desperately need to be pulling
together.
-laelth
From alarm@yabbs Sat Jul 9 12:19:37 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Sat Jul 9 12:19:37 1994
Xela,
I repent. I was a little brash to put the nails in the coffin of
determinism. I have read Bell's Theorem and it intrigues me. If follows
more the line of reasoning that Einstein followed - realism.
But still, if I could apply Feynman's theorem to the Bell theorem I think
that I can still call for a basic unknown at the quantum level. The
strange thing about the jump from quantum reality to the macro world we
live in is that physicists still don't know where the transition between
the two realities takes place. If we stick to the quantum level there is
still no "place" that quantum things like electrons are. The problem
occurs when we observe them, like in the Bell experiment. Observation
always makes them look like particles. But in between observations, which
change what it going on, they act like waves. So we do an experiment of
observation and, by doing so, we influence what we are seeing. So the Bell
theorem is something of a paradox. We don't know (read random) until we
observe at which time we change what is going on and then we say that it
is determinate. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as demonstrated in the
Airy experiment shows us that we do not have real waves but only waves of
probability. Is the cat in the box dead or alive? (ie. Schrodinger's cat).
Still, all of this does not give us a hint into other kinds of quantum
phenomena like predicting the break down of radioactive substances. You
cannot predict when a given atom will go, or exactly where a photon pack
will be absorbed in the atmosphere. And it is not just because we do not
have enough information, but because they are truly random events. And if
there are truly random events in the universe, then there is at least the
possibility that I can enjoy some freedom.
Thanks for not letting me be too hasty in my conclusions. The only way i
keep my intellectual integrity is to have people around who are willing to
point out where I am wrong.
alarm
From Xela@yabbs Sun Jul 10 02:05:57 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Sun Jul 10 02:05:57 1994
Even with the inherent paradoxes of 20th century physics, it may be that
free will is a possibility, tho' it would be weird, involving multiple
universe theory...
There was a great quote from a book I read, where a Buddhist monk,
confronted with the annihilation of the human race from a nuclear war
(which was an event "destined" to happen), remarked "If we fail here, we
have other chances elsewhere."
Determinism may be a local phenomenon.
X
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 10 15:06:08 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: ziplock@yabbs
Subject: re: @ & econ
Date: Sun Jul 10 15:06:08 1994
You have to differentiate between the NVA and the Cong. As for glorifying
the people's liberation armies of the North Vietnamese, please remember
where they got their weapons and material from. They were armed and
financed by the Chinese and Soviet (including their proxies) Union. Watch
the footage of the gates of the U.S. embassy coming down. Those weren't
peasants driving those T-64 tanks. They were trained corps of soldiers
who had the best Russian and Chinese instructors. The NVA could not have
stayed in the field as long as it did unless the steady flood of material
continued unabbated through the surrounding waters. The big stink over
mining Hanoi was the possibility of sinking a Soviet cargo ship or two and
sparking an even larger war (this one played out on a global scale).
And as for throwing the moral gauntlet of chemical warfare use, the
Vietnamese turned around and used Yellow Rain on the Cambodians.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 10 15:07:37 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: q
Date: Sun Jul 10 15:07:37 1994
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 10 15:22:05 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sun Jul 10 15:22:05 1994
As those of us sit at our desks and view this BBS, we sit in a position
where literally hundreds of millions of people in the world wish they
could achieve. As we sit in our ivory towers and rant and bitch about the
injustices in our lives we sit in an envied position. We take for granted
the freedoms that men and women have died for in droves throughout time.
Tell those in North Korea, Zaire, Cuba, and many other states that we have
too many freedoms and they will gladly trade places with you. To take
liberties from a person, debases them of their humanity. To make slaves
of your fellow man could be the greatest crime of them all. Politics is
not about building a society; at least not in a functioning democracy.
To view politics or the state as an instrument of social engineering is
beyond authoritarian and enters into totalitarianism. We set up states to
protect our liberties, not to tell us which ones it deems us fit to
handle. Freedom never tore a people apart; radicalism does. The mutual
protection of freedoms by a society can be the greatest cohesive element
of all. "Those who abuse their freedoms will soon find themselves
without them." - paraphrase of T. Jefferson
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From robtelee@yabbs Sun Jul 10 21:46:17 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sun Jul 10 21:46:17 1994
I am reminded of a quote from Emiliano Zapata, of the Mexican Revolution,
"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
Does that help any in this debate ?
Fraternally yours,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt,
robtelee
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jul 11 19:08:06 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Mon Jul 11 19:08:06 1994
You just made me think in a Miltonic vein:
I.E.
"Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."
Zapata always reminded me of Miltons Satan.
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 12 18:40:15 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Tue Jul 12 18:40:15 1994
all i want out of life is the freedom to be left alone, to associate woth
only those of MY choosing, and the have the right to think, print, and say
whatever i want w/o getting punished for it....is that really too much to
ask?
natalie
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Jul 13 00:15:20 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 13 00:15:20 1994
That is the basis of Jeffersonian freedom....
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jul 13 02:03:27 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Wed Jul 13 02:03:27 1994
In message re: A strange Viewpoint, alarm said:
> You are claiming that anything but a determinist insterpretation is wrong?
> Modern physicists and philosophers of science seem to think that quantum
> mechanics leads us to understand the universe as based on truly
> indeterminate characteristics. I wrote my senior paper on Quantum
> Mechanics and Probability Theory, so if you would care to enlist evidence
> to support your view I would be happy to look at it.
Oh my--you're so smart. Look at all the technical blabber and showboating
you can do. I'm semi-impressed.
I always like to hear what the fringe of modern science is coming up with.
Do keep me up to date with it all. However, in all your avant-garde
scientific thinking, I think you have lost touch with the fundamnentals.
Some things never change and such is the case with modern science. There
is always a language science communicates in: logic or reasoning. It
always has and always will. Why? I don't know. It just is. Science and
logical reasoning are integral.
Logic, I believe, is also the language of life. People simply can't be
illogical. Logically, everything we do is based on a action/reaction(yes,
it is very newtonian, but stoop to my level for a sec) relationship.
Everything we do is either us causing action or us reacting to it. Causing
action means to me that we would be making something( an action)
arbitrarily, out of nothing. Does the avant garde still believe in the
laws of conservation?
Anyway, don't take this all the wrong way. I'm not just trying to argue,
though arguing is great fun. I would like to look at the concept of free
will and logic more closely. There are some very big questions in logic.
What dictates logic anyway?
Aye, now there's the rub...
more to come,
pixy
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jul 13 02:14:03 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Wed Jul 13 02:14:03 1994
You know, it's kinda funny. I'm surprised that no else has noticed this
yet. It seems that logic is awfully maleable. everyone is the world has a
different view. The fringes of modern thinking reivent themselves almost
yearly, almost like the fashion world. The cement of truth that we all
tend to believe exists is perhaps a frustrating mud instead. My mind is
constantly changing--but why wouldn't it? What doesn't change?
It seems that anything can be right and wrong and can define truth. OH
well, I refer myself back to ecclesiates...
vanity, all is vanity upon vanity.
pixy
From alarm@yabbs Wed Jul 13 11:53:21 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Wed Jul 13 11:53:21 1994
Gosh, pixy
You're quite insightful. Pseudo-intellectuals drive me batty. I try not to
be like that, but it seems like whenever I get on any bbs's my foot get's
stuck in my mouth, and I go on overdrive. I happen to be a grad student at
Yale and it's hard to swim cross current to the I'm-smarter-than-you-and-
I'll-prove-it mentality.
I know that you are a real person and I'll try to treat my posts with more
humanity. Heidegger, as well as others, said that technology alienates us
from ourselves. He said, "In truth, however, precisely nowhere does man
today any longer encounter himself, i.e., his essence." But I think real
challenge and encounter with other people helps us to at least reflect on
who we are.
goad me any time,
alarm
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jul 13 18:19:04 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: A strange Viewpoint
Date: Wed Jul 13 18:19:04 1994
In message re: A strange Viewpoint, pixy said:
> You know, it's kinda funny. I'm surprised that no else has noticed this
> yet. It seems that logic is awfully maleable. everyone is the world has a
> different view. The fringes of modern thinking reivent themselves almost
> yearly, almost like the fashion world. The cement of truth that we all
> tend to believe exists is perhaps a frustrating mud instead. My mind is
> constantly changing--but why wouldn't it? What doesn't change?
What doesn't change? The truth for one. Your mind changes because we are
imperfect creatures with incomplete senses. Our perceptions of the truth
change over time because we gain more or better evidence. The truth,
however, remains constant. i.e. we used to think the world was flat, now
we don't. The truth was always that the earth was round (or pretty much
so, for you physicists out there), our perception was simply incorrect.
This same analysis holds true for arguments. While people hold different
perceptions of the "truth", there is only one. This is why it is so
important to debate and argue. Since our perceptions and knowledge are so
pathetically incomplete, it is advantages to "pool" toghether our stores
of knowledge and evidence to try to peer more closely at the truth.
Of course, this is not valid for all arguments. Discussions of right and
wrong have no truths (unless you pull the age old "God said it, so it's
true" crap and toss all rational and understanding out the window for a
nice smothering dose of ignorance and religion). Discussions of ethics,
bad and good are all subjective. That is, they are man made constructs
which have no physical meaning and, therefor, no fundamental truths.
Maedhros
/\
/--\
/ \
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jul 13 20:28:26 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 13 20:28:26 1994
Probably, but let's hope not.
Badger01
Living in the foul rag and bone shop of the heart
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jul 13 20:31:28 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: The Malleability of Logic
Date: Wed Jul 13 20:31:28 1994
Actually, Pix, I think it's one of those things that people all notice and
never really talk about...kind of like the sun.
I mean, we all know it's there, but we never really talk about it unless
it's hot or we get sunburned...
Actually, this is a really bad analogy...but you know what I'm attempting
to get at, I trust.
Badger01
Not that you could have figured it out from this post..never mind.
:)
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jul 13 20:35:07 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: alarm@yabbs
Subject: HEIDIGGER! HEIDIGGER!
Date: Wed Jul 13 20:35:07 1994
DIMMESDALE! DIMMESDALE!
I love you, Heidigger!
Sorry, alarm. It's just that I so rarely see him mentioned anywhere. :}
Badger01
This is not a flame please don't take it personally this is just a test of
the emergency Heidigger system in the event of the actual Heidigger we'd
all be forced to sing "Heidigger-o Heidigger-o Heidiggery, that wonderful
Heidigger he sets me free!" To the tune of the chimmney sweep song in
Disney's Mary Poppins
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 14 00:11:36 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: multi-dimensional...
Date: Thu Jul 14 00:11:36 1994
"Your mind changes because we are imperfect creatures with imcomplete
senses..."
Could very well be. Physicsts are filling libraries these days with paper
upon paper of multi-dimensional (hyperdimensional) explanations unifying
fundamental forces up to ten dimensions. We can't envision a dimension
higher than three (yet? well, shadows of dimensions anyway) but what is to
say that higher dimensions do not exist? Like you said, we used to think
the world was flat, i.e. 2D, and now we consider it 3D. Its sort of like
explaining color to a blind man; just can't do it.
But then, envisioning higher dimensions is only done to simplify what
would otherwise be very clumsy and ugly mathematical equations describing
the universe(s?), so (matematical) logic, to a degree, relies on
fundamental assumptions that higher dimensions (if they even exist at all,
proof which will take centuries if not millenia to find) behave in the
same manner as the "three" dimensions we have defined (created).
Arguing whether "logic" and "reason" can bring about fundamental truths
requires the acknowledgement that both are based on *variable* senses.
X
From alarm@yabbs Fri Jul 15 15:20:26 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: HEIDIGGER! HEIDIGGER!
Date: Fri Jul 15 15:20:26 1994
Wasn't it Monty Python who said,
Heigegger, Heidegger was a boozing begger.
?
alas,
alarm
From laelth@yabbs Sat Jul 16 03:20:12 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: logic
Date: Sat Jul 16 03:20:12 1994
Nietzsche suggested that all human understanding (that which we think we
know) is a product of our symbolic systems. For example, mathematics is a
symbolic system which dictates a certain logic (the laws of science, and
others, the basic principles of mathematics.) Language is a symbolic
system as well. It also dictates a certain logic. Nietzsche said that we
believe that we exist because we have a 1st person pronoun, I. Because of
the existence of "I" in the symbolic system, he said, we are capable of
thinking in terms of our own existences.
By the way, the words "logic" and "language" both are derived from the
same greek root (logos) as Heidegger demonstrated in his essay in _Early
Greek Thinking_. Essentially, logic and language are the same thing.
This way of understanding logic answers a lot of the questions that have
been posed on this board. We are only now becoming capable of "believing"
in 10 demensional universes because our symbolic system (mathematics) can
now account for 10 deminsions in a way that at one point was unthinkable.
In other words, the symbolic system, and all its new advances (chaos
theory, etc.), is changing the way that we see the universe. The universe
hasn't changed. Our symbolic system has, and thus, so has our
understanding of the universe.
So why can people arrive at different answers to the same question?
Kenneth Burke demonstrates that the measure of a "well-rounded" symbolic
system is its capacity to account for contradiction. English, as a
symbolic system, is extremely well-rounded. With it we can explain almost
any phenomenon, justify almost any action. Contradiction is part and
parcel of how a symbolic system works. And a symbolic system only works
insofar as it can account for contradiction.
More fuel for this fire is forthcoming.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Sat Jul 16 03:58:37 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: truth
Date: Sat Jul 16 03:58:37 1994
So what does all of that mean. It means that "truth" is a function of our
symbolic systems. "Truth" doesn't exist "out there" in the real world, as
we believe, but in us, as it is created by our symbolic systems. Kant
demonstrated this in his _Critique of Pure Reason_.
For example, consider the concept of the square. Square is a product of
geometry, a human-created symbolic system. No square exists in the real
world. Anything close to a square, if measured with an exact
enough measuring devise will be found to fall short of our definition of
"square." There simply are no perfect 90 degree angles outside of our
minds. The "truth" of square, exists only as a product of our symbolic
systems, not as a product of "reality."
As far as science and the world go, one can easily see that science
doesn't discover real world "truths," at least not affirmative truths.
Science discovers only negative truth. For example, consider the
discussion of the flatness/roundness of the world. Science has
demonstrated, quite convincingly, that the world is NOT flat. But it
can't tell us what shape the world actually IS. Maedhros, in his
comments on this subject, admitted that the world wasn't round. It's only
"almost" round. The symbolic system, mathematics, is incapable of
describing what the world IS. It can only demonstrate that our symbolic
systems (which dictate flatness/roundness/squareness) are wrong. In this
sense, science is self-defeating. While it attempts to discover
"truth," what it does, in effect, is demonstrate how "truths" that we
previously believed are false.
Then, scientists postulate new theories which attempt to explain what was
previously understood, but found to be false. And the scientists
recognize that they haven't found "the truth." That's why their ideas are
called "theories," or possible explanations. The history of science can
be seen as an endless series of theories, all of which are probably false.
At least, it is reasonable to assume that every theory will eventually be
proven to be false. Most scientific theories have gone this route, and
it's only reasonable to assume that all the theories we currently believe
will fall when their time comes.
"Truth," then, is a product not of the real world or of the universe, but
of our symbolic systems which dictate how we see the universe. And our
truths are necessarily false, for the symbolic system, no matter how
"well-rounded" can never truly represent the real world. The symbolic
system will always fall short of capturing the essence of the universe.
All a symbolic system can really understand is itself. All we can really
"know" is ourselves. The truths that we believe in have more to do with
us than with the external world.
Timidly awaiting the onslaught.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Sat Jul 16 04:20:01 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sat Jul 16 04:20:01 1994
Not the old immigrant argument again!
The vast majority of the people that come to the US come here not for
"freedom" but for economic opportunity. We, the US, are the wealthiest
nation on earth. The poor people know it, and they want a slice of the
pie. That's why they come here, not for "freedom."
Examples: Lots of nations around the globe have similar freedoms to those
of Americans. Few of them are experiencing the kind of immigration that
the US is dealing with. Most of the Hatians that are flooding into our
refugee camps are not political exiles, but poor people who want a better
life. Sure, they'll claim political oppression, but that's not the main
reason for their flight. Or, for another example, consider the case of
Germany. When it reunified, tons of East Germans flooded across the
border into the West. Why? After unification these people had the same
freedoms as West Germans, so why did they leave? They left because
economic conditions in West Germany were better. And this is the same
reason that immagrants are now coming, and will continue to cone, to the
US.
So don't go waving the flag and spouting off about freedom. Canadians
have as many if not more freedoms than we do, but they don't have our
immigration problems. We have our immigration problems precisely because
we spout off about freedom. Fewer immigrants would come to the US if they
knew that screaming about political oppression wouldn't get them anywhere.
But they'll keep coming, because they know that all they have to do is say
"I'm oppressed," and we'll open our doors to them. Our heavy investment
in the notion of "freedom" works against us, in this case, and in many
others.
More to come.
-laelth
From laelth@yabbs Sat Jul 16 05:07:11 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sat Jul 16 05:07:11 1994
In nessage 1183 Patton said:
>Politics is not about buliding a society; at least not in a functioning
>democracy. To view the state as an instrument of social engineering is
>beyond authoritarian and enters into totalitarianism. We set up states
>to protect our liberties.
Let's see, last year the Federal government spent about $1.4 trillion
dollars. Of that, @ $1.1 trillion dollars was allocated to non-defense
related expenses. Among these are paying off the interest on the national
debt, social security, medicare/medicaid, aid to families with dependent
children, bailing out the failing S&L's, and federal disaster relief.
From my perspective, very little of this has anything to do with
protecting our freedoms. What the government does, primarily, is to see
that we all get along, to insure domestic tranquility, by taking care of
those that our society does not protect without the aid of the government.
This is not authoritarian, nor is it totalitarian, it's a social reality.
It's good politics.
Consider the state governments, if you like. Most of their money is spent
on education. Education is a form of social engeneering, from the bottom
up. It's effective, and I think, it's what governments should do. Now,
having said this, I think it's also good for the government to protect our
freedoms, but this is not really the government's forte. That's why
Jefferson insisted on the bill of rights. He knew that a strong
government is not a very good tool for protecting freedoms. Governments
aren't about "freedom;" they're about negotiation, compromise, and social
control. They're about "getting along," and that's not such a bad thing,
is it?
-laelth
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jul 16 16:00:19 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sat Jul 16 16:00:19 1994
hey now, ik'm the one in the foul rag and bone shop of the heart...
natalie
From alarm@yabbs Sun Jul 17 17:12:21 1994
From: alarm@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: truth
Date: Sun Jul 17 17:12:21 1994
laelth,
Wow. You've done your homework. You have several posts with a great deal
of thought put into them. But this is probably the only one I'm going to
pick on.
IMHO you are quite on target. I would only like to point out a couple of
minor details that you could hone.
you said,
>"Truth" doesn't exist "out there" in the real world, as we believe, but
>in us, as it is created by our symbolic systems. Kant demonstrated this
>in his _Critique of Pure Reason_.
Something seems wrong here. Is Kant's demonstration supposed to be the
truth? All I think you can affirm is that truth is a part of our symbolic
systems, not that it is created by our symbolic systems. That would be a
"logical" error if I am not mistaken. You have denied in your premise what
you were intending to deny in your conclusion. What I mean is something
along the lines of -umm- you assume what you conclude.
If that doesn't make sense, I'll try again later. Just let me know.
You also said,
>Science only discovers negative truth.
I prefer the work of Karl R. Popper in _Conjectures and Refutations: The
Growth of Scientific Knowledge_. He opts for Falsifiablility rather than
negative demonstration. He gives several good illustration in the book. If
you haven't read it you might give it a try.
Feel free to disagree with me.
alarm
From pixy@yabbs Mon Jul 18 02:03:37 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: logic
Date: Mon Jul 18 02:03:37 1994
In message logic, laelth said:
> Nietzsche suggested that all human understanding (that which we think we
> know) is a product of our symbolic systems. For example, mathematics is a
> symbolic system which dictates a certain logic (the laws of science, and
> others, the basic principles of mathematics.) Language is a symbolic
> system as well. It also dictates a certain logic. Nietzsche said that we
> believe that we exist because we have a 1st person pronoun, I. Because of
And so on...
Now that post made some sense. very good. I still believe that there is
something about logic that leaves me doubtful about it's absolute power
over the universe, but i got alot out of this post. I had been wondering
about how language fit into the whole scheme, and i wasn't getting a very
clear idea. hopevully, this will help
pixy
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jul 18 02:27:09 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: Truth with a capital T
Date: Mon Jul 18 02:27:09 1994
Well, what about the Michelson-Morley experiments which showed that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the measuring device?
Surely a concept we come up (speed of light) with, that doesn't change
when the experimental conditions do change, must have some consistency
which we can call Truth?
X
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 18 08:01:17 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Mon Jul 18 08:01:17 1994
Laelth-
I looked through my old post and could not once find the word "immigrant"
in the body of its text. Nor did I ever state that immigration to the
U.S. was entirely made up of those seeking more liberties. What I did
state, however, was over a billion people now live under the control of
authoritarian or totalitarian states. The club of liberal democracies is
still small and tenuous.
Even amongst this "club", no other state enjoys the same amount of
freedoms. A prime example is found in the use of executive orders to
limit the freedom of the press in the U.K. Or in the rationing of
educational resources in Germany.
As for immigrants coming to the U.S. solely for economic betterment, you
must look at causality. The U.S. has achieved its economic condition
throughout the nation's history exactly because the freedoms it has
allowed its citizens. No where else offers the potential for a person or
group of persons to become entrepeneurs. They are given the freedom to
put their money on the line and, if they work hard and the market so
deems, reap the rewards of their risk. The freedom to profit is a
powerful incentive that has seen the rise of the Carnegie, Pullman, and in
our time Gates. It is because of our freedoms that we know that our
rights to property, fair taxation, and freedom from persecution that we
can achieve the fullest of our potential.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 18 08:50:41 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Mon Jul 18 08:50:41 1994
Laelth-
As the humorist P.J. O'Rourke once wrote in _Rolling Stone_ magazine,
modern American politics are broken down into two groups. Those who
believe gov. should be a patriarchial figure and those who belive it is a
benevolent Santa Claus (complete with red nose, big smile, and that bowl
full of jelly figure). It all boils down to this; strong armed
paternalism is inherently undemocratic.
It is nice to view government as a dispassionate referee in the lives of
its nation's citizens. When disputes erupt it steps in to ensure social
cohesion and in the end we all sit down with a cold coke and live in
harmony.
By granting government overseer rights to society and our freedoms we open
up a Pandora's box of problems. If government exists to take care of
those that our society does not protect (see post) then who does
government decide should or should not be protected. The Senate is made
up of millionaire white males in their sixties and seventies. What if
they decide they, and their ilk, have been unfairly treated and use their
new powers for their own betterment. Or do they help one group at the
expense of another? And how far do they intervene?
You stated that governments aren't about protecting freedoms but are about
negotiation, comporomise, and social control. What exactly is "social
control"? I assume it is when something arises that threatens the
stability of the status quo. If, say, a proportionately small group
grasps upon an idea considered radical or threatening to the majority and
inturn causes social strife (violence, disturbances of everyday life) then
this problem would have to be stopped and the radicals put down by the
government. Try to use this social control argument to Martin Luther
King. Under measures of social control, the civil rights movement would
have been crushed for a supposed common good. Under the guise of social
control, LBJ used terror tactics on anti-war demonstrators during the
Vietnam era; breaking a plethora of laws set up to protect the liberties
of U.S. citizens.
You go on to state that the government should take an active role in
socially engineering the lives of its citizens (education was the example
you gave). The government would choose which value system it would teach
to generations of its citizens, crafting them into the image of its
choosing. It could not teach ideas or concepts that were contradictory to
the nature of the regime. This is McCarthyism of the mind at its
greatest. America was the first state to allow a very fundamental
freedom; the freedom to hold unfavorable opinions. How would the
government choose to mold its citizens? Could it tell a group of people
that it was not ready for the responsibility of full political
participation and reinforce it through a minimum of twelve years
indoctrination in the school system? Could it also tell this group that
they were too fragile and their being too pure to enter into the ugly
arena of politics. Sounds familiar? It should be, it was the
argument used by opponents to women's suffrage in the late 1800's on the
s
floor of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. What if they
had had the power to enforce their beliefs through social control?
The Founders believed in a land where people had the freedom to think for
themselves without official coercion. Coercion, even wrapped in a velvet
glove, is still coercion. Government is not Santa Claus. Vigilance in
the face of losing one's freedoms must be eternal.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Jul 18 12:17:14 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Mon Jul 18 12:17:14 1994
i love pj o'rourke, even if he is a republican
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jul 19 00:58:43 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: c <> truth
Date: Tue Jul 19 00:58:43 1994
You are assuming Truth (with a capital T) is connected with Meaning, which
is an inherent human creation. If that's the case, then the whole
argument about Absolute Truth, ad nauseum, falls flat on its face. My
point in bringing up the absoluteness of speed of light is the following:
no matter how we measure speed of light, whether we increase the speed of
the measuring device, or attach different units to the S.O.L., it will
remain a *constant*, which *was* shown mathematically by Einstein.
For example, I showed mathematically how Einstein arrived the time
contraction tenet of his theory, which shows that the units we use (i.e.
the attachment to meaning) are independent of the time contraction effect
which results from approaching the speed of light. Check early posts in
Mind Games; the math work is there.
Regardless of the meaning we attach to light speed, it remains a constant.
Its experimental consistency is something which I would consider Truth.
X
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jul 19 01:05:36 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Darth Vader is listening
Date: Tue Jul 19 01:05:36 1994
"Q: If they are more primitive than us, would we have a non-intervention
principal?"
A: If we do, that means isolation on both sides. Interaction between
unequal parties always results in interference to someone's benefit.
"If they are advanced enough to talk to us, are they GOOD GUYS or BAD
GUYS?"
You're assuming an alien culture would even have the same moral systems we
have, even if they have one(them) at all. The term GOOD GUYS or BAD GUYS
would only come into play when both parties interact, and that term would
most likely be an interpretation on our side.
X
From Scar-eye@yabbs Tue Jul 19 09:05:39 1994
From: Scar-eye@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Vacation is over :(
Date: Tue Jul 19 09:05:39 1994
Well, I'm going by the name Scar-eye now, but if I make any stupid posts,
feel free to flame away.
But know that I reserve the right to do the same. :]
Formerly Badger01,
Scar-eye Matt Rossi (Maybe I'll tell you all why...)
From Scar-eye@yabbs Tue Jul 19 09:10:55 1994
From: Scar-eye@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Darth Vader is listening
Date: Tue Jul 19 09:10:55 1994
I hope WE are not the most advanced culture in the universe.
Let's look at why:
Our culture's good side consists of the Writings of Pindar, The Veda
cxlass, Homer, Virgil, Ahkht-Mehket, Bodisvatta (sic)...actually, there's
a pretty substantial list, and I don't feel like typing them all...Let's
just say we have a good backlog.
Our bad side? The sumorfs, Barney, Rush Limburger, Tabloid Media, foods
with carcinogenic additives, Radon, Love Canal, Rwanda, Tienamein Square,
any movie with Marc Singer, ...actually, this could go on forever, too.
Please let there be SOMEONE better out there.:}
I don't believe there is, though. (I've defended other people's rights as
far as believing it before, but IMHO we are alone.)
Scar-eye Rossi
From Scar-eye@yabbs Tue Jul 19 09:37:50 1994
From: Scar-eye@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: <no title>
Date: Tue Jul 19 09:37:50 1994
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Jul 19 15:10:20 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Tue Jul 19 15:10:20 1994
Yor pick one of the worst persons to paraphrase on the subject of
freedom...excuse my spelling. The founding fathers of this country where
hipocrits, power hungry cheating murders... It is my opinion that they
weren't sincere in thier beliefs... the forefathers had been getting the
dick for so long in there homeland they left... then they come to Americas
and fuck the Indians over. A real American Hero! I don't know what
freedom is I have nothing to compare it to so how can I measure what total
freedom is? If I were the only inhabitant on a desert island, I still
would know what freedom was because I'm the product of my environment.
why can't an elephant broke the rope tied around his leg?
