Memorabilia Info
date 1989
description Archive of messages from the "Bee Hive Debate Team" subboard, for May through July 1989, in which I take alarmingly authoritarian positions while honing my "priggish snotty authoritarian" persona.
size 251282
filename bee hive debate team.txt
handle Professor What
Content-Type application/x-csv
category email/messages
Back to list of memorabilia


Msg# 294/485 [reply of 293]  Definition
  From: Tas                  To: Gandalf
  Posted on 5/03/89 5:59 pm

     Thanks a lot Gandalf! :)

[R]eply [A]gain [Q]uit [X]press:x Ctrl-S stops/starts, [space] skips message Use Ctrl-X to abort Xpress mode

Msg# 295/485 [reply of 281]  Marijuana Legalization
  From: Rampage              To: Tas
  Posted on 5/03/89 6:59 pm

    Do you think that government     controlled drug usage would be plausible?  People get to go to a neat little club, and kick the shit out of their bodies, and possibly even each other in little buildings, that would allow ANY drugs to be used.  This would help the government find out who is addicted, and could help them to get these people back on their feet.  The rough part about this would be getting everyone to go.  I explained this worse than I have ever explained anything in my life...  I'll clarify later...

                                   Romp "the weary"

Msg# 296/485 [reply of 283]  Definition squabbles
  From: Rampage              To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/03/89 7:01 pm

    Shit, that's even worse, Prof.  I don't mean to be an asshole, but at times I cannot help it :D  ANYTHING that I take in will effect me.  By your definition, froot loops is a drug.

                                  Romp the picky

Msg# 297/485 [reply of 287]  Solution
  From: Rampage              To: Tas
  Posted on 5/03/89 7:06 pm

    Tas, if we do NOT make those drug illegal, we  are just fucking up our own country.  Those two drugs survive for one reason: demand.  The problem with this is the fact that the demand is not the kind of demand that should be listened to.  The demand is one of addiction.  By keeping these drugs legal, we are killing ourselves.  In 50% of the accidents in the US that result in death, alcohol is involved.


Msg# 298/485 [reply of 290]  Solution
  From: Rampage              To: Ja-va Man
  Posted on 5/03/89 7:09 pm

     Java, it has nothing to do with the USE of alcohol and cigarettes, it has to do only with the addiction to nicotine and alcohol.  The two, by law, should be banned.  We cannot let those two drugs be legal much longer.  If we do, we will die the early death as many other "perfect" countries have...


Msg# 299/485 [reply of 291]  Definition squabbles
  From: Rampage              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/03/89 7:12 pm


     You have arrived!!  Warning:  These arguements are much too structured for a Club graduate.  I am having trouble writing messages without yelling and bitching, and offering physical threats, but what the hell, it's a place to write while the new club is still in the VERY early stages...  

                 Ta Ta!        Rampage

Msg# 300/485 [reply of 295]  Marijuana Legalization
  From: Tas                  To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/03/89 10:20 pm

     Er, Romp, I better wait for you to clarify that, I got slightly hopelessly lost...
                                                            -tired Tazzz

Msg# 301/485 [reply of 297]  Solution
  From: Tas                  To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/03/89 10:28 pm

     Firstly, alcohol and nicitene (ack, I need a dictionary..) do not just exist for demand, tho that is an important part of it. What would happen to the American economy if these drugs were delegalized? Tobacco is one of the most produced plants by American farmers today, and there are manye, many, breweries that would go out of business without being able to mkae alcohol. I think that together with the demand of thew consumer, and the need for it by the country, alcohol and nicitene cannot be made illegal. We saw what happened in Prohobition, with crime going up an incredible amount (mostly smugilling and the like) so, I ask you again, what makes you think it will work now? I am sorta beginning to understand your first message, so I'll wait to say more.
                                                      -the little fuzzy guy

Msg# 302/485 [reply of 297]  Solution
  From: Galvatron            To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/03/89 11:45 pm


   What do you mean, we are killing ourselves?   Here Here, over in holland, dope is legal, and, it dont seem to be screwing things up over there..

  Lets think of this for a moment, if we made alcohol illegal, what would people do on the weekends for fun?  Hmmm?  Make cakes?  Ooo..


Msg# 303/485 [reply of 301]  Solution
  From: Galvatron            To: Tas
  Posted on 5/03/89 11:49 pm

  I agree here with Tas, I smoke, I see nothing wrong with it, I try and stay away from the "non-smokers" whenever I smoke..  The only people who want to ban smokes is the non smokers.  And, I for one, really think it sucks.. 


Msg# 304/485 [reply of 299]  Definition squabbles
  From: The Leviathan        To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/04/89 1:32 am

Hello, Romp...

Indeed, I arrive.  I understand your problem re: attempting social interplay sans outrageous behavioral swings, insultious commentary, vile mud-slinging, and salatious slander - you have always been prone to such odious outbursts, abet still reasonably lovable, in a scruffy, look-what-followed-me-home-and- peed-upon-the-floor, Mom!  type way......

I (on the other hand) never stoop to using anything other than crisp logic, gentle, wise wisdom, and a deep and abiding love & concern for my fellow beings sensibilities & feelings as debate tools.. obviously, I shall fit in well, here among my dignified & ever-so-intellectual peers on the illustrious BeeHive debate board.
 The Leviathan Truly impressed with lemminglike opinion Lane Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 305/485 [reply of 301]  Solution
  From: Rampage              To: Tas
  Posted on 5/04/89 5:15 pm

    Ummm, Tas?  Why don't you stop assuming things, ok?  I have told you that the reason that they exist is due to demand.  Let me ask you one question.  Do you go out to buy cigarettes so that our American farmers can keep making money?  FUCK NO!  The reason that it is a big industry is due to the fact that there is such a large demand.  I cannot tell you how stupid that statement was. I never said anything about abolishing drugs being easy, plausible, or anything.  I simply said that it must be done, or our country will go to shit.


Msg# 306/485 [reply of 302]  Solution
  From: Rampage              To: Galvatron
  Posted on 5/04/89 5:19 pm

     That was not my intent.  What I meant was that by having ANY drugs legal, that we are a parody in ourselves.  We screw our own government over.  As for the legalization of marijuana.  No way in hell that I want that to happen. Just because I drink Pepsi, doesn't mean that my kid should be able to fuck up his body.  The arguement: He does it, though.  is the stupidest thing that I can think of. 

    Weekends?  Cake...  nonono..  how about going running?  or maybe programming?   I know this sounds stupid, but how many intoxicated Japenese are there???  


Msg# 307/485 [reply of 303]  Solution
  From: Rampage              To: Galvatron
  Posted on 5/04/89 5:22 pm

    What does smoking do for you?    Does it fulfill your life?  Do you like that little extra kick when you're at work?

    How long can you hold your breath?  Are you in good physical shape?  What extra money do you receive because you are a smoker?  How many years will smoking add to your life?  Can you stop smoking whenever you feel like it?


Msg# 308/485 [reply of 304]  Definition squabbles
  From: Rampage              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/04/89 5:26 pm

   Good one Leviathan!  

   Sure thing, you shall fit in fine, as long as you retain using your ever so wonderful logic, and ocassional cut downs.  By the way, your ever so loved adversary, Monty Python, has an acct. here.  

      Now I can wait for some really interesting debates, and watch the would-be debate leaders become overrun by graduates of "The Club."


Msg# 309/485 [reply of 305]  Solution
  From: Tas                  To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/04/89 5:44 pm

   Let me clarify. Tobacco is the largest agricultule export of this country (or it was a while ago..). Thats outside demand, so they exist for demand, but then, most things do.

Msg# 310/485 [reply of 308]  Definition squabbles
  From: Tas                  To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/04/89 5:47 pm

    Monty dies have an acocunt here, but alas, has no modem, so Levia, Romp, and others, don't expect him to come flying into this argument...

Msg# 311/485  Prohibition
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 5/04/89 6:40 pm

You people all watch too many movies about Prohibition.
 Prohibition WORKED. The reason it was repealed was NOT for crime reasons. Congressional representatives working to have it repealed were much more concerned with the economic impact it had; remember, Prohibiton began during a period of prosperity, and ended during a pretty nasty depression.

The only reason Congressmen gave for repealing prohibition (this is in their arguments on the floor) was for those economic reasons. 

The point of this much-needed history lesson? Legalizing any drug will make it increase in popularity. Delegalizing any drug will make it lose popularity, even though it will not completely stamp out usage.

Msg# 312/485 [reply of 302]  Solution
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Galvatron
  Posted on 5/04/89 8:45 pm

Alcohol consumption is not necessary to have a good time.  At most times, I do not touch it, but at some occasions, I will not put it down.  But the point is in the first sentence.

Msg# 313/485 [reply of 303]  Solution
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Galvatron
  Posted on 5/04/89 8:48 pm

Both of my parents used to smoke, and now my father has quit.  I do not enjoy smelling cigarette smoke, and do not understand why others do, other than the fact that said people are addicted to the things.  But since when have your rights been able to infringe upon my rights?  If I want to breathe clean air, void of cigarette smoke , then I should be able to do it.  If you enjoy killing yourself, do it by yourself in private.

Msg# 314/485 [reply of 306]  Solution
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/04/89 8:51 pm

Ramp, some drugs must be legal, and such a drug as caffeine I would not be happy to be outlawed. Not only is it senseless, but it will make a lot of soda drinkers and chocolate eaters mad.   

Msg# 315/485 [reply of 294]  Definition
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Tas
  Posted on 5/04/89 9:07 pm

oops.. I guess I was thinkin of tylenol and codiene #3..
                                                             Z. damn what a stupid message.. now the Hives gonna give me more asshole points for leaving a short one in its place  :P

Msg# 316/485 [reply of 306]  Solution
  From: Mystul               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/04/89 9:36 pm

Chances are someone has already said this between messages 306 and 315, but alcoholism is as much of a problem, if not more of one, in Japan.  Perhaps you should get your facts straight, Romp...

Alcohol and tobacco are too ingrained into our society for any ban to be effective, accepted, or useful.  It would be (bad analogy, but who cares) like trying to ban cars in favor of mass transportation.  It may sound better, but the people are too used to the status quo to go for it.

                                        -=[> Mystul <]=-

Msg# 317/485 [reply of 309]  Solution
  From: Thorin               To: Tas
  Posted on 5/04/89 10:11 pm

I'm no authority on the subject, but I find it very hard to believe that tobacco is the the largest agricultural export of our country.


Msg# 318/485  Going to shit?
  From: Ja-va Man            To: Ramp & Prof
  Posted on 5/05/89 1:17 am

Prof, of COURSE alchohol use went down during prohibition.  Did you think that they wrote the law to make alchohol use go up?  Think about it.  If a person is a law abiding citizen and takes pride in that (there are still a few of them left), he's going to stop using alchohol if the government says so.  I DOUBT he's going to appreciate that governmental control, but he will probably play along.  All these people alone would drop the alchohol consumption, as the law was meant to do.  Secondly, I would not put all my trust in whatever statistics you have from that time.  Would you admit to breaking the law on some survey? Third, the demand for alchohol was always still there, so yes, perhaps the government realized that it'd probably make the country some more money to legalize it & let them at least get their taxes on the illegal cash flow. However, the government had no right delegalizing alchohol to begin with.  It was in the interest of only a few people, supposedly for the health of the nation.  However, when most of the politicians of the time probably didn't care for or were neutral about the drinking law, then hell, make it legal again. Reap the profits.

Romp, >Our country will go to shit unless we stop smoking & alchohol consumptionIS< better" Man

Msg# 319/485  Prohibition
  From: Thomas Covenant      To: Whomever
  Posted on 5/05/89 4:41 am

   Prohibition didn't make it go down a whole lot though...  On the contrary, it made more people who didn't drink want to. Just because it was an illegal, dangerous thing to do..  When it was over it took the fun out of it.  
   If you want to see a funny movie about prohibition, rent Izzy and Moe.. Not horrendously factual, but a good movie.
    -Thomas  Covenant

Msg# 320/485 [reply of 318]  History of Tobacco
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Ja-va Man
  Posted on 5/05/89 10:10 pm

Uh JaVa, tobacco has not been around since the beginning of time. It is a new world plant, and has spread to the rest of the world only since the sixteenth century. Cigarettes, which are highly addictive because of the speed of delivery and high dose of nicotine they deliver as compared to say pipes, cigars, or snuff, have been around only for the last hundred years or so.. Unfortunately, it is not just a matter of what people do to themselves..Addiction is associated with behaviors that are destructive not only to the individual, but to the society he lives in.