Is freedom, the absent of all laws, morales, etc?
QUETZAL
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Jul 19 15:17:57 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Tue Jul 19 15:17:57 1994
just out of curiousity, I would like to see the math for those higher
dimensions... I know the equations get kinda hairy...
i have a question... if all dimentions are 90 degrees of one another how
can we explan 4 or 10 dimensions?
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Jul 19 15:24:48 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Tue Jul 19 15:24:48 1994
These people you speak of, didn't have economic freedom. and in 99.9
percent of the cases, the don't have basic human rights money is not the
major factor!
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jul 19 19:06:45 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Tue Jul 19 19:06:45 1994
In message re: re:True Freedom, Quetzal said:
> Yor pick one of the worst persons to paraphrase on the subject of
> freedom...excuse my spelling. The founding fathers of this country where
> hipocrits, power hungry cheating murders... It is my opinion that they
> weren't sincere in thier beliefs... the forefathers had been getting the
> dick for so long in there homeland they left... then they come to Americas
> and fuck the Indians over. A real American Hero! I don't know what
> QUETZAL
Please, go back and read the posts about a thousand back or so on the
founding fathers and the indians. If you have anything to add to the
argument, great, but please read it first.
As for your handle...I'd call that a poor choice of names to defend
freedom and liberty with. I assume you borrowed it as a derivative from
Quetzalcoatl. A Central American Indian deity. As was discussed earlier,
the Central American indians are NOT something you want to compare with
the founding fathers, they make Hitler look like a boyscout. Snake
worship, human sacrifice, despotism, slavery...etc., ad naseum...
The founding fathers weren't all that great, admitted. However, anything
was better than the previous rule.
Also, as has been mentioned frequently, morality is subjective. If you
put any political group from the 17th or 18th century in comparison with
current moral standards (at least in this part of the world), yes they'll
look like shit. You must compare them to other elements which existed at
the time to properly contrast their RELATIVE enlightenment. I have no
doubt we'll look like ignorant, racist, fascist bastards to others in a
couple hundred years, so be sparing on the forefathers :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jul 19 19:13:24 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Tue Jul 19 19:13:24 1994
In message re: multi-dimensional..., Quetzal said:
> just out of curiousity, I would like to see the math for those higher
> dimensions... I know the equations get kinda hairy...
I belive he said it is already posted in Mind Games.
> i have a question... if all dimentions are 90 degrees of one another how
> can we explan 4 or 10 dimensions?
*grin*
You're thinking in 3d. You can only think, sense and abstract in 3
dimensions. The supposition is that there's other directions besides up,
down, left, right, forward and backwards. It MUST be expressed
mathematically since you can't sense it and neither can your
instrumentations because you've only built them to measure in three
dimensional space. If it helps, picture time as the fourth dimension. We
sense it in a very limited sense (we can experience it, but are not able
to move freely through it). If I decided to move backwards, I'd have to
alter my path through time by 180 degrees. Parallel would lie at 90
degrees. Don't ask me what the hell moving parallel through time is like,
I haven't the foggiest :)
Perhaps Xela can fill in that one (theoretical physicists have an
unlimited imagination :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Pele@yabbs Wed Jul 20 01:33:12 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 20 01:33:12 1994
Excuse me,
I know this is probably none of my business and neither of you knmow
me but...don't you think that Q had somewhat of a point. Let's face
it..our people are responsible for a lot of horrible things especially to
the American Indians. I agree that it's not our forefather's fault
entirely but I just have to say that it's time that we wake up and tak
responsiblity for our actions.
The US has made it it's job to impose it's values on other
cultures (as evidenced by our embargo on Cuba and eventual invasion of
Haiti). How can we do this if we don't event know what these values are
and if we do how can we not face up to the violations of those very same
values that we have committed?
My $0.02
PELE
From Pele@yabbs Wed Jul 20 01:44:59 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Wed Jul 20 01:44:59 1994
Great explanation!
One thing though. Time IS the fourth dimension. For the rest of the
other dimensions, it has always been my opinion that we should employ the
economy principle. Being that we can niether sense nor detect them, that
they are not necessary considerations. It's great entertainment for
theoretical mathematicians and writers of Science Fiction novels but
otherwise there is very little point in studying any dimensions higher
than the fourth at this stage in our evolutionary developement. Until we
can understand the dimensions that we can sense, we haveno hope of truly
understanding anything in N-space.
ONe more thing...moving parallel to time or in time? I don't think so.
:)
Actually my own theory on the matter is that time acts a lot like the
Riemannian model...you know...kinda spherical. I think that our
understanding of it is limited to a circle on shpere (that which we are
aware of as the passage oftime) and that the diameter of the circle is a
representation of or rather and indication of the age of the universe.
In other words, if you were to complete a revolution around the circle you
would have passed through the beginning and ending of the universe (I
believe in the Big Bang and the Big Crunch)
I'd be happy to hear any opionions on my theory. I'm no physicist just a
very earnest student who has done more reading than he cares to think
about. I'm a Nuclear Physicist wannabe. :)
From brael@yabbs Wed Jul 20 05:27:10 1994
From: brael@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: hahaha
Date: Wed Jul 20 05:27:10 1994
oooh shit... im hell of high but i have to spin this crazy tale...
i just got back on a fight from san diego to san francisco with my
friend and he went all balls out anarchy crazy on the plane.. first
he found his way into the bathroom.. took out toilet rolls and stuffed
them with wet towels.. lit up several joints and exhaled all the smoke
through the rolls into the toilet.. he was in the bathroom for at least
20 mins and it was the only one in that section of the plane..
he opened the door and i could smell the weed like 7-8 aisles away..ahahah
fuckin nuts.. then he gets bored hangin out in his seat, gets up and
finds the stewardesses microphone.. picks it up and says , "everyone
the captain has ordered all passengers to assume crash positions, we seem
to be having engine trouble.." fucking sick shit!.. hahah the pandemonium
created was unbelievable..
blew my mind.. brael@crl.com
From Patton@yabbs Wed Jul 20 09:00:17 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: Founding Fathers
Date: Wed Jul 20 09:00:17 1994
Dear Quetzal,
Thank you for your response. I have really missed Marxist based
historical revisionism since my last history class. You may just be
right. Washington, jefferson, Franklin may have been the slime of
humanity. Too bad our revolutionary leaders weren't of the splendid moral
level of Pol Pot, Stalin, or Kim Il-Sung. Those anglo-saxon wasp
bastards, look what they did to our country!
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Jul 20 16:19:04 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Physics Vs. Philosophy
Date: Wed Jul 20 16:19:04 1994
Physics says nothing, Philosophy everything.
Badger01
Boy, now I'll just stand back and watch the flames fly over this swimming
pool of gasoline.
:))
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 20 16:44:27 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Physics Vs. Philosophy
Date: Wed Jul 20 16:44:27 1994
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 20 17:02:59 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Wed Jul 20 17:02:59 1994
I admit, I should have read alot furter back before I open my big mouth!
:) What I was saying was All the Indains of central and south america
played the game... I don't recall Montezuma sending a gold embroided
invitation to the Spanard... I'm not say What the Aztecs, Olmecs, Mayas
did was right, because Im not one of them. They judged thier people on
the accepted moral of the land... the spanards judjed the indains on the
morals and values of europe... As far as Jefferson and the founding faters
of this country are concerned, I hold them accountable, because there
actions still have an adverse effect on 12 percent of the american
population! Oh I know people will say you've had freedom for over 100
years!!! If a women is raped will she not feel the pain and carry the
scars for the rest of her live, does it effect the way she teaches and
raise her children?!
As far a my name goes, I picked it because I love the artwork of the
Aztec, Mayans, Etc it has a double meaning!
GOOSH i'M LONG WINDED....
I hope I'm not starting a holy war!
Quetzalcoaltl
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 20 17:15:09 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Founding Fathers
Date: Wed Jul 20 17:15:09 1994
NOW A QUOTE FROM BUGS BUNNY! "WHAT ID SAY WHAT I SAY!"
I just wish they would have been more true to thier words!
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 20 17:22:24 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Wed Jul 20 17:22:24 1994
As modern physicist tell us, Nothing can exist in a black hole no light no
time no matter... the speed of light is not fast enought to escape a black
hole... another thing to consider, is the faster something travels
the massive it get!
Quetzalcoatl lord of the aztecs
From brael@yabbs Wed Jul 20 23:44:31 1994
From: brael@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: hahaha
Date: Wed Jul 20 23:44:31 1994
he clogged the smoke detector with wet towelette dealies and
he exhaled down the toilet.. still reaked like the fuck..
after he pulled that lil stunt with the microphonehe hid in the other
bathroom til the plane landed.. there were air security people waitin
for him when he got off the plane but he made his exit lo-pro and
they didn't know it was him because he made the announcement from
the stewardess kitchen area and noone actually saw him do it.. :)
aaaahha fuckin classic.. lemme just say that this kid is quite
the merry prankster on the go and never fails to inspire.. last
year we were in Reno for the 4th of july playin bjack on some $20
table.. he lost like $100 in under 3 mins.. was lookin bummed and
staring off in to space.. I kept playing and after about 3 hands the
dealer goes.. "Oh my god, oh my fucking god." she called the pit boss
over, and pointed to my friend and muttered in a disturbed tone..
"that man..that man just urinated on me.." ahhahaha!! he just picked
up and said what!?! what?? im taking my business elsewhere.. and ran
out
through an emergency exit..hahhaha! i was like .. uuuh im with
him and bolted as well..hahhaa!! the fucker dropped his pants and
pissed all over the dealer long-distance like underneath the table..
hahahahahahah anarchy is a great thing if done with a touch of creativity.
sorrrrry im so self-indulgent with my laughter but recalling this shit
never fails to crack me up.. :)
-brael@crl.com
and yes.. TWINANAL is a default sysadmin acct on DMS-100's all u
t3lk0 headz..
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jul 21 05:33:38 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Pele@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 05:33:38 1994
In message re: re:True Freedom, Pele said:
> Excuse me,
> I know this is probably none of my business and neither of you knmow
> me but...don't you think that Q had somewhat of a point.
You are correct in pointing that out, and I apologize for not giving his
argument more credit. It's just that this subject was brought up last
year (and is available still to anyone who backtracks through this group a
bit) and was debated heatedly into the ground and I didn't feel like
reiterating an argument I spent many months on before when it can already
be accessed.
> it..our people are responsible for a lot of horrible things especially to
> the American Indians. I agree that it's not our forefather's fault
> entirely but I just have to say that it's time that we wake up and tak
> responsiblity for our actions.
The point to be brief is that it's not our actions. You didn't give the
indians the short end of the stick and I certainly didn't ride with
Custer. One of the basic premises of our legal system is that you cannot
be tried for your ancestors crimes so I find the argument to be
irrelevant. Hell, if I didn't, I'd be going after the Mongols for
invading Germany. There comes a time when you've just got to give the
past a rest and stop rehashing it to try to gain public sympathy or
denounce someone's great-great-great grandparents.
> The US has made it it's job to impose it's values on other
> cultures (as evidenced by our embargo on Cuba and eventual invasion of
> Haiti). How can we do this if we don't event know what these values are
> and if we do how can we not face up to the violations of those very same
> values that we have committed?
I don't think you can equate our treatment of Cuba abd Haiti with our
ancestors treatment of the indians. We're not invading them. It's a
whole lot simpler than that. We don't like them, so we don't trade with
them. It seems we should be aloud that perogative.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Patton@yabbs Thu Jul 21 08:08:54 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Founding Fathers
Date: Thu Jul 21 08:08:54 1994
Arachnoid-
Thank you for the post. You are correct about the decay of the native
civilizations in the Americas. I believe that the story that struck my
attention the most was of an Aztec ritual during the end of their empire.
The priest king would skin a prisoner of war alive then climb inside what
was essentially steaming human pajamas as a climax to the ceremony. I
don't remember Ben Franklin ever doing something like that.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Thu Jul 21 08:16:45 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: JiHad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Thu Jul 21 08:16:45 1994
Arachnoid-
How true you are. Founder's intent as to the role, duties, and powers of
government have been abused regularly. The case of Jackson seeking to
drive the tribes from their land was more a personal vendetta than it was
a sanctioned event by the laws of the country.
Do not call our country a capitalist haven unless you know what true
capitalism is. Do not our Constitution an antiquated document unless you
truly know what the Founder's believed.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 21 09:25:35 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Physics Vs. Philosophy
Date: Thu Jul 21 09:25:35 1994
>(I got a match. Philosophy and Physics started as the same thing, But
>Philosophy went down a dead end.)
Arachnoi, Arachnoi, Arachnoi. You happen to be half right. Yes, they
started at the same theing, namely AS PHILOSOPHY (From Love of Wisdom) and
as each new science developed a new Methodology, they amicably split. But
to say Philiosophy went down a dead end is to say that who we are, what we
think, our emotional and metaphysical selves and beliefs are also a dead
end. It is saying that developing a world-view is meaningless,
thatconsidering your actions and their affects on yourself and others is
trivial, and that the mind of God (*If She exists*) is a mis-step on a
path to a cold, sterile machine-birtheed prominatory where nothing matters
that can't be codified and date-stamped or programmed.
If you want to live there, go ahead. I can't stop you. Using Philosophy as
it is MEANT to be used, to define your ethical, moral and logical views,
can only help if you let it. Tell the HK's I said hello.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 21 09:27:20 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: JiHad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Thu Jul 21 09:27:20 1994
The only tjhing I want to add is that mankind is INHERENTLY corrupt and
must fight such impulses. Jackson did notr.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 21 09:31:59 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 09:31:59 1994
Duder, we ARE invading Haiti. It's getting closer all the time. Prexy
Clinton just asked the UN to do for him what they did for Bush in Iraq.
They seem likely to do so, too. The situation in Rwanda has hit Holocaust
levels and it also seems likely that, Somalia or no, we might go in there
too. Is it just me, or is the US acting like a washed prizefighter that
just wants "ONE MORE SHOT" to prove something?
What good does pushing the Hatians around do?
Badger01
(All the Efforts of the DEA manage to interdict .01% of teh drugs coming
into this country...and in exchange the controllers of that trade raise
the prices 1000%)
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 21 09:34:36 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Founding Fathers
Date: Thu Jul 21 09:34:36 1994
Actually, if you want to TRULY judge the Aztec rituals (And I have no
desire to do so, to me they were bloody and horrible) you have to keep in
mind that according to their religon, the universe would end if the blood
wasn't provided. And don't get on about the horrors of Religon: I know all
of that. But if Ben Franklin had though that America would be wiped out
unless he did something similsr, he just might have found himself sombody
who would fit him.
Badger01
(Who thinks that The Great Awakening was no garden party either)
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 21 09:35:44 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: JiHad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Thu Jul 21 09:35:44 1994
>Do not our Constitution an antiquated document
Actually, it IS antiquated...it's an Antiquity.
Badger01
(Speaking of it's age not usefullness)
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jul 21 12:27:54 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 12:27:54 1994
In message re: re:True Freedom, Badger01 said:
> Duder, we ARE invading Haiti. It's getting closer all the time.
Hey now an invasion comes before a war. We don't have wars with third
world countries. How can you have a war with a bunch of farmers armed
with hoes. It's just a little police action :)
In all seriousness though, you're right of course. I was getting a little
lazy indefining my point. I meant to illustrate more the fact that we're
not into imperialism anymore. Central America's a fuzzy argument, because
we're being forced into the situation (in Haiti at least, Cuba just pisses
us off). It's hard to ignore them when they boat over everyday bitching
about civil rights violations (like Miami's going to be a lot safer for
them :).
> too. Is it just me, or is the US acting like a washed prizefighter that
> just wants "ONE MORE SHOT" to prove something?
> What good does pushing the Hatians around do?
Well, besides making us feel macho and justifying our ridiculous military
expenditures...
Like I said, I feel that we're being forced to deal with the situation.
Besides, Clinton's not doing that bad on the grand scheme of things (for a
Democrat). Hell at least he hasn't given them Florida to make them feel
better (Carter gave away Panama), although that might kill two birds with
one stone. Let 'em have Miami, by all means.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Quetzal@yabbs Thu Jul 21 14:12:26 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 14:12:26 1994
I think the government and the people who benefit from the forefather
treatment of non anglo-saxons be held responsible for thier actions. Do
you tell Jew to forget the holocaust just because it happened over 50
years ago... NO! so how can you tel native american, african americans,
etc to forget they to lost far more than the jew of the 20th century!
african american deaths over 600 million.
Montezuma did invite cortez to cactus rock...I agree, but what i meant,
was he did'nt sent it across the alantic
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jul 21 15:07:11 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 15:07:11 1994
In message re: re:True Freedom, Quetzal said:
> I think the government and the people who benefit from the forefather
> treatment of non anglo-saxons be held responsible for thier actions. Do
> you tell Jew to forget the holocaust just because it happened over 50
> years ago... NO!
No, but I don't tell him to dwell on it and I certainly don't think he
should seek reparations from the current citizens of Germany.
> so how can you tel native american, african americans,
> etc to forget they to lost far more than the jew of the 20th century!
> african american deaths over 600 million.
The short of the matter is that no men are created equal. It's a pipe
dream. Everyone is born into a family and they inherit some of that
families advantages or lack thereof. Fair has nothing to do with it.
It's just the roulette of birth.
As I said before, should I seek reparations from the Mongols? I am of
German descent. Or is that different because WASP's are doing just
hunky-dory now.
If it's no different, then I'm sure everyone can find someone down the
line who screwed there ancestors. I think every race on the planet could
find someone to sue.
On the other hand, if I'm not entitled, why?
1. My race is doing ok now. So, because I've recovered, I no longer
deserve recompense? Is racial justice kind of like social security?
or
2. That happened too long ago. It seems kind of odd that people are
entitled to recompense for there ancestors suffering, yet there's a
statute of limitations. Should we set the limit at say two centuries?
Is there a third reason that I'm perhaps missing, why I'm not entitled to
something as well.
Maedhros /\ "Call me old-fashioned, but women voting? Hey,
/--\ welcome to Mars. I'm on the next spaceship out."
/ \ -The State :)
From Pele@yabbs Thu Jul 21 15:12:58 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Thu Jul 21 15:12:58 1994
In message re: multi-dimensional..., arachnoi said:
> What makes u think our universe isn't just the temporal expansion of the
> inside of a Black hole, and the edge of the universe is the event horizon
> from the other side?
I don't! However you see...you have to look at it from this point of
view. That idea is great for philosophers and all but it's of little
value in trying to predict our observable universe. It is concievable
that our entire universe is actually a centre of a Black Hole singularity
but what does it matter? Everything is relative. Our universe could be
another member of an infinite number of universes which is really actually
another universe which is the member of another group of infinite
universes that makes up God's big toe!
So what? It doesn't change our observable laws does it? :) I have
always felt that in trying to figure our universe out we shouldn't let our
imaginations run amok and fly past necessity. :)
I welcome comments :)
-Pele
From Pele@yabbs Thu Jul 21 15:14:15 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Physics Vs. Philosophy
Date: Thu Jul 21 15:14:15 1994
Physics is nothing and Philosophy everything?
No comment!
-Pele
From Pele@yabbs Thu Jul 21 15:14:51 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: Physics Vs. Philosophy
Date: Thu Jul 21 15:14:51 1994
I agree!!!!! Thou hast much wisdom!
From Pele@yabbs Thu Jul 21 15:20:54 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Thu Jul 21 15:20:54 1994
In message re: multi-dimensional..., Quetzal said:
> As modern physicist tell us, Nothing can exist in a black hole no light no
> time no matter... the speed of light is not fast enought to escape a black
> hole... another thing to consider, is the faster something travels
> the massive it get!
Correction! Modern physicists tell us that they don't know what's inside
of a black hole because of the fact that they can't see them. For all we
know...baby universes could be forming within a black hole. (Not likely
though because observations show that as a black hole gives off energy,
and they do but it's too complicated to get into for explanations, just
read Stephen Hawking's "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" for a full idea, it loses
mass and as a result it's conceivable that they can evaporate...wouldn't
matter though 'cause the time it would take to evaporate would exceed the
projected age of the universe!)
Well...that's it!....my response. Write back!
-Pele
From Pele@yabbs Thu Jul 21 15:28:11 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 15:28:11 1994
Ok...I agree with most of what you said. And I apologize for putting it
the way that I did.
One thing though. You misunderstood me. I wasn't equating the situation
in Cuba and Haiti with what was done I was trying to say that the US has
to come to grips with it's own morality (or lack thereof) before
attempting to impose that morality on another culture. How do we know that
socialism wont work when we never ever gave the concpt a chance! We have
always said that if it's not democracy we are 100% against it! I don't
know if we have that right!
]
-Pele
From Quetzal@yabbs Thu Jul 21 20:49:23 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Thu Jul 21 20:49:23 1994
but you fall to mention that the governmet of the U.S condoned it...
(slavery, etc) that government still exist today.
From Quetzal@yabbs Thu Jul 21 20:54:19 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Pele@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Thu Jul 21 20:54:19 1994
no matter can exist in a black hole. the gravitation forces are to great!
I cannot see our univers as a place in a black hole?
anything which has mass could not exist... everything that exist has mass
except thoughts, or do they?
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:16:04 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:16:04 1994
"if all dimensions are 90 degrees of one another how can we explan 4 or 10
dimensions?"
Not graphically, at least not directly. We can take three-dimensional
slices of a four dimension "cube" and taking the "sum" of those 3D shadows
we can get an idea. Sort of like when ou add concentric circles along the
z axis and get a 3D sphere.
When using higher dimensions to simplify physics, it loses its visual
aspect and becomes mathematically abstract, relying on equations. I'll
see if I can dig some up...
X
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:23:59 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: moving parallel through tim
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:23:59 1994
If time is taken as a linear coefficient, i.e left-right, no up-down,
in-out, then moving "parallel" would mean stopping in time, I think.
Arachnoi is probably more suited for this sort of specualtion; I'm merely
a bio/math major. 8^)
Higher physics is just a personal pursuit. Goodintroductory book on the
4th D is "Geometry, Relativity, and the Fourth D." by Rudolf v.B.Rucker.
if you (or anyone else is) are interested. Goes into a little
multivariable calc, but no big deal..
X
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:26:33 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Pele@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:26:33 1994
In message re: re:True Freedom, Pele said:
> One thing though. You misunderstood me. I wasn't equating the situation
> in Cuba and Haiti with what was done I was trying to say that the US has
> to come to grips with it's own morality (or lack thereof) before
> attempting to impose that morality on another culture. How do we know that
> socialism wont work when we never ever gave the concpt a chance! We have
> always said that if it's not democracy we are 100% against it! I don't
> know if we have that right!
Not wuite true. Our real beef is with communism, not socialism. Britain,
one of our staunchest allies, is socialist. Additionally, our system
embraces many ideals of socialism (i.e. social security, price
regulating). Of course, as many on the board will be quick to point out
to me, we've never actually seen a communist nation. The militocracies
and totalitarian regimes that claim the title hardly do the system
justice. I don't think the Soviet Union or Cuba is quite what Marx had in
mind.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:29:51 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: JiHad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:29:51 1994
"Do not call our country a capitalist haven..."
Nope. Call Mexico a capitalist haven: 75 cent a hour wages, freedom to
dump toxic shit whenever and wherever, shack living, etc. etc.
Once people got pissed at industry for stepping on people (Love Canal, for
example), the government rolled up its sleeves and let industry walk out
of the country to pursue the American Dream elsewhere, tax-free.
Oh well...
X
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:32:26 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:32:26 1994
In message re: re:True Freedom, Quetzal said:
> but you fall to mention that the governmet of the U.S condoned it...
> (slavery, etc) that government still exist today.
It's important to note the circumstances the US was in when they issued
that approval. There would have been no US if slavery hadn't been
condoned. Actually, most all, if not every one, of the forefathers you
mentioned were against slavery. However, without the support of the
plantation owners in the South, the US would have never been. It was a
concesion made in a desperate time, which was later rectified.
Besides, this doesn't prove we were worse than the indians. At best, it
might be a small step towards proving we were as bad.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:34:52 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:34:52 1994
On the matter of no true communist nations...
What about a Kibbutz? Not a nation, but certainly communal to a high
degree.
X
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jul 22 01:36:31 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: moving parallel through tim
Date: Fri Jul 22 01:36:31 1994
In message moving parallel through tim, Xela said:
> If time is taken as a linear coefficient, i.e left-right, no up-down,
> in-out, then moving "parallel" would mean stopping in time, I think.
Quite right. I accidentally seem to have assumed time lies in two
dimensions. Beats the hell out of me if it does, my fingers were just
moving faster than my brain (not a difficult feat :)
> multivariable calc, but no big deal..
No big deal he says. You're a twisted man Xela. :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 22 02:17:33 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: moving parallel through tim
Date: Fri Jul 22 02:17:33 1994
um...multivariable calc is no big deal? eek! i can barely balance my
checkbook, much less do more than the simplest of all algebra
problems...placed into algebra 2 at the college level, i did *smirk*
natalie
From Death@yabbs Fri Jul 22 04:31:30 1994
From: Death@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Fri Jul 22 04:31:30 1994
I've just been sitting on the sidelines watching this one, but now I think
I'll speak up... Speaking from experience (I've actually lived on a
Kibbutz) they are, in fact, communist. At least most of them are, a few
are capitalistic, although most of those are inhabited by Americans.
Everything, including living quarters, work, food, and profit is shared by
everyone. It is Marx's ideas adapted to fit in with the world: the kibbutz
itself is communist, but as a body it has capitalistic goals (ie making a
profit) so that it can remain in existance. For that matter, the entire
state of Israel is very socialistic. The only real democracy there is that
there is an elected representation of the people as the government. Each
citizen understands his place in the country and fulfills it willingly.
(With a few exceptions). Israel was founded based on a communist system
that was set up by David Ben Gurion and the other Halutzim (pioneers) who
fought to make it a state.
This has been my small contribution to the weighty matters under
discussion :>
--Les
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jul 22 04:35:33 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Death@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Fri Jul 22 04:35:33 1994
My thanks for not making me ask what the hell a fucking Kibbutz
was :)
Sounded like something I had at the deli yesterday.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 22 07:43:33 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: historical responsibilities
Date: Fri Jul 22 07:43:33 1994
So if I follow you correctly, all anglo-saxons (or decendents or those who
share the same skin color thereof) should be held responsible for the
actions of others of their ilk hundreds of years ago.
What if someone were of Scottish or Irish blood? These are two peoples
who have been persecuted for centuries by Englanders. They have warred
and rebelled against occupation since William the Conqueror. So even the
enemies of the anglo-saxons are guilty by association because they
supposedly reap the rewards of a repressive system? Shouldn't they too be
allowed some sort of proactive social program?
Just curious.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 22 07:52:38 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Communism
Date: Fri Jul 22 07:52:38 1994
Maedhros-
YOu are absolutely correct. The U.S. has never had a problem with states
being democratic/socialist in nature. A large percentage of NATO states
fit into this category. In the U.S. we have anything but a capitalist
economy. We have a mixed system (although still leaning more to the
classical left) like those of Europe.
In the Cold War we really didn't have a problem with totalitarian or
authoritarian states; AS LONG AS THEY WERE OUR TOTALITARIAN OR
AUTHORITARIAN STATES. In the world-wide anti-Soviet (not anti-communist)
crusade the U.S. utilized an alliance system which included repressive
non-democratic governments ranging from South Korea (they weren't always
democratic by any means), Cuba (before Castro), Panama, Phillipines,
Zaire, Chile (under Pinochet), etc, etc.
Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 22 08:06:45 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Capitalism
Date: Fri Jul 22 08:06:45 1994
Xela-
All states undergo development at differing speeds. While it is true that
Mexican labor earns vastly inferior wages to their US counterparts, it is
because of the forces of market economics.
Labor rates follow several factors. Two offhand are the supply of labor
and the technical sophistication of labor. The supply of labor in Mexico
is very high especially in urban areas. The PRI tried to solve this
problem with import substitution industrialization. Essentially they kept
out foreign products, built their own of everything to meet the demands of
their consumers. The end result were cars built half as well as foreign
autos and prices twice as high. Because these industries were heavily
subsidized, the government was running tremendous deficits (yet another
story). For the last six years or so Mexico has thrown off its barriers
and is experiencing very good growth. It is an attractive venue for
foreign investment and is rapidly overcoming the pains of systematic
economic transition (as being experienced to a far worse extent in
Russia). As more foreign investment occurs and internally enough venture
capital is accumulated, a greater demand for labor occurs. As the demand
increases so will wages. It must be remembered that England was furious
at the low cost of labor in the U.S. in the early 1900s and considered it
an unfair advantage in production. What comes around, goes around.
Wages are also determined by the skill level of your work force. One
reason the manufacturing of clothes and shoes is done in extremelyy
underdeveloped 3rd World states is because the largest factor of
production resides in labor (unskilled, dangerous, menial labor at that).
Most 3rd world and now 2nd world states do not have the skilled workforce
to manufacture high or middle tech goods. It is absurd to think of air
craft being designed, manufactured, and assembled (with the ability to
compete with WEstern aircraft) in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Those labor forces with marketable skillss can demand higher wages from
employers.
You can all wake up now. I apologize for the length of this post.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Pele@yabbs Fri Jul 22 12:30:39 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: multi-dimensional...
Date: Fri Jul 22 12:30:39 1994
That's extremely debateable. However you are right. Our understanding of
black holes would indicate that a the matter would be torn appart by it's
very graitational forces that make it up. However, matter does exist with
the black hole in elementary states and the matter within that hole is
constantly approaching the line of singularity (the centre of the
black hole) but it takes so long for this all to happen that it is best to
practically ignore the effects.
Lets' just assume however that all the matter within the black hole were
to be at the line of singularity, then there would be a great
implosion/explosion which would reslult in the formation of the universe!
Now all you have to do is apply the anthropic priniciple and say that
since we are here to observe it it must have happened.
I don't really believe that we are in the centre of a black hole I'm just
saying that our understanding of space-time is very limited and we can't
exclude possiblities.
Pele
From Pele@yabbs Fri Jul 22 12:47:15 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Space-time
Date: Fri Jul 22 12:47:15 1994
I've enjoyed our debates about space-time and stuff and I just wnated to
make a comment on the linearness of time. I don't know if anyone of you
read this before but this is my own theory and I would be happy to engage
in debate about it's validity.
Time is spherical (like the earth) We are on the great circle of time.
ie, we are moving along in a straigh line along a geodesic course through
time. For all intents and purposes, time is linear to us because we have
yet to discover a way to measure time relativley. We know that if one
travels at close to the speed of light that time slows down fo him/her as
a function of gamma, a variable defined by the ratio of the velocity and
the speed of light and it's square root. (not going to put the actual
equation down, it should be in most hs physics books under relativity)
Well if time is tryly linear then it should not slow down if you mover
faster, unless of course you were to move to a different part of the
sphere and travel on a relatively parrallel course (time would not stop
but would slow down for theindividual travelling at the parrallel course).
This would indicate therefore that if you were to go through time long
enough you would end up at the same point in time as you left and that
time would repeat itself. I don't see this as that far fetchged being
that it has been said that if yopu were to trave l through space long
enough you would end up back at the same point you left from. In both
cases, however, the distances that you have to travel are so vast (and the
time you have to live through is so vast) that the universe would longcome
to an end before you ever get back to your point of embarkation. Unless
of course you slow yourself down to negative the speed of light and
catapult yourself forward through time (that's just another theory)
This theory is not based on mathemathetical reasoning just plain imformed
imagination. Thanx for taking the time to read it.
Pele (Hope to one day sit in the Big Chair in Cambridge like Newton and
Hawkings)
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Jul 22 14:00:41 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Communism
Date: Fri Jul 22 14:00:41 1994
In message Communism, Patton said:
> In the Cold War we really didn't have a problem with totalitarian or
> authoritarian states; AS LONG AS THEY WERE OUR TOTALITARIAN OR
> AUTHORITARIAN STATES.
Question: What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
Answer: Hey now! The US doesn't ship arms to terrorist! *grin*
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Quetzal@yabbs Fri Jul 22 17:27:33 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: historical responsibilities
Date: Fri Jul 22 17:27:33 1994
What i'm saying is, white's benefit most from america's past... I'n know
alot of people will disagree and say everything is fare and equal in the
good ol' U.S, but believe me... it alot different looking on the inside
from outside...
From Quetzal@yabbs Fri Jul 22 17:36:19 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Pele@yabbs
Subject: re: Space-time
Date: Fri Jul 22 17:36:19 1994
I have to disagree with ya thier Pele... I f i could sit outside of time,
I could give you a definate answer, but it is my understanding that if
order for something to exist energy has to be constanly put into that
system if time exist as a circle that would mean it is a closed system no
energy going in or out...
another fact reincarnatio, does not exist because it is circlelar system
From arachnoi@yabbs Fri Jul 22 17:55:46 1994
From: arachnoi@yabbs
To: xela@yabbs
Subject: MX is us 50 yrs ago
Date: Fri Jul 22 17:55:46 1994
[1266][Xela]
----
Nope. Call Mexico a capitalist haven: 75 cent a hour wages,
freedom to
dump toxic shit whenever and wherever, shack living, etc. etc.
{Hey Don't pick on MX! Its a young an vibrant country. Most of
the ppl
there are twenty something or younger. They aren't going to be
satisfied to
stay dwn on the farm like daddy. In fact, they are a lot like us
just before
WWII. They are industrializing right and left, taking as much of
the most
High Tech stuff they can find and hauling it south. They don't
have massive
welfare roles (They make their ppl work, and contrary to popular
belief,
they don't starve.), a super inflated economy, and delusional
'Risk Free
State' laws. If they can get most of our goodies across the
border before we
outlaw everything, they will end up kicking our butts
economically. As for
their environmental probs. We are pretty arrogant about that. The
Mexicans, have begged us to help them and we have turned a
Bigoted back
to them. For example, TJ has begged San Diego to help with Sewage
probs,
but the Democratic gov there hates Mexicans. All the while
whining about
raw sewage washing up on San Diego beaches.}
From arachnoi@yabbs Fri Jul 22 17:56:55 1994
From: arachnoi@yabbs
To: pele@yabbs
Subject: Modern Physics= Imagination
Date: Fri Jul 22 17:56:55 1994
[1256][Pele]
----
...It is concievable that our entire universe is actually a
centre of a Black
Hole singularity but what does it matter? Everything is
relative. Our
universe could be another member of an infinite number of
universes which
is really actually another universe which is the member of
another group
of infinite universes that makes up God's big toe!
So what? It doesn't change our observable laws does it? :)
{Actually it does! By making theories about Black Holes in our
universe, we
are also making theories about our universe. In other words, we
may not be
able to have the perspective of our parent universe, the universe
where our
Black Hole exists, but we do have that perspective about the
possible
universes that spawn from our own. Makes it a lot easier to unify
physics
if it's true.}
I have always felt that in trying to figure our universe out we
shouldn't let
our imaginations run amok and fly past necessity. :)
I welcome comments :)
-Pele
{What blather is this!!!!!! ALL Modern Physics is based on
principles that
are not intuitive, and required Great leaps of imagination to get
enough of
a handle on them that we could understand them. Start with QM and
go all
the way to SR for examples.}
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 22 19:23:55 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Space-time
Date: Fri Jul 22 19:23:55 1994
anyone here read a book called (i think) einstein's dreams? it's about
all these dreams about time that a young patent clerk named albert
einstein has been having...it's really cool, it has about 25 different
representations of time. and a physics moron (like myself) can understand
it w/ little difficulty
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 22 19:24:58 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Modern Physics= Imagination
Date: Fri Jul 22 19:24:58 1994
i just wanted to tell you how much i love your editor. it makes your
posts so clear and easy to read.
natalie
god i love sarcasm
From Pele@yabbs Fri Jul 22 22:49:05 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: Space-time
Date: Fri Jul 22 22:49:05 1994
How do you know that time is not being fueled by space and vice-versa?
The spherical nature of time(not circular) is not that impossible and idea
and if it was it wouldn't be for the reasons you give. Black holes do
exist and they are perfectly shperical when not acted upon by other
gravitational forces. It is therefore not inconcievable that time could
act in the same manner.
Time is something we simply have no complete understanding of. Our
measurement of time in itself is imperfect and impresise. We only travel
along the great circle of the shpere of time without truly understanding
the goings on that's occuring.
One more thing. I think that at both poles of this sphere lie the Bigw
c^X]f"_-~?
woops....
Well..ask if you have questions but at the poles lie the Big Bang and the
Big Crunch singularities.
From Pele@yabbs Fri Jul 22 22:56:35 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Modern Physics= Imagination
Date: Fri Jul 22 22:56:35 1994
I wasn't saying that we shouldn't use our imaginations.
I was saying that we shouldn't let our imaginations lead us astray.
The point I was trying to make about the possibilities of multiple
universes and the pointlessness of trying to figure them out was this:
It is not obserevable. You mentioned the uncertainty principle and that's
part of it. The more we try to know about one thing the less we are going
to know about the other. I say that we focus on trying to understand the
observeable universe andnot so much on working on proving the unecessary.
I think it would be real cool if we would use our imaginations and apply
them to science and not science-fiction.
I'm tired...I don't even know what I'm saying right now. I'll read this
later. If I've confused you it's ok...I've confused myself.
From Pele@yabbs Fri Jul 22 22:58:53 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Hawkins Radiation=collapse
Date: Fri Jul 22 22:58:53 1994
I never for one second doubted that the universe will someday collapse. I
believe that because it makes my religious beliefs have meaning. I would
never brush that point aside.
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 23 01:03:53 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: MX is us 50 yrs ago
Date: Sat Jul 23 01:03:53 1994
You think nothing is wrong when, for example, a South American country
exports all its oranges, only to be able to buy OJ from good ole American
Minute Maid at inflated prices? Mexico is exactly "us 50 yrs ago," i.e. a
capitalistic serfdom; the industry owns the people.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 23 01:18:23 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Modern Physics= Imagination
Date: Sat Jul 23 01:18:23 1994
"It makes your posts so clear and easy to read...god i love sarcasm"
*chuckle* Now, now, Natalie. That's not nice. :)
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 23 01:23:10 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: multicalc
Date: Sat Jul 23 01:23:10 1994
The good thing is that it relies more heavily on the philosophic aspects
of time as the fourth dimension; the chapter of math is intense, but is
not neccessary to understanding the "gist of it." There are seven other
chapters in the book. I highly recommend it as a starting point for
people really interested in mental conception and history of the fourth D.
X
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jul 23 01:35:42 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Modern Physics= Imagination
Date: Sat Jul 23 01:35:42 1994
couldnt resist, xelalex...it was just waiting to be said...
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 23 01:43:51 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism
Date: Sat Jul 23 01:43:51 1994
The main thrust of what I was saying is that industry, like parasites and
predators, prey on the weak. More specifically I am talking
about developing countries with little to no industrial infrastructure and
an economically and educationally impoverished populace.
Cheap labour, low taxation by the whoring government, free rein to pollute
and otherwise exploit the situation of the lower class. Sounds pretty
good to a multinational corp looking to maximize riches in the hands of a
few. Can't beat it, right?
To me though, it all comes back to the main Prostitute: the State. It
encourages all this shit by various enticements and incentives. But in
the end, it's a suicide pact. This country, which is already headed
towards third world status, in terms of general welfare of the *entire*
population (not just the upper and middle classes) when looking at, for
example, the death rate od children (which is steadily increasing) and the
per capita income. Soon a worker will get taxed to death, working a
minimum wage, temporary job with no medical or fringe benefits, seeing his
children go without a quality education because we aren't willing to put
up the money now to maintain our lavish lifestyle. This is the fault of
both a fat government run by old, rich, white folk and the collaborative
efforts of corporations to downsize (oh excuse me, the term is
"right-size;" political correctness has even reached industry, surprise,
surprise). Then, after poor people just can't afford to be intimidated
and lulled into shit work, the power structure will collapse, leaving the
investors and the politicians up shit creek.
Well, there's my view on American Labour as it stands today.
It may be a little one-sided :), but it's based on models of
power-structure maintenance of which I've read about in the early years of
the Nazi Regime and also my experiences in this day and age.
If there is anything one can count on from government, is that it follows
in the footsteps of dictators and dictatorial psychology.
X
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment results."
-Calvin Coolidge
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jul 23 17:58:56 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism
Date: Sat Jul 23 17:58:56 1994
i see that happening as well...from personal experience...i'm working at
slightly above minimum wage, with no benefits, and the area in which i
live is becoming increasingly depressed...there are very few jobs in my
area, and there are a lot of older people who are unwilling to pay for the
school system...their attitude is, well, our kids are donw with school,
why should we pay now? it really makes me angry. and academics are
getting pushed to the background in favor of athletics. this is not
right. they need new textbooks more than they need new basketball
uniforms. i'm a little tired of getting stepped on at work. for
instance, monday i'm scheduled to work 12 and a half hours. it's not
going to happen. they have a computer doing the scheduling. obviously
they have not thought about human limitations when they run the program
that makes the schedule. and they're required by law to give us 2 paid 15
minute breaks and on unpaid 30 minute lunch if we work 7 or more hours.
i've gotten my second break maybe 3 times since i started. this is,
however, better than my previous job where we only got the unpaid lunch.
and if i get hurt at work and have to go to a doctor, i have to take a
drug test. i don't take drugs (other than painkillers), but what if i go
to a concert where weed is being smoked? i'm going to inhale the smoke,
and it's going to get into my blood and i lose my job because i wanted to
listen to some music. there are days i want to go completely bonkers so i
could stay in a nice institution somewhere.
natalie
From Quetzal@yabbs Sat Jul 23 22:15:14 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism
Date: Sat Jul 23 22:15:14 1994
Join the club! I also have a job that pays a little above minimun wage I
get no breaks and i have seen people work a double shift and not recieve a
break. the since it is against the law to work people like this I suggest
you document everything so when you do feel you've have enough you can
back it up! as far as the computer goes that have diseases for that :)
P.s
sound like you work for a fast food resterant!
From Natalie@yabbs Sun Jul 24 01:23:28 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism
Date: Sun Jul 24 01:23:28 1994
nope, i work for target *sigh* it sucks....doesn'thelp that my legs have
been bothering me the last few days either...*sigh*
natalie
From laelth@yabbs Sun Jul 24 11:23:08 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Space-time
Date: Sun Jul 24 11:23:08 1994
Yeah, I read that (Einstein's Dreams). Fascinating!
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 24 11:46:56 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Freedom fighters
Date: Sun Jul 24 11:46:56 1994
Exactly; what is the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists?
The answer is semantics. If they are your terrorists, then they are
freedom fighters. If they are not your freedom fighters then they are
terrorists.
Good story. During the Angoland Civil War we supported a group of
communist rebels called UNITA. We shipped millions of dollars of arms and
support so they could wage war on the Soviet supported communist faction.
UNITA ran around blowing up the nation's oil processing centers in an
effort to stop the only industry capable of bringing in hard currency.
Well, they were actually blowing up foreign subsidiaries of US oil
companies. So we were paying to have US businesses bombed. Go figure we
support communist rebels and drive up the price of oil in one operation.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 24 11:54:04 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: capitalist serfdom
Date: Sun Jul 24 11:54:04 1994
The US was capitalist serfdom where the industry owns the people? It is
hard to make this argument due to the fact that people are free to elect
virulently anti-business candidates who can do their best to impose ideas
of economic justice, the paternalistic welfare state, and essentially
drive those businesses they dislike into chapter 11 (look into what a few
representatives and the federal bureaucracy is doing to Bill Gates; it's
a crime!).
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From laelth@yabbs Sun Jul 24 11:55:57 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sun Jul 24 11:55:57 1994
I'm not certain what one gets out of seeing the world through the
eyes of PJ O'Rourke, other than a mild headache. I don't find the
Patriarch/Santa Claus distinction very useful, though you have all right
to see it that way if you choose. Once we decide that our society has big
problems, we must ask ourselves what entity is best fit to solve those
problems. In my opinion, the Federal Government is most fit to do that.
I don't trust the business community. They care more about profit and the
bottom line than they do about people. I don't trust individuals because
they are just as selfish and self-serving as the business community. In
fact, I can't find a single institution that has either the power or the
desire to seriously address the myriad problems that we need to deal with
soon, or else ...
So, I'm willing to sacrifice some of my freedoms for the common good. Not
all, not even most, but SOME of my freedoms. And yes, the Fed. Govt. is
corrupt, bureaucratic, a mess, etc. And I'll agree that the more power we
grant to the federal govt., the more we grant politicians the ability to
use that power. Yes, power can be used for both good and for evil. This,
of course, is always a danger. Nevertheless, the federal govt. remains
the best institution to deal with the problems of America because we, the
people, have some degree of power over the govt. We elect it, and if it
abuses its power, we can vote them out of office. No other institution
(that has the power to address the problems facing our nation) can be held
accountable for its action.
-laelth
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 24 12:10:19 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalism
Date: Sun Jul 24 12:10:19 1994
Xela--
I must first say that I thought I was anti-government, but you are
definitely born-hard in your dislike and I must pay homage to you.
As for multi-national exploitation of the third world, it is a confusing
argument that arises from third world lobbying of the UN back in the
1970s. They attempted to have the UN impose global policies on
multi-nationals to essentially make them defacto sub-units of the third
world governments. This belief system stressed independent development
outside of the international free-trade regime (GATT) to ensure high
growth rates and maintain their sovereignty. This system was instituted
throughout Central and South America and Africa. All that resulted was
perenial under-development, bloated inefficient industries that subsisted
on government subsidies and were unable to compete in
international, and the inevitable erosion of sovereignty that accompanies
insanely large debts to foreign states and institutions.
The one area of the world which embraced multi-nationals was East Asia.
There is no coincidence that this area is now the fastest growing economic
sphere in the world. For those who still believe that Europe is our
largest trading partner, think again (Asia is now a 40% larger market!!!).
The multi-nationals used them for their cheap labor. These states used
the multi-nationals as a source of income and a way to train their
workers. As their labor forces became more skilled and educated, they
took over the plants (low tech at first, such as clothing, cheap plastics,
etc). Foreign multi-nationals brought in middle tech facilities over
time. The experience gained eventually allowed for internal
entrepeneurship and the creating of domestic industries. Because these
states refused to close their doors on the world, they were continually
pushed by the market to create better goods at cheaper prices.
The book on multi-national exploitation is mixed. If you want to read
some interesting stuff on the subject, pick up Fukuyama's _The End of
History and the Last Man_ a former best seller.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Sun Jul 24 12:25:54 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: re:True Freedom
Date: Sun Jul 24 12:25:54 1994
Laelth--
Thanks for the thoughtful response which was obviously your heartfelt
conviction. Thanks for sharing it.
It is admirable that you are willing to sacrifice some of your freedoms
for the common good. Sacrifice in the face of obstacles is something the
US has lacked since WWII. But you should not have to sacrifice your
freedoms to any person or institution to solve the problems facing society
today. When you forfeit your freedoms willingly, you never get them back.
Napoleon III showed this quite well.
I understand why your see both individuals and business as selfish and
self-serving. But to choose government over these other two is a losing
proposition. Individuals and business operate in an environment where
they must be responsible for their actions. To a great extent the
government does not. You cannot sue the federal government. Less than
50% of registered voters routinely vote in Congressional elections (when
we supply no oversight to our elected representatives why shouldn't they
go out and pursue their own interests?), and the bureaucracy is
responsible to no one but itself in pursueing its own agendas (usually
increasing its size, regulatory powers, and budget). You are nothing but
a number to the government. When you become a statistic, nobody will
stand up for your freedoms.
There are other options to solving our problems than being duped into
giving over our freedoms. This argument has been used globally by mad men
and dictators for the last century with alumni including Hitler, Pinochet,
and Khomeini.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Natalie@yabbs Sun Jul 24 20:29:54 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Sun Jul 24 20:29:54 1994
you don't know your history then, do you? try reading about the
industrial revolution. people worked 18 hour days for ten cents a day,
children were expolited, the workers had to live on factory grounds where
the owner's morals were imposed on them, the workers couldn't strike
because then they'd lose thier jobs and be blacklisted (ie, unable to get
a job anywhere else)...it was a capitalist serfdom...robber barons and
all...then unions started forming, and they did a lot of good...but now a
lot of unions are just as bad as the robbr barons were (there isn't a
union at my work, and i'm glad cause i don't want to pay union dues...too
expensive)...but overall, working condidtions are better now than they
were 100 years ago...i really shouldn't bitch about my job so much :)
natalie
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jul 25 01:21:09 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Mon Jul 25 01:21:09 1994
In message re: capitalist serfdom, Natalie said:
> you don't know your history then, do you? try reading about the
> industrial revolution. people worked 18 hour days for ten cents a day,
> children were expolited, the workers had to live on factory grounds where
> the owner's morals were imposed on them, the workers couldn't strike
> because then they'd lose thier jobs and be blacklisted (ie, unable to get
Ah, but this is skirting about Patton's original statement as have all
other responses. Noone has denied that labor conditions were awful then.
But your response is off target. You clearly show the ramifications of
labor trying to fight against the "robber barons" (What a cute name :),
but Patton never suggested that the people had a chance of facing them
down.
What he said was that if the people were treated unfairly then the govt.
could intercede successfully (which they did eventually). Let's face it,
labor is by far the largest sector of the populace. If they don't like
something, they need to hire an official into govt. who is willing to
change it. If they don't, hey that's not a failing of govt. or the great
arm of the robber barons usurping power, that's just stupidity. If you
want to strike, your first action should be installing someone in govt.
who will support your right to strike, not strike first and let the
national gaurd make a turkey meet out of you.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
p.s. Hope I didn't misquote any of your ideas Patton. Correct me if I did.
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jul 25 02:30:15 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Mon Jul 25 02:30:15 1994
"..the fact that people are free to elect virulently anti-business..."
Assuming that:
A. 100% of the lower class voted,
B. Select-influence groups and influence(money)-peddling groups run by big
business didn't exist,
C. Voting was made democratic process,
You would be correct. However, A, B, and C, are false. You been fed the
"this is a free democratic country" b.s. and for fell for it. *shrug*
X
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 08:15:10 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Mon Jul 25 08:15:10 1994
Natalie--
AS you would see if you went back through my posts that I am quite
knowledgable about history. Knowledgable enough to view history the nuanc
es behind the events (forces behind the actions, and outside of a black
and white mentality).
To believe that industrial development can be achieved without paying a
price is a historical Atlantis (it has never been found). Yes, people
worked in conditions that today we would find dangerous, repetitive, and
tenuous. But why were the workers there to begin with. Did the nasty
factory owners send hired thugs into the streets and Sanghai them? Were
they chained to their machines? No. They were there because they could
earn a living at those jobs. Agriculture had become productive enough to
create a surplus of labor which could be transferred to an urban setting
and put to work in mass production. The surplus had a choice: stay in
the country and starve to death or go to work in the factories and mines.
And yes, there were excesses in the Industrial Revolution as there are in
most revolutions (political or otherwise). Don't view the system of old
through the lenses of prejudice that lie in a modern perspective of labor
rights.
If you would like some historical reading on the subject, look into the
Enclosure Movement of England.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 08:18:49 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Mon Jul 25 08:18:49 1994
Yes! Someone who understood!
If we as citizens do not take responsibility for our own rule in a
Republic using the mechanisms presented us by the vote, then we are all
guilty of neglagence. The tools are there for responsible government, all
we need to do is _use_ them.
-Patton
Vote or Lose Your Liberties!
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 08:32:40 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: US is a Republic
Date: Mon Jul 25 08:32:40 1994
Xela--
The United States is a free, democratic Republic. This is not blind
idealism, but the truth. Any citizen of this country over the age of 18
is free to register to vote and partake in the mechanisms of government.
That means any adult, US citizen. Any citizen is free to join those who
believe as they and form groups to represent those interests (thi sis the
backbone of the party system). If you, myself, and a dozen other people
wished to put forth a virulently anti-business agenda for our group then
we are free to do so. And if others join us, then so be it. If we get
enough people to support us, then we may be able to gain elected
representation and further our cause on a larger level. Any group is free
to do this.
As for your three points supporting your idea that the US is undemocratic:
1-100% of the lower class do not vote
2-Political Action Committees and big-business influence government
3-voting isn't democratic
I see these things as missed opportunities.
1-if the lower class was serious about changing their leadership, they
would mobilize and form the majority voting block in areas across the
nation. Detroit is just one example where large sections of the city
didn't turn out to vote because they believed their candidate would win.
Needless to say, he lost and they had a lot of their public assistance
severed. They will turn out to vote in the next election.
2-There are PACs for all causes: rich or poor, left or right. The
Grey Panthers and AARP are just two examploes of a low-income interest
group that sways votes on matters from SSI to education because they can
muster votes. I didn't say dollars to lobby with, but I said cold, hard
votes! Elected officials fear votes and subsequently work harder to
fulfill the needs of their constituents.
3-Voting is the most pure expresssion of democracy allowed in a
Republic. You cannot be restrained from voting. No one can force you to
vote for one candidate over another. Your vote is done in secret so you
cannot bear the reprecussions of your vote for any reason.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Jul 25 10:16:49 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Mon Jul 25 10:16:49 1994
i post i was replying to was the one where patton claimed that the US was
NOT a capitalist serfdom. i was attempting to state that it was...the
conditions of the workers in the last century were just as bad as the
conditions of the serfs in medieval times...
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Jul 25 10:20:48 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: US is a Republic
Date: Mon Jul 25 10:20:48 1994
one ofthe reason i don't vote (even tho i'm registered) is because when i
go in to vote on a school millage or some state proposal i can't
understand what i'm voting for. it seems to me that they word the ballots
in a very confusing way...if they would just say if you vote this way,
this is what will happen, and if you vote this other way, this is what
will happen i think things would be a lot easier. legalese is a bitch to
understand. i usually just vote however my dad tells me to, when he makes
me go (like he did last time) and that's not really ME voting, it's justmy
dad voting through me, and that's not right.
natalie
From arachnoi@yabbs Mon Jul 25 11:51:54 1994
From: arachnoi@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Harikiri
Date: Mon Jul 25 11:51:54 1994
[1287][Natalie]
----
i just wanted to tell you how much i love your editor. it makes
your posts so clear and easy to read.
natalie
god i love sarcasm
{:) no pain, no gain! I'm home now, no more Phree nationwide
gopher site call ups. The quality of my editor should vastly
improve.
BTW, it's not 'ninja ritual suicide', it's 'Bushido ritual
suicide', simpuku, next time u have to deal with the olof
crowd}
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Jul 25 14:54:39 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Kill everybody
Date: Mon Jul 25 14:54:39 1994
I am Matthew Rossi. That's my real name.
If I ever run for president and you value your life, don't vote for me,
becaus ethe first thing I am lanning on doing is utting our nuclear
weapons on alert status again (Bush took them off.) Then, I'm somehow,
even if I have to wait until near the end of my term and surround myself
with drooling loonies, going to launch the entire load. All of them. The
ones in silos, the ones in aircraft, the ones in subs, the ones buried
beneath housing projects, all of them. I'm going to do my level best to
annihilate all of the people on the face of the earth. I will not go into
abunker when I do this....I will stay ouside until one finds me...and get
a megarad suntan.
If for some reason(my obviosu instability, my psych record, the drugs I am
on now coming back to haunt me) I don't get to be president (And I aint
holding my breath) then I'll come up with another way, somehow, UNLESS
those of you on this board can give me a good reason that
Humanity to be allowed to continue. if not, then I will somehow fnds a
way by uniting with like-minded individuals, even if I have to be long
dead and only act as inspiration to someone else.
So let's see if you all are up to it. Tell me why the human infestation on
the face of the planet shouldn't be wiped aeway in the primal fire of
Nuclear Fusion...Hydrogen Bombs, anyone?
Badger01
PS: If just three bacteria survive, according to NAIC, then eventuall the
surface of teh earth will be repopulated. The chance of smaller order
animals like rats and cockroaches surviving is great enough that I feel
that I can take this ste, and withing 75 million years the planet will
have recovered. But I don't CARE if it does.
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Jul 25 15:02:24 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Mon Jul 25 15:02:24 1994
In message re: capitalist serfdom, Natalie said:
> i post i was replying to was the one where patton claimed that the US was
> NOT a capitalist serfdom. i was attempting to state that it was...the
> conditions of the workers in the last century were just as bad as the
> conditions of the serfs in medieval times...
I understand and I agree with you that it resembled a serfdom. The point
I was trying to make, however, was that the term serfs is incorrect.
Serfs cannot, by law, own land or vote. They're glorified slaves. The
people you referred to had the power to change their circumstances (which
a serf could NEVER do). Whether they wished to exercise that power was up
to them, but the power was there for them nonetheless.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 16:18:59 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Mon Jul 25 16:18:59 1994
Matt--
Your complete honesty has to be commended. It is not everyday that some
proclaims that he/she would nuke the world as a sort of apocalyptic
cleansing. But you may have a problem with the hardware. If the state of
SAC readiness and funding decrease any further, you might not have the
toys with which to play :(. So you might want to start voting for those
hawkish Congresspeople today!
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Mon Jul 25 16:21:06 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Voting
Date: Mon Jul 25 16:21:06 1994
Natalie--
You are correct that certain wording on local and state ballots are
somewhat confusing. But this is no excuse not to vote. And never vote
one way or the other because someone tells you to do so. Vote your
convictions, whether they be popular or not.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From subvrtUS@yabbs Mon Jul 25 22:54:50 1994
From: subvrtUS@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Mon Jul 25 22:54:50 1994
this is Snafu speaking and you're lame, kid. Wouldn't your little plan
here be the ultimate in human presumption? Population control, yes,
extreme population control, yes, reverting to a sub-technologicAl
society-fine. But using our weapons for a full scale Reagan's dying day
bash is overdoing it. Maybe the world sucks, but apocalypse is not the way
to go, bro.
From subvrtUS@yabbs Mon Jul 25 22:57:55 1994
From: subvrtUS@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Mon Jul 25 22:57:55 1994
industry is not the way to empower a country. Look what happened to our
once-proud shining smokestack of a country. Technology kills with life
From subvrtUS@yabbs Mon Jul 25 23:03:31 1994
From: subvrtUS@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: my 2 kopecks
Date: Mon Jul 25 23:03:31 1994
yup. But one must selectively "sell out" in some ways in order to be able
to bring down the capitalist serfdom, no? A good job is important, but the
education to find out how the monolithic system works before bringing it
down is useful. One can either simply live one's own life (and get hauled
off to the tank) or function not within, but around and under the system
to weaken it. The serfs are stronger than the rulers, but money keeps the
"proles"(as Orwell would say) down.-Snafu
From subvrtUS@yabbs Mon Jul 25 23:04:19 1994
From: subvrtUS@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Mon Jul 25 23:04:19 1994
including you, lame-boy
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jul 25 23:50:34 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: US is a Republic
Date: Mon Jul 25 23:50:34 1994
1. If the poor would mobilize...
2. There are PACs for all causes...
3. Voting is democratic...
Well...
1. The poor are discouraged from mobilizing with threats, both physical
and employing in nature. If you were the director of a firm, one way you
would look to maximizing profit is by lowering overhead, i.e hire less
people (downsizing), and avoid at all costs the hiring of union labour.
As someone who claims to have a vast knowledge of history, you will
agree that businesses have used force before to dissolve labour groups.
2. As with all groups, power (and influence) comes down to which party has
the most money. I think that you would agree that the funding of a
business-backed influence peddler and the funding of an environmentalist
influence peddler would differ greatly. Also, if you are familiar with
the tactics of pharmaceutical companies in pushing new drugs on doctors to
prescribe, you will also see how business PACs work by contributing to the
"political campaign fund," or "war chest."
3. Voting is hardly a democratic process. It requires a society with a
democratic tradition, such as Switzerland, for voting to be democratic.
Otherwise it is fraud.
This country is hardly a haven of freedom, if such a term can exist. If
you'd lke, I can bring up examples of freedom impeded by our Police State.
Drugs, prostitution, pornography. Morality imposed by a gun and a badge.
You know as well as I do that the country is founded on Judeo-Christian
values; one can read the major political documents and see te obvious
influence of religion.
X
From Xela@yabbs Mon Jul 25 23:55:15 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Mon Jul 25 23:55:15 1994
"Industrialization is a more diverse, and healthier approach."
Live next to Marcus Hook, PA and DuPont industry just down the Delaware
River and tell me again with a straight face that capitalism is healthy.
Better yet, let me show you my blackened lungs.
Man, you are so out of touch with reality it's almost sad.
X
From Xela@yabbs Tue Jul 26 00:11:11 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: serfdom
Date: Tue Jul 26 00:11:11 1994
"U willingly enslaved yourself."
Well, the choice is between hunger and not hunger. Enslavement wasn't
really a choice here.
"Woudn't you [get the most work for the least money] if it were your
business."
I would compromise enough so that my workers would prosper and so would I.
The current labour situation, the relation between employer and employee,
polarizes the two against each other, and does both parties harm in the
long run. Its the old Hegelian thesis-antithesis relation.
"it [government] has made it harder for the poor to work their way out of
poverty."
I would propose that there is enough "freedom of private interest" for
market forces to act. I will let current history serve as my proof, and
add that such market forces have created the following effects, even
further alienating the worker from the employer:
1. Temporary agencies. They remove the monetary pressure from businesses
of having to sponsor health insurance, and other benefits, such as
pensions.
2. The influence peddled by Business when the government wanted to raise
the minimum wage, even though min. wage doesn't even bring a man above
poverty level.
3. The hiring of scabs to work in place of union workers who protest
unfair wages and benefits. This in effect saying: "You, as a worker, do
not have the right to say No."
Your "objectivist" viewpoint in light of saying that there are "creators"
and "leeches," ignores the interdependence of the two. Inventors would no
(not) prosper without workers to create their "product," and workers would
not prosper without inventors to invent the "product." If Ayn Rand's
heroes would go on strike like they did in Atlas Shrugged, they would
hardly live in the affluence they are accustomed to under the toil of
labourers.
X
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:30:15 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Harikiri
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:30:15 1994
odd, i thought it was seppuku...(well, i guess japanese spelled w/ roman
letters is kinda phonetic, eh?)
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:31:15 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:31:15 1994
oh...let's argue semantics, maed
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:32:02 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Voting
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:32:02 1994
the problem is that i really don't give a shit...and until i do i'll not
vote (unless my dad makes me...)
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:33:25 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: my 2 kopecks
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:33:25 1994
only thing is that i can't find a better job at the moment, so i'm
stuck...god i love being in debt *sigh*
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:35:38 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Union B.S.
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:35:38 1994
if you'd read eitherthe rest of that post (or one made right after it, i
can't remember where i put it) you'd know that i'd never ever ever join a
union. at least not the way the unions are today. they're just as bad as
the corporations....they don't get shit done (well, some of them do but
not the kind of jobs i work)...i'm not going to pay to belongto something
that won't help me...
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:36:30 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: SR untrue ;)
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:36:30 1994
actually, my friend doug explains physics to me last summer so that i
totally understood it. too bad i can't remember what he said now...
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 01:39:54 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Tue Jul 26 01:39:54 1994
part of the year i live in the detroit metro area (you know, where gm,
ford and chrysler USED to build all the cars), and the rest of the year i
live in kalamazoo, home of upjohn pharmaceutical (where they dump so much
shit in the water that the amount of chlorine they have to treat the
waterwith is enough to blind you...no joke). industry had ripped michigan
to pieces...dow chemicals is here as well...this place is an ecological
nightmare...well, the lower peninsula is....the UP isn't too bad, except
for the mines...
natalie
From Patton@yabbs Tue Jul 26 08:37:07 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: subvrtUS@yabbs
Subject: evolution
Date: Tue Jul 26 08:37:07 1994
The United States, because it was the most mature industrial power left
after WWII, was the first to experience the next stage of economic
evolution -- information and services. As capital is beginning to replace
labor as the key componet to manufacturing high tech goods, it was only
natural to move on to a information and service oriented economy. Now any
third world country can pump out steel or build boats. It is only the
natural evolution of market economics (The Invisible Hand, if you will)
that is pushing the U.S..
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Tue Jul 26 08:44:50 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Kalamazoo
Date: Tue Jul 26 08:44:50 1994
Been to Portage Central High School recentaly?
From Patton@yabbs Tue Jul 26 08:57:14 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: US is a Republic
Date: Tue Jul 26 08:57:14 1994
Xela--
On point one, you are correct there have been a plethora of examples of
business intimidating and threatening labor. This is indicative of the
constant melee between capital and labor. But the struggle need not
become a war. Henry Ford correctly solved the problem of demand for his
automobiles by boosting the wages of his employees. He raised his workers
into the middle class and they responded by increasing the demand for the
cars (and the quality since they themselves became the customers). Say
what you will about the ascension of Japanese economic power, but the
challenge presented has changed the face of US labor relations. More
emphasis has been placed on the employee and away from the machines.
Employees have been empowered (with the corresponding responsibility it
incurrs) and are treated more as partners than as enemies by management.
It has been realized by all successful firms that their competitors have
also reach full utilization of physical capital (machinery, etc) and the
only way to better them is to fully utilize _human capital_. This new
attitude is seen in industries as diverse as Ford Motor Co, 3M, and even
the U.S. government.
Political influence does not necessitate the most money. Ralph Nader
brought the heads of the Big 3 auto makers to their knees in from of
Congress and forced federal intervention with a skeleton organization.
The most powerful lobby that has ever existed, the Isreali Lobby (they
throw the greatest parties known to man) fails repeatedly on its ventures.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Badger01@yabbs Tue Jul 26 10:32:31 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Tue Jul 26 10:32:31 1994
Actually, I'm leaning towards trained Nanites (Nonotechnical plagues are
great because YOU CAN'T TREAT THEM WITH DRUGS) that target the human
endocrinal system. I have a teacher who is a little nuts.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Tue Jul 26 10:35:13 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: subvrtUS@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Tue Jul 26 10:35:13 1994
It's a Gordian Knot soultion. UInstead of Untying the knot, you do liek
Alexander did. "FUCK untying it: I've got a better way."
With all thanbks to S. King.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Tue Jul 26 10:41:03 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: The Next Stage
Date: Tue Jul 26 10:41:03 1994
Maybe I don't HAVE to kill off the race. Most species don't last all that
long, evolutionarily speaking, and the fact is that Humanity has had a
good run (A couple of million years)
While it is true that the Dinos way outlasted that, they were lucky, and
no ONE species of Dino made it that long, either. It seems to me that
Humanity, a fractious, self-absorbed, self-annihilating species that acts
in an inherently unsafe way, is just SLATEd to go the way of the dodo. Of
course, it was humanity that drove the DODO there, so maybe it'll be
hmanity that drives HUMANITY there, but I don't think I need to do
anything but sit back. You'll kill yourselves fine without me.
And yes, as of this post, I am resigning my membership as a human being.
I'll be a Badger full-Time now. I just don't want to have to deal with teh
arrogance of the higher primates any longer. If you need me I'll be in the
lab having my engrams transfered into a clone of a Badger with some
humaniod features liek arms and legs and erectile posture.
Badger01
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Jul 26 12:25:15 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: capitalist serfdom
Date: Tue Jul 26 12:25:15 1994
In message re: capitalist serfdom, Natalie said:
> oh...let's argue semantics, maed
Technically I believe semantics is incorrect, this would imply some form
of...
Oh never mind, I can't write this article with a straight face *grin*
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Jul 26 14:10:02 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Tue Jul 26 14:10:02 1994
What reason would you have to annilate the whole human race?
No matter how much you hate being a human, you have to admit you and the
rest of us losers have redeeming qualities... Athere is no such thing as a
totally bad or totally good person... No matter how hard a person tries
he/she can never be totally evil!
Just my two cents worth
Quetzalcoatl
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Jul 26 14:18:59 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Tue Jul 26 14:18:59 1994
Its true... The other day I went fishing in a nearby lake and caught
a eletroplated goldfish 17 ft long it eyes shined like cubic zirconium
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Jul 26 14:23:27 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill everybody
Date: Tue Jul 26 14:23:27 1994
You didn't know that i was a nanocyborg hacker... I'm currently working on
nanites that seek out and kill other nanites... someone has to keep an
ecological balance in check!
From Badger01@yabbs Tue Jul 26 15:36:33 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Tue Jul 26 15:36:33 1994
I don't see what advocating the extinction of man has to do with being
Lame.
Say, are you amicable towards loaning me some of that?
Badger01
From czar@yabbs Tue Jul 26 18:21:28 1994
From: czar@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: YouAre the Best
Date: Tue Jul 26 18:21:28 1994
Patton--
You are the greatest that ever lived. I worship you.
-Czar
Love Free or Die!
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 20:12:05 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Kalamazoo
Date: Tue Jul 26 20:12:05 1994
nope, i haven't...i go to WMU...i'm living over by maple hill mall next
year...it's gonna be rad :) just over a month and i'm out of my house for
good! woohoo!
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Jul 26 20:17:26 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Shippai Shita!
Date: Tue Jul 26 20:17:26 1994
oh great. i don't speak japanese, but i know someone who does...unless,
of course, you want to give me a translation...
natalie
From Deluge@yabbs Tue Jul 26 23:32:41 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Tue Jul 26 23:32:41 1994
Listen, I'm really tired hearing about how people wanna destroy the earth
with some kind of fucking plague or something! If there's something you
don't like, CHANGE IT! I really don't wanna hear any self-caressing
bullshit about how bad things are and how it's everybody elses fault. What
would killing off the inhabitants of the earth prove? NOTHING! except for
it would prove how stupid we are at solving problems. If you wanna do
something drastic, make sure it affects you and yourself, bucko. I am
enjoying my time on planet earth, and if you aren't, thats your problem. I
don't wanna hear about how bad it is. I have enough problems of my own.
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jul 27 00:28:27 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Deluge@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Wed Jul 27 00:28:27 1994
personally, i think nuclaer annihilation would be kinda cool. i'm getting
a real kick out of badger's posts. of course, i think his nanits idea is
even better. but hey, i'm morbid...
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jul 27 00:49:41 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: US is a Republic
Date: Wed Jul 27 00:49:41 1994
"Political influence does not necessitate the most money."
As a rule, my point carries exceptions. Capital buys influence in various
ways.
"..the only way to better [corporations] is to fully utilize _human
capital_."
Even where I work this is true...to a point. It is a symbolic lowering of
employer to communicate and "fully utilize" the worker; it could hardly be
called a literal leveling of hierarchy. The "Man," if you will, still
decides who works and who doesn't.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jul 27 00:50:25 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Wed Jul 27 00:50:25 1994
"Try living next to an oil refinery."
Try living next to multiple oil refineries. Point closed.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jul 27 01:02:27 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: you need...
Date: Wed Jul 27 01:02:27 1994
...to live in Great Britain sometime. Labour is spelled both as labor (in
the US) and labour (in GB and Canada).
That aside, let us proceed to the meat and taters.
"Obey or die."
I'm not so jaded to believe there can't be a better way; a more civil way.
"You would be a well loved Slave Master."
I would rather be a loved Slave Master, if I had to be one, than the
stereotypical Hardass Slave Master.
"whose fault is it that they get exploited?"
Depending on who held the power, I would lay blame with that party. With
the facts and emotions I have now, I would say that industry currently
holds more Push, to use a Randian term, than the labour class, on the
current administration.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jul 27 01:03:15 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: objectivism
Date: Wed Jul 27 01:03:15 1994
You will have to repeat your answer in 1350...It got seriously messed up;
I can't make heads or tails out of it.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jul 27 01:06:10 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: czar@yabbs
Subject: Christ
Date: Wed Jul 27 01:06:10 1994
...not another bloody hero worshipper.... I thought that died with Hitler
, Rand, Nietsche, and Plato. Oh well.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Jul 27 01:17:24 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: yikes , editor dropped
Date: Wed Jul 27 01:17:24 1994
"so are serfdoms a necessity?"
Well, humans can't seem to avoid them in the process of bettering the
standard of living.
Bringing up Sweden is unusual; they mix the best elements of private
enterprise with the best elements of social security. Lately, with Bundt,
that which has worked for so long is being dismantled by businesses eager
to pay less taxes, while believing somehow that the State's bills will be
payed. *shrug*
I have yet to see how any power institution, backed either with a
capitalist or socialist economic dogma, avoids enslaving its constituents.
So I'll ask you if anarchaic capitalism, true anarcho-capitalism, is the
answer, and why you believe anacho-socialism to be detrimental (if that is
the case; I won't assume what's on your mind).
If you provide me with objectivism as the answer, I will quote Ms. Rand
and show how it enslaves people.
X
From Deluge@yabbs Wed Jul 27 02:21:17 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Wed Jul 27 02:21:17 1994
Yup....a millisecond of bright light and poof! were outta here.
From pixy@yabbs Wed Jul 27 03:10:08 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Wed Jul 27 03:10:08 1994
In message re: MX, Xela said:
> "Try living next to an oil refinery."
Well, i tried it. It was noisey and dirty at times, but gas was cheap, so
who gives a flying fuck?
pixy
From Patton@yabbs Wed Jul 27 08:00:24 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: False Utopias
Date: Wed Jul 27 08:00:24 1994
The "Norse States" and their "third way" between socialism and capitalism
has proven to be a well-run failure. The system of incredibly high
taxation fostering an artificially high living standard worked well enough
for decades. But, the coffers have run dry and business is faltering.
To varying degrees in each country, the people have turned to more
pro-business/laissez-faire candidates in hopes that economic prosperity
will return. It has been seen that you just can't survive in the modern
, first world by living off the fruits of your unprocessed
natural resources and Volvos.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Wed Jul 27 08:01:54 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Christ
Date: Wed Jul 27 08:01:54 1994
Xela--
Please do not group me with the likes of Hitler, Rand, or Nietsche.
Thank you.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 27 11:11:35 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Shippai Shita!
Date: Wed Jul 27 11:11:35 1994
What polite level are you using... That sounds harsh!
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 27 11:27:43 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Visual Paradox
Date: Wed Jul 27 11:27:43 1994
I was watching Star Trek the other day Jordi and the rest of the crew
where trying to use a captured borg against the collective by placing a
visual paradox into the borg's cpu to analize. Since the borg are a
collective society this paradox would infect the whole organization.
Sort of like having a computer calculate the last digit of Pi!(of course
there is no last digit of Pi) What I would like to know is how an object
can be a visual paradox... the only other time I've seen this theory
mention is in the Dr. Who shows. The Tardis(Dr. Who's ship) was larger on
the inside(infinate number of rooms) than the outside how is this
possible? Is it because the ship could traval through time and space?
If anyone has any ideas on this subject please respond here or Email me at
Quetzal@cyberspace.org
P.s. I would also like to discuss the mathematics of object with more then
3 dimension
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jul 27 12:40:29 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Shippai Shita!
Date: Wed Jul 27 12:40:29 1994
suuuuuuuuuuure you do
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jul 27 12:43:36 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: yikes , editor dropped
Date: Wed Jul 27 12:43:36 1994
attack canada? *smirk* my roommate's canadian, and she said that when she
was in school there (she's been in the US for about 5 years now) they were
told how bad and evil americans were...some of them are really paranoid
that we are going to take over....i don'tthink it'll happen...after all,
the quebecois have been threatening to secede for nearly 150 years
now...and anyways, canada is no longer underthe colonial yoke so we can't
say that we're invading in order to free them from the big bad clutches of
imperialist england...
natalie
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jul 27 12:59:08 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Christ
Date: Wed Jul 27 12:59:08 1994
In message Christ, Xela said:
> ...not another bloody hero worshipper.... I thought that died with Hitler
> , Rand, Nietsche, and Plato. Oh well.
Actually, there are still some Rand worshippers around thank you very much :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Jul 27 13:03:15 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: Visual Paradox
Date: Wed Jul 27 13:03:15 1994
Don't know much on the subject myself, but ru by your local library and
see if they have anything on tesseracts. They're multi-dimensional cubes
which should have the properties you desire.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Jul 27 18:05:37 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Shippai Shita!
Date: Wed Jul 27 18:05:37 1994
Don't take what I said seriously... I really don't understand how the
polite levels in japanese works that well unless I read several
translations of the same thing.I'm trying to learn japanese but don't know
where to begin, are the language tapes of any value?
Quetzal
From iggy@yabbs Wed Jul 27 21:51:58 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: already been done
Date: Wed Jul 27 21:51:58 1994
As a Canadian I find it interesting to notice that some people are not
aware that we have already been invaded, and for the most part taken over
by the US. The Free Trade Deal was the sell out of the Canadian Economy
to Multinational Corporations, which by and large are based out of the
United States.
Just thought you'd like to know.
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jul 27 22:16:29 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Visual Paradox
Date: Wed Jul 27 22:16:29 1994
all i know about tesserects is what i read in 'a wrinkle in time', which
is an absolutely FABULOUS bok if any one of you actually got thru
childhood w/o reading it...all of madeleine l'engle's books are good, now
that i think about it...but i'm really posting off topic so i'll stop....
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Jul 27 22:18:27 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Wed Jul 27 22:18:27 1994
i love my roommate. she's one of my best friends. i miss her so much, i
haven't seen her in 2 months. i'm thinking of moving to toronto with her
in about 3 years (after she gets done w/ school, i'm a year ahead of
her...)...i could prolly get a visa into canada with less difficulty than
it took for her to get a visa for this country...her dog got in easier
than she did...
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 28 00:57:14 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: re: MX
Date: Thu Jul 28 00:57:14 1994
"...but gas was cheap, so who gives a flying fuck?"
People like you are the reason government should put heavy taxes on gas
use.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 28 00:59:25 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Christ
Date: Thu Jul 28 00:59:25 1994
"Please do not group me with the likes of Hitler, Rand, or Nietsche."
Please don't flatter yourself to think you rank on their level of genius.
Nothing personal.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 28 01:03:53 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: yikes , editor dropped
Date: Thu Jul 28 01:03:53 1994
"[we] can inherit a socialistic, and poorly funcitoning (?) Health Care
System..."
After living in Canada a good portion of my life, and also being
a naturalized citizen (by choice), I can say that the health of Canada's
population rates far higher than that the great capitalist USA can offer.
All the US can show for "better health care" is more complicated,
intricate, and hence, expensive procedures. Canada can show preventive
health care, and guaranteed insurance.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Jul 28 01:07:37 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Christ
Date: Thu Jul 28 01:07:37 1994
"Actually, there are still some Rand worshippers around thank you very
much :)"
*sigh* Oh well. Who is John Galt? *snicker*
I thought the idea of worshipping Rand would be contradictory, but then
people voted Nixon and his ilk in, so who's to say?
X
From Deluge@yabbs Thu Jul 28 02:39:42 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 02:39:42 1994
Ok, so maybe PLAGUE is a major change..A change I do not wish to partake
in, however. You want the plague? Fine, go ahead... I'm happy living.
From Phreddie@yabbs Thu Jul 28 03:18:30 1994
From: Phreddie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 03:18:30 1994
Yeah no shit.. plauges have already been around mankind for so long it's
not even funny..
Remeber the black plague? If I remember right it killed like 1/3 of the
people in Europe.. another plague (even if mankind-induced) wouldn't be
really new to to man..
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jul 28 08:11:28 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Phreddie@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 08:11:28 1994
there have been incidences of the black plague throughout history.
periodically it would come through and lessen the population. if it
hadn't of happened in 1348 (i think that's the year), the renaissance
never would have happened. (for any number ofreasons, or so says james
burke) so we should be grateful to the plague...
natalie
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Jul 28 12:34:37 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Christ
Date: Thu Jul 28 12:34:37 1994
In message re: Christ, Xela said:
> I thought the idea of worshipping Rand would be contradictory, but then
> people voted Nixon and his ilk in, so who's to say?
Well, she's one of those people I can believe and admire only so far. I
don't believe in all her politics, she takes things to extremes I can't
personally justify. However, her writings on religion and existentialism
are superb. Granted, a bit extreme, I really don't think modern art's
purpose is to subvert society, but I do thnk it's a load of crap. As for
religion, it was about time someone stood up and said, hey you don't have
to go through life sacrificing; and how the hell could you be born in sin?
As I said, I think she was a bit obsessive and too extreme, but the
foundatiions of her ideas are valuable and lay down a strong foundation
for other ideas to grow upon
Did you read the Hitchhiker's Guide series? Remember the hooker who charged
rich men to hug them and tell them it's okay to be rich and they shouldn't
feel guilty? :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Quetzal@yabbs Thu Jul 28 19:56:43 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Black Death
Date: Thu Jul 28 19:56:43 1994
I can't imagine a virus killing the whole population of the earth...
No matter how virulent a strain is, there will always be someone out there
who has a natural immunity to the bug...
Just my opinion
Quetzal
From Quetzal@yabbs Thu Jul 28 19:59:41 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Nihongo
Date: Thu Jul 28 19:59:41 1994
thanx for nthe info. I've been wanting to learn Japanese for a while but
didn't (still don't really) where to start
I'll look into it
Quetzal
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jul 28 20:13:49 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: tesserects
Date: Thu Jul 28 20:13:49 1994
yeeeesh, it's been YEARS since i've read heinlein's short stories...(i was
never veryfond of them anyhoo) but that's a cool idea :) i'll tke a look
nexttime i go through my heinleins....
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jul 28 20:15:33 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Thu Jul 28 20:15:33 1994
oh that's right...i want to freeze in the winter and drink beer all the
time. as if i don't freeze enough in michigan as it is. and i've heard
more yoopers say 'eh' than i have my roommate...
natalie
From iggy@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:06:20 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: already been done
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:06:20 1994
Spies? Spies?
No commrade we are not spies. We are merely seekers of the truth who weel
one day liberate the great and glorious peeples of the capitalistic yolks
which shackle their freedoms (spoken with thick SOVIET accent) <sitting on
a peoples tractor> ;)
On the subject of health care: It should be noted that the US is the only
major industrialized country that does not have a national health plan.
This is not endorse the Clinton Plan or any other plan that incoporates
the insurance companies and health care multinational as part of any
proposed solution. The problem with for profit health care is that
inevitabely the corporations (which must make a profit) are forced to
either sacrifice patient care OR exclude portions of th population which
cannot afford to pay. Health Care (from a Canadian perspective) is a
right - not a privelege. Two tier systems are unnecessary and any system
of care which is based on ones ability to pay is unfair and arbitrary.
At least thats what the little red book says.
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:40:07 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:40:07 1994
Maybe they think we rteally can kill them. Heh/ Wise, aren't they? :)
I'll take the plague, AND the antidote.
Badger01
The Inhuman Animal
Ps: Spiders are of course welcome after Ragnarok
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:41:17 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Deluge@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:41:17 1994
The Deluge: The flood that wiped almost all of humanity away.