Msg# 321/485 [reply of 306]  Ahh.
  From: Galvatron            To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/06/89 2:17 am

  I see..  Running? Programming? On the weekends?  Methinks yer' nuts..


Msg# 322/485 [reply of 307]  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
  From: Galvatron            To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/06/89 2:19 am

  What does it do for me?  Well, it's refreshing.. Thats all I need..

I donno how long I can hold my breath, I've never tryed..  Yah, I'm in perfect shape..(Define THAT)..  I need not worry about the cash..  I've never tryed to quit.  Does this help? (Hahahahahahahaa)


Msg# 323/485 [reply of 313]  I see.
  From: Galvatron            To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 5/06/89 2:22 am


Msg# 324/485  urgh
  From: Professor What       To: Ja-Va Man et al
  Posted on 5/06/89 7:52 am

hmmm...first I get, "Prohibition did NOT WORK! People just drank illegally!". Now, I get, "of COURSE alcohol use went down during the depression!". You people are easy to convince!
 "Smoking relieves stress and nerves temporarily"

Completely false. Smoke makes the body release adrenaline, which CAUSES nervousness. THe soothing effect is completely psychosomatic; the smoker is doing something they enjoy, and they feel calmed because of that.
 Do you do any research whatsoever, Java, or do you just crank out incoherent gibberish at 1:17 am?

Msg# 325/485 [reply of 324]  Physical addiction
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/06/89 9:53 am

Prof, smoking does relieve stress temporarily.. the stress of withdrawel. A smoker NEEDS a nicotine fix, or his body starts complaining. It is a physical not psycosomatic effect. This is not to say there are none..

Msg# 326/485 [reply of 309]  hehehe
  From: Rampage              To: Tas
  Posted on 5/06/89 1:45 pm

    Tobacco is definitely NOT our chief export, chum.  WE smoke most of it ourselves.  In  what year was it our largest chief export, and where do you get your information?  The demand is not of people outside the US, but people IN the friggin US.  Smoking is TERRIBLE for the body.  I hope that you know what you're talking about in terms of statistics here, because you do not seem to.


Msg# 327/485 [reply of 314]  the point is
  From: Rampage              To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 5/06/89 1:49 pm

   The reason that we must ban all of these drugs, is that we are wasting ourselves away.  I am VERY PROBABLY addicted to caffeine.  I have tried to stop drinking pop, and I have found that I cannot.  Almost all drugs are very powerful, and most are harmful.  Chocolate, as I know it, has no drugs in it.


Msg# 328/485 [reply of 316]  surrender!!!
  From: Rampage              To: Mystul
  Posted on 5/06/89 1:54 pm

     So why not give up on our country?  right?  isn't that what you're saying?
 Our country sucks, so  hmmm...  ummm...  I know!  Let's make marijuana legal, so that EVERYONE can kill their brain cells!!  YAY!!   What an idea!!!  Let mew
 ask you this:  Does Japan have problems keeping it's people fed?  Is Japan stupid enough to give military aid to another country to whom it owes money? hell no!  Japan can afford to get drunk a LOT, Mystul.  We have got to fix things here, and one good start is by making it harder to fuck up.


Msg# 329/485 [reply of 318]  look deeper
  From: Rampage              To: Ja-va Man
  Posted on 5/06/89 2:02 pm

    If you would like to examine this problem further, maybe you would understand what I mean.  Many countries, as they become richer, tend to allow citizens to indulge themselves.  Do you need to drink alcohol?  no.  Do you need to smoke cigarettes?  no.  Countries DO fail because of alcohol.  Drunken emporers do not do a hell of a lot of good for a country.  Smoking is in the same boat with drinking.  I would like to make the two illegal.  Drunkeness does not help the family business.  ONe thing that is not good about these drugs is the fact that they make out laws inconsistent.  We do not allow mood altering drugs to be sold....  other than these few.  That is not right.  I am two jumbled to write any more, so I will finish this later...


Msg# 330/485  COCO
  From: Malcolm              To: All
  Posted on 5/06/89 3:58 pm
 Here's the story folks.  Fashon is impractical, unfunctional, unusefull, and extremely, extremely limiting.  The only possible use I see of this fashon business is fitting in to whatever croud you feel you must and trying to impress people with how COCO COOL you are.  If anyone, anyone COCO can argue this pleeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaase do so. I truely feel sory for people who realy are a slave to fashon.  They must, absolutely have to do what is Vogue ALL the time, no matter what the sacrafice. If they are in to computers, they must buy not the computer that does what computers are designed to do, but the computer that looks good.  They must eat Vogue foods, no matter how bad for there bodies.  They must wear cloths that cost a good deal of money all the time and therfore must pamper their cloths. The nolonger make the decisions in thir lives, they can't.  EVERYTHING THEY DO MUST BE IN!  They are zombies without lives. Here is your, yes your first lesen COCO.  In this lesen you will, if ther is hope, learn to be a little more of, here it is, INDIVIDUAL.  Say it with me a few times.  Individual, Individual, Individual.  See, the last one didn't heart that much.  I asume you are femal, I don't know your age.  You seem like Junior High as far as fashon goes (Does everybody have the Junior High Girl picture in your head) but you are a bit to mature for that.  I won't guess, but your first lesen should be to wear cloths that don't match somewhere where your peers will see you.  If you actually dare to attempt this, you will find that you have lost a lot and feel alone because your friends are avoiding you.  Do you know why this is.  It is because your friends were friends with your cloths.... You yourself as an individual person have no friends, but your cloths demand the respect of others whos cloths are trying to get ahead too.  If you manage your way through this and don't endup hopelessly insane get back to me and we will have a second leson.  Otherwise buy a designer straingtjacket before you are carted away.
     Don't get me wrong.  Fashon is (ouch) a important part of life when the individual is in control.  Fashon can impress a future employer, can help boost self confidence, and better your self estime.  However, when fashon nolonger is your tool, but you are its, you loose so much of what you really are that you really are a zombie without a life.

(I know there are a lot of mispellings and a few typos, my appologies)


Msg# 331/485 [reply of 330]  Ack..
  From: Thanatos             To: Malcolm
  Posted on 5/06/89 5:23 pm

Not to mention, the fashion discussion is more or less on the Bullshit Board


Msg# 332/485 [reply of 317]  Thats what I get for posting
  From: Tas                  To: Thorin
  Posted on 5/06/89 8:00 pm

     when I'm dead tired. Ok, here goes, for those of you who hadn't figured that what I said was false (maybe one or two of the feeble-minded..), IT WAS! Ok, what I MEANT to say  was that tobacco, is currently ONE OF thre most produced agricultural products, and was, for a time, the single largest product of are farmers. It still is one of the most important crops for the farmer.  
           done. And for now on, I don't post after 9:00 


Msg# 333/485 [reply of 330]  Drugs as Fasion
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Malcolm
  Posted on 5/07/89 1:25 pm

Right Right! but on the wrong board!

Msg# 334/485  Fashion
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 5/07/89 6:42 pm

Be it far from me to repress a discussion on my own board, but, arguments and discussions that have their roots in certain Republican-controlled Bullshit Boards are usually better off staying where they came from. Thank you.

Msg# 335/485  propaganda overload
  From: mellow               To: all
  Posted on 5/07/89 9:56 pm

 dudes, you can debate the utility of anti-drug laws as you wish, but i as an individual will not allow the government to put laws on my body.
 in other words, fuck off.

Msg# 336/485 [reply of 327]  more bs
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/08/89 6:14 am

Yeah, I am nearly addicted to caffeine, probably.  I do not view that as a terribly harmful drug, as long as I do not take 10 vivarin at a time   And, I do believe Chocolate has caffeine in it, I'll check on it today.

Msg# 337/485 [reply of 334]  Oof...
  From: Thanatos             To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/08/89 8:19 am

Low blow, Prof, VERY low blow... expect retaliation.... ...


Msg# 338/485  Drug use vs Drug selling
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/08/89 3:55 pm

mellow, who said anything about outlawing USE?
 We're talking about outlawing the selling of it. That doesn't have anything to do with your body.

Msg# 339/485 [reply of 335]  mellow
  From: Rampage              To: mellow
  Posted on 5/08/89 6:15 pm

    The country doesn't need you to tell it to go to hell, it will sned you there first.    You can take your body and put it in a country tha t will allow you to kill yourself.


Msg# 340/485 [reply of 336]  I am sure that it depends
  From: Rampage              To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 5/08/89 6:16 pm

      The type of chocolate is important, I'm sure.  "They" may add some fucking drug or something to chocolate, but chocolate in it's purest form contains no caffeine.


Msg# 341/485 [reply of 340]  Chocolate
  From: Ja-va Man            To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/09/89 1:32 am

Chocolate, in its purest form, tastes worse than shit...  All chocolate that anyone in this country would consume has caffein in it, however, there are artificial chocolates...  Anyway, just so you know...  


Msg# 342/485  wow!
  From: Mfyudyu              To: anyone interested
  Posted on 5/11/89 3:39 pm

  Mfy here.....   [as everyone hits their space bar]

I have watched this drug crap build up for a while, and I have a few things to say.  ["Uh oh, here he goes AGAIN!!"]

First, whoever the fuck said smoking relieves stress is screwed in their small head.  STRESS, people, STRESS.  Think about the word.  Look it up in a dictionary.  Read the message Prof. posted about you being wrong.  Maybe you might choose your words more carefully next time.....

Second.  Caffeine is NOT a drug in the quantity you hackers drink it up in soda, now that Jolt has gone off the market.  Coffee, tea, perhaps, but I know VERY few people who drink a whole fucking pot in an hour or so, which is about the amount you need to be affected more than staying up longer.  Christ, brush your teeth before you go to bed, and rinse with some of that Plax(c) shit, and yu'll be fine. (Other than not being able to sleep until all hours....)

Thirdly, Prof, I think this is your board, isn't it?  Well, I don't GIVE a shit if it is your board, or if it isn't.  That Republican shit was really stupid [and yes, I am taking offense (duh)] of you to say, and I can tell you a few pranks my fellow Repub's are gonna get you with right now.....I can tell you are one of those liberal wimps who cried with Dukaukis [sp? who cares..] when he lost the election.  Get a life, at least a GOOD view of BOTH parties.  I personally applaud "Da Duke" for getting as many states as he did.  And I am Republican.

Lastly.  COCO, get the FUCK off this board.  I have your address, and I am seriously considering spending my Florida vacation money on Nitroglycerin for blowing the shit out of you.  If you HAVE to post your bullshit, do it on the appropriate board.  [I think Bee should hack me down a bit for this one.  :) ]

Mfyudyu the REAL BHive asshole

[112 points and countin']

Msg# 343/485  Caffene
  From: Malcolm              To: All
  Posted on 5/11/89 7:02 pm

Hey myfudyu (or how ever the hell you spell your dumb name),
     That last message was very ignorent.   First, Caffene in the quantities you would get from a few Cokes is plenty to have very noticable physiological effects on the body.  Your pulse quickens, your blood pressure goes up, and you get jumpy.  This drug affects your body.  Furthermore, there are people I know who are literally addicted to Caffene.  There bodies are used to caffene and complain when it is not around.  If this is not enough, drinking soda regularly works to take calcium out of your bones.  This is especially bad for women.
     Second, Coco did not post on this board you idiot.  Get your facts straight next time, will you.  There is eneough stupidity around without you trying to spread it.
                                 Thank you 

Msg# 344/485 [reply of 342]  This is not a good thing.
  From: Professor What       To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 5/12/89 3:53 pm

1. Caffeine is a drug, no matter what quantity you take it. If you take one microgram of cocaine, it isn't any less of a drug that it would be if you took 3 grams. True, it is in less amounts in soda, but you can still get an effect from it. I know someone who claims to be addicted to caffeine, who got started with Mountain Dew.
 2. "Get a view of BOTH parties"? There's more than two, you little apathetic tree shrew. Personally, I find the stands of the Republican party to be very hypocritical in nature, and detrimental to the human species, so I use the term in an insulting fashion. Incidentally, if you wish to pass yourself as an open minded individual, attempt to learn how to spell the name of the opposing candidate, alright?