Hmmm...
Me thinks the flood doth protest too much...
Badger01
(ADMIT IT! YOU WANT THEM ALL DEAD TOO!)
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:42:53 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: yikes , editor dropped
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:42:53 1994
This is just waht I needed. By using the Canadians as my Judas Goat, I can
get the Federal DEFCON raised....and soon, I can have it all gone.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:45:25 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Deluge@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:45:25 1994
>I'm happy living.
You see? That's why I have to ENFORCE my decision to allow the world to go
on without us...Humans are so evil and selfish that they refuse to see the
harm they do to the other species on the planet, and when they do see it
they shrug and say (Oh well) and go on. They are abhorrent and must die.
I'm glad I quit their ranks. As far as I'm concrened, the only way to go
is annihilation, root stalk and branch.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:47:23 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: Unnatural Plague
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:47:23 1994
Natural Immunity? Thats why Nanite are needed here. They can be bred and
changed to attack teh immunty and kill you all...I think a good way to go
about that is to seed them somehow into the pre-cortex of the brain or the
reptile center...all humans use it.
Badger01
always thinking
From Natalie@yabbs Thu Jul 28 21:48:28 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: yikes , editor dropped
Date: Thu Jul 28 21:48:28 1994
why don't we just kill all the supid ppl? (using MY definition of stupid,
of course *smirk*) that would make my life a LOT easier...
natalie
From Deluge@yabbs Thu Jul 28 22:22:49 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Black Death gets all
Date: Thu Jul 28 22:22:49 1994
Uh, well..that was a brilliant job of mis-quoting me, arachnoi. The answer
is simple. If you want the plague, keep it in you're little bubble of
unrealism.
From Deluge@yabbs Thu Jul 28 22:25:44 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Thu Jul 28 22:25:44 1994
Ok, but if we are by chance annhilated, it'll start over again in due
time..Killing us all of would save the planet for about a million yers,
perhaps, but as evolution goes through it's paces again, the same thing
will hapen, just we won't be around for the second coming.
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 29 00:59:12 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: hitchhiker's guide
Date: Fri Jul 29 00:59:12 1994
Yeah, the hooker part got some laughs from me. :) Adams has a funny way
of making light of philosophy.
X
From Xela@yabbs Fri Jul 29 01:02:23 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Fri Jul 29 01:02:23 1994
"In another 20 yrs, canadian doctors/medicine will be considered on the
level of witchdoctors."
In another 20 yrs. the capitalists in this country will have moved to
greener pastures in the Pacific Rim and the Southern hemisphere, and
American citizens (bankrupt) will move where there is education and health
care. No more wonder drugs and wonder procedures; the average citizen
couldn't afford them.
X
From Pele@yabbs Fri Jul 29 01:42:21 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Fri Jul 29 01:42:21 1994
Ahhh....I think you overestimate our importance to this planet or on this
planet. We have been here are fraction of the life of this planet and at
the rate we're going the only thing we are really hurting is how much
longer we're going to be here. The distruction of the eco-system by man
will hurt Mankind much more than it will hurt the earth. The earth willl
bounce back...we wont. No need to wipe us out with a plague (which
wouldn't work because as Quetzal pointed out...a large segment of society
would naturally be immune and then they would reproduce and make a race of
people safe and still just as selfdistructive)
We'll destroy ourselves, give us time
-Pele-
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 29 09:06:16 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: already been done
Date: Fri Jul 29 09:06:16 1994
And don't forget the US revolutionary war when the colonists stormed up
into Canada and attack the English powers that-were.
Do you know where I could procure on those fake US one dollar bills with
former Pm Mulroney's face on it.. i believe they were handed out by the
Labour Party 2 elections back as a sign of opposition to impending US
economic imperialism.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 29 09:09:21 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: Nice Flame
Date: Fri Jul 29 09:09:21 1994
I try to be nice. I try to civil. How pretentious are you to think that
you can group me with the likes of anyone? Try to be polite sometime.
Anonymity doesn't give you carte blanche to be arrogant.
-Patton
From Patton@yabbs Fri Jul 29 09:15:15 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: health care
Date: Fri Jul 29 09:15:15 1994
Iggy-
Because other countries have it doesn't mean that the United States should
or has to follow suit. Other countries have mandatory service in the
armed forces. We don't. A majority of the world doesn't have a free
press. We do. A majority of states don't allow political and sometimes
human rights to women. We do. A majority of the world is rules by
dictators. We aren't.
Maybe we should fly in the face of convention?
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jul 29 09:32:16 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Pele@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Fri Jul 29 09:32:16 1994
The point is, Pele, we ARE killing off other species. (Or is should say
you all are...I'm not human anymore.
So what can I do to stop another species or fifty from dying? Eliminate
the one species responsible.
By killing off humanity, the planet itself isn't affected on jot (THe ball
of stone that spins in space, I mean) It will go on. But the ring tailed
Ferret, which is almost totally gone, will get a shot at coming back. As
weill the Plains Badger, the Wolf Spider, and thousands upon thousands
more...
That's why humanity has to die.
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Fri Jul 29 09:37:44 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Top Ten Reasons
Date: Fri Jul 29 09:37:44 1994
Well, in an attempt to make the upcoming expungence of Humanity more
pleasant, I hereby present my Top Ten reasons why Humanity should be
removed from the Earth. (And, In all fairness, If they move to Mars I'm
willing to let them live)
Number 10: They watch FAmily Fued no matter WHO the hiost is.
Number Nine: They are an aggressive, unbalanced species that has no desire
to alter their destructive behavior
Number Eight: The years are all wrong
Number Seven: Alfonso Ribero
Number Six: In atonement for all the animals they wiped out
Number Five: It'll be the biggest bash ever!
Number Four: Bite me, It's FUN!
Number THree: Well, I might as well, I can't dance
Number Two: HAve you ever seen Eurodisney? Anything that could create
That abomination has to be destroyed
Number One: Because Lyndon LaRouch thinks it's a bad idea
Any others? C'mon, I know you all have a few
clset reasons to wipe the annoying things out.
Let's hear 'em!
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 29 09:39:33 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Top Ten Reasons
Date: Fri Jul 29 09:39:33 1994
yes! a mst3k reference :)
natalie
From Quetzal@yabbs Fri Jul 29 14:38:36 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Unnatural Plague
Date: Fri Jul 29 14:38:36 1994
Just to let you know, I don't take you seriously... as far as nanite
techonolgy is concerned, we are year away from touching its infancy.
If you can produce nanites that attack the brain, a million dollar bet say
someone else can produce nanites that protect the brain and the immune
system.
Quetzal
From Quetzal@yabbs Fri Jul 29 14:47:31 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Fri Jul 29 14:47:31 1994
Belive it or not there is a reason and time for every species to exsist on
this planet. Just because you kill all of humanity, doesn't mean you will
bring ring tail ferrets back... bringing them back might do more harm than
good! Thing of the rabbit population in Australia, annilating them now
might have an adverse effect on the environment we just don't know the
outcome!
From iggy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 17:46:21 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: already been done
Date: Fri Jul 29 17:46:21 1994
No, I would never forget the war of 1812. Neither should any American,
for it was that war that gave birth to your national anthem. If my memory
serves me correctly, I beleive it was the British forces that stormed back
across the border and torched the White House. Shortly thereafter the
border dispute was settled. Of course we were not a nation then so it
wasn't a war between Canada and the US.
As for the dollar bills, I may even have some left over. The Political
Party which you refer to as the Labour Party is the NDP, aka, the New
Democratic Party. The NDP is a coalition of Labour and social reformists.
(ie: Social Democrats) No relation in any way, shape, or form to the
Democratic Party of the United States.
As for Brian Mulroney, you people have Benedict Arnold, we have an even
greater asshole in Brian Mulroney.
From iggy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 17:53:57 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Fri Jul 29 17:53:57 1994
Sorry mate, just read your other message re Health Care, Armed
Services, Freedom of Speech, human rights and other phalacies.
The reference to National Health Care was in the context of other
Industrialized Nations
The point is that it is inhuman for any nation with rich resources to
offer differing levels of Health Care based soley on ones ability to pay.
Sickness does not recognize ones bank account. Our Nations have the human
resources to give the best possible treatment to ALL citizens. Excluding
someone from top rate care because of money is just wrong.
Health Care - A right, Not a privilege.
From Slyguy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 20:12:59 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Fri Jul 29 20:12:59 1994
what do you mean freeze to death in the winter???? its really mild here
in ontario than in the REAL north. where do you get off saying "more
yoopers say'eh' than i have my roommate"? you've been watching too many
badly made american movies about Canada...
sin again,
Slyguy.
(whose not afraid to wear a)
(touque when its 50 out)
From Slyguy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 20:34:22 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Fri Jul 29 20:34:22 1994
I don't think this will happen, guy. It may seem like we got it good,
with our health care provided for and all, as well as progressive
educational funding. The truth is we pay through the teeth here. Our
taxes in Ontario on every item we purchase is 15%.
in Michigan -- i think taxes are 4% -- compare...
your dollar for us to buy is $1.41 in our currency
i'm saying Canada sucks... its an ok place to live and the world community
does come down on us as much, but soon -- state provided health care will
no longer be a reality when Provincial deficeits get higher.
And as far as education, Canada has too few and over-crowded venues of
higher education, Windsor happens to be one of them, and the thought of
goverment paying for education is a myth -- we have to pay it back, they
only loan it to us and then want us to pay it back at 10% interest per
annum.
The only ones who really benefit here, under "socialism" type policies my
beloved country has -- are the rich. And its easier here for them because
there are more tax loop holes then you can shake a hockey stick at.
We're even losing our beloved sport of hockey to the rich American teams
who can afford to pay all the big players and then turn around and charge
poor working class folk for pay-per-view, just so they can watch the game.
At least here, the games are free.
Anyways, enough of my rantings -- i didn't really mean Canada sucks, its
just that we pay huge amounts of tax and our government mismanages the
country. I wouldn't advise coming here unless you live in a thrid world
country or you wanna avoid the draft. I hear living on welfare is better
than working -- but wouldn't know that.
sin again,
Slyguy
From Slyguy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 20:41:32 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: labour party?
Date: Fri Jul 29 20:41:32 1994
Labour party??? What the hell you talkin about? We don't have a labour
party... read a fucking newspaper. And your history books too, as i
recall Canada whooped US ass in both wars in which those two fine
countries fought. In fact, we even burned you capital. Maybe you should
learn why the White House is called the White House...
sin again,
Slyguy
From Slyguy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 20:46:48 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: free?
Date: Fri Jul 29 20:46:48 1994
Hey -- define "Free Press".... i know!!! It's what ever the powers that be
say it is , including the "good ole US of A".
Dictatorship?? Naw, you're right about that. The US government isn't a
dictatorship... but it's pretty close... just not as blatant... subtlety
is the key there.
Don't take it so rough, Canada is the same way
sin again,
Slyguy
From Slyguy@yabbs Fri Jul 29 20:54:27 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: canada
Date: Fri Jul 29 20:54:27 1994
my mistake, Canada wasn't a country then (not til 1867)
replace British with word Canada
sin again
SLYGUY
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 29 22:53:31 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Fri Jul 29 22:53:31 1994
first of all, i live in michigan and i've been to the up several times.
and i've also spenttime in canda. i've heard more yoopers say 'eh' than i
have heard canadians say it. hell, *I* say it more than my roommate does
and she's canadian. also, *she's* the one who makes cracks about freezing
all winter with only some beer to get warm. so before you assume that
i've been watching too many bad american movies about canada (odd, i
didn'tthink kids in the hall and sctv were bad american film) or listening
to other people's sterotypes find out where my info comes from, ok?
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Jul 29 22:54:26 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Fri Jul 29 22:54:26 1994
michigan sales tax is 6%, thank you very much. i'm not sure what stae
income tax is, except that it's way too much.
natalie
From robtelee@yabbs Sat Jul 30 00:02:19 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: re: labour party?
Date: Sat Jul 30 00:02:19 1994
It was the British who invaded Maryland and torched the White House.
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 30 01:24:59 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Nice Flame
Date: Sat Jul 30 01:24:59 1994
"How pretentious are you to think you can group me with the likes of
anyone?"
How pretentious are you to think you have the genius of the three
philosophers you mentioned?
"Try to be polite sometime."
Try to be polite? I was. Seriously. It could have been worse; I tried
to be gentle about it.
"Anonymity doesn't give you carte blanche to be arrogant."
Read first sentence of response, and then call me arrogant.
Again: nothing personal, but don't kid yourself.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 30 01:32:18 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Sat Jul 30 01:32:18 1994
Thank you for not being obnoxious with the reply, it's appreciated more
than you would believe.
"...its just that we pay huge amounts of tax and our govt. mismanages the
country..."
Sounds like the USA to me: between 30 and 40 percent of my paycheck
disappears to various functions, and then I pay sales tax on top of that.
Meanwhile, the police are buying donuts, the Pentagon is buying fifty
thousand dollar toilet bowls, and Congress gets mail service gratis (and
they get kickbacks from industry PACs) while the country goes to shit.
Returning to my second homeland seems a better and better idea every day.
Besides, I miss my Hockey Night in Canada. :)
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Jul 30 01:34:35 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: free press
Date: Sat Jul 30 01:34:35 1994
Definition of free press in a capitalist country: Free press exists only
for someone who owns one.
X
From Deluge@yabbs Sat Jul 30 09:06:52 1994
From: Deluge@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: free press
Date: Sat Jul 30 09:06:52 1994
I just went to Canada not too long ago (being that I live in Minnesota,
it's almost a rite of passage) and I was amazed at the prices on stuff.
It's like 6-7 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, and I forget how expensive
for a gallon of milk, but it's up there. Just remember guys..Neither one
of our countries are perfect; theres always stupid assholes who try their
best to screw it up.
Da'Luge
From Badger01@yabbs Sat Jul 30 14:08:42 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: THANK GOD!
Date: Sat Jul 30 14:08:42 1994
I'm glad somebody sees that my tongue is up my cheek (OF MY MOUTH, YOU
PERVS!)
Badger01
From Badger01@yabbs Sat Jul 30 14:14:31 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Another Topic
Date: Sat Jul 30 14:14:31 1994
Well, now that I've established that I'm hostile to Humanity, on to
another topic:
I am disgusted by the underhanded, manipulative way that the people of
our government perpetuate military racism.
How do I mean? Simple: In Bosnia, we do nothing while serbs and croats and
muslims tear each other apart, because they are all white. In Somalia,
Haiti, and now Rwanda, we feel no compunction about throwing our weight
around. All three nations I just listed are primarily black.
Is it naive to even mention this? Why hasn't some bright-eyed press
personage done the same? Who knows? I'm just tired of discussing how I'm
going to remove humans from the planet and want to move on.
Badger01
Discussing perpetual insanity with glee
From Slyguy@yabbs Sat Jul 30 18:44:10 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Sat Jul 30 18:44:10 1994
i am very sorry... i just hate when people flame the place i live at.
i didn't mean that you in particular watched bad american movies.
i didn't mean to upset you a great deal...
sin again,
Slyguy
From Slyguy@yabbs Sat Jul 30 18:46:37 1994
From: Slyguy@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Sat Jul 30 18:46:37 1994
ok 6%, cept i've only paid 4% at various record stores in detroit (ie:
Sam's Jamms and Harmonony House, etc) and at several book stores in ann
arbour... still cheaper than canadian taxes :)
sin again
Slyguy
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Jul 30 23:42:35 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Sat Jul 30 23:42:35 1994
the sales tax went up in may from 4 to 6, supposedly to pay for
schools...we'll see, since they alwys fucking LIE to us about where the
money's going...all the dumb ass lotto games were supposed to be for the
schools too....
if you want to go to a gooood bookstore in detroit, go to john king books
on lafayette...some of the stuff is way expensive, but i got a copy of
coleridge in relatively good shape (it was printed in 1912 and has a red
leather cover) for about $10...not a bad deal...
natalie
From Phreddie@yabbs Mon Aug 1 02:36:33 1994
From: Phreddie@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: U too :)
Date: Mon Aug 1 02:36:33 1994
hehe.. and if the black plague had never happend then we'd never have the
majority of the work force flocking to the city due to lack of work out in
the manor farms adn then there'd have been a paucity in the work force
never allowing the renaissance to ake place.. well, yeah, i geuss it was
pretty good then :)
Phreddie
Who learned all this junk in.. Orchestra!!
From Phreddie@yabbs Mon Aug 1 02:39:23 1994
From: Phreddie@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Mon Aug 1 02:39:23 1994
Haha.. so how do you like the Michigan summer? In the springtime there's
an Indian summer, and in springtime, it's still winter, and I still gotta
see what it's gonna be likein the fall (hey, right now it's been really ,
er cool lately) ..
Also, I *LOVE* how the sun comes out every time it rains!!
From Phreddie@yabbs Mon Aug 1 02:46:35 1994
From: Phreddie@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 02:46:35 1994
It just changed this past May .. goddamn fucker Engler .. get him outta
there.. even Blanchard was better than this!! (Jesus that's why I gotta
move .. no more jobs here..)0
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 1 08:18:31 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:18:31 1994
Yes, it is en vogue among the industrialized West to have a craddle
to grave social welfare net which encompasses to varying degrees
socialized medicine. But, the point I was trying to make is that it is
not mandatory that nations be forced to pursue this policy. There are
many options open to solve the problem of health care coverage to the
general populace and the United States should not limit itself to only one
avenue of exploration.
From the standpoint of social justice, it is a very potent argument that
economically bountiful states should supply such services to its populace.
My point is that states may not be able to maintain that status for long
at the expense of its own successes.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Aug 1 08:21:22 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Phreddie@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:21:22 1994
michigan weather sucks. you obviously haven't been here very long. it's
too fucking hot in the summer and too fucking cold in the winter. and
last winter was especially bad. i just LOVE -50 windchill. altho the
weather hasn't been TOO bad lately, i don't like the humidity. and all
this is comng from a person who's lived her life in humid places... the
sun comingout when it rains is weird, that usually doesn't happen all THAT
often, just wait until the winter when you never ever see the sun...of
course, i go to school on the other side of the state where it's colder
and cloudier and all round nastier than anywhere else. except for the
UP...
natalie
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 1 08:23:42 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Slyguy@yabbs
Subject: Oh Canada
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:23:42 1994
As for Canada whooping as in both wars, there was no Canada. The northern
territories of the New World were the largest colony of the British
Empire. Say what you will about the US but it didn't take us until the
20th century to throw the English off our backs.
As for the Labour Party comment, it was in reference to the tradition
politics carried on by the left of center parties associated with the
Commonwealth. And yes I read the newspapers. And yes I watch CBC. And
yes I love Don Cherry.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Aug 1 08:24:22 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Phreddie@yabbs
Subject: re: canadian health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:24:22 1994
c'mon...target is hiring *smirk*....
i wanna get out of here cause the fuckers keep on lying to us about school
funding....the school system i went to was really good 8 years ago, but it
sucks now. i've stated my reasons for this before and i really don't feel
like doing it again. but it has a lot to do w/ the fact that i went to
a high school that was VERY into sports (one of the guys from the
basketball team starts for u-m now) and not so much into academics. if my
parents could have afforded for me to go to a private school i would have
gone. i would have KILLED to have gone to marion...or cranbrook, or
roeper....*sigh*
natalie
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 1 08:26:33 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Nice Flame
Date: Mon Aug 1 08:26:33 1994
Go back and read the original post. If I ever once mentioned that I
should be included with those persons I will post a formal apology with
due haste. In your haste you either read into something which was not
there. Or you were just in a hurry to flame someone and didn't care.
Flip through and take a peak.
-Patton
From Bearclaw@yabbs Mon Aug 1 11:23:50 1994
From: Bearclaw@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Nationalistic Vs. Fascistic
Date: Mon Aug 1 11:23:50 1994
Well, is America trying to carve itself a nice little de fecto empire
again? Well, I dunno, but there's an awful lotta
From-The-Goodness-of-Their-hearts activity going on (And when i see
Elizabeth Dole being friendly to plague-ridden Rwandans, I plotz)
From iggy@yabbs Mon Aug 1 12:28:13 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 12:28:13 1994
I always find it amazing that governments can justify expending billions
of dollars in business tax credits and business grants but when it comes
to Health Care, many individual politicians and parties cry poverty.
It is a question of lobby groups and Special Interest Groups, by and large
the worst SIGs are business lobby groups which finance the main line
parties, hence gaining an instrument with which they push forward their
profit motivated agenda ahead of the publics best interest.
In 1949 Businesses operating in Canda contributed 49% of all taxes
collected by the Federal government, Individual tax contributions made up
the remaing 51%. After 43 years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative
governments, Corporate tax contributions now make up only 6% of totall
collections.
The shifting of the tax burden to the individual creates the illusion of
poverty, when in fact the net wealth of th nation is quite healthy.
I boils down to a question of priorities.
Health Care - A right, Not a privelege.
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Aug 1 13:11:29 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 13:11:29 1994
>Health Care - A right, Not a privelege.
Pardon? When did we suddenly get the RIGHT to Helth Care? Where diod this
particular fallacy come from, that medicine was something guarranteed to
us all? Where does it say that, are you basing it on the US Constitution,
the Bible, some tract of Thomas Hobbes I haven't read yet, a painting from
Herionymous Bosch, what? Where are you getting that?
Badger01
From Quetzal@yabbs Mon Aug 1 18:03:19 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Mon Aug 1 18:03:19 1994
You forgot to mention that the weather changes every 20mins :)
From iggy@yabbs Mon Aug 1 19:40:24 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 19:40:24 1994
The United States Constitution has nothing to do with one right to health
care. Nor does the Bible or any other piece of paper.
It is philiosphy based on the fact that ones health is THE most valuable
commodity and therefore deserves special recognition. Further, a society
is only as good as it treats it's most disadvanteged. To profit from the
sickness of others is, in itself, sick.
All medical professionals deserve to be treated with the utmost respect.
Technicians, nusrses, doctors etc. put in many long hours constantly
upgrading and honing their skills and they deserve to be compensated
handsomely.
HOWEVER, system that is based on profit whereby insurance companies,
multinational corporations and others make huge profits off the Health
Care system is the system that is in the most trouble and is the most
ineeficient.
Corporations have to turn a profit. That profit must come from somewhere.
This profit is actually resources that you, and others, contribute. Yet
it has nothing to do with the quality of care you receive. eg: Insurance
You buy Health Insurance. The company that picks up your policy is
betting that you will not get sick. If you get sick, or many in the same
demographic region get sick then your rates will go up. Yet, this has
nothing to do with the quality of care which you receive. There are many
that cannot afford insurance, thus they do not receive the same level of
care. THIS IS THEIR HELTH DAMNIT - not a micro wave or VCR.
Health Care - A right, not a privelege.
From Badger01@yabbs Mon Aug 1 20:58:49 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Mon Aug 1 20:58:49 1994
That's like saying we have the RIGHT to food, or love, or anything like
that which is a neccesity to live but that we cannot force.
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Aug 2 01:18:33 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: Invade Canada
Date: Tue Aug 2 01:18:33 1994
odd, i thought it was more like every five minutes. btw, on my way home
form work tonight, i could see the humidity rising off the roud and out of
the swamps that i live by.....it's eerie...
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Tue Aug 2 01:31:03 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: Original Post
Date: Tue Aug 2 01:31:03 1994
"Please do not group me with the likes of Hitler, Rand, and Nietsche."
I read it literally, word for word. The use of the verb "group" implies
belonging in the context you used it in; which is an inaccurate statement
to make, in the least.
*shrug*
X
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Aug 2 01:47:42 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Original Post
Date: Tue Aug 2 01:47:42 1994
dontcha just LOVE arguing sematics?
btw, xelalex, i'm going to see NiN sept 2 *grin*
natalie
From Patton@yabbs Tue Aug 2 09:01:20 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Tue Aug 2 09:01:20 1994
Yes, health care again...
It seems that the most major problem some people have about insurance
companies is that they make a profit. While this may shock some, this is
not directed at you Iggy (I pressed return twice by accident), it makes
perfect sense to others. Insurance companies provide a service to those
who subscribe to them. They fulfill a valuable service to private
citizens seeking protection against future injury or illness. What some
have failed to see is that profit has marked the evolution of medical
advancement throughout the 20th century. Profits from medication or the
sale of machinery, etc does not flow directly into the pockets of health
care exploiters. Most producers are large corporations owned by
shareholders who split the profits accordingly. Monies are reinvested
into research and development for the reason that there will always be a
market demand for newer, safer, more reliable drugs. Without profit there
is no R&D. There will be no new wonder drugs or miracle procedures.
I've seen how efficiently the government runs health care. I've been in
the Veteran Administration hospitals and seen the absolutely lowest level
of care and professionalism possible while still calling the facility a
"hospital". For those in the US who wish to see what could happen, I
suggest a trip down to their local VA hospital (take a strong stomach with
you).
-Patton
Patton knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...
From Badger01@yabbs Tue Aug 2 12:48:23 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Aborting People
Date: Tue Aug 2 12:48:23 1994
I realize no one here wants to attempt an adult discussion of the Abortion
hot potato, but I want to talk about this...the willingness of the
Operation Rescue Types (Not that I know FOR A FACT that they were
sanctioned members of that orginization) to kill people.
Not just the Abortion doctors anymore, either (WHAT DOES ABOrtion doctor
mean? These men don't specialize in it.)
But now they'll kill anyone, the people with them, the WIVES of the people
with them.
Why is it a sin to abort an undeveloped cell group, but not a fully
functioning person?
Badger01
From Natalie@yabbs Tue Aug 2 13:43:45 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Aborting People
Date: Tue Aug 2 13:43:45 1994
um...let's see. because the person who is already born has had it's
chance in this world and made the wrong choice and now must be destroyed?
the thing that gets me about thos operation rescue ppl (and other anti
abortion demonstrators) is that htey'll send their kids to lie down in
front of cars, and other fun things like that. and if they want to help
stop abortion, they could tell kids about birth control and adopt the
babies that would formerly have been aborted. but, they don't want to
help these women/kids like that. they just want to stop them from having
an abortion. they don't care about the kid after it's born. THAT'S what
really steams me about those ppl. they think they have the right to tell
me how to live mylife, but they won't bother helpingme out if i have a kid
and not an abortion (not like i'm pregnant or anything).
natalie
who believes that's it's my body, dammit, and you're not gonna tell me how
to use it.
From icebox@yabbs Tue Aug 2 16:06:31 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: WHITE WATERGATE
Date: Tue Aug 2 16:06:31 1994
Does this really exist? Is there something the government is hiding?
From Ziggy@yabbs Tue Aug 2 18:08:40 1994
From: Ziggy@yabbs
To: badger01@yabbs
Subject: abortion
Date: Tue Aug 2 18:08:40 1994
I'm not going to add anything to this right now, but I just thought I'd
let you know that Zbadba (although he's at CMU right now) and I live in
Pensacola... the place where two "abortion doctors" (quote - unquote) have
been shot and killed. We've been on the news lately... quite frankly, the
situation is getting out of control. The details on the latest shooting
are still vague (at least from what I've heard)... but apparently the
doctor who was shot was wearing a bullet-proof vest, which didn't work,
arising from the fact that he was shot point blank. Several others were
injured in the shooting as well, if I'm not mistaken.
Anyways... my personal opinion as far as abortion goes is that I don't
believe in abortion, but it is a woman's body, and she has a right to the
choice. I have no grasp over her, and regardless of her choice, have no
bearing whatsoever in what she does. However, I do feel that some
responsibility should be taken as a result of how the child (in the womb,
of course) was conceived. Rape and incest are in the minority, and cannot
be worked out a justifiable basis for supporting abortion. (as I have
learned) If the couple having the child is irresponsible, then I do not
think that that is a "good" reason for having the procedure done.
Anyways...