Msg# 345/485 [reply of 338]  names
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/12/89 10:37 pm

 Well, let's see....George Bush, admittedly not a very important person, has spoken repeatedly about outlawing drug use -- thus drawing media attention away from real problems.

Msg# 346/485 [reply of 339]  this is a reply
  From: mellow               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/12/89 10:40 pm

   Oh, gosh, Rampage, forgive me for presuming control of my body was my interest. Of course, through your brilliant reasoning ("Go to hell") i now realize that my body belongs to the nation, not myself, and it is in the nation's interest that it remain as productive as possible. God forbid that we don't have as many toaster ovens come off the production line this year.

Msg# 347/485 [reply of 342]  this is another reply
  From: mellow               To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 5/12/89 10:43 pm

 Let me get this straight. Caffeine is not a drug because it doesn't affect people very much. At what point does chemical alteration of brain processes become great enough to merit the term "drug-induced" in the Muffy system?

Msg# 348/485  mellow?
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/13/89 9:38 am

mellow, you never answered my question. Let me rephrase it..
 Why should you have the right to buy drugs?

Msg# 349/485 [reply of 348]  Allow me...
  From: Monty Python         To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/13/89 11:27 am

        Allow me to intervene...speaking from the libertarian perspective (mine), the question should be: "Why SHOULDN'T you have the right to buy drugs?" -- As I see it, the government should have to have a very persuasive reason before it outlaws anything (e.g. murder is fine to outlaw because a person is having something done to their body that they don't want done...but suicide should be legal because people have the ultimate right over their own bodies).

Msg# 350/485 [reply of 343]  Caffeine, not caffene
  From: Rampage              To: Malcolm
  Posted on 5/13/89 2:17 pm

Msg# 351/485 [reply of 346]  you are absurd
  From: Rampage              To: mellow
  Posted on 5/13/89 2:25 pm

     You take a quote completely out of context, and now it appears as though I told you to go to hell.  I have said nothing of the sort.  Your body IS your body, and I have never said anything different.  If you are not going to follow the rules in this country, then you probably do not belong in this country.  I am not talking here about accidently running a red light.  What I mean to say is that open defiance of the law by breaking the law is WRONG.  What you should do is either go to a country that allows you to smoke pot, get something in this country to change and allow you to smoke pot, which I have already claimed will be the ruination of the US of A, or you can do what I consider to be the best option, you can quit smoking pot.  Your body is your body, but this land is the peoples land.  The people stand as one, and obey the laws.  You are not being one of the People.  If you wish to change the laws of the People, try. If you plan to just smoke pot, leave the People's land.


Msg# 352/485 [reply of 351]  The Cost of Addiction
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/13/89 5:57 pm

Rampage, on another board I remember you saying you were a pot smoker. Have you given it up? If so, good for you! Have you ever considered that a law might be wrong, and that the moral and ethical thing to do would be to break the law? You might want to consider this thought. Your anti-use statement so reeks of facism that it is quite off putting, even though I too am anti-use.

I feel a good argument against the use of drugs is the cost such use has on others besides the user. Yes mellow, it is your body, but it is our society that is paying for the death and injury caused by drug use; it is all of us paying the price in higher taxes and insurence premiums. You may do as you please as long as you dont rip me off, and use of drugs is ripping me off. The so called "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco are designed to defray the cost of their use to society. There is no such tax revenue from illegal drugs, and if drugs were made legal, the high tax would ensure a continued black market.

As an interesting aside, it seems the tax on alcohol is too low. Smokers die early, but drinkers live longer and impose a greater burden on society.      


Msg# 353/485 [reply of 351]  Jeezus, Ramp.
  From: The Catseye          To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/13/89 6:20 pm

That was the biggest stream of bullshit I've heard in a long time.  
 First off, you make it sound as if mellow is the only person in this pathetic country that smokes pot.  I do believe the actual number who have, at one tim,e smoked pot is in the millions.  .  DOes this make it right?  No.. just making a point.
 Secondly, your quest for conformity of the masses is scary.  America also happens to have a constitution and a bill of rights which guarentees us to certian freedoms.  Speech, religion, protection against illegal search and seizure, etc.  Mellow is exercizing his right to speak in favor of drug use; or, more correctly, in favor of the choice to use them, should someone so desire.  No one asks you to agree with him; I don't agree with drug use myself.
 This drive to change all that does not flow with the norm is medival and reeks of the same sort of deception practiced by religion 
 To close, I don't think your highly patriotic, but idiotically naive, statements add anything to your arguements.  You are refuting mellow's position simply by pulling emotions which looks great on the cover of Newsweek, but, means absolutely nothing.

Msg# 354/485 [reply of 348]  In the same vein..
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/14/89 4:56 am

Why should anyone else have the right to curtail his right to do so?

I find it amusing that all of us (myself included at times) find it so easy to wish to infringe on things others do that we disagree with, yet find no end of ways to defend those vices, political & religious stances, etc., that we our selves enjoy or engage in.

At the same time, when our ever-so-fearless leaders take it into their enlightened know-what's-right-for-us heads to do something they think is right (which often leads to curtailment of rights of folk in countries with hard to pronounce names), we find their actions henious..
 The Leviathan Be like us or else Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 355/485 [reply of 351]  This land is your land...
  From: The Leviathan        To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/14/89 5:08 am

This land is my land...  Ramp, the above is a truly outdated concept.  The people DO NOT stand united, far from it. 

The laws are not the peoples laws, they are written by an elite few, chosen (in the most part) from fairly wealthy folk whose opinion seldom echos that of the common folk across our country.

You (or I) actually have little say in what laws our country passes, what actions our military engages in, what our tax dollars are spent on, etc.  Most of the folk on the boards greatest achievement in their lives - in the veiwpoint of our leaders - will be to procreate, thus adding future tax payers to the roster.  An illusion to the opposite is maintained, but looking at the tax structure, the law, and the very real tendency for the same basic model of american to be in control of our destinies, you and I are living proof that slavery need not be mandated to be real, and that pampered slaves never revolt.

The Leviathan Love this new, ladder up the side soapbox Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 356/485 [reply of 352]  wrong
  From: Rampage              To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/14/89 11:10 am

   I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever alluded to the fact that I have smoked, pretended to be an idiot and say that I have smoked, or actually SMOKED pot.  Zardoz, I have NO idea how you remember that, since I never said it.  I have taken one sip of alcohol in my entire life.  That is all of the drug-taking that I have done.  That should also hardly count since I was 3 and my father put the glass in my hand, what was I to do but drink?  

    You are leaving some very important things out, Zardoz.  Breaking the law will NEVER be ethical, unless the law inhibits the practice of changing laws. The great thing about this government is that rules/laws are ALWAYS subject to scrutinizing by the public.  One of the problems with breaking the law is that the law must be broken MANY times over just to get the stuff.  We have to pay Bzillions  of dollars just to keep up a below adequately supplied police force.  These people on their own are not able to judge their use very well after the first initial hits, and can end up being tricked out of money, buying more drugs and/or being killed. Let's all stop being children here, people die because of the use of drugs. People go to prison due to the use of drugs.  Drug users cost our government a LOT of money.  The reason that we cannot allow pot to become legal is because it is considered a gateway drug.  89%  of all smokers have tried pot.  5% of non-smokers have tried pot.  Let's face it, this whole thing is intertwined. To legalize one, ruins us.  To have one legal, ruins us.  To have them all legal, destroys us.  To have none legal or available helps us.


Msg# 357/485 [reply of 353]  lack of vision strikes again.
  From: Rampage              To: The Catseye
  Posted on 5/14/89 11:17 am

   Cats, this is the fucking debate board.  If mellow is going to say something that I don't want to eat, and he shoves it in my mouth, I am going to chew it up until it becomes the gooey glob that it essentially is, and spit that shit right back out at him.  I think that you should attempt to understand that I TOO have a right to freedom of speech, and I can say whatever the fuck I want to say.  That point of yours was no point.  Since everyone has freedom of speech, OH MY GOD, we have conformed.  See?  By making drug use illegal, we are not conforming.  I do not want to throw in a nasty little observation that I have made, but please stop whining for other people, it is not like you, I hope.  I am not trying to change all, but make changes for the better.  Without discussing (or just plain cussing :D), there is no way that we can maintain order.  I am not patriotic, but I have no choice as of right now, but to live in this country, so I follow it's laws.  By getting rid of drugs in this country, we WILL improve.  


Msg# 358/485 [reply of 355]  true, but...
  From: Rampage              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/14/89 11:20 am

    We must then change this government.  When the People have no say, they die.  We will be lost as I have already said will happen by 2019.  Anyway, on with the debate...


Msg# 359/485  hmm..
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 5/14/89 1:01 pm

Try to refresh my memory, here. Which of you is advocating legalizing crack, and which of you is keeping it strictly to marijuana?
 Rampage, this country was MADE by people breaking the law. All revolutions were. If everyone obeyed every law, we'd still all be under dictatorships. THe idea of "love it or leave" it makes me vomit.
 The facts are that most drugs have a very high chance of being overly abused. When this happens, violent react
ons can occur. Often, the people CANNOT choose what is best for themselves. An alcoholic usually cannot bring him/herself out of the addiction easily. In the same way, a marijuana addict or a cocaine addict or an anything addict cannot save themselves easily. These people cannot truly control their actions; their freedom has been removed by the drug. No longer are they free to choose, now they have no choice.
 Government, in theory, exists to protect. Without government, the weak cannot be defended against murderers and thieves. Laws have been created making it illegal to kill someone, and they are enforced by the government. Selling someone drugs is almost the same thing as killing them; it just takes a little longer. That is why it is illegal to sell drugs.

Msg# 360/485 [reply of 351]  Peoples land
  From: Alien Strain         To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/14/89 1:38 pm

  Here's another mc. quote taken out of context, "but this land is the peoples land...  You are not being one of the People."

By any chance are you a communist?   What happened about the sanctity of private land ownership... How about that little thing in the constitution about illegal search and seizure.   My point is that this "land"  was founded on individualism.. Yet you seem to wish to squash that...  Perhaps YOU are in the wrong country....   

Have a nice day,
      -Alien Strain

Msg# 361/485 [reply of 356]  This is silly but..
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/14/89 4:38 pm

Rampage, I distinctly remember you toadying up to The Leviathan on "The Club" and sying something to the effect that "I too like to smoke a joint". If you dont remember that, its probably because it was a lie. Or are you lying about not using? Tell me, do you beleive the possesion of slaves to be ethical?

Msg# 362/485  It's me again, [SPACE]
  From: Mfyudyu              To: anyone out there
  Posted on 5/14/89 10:34 pm

Well well....that last ass-hole of a message I posted got some crap going. Let's try a nicer one for a change......

I was reading the messages after my last one, and was wondering if anyone here has seen "Who's life is it anyway?" [movie]  If not fine.  The basic concept in the movie was a guy with a major biological problem, diabetes maybe, I can't recall, but he had to be wheeled around in a wheelchair, and fed, etc, etc.  He finally made up his mind that he wanted to die, but his doctor wouldn't let him die, or even kill himself!  What I'd like to know is this:  Should people who want to kill themselves be able to?