Any comments will be appreciated.
From iggy@yabbs Tue Aug 2 18:51:42 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Tue Aug 2 18:51:42 1994
A lot like the Right to Freedom and Liberty.
However, it is not a question of 'force' it is a responsibility to
provide.
From iggy@yabbs Tue Aug 2 18:56:00 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Tue Aug 2 18:56:00 1994
Perhaps the discrepancy in th level of care given in VA hospitals as
opposed to the others is symptomatic of having a 'two tier' system in the
first place. It is remarkable how the level of care increases when all
people, rich and not so rich, powerfull and powerless, have to share the
same health care resources.
From Quetzal@yabbs Tue Aug 2 20:19:26 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Aborting People
Date: Tue Aug 2 20:19:26 1994
You hit the nail on the head Natalie! They do seem to contradict
themselves... I don't belive in killing but I don't have the right to
decide what a women does with her body unless we mix suger and spice or
puppy dog tails...
If life begins at 40, then were all can be terminated!
From maedhros@yabbs Tue Aug 2 21:05:40 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Aborting People
Date: Tue Aug 2 21:05:40 1994
In message re: Aborting People, Natalie said:
> If they want to help
> stop abortion, they could tell kids about birth control and adopt the
> babies that would formerly have been aborted.
Actually the "kids" are pretty well informed already. As to the
adoption:There's an awful long waiting list for adopting children
(especially caucasian children) and the potential aborters are informed of
this fact in advance. In short, the children could be adopted, but the
parents don't want that, they want an abortion.
> They don't care about the kid after it's born. THAT'S what
> really steams me about those ppl. they think they have the right to tell
> me how to live mylife, but they won't bother helpingme out if i have a kid
> and not an abortion (not like i'm pregnant or anything).
...and there's one of the cores of the problem. Sure we'll adopt their
child. However, the support they'll recieve from us is not without
limits. Some support comes in the form of paid leave and medicare, but
don't expect a free meal ticket. Irregardless, most people abort because
their in an untenable financial situation or one of the parents is
"missing". I'd say that's a pretty damn good reason for an abortion
personally. So they made a mistake and got pregnant, at least they didn't
compound it by raising a hopelessly disadvantaged child destined for crime
or welfare (yeak I know it's not always this kind of situation, but it is
often enough to make a generality on).
> natalie
> who believes that's it's my body, dammit, and you're not gonna tell me how
> to use it.
Yo, tell 'em sister! :)
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Aug 2 22:06:15 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: happenings in P'cola
Date: Tue Aug 2 22:06:15 1994
As ziggy mentioned, my normal home is Pensacola, Fl. So far, we've had a
mighty bad record of keeping these doctors alive. This makes three doctors
dead (although one of the fatalities was actualy a victim of random street
crime).
The suspect in custody, Paul Hill, allegedly walked up to the pickup truck
where the doctor, his escort, and his wife were sitting and "pulled the
trigger again and again." According to witnesses, between 6 and 9 shotgun
shells were fired. The doctor and escort were hit in the head and died
almost instantly. The wife of the doctor was wounded (as far as I know,
she is in stable condition).
To whoever said it, the suspect (Paul Hill) was *NOT* a member of
Operation Rescue. Hill had formed his own anti-abortion group following
the killing of Dr. David Gunn some 17 months ago. The group's stated
policy was that "as abortion is murder, it is imperative that the mass
murder must be stopped by whatever means necessary." Hill, however,
previously stated that he did not feel that it was his place to use force.
That's about all I know at this point. Living on campus here, I'm in a
news vacuum most of the time. I only found out about this one because I
had mentioned that the Dr. Gunn killing had happened back home, and
someone noticed the newspaper headline and mentioned it in
passing conversation to me. (It was rather amusing, actually. The person
who told me didn't know where the killing had taken place. When he told
me I said "gee, I bet it's Pensacola. Prbably had something to do with the
that Paul Hill nut, too." Sho'nuff.)
zbadba
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Aug 3 02:58:04 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: health care
Date: Wed Aug 3 02:58:04 1994
Amen to that, my friend. V.A. hospitals are nothing but death houses.
And the quality or care SUX big time. There is a V.A. hospital about 50
miles from here. Dante's "Inferno" couldn't look that bad. It's pathetic
! If that is the example of the health care system the govt wants to
install, I'll move to Great Britain. At least they only require a six
month wait for an operation. (my wife is from G.B. and she told me what
health care is like over there.)
Fraternally yours,
robtelee
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Aug 3 03:00:30 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Ziggy@yabbs
Subject: re: abortion
Date: Wed Aug 3 03:00:30 1994
The doctor who was shot, was hit in the head, so the vest really didn't do
any good anyway...
From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug 3 11:27:44 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Aborting People
Date: Wed Aug 3 11:27:44 1994
Be careful not to paint the entire group as a bunch of radicals by the
actions of a few. Because they are rioting against Turkish guest workers
(and I mean they as neo-Nazi or xenophobic groups) in the East, it doesn't
make all Germans born again brown shirters.
-Patton
Patton knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...
From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug 3 11:37:20 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: Black Hole of VA care
Date: Wed Aug 3 11:37:20 1994
A somewhat interesting tidbit of U.K. health care. Seems as if there was
an attempt in the early '90s to outlaw the production of glass beer mugs.
What has this to do with health care and why did some M.P.s try to do away
with the weighty vessels? It costs the gov an extraordinary amount of
money dealing with the results of bar/pub brawls which the mugs were used
as a weapon. Because the system covers reconstructive surgery, many of
the poor lads and lasses had bills in many thousands of pounds. Because
of the cost, some MPs wanted to do away with glass mugs. Anyone else see
a connection to Congress and the regulation of nicotene considering the
amount of money that is spent in Medicaid and Medicare to deal with the
consequences of tobacco usage? I would like to hear your responses.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Badger01@yabbs Wed Aug 3 13:33:19 1994
From: Badger01@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Aborting People
Date: Wed Aug 3 13:33:19 1994
You've got a serious point there...There are people who are nonviolently
opposing Abortion in various ways, and I can deal with that...but I am
afraid for people I know who have made this hard choice. Let me tell you
an RI abortion story.
My Friend Nameless and I went to Planned Parenthood this week, becaus eshe
had decided, after realizing what an untenable situation she was in, that
she could not give birth. (I won't go into details...It's her decidion and
her reasons) We rode the bus up together...she doesn't show, and that
usually isn't a problem anyway.
We got outside the building in question...There was a two tier wave of
people, not a lot, maybe twenty of them. We got past the first wave with
minimal hassle (They screamed their usual "Don't kill your child"
stuff...how do they know it isn't an OBGYN appointment? They don't.) and
then, the second wave hit. Five men tried to block the door. People from
inside tried to move them back. One of the men put his hands on Nameless,
trying to stop her...I put my hands on him and used an old wrestling move
to put him on the ground. His buddy hit me in the face (Just above my
messed up eye, BTW...I don't know if he did any new damage.) and at that
point I lost it...to say I kicked his ass would be an insult to the
thourough job my boots did. In the end, we both went to jail for the
day...we both ended up getting released with no charges...and I feel
really, really angry about the whole thing.
What if he'd had a gun? He might have shot her, or me. I don't, know or
ever, advocate suppressing speech, but by God I won't lose someone dear to
me over something like that...and if I did, I don't know if I could let
the killer live, secure in his religous calling.
Badger01
From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug 3 16:33:44 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Badger01@yabbs
Subject: re: Aborting People
Date: Wed Aug 3 16:33:44 1994
No one should have to go through that.
-Patton
From robtelee@yabbs Thu Aug 4 07:41:12 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Care in the UK
Date: Thu Aug 4 07:41:12 1994
Another bit of information to digest. In the UK, the powers that be
refuse to perform transplant surgeries (heart, liver, etc.) on ppl who
smoke, drink etc. They deem it a lost cause so they will not do them.
Just thought you might find that little bit of information interesting.
Any comments on this ?
From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 4 08:15:10 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Care in the UK
Date: Thu Aug 4 08:15:10 1994
I heard that because resources are finite (as they are inevitable to
become in a bureaucracy) in the Swedish health care system, they refuse to
do major surgery and other radical procedures on those over a certain age.
I believe it was 62 or something in the neighborhood. If it is unjust
to perform procedures solely on the basis of the potential of payment (as
some say the U.S. system is run) is it any more just for a bureaucrat to
decide whether or not you will have a life-prolonging treatment?
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From robtelee@yabbs Fri Aug 5 03:08:27 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Care in the UK
Date: Fri Aug 5 03:08:27 1994
Sounds kind of like the govt deciding who should live or die based on the
ability to contribute to the society. Where have we heard that before ?
From Typhon@yabbs Fri Aug 5 10:05:01 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: The Draining of Life
Date: Fri Aug 5 10:05:01 1994
This nation, this culture, is designed, wether by accident or
deliberately, to inflict massive suffering and anguish on anyone unable to
lobotomize themself and drone along. I just got done talking to an
OBVIOUSLY intelligent person who had been beaten into near suicidal
depression, convinced HE was worthless, his IDEAS were worthless, and that
everybody but him had merit and that HE was the screwed up one. I myself
used to have similar thoughts, but it wasn't until I talked to him that I
saw how it worked...That our children's creativity and curiosity is
stifled, that their intellect is discouraged, and their joy in living is
RIPPED from them...That's why so many children are worse than
Animals...Because they have all hope torn from them in an attempt to make
more prodcut for the mills of apathy that drive this culture. (I DON'T SAY
THIS IS ONLY AN AMERICAN PROBLEM! It goes on in ALL nations that have
grown into these industrialized slimeholes...From Japan to Germany the
cracks in the facade are forming.)
Any culture that feeds on it's own young will die. It is an abbhorent
miscreation that MUST fall.
Typhon the Usurper
From Patton@yabbs Fri Aug 5 12:51:45 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: US Globalism
Date: Fri Aug 5 12:51:45 1994
I have seen the number of postings on this group diminish since the rise
of that upstart group
"Religion". This I do not like! For the faithful followers of this group
I say get writing. Since all available topics of conversation
have crawled away to some part of yabbsland to die a pitiful death, I
feel that one must be thrust into the fray (like a new Madonna video).
Candidate Clinto proposed to Americans back in the fall of '92 the notion
that the U.S. had labored long and hard to win the Cold War and now it was
time to take care of matters back at home. When naysayers questioned this
proposition, they were grouped under the heading "Cold Warrior" and were
openly scorned as outdated. There were those who came forth with real
questions about a possible President who refused to believe that the world
could get any worse in regards to stability and conflict than it was
during the time of the Soviet Union (Zbigniew Brzezinski being one of
them).
The world is now two years older and much more violent and unstable. The
reigns of power have been turned over to those who had once openly
condemned the use of violence for any reason and had even suggested that
having the strength to use force in the first place was inherently wrong.
It is these people who are sending U.S. troops to the far corners of the
planet to carry out missions of "Peace Making" and "Nation Building" under
the guises of humanitarian efforts. It is these people who are handing
over the conduct of our foreign policy to the United Nations. The
Secretary-General of the United Nations no longer asks for our assistance,
he demands our participation (at his bequest, using his rules).
Do you agree or disagree with what I have stated here? Tell me! Either
add some insights or try to punch holes in it.
-Patton
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
that men have died to win them"--FDR
From iggy@yabbs Fri Aug 5 13:51:32 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: Cold War
Date: Fri Aug 5 13:51:32 1994
The United States did not 'win' the cold war. The Soviet Empire collapsed
upon itself for it was based on the same premise which globalisation is.
When power is concentrated in the hands of a few at the expense of the
many, eventually such a system will fail.
Throughout human history many empires have come and gone. The length and
power of these empires is directly proportional to the elites control over
it's ability to convince it's population that their fight is the true GOOD
fight, by controlling the flow of information to it's population.
The less educated and those who conduct their personal affairs without
consciene and critical thought are doomed to be instruments of what are
basically selfish andtruely 'evil' institutions.
It is basically 'class warfare'. It is not by accident that the countries
where the division between the rich and poor is sharp are the most
unstable. Eventually the many, who are being ruled by the few, get pissed
off and 'throw the bums out'.
The rapidly disappearing middle clas in both Canada and the United States
worries the hell out of me. The capitalist system is not prepared to deal
with the masive de-industrialization that is currently taking place. With
millions unemployed and millions more joining the working poor I, and many
others view the future, not with fear, but certainly with apprehension.
By the way, just who are 'these people'?
From Patton@yabbs Fri Aug 5 16:56:20 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: Cold War
Date: Fri Aug 5 16:56:20 1994
Iggy-
Thanks for the spirited post!
As for the U.S. not winning the Cold War, this line of thinking is
currently en vogue among international relations revisionists. The fact
that has been revealed through the devulging of previously declassified
documents from the former Soviet Governement and the KGB is that the
United States was the victor in a global war of attrition. The failure of
the USSR to subvert the governments of the First World and to export the
revolution was a failure of titanic proportions (Kruschev proudly
proclaimed "Your grandchildren will live under Communism"). The failure
to bring about industrialization and the inability to produce consumer
goods to meet the needs of its people showed the people the internal
contradictions of the foundations of Communism. Let me rephrase that:
failure to industrialize beyond the capacity to produce at the level of
the West during the 1950s (and at a staggering cost to the environment).
The US led anti-Soviet global alliance system surrounded, contained, and
strangled the USSR to death through its resiliance and prosperity.
As for "Class Warfare" between the rich and poor states, you are right.
The tensions between the North and South are razor sharp, but because of
the disparity of power between the First and the Third (and Fourth and
Fifth) World, the only battle ground is in the U.N.
Capitalism is prepared for the post-industrialized First World.
Capitalism was originally described by Adam Smith to explain the market
forces in agriculture not industry (_Wealth of Nations_ published in
1776). Capitalism survived the coming of industrialization and it will
survive the move to an information/service economy because its basis in
reason and not idealism.
And I apologize for the amorphous "These People" Comment. It brings back
shades of Ross Perot speaking at the NAACP. Those I were referring to
were the Warren Christophers and the Madalen Albrights, the dovish,
globalist left-overs from the Carter Administration. Sorry about the lack
of clarity.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From icebox@yabbs Fri Aug 5 18:54:19 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: WHITE WATERGATE
Date: Fri Aug 5 18:54:19 1994
Watch C-SPAN or CNN for the latest developments.
I find 'em shocking!
ICEBOX / AK --------------------
From Natalie@yabbs Fri Aug 5 22:26:22 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: The Draining of Life
Date: Fri Aug 5 22:26:22 1994
the intellectuals are always the first to go. then the artists. blah.
it's like ppl don't want to be told what's wrong w/ their society, and
they don't want anyone to fix it...we're like the romans, merrily marching
to our doom...
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 6 00:03:02 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: NiN
Date: Sat Aug 6 00:03:02 1994
I was lucky enough to obtain tix for the Tower show (in Philly) a week
before school ended...the Sunday I came back I was out the door again
seeing the show!
But er...back to topic. :)
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 6 00:09:39 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: Germans...
Date: Sat Aug 6 00:09:39 1994
"...it doesn't make all Germans born-again brown shirters."
Problem is, it makes all the important Germans (i.e, the ones wielding
power: Kohl and his CDP bunch, and the police, who stand by idly watching
the violence) brown shirters. This, in essence, is a prerequisite of the
totalitarian State history is familiar with, so it's a good idea not to be
a spectator of just "the actions of a few."
Just a thought.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 6 00:14:36 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Care in the UK
Date: Sat Aug 6 00:14:36 1994
"Sounds like the govt deciding who should live or die based on the ability
to contribute to the society. Where have we heard that before?"
Lenin, Rand, Hitler. A few others, and in myriad countries holding
countless theories and philosophies about control of man. It's safe to
say that it is an old tune which power groups play, again and again.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 6 00:29:44 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: reason
Date: Sat Aug 6 00:29:44 1994
"Capitalism survived the coming of industrialization and it will survive
the move to an information/service economy because its basis in reason and
in idealism."
I have a couple of gripes with this statement.
Capitalism uses the abstract concept of money as its emblem. By creating
money, idealism is emblemized in worship of the dollar (or yen, or peso,
etc.). It becomes the cure-all which identifies (theoretically) "all that
is best within man."
Reason assumes a constant value system for every man, woman and child,
i.e. every man, woman and child senses reality in the same way and can
therefore use reason to increase wealth. This assumption is faulty, for
the simple reason that people do *not* experience reality in the same way,
and therefore a value system for society which assumes everyone "sees"
reality in the same way cannot work, regardless of whether it is called
"reason," or "vegetables," etc.
Therefore, a theory of laissez-faire capitalism based upon the concept of
"reason," automatically fails as a correct and self-sustaining behavior
control method.
Second point: Capitalism may survive the already entrenched
information/service economy, but a more pressing question is whether *we*
as a society will survive *it*. Anyone can sell widgets; the employee
becomes expendable/replaceable, and a society will not have much strength
on that basis.
X
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Aug 6 08:12:28 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill the stupid
Date: Sat Aug 6 08:12:28 1994
naaaaaah.....spelling isn't a major thing...it's GRAMMAR that's important
;)
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Sat Aug 6 08:16:13 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Canadian Witch Doctors
Date: Sat Aug 6 08:16:13 1994
don't forget the fact that that pharmaceutical companies also patent the
drugs do they're the only ones wo can make them, and the n charge
outrageously high proces for it. for instance, there's a drug out that'll
help control schizophrenia w/o a lot of the side effects that cause many
schizophrenics to stop taking their drugs. the company which makes it is
the only one, and no only do you have to pay a shitload of money for the
drug, you also hve to pay for a blood test every week (because some ppl
have a bad reaction to the drug). but the catch is you can only have the
blood test done by the pharmaceutical company, so they can totally jack up
the price...it's something like $3000 a week for this drug amd the
accompanying tests. and a lot of insurance companies WON'T pay for it. i
saw this on 60 minutes a few years back, and i can't really remember
anymore of the details...
natalie
From Typhon@yabbs Sat Aug 6 11:23:54 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill abortion docs
Date: Sat Aug 6 11:23:54 1994
>Let me ask U 1 question? If U could go back in time and kill
>Hitler, Stalin, or your favorite tyrant....
I've actually given this question serious consideration, alhough not in
relation to abortion....No, in the end I wouldn't, because I believe in
the chronal-chaos theory, where when I go back in time and open my Time
machine door, the 1 degree temperature change changes EVERYTHING so
drastically that I'm never born. (See Ray Bradbury's A SOUND OF THUNDER
for an example of this Time Travel Theory)
It's like this...I go back. The second I appear, I cahnge time (I wasn';t
there hiistorically) anything I do is a change that chanes other things,
which also change other things, the changes become exponential, so that if
I go to 1940, and then come back without even doing anything, all of the
history will be different, even if I did nothing to Directly alter it. (I
will come back to a world where we dropped the bomb on Russia....The
common world language will be franglais, and a US/Canadian Hegemony has a
dictatorial grip on the world, just becauseI read a paper in 1940.)
So no, I wouldn't, even if I had the opportunity..I live in a world where
those horrible events happened, and I don't want to NOT EVER HAVE
EXISTED...which could easily happen this way.
Typhon the Usurper
From Quetzal@yabbs Sat Aug 6 19:15:39 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Care in the UK
Date: Sat Aug 6 19:15:39 1994
As long as governments exist, man will always be a slave!
From Quetzal@yabbs Sat Aug 6 19:22:31 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Baker labs hates sheep
Date: Sat Aug 6 19:22:31 1994
Why would a scientist invent a virus an not have a cure to protect himself
from the disease... on the other hand why would he speak up, if he did
have a cure? I guess he/she is in a catch 22 situation. If he speaks up
men in dark sun glasses and bad suit would give him a visit!
I just answered my own question... I need to lighten up on the caffein.
From Quetzal@yabbs Sat Aug 6 19:25:05 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: 100% kill
Date: Sat Aug 6 19:25:05 1994
How did you come up with those stats? if humans reproduce at a faster rate
then some of us are sure to live
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 6 23:22:36 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Care in the UK
Date: Sat Aug 6 23:22:36 1994
"As long as governments exist, man will always be a slave!"
It is more accurate to say: "As long as reinforcers exist..." Such
reinforcers include the Almighty Dollar for Arachnoi, and the Almighty
Teacher for me; you just can't avoid 'e, they always put holes in
anarchist theory.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sun Aug 7 01:19:37 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Canadian Witch Doctors
Date: Sun Aug 7 01:19:37 1994
No more wonder drugs...
{Actually, antibiotics are quite cheap and easy to make...}
Assuming that antibiotics are wonder drugs, you then say:
{...with antibiotics, all diseases are being mutated into superbugs.}
So what's your point anyway?
X
From Xela@yabbs Sun Aug 7 01:25:01 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Baker labs hates sheep
Date: Sun Aug 7 01:25:01 1994
"Then wait till every1 dies and the virus dies out too.}
Simplistic assumption, and a dangerous one at that. Viruses lie on the
border on life/non-life because they are crystalline inert bodies until
activated by the host cell. Whether the host dies or not is irrelevant;
you must destroy the crystal virus to keep it from spreading. This
involves live humans handling bodies with risks of direct and indirect
contamination from remaining viruses on the corpses and their previous
remains (i.e. body fluids: phlegm, urine, etc.). There is more to
decontamination that a pigeon shoot courtesy of the Armed Forces of
America. ^
-- should say "than"
X
From Xela@yabbs Sun Aug 7 01:28:36 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: govts.
Date: Sun Aug 7 01:28:36 1994
"As long as govts. exist, man will always be a slave!"
Close enough, I guess. Just don't forget that other factors of reality
can be "governments," like money, for example, or one of your professors.
Read some behavior theory..Pavlov, Skinner. It's neet-o keen-o stuff.
X
From Xela@yabbs Sun Aug 7 01:30:33 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: wow
Date: Sun Aug 7 01:30:33 1994
I just answered a post twice. I humbly apologize. To everyone. I mean,
that is really embarassing.
:)
X
From Natalie@yabbs Sun Aug 7 02:18:26 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: wow
Date: Sun Aug 7 02:18:26 1994
goooooooood one, xelalex.....can you do it again? that was really
coooooooooooooooool...(and i wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't pointed
it out either)
natalie
From iggy@yabbs Sun Aug 7 22:49:10 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Cold War
Date: Sun Aug 7 22:49:10 1994
First off I must apologise for not responding earlier. I hacked a reply
late friday and the system crapped on me before it took. No matter though
Do not mistake me for a historical revisionist or a defender of the Soviet
Empire. From Stalin onwards, the USSR was a tyranical power which
practised state capitalismwhich concentrated the power and wealth in the
hands of a few. As with all structu which are based on gross inequalities,
eventually it collapeses/changes. The former USSR is still undergoing
massive changes, and let's all hope the transformation continues on
relatively peacefull.
Our society is not prepared for the change to the 'information' based
economy. The disappearance of well paying blue collar jobs is damaging to
the very underpinnings of Canadian and American ways of life. Not all
people have the skills, and never will, or the desire to deal in
information. And exactely what the hell is an information/service based
economy anyway? Who produces the TV's, Fridges, Cars, Couches, Lounge
chairs, carpets, etc, etc, etc that we all cherish? Historically (short
term) we have produced many of those items here. With the erasing of
economic borders, manufacturers can produce the goods where the labour is
dirt cheap and ship it back here for sale. The cost to us is the massive
loss of jobs. These pratices, coupled with automation, are issues that
have not been succesfully addressed yet in our economies. Look at the
trade imbalance and declining earning power . . . it is very concerning.
iggy
No Dove, or Liberal, shall ever Darken my Door.
From iggy@yabbs Sun Aug 7 23:03:43 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: U.S. Health Care
Date: Sun Aug 7 23:03:43 1994
If the United States has such a great health care system (I am by no means
agreeing with that) then why is the infant mortality rate the highest of
any industrialized nation?
The American health care system may be very good . . . for the very few
that can afford it. (Oh OK more than the few) The point is, how can any
nation 'founded under God' claim to be fair and just when it determines
the level of care received by a citizen based not on need, but on instead
on ability to pay?
An interesting observation: Confederation Life Assurance, which has
several hundred thousand policy holders in the US is on the verge of being
shut down. Why? Because they invested their money, great sums of it, in
Real Estate. As we all know, real estate has not been preforming very
well over the past several years. What is going to happen to all those
policy holders? And how much of your premiums go to pay, not for health
care, but to cover under preforming portfolios, advertising, legal fees,
salaries, bonuses, promotion, etc, etc. All of which have just so, so
much to do with health care.
hocus - pocus
(and some other mystic dribble)
iggy
it's still a Right! not a privelege.
From iggy@yabbs Sun Aug 7 23:10:58 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Kill abortion docs
Date: Sun Aug 7 23:10:58 1994
Ya, well Dr. Who does it all the time :)
From Natalie@yabbs Sun Aug 7 23:54:22 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: Cold War
Date: Sun Aug 7 23:54:22 1994
"No Dove, or Liberal, shall ever Darken my Door."
guess i won't be coming over for dinner then, eh?
natalie
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 8 16:54:44 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: capitalism
Date: Mon Aug 8 16:54:44 1994
Please read your Smith. I suggest it as reading for anyone who wishes to
look at the beginnings of the study of economics. Capitalism is too often
confused with consumerism.
-Patton
Patton knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men...
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 8 17:00:18 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Health Profits
Date: Mon Aug 8 17:00:18 1994
But without the lure of profits, there would be no motivation for the
research and development that sometimes runs into tens of millions of
dollars and many years to make the wonder drugs.
Congress can not just pass a law stating that the best minds in the field
of medicine will work below their market value and develop these products.
R&D will dissappear.
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 8 17:13:22 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: Economic Evolution
Date: Mon Aug 8 17:13:22 1994
No problem on the time problem Iggy, thanks for keeping up a conversation
as many here just fall into tangents or name calling.
Yes, there is an economic evolution facing the industrialized West. And
this evolution is painful...quite painful for some. Technological
transfers, rising levels of human capital around the world, and the rate
of technological change have all led to the rusting of both the US and
Canada. As I am more familiar with the situation in the US, I will give
examples. The steel industry in the U.S. has been decimated. Why?
Because the technology and the skill level of laborers has been mastered
and reached around the world. Steel is being produced by everyone from
India to Korea to Brazil. Low-tech and middle-tech products
(shipbuilding, linen manufacturing, TVs, VCRs, refridgerators, etc) have
all been dispersed around the globe as more and more states industrialize.
Times have changed and the laws of comparative advantage have overtaken
the West. The West will pursue an information/service based economy
because it relies upon the talent and brillance of its people and not the
sweat of their brows as manufacturing intensive economies do. This is not
meant to say that there is not brillance globally, but the skill level and
educational level of western workers will, over time, be shunted into
information and service industries. We will export these products while
buying our consumer goods from others.
It is sad and tragic to see the empty mills and factories of the "Rust
Belt", but they probably said the same thing when the sweat shop clothing
plants moved other lands to make room for the steel mills.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From iggy@yabbs Mon Aug 8 19:15:14 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Cold War
Date: Mon Aug 8 19:15:14 1994
uh, uh *stammer*
The Dove was Dove soap (I use Irsish Spring), and
the Liberal was referencing Canadian Liberals (Worse than the Rebulics of
Republicans).
?????? ya! that's it.
:)
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Aug 8 19:15:50 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Health Profits
Date: Mon Aug 8 19:15:50 1994
but there is no need for the companies to jack up the prices to the extent
that they do.
natalie
From iggy@yabbs Mon Aug 8 19:39:07 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Mon Aug 8 19:39:07 1994
I must disagree with your basic assertion that the reason that goods are
being produced oversea's is because their level of industrialization has
increased. It is only partially true. A soveriegn nation has the option
of disallowing sales of imported products, imposing tariffs are requiring
components to be manufactured in the said nation. Basically,
protectionism. The greatest benefactors of cheaply (not quality but human
cost) manufactured goods are the large multinationals.