I suppose we'd have to rule out the teenage AND adult cases where they are just sick individuals that CAN be helped. [but how could we tell them apart?]  I mean mainly people in hospitals, or not, that have diseases/conditions that make life just not fucking worth it anymore. If they can deal with it, fine. But, if they can do NOTHING for themselves, and they want to die, shouldn't we honor that?  


p.s.--I don't think I really care one way or the other.  It's just that I      respect the opinions of people here to answer me honestly, even if it          is with a bunch of yelling back at me.  :)

Msg# 363/485 [reply of 357]  Two things.
  From: The Catseye          To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/15/89 2:35 pm

Two things, Rampers.
  1. Keep your observations to yourself.  I am not making myself available for "correction"   by you in any shape, method or form.  'nuff said.
  2. Your points are taken.  I understand better what the hell you are talking about now that you've made a couple clarifications.  Perhaps I should clarify mine, as well.  
  When Mellow  decides to smoke pot, they can obtain it one of several different ways.  One method would be to buy it on the street from a drug dealer.  Probably the most common.  Arguably, this can lead to problems.  Killing at deals gone "sour," tax evation, illegal gun use, whathaveyou.  Or, let's say this person happens upon some Marijuanna seeds, sets up a little window box, plants them, and manages to grow a few small plants, just enough for a joint now and then.  He sells it to no one simply because there isn't enough of it.  He can use it only once in a while for the same reason.  While he is, he's sitting in his room wishing he had lots of little crackers to munch on and examining the patterns generated on the inside of his eyelids while looking at a bright light.  Whatever.  In anycase, he has hurt no one, accosted no one and has not done anything damaging to society
  I present to you, now, a question.   what is the problem here?  The person comes done off their high, cleans up the cracker crumbs, turns off the sun-light and goes to sleep.  NO harm done to society.  Therefor, wouldn't it seem possible that the government could make pot, in this form, LEGAL, for persons to cultivate tiny amounts as they wished.  At the same time, the selling of pot or distribution of any amount other than a few ounces <"..Say, Dan, fucking aphids ate my hemp.  Can I borrow a joint or two?" > would remain illegal.  Incrase punnishment for mass-selling of pot to something on the border of outrageous.  For example, 10 years prison without hope of parol or something.  Through use of licensing, taxes, whatever, the Govt. could control who actually was growing themselves a psychedellic garden.  Those who WANT to use pot will no longer have to buy it on the street, thus, "big time" dealers will no longer exist.  I'm fairly sure that Joe Guy who wants a joint now and then would much rather do it safely and legally  than standing in a dark alley sweating like shit.
  Chew on that till it's pulpy, if you so wish, and tell me what you think. 

Msg# 364/485  Titles are for kings
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 5/15/89 5:31 pm

I wish that everyone was as smart as you people make them out to be. I wish that there weren't millions who die every year, not by their own choice but by the choice of some drug. The people who died didn't want to die; they just wanted to use a drug. If you ask these people, "Did you take this drug as a painless way to kill yourself?", a very large number will say no, they didn't want to die, but the drug so overpowered them that they took an overdose, or they took so much that their system just died. After the first few uses, it is no longer a personal choice.
 Very fine and well, you all say. Shouldn't the people be allowed to kill themselves?

Indeed, they should. Indeed, they are allowed to do so -- it's not illegal to attempt suicide, although certain methods are. But, I do not believe that all drug users have this motive - suicide - in mind when they use.

If it were legal to sell drugs, use of them would skyrocket. Legal drugs, as a rule, are far more popular then their illegal counterparts. This is true only partly because of availability. Much of the sales comes from advertisements. Such advertisements would pop up quickly for the newly legalized drugs; cocaine and such.

I hope that I don't have to explain the evils of increased drug use to all of you, do I?

Msg# 365/485 [reply of 362]  .
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 5/15/89 6:11 pm

I think that if someone in a terminal condition or whatever should be allowed to die.. some painless method.  If the individual so chooses.

Msg# 366/485  Cat's plan
  From: Mystul               To: All
  Posted on 5/15/89 9:16 pm

Cats:  Y'know, that seems plausable.  Much more controlled situation than mass-legalization, and it keeps capitalism out of the picture for the most part.  We certainly don't need a pot lobby, too.  However, it may lead to an increase in abuse.  We need more education, as I have said and implied before, starting in the low elementary grades that marijuana and other drugs should not be looked to as an escape.  They are only for "entertainment", so to speak, and should be used sparingly.  Also, certain genetic types have increased suseptibility (sp?) to certain addictive drugs.  I, for one, have a high risk of becoming an alcoholic, as my father and grandfather were alcoholcs.  Perhaps we should include some sort of certification by an authorized MD before allowing people to try a little homegrown.  And a number of clinics, ala WeightWatchers, that would help addicts try to come down and quit.

On suicide:  Anyone stupid enough to kill oneself has every right to, but I really wish they would reconsider.  It is a bit extreme, don't ya think?

                                             -=[> Mystul <]=-

Msg# 367/485 [reply of 366]  Mercy Killing
  From: Ja-va Man            To: Mystul
  Posted on 5/16/89 1:09 am

I'm posting this message, if for no other reason, just to be a SHORT one for once...  %\)  anyway...

I think that mercy killing/suicide in very extreme cases should be a legal choice.  Something like where expected life is 2 months and the entire time will be extremely painful...  Anyway, you can take it from here...

                Ja-va Man

Msg# 368/485 [reply of 364]  As you see them...
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/16/89 4:37 am

No, Prof., you probably don't have to explain the evils of increased drug use to all of us - though I must qualify my statement (and yours) with the "as you see 'em" rejoiner...

I quiver with fear just thinking of the scads & scads of folk out here in never-never land who have overdosed on pot, smoking & smoking until the room they're in fills with smoke, excluding all traces of breathable air, until (ominious music swelling and fading in the background) they droop to the ground, shirt covered with cracker crumbs, suffocated by their own nefarious habit...

Or not....

Until recently, I was quite the consumer of smokedope, all in a purely medical (or was that scientific?) mode - of course.  No logical being can doubt my intelligence, I make big bucks, work insane hours (productivity unleashed), never mistreat me mum, etc.

For a long while, I also found coke, speed (both meth & whites), and trip (acid, stp, mescaline, and mushrooms - another slice of Rocky's?) amusing, but most speed is imitation these days, coke is expensive even at my income level, and lsd type chemicals are about a tenth of the potency they were five years ago, no longer worth the bother.
 My point would be that I have yet to lose my productivity, logic, life, fortune or erection from use of all these varied chemicals.  Nor have I run anyone over, beat my nonexistantdog, or learned to speak in tongues.  All in all, drugs have done for me what alcohol does for most.. mellow me out & provide me a little amusement.

The Leviathan Pass me another bag of chips, would ya' Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 369/485  Hmm..
  From: Woodstock            To: All
  Posted on 5/16/89 8:04 am

I think I wanna stick something in for you cat. Buyying from a drug dealer off the street is hardly what most people would do, unfortunatly, it usually goes something to the effect of selling, giving, sharing drugs with your best friend. Scarey thought aye? I mean Who know what kinda shit is in the drugs you get off the steet, it could be cut with stricknine  or something even more exciting. But You know when your best friend hhas got something its gotta be safe right? :) Anyways, Usually for your first, and continuing drug purchases you know the person fairly well, I think that is one reason busting drug sellers is so hard to do sometimes, because it is you friend. Second point- as of this day there ARE programs, beginning witth kindergarden conttinuing through highschool regarding drug education, Yes even here in madison. But we  Don't tell the kids "just say no" or no nonononno you just can't do that. We inform them what happenes, when you use drugs, abuse them, the highs, and the lows and getting caught. Ultimatly it is their choice, and we are trying to give them ennough information to make a responisble choice they can live with, no a conformed idea of what society thinks should be the good of all. Seems some people around here have forgotton, ultimatly tthere is a choice, whether you belive it or not, it is very possible, and quite easy to break laws, all of them, big and small, and people just saying nononnono you can't do that won't stop someone from breaking a possibly out dated law  people have to WANT to stop.

Msg# 370/485 [reply of 368]  Robbing Little Old Ladies
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/16/89 9:04 am

Well, I cant deny your life experiences Leviathan. In my opinion however they appear to be the "exception that proves the rule". In my using days I did the same drugs, but with different consequences. For me, using and getting drugs to use was the primary purpose of my life. To this end I would lie, cheat, and steal. I would habitually operate a motor vehicle while under the influence. My family, job, and health were all secondary to my using. Have you ever been so desperate to scrape out and smoke the resins from the bong? Remember how it tasted? And what it could have been doing to your lungs?

I have no statistics to quote, but I feel my experience is the more common one.

The use of drugs, both legal and illegal, is unhealthy and creates a burden on society. Cancer, liver disease, and trauma result from the use of drugs. Most felonies are committed while under the influence of drugs. And as we have all heard time and again, gang wars to control the distribution of drugs are on the rise.

Cats, I believe your scenario to be unrealistic.


Msg# 371/485 [reply of 368]  .
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/16/89 4:02 pm

Drugs haven't affected your "logic"? This is arguable.

All I have to say to your arguments that marijuana and lsd are safe is that marijuana is worse for you than tobacco smoke, and lsd can cause brain damage. Not to mention that whenever your brain is in an abbreviated state, your actions can be dangerous to yourself and others.
 Marijuana is not safe.

Regarding education programs, I don't think they are working as well as they could be. I personally have been receiving the "Drugs Are Evil" messages since the 4th grade, and I'm already sick of it. If you go into a classroom where some anti-drug campaign is being waged, you will see a room full of students bored out of their minds. Making students memorize polysyllabic chemical terms for each drug (to this day I can STILL tell you what PCP stands for) as well as every single cotton picking thing they do obviously does not work. The most effective I have seen is having former addicts come in and talk to the students, honestly. 

Msg# 372/485 [reply of 360]  I am a socialist
  From: Rampage              To: Alien Strain
  Posted on 5/16/89 7:55 pm

  I think that our country can never be fair, but I would at least like it to survive until I am old enough to begin my own country under what I consider to be the ideal government.  People are not equal.  Perhaps the people on this board are too closed minded, but there is such a thing as a better life.


Msg# 373/485 [reply of 361]  hmmm...
  From: Rampage              To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/16/89 7:57 pm

    I think you are thinking of someone else.  I would NEVER want to be related to drugs.  Ask the Leviathan.  He would know whether I said that.

    Slave:possesion, ethicality.

     Yes.  The possesion of slaves is ethical.


Msg# 374/485 [reply of 362]  taking lives
  From: Rampage              To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 5/16/89 8:00 pm

   No.  Taking a life, no matter what life is wrong, because the person must be given a choice.  You can never know when that person has had the choice.

    Yes.  We need food, and I would like to de-evolutionize humans anyway.


Msg# 375/485 [reply of 348]  prof?
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/16/89 9:24 pm

 Why shouldn't i have the right to buy drugs?

Msg# 376/485 [reply of 351]  People's land?
  From: mellow               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/16/89 9:30 pm

  Well, excuse me for not being Lawful Stupid.
  It's important to distinguish, Rampage, between legality and morality -- the two often either have no correlation or have negative correlation.
  The obvious example is the underground railroad -- a process in which American citizens BROKE THE LAW. Shame, shame.
  Another problem in your pure patriotic piety is that you've set yourself as judge for the significance of broken laws. Running red lights is not significant enough to consider moving to a country where running lights is legal, you say -- but pot is. I disagree with you on the significance of the two, based upon the harm that results from each: running red lights kills more than use of pot.

                so very melllllow

Msg# 377/485 [reply of 352]  i'm sure....
  From: mellow               To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/16/89 9:33 pm

 ... that i've mentioned this before, but i propose that we outlaw the automobile because of the cost to society that resultant accidents cause. After that, we'll ban roller coasters, mountain climbing, and crossing busy streets. Everyone will be required to stay inside in padded, seatbelted chairs and work by keyboard.
   Have fun.

Msg# 378/485 [reply of 356]  hahahahahaha
  From: mellow               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/16/89 9:36 pm

   Paraphrase: Pot should be illegal because of the costs incurred by users who go to jail because they use pot."
         god, i love this dude's logic.

Msg# 379/485 [reply of 359]  uhhuh.
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/16/89 9:42 pm

   Government's historical role has been to control, not to protect. Ideally, its role would be to facilitate.
   "Marijuana addicts." Hehehehehe.
   Oh, by the way, prof, don't you think we should also ban pornography by the same argument, since it acts a as a graphic heroin, removing the choice of the user?

Msg# 380/485 [reply of 370]  Alas...
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/17/89 3:14 am


I tend to agree that your experience is the more common one.  I am not sure however, that because more folk whom choose to indulge in drug use find that THEY can not handle their choice (and/or the results of their choice), that MY choice should hence be made for me, by others, who use as their proof the weakness' of others...

One of my felonies was committed while drunk, the rest while straight...
 Many folk can not handle motorcycles, violence on T.V., rock music, and political/religious beliefs, I hope the same logic doesn't end up applying.
 The Leviathan You're free to be what you would be, so long as you agree with me? Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 381/485 [reply of 371]  I fear..
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/17/89 3:23 am

That you find drugs having not affected my logic arguable only because my logic fails to mirror your own, Prof..., which sorta' tends to refute your "arguable" points a tad...
 "Marijuana is not safe"... Did God call long distance??  I agree slightly with that statement however, in one context.  Study has proven hemp smoke to be higher in all the naughty chemicals that cigarette smoke contains than tabacco products.  Other than that, from what I understand - the jury is still out, after all these years.  'Course it poses no problem to pick through the myriad reports available until one finds a "jury" that agrees with ones preferred opinion...
 The Leviathan Sad to be unable to meet every individual concept of logic, but smiling bravely through the blues anyway Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 382/485 [reply of 380]  What Price Glory?
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/17/89 8:23 am


Isn't one of the reasons we have laws is that people share the same rights, and laws prevent others from infringing on these reights?

My most defensible argument at this time is that drug use costs too much. I'm sure this will  strike you to your very soul, but your drug use is costing me money. Why should I  pay for others pleasure? Drug use costs in terms of absenteeism, police, judicial, and correctional costs, medical costs, social programs, and auto insurence. The cost is born by the consumer and taxpayer  unfairly. 

Drug users then are thieves and leeches.  Why should *I* be forced to pay for mellows high? There are ways to feel good that are not destructive..


Msg# 383/485 [reply of 376]  I beg to differ
  From: Rampage              To: mellow
  Posted on 5/17/89 9:00 pm

     I think that not everything is ethical or moral, or whatever the hell you want tp call it.  I could tell you my life story, and you would know why I feel how I feel, but I won't.  Drugs kill.  Running a red light kills.  I think that we must either maintain order in the country or change the fucking country.  If you want to make pot legal; why?  What is so good about pot?  What, I ask again, does pot do for you?  Pot is the worst drug by far, in my mind and the minds of many who treat addicts, beca
se it ends up leading the pot-smokers on to other drugs.  Pot is known as the gateway drug.  Pot kills brain cells.  I would never want to smoke pot.  Never.  I think it is alright for Americans to do it, but upon prescription only.  >:)


Msg# 384/485 [reply of 378]  ?????
  From: Rampage              To: mellow
  Posted on 5/17/89 9:04 pm

   I re-read my message.  NOTHING in there looks moderately like what you typed.  I encourage everyone to read messages 378 and 356.  Did I say that?  I think NOT.


Msg# 385/485 [reply of 382]  Zen Krispies
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/18/89 1:42 am

Actually, Z., MY drug use hurts no one.  I do not take sick days (at least none in the past 1 3/4 years), I use no social programs, so far none of my medical problems have been drug related, etc.  Using your logic path, why should I suffer for the weakness' (or fears) of others?

The "Cost" arguement is strong to a degree, but then - carry it a bit further...

I have no school age children, but part of my income goes to support education for those who do...

I do not use the police to settle my differences, but still pay tax to keep 'em plump & healthy...

I pay tax to keep folk whom feel no lust to be employed on welfare... while I work for the money to pay the taxes...

The list goes on & on & on & on.....

So far, my drug use hasn't cost anyone, while other folks kids, old age, education, etc. has cost me considerably..  If you guys can set it up so that you don't have to pay any possible costs on my part, I'd appreciate it if you'd also set it up so that I won't have to pay any more on yours - fair is fair...

The Leviathan Hoping that the proposed savings will go both ways Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

As an interesting example, there is a bill being intro'd to provide 40 billion dollars for black education, as reparation for slavery past.  I have never owned slaves (I swear), and not being black, will benefit little from having to dig still deeper into my pocket to educate poor, unfortunate blacks who have somehow failed to get any of the billions of dollars in loans, grants, etc. that the government, private industry & groups, The Black College Fund - a black mind is a terrible thing to waste - make available.  We all get to pay on our fellow americans accounts - with me having to put out, I'm less than swayed by others having to do so.  Sorry to be as cold as the rest of mankind, womankind, and 'Thankind, but....

Msg# 386/485 [reply of 385]  One Mans Drink
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/18/89 5:59 pm

Ah, but Leviathan yours is not the common experience with drug use, since you remain free from the social and medical side effects of such usage.  Because
*I* can be trusted with the atomic weapon in my basement, does that mean every citizen should be allowed to own one?

Although you may not directly benifit from every cent of your tax dollar, you do not live isolation. Your education and the education of those around you were provided in part by the educational system you continue to support. Although you understandably prefer to go about your bussiness without the intervention of the civil athorities, you enjoy the relative security provided by them. And so on and so on..


Msg# 387/485  .
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/18/89 7:50 pm

I don't personally have many problems with you, in your current state, to use marijuana, mellow. From what I know of you, you probably won't let it get too out of hand, unless you become addicted (which IS possible).
 But, an incredibly large amount of the people cannot safely be permitted to use this drug, because it will then destroy their lives, without them even knowing it. It is perfectly criminal for a company to sell something under the pretense that it will make you feel good, when the product in reality destroys your life.
 Legislation is for the masses, not for the individual. Some personal freedoms must be sacrificed in exchange for essential securities, without which personal freedoms mean nothing.

Msg# 388/485 [reply of 363]  nice but
  From: mellow               To: The Catseye
  Posted on 5/18/89 9:57 pm

    You're overlooking a fundamental point, Cats. Why outlaw interpersonal distribution of ganja? The sole drawback you cite is violence associated with dealing in illegal drugs -- which would be irrelevant if pot were legal.
                   oh, wow

Msg# 389/485 [reply of 382]  '#@#")!)"@$$'
  From: mellow               To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/18/89 10:10 pm

   I've never asked you to pay for my high, and you never have.
   The way i live my life is my choice. Even if that way were to include absenteeism, then that would be my choice. Actions which affect others can be prosecuted directly -- those who use drugs and then cause accidents can and should be penalized for their poor choice.
   It is not my function in life to make your life easier.
                (barely holding in
                 some rather ...
                 harsh words...)

Msg# 390/485 [reply of 383]  barely restraining...
  From: mellow               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/18/89 10:13 pm

    I should not be required to show cause for making pot legal -- you should be required to show cause for keeping it illegal, since the latter course involves restricting my freedom.

Msg# 391/485 [reply of 387]  oh my god
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/18/89 10:16 pm

 "Some personal freedoms must be sacrificed in exchange for essential securities, without which personal freedoms mean nothing."
        --prof what, 1989
 "We have to destroy the country to save it."
        -- i forget, some asshole about the Vietnam Invasion

Msg# 392/485  hmmm
  From: mellow               To: All
  Posted on 5/18/89 10:21 pm

 I hope all of the fervent anti-druggies here are ready to vote for Assembled Bill #3.1415, which will ban public access to interstates and require trip permits for intercity movements greater than 20 miles.
 Studies by anti-tripping advocates have conclusively shown that mass travel leads to automobile accidents, higher insurance, vagrancy, hoboism, runaways, vacations, and other losses of state control over individuals. As such, travel must be strictly regulated or banned.
                  cast your vote today!

Msg# 393/485 [reply of 386]  No common ground
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/19/89 1:51 am

Alas, we reach no common ground, Z.  You are every bit as determined to curtail my personal actions to suit what you perceive as needs on the part of society & yourself, as I am not to allow others moral & right/wrong beliefs to run my life.

I hope you are not one of the folk who complain when our leaders intervene in the politics of other countries?  After all, they like you know what is right & wrong for the folk in those other countries, they are as determined in their facts as you are, etc.  Again, I reiterate, we all seem so easily swayed to infringe upon the freedoms of others...

The Leviathan Knowing ahead of time how very silly I'll look in that lil' black uniform with the lovely red, white and black armband on one upraised flipper Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 394/485 [reply of 387]  Addiction..
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/19/89 1:57 am


Addiction to pot IS indeed possible - but on a psychological level only. Addiction to pot on a physical level would be addiction to the same chemicals that make tabacco addicting, but one would be hard pressed to smoke enough pot to manage to acquire such an addiction, even if one bought (shudder) commercial grade herb.

The Leviathan We could hold a nice book burning Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 395/485  UnHappy Hamadi
  From: The Leviathan        To: All
  Posted on 5/19/89 4:25 am

On another note, Hamadi (the terrorist swine on trial in Germany) got his sentence today, life in prison.

On one hand, this is not much of a sentence, considering one of the hijackee's was brutally beaten, and then shot to death & tossed out on the tarmac by Hamadi & his none-too-brave freinds.  On the other hand, unless Germany folds to terrorist pressure, Hamadi will do a minimum of 15 years, thus a 24 year old will turn into a 40 year old before he gets another crack at an unarmed victim. Hell, he might even break the addiction...

Hamadi, in the brave tradition of captured terrorists everywhere, not only decided NOT to die for Allah, but snitched another terrorist on the plane claiming the other lad (is there no end to terrorist cause loyalty?) actually did the killing.  Rumor abounds that he became a vertible fountain of data, putting everything & everyone he knew at risk, once he realized his "friends" couldn't save him.

Personally, I think he should have been killed in the field, but if enough terrs get their day in court, it may serve the same purpose.

Never mind, I just wanted to share a little good news for americans (esp. those who might ever travel elsewhere).

The Leviathan I may start a letter writing campaign to poor, unhappy Hamadi letting him know how happy most of America is that he'll have 15 years of rehab Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 396/485  Personal freedoms
  From: Jules Archer         To: All
  Posted on 5/19/89 8:53 am

Don't laugh so hard.  Creating a government and a set of laws for the common good DOES require that you sacrifice some personal freedom.  

In Lebanon no personal freedoms are sacrificed, with the result being a country in anarchy with survival being strictly on a day-to-day basis.

Msg# 397/485  Deleted!

Msg# 398/485 [reply of 397]  Prohibition
  From: Mystul               To: Jules Archer
  Posted on 5/19/89 3:13 pm

No, I don't remember Prohibition.  I can barely remember President Ford. However, I do know, for a fact, that use of alcohol decreased during the period where alcohol was made illegal.  If you are going to use that as an example for NOT continuing the status quo, I don't follow your reasoning...

                        -=[> Mystul <]=-

Msg# 399/485 [reply of 393]  Whoa! Wait a minuteQ
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/19/89 6:32 pm

Leviathan you can't weasle out THAT easily! Soapboxing about my alledged motives and wrapping yourself with the flag of psuedo polital correctness looks pretty, but is I believe an effort to avoid the issue!

First, I don't believe I have attempted to dictate to you any moral code ther than "thou shall not steal" or more verbosely your rights do noty include the "right" to curtail others rights .

Secondly I haven't made any attempt to change your behavior, or to curtail your use of drugs. I haven't made a very stong stance even on the legality issue.

What I have said is that for the majority of people who use them drugs cause harm, , and that the rest of us pay for this damage. The purpose of the tax on tobacco and alcohol is to offset the cost. Since there is no tax collected on illegal drugs, those who are in effect stealing from the rest of us to pay for the consequences of their use. This is said in a general sense.

Your response, and part of mellows, is that YOU are not harmed by drugs, and terefore not resposible for the cost of the damage they cause. This is a response in the specific.

Do you object to the tax you pay on beer and cigarettes? Do you feel this is an infringement of your rights?

Msg# 400/485  Laughter is for comedies
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/19/89 9:13 pm

Mellow, thank you for re-publishing my quote, but please, make a halfway decent effort to dispute it. Make it simple, too, as my small brain has difficulty making connections between military strategies proposed in the Vietnam War and personal freedoms.
 Your thing about outlawing long-distance travel, I take it, was supposed to be an analogy. Unfortunately, the analogy does not hold, as long-distance travel is necessary for some, whereas zapping your brain is not.

Msg# 401/485 [reply of 400]  Clarifications...
  From: Ja-va Man            To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/19/89 11:51 pm

OK...  fresh off the health class press...  (OK, well...  It was a while ago, but I do still remember...)

Marijuana can form no physical addiction since one's body produces the same chemical that works in marijuana by itself.  THC is the 'happy' chemical, released from your brain (I believe), released when pot is smoked.  However, if pot is not used it will happen by itself-- pot just accelerates the proccess. When pot is used, the high THC levels wear down eventually and all is normal. Anyway, as whoever said, any addiction would be psychological.  Second:  pot has very few effects from long term use.  a) it spreads the gap between nerves in the brain, thus slowing reflexes a bit (this is permanant, I believe, but isn't tooooo damaging); b) since hits are usually taken in deeper and held longer, the smoke does more damage to the lungs, but proportionally isn't much worse than normal cigarettes.  Although, as stated manymanymany times before, it does lead people into using other drugs which is definitely harmful...

Anyway, just some clarifications...


Msg# 402/485 [reply of 396]  Many
  From: The Leviathan        To: Jules Archer
  Posted on 5/20/89 5:54 am

Many countries in Lebanons shoes one HAD a government, Jules.. the people who seem to be the ones (consistently) to be forced to give up their personal freedoms for the majority good often get tired of being pushed & push back - the result is often called revolution, anarchy, chaos.  All seem to start with pious preaching on the part of the "majority" & semi-pious violence on the part of the infringed upon.
 The Leviathan Reality, what a bummer, eh? Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 403/485 [reply of 399]  'Tis no...
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/20/89 6:06 am

Psuedo correct..... I am correct.  My pleasures being curtailed by the "Gosh, if enough of us think it's right it must be" folk are just a start.  I hope you folk don't develop a distaste for organ musics, the churchs will be heartbroken....
 I do not drink, so the tax on beer fails to affect me.

I do smoke, and do not bitch about the tax, mostly because I never notice it. On the other hand, let 'em legalize pot, the prices'll drop, & they can tax the now reasonably priced smoke.  This will achieve several objectives, raise tax money, decriminalize the actions of millions of americans, & nullify the neadd need for long discourses regarding rights with less open-minded folk.

All in all, a reasonable concept.

The Leviathan Gosh, it's lovely strolling down Reasonable Street early in the am Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 404/485 [reply of 399]  Forgotten point
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/20/89 6:16 am

With no personal insult intended, Z., I fear your situation gives you no real logic-base in this matter, anyway.  I hadn't thought of it before, but you used the line "questioning my motives" in your letter.  I wondered, Hmmm, did I? And realized that I hadn't - but do......

Folks from AA tend to rant about how NO ONE should be able to drink, because they KNOW how the evils of drink can slip up on you, etc., blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.  I'm sure that they are sincere as well, as art thou, but in both cases, you folk tend to carry your personal weakness' over to others lifes, often causing big hassle in the process.
 Again, I must state that your inability to cope with the drugs you chose to do should not be cause for anyone (governmental or otherwise) to assume that I am unable to handle whatever I chose to carry.

The Leviathan Really, Guys... I know that you see the elephant, but he's really not there Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 405/485 [reply of 403]  DNA from broken homes
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/20/89 8:31 am

"Us folk"? Leviathan, I object to being grouped with the mass ofnarrow minded individuals who seek to impose their will on the free spirited and playful Leviathan. I stronly believe that personal freedoms must not be infringed upon by any group or individual. This does leave me however with the responsibility not to infringe as I would not have others infringe upon me.

In my arguments I hope to counter those who say drugs are harmless. 'Drugs have never hurt ME' is an statement that although unquestionably true in your case is unfortunately rooted in self deception in many others.

Legalization and taxation does make sense for marijuana. The tax income going of course not to welfare or weaponry, but to help pay for the damage caused in general by use, like the tax on tobacco and alcohol. Hopefully the tax would not be so high as to encourage an active black market. It is not so clear to me that this is the answer for all drugs, in particular cocaine.

In closing I would like to add that your continued attempt to cast me in the role of an intolerant puritan, although an effective debating tool keeping me on the defensive, does grow tiring. I have never been to an AA meeting, and in general keep my mouth shut about others use. *I* cant use.


Msg# 406/485 [reply of 405]  In this case,
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/21/89 5:18 am

In this case, I found your role to be that of an intolerant puritan.  My attitude was not intended as a debating tool.  I have little time for drug use at present (make that no time), and thus, do not engage... However, I find the concept of others misuse, abuse, and incapability to handle what they choose to ingest being used as data by others to decide what I can ingest almost facist in nature.

I do not drink, because I am highly irresponsible when I drink, hurting folk, etc.  I like to drink, but knowing the cost to others, it's not worth it.  On the other hand, a lady I've lived with (who didn't smoke pot) always kept a jar full - for me.  When I asked why she bought a chemical she wouldn't use, she explained how much she liked the reaction I got from a good buzz.  Many of my friends quit drinking for the same reason I did, most still smoke.

The Leviathan Hoping to get buzzed again someday................... Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 407/485 [reply of 406]  Atilla the Zard
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/21/89 2:45 pm

Didja really see my role that way Leviathan? I'll have to go back and take a look at how strident I actually got. You may want to give some thought as to why my arguments made you uncomfortable, aside from the intellectual smoke screen of rights.


Msg# 408/485 [reply of 400]  yeah
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/21/89 6:45 pm

    Prof: I think some things are obvious on the face. Your quote and the Vietnam quote were quite parallel and required no further comment.
    The analogy does hold. Those who require travel, like those who require marijuana, will be granted governmental approval to do so in our brave new strictly regulated society. Have fun.

Msg# 409/485 [reply of 407]  No Title
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/22/89 3:52 am

It is not necessarilly that you were strident, Z....

I get tired of folk (any folk) not wanting others to have abortions, make their own choices re: helmets & other things, etc....

For personal reasons, I am unimpressed with "Gay" as a lifestyle.  I would not march in defense of their rights in may, even though I know Gav through the boards.  On the other hand, I'd march against a law to prohibit "Gayness" by enacting legal penalties against it.

I LIKE to smoke an occassional bowl of pot, it mellows (no pun intended, Mellow) me out, makes sex & music better, etc...  Though I have found your posts interesting no matter what the subject, as I state - I'm just tired of folk feeling that they have to curtail the pleasures of others to fit their ways.  "Rights" have nothing to do with it.

The Leviathan Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 410/485 [reply of 408]  yeah
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/22/89 5:10 pm

You refuse to use any semblence of logic to dispute my quote, but merely use obscure right-brain techniques. My problem with this is that no one is quite sure exactly what you mean; those quotes can be interpreted in many ways.
 The analogy does not hold. No one has proved that anyone "requires" marijuana, but it can be proved that in most cases long-distance automobile travel is necesssary.
 You are under the impression that I want to outlaw marijuana solely because it can kill you, and others. Actually, I want to outlaw it because it can ruin your life, without you knowing it.
 Try to imagine what would happen if RJ Reynolds started mass-producing and mass-marketing marijuana.

Msg# 411/485 [reply of 410]  okay
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/22/89 8:44 pm

 Okay, Prof, i'll point out the similiarity between the two quotes: both use the logic "We must destroy X to save X." Now, maybe it's just my asparagus-addled brain, but it seems to me that something's wrong with this logic ...
 The analogy holds whether marijuana is necessary for people or not ... that objection fails to address the primary thrust of the metaphor. However, please note that marijuana _is_ strictly regulated for medical use in the treatment of glaucoma -- thus overc
ming your objection anway. Nyah, nyah, nyah.
 Personally, i like being in my right  mind.

Msg# 412/485 [reply of 410]  nyah, nyah, nyah, part II
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/22/89 8:48 pm

   Long-distance auto travel is necessary in most cases? Fun, yes. Necessary -- no. Most people use long distance auto travel for frivolous things like visiting relatives, relaxing in the woods, vacationing and so forth. Assembled bill 3.1415 will eliminate the cost to ALL OF SOCIETY caused by long-distance auto travel. Cast your vote for totalitarianism today!

Msg# 413/485 [reply of 410]  Huh???
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/23/89 6:37 am

I am uncertain that one could have ones life ruined without one knowing it, Prof.  While a consistently stoned person might well not live up to your expectations of what his/her life should be, this would only be an indicator that if you were that person, your life would be ruined.  If the person under the influence was happy, avoided jail for breaking your laws, and died smiling, I'd tend to assume that his or her life was ruined only in the eyes of others, a ruination which really wouldn't matter much.

The Leviathan Life has seemed pretty sweet to me all along.. Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 414/485 [reply of 413]  Ruining
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/23/89 3:07 pm

It IS possible to have your life ruined without knowing it. If you talk to any reformed addicts, they will all tell you that they never thought of themselves as having a problem. Hmm...with that in mind, maybe you people who claim not to have a problem... nah.

Come to think of it, mellow, bill 3.1415 might actually be a good idea. The ozone layer is pretty much trashed by auto pollution, as are many other things. Cars are destroying the world. Look at Los Angeles, or Mexico City. Indeed, we are destroying the world with cars. Long distance travel should be banned, and replaced with a nice, public, railway system.
 I see your path of thought now with the Vietnam analogy. But, this shows the error in your interpretation.
 My idea was that we must curtail a person's ability to do X, in order to preserve their life, so that they may hang on to rights A, B, and C, all of which are more important than X.
 In other words, I do not want to destroy X to save X. I want to destroy X to save A thru W.

Drugs should be illegal, because when you use them, your life becomes centered around them, and the chemical takes away your rights.
 Normally, I would be willing to let a person do this if they knew what was going to happen, but I seriously doubt that everyone knows what happens to them if they use drugs. Even with billions being spent every year on education, more and more people are using drugs. The problem would be amplified if the media starts to get paid to tell people to use, as per your suggestions.

Msg# 415/485 [reply of 390]  pfft...
  From: Rampage              To: mellow
  Posted on 5/23/89 8:03 pm

    Are you the idiot that you come off to be, mellow?  I hope not, and I doubt it; but, you seem to lack knowledge of how this country runs.  I say that your using infringes on my freedom.  Your point is that my not allowing you to take drugs infringes on your freedom.  It is a stalemate.  If you want to change the law, YOU have to come up with the arguement, not I.


Msg# 416/485 [reply of 414]  but prof...
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/23/89 9:50 pm

   But prof.... i want to do A-Z. And i do.
   Bill 3.1415....uh-oh....shouldn't have brought that up ....
   Prof, you must understand that we do not accept your determination of the values of different life activities. Nor do we accept your REEFER MADNESS list of the effects of marijuana. But even were we to accept your views on the above two issues, we cannot accept your interfering in the rights of individuals. Your suggestion that drugs take away a person's rights reminds me of those who say freedom of speech only covers the right _kind_ of speech; i.e., speech which does not contradict current government propaganda.
   If you are concerned about the effects of drugs on others, you are perfectly welcome to work against them through persuasion, volunteer work and so forth. But keep your laws off my body.

Msg# 417/485 [reply of 415]  right
  From: mellow               To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/23/89 9:53 pm

    I see your lack of proper chemical stimulus has led to invective, Ramp. That's a correctable problem.
    I fail to see how my using drugs affects your freedom. My using drugs doesn't affect you in the least.

Msg# 418/485 [reply of 410]  leave them alone
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/23/89 11:53 pm

Prof, I think something has to be said about the pot issue.  

First, it has dragged on too long.  This is getting like the computer wars board, people, not intelligent discussion any longer.  

Shit....I don't feel like posting a big, long message which no one will read anyways.....suffice it to say, Prof, that the people in this world who smoke pot to the extent that it WILL kill them someday [1 a day isn't enough, I don't think] are not going to change their minds, and quit.  Just let them smoke, and die, and there will be more food around to feed you, and your kids, and more jobs for everyone, now that survival of the fittest has come true.


p.s.--this is intended as a final quote from me on the pot issue [I hope someone starts a new topic soon....], and yes, I do realize that what I just said makes me look like I don't give a shit about helping people, etc., but just let me be that way, and I'll let you go on being you.  Have a nice day.

p.p.s.-- If it is logical to be illogical, is it OK?

Msg# 419/485 [reply of 414]  Hmmmmm....
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/24/89 4:50 am

Born again Christians & Jahovahs(sp) witness' spout the same basic theme as reformed drunkies & druggies, Prof.... they didn't know how not having God was ruining their lives, and they'd never even realized that they'd had a problem until they found him...  Hmmmmm....... Maybe all you people who haven't taken Jesus as your lord & saviour......nah.....

Did that line sound as lame when I used it as it did when you did, Prof?

The Leviathan Let reality rear its ugly lil' head a bit Road Lunatic Fringe, Wi.

Msg# 420/485 [reply of 267]  !
  From: Tyros                To: Ja-va Man
  Posted on 5/24/89 3:58 pm

No way Ja-va.  Give these druggies an inch and they'll take a mile.  If you legalize marijuana it would not be a pretty site.  These creeps would think that evrything should then be legalized!  After all, aren't there more than enuf drug related deaths right now as it is?  Take the number of how many people die each year from marijuana  and triple it, when it is legalized.  Not too pretty.  I can understand your idea of breaking down a little pressure on the legalization fo drugs.  However, i'm afraid that in a little while, the pressure would be back there, and stronger, to legalize other drugs. In addition, druggies might think the goverment is getting soft, and that they can get away with any shit they please.  This country can't afford that either...not in the condition we're in.

Well, that's all from te


Msg# 421/485 [reply of 420]  Easy math...
  From: The Leviathan        To: Tyros
  Posted on 5/25/89 6:03 am

Zero base math is pretty simple stuff, actually... Take 0(zero), multiply it by 3(three) and you get the answer... zero.  Interestingly enough (for the very, very slow) this equation functions well not only in triplet, but in quad, etc.. in fact, if one were to multiply the number of deaths in the country directly related to the use of pot (disregarding the ocassional business related killing, of course) by 10,000,000 one would arrive at the exact same figure one obtained by tripling the figure!

How interesting - isn't "Duh" math fun?

The Leviathan Always willing to share an interesting fact & turn on a light at the same time, Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 422/485  
  From: Woodstock            To: All
  Posted on 5/25/89 8:40 am

It seems that everyone here assumes that if a person is usuinng a substance, he or she is obviously an addict, or a druggie. In the case of pot, I have to say that assumption is incorrect. People who smoke it, often are "occasional users" Sort of like drinking once in a while, Like most of your parents do, would you assume tthey are alcoholics? Or what about pople who have smoked cigarettes a coupla of times. Are they addicted. The large pecenntage of people who somke pot, are occasional users, that should change the way you feel about it. People who smoke it, don't smoke the equivilant to 2 or 3 packs a dayy, which means in the long run, it is less harmfull to the body. If you people want to continue to say you are paying for Mellows high, first consider EVERY person you know that smokes cigarrets, You are paying for their high too then aren'y you? In health care, Even in second hand smoke. Thinnk about it, I know i would much rather have someone smoke pot around me 1 or two times a month, than my father who will sit and smoke one cigarette right after the other, The first situation is doing me considerably less damage.

Msg# 423/485 [reply of 420]  Death by Marijuana
  From: Inkblot              To: Tyros
  Posted on 5/25/89 9:59 am

Your message was regarding the number of deaths each year due to Marijuana and that it would triple...etc. etc. etc. Well, do you know what the most popular form of death in adolescents is? Some alcohol-related accident. Do you think that is cause for making Alcohol illegal? (That didn't work the first time, it probably won't be tried again.) Alcohol is just another drug, and alcoholics are killing themselves in exactly the same way (different body parts, though) as pot addicts. I'm not particularly for the legalization of marijuana, but take a look at what it really does before pasing judgement. Sometimes, the best way of protesting an unjust law is by simply disregarding it, and doing it openly.


Msg# 424/485  Rights
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/25/89 5:36 pm

"we do not accept your determination of the values of different life activities"
 Then, debate them. Make an attempt to prove that marijuana is harmless. That's what this board is for, essentially, isn't it? 
 Incidentally, while it is true that no one has been killed by the active ingredient in marijuana, it contains many other poisonous chemicals which are just as bad for you as regular tobacco.

Msg# 425/485 [reply of 421]  on the other hand...
  From: mellow               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/25/89 5:51 pm

 On the other hand, cigarettes and alcohol are mass murderers ...

Msg# 426/485 [reply of 424]  but prof...
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/25/89 5:57 pm

   Prof, you're the one attempting to limit my freedom -- i suggest that you should be required to prove that marijuana is harmful. But even after you've proved that, you need to prove why a substance which harms users conscious of its effects should be banned.
   Marijuana _is_ harmful ... anything smoked is. But it is less harmful than cigarettes by average usage, like Wood's pointed out. I fail to see the relevance of this fact in a discussion of legislation, however.

Msg# 427/485  This cost thing again
  From: zaRdoZ               To: All
  Posted on 5/25/89 8:01 pm

Firstly, has anyone come out and said they believe drug use to be harmless? I dont think so. There have been exagerations on both sides on this issue especially concerning marijuana.
     On the pro use side, mellow states that motor vehicles are dangerous, but noone would seriously consider banning automobiles. The fallacy here is that the driving public pays for the damage caused by motor vehicles through insurance premiums, vehicle registration, tax on gasoline, & etc. The user of illegal drugs pays only for his fix, and not for the consequences his use has on society.
     The Leviathan freely admits he cares nothing for the rights of others. He does not like anyone telling him what to do. He is anti-authority and will tag along with any cause that challenges authority. He feels he is special and drugs cause him no harm, although he has quit drinking because of behavioral problems. Recovering addicts are like religous zealots, he says. The error here is that freedom of thought is garunteed by our Constitution; freedom to steal is not.
 The idea behind the tax on the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco is to pay for the damage they cause. Since the user of illegal drugs pays no such tax, the cost is born by society .
 Is anyone able to tell me why I should pay for the selfish pleasures of a bunch of deadheads, leeches, and thieves??? 

Msg# 428/485 [reply of 427]  HHmm
  From: Woodstock            To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/25/89 9:51 pm

How exactly are you paying for my breaking the law?

Msg# 429/485 [reply of 427]  To a point
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/26/89 5:16 am

You have described me well, Z.  It is not that I care not for the rights of others, It is that I will not allow the rights of others (like yourself) to decide what I will do, in my life, my bedroom or in my mind.

You are correct, I do not like folk (in particular, biased or stupid folk) to tell me what to do, and I AM definitly anti-authority.

I will not tag along with any cause that challenges authority, I will tag along with any JUST cause that challenges authority...

I do not feel special because drugs haven't harmed me, I just see no reason to find you special because you tried drugs, found yourself unable to handle your choice, and feel that makes you an expert - rather than just one more person who bit off more than he or she could chew, and now wants to keep the rest of the world from making its own choices, based on his or her losing experiences.

You'll note that I was logical enough to quit drinking when I noticed the behavioral shifts... and that I don't feel others should not drink because of my weakness - you could, perhaps, take a lesson from such a nonpuritanical attitude?

Deadheads, leeches, and thieves... What a Bozo... You prove my point about recovering addicts much better than I'd have prefered someone I speak with to do so, Z.

The Leviathan What a jest, I hate feeling sorry for people Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 430/485  Nastly little chemicals
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/26/89 6:29 pm

Every single "Don't Smoke You Fool" movie, videotape, and filmstrip that I have seen to date has stated that marijuana smoke is at least as harmful, if not more, then tobacco smoke. I can get a definate source for you if you really want one. Try the Surgeon General, maybe?
 Mellow, you ask me to prove why a "substance that harms users conscious of its effects should be banned".
 I hold it that the vast majority of users are NOT conscious of its effects. Even you are not entirely certain how dangerous it is. Many unsuspecting people are being lured into using a poisonous substance in order to get a few cheap thrills, without knowing the risks, and I think that these individuals should be protected.

Msg# 431/485 [reply of 428]  HHmm
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Woodstock
  Posted on 5/26/89 6:48 pm

Woodsie: If Mr. X defrauds the government, he is a thief. The money he steals comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, i.e. he is stealing from me. The amount of money Mr. X as an individual actually steals from me is miniscule. But if a million Mr. Xs defraud the government, I start to notice. Drug use in general causes harm. This is seen in absenteeism, physical disease, motor vehicle accidents, criminal behavior, and mental instability. I pay the price in higher taxes, higher medical and automobile insurance premiums, and higher costs of goods and services. The users of the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco pay a special tax intended to offset these costs. Since the users of illegal drugs pay no tax on them, I therefore say they are thieves. As an individual, your use of illegal drugs actually costs me very little. Can anyone argue that as a group users of illegal drugs cost society nothing?
 Oddly enough, this appears to be a very good argument for the legalization of drugs..

Msg# 432/485 [reply of 423]  Drugs including alcohol
  From: The Bumblebee        To: Inkblot
  Posted on 5/26/89 7:21 pm

  The laws governing substance use in this country are less laws dictated by statistics and logic, and are primarily based on the social views of whoever's in power.  Most people drink, and therefore no matter how dangerous it is, it is going to be legal for a while longer at least. There haven't been any capital hill drug scandals recently, and it's a safe assumption that few up there are into drugs aside from alcohol.
  You get an occasional person who supports legalization of something purely because he believes in a right to it, but these people are rare. Do you think 50 year old senate members care about the right to drink of people aged 19 and 20?   They might not like the laws now, but they aren't gonna care about it enough to lead a fight against it.
  My personal opinion is that marijuana should be legal. Cigarettes are, after all.  And I don't see any reason for either to be illegal. I can see sacrificing a little lung tissue for a good time.  Sure's a lot better than chain smoking to feed a 3pack per day addiction.


Msg# 433/485 [reply of 429]  Elected Misrepresentatives
  From: zaRdoZ               To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/26/89 7:56 pm

Leviathan, Your characterization of me cuts me to the very quick! It grieves me to see you choose the path of personal insult. Although I realized the futility of trying to convince the noble and humanitarian Leviathan that theft is wrong, I had imagined him capable of intelligent debate. Alas that I must defend myself from his unfair sarcasm and biting wit!
 Firstly, I have never dictated to you what you should or shouldn't stuff into your body. I have only asked you pay the price. Secondly, unlike the "born again" recovering person, I have aimed the thrust of my arguments at illegal drug use, not alcohol, coffee, or  white sugar. Thirdly, also unlike said twit, I recognize that not everyone who uses most drugs will become addicted. Fourthly, I find the strength/weakness polarity dysfunctional. A person who shoots up enough smack will become addicted, no matter what his constitution.
 I don't understand why you've chosen to attack me. I think you just like to insult people!

Msg# 434/485 [reply of 433]  understand....
  From: Rampage              To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/26/89 8:45 pm

    Z, first you must attempt to do something that is very difficult to do(and yet I hope I have succeeded ): you must attempt to understand The Leviathan.  Personnal attack can be one of the greatest tools in debate.  He gets you in the "water" that he owns, rips you to shreads, as a leviathan does, and then he carries you back onland to deal with you in battle there.  He has not attacked you personnally for no reason, I assure you that.  By replying to that message, you have demoralized yourself, though it will be difficult for you to see in the very near future. Tactically, a personnal attack was a terrific move:  It worked.

     I implore you to simply carry on debate; try to win at the game that was started, not the one he wants to play.

    Leviathan:  Sorry for telling the secret, but few people will believe it anyway. 


Msg# 435/485 [reply of 433]  Noble und Humane...
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/27/89 4:40 am

I love it... I may perhaps paint it on my hogs gastank - with the standard rejoiner regarding my having plagerized the concept, however.

My choosing sarcasm was in obvious response to the message I answered, in which you painted me in truly sarcastic hue, used a phrase which included the terms, "Deadheads" & "thieves" among others to describe a category of person (pot smokers) in which I have belonged - and possibly will again, etc.

If one spray paint vandalizes something, and then leaves the can out, can one expect not to find it (the can) used in retalitory fashion?
 Nothing particularily personal, I just assumed by the tone of your letter that we had passed "debate" & entered "vile & obnoxious" mode... I stand corrected.

Yes, I do like the ocassional exchange of insults...

The Leviathan Good manners are free Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 436/485 [reply of 434]  Huh????
  From: The Leviathan        To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/27/89 4:47 am

I fear that you have foresworn just saying no to drugs, Ramp.  Far from a debating tool, my letter was a response to a letter in which Z. chose personal attack, I merely launched on impact.

Reread Z.s last letter, the sarcasm fairly drips off his/her/it/whatevers vile, fully extended, well-flossed fangs.. Oh, woe, that a poor Leviathan, merely trying to gain insight into the world of the intellectually & spiritually pure should face such abuse!  Alas, what HAS the world come to....

The Leviathan Saddened by such verbal savagery, such verbose carnage, such.... Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.
 Msg# 437/485 [reply of 427]  you shouldn't.
  From: mellow               To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 5/27/89 2:25 pm

    You shouldn't have to pay for them. The best way to avoid paying for them is to legalize the drugs you feel cause harm to society, and penalize that harm directly, not the use of the drugs themselves -- just as is done with automobiles.


Msg# 438/485 [reply of 430]  i beg your pardon.
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/27/89 2:35 pm

 Point one: i never said marijuana smoke is less dangerous than tobacco smoke. I said that the average use of marijuana smoke is less harmful than the average use of tobacco smoke. I'm sure you can understand the difference.
 Point two: i am not a bear in Yellowstone. I do not need to be protected from my own decisions -- i am aware that marijuana has certain drawbacks ... but then, so does living near a nuclear power plant -- and that's not illegal.
     The simple fact, folks, is that drug use is a recreation not culturally acceptable to some segments of this society and has been carefully focused upon to draw attention away from more important issues ... like the U.S. overthrowing governments, preparing for a nuclear sudden death, and maintaining laws of privilege for rich white hetersexual men in their ivory towers.

      It appears the propaganda has been successful.

Msg# 439/485 [reply of 438]  mellow vs. Others
  From: Professor What       To: mellow
  Posted on 5/27/89 6:48 pm

Again, mellow, my support for anti-marijuana legislation has nothing to do with you, personally. If everyone was as responsible as you, then society actually could handle legal marijuana, and I would support it.
 Judging, however, by rampant abuse of legal drugs which causes close to 500 deaths per week, judging by how big cities have been virtually crippled by crack use, and judging by marijuana's already large following, I highly doubt that American society is responsible enough to handle marijuana. Legalizing it may have serious, negative effects on the nation.
 I would like to comment at this time about what Rampage considers a "valuable debating tool", the personal attack.
 A personal attack is the sign that a person no longer can uphold their cause with logical argument and facts, and now must resort to insults.
 The reason I participate in BBS debates is not to give myself some sick ego thrill in making fun of other people. If you want to do that, people, there are other boards on the BBS for that.
 I participate in debates in attempts to find the correct solution to problems. Before I enter one, I research an idea, and present my arguments. If someone can make me change my mind, I will, gladly.

Personal attacks are signs that a person is in a debate for some other reason. There is, no doubt, an element of fun in trying to disprove someone else, but that is very different then mocking or insulting someone else.

Do you see my point, people? I'm not pointing any fingers or anything; so far, I haven't really seen too many personal attacks on this debate, and I would kind of like to keep it that way.

Msg# 440/485 [reply of 439]  Actually, I've seen only
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/29/89 3:30 am

two personal attacks, Z.s on myself, and mine on Z.  Both done in incredibly good taste, I might add...

In the meanwhile, it may well be time to change the debate theme.  It has pretty much broken down to a debate between four folk:

           Two users (or semi-users)
           One ex-user
           One fairly rabid anti-drug use person

Obviously from the above list, all the folk involved have their prejudices, and it grows more & more obvious that one side of the debate slings an old, outdated, highly retorical propaganda line.. the other side rufutes it with equally useless, trivial garbage... etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,,,,

No one is changing any minds or even adding any useful data to what any of us know - and we all know we're right - so, as aforementioned, perhaps a change is in order?

The Leviathan One can even get bored, singin' the praises of th' Lord..Amen, Amen! Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 441/485 [reply of 440]  Topic
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/29/89 2:42 pm

I could stand a topic change, sure. Any suggestions? How about how the world seems to be slowly but surely decaying in terms of the environment, human society, and ethics? Are we all headed to burn to death as a result of some war being faught over an already teetering planet?

Msg# 442/485 [reply of 441]  The Environ
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 5/30/89 4:35 am

The environment provides interesting topic for debate.  Not that many of us would argue against stopping the polution, but at what cost?  While I fear that eventually (read: tomorrow, perhaps) the earth is going to send us packing as its dominant species, not poluting means not driving the many miles that I drive, and love - just as a starter.

Not polluting will put folk out of jobs in some cases, cause drastic changes in most of our lifestyles, and it may already be too late...

Are we willing to sacrifice to preserve the planet for future occupants, when we won't personally be around to enjoy what we preserve?

The Leviathan Often uncertain Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 443/485 [reply of 442]  Sacrifice
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/30/89 8:56 pm

I don't see why we wouldn't sacrifice something in order to save the planet. Without an Earth, all of our profit margins, jobs, low taxes, and cheap energy bills will be useless to us.

"Do not worry about your beard, if your head is about to be cut off."
                   -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

What do you think the root of this problem is? Personally, I think that the root is overpopulation. Our species is way too overpopulated. Something should be done to control our numbers, but what can be done without people screaming that it is unethical? Manditory abortions for mothers who already have had two children?

Msg# 444/485 [reply of 438]  You make me sick to my stomac
  From: Rampage              To: mellow
  Posted on 5/30/89 10:38 pm

      mellow, you pretend to be on some crusade to save all of our freedom. The one arguement you have given us this entire time is "Why not?" which you many times refrased as "You're infringing on my freedom, you tell me why I can't smoke pot."  Your feeble attempts to sway our opini....  no, I take that back.  I don't think you really give a shit what we think,  and your just trying to be an asshole and ruin this debate.  Well, it's working.  The issue here is whether to make pot legal.  Why is pot illegal?  We'll cover that first.  Pot kills.  Why can't pot be legal while alcohol and tobacco are?  Just because one thing that fucks up lives is legal is no reason to make all or more life-fuckers legal.  The issue is not one of tobacco vs. pot or alcohol vs. pot.  The issue is what I have already stated it to be.  Why do I think pot should be illegal?  There is a much larger chance for someone who is into pot to get into other drugs than someone who does not smoke pot.  You may disagree with this, but it is a FACT.  The other drugs are the problems.  Someone driving while high IS terrible, but I would rather let that person drive than someone who is tripped out on acid, which is LSD that is almost always mixed with speed .  This person could not drive at all.  You have to present an arguement.  You have not presented one as of yet.


Msg# 445/485 [reply of 442]  Am I a Nazi?
  From: Rampage              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/30/89 10:47 pm

     Well, I think that the problem today has nothing to do with pollution. The problem is with over-population.  I think that we must kill off about 60% of the population.  We take up far too much space, we're destroying the earth, the earth's animals, etc, etc, etc...

    I am kind of happy that Hitler was able to kill off many during World War II.  By doing that, I believe he has prolonged our existence.

                Read it how you will,


Msg# 446/485 [reply of 442]  you idiot
  From: Mfyudyu              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 5/31/89 1:23 am

"Not polluting will put folk out of jobs in some cases, cause drastic changes in most of our lifestyles, and it may already be to late..."

  All I have to say is that you are an IDIOT, Lev.  I don't know about you, but I would GLADLY give up my life if this planet could right itself again. Granted, that will never happen, as the death of one man probably won't change EVERYTHING.  [Just wait 'till I am President, and I get shot in office...] But, really, I cannot believe you won't do a damn thing unless you are there to see it!  That is really a shitty attitude!  Hey, nothing personal, but you might as well quit whatever job you have [unless it happens to be in the day-to-day food industry, such as mine] because you won't be around for a lot of the stuff that will become of it.


Msg# 447/485 [reply of 445]  you're both wrong
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/31/89 1:38 am

Prof. and Ramp:

  "I am kind of happy that Hitler was able to kill off many during World War II.  By doing that, I belive he has prolonged our existence."

  Yea, and Rampage is fucking Miss America.  It's bad enough that we have to read Lev's message about his not caring about pollution clean-up, unless he can see the end results, but then I have to read about how you CONDONE THE KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS?????  HOLY SHIT!  WHAT HAVE WE COME TO when we let jerks like this into society.  I guess you don't mind if I kill your mother and father and all your friends, because they are overpopulating the respective cities they live in.  

  Prof, I believe you'll find the problem is not overpopulation, but distribution of people.  Just look at the U.S.  We have something like 65% of our population on or very near the coasts, and no one in Utah.  Granted, maybe you don't like the living out in Utah, but you won't have a LOT of problems that arise when masses gather together.  [Reading from Encyclopedia:]  The Earth has 57,259,000 square miles of land area on which to house people. [hmm...about (rounding up) 6 billion people...]  That's approximately 105 people per square mile of land.  Now, if we took that to extremes, why does everyone not move out and SPREAD themselves out?  jeez...even 210 people per square mile would leave 1/2 the Earth left for farming, mining, etc.  

  Yes folks, you have seen a ridiculous scenario.  But, our problem is not overpopulation.  And Rampage, you sick, deluded, excuse for a carbon-based lifeform, I can tell you that we will NEVER practice nor allow such genocide to happen in the world ever again, even if you and the Rampnazis start it.

Mfyudyu "The man who thinks he knows it all, and probably does"

Msg# 448/485  Deleted!

Msg# 449/485 [reply of 445]  You prick...
  From: Thanatos             To: Rampage
  Posted on 5/31/89 11:36 am

KIND OF HAPPY?!? You callous little shit, MILLIONS of people died in Germany during World War II, and most of them had NOTHING to do with the war.  "Able to kill off"... Jesus fucking Christ, you make Hitler sound like some kind of God.
 Really, I'm truly impressed that he was capable of genocide of almost an entire fucking race, not to mention hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, Turks, etc.  These people did nothing wrong but be born.  One man took it upon himself to make the world the way he wanted it, and in that power, destroyed millions.  Yah, that's a noble accomplishment, wiping out innocent people on a whim.  Do us a favor, Rampage.  Subtract yourself from our population problem. THAT is a truly worthy deed, finding a problem, and doing what you can to solve it.


Msg# 450/485  Mandatory abortions
  From: Thanatos             To: Prof What
  Posted on 5/31/89 11:41 am

Let me expand on the idea of mandatory abortions, Prof .  Why must more lives be ended to protect those that are already living? ... Consider this: Upon the age of 18, every male makes a deposit in a sperm bank and receives a mandatory vasectomy.  With that sperm, if he should decide to have a child, there is no problem.  It's a helluva lot safer, cleaner, and there isn't the emotional conflict there is with an abortion.



Msg# 451/485 [reply of 450]  Hmmm.
  From: Professor What       To: Thanatos
  Posted on 5/31/89 4:54 pm

Very creative idea, Than. I'll think about that a bit more. It may be a tad hard to enforce.
 You have a good point, Mfyudyu, about the population being concentrated. Supposedly, if everyone had 2 square feet to stand in, the entire human population could be placed on the island of Zanzibar (off the coast of Tanzania). However, in order to "spread out" the population and fill up the livable areas, we'd need government run housing, which is Socialism. Personally, I'm for Socialism, but you yourself have said to be against it. Unless you've changed your mind?
 Spreading out the population, however, will not solve the problem of pollution. 6 billion people is 6 billion people, no matter what, and they all will produce the same amount of wastes and require the same amount of coal to be built, regardless of how un-concentrated they are.
 Somehow, I don't think Rampage was saying he was a Nazi when he said he admired Hitler for killing millions of people. Unless his ideology has changed suddenly, I think he might have been refering to the fact that Hitler helped fix Europe's population problems (in a somewhat unpleasant manner).

Msg# 452/485 [reply of 447]  you gotta be kidding
  From: Alf                  To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 5/31/89 6:22 pm

To do another Hitler bit, Ramp!  That was out and out cruelty, viciousness  and Supremeism on the part of an insane group of power hungry slime. I would never want to be part of what my German/aryian ancestors did to the Jewish Polish and there own German people. I thinkabout what happened during that time and it makes me sick! If you truly believe that is the way a progressing people should act, then join up. I for one would prefer to die under the present freedoms I cherish now, than to those of a supreme Racist group that has sick Ideals and are "weeding out" undesireables. Who was appointed God and says who is undesireable?  

Msg# 453/485 [reply of 444]  Rampage
  From: Woodstock            To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/01/89 8:41 am

Ramp, you personally attacked mellow for his view points, out right and very poorly at that, As soon as you do that, officailly you have lost your argument to the otther side, because a good debate looks at the facts, and doesn't stoop to being personally abusive.

Msg# 454/485 [reply of 450]  Hmm
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/01/89 9:58 pm

Than.. a few problems could occur with that suggestion of yours.. one, the life of the sperm.  I do not know how long it is, but certainly not very long.  I also see a problem with certain religions banning artificial insemination.. personally, I do not see what is wrong with it.. just adding a few things..


Msg# 455/485 [reply of 447]  Rebuttal
  From: Rampage              To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/01/89 11:03 pm

    Muffy, where the hell do YOU get off calling me a jerk?  If you would take a LITTLE inkling of a second to think things through , you would start to notice a few things about our planet and our society.  Fist of all, I will clarify the statement I made about Hitler.  By killing however many thousands he killed, he has saved us from haveing that certain number of people multiply itsekf by 3 by the year 2000.  If you cannot understand this, don't make stupid comments about it.  Secondly, if you would like to understand WHY I want people dead, maybe you could ask.  I don't particularly enjoy being called deluded, and I would apprectiate it if you would ask before covering me with insilts galore.  

    1>  Who the fuck wants to live in