There is no shame in making a living off of grunt work, the sweat of ones
brow. Indded, these are the people I am most concerned about for I do not
beleive that everyone can, or should be desk jockeys.
Here in Manitoba, the manufacturing sector has been totally decimated from
the effects of Free Trade. Average weekly earnings are down to wer they
where in 1987, and over 25% of the jobs in manufacturing have disappeared.
It is therefore not suprising to see our levels of personal and business
bankruptcies soar to record shattering levels in recent years. Every
sector of our economy is in the toilet and it is not a wonder when one
considers that many of the people who used to earn $14+ an hour are now
flipping burgers, driving cab or collecting welfare. Why? These are
people who have worked hard for most of their lives they deserve better.
I don't see the CEO's of Bombadier, POWER, Great West Life, CP, CN, or
others taking cuts in pay. In fact, they reap huge rewards for
'downsizing' their operations and moving components south of the border.
Damnit, if we're going to be a third world country I at least want the
weather. ;)
From pixy@yabbs Tue Aug 9 02:33:45 1994
From: pixy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Tue Aug 9 02:33:45 1994
You know, I think you're on to something about R&D--actually, you didn't
really say anything new, but you did get me thinking. You see, I think
there is a growing war between the Liberal and the Conservative, but not
along the lines that we use now. I mean in terms of change. We are in a
growing war between those who embrace change and those who abhorr it. The
problem is that few are totally on one side or the other.
To put in Hegelian terms, the technological dialectic is now moving at a
seemingly geometric rate. As we move ahead and the new technology begins
to affect us, we keep putting up roadblocks in the way of progress. I
personally think this is trecherous. Both left and right wingers figh
change for reasons such as support socialist ideals to just being afraid
of change.
Personally I think that if we'd sit back and encourage progress to move as
unhidered as humanly possible, most of our problems would find a way to
solve themselves.
pixy
From Patton@yabbs Tue Aug 9 11:41:20 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Tue Aug 9 11:41:20 1994
It is true that sovereign nations can disallow sales of imported products
by imposing quotas or tariffs so as to manufacture componets in the host
nation. But this has been shown to be the quickest recipe for disaster.
Import Substitution Industrialization has been shown to be a failure in
dozens of states around the globe. It is because it denies the market to
function properly.
Argentina in the 1950s was one of the wealthiest states in the world. It
had the second largest gold reserves globally and had one of the top 10
GNPs. After 30 years of ISI it is a Third World state. The tarriffs and
quotas kept out foreign products and the state heavilys subsidized sectors
of the economy to stimulate job creation and economic growth. All that it
accomplished was pouring funds down an endless black hole. The protected
sectors, because they didn't need to compete with anyone but themselves
(government mandated monopolies) there wasn't any care about quality of
innovation. They grew fat, bloated and lazy as they were lavished with
funds. Economic decisions became political decisions rife with cronyism
and mis-use.
One of the reasons Canadian heavy manufacturing is having a tough time is
because it didn't need to compete in the international marketplace. The
market rewards those who produce the best goods (highest quality for the
lowest price). Protected industries can do neither. So when the doors
come open, only the best products prevail (for those in the U.S. just
remember Detroit in the early '80s, the doors were falling off of GM cars
while the Japanese were producing cars at half the cost that stayed on the
road seemingly forever).
There is no shame in surviving off the sweat of one's brow, but it makes
better sense for a state to create better-paying light blue collar
jobsn it does to have its citizens work in dangerous, low paying fields
far off from the cutting edge of technology. It is better to control
one's economic fate than to live in the memories of one's former glories.
-Patton
The eternal moderate (bashed by both sides)
From Patton@yabbs Tue Aug 9 11:47:18 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: pixy@yabbs
Subject: Change
Date: Tue Aug 9 11:47:18 1994
Those in power inherently fear change because change can create a future
that finds them as dinosaurs.
I think a compelling feature is the government putting up serious
roadblocks in front of electronic communications of many sorts. The
government, cloaked by the shroud of national security, is seeking to make
the dissemination of electronic information harder and harder. As
technology pushed the envelope to opening up new frontiers that could lead
to a world envisioned by Sci-Fi novelists, the governement stands like a
dam holding back progress. Will the pressure of change be too great for
the regulatory arm of the governemnt? I hope not.
-Patton
"The more you try to tighten your grip, the more worlds will slip through
your fingers."
Leia to Darth Vader
From Zbadba@yabbs Tue Aug 9 23:55:19 1994
From: Zbadba@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: missing points
Date: Tue Aug 9 23:55:19 1994
A few random thoughts:
No, except in relatively rare cases, people in this country are not denied
critical care. Expensive, long-term treatments, yes. Preventative care,
yes. Critical care, no. Funny story: a few years back, I knew a student
who went to germany on an exchange. While he was there, he suddenly became
violently sick, and was taken to the hospital. Neither he nor his host
family paid anything. 2 Years later. A german exchange student in the same
program comes to the US. Gets very very ill, and is hospitalized. After
her treatment, however, the hospital *would not* release her until the
bill was paid by *someone*.
Therein lies the inner beauty of the US system. It's so friendly... :)
More babble:
arachnoi spends a lot of time slamming the canadian healthcare system for
not offering the gee-wiz starwars gizmos and wonderdrugs common to the US
system. Frankly, I think the canadian approach smarter: cost to benefit
ratios. People in this country are loathe (with good reason) to put a
price tag on human life, but it has to be done because resources are not
infinite. An incredible amount of resources is wasted in this country on
tests and the like. It is not cost effective to give everyone who comes
to their doctor with a migraine headache a CAT scan because "it might be a
tumor." Yet this happens a lot. Stupid. Yes, a few people will fall thru.
the cracks. But more people fall now because we pretend compromises don't
need to exist, so there are no compromises at all.
From Xela@yabbs Wed Aug 10 01:08:21 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: consumerism=totalitarianism
Date: Wed Aug 10 01:08:21 1994
"Capitalism is too often confused with consumerism."
Consumerism is the purely authoritarian development of a capitalist
society. Read 1984 and Brave New World. Read about the history of the
1980s and the coming to power/politics of Mr. Reagan.
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Aug 10 01:17:21 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Baker labs hates sheep
Date: Wed Aug 10 01:17:21 1994
"It's what is planned for the ppl inside these pigeon shoots that was the
point, and again u have missed it SKippy.}
Such insults, with little body too. You arputting shame to yourself,
spidey, I expected more from you after giving you a week or two to mature.
Maybe if your rhetoric was more clear and to the point (and using the
English language every now and then would be nice too) I wouldn't have
missed what you claim was your point.
If you paraphrase something, i.e Phase I of Whatever, you must be specific
and make clear distinctions, at least hinting at the existence of Phase
II. The only one at fault is yourself. The only apologies should be from
yourself.
But back to the topic...
X
From Xela@yabbs Wed Aug 10 01:29:56 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Canadian Witch Doctors
Date: Wed Aug 10 01:29:56 1994
"So what's your point anyway?"
{My point is blah blah...It just mutates the germs into drug resistance
superbugs.}
Resistant, not resistance. Think about your mistakes before you go around
calling me incompetent.
First off, I am a biology major at Johns Hopkins University, and
concurrent with my studies is a general awareness of the effects of drugs
on the body. I know that antibiotics promote the natural selection of
drug-resistant bacteria, by changing the environment in their favour.
You have completely missed the thrust of my question: I asked that, if you
claim antibiotics to be an American archetype of the "Wonder Drug," then
why, in the same breath, do you identify them as useless against some
resistant-strains of bacteria? Doesn't sound so "Wonder"-ful to me. In
fact, your paragraph was a contradiction in and of itself. Or will you
add more information you "forgot" last time, and claim that I
misunderstood you the first time around, as is your style?
Let me make it perfectly clear: You are not dealing with an idiot here.
You have every right to assume that, but to do so is at your own cost. I
will (and I have) read your posts word for word, and respond accordingly
to WHAT YOU WRITE THE FIRST TIME.
So what answer will you give me this time?
X
From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug 10 08:54:49 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Zbadba@yabbs
Subject: Cost to benefit
Date: Wed Aug 10 08:54:49 1994
Patton becomes very scared when people start to look to "cost to benefit
ratios" as a means of defining if a system is good or not. If the US
decides upon the Mitchell or Gephart (sp?) then the health care industry
will become under the auspices of the federal government complete with its
own budget and bureaucracy. All bureaucracies have limited budgets, thus
their resources must be portioned out on a priority system.
If health care eliminated the human factor and begins expending its
resources according to "benefits" a very black hole emerges. Who defines
which resources should go to whom. Bureaucrats will decide in what
priority care will be implemented. As in Sweden, will care be given to
"drains on the system"; ie, the old or infirm who may be reaching the last
10-20% of their lives? Just some thoughts to think about when you hand
over 1/8 of the US economy to faceless bureaucrats who owe their
accountability to no one.
As for the U.S. system spending too much money on tests, you're absolutely
right. The reason for this is malpractice lawsuits. If doctor A misses a
tumor in a patients brain due to the fact that doctor A didn't feel a CAT
scan was necessary, they're headed to court. Several million dollars
later and probably relocation to a different state, the seed has been
planted. The medical profession has been burned so many times that they
feel they must do tests to protect themselves.
-Patton
Patton knows what evils lurk in the hearts of bureaucrats...
From Patton@yabbs Wed Aug 10 08:55:31 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: consumerism=totalitarianism
Date: Wed Aug 10 08:55:31 1994
Please explain, I wasn't able to get the connection.
-Patton
From Quetzal@yabbs Wed Aug 10 13:59:19 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Canadian Witch Doctors
Date: Wed Aug 10 13:59:19 1994
Just a dumb thought... If human could make themselves cold blooded
like snakes, than Aids could be elimanated. bactaria can only
operat /live in a certain range of temp
Just a thought :)
P.s. excuse my typos
Q
From iggy@yabbs Wed Aug 10 19:27:52 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Wed Aug 10 19:27:52 1994
I must question your citation of Argentina as an economic failure due to
operating in a closed market. Many other factors come into play, military
influence, culture and world politics in general also influence the rise
and fall of all economic states.
The Japanese are an example of a nation that literally closed their
economy to the rest of the world after the second world war. They
restructured, planned and eventually expanded. I am not citing their
m del as an ideal, however, there are lessons to be learned through
Government, Labour and Business cooperating for the benefit of the nation
as a hole rather than acting in an adversarial (sp?) role.
Many monopolies are created by the private sector and are more parasitic
with less accountability than those created by any government. One does
not need a legal mandate to have a monopoly, market share and cartel
structures or as effective and even more damaging than government mandated
monopolies.
It may souns nice a clean to worship at the altar of the dollar and
slough off economic tradgedies as marketplace justice. However, people
contribute to the economic growth of a nation, they deserve to reap it's
rewards.
I examine with a very wary eye having the state create light blue colar
jobs. Job creation by a government for the sake of decreasing
unemployment is addictive to politicians for their short term gain. The
cost though, if those jobs do not have a net positive affect, is increased
borrowing. Under the current monetary structure of the Canadian economy
anyway, this leads to increased borrowing on the forgein exchanges which
is detrimental to the current and furture economic health of the nation.
Indeed, former glories are best left to the warm thoughts that are
stimulated in a bar after several beers.
The Capitalist system has brought us to our current state. How, can it
get provide for our future? It was the Right Wing in the US which tripled
the net accumlated debt from 1 trillion to over four trillion. It was the
Ring Wing Tories (now reduced to a pathetic 2 seats in Canada) which
devastated our economy. How can these champions of Free Trade and Free
Enterprise be held as models? Their tired od ideas have obviously been a
total failure.
Oh well, there is work to be done. Much work.
iggy
From iggy@yabbs Wed Aug 10 19:47:04 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Not Black and White
Date: Wed Aug 10 19:47:04 1994
I find it interesting that you blame Black people for dying. Claiming
that the infant mortality rate of the United States is because there are
alot of black people is really silly.
You are ignoring that other important state which is that most of the
stat^
deaths take place in the lower income groups. Which are Primarily,
although not exclusively black. Which makes my point! ie: People are
receiving substandard health care simply because they cannot afford it.
This is totally shamefull.
I am not a Democrat, never have have been, never will be. The closest we
have in Canada to the Democratic Party is th Liberal Party, and they are
far too right wing for me. I am slightly to the left of our NDP (New
Democratic Party no relationship to the Democrats) which was born from the
CCF and Labour in 1961. I am proud to say that it was the CCF/NDP which
first brought socialised medicine to Canada decades ago, and it is the NDP
which will make damn sure that it stays that way forever.
It it too bad that Allstate is having the same problems as Confederation
life. Thank you again for making my point. If those companies fail, who
will pick up the policy holders? . . . . . (hint: ask any Saving & Loans)
Would it not be much more efficient and simple to pay for the cost of just
Health Care instead of failed Insurance companies, lawyers, advertising,
promotion, profits, speculative ventures, etc, etc?
Which brings us to the final point. Which is yes, it is much simpler and
more efficient to reduce the costs of Health Care so we can afford it.
The best way to do this is to boot the insurance companies and private
health Care institutions (for they are the ones with the high overheads
that are not related to the level of Care one receives). By God, I think
you're beginning to see the light.
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 10 20:28:41 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Cost to benefit
Date: Wed Aug 10 20:28:41 1994
there's a really good article in the new "Discover" magazine about why
autopsies aren't done nearly as much as they used to be because the
doctors are scared that they may find another condition (which killed the
patient) that the patient was suffering from, in additio to the one that
they were being treated for...and that the families of these patients may
then sue the doctors for malpractice for not discovering this condition
before it killed the patient. i think we tend to forget that doctors are
only human too. many doctors are under a lot of stress and pressure, and
we still expect them to be right all the time. they are not God. we need
to remember that.
natalie
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 10 20:29:54 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Baker labs hates sheep
Date: Wed Aug 10 20:29:54 1994
oh please. that's fucking ridicuolus. if you're gonna tell xelalex that
he's stupid come up with a better reason for it than his nationality.
you've sunk to new levels, spider-boy.
natalie
From Xela@yabbs Thu Aug 11 01:40:57 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: consumerism=totalitarianism
Date: Thu Aug 11 01:40:57 1994
"please explain..."
Certainly. Use advertising/brainwashing to urge people to consume
product, make people dependent upon proprietary product, and then make
product quality shitty so that the product is replaced often. I can use
sneakers as a real life example, or tires, for instance.
Capitalism or communism, it doesn't matter as long as the populace is
consuming to keep capital in the hands of the powerful, i.e. the CEOs of a
capitalist nation, or the Ministers of a communist nation.
Consumerism is a auto-feeding process, diverting power into the hands of a
few at the expense of many. This is a pretty safe picture of what
authoritarian nations are.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Aug 11 01:45:06 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Baker labs hates sheep
Date: Thu Aug 11 01:45:06 1994
{Your being a Canadian now makes your stupid post make sense.}
Hmm. Sounds vaguely familiar, like when you called me an Anti-Semite; a
virtual copy of Hitler. As usual, more babble from your direction. Oh
well.
{Ever thought that if Phase II was the point I was making...}
As soon as you mentioned its existence I realized that you were covering
your ass. Make sense next time, stupid. And if you try to cover for your
mistakes and incoherence, at least use a little skill, for chrissakes.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Aug 11 01:54:48 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: nope
Date: Thu Aug 11 01:54:48 1994
{I agreed with you that in the future that "Wonder Drugs" would not be
available.}
Nope. You assumed that antibiotics were archetype examples of
capitalist-driven "Wonder Drugs." Which I disagree with, and for some
reason, you voiced later in the same paragraph that they weren't "Wonder
Drugs." You made no claim as to their availability.
You did, however, mention the future viability of their use in a realistic
fashion, i.e. that it has none.
There is a BIG distinction to make between those two statements you
claimed to make. And it is important as well, for those who would believe
I am only arguing semantics; it is the distinction between truth and lies,
lies of which you are, consciously or not, trying to promote.
I venture that the only reason you are lying about this is the same as the
last post: You are covering your ass again.
That represents a serious lack of intelligence on your part. After
debating with you this summer, I am seeing through your bullshit
"move-and-shuffle" tactics, and it is annoying to say the least.
Own up to what you said.
X
From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 11 09:37:44 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Thu Aug 11 09:37:44 1994
Iggy-
There are many more examples to draw upon to illustrate the idea that
import substitution industrialization is a failure. If not Argentian,
then we can always look at Mexico. Too much of a military influence
there, then we can always try India, the largest pluralistic democracy in
the world. Failed there too.
As for the case of the Japanese, they are an historical aberration. It is
true that they closed off large segments of their economy to foreign
imports after WWII. But they concentrated on Export Led Growth. The only
thing that saved Japan'
s industrial base was the Korean war. Japan was fast on its way to
becoming an agricultural based state when the U.S. converted the Japanese
economy to be a support system for US war material needs. A great source
on this was the autobiography put out by the head of Sony back in 89/90.
Another reason why the Japanese model is an aberration lie in the fact
that the US allowed Japan to be a free-rider on the international free
trade regime because of security interests. Japan was the far-eastern
barrier to Soviet expansionism. It was in the US's vital interest to
ensure that Japan could defend itself (we wrote their armed forces out of
existence with the MacCarthur Constitution). We allowed them to accrue
massive trade imbalances as a way of strengthening our flank. As with the
tensions seen recently, the absence of the Soviet threat has seriously
strained the bilateral US/Japanese economic relationship.
I don't see the private sector being less accountable than government. In
fact, the private sector is accountable to government! It is taxed,
overseen, and regulated to a large extent. The days of free-wheeling
enterprise are long gone. Government supervises everything from zoning
restrictions on where you wish to start your business, the flow of your
goods if they cross state lines, and the amount of profit you are allowed
to keep (capital gains taxes here in the U.S.). Also included is how you
get rid of your waste products (if any) and the hiring practices you
employ. In short government tells you where you can work, whom you can
hire, and the return on your investment you can receive. The private
sector also has the bottom line; profit. If people refuse to buy their
products or services, it goes under. No government has a bottom line.
As for Right Wingers in the White House bloating the budget in the US you
are not entirely correct. The current stream of thought in revisionist
Economics Departments throughout US universities and colleges is that the
ReaganBush era was a time of Republicans slopping at the trough at the
expense of the federal deficit. Reagan and Bush spent not one dollar of
US taxpayer money! Only the Congress of the United States has the power
of the purse. Republicans never controlled the House of REpresentatives
during their stay in office. They only controlled the Senate for 2 years.
It was the democratically controlled Congress that lavished enough pork on
the budget to make it the most slippery mess in the history of the US.
But this is for another discussion at another time.....
The U.S. has never been totally laissez-faire economically. And the
"tired old ideas" which you speak of have never been tried in their pure
form. They have always been half measures or misunderstood, bastardized
mixed ideas. I quote from the mouth of the Supply Side President himself,
Ronald REagan,
"I am now a Keynsian" - Ronald Reagan 1986.
-Patton
Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
that men have died to win them.
From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 11 09:42:35 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Cost to benefit
Date: Thu Aug 11 09:42:35 1994
Wow, sounds like killing the messenger when he brings bad news, doesn't
it? I remember back a few years ago that the State of Minnesota (or maybe
it was Wisconsin) wanted to clamp down on excessive lawsuits against
doctors to keep down the price of medical care. The state gov made all
participating doctors employees of the state by having them perform
something like 10 hours a week of free medical care for patients under
Medicaid or MediCare. Because they were employees of the state, there was
a ceiling on the amount of money they could be sued for under a
malpractice lawsuit. I never found out how successful this was, or if it
stood up to Constitutionality arguments. If anyone knows how it came out,
I would love to know.
-patton
From Typhon@yabbs Thu Aug 11 13:08:36 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Drugs in the water
Date: Thu Aug 11 13:08:36 1994
Well, this board is so hot from all the flames that I thought I'd go off
in a new direction and see what happens...
Remember how when some guy'd go nuts and he'd blame it on mind control
drugs in th water? Well, it turns out that the flouride bleaching
compounsds in most resivoir systems now have an affect on us...Tumors.
That's right..Tumors. They cause us to get HUGE tumors in our heads.
Typhon the Usurper
BTW: I WAS KIDDING! It'S A JOKE!
From iggy@yabbs Thu Aug 11 20:19:49 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Thu Aug 11 20:19:49 1994
Wow! These messages are growing faster than a Conservative Deficit.
Serious length in the last one.
My point about Argentina in the last message was that there are many
factors that go into the making of a healthy economy. India, Japan and
Mexico all have differing cultures and histories and if we deal with each
of them on an individual basis we'll need several more message bases.
However, what is clear about Japan is that they have a strong
manufacturing base which is what we are losing - for whatever reason.
Government vs Private Sector:
I am not going to feel sorry the multi nationals in the 'Private Sector'.
It is this concentrated free flow of capital which is posing the threat to
our life style. This myth about Big Government hassling business is way
out of control. I'm going to have to repeat myself here but; In the late
'40s business contributed much more to tax collections than they do today.
Roughly 50%. The balance was made up through personal tax collections.
Today (as of 1991 or 92) business contributes less than 10%. After fifty
years of Liberal/Conservative governments, business is getting a near free
ride. This is NOT including the incentives, grants and interest free
loans receive by the so called 'Private Sector'.
In fact; it is business which controls government. Look at the lobbyists,
political contributions, and influence peddling. Most politicians today
don't retire on their pensions, they retire to the Board of Directors for
some multi-national corporation. Is this because they (the politician)
was so efficient at running things while they where in office? They did
such a good job while they where there? . . . if so. . . for whom?
And Thank God for some guidelines on employment standards. Thousands of
people gave their lives for these standards and millions more die, or damn
near die, trying to ome to our countries each year for those very same
standards, or in their own lands fighting for some standards. Yup, the
people of Bohpal where really ashamed of themselves for having such strict
standards on Union Carbide.
I'm sorry about the Regan deficit thing. You see, to me Democrats and
Republicans are one in the same. Kind of like Canadian Liberals and
Conservatives, same animal. However, I always thought that 'The Buck
Stops Here' was the motto of American Presidents. Too Much Hollywood
influence maybe.
"Give me Liberty or Give me away . . ."
- some really confused house pet
iggy
From iggy@yabbs Thu Aug 11 20:25:29 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Drugs in the water
Date: Thu Aug 11 20:25:29 1994
Well actually Typhoon you're right about the flouride in the water causing
people to go crazy (and have large tumors in their heads).
It's about the only way to explain retro fashion and Woodstock II.
From Pele@yabbs Thu Aug 11 21:34:09 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Drugs in the water
Date: Thu Aug 11 21:34:09 1994
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!
That's the most intriguing thought I've heard on this base all day! :)
-Pele-
From Pele@yabbs Thu Aug 11 21:34:53 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: typhon@yabbs
Subject: woops
Date: Thu Aug 11 21:34:53 1994
Make that...the most important thought I've read on this base all day. :)
From Xela@yabbs Thu Aug 11 23:44:14 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Quetzal@yabbs
Subject: cold-blooded
Date: Thu Aug 11 23:44:14 1994
Bacteria can form spores, resistant to environmental stresses such as
cold, heat, humidity, etc... As soon as humans moved into a warm
environment (room temp.) the bacteria would once again thrive.
Besides, AIDS is a virus, and not a form of bacteria. Virii lie on the
border of life/non-life because of their peculiar ability to reproduce
while maintaining a purely crystalline inert form outside the host cell.
To kill virii using a temperature shock would mean putting the host
(human) to the same temp. shock. And such methods would involve intense
heat to lyse the protein coat. There are chemical methods (often
poisonous to both host and paarasite), but since you mentioned temperature
I only discussed this area.
X
From BLynch@yabbs Fri Aug 12 04:44:43 1994
From: BLynch@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Drugs in the water
Date: Fri Aug 12 04:44:43 1994
you've been reading alt.conspiracy again, haven't you? later.
From Typhon@yabbs Fri Aug 12 08:49:44 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: cold-blooded
Date: Fri Aug 12 08:49:44 1994
Actually, what makes a Virsu truly unique (And there are both
Bacteriological Viral strains and others) is it's ability to Usurp the DNA
processes of the cells to produce more of itself.
Typhon the Viral
From Patton@yabbs Fri Aug 12 08:50:03 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Fri Aug 12 08:50:03 1994
Well the Economic Evolution discussions come to an end. Thanks for riding
out the length of the posts, since I have done work on these subject areas
in the past. And thanks for not flaming me along the way, I appreciate
that very much.
My final premise is that import substitution industrialization has failed.
This is why we havhave seen a global revolution take place towards market
economics. Whether this trend will continue will have to be seen....
As for politicians not retiring on their pension, take a seat for a
moment. I just got the statsistics yesterday for the United States
SEnate's pension fund. If you are a US Senator and have been in office
more than two terms, you are guaranteed over $1,200,000 dollars in your
pension fund. The heinous part is that they have only put in less than
10% of that amount through their retirement plan. It would be like paying
half of your social security taxes but receiving five times the amount
when you retire. Bonanza heaven!
Sen Simpson (R, WY) and Sen Kerrey (D, NE) are currently pushing for
revisions in this attrocity. I hope they succeed.
-Patton
Live Free or Die!
From Pinochet@yabbs Fri Aug 12 09:13:08 1994
From: Pinochet@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: Fluoride
Date: Fri Aug 12 09:13:08 1994
Quotes from the utmost authority on Fluoridation by Colonel Jack D.
Ripper, USAir Force.
"Do you know when they started to put fluoride in the water, Mandrake?
1946. How does that sound for your post-war Commie conspiracy?"
"I first became aware of this during the physical act of love. I
correctly interpreted the feelings of fatigue and emptiness as the loss of
essence. Women know this and seek my power. I do not avoid women,
Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence."
"Do you know there are plans underway to fluoridate ice cream. Ice cream.
Children's ice cream, Mandrake!!!!"
I hope this sheds some light on the debate. I may have missed a word or
two in the quotes, but I don't think Colonel Ripper would mind. All
quotes from _Dr. Strangelove the movie
From iggy@yabbs Fri Aug 12 12:32:50 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Fri Aug 12 12:32:50 1994
Enjoyable conversation. Flaming is for imputent (sp?) children and
flammable substances, preferably mixed :)
In a system where 'he (she) who has the most toy's when he dies wins' is
seemingly the motto, most politicians (and Executives) are not satisfied
with a modest(?) retirement plan. Point being; Politicians mainly take
their payoffs now when they are out of office in the form of 'legitimate'
appointments. Plus whatever amount they can suck out of our wallets.
- 'he who has the most toys when he dies . . . still dies'
iggy
From robtelee@yabbs Fri Aug 12 19:48:37 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Economic Evolution
Date: Fri Aug 12 19:48:37 1994
But if memory serves me correctly, there have been NO instances where
either the House or Senate has voted to cut ANY of their benefits.
Introducing the legislation is one thing, getting it passed is quite
another. It may be just another election year ploy.
Your ob'dnt sv'nt
robtelee
From Quetzal@yabbs Sat Aug 13 12:56:42 1994
From: Quetzal@yabbs
To: Pinochet@yabbs
Subject: re: Fluoride
Date: Sat Aug 13 12:56:42 1994
These conspiracy theories sound like something Mother would say int the
movie Sneakers. :)
From iggy@yabbs Sat Aug 13 13:37:32 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: re: Blk, Wht, Brn, pink & Grn
Date: Sat Aug 13 13:37:32 1994
Focusing on the problems of a particular group is indeed not silly.
However, your original post made no mention of their economic status, only
their race.
Our Health Care system is not in any financial difficulty. An interesting
story I will relate to you. Here in Manitoba the Conservative government
tried to play on the myth of their fiscal responsibility by declaring it
was time to 'reform' our Health Care System. They went out and hired an
American Health Care Consultant who proclaimed that she would save our
system $50 to $60 million. At the time we (in the Wingy Left) pointe out
that her track recor of savings came primarily from cuts to
Administration and frills in the American System. Such methods would not
be successfull here for our system is already more efficient. Well, the
study was done and the reports came in and sure enough the total cuts to
the system where $6 million (not $60 million) an her fee (which the stupid
Tories paid) was $5.2 million. Plus, there is question as to whether the
cuts that where made where previously planned anyway.
Please. We do not 'ration' Health Care here based on age or
survivability. We all pay for it. This is the difference between the
systems. You're always going on about paying for those who don't pay.
Well, in our system, we all pay. The poor pay through their taxes and the
rich pay through their taxes. But we all pay. It's much more equitable
that way.
I don't know if our system would work in the US. The Canadian head set is
different than the American. This is not a knock . . . or a boast. It's
just an observation.
Oh, as a side note. Confederation Life went under officially yesterday.
See if you can notice what happens to some of their policy holders.
Remember, they got into trouble, not due to Health Care costs, but because
they were over exposed in commercial real estate. What will happen to
people who have paid into policies for 'x' number of years? Will they get
picked up by another company, or has their age made more
expense/difficult/impossible?
iggy
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 13 13:48:20 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: hullo beep
Date: Sat Aug 13 13:48:20 1994
{"Wonder Drugs" will not be available in the future because they won't
work anymore!}
1. Assuming that antibiotics are "Wonder Drugs,"
Then your sentence makes sense. But espousing penicillin and its ilk as
"Wonder Drugs," create under market forces (as you claimed back in the
first few posts) ^-d , is a dangerously false claim. Simply
because they will not work. Now for some reason, which you haven't
explained yet, you wrote that antibiotics were wonder drugs then said they
will have no use in the future. You provided a sound, sientific reason
why they won't work. What escapes me is how that begins to help your
argument; you presented a contradiction and asked me to accept both
points.
Your debating skills leave a little something to be desired. I don't
agree with much of what Rand says, but she does say that to completely
understand the full literal meaning of a sentence, read each word for what
it means. I've been trying that with all your posts, and I still can't
dissolve through all the meaningless sidetrack crap, all the innuendo and
assumations, and all the inherent contractions in the main points of your
arguments.
You prove any hypothesis you have with assumations and unquoted "facts."
Not a good way to go, beep.
X
From laelth@yabbs Sat Aug 13 23:47:45 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: Pension Fund
Date: Sat Aug 13 23:47:45 1994
Frankly, I'm glad that we take care of our politicians after their
retirement. In fact, I think that we ought to pay them more while they're
in office. Think about it. If we paid them five or ten million dollars a
year then they might not have to sell their influence to get reelected and
keep their jobs. When it costs anywhere from two to fifteen million
dollars to run for office who are we to be surprized when our politicians
are corrupt? Personally, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of politicians
selling their votes to the rich. Right now they have no other choice.
The rich and the businesses are the people who have the money, and the
politicians need lots of money to get in and stay in office. So, who ends
up running the country? The rich people and the businesses, of course,
insted of "We the people."
Hey, if baseball players and corporate executives can earn millions of
dollars, then why shouldn't we give good money to the people who are
running the country?
Awaiting the inevitable "I'll tell you why ..."
-laelth
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Aug 15 02:21:26 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Mon Aug 15 02:21:26 1994
In message Pension Fund, laelth said:
> Frankly, I'm glad that we take care of our politicians after their
> retirement. In fact, I think that we ought to pay them more while they're
> in office. Think about it. If we paid them five or ten million dollars a
> year then they might not have to sell their influence to get reelected and
> keep their jobs.
*applause* Thank God someone said it. Shit, and we wonder why lobbyists
run the damned country. Besides, all these expense cuts are getting
ridiculous. What next? I personally don't want to see my Senator pick up
foriegn delegates in a Yugo :)
> Hey, if baseball players and corporate executives can earn millions of
> dollars, then why shouldn't we give good money to the people who are
> running the country?
Well, salary does reflect relative importance. Let's read the paper,
shall we?
war
war
death
murder
pay offs
ooooh...Hey, the Braves are going to the series
Come on people, let's get the priorities straight for Chrissakes!
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 15 13:34:40 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: US Congress
Date: Mon Aug 15 13:34:40 1994
I have to respectfully disagree about the level of care we give our
elected represenatives at the national level. You can't look solely at
salary to measure what they are pulling in. Under the current laws they
can hide the equivalent of an income 5 times larger than what is shown.
How? Let's say I was running for US House of Representatives from the 5th
district of Pennsylvania. I could write off the maintenance of an RV as
an election expense (transportation). I could write off with rent of
living in my lakeside luxury condo (courtesy of my rich backers from my
venture fund that was "unaffiliated" with the official campaign *ahem*).
Entertainment is totally covered by my campaign fund. Support
organization (State Party, local and county party boards) pick up the
check for all my rallies, mailings, and travel. This even applies when I
am in
Congress! Sounds unbelievable, it's not. There are a few honest
Congressmen left, but they are rare.
I have to fall back on Founder's intent of what they wanted our federal
legislature to be. They wanted non-professional politicians who were
citizens first. Citizens who knew what the value of a dollar was.
Citizens who did what was needed for the national good first, their
re-election bid second. And on the subject of re-election, they did not
believe in professional, career legislators. Ever since the rise of
Federal power in teh 20th century, people have been elected to Congress
and stayed for the rest of their professional lives. Claude Pepper,
Rostenkowski, Edward Kennedy, Mitchell (GOP leader in the House) are just
a few examples. They are far from career, enlightened civil servants.
They are all career politicians bent only on building their kingdoms and
following their own agendas.
The U.S. has developed a class of pompous, spoiled, pork barreling,
self-serving technocrats who feel themselves to be above the contempt of
their constituents. This goes for the vast majority of both sides of the
political spectrum.
I apologize in advance for the ranting.
-Patton
Death to Pork Slingers!
From robtelee@yabbs Mon Aug 15 13:38:54 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Mon Aug 15 13:38:54 1994
I may have missed the intent of laelth's post, but I detected the strong
smell of sarcasm there. However, if I am incorrect, please accept my most
humble apologies.
*waiting for the flames with an flameproof suit*
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt,
robtelee
From robtelee@yabbs Mon Aug 15 13:46:28 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: US Congress
Date: Mon Aug 15 13:46:28 1994
But the defense to your argument is that without these professional
politicians, Congress would not work. The line of reasoning is is that
the professionals know how to deal with the industrial giants and how to
deal with each other. They know their constituencies and know what is
good for them. The professionals know what is needed in their states and
districts. Therefore, they are better able to serve the "people".
The politicians would ask if the "people" want amateurs "working" for
their interests in Washington or would we want the politicians who know
all the ins and outs of Washington.
I await your reply.
I remain,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From maedhros@yabbs Mon Aug 15 15:32:16 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Mon Aug 15 15:32:16 1994
In message re: Pension Fund, robtelee said:
> I may have missed the intent of laelth's post, but I detected the strong
> smell of sarcasm there. However, if I am incorrect, please accept my most
> humble apologies.
Sarcasm? Me or Laelth?
Actually I was quite sincere, as I believe Laelth was as well. We've
argued this thread before. While we've agreed on the basic ideas of his
post, I've extended the concept a bit more radically (and, if I remember
correctly, me and Laelth differ a bit on this). I firmly believe that we
could cut the throats of lobbyist simply by increasing politicians
salaries with something a bit more commensurate for high profile
executives (entertainers for that matter). Salary should reflect
importance, and it galls me to think we place more value on sports than we
do running our country. It's pathetic, and it makes us look like the
idiots a vast portion of our country represents.
Where me and Laelth differ, once again if I remember correctly, is that I
think more money should be spent on glitz as well. Hell, you want to make
us look powerful enough so piss-ant third world countries won't want to
tangle with us, throw some money at our image. A show of money tends to
make people look more imposing and untouchable. Personally, I think it's
a show of power (an information age flex of muscles if you will).
Stomp loudly and carry an enormous stick.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Typhon@yabbs Mon Aug 15 19:24:25 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: The Great Game
Date: Mon Aug 15 19:24:25 1994
As I read in a novel recently:
"If you can hkeep your sanity when all the worlds gone mad around you, you
are a better man than I Gunga Din!"
"That's not how that poem goes..."
Amatuers over Pro's every day. Amateurs are ENTHUSIATIC whereas it's just
a JOB to pros. I'd like to have Irv Shmedel, Pig Farmer, as president.
He'd do a great job, and nobody could snipe at him, because he'd say
something like..."Well, I AM just a pig farmer."
Typhon the Usurper
From Xela@yabbs Tue Aug 16 01:36:54 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Tue Aug 16 01:36:54 1994
"Salary should reflect importance."
Hopefully you're only talking about politicians, because I know that
garbage men are important, and they take in nowhere near as much as a
politician.
X
From htoaster@yabbs Tue Aug 16 11:25:11 1994
From: htoaster@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Tue Aug 16 11:25:11 1994
In message re: Pension Fund, Xela said:
> "Salary should reflect importance."
>
> Hopefully you're only talking about politicians, because I know that
> garbage men are important, and they take in nowhere near as much as a
> politician.
and teachers are probably the most important right now, and they probably
make pretty much close to the least of any job that requires a college
education...
alex
From Patton@yabbs Tue Aug 16 11:37:20 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: US Congress
Date: Tue Aug 16 11:37:20 1994
You have a right to be confused by my post. In my tirade of vehement
disgust, I was spinning more tangents than a weaver.
My main point was that while the politicians like to pass themselves off
as being both 1
)one of the people bent on fighting the beast which is Washington to help
the interest of the common man and 2)the "good man" wheeler-dealer capable
of supporting life, liberty, happiness, and pork projects from here to
eternity. Hypocrisy through and through. The number one job of
Congressmen is re-election plain and simple. It starts day one and
doesn't stop until they retire or become part of the 5% or so that don't
get re-elected.
They don't know how to deal with PACs and SIGs, the whore out to them.
Because their constituencies care for nothing more than the pork they
ladle, individual votes on key issues (foreign policy, taxes, regulation)
are hidden.
On the subject of founders intent and a non-professional legislator class,
I was probably too vague. They believed in successful citizens
(businessmen, artisans, etc) leaving their jobs and duties and sacrificing
their time and talent to provide quality, responsible leadership in
Congress. After the New Deal and the subsequent shift in power to the
nation's capitol, legislators came to serve, but never went home. They
built their own kingdoms and wielded ever increasing powers to further
their personal agendas. Just look at the record of the Pork King himself,
Mr. Rostenkowski. He looked after his constituents well...lock, stock and
pork barrel.
-Patton
Patton knows what evil lurks in the heart of Rostenkowski...
From Xela@yabbs Tue Aug 16 23:54:19 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Tue Aug 16 23:54:19 1994
Got that right, man.
X
From robtelee@yabbs Wed Aug 17 00:45:00 1994
From: robtelee@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: US Congress
Date: Wed Aug 17 00:45:00 1994
I agree with the premise you have. I was merely being the Devil's
advocate in order to sharpen your argument. And you have done that quite
well thank you.
My personal favorite target is the "Honorable" Ted Kennedy and his ilk.
They have no inkling of what it takes to make a living while trying to
support a family. Their idea of "good government" is to throw enough
money at a problem and it will go away, and guaranteeing their re-election
by building constituencies that count on the monies sent down from on
high (Washington D.C.) This is the only way that they can guarantee their
perpetuation of power.
As I may have explained before, my idea of government is that of the
Jeffersonian model. Very little, if any, interference in individual lives
by the Federal Government. The states would be responsible for the
well-being of the citizenry. The legislators would not be a "profession",
but would be, as you said, responsive to the needs of the ordinary man.
The Democratic party put forth this system of govt up until the elections
of the late 1920's and 1930's. The actual change came with the electon of
Harding and continues to this period. Calvin Coolidge actually expressed
this sentiment when he stated that "the business of America is business."
As always, your comments are welcome.
I remain,
Your Obd'nt Sv'nt
robtelee
From laelth@yabbs Wed Aug 17 01:11:51 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: US Congress
Date: Wed Aug 17 01:11:51 1994
I can see in your position a deep-seeded respect for the ideals upon
which this nation was founded, and an appreciation for the point of
view of of our founders. I can respect that, in a certain context.
But I'm a tinkerer, and a pragmatist. When our system isn't working, I
could care less about the intent of our founders. I just want to make the
system work, and right now the system isn't working. If our politicians
were "non-professional," that is, if they did not depend on politics for
their livelihood, then most of them would starve. Consider all the
congerssmen, senators, governors, mayors, state congressmen, state
senators, city councilmen, etc. that are necessary to make this country
work. There aren't enough rich people (people who could afford to run for
office, and support their families without job-related income) to fill all
these positions, and even if there were, that wouldn't give us a very
democratic society. It would be government of the rich, for the rich, and
by the rich. That may be what our founders intended, but is that what we
want? It's not what I want.
As for pork, pork is a direct result of the current system. Politicians
who get financial support from PACs and wealthy individuals must "pay
back" the PACs and the wealthy people that put them into office. That's
what pork is; it's payback for financial favors. So my position is, take
away the NEED for payback, by taking away the influence of the PACs and
all the other entities that fund political campaigns. If we pay our
elected officials well, then they won't NEED to pay back their financial
supporters because they won't NEED so much financial support.
-laelth
From maedhros@yabbs Wed Aug 17 15:01:00 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: htoaster@yabbs
Subject: re: Pension Fund
Date: Wed Aug 17 15:01:00 1994
In message re: Pension Fund, htoaster said:
> In message re: Pension Fund, Xela said:
> > "Salary should reflect importance."
> >
> > Hopefully you're only talking about politicians, because I know that
> > garbage men are important, and they take in nowhere near as much as a
> > politician.
Well, they might be important, but they have no special skills which make
them invaluable. Anything that's replacable without a thought is hardly
important. BTW, they're overpaid and underworked. Yes, I've worked the
job before.
> and teachers are probably the most important right now, and they probably
> make pretty much close to the least of any job that requires a college
> education...
Here, here...and we wonder why our educational system sucks. We keep
saying "throw more money at the school" and they get a new chem. lab. Too
bad we didn't throw any to the teachers. What kind of message does the
public ed. system say to graduating students? Give us your best and your
brightest and we'll starve 'em to death.
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \
From Typhon@yabbs Wed Aug 17 19:35:48 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: maedhros@yabbs
Subject: Capitalistic stuff...
Date: Wed Aug 17 19:35:48 1994
I aimed this at you because I respect you more as an argumentative sort...
Is iot fair that in the "Free" Russia of today, a Neurosurgeon makes
1/100th of a Prostitute? Is it fair that because of a computer glitch, in
1987 we were within 2 1/2 minutes of annihilation, and nobody cares? What
is capitol-based culture doing to the world? Will it eventually drive us
all mad?
Typhon the Already There
From maedhros@yabbs Thu Aug 18 00:10:56 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: re: Capitalistic stuff...
Date: Thu Aug 18 00:10:56 1994
In message Capitalistic stuff..., Typhon said:
> I aimed this at you because I respect you more as an argumentative sort...
*grin* Consider the bait taken...
> Is it fair that in the "Free" Russia of today, a Neurosurgeon makes
> 1/100th of a Prostitute?
Well, there's two factors to consider here:
1. Russia's in a state of transition and the economy's starving. Nobody
is going to be making near there worth until their economy's straightened
out. The people simply don't have the money to spend.
2. The prostitutes in Russia do not make their living from local John's.
They cater to Western Europeans and Americans primarily. As such, their
economic welfare is independant from Russia's economy. It relies, rather,
on the economies of the nations they "service" :)
I think when the economy starts recovering you'll see this disparity
gradualy decrease.
> Is it fair that because of a computer glitch, in
> 1987 we were within 2 1/2 minutes of annihilation, and nobody cares?
Is it fair that it almost happened? Well, probably no. However, fair
isn't really a term which applies to the situation. It's not fair that I
went to the beach last weekend and it rained. Some things just happen.
Is it fair that nobody cares? Yes. Have you ever tried to sit down for a
whole day and consciously worry about the planet? It'll drive you to
insanity. To live a productive life, it s sometimes necessary to ignore
the awful things which you can't control. It's a survival instinct. It's
kind of like thinking about death. If you did it too long, you wouldn't
be able to get anything done. What would be the point? Similarly, if you
dwell on the odds of something catastrophic happenning (what with all the
weapons of the world in all those insane hands) you'll see there's a good
chance you won't wake up tomorrow. Then what's the point of going to
work? It might be your last day on the planet.
> What is capitol-based culture doing to the world?
It's still evolving, it's hard to tell. However, you must remember that
our world has always been based on capitalism of one form or another all
the way back to the hunters and gatherers who bartered. We've had bad
times before. Maybe we're just having a bad humanity century :)
> Will it eventually drive us all mad?
It depends on your concept of mad. I already consider myself and most
people I know to be quite mad. I lock myself in a room all day with
blinds because I don't like sunlight, the out doors or the color green in
general. Yet, I spend the whole day firing electrons around the globe.
Quite mad, if you ask me.
Maedhros the Mad
/\
/--\
/ \
From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 18 08:34:11 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: robtelee@yabbs
Subject: re: US Congress
Date: Thu Aug 18 08:34:11 1994
robtelee--
You are among the millions who find the personage of one Senator Edward
"Teddy" Kennedy to be vile and despicable.
Like the other Kennedy's, he grew up in an environment of extreme
privaledge. His father's wealth and political connections paved a very
smooth road to the best private schools and eventually into politics. But
as soon as he reached DC, he became less of a champion of the common man
and more of a Lord of the Manor. He sits upon the Hill holding reign over
his subjects (the constituencies who elect him) and wielding power without
checks to its usage. He gives them sustanence to appease them (pork
projects) not because of a feeling of compassion or paternalism, but as a
sign of the master/serf relationship. He "gives" them back their own tax
dollars by the grace of his being.
All Mr. Kennedy has ever known or done has been in government. He is far
removed from the social and economic realities of every day life. He has
built one of the most powerful kingdoms ever known to Congress and sits
like an unenlightened despot wielding his influence and believing himself
to be above the contempt of his constituents. And all along he claims to
be the "good man". He is worthy of the loathing he receives.
Teddy would like to be included in the history books as an equal to Thomas
Jefferson. I've read Thomas Jefferson. I've studied Thomas Jefferson.
You, Mr. Kennedy, are no Thomas Jefferson.
-Patton
Patton knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the Kennedy's
From Patton@yabbs Thu Aug 18 08:50:26 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: laelth@yabbs
Subject: re: US Congress
Date: Thu Aug 18 08:50:26 1994
I have thought long and hard on this subject. You raise _very_ good
points about the current system.
1)politicians couldn't survive without government.
Since we were discussing the Federal government, I'll stick with that
at the moment. I have no pity in my heart to the fact that politicians
could not find gainful employment outside of government. It is not the
duty of US taxpayers to subsidize a class of people to the tune of
millions of dollars a year because they possess no skills other than
knowing "Robert's Rules of Order" and being able to dole out political
leverage. If this priviledged class is so out of touch with the rest of
society that they couldn't get a job, then they should pack it up and wait
for extinction to come around.
2)not enough rich people to run for office
The beauty of the current system is that you don't have to be rich to
run for Congress! Only things you need to do are to get your party's
nomination (sell out what you believe in to tow the party line) and line
up your backers to payroll you (PACs, SIGs, wealthy individuals). Even
wealthy individuals who run for Congress rarely spend nickel one of their
own money. The exeptions come when the candidate is a challenger or
without a party (but then again, these people lose 95% of the time).
3)Pork is political payoffs for financial help
You're right. The special interests use their medium of power
(economic) in return for the Congressman's medium of power (political).
Whores, all of 'em.
Since this is running long, I will finish it tomorrow.
-Patton
From iggy@yabbs Thu Aug 18 22:51:17 1994
From: iggy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Cuba
Date: Thu Aug 18 22:51:17 1994
What is it with Bill Clinton?
His crime bill got shot to bits. His Health Care Plan is flatlinging.
Now, when he has the chance to something right, he is copping out.
Instead of just containing Cubans on the shorline and shipping them back
to Cuba, he should seaize the chicken by the horns and open trade with
Cuba.
The US is signing Free Trade Agreements North and South, why not at least
lift the economic embargo on Cuba?
Sure there would political flack, but at least he would be showing some
backbone, AND be doing the right thing.
iggy
. . . Needing a really good cigar ;)
From icebox@yabbs Sat Aug 20 15:01:00 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: re: Cuba
Date: Sat Aug 20 15:01:00 1994
You do have a serious point. To conclude, other areas around the
United States deserve some attention. I thought this country was
based on peace and prosperity? I am very concerned about the
political turmoil that's tearing this country apart. If anyone
would like to hear my opinions, let me know!
From icebox@yabbs Sat Aug 20 15:03:27 1994
From: icebox@yabbs
To: iggy@yabbs
Subject: re: Cuba
Date: Sat Aug 20 15:03:27 1994
He needs help. Aren't WE the PEOPLE of the United States? We are
part of a working unity that has brought about change for the
rest of the civilised world! Therefore, we must try to do something,
right?
Your Buddy,
Icebox
From Natalie@yabbs Sun Aug 21 00:13:48 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: icebox@yabbs
Subject: re: Cuba
Date: Sun Aug 21 00:13:48 1994
blah. leave other countries alone and concentrate on improving our
country. haven't we caused enough trouble in south and central america as
it is? we don't have the right to tell other people how to run their
countries. we don't know what's best for ourselves, much less other
nations...and while imperialism isn't a word used much anymore, that's
what the united states is, a nation of imperialists, bent on making the
rest of the world just like us. and i don't want to live in a world where
everything is a strip mall.
natalie
From Patton@yabbs Mon Aug 22 07:56:05 1994
From: Patton@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: Imperialism
Date: Mon Aug 22 07:56:05 1994
|The United States is a powerful nation with interests in the world. If
it refuses to accept the responsibilities that arise with global power
then the world would be inherently more unstable.
To retreat into a shell of isolationism would give incentives for
agression around the world. We must never repeat the mistakes of the
1930s.
-Patton
Chamberlain was a weenie!
From Natalie@yabbs Mon Aug 22 08:05:40 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: re: Imperialism
Date: Mon Aug 22 08:05:40 1994
but we have no business telling other people how to run their countries.
i'm sorry, but i'm a little sick and tired of the Unites States acting
like the world's policeman...a role we gave to ourselves, not one that
that rest ofthe world asked us to do.
natalie
From Egwene@yabbs Tue Aug 23 00:53:14 1994
From: Egwene@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Imperialism
Date: Tue Aug 23 00:53:14 1994
Actually they whine no matter what we do...If we police they whine cause
were screwing around with their country and if we don't police then they
whine because we're allowing another country to screw around with them.
From laelth@yabbs Tue Aug 23 01:51:11 1994
From: laelth@yabbs
To: Patton@yabbs
Subject: The Kennedy's
Date: Tue Aug 23 01:51:11 1994
In message 1590 Patton writes:
Patton knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the Kennedy's
Pray, tell. To what evil are you referring? What evil plot has the
Kennedy family contrived for the destruction of our nation? What are you
talking about?
-laelth
Laelth knows rhetorical "bull" when he hears it.
From Jazzy@yabbs Tue Aug 23 09:14:50 1994
From: Jazzy@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: read /i roth
Date: Tue Aug 23 09:14:50 1994
From Typhon@yabbs Thu Aug 25 10:28:25 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Lateration nation
Date: Thu Aug 25 10:28:25 1994
Since this little piece of Anarchy may be gone, I smell the Gov....at any
rate, here's me:
Matthew W Rossi III
93 Franklin Street
Apt# 3e
Bristol, RI, 02809
mr.9767@acc.rwu.edu
Keep in touch...Later, Xela, Nat, Arachnoi, Laeth, Maedros, Patton, And of
course John Boy. And to everyone I forgot...Feel free to mail me and kill
me.
Typhon the Abtruse
From acegtomc@yabbs Fri Aug 26 11:35:31 1994
From: acegtomc@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: boogers on my windshield. .
Date: Fri Aug 26 11:35:31 1994
have you ever been in a situation whence you can no longer see due to the
amount of boogers on the windshield? i have, and let me tell you its not
fun, carening all over the road just because you didn't think to install
those pesky little things commonly known as wipers. Not to mention how
the boogers got there in the first place. . .all your drunk friends
hanging around until three in the afternoon, picking their noses and
wiping their boogers on your car. . .and they drank all your beer!!! what
hosers. at any rate (you want baby. . .But thats another. .
.nevermind)you end up haulin down the freeway at ninty miles and hour and
you can't freakin' see!!! what a hassle. . .or. . .am i the only person
this has ever happened to? oops. . .oh well. . .bye. themc
From Xela@yabbs Sat Aug 27 03:18:01 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: well...
Date: Sat Aug 27 03:18:01 1994
Seems the show is on its last legs, with yabbs coming down and all...
Just wanted to say goodbye and thanks to the following, should they ever
read this:
Natalie, I'll never forget the monkey balls discussion...
Arachnoi, stop assuming about your opponent's habits and behaviours...
GPF, just for being the Taco God
Cosmos, don't lose your attitude dude, and keep listening to old
Genesis... :)
Cat, I promise to send you a letter soon...
Htoaster, again, thanks for the space and freedom to voice my
opinions...
Keep up the Struggle, Brothers and Sisters... :)
Anarchy forever!!
X
From Pele@yabbs Sun Aug 28 04:07:25 1994
From: Pele@yabbs
To: acegtomc@yabbs
Subject: re: boogers on my windshield. .
Date: Sun Aug 28 04:07:25 1994
Uhhhh..thanx for sharing...
From Xela@yabbs Wed Aug 31 15:31:51 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: laser
Date: Wed Aug 31 15:31:51 1994
ANYONE with ANY plans, theory, parts list for the construction of a (at
least, minimum) quarter watt, 220V, 7A laser....
please send info to: chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
If you feel you need financial compensation for your hard work, let me
know and we can make a deal...
ALSO....Everyone with access to an account, send good, cheerful, and
encouraging mail to TVNATN@AOL.COM. NBC might not put them (TV Nation)
back on this fall, so any fan mail helps.
Until Yabbs II comes around...
Adios,
X
From Natalie@yabbs Wed Aug 31 19:10:19 1994
From: Natalie@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: laser
Date: Wed Aug 31 19:10:19 1994
uh, xelalex...if i may ask, what are you planning to do with thislaser
once you get it built? nothing heinous, i hope...
natalie
From Typhon@yabbs Thu Sep 1 10:47:25 1994
From: Typhon@yabbs
To: Xela@yabbs
Subject: re: laser
Date: Thu Sep 1 10:47:25 1994
There's a fascinating book I have at home...I'll go dig it up..It tells
you how to construct any type of laser you want, from Communications grade
up...I got it from my junior high library and have had it ever since.
I'll post it tomorrow.
Typhon
From Xela@yabbs Thu Sep 1 23:40:50 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: laser
Date: Thu Sep 1 23:40:50 1994
I want to melt stuff, like eyeballs.
Well, I really want to do some holography before I sell it to a dj who
wants a cheap laser for some light fx.
X
From Xela@yabbs Thu Sep 1 23:42:32 1994
From: Xela@yabbs
To: Typhon@yabbs
Subject: man...
Date: Thu Sep 1 23:42:32 1994
anything you can help me with I would deeply appreciate... please feel
free to email me at chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu and we can arrange a
transfer...
again, thank you....
X
From maedhros@yabbs Fri Sep 2 04:56:17 1994
From: maedhros@yabbs
To: all@yabbs
Subject: Adios
Date: Fri Sep 2 04:56:17 1994
Well , it's been fun all. Carry on and feel free to write...
Maedhros /\
/--\
/ \ madstu@sun.cc.westga.edu
Later,
Mark
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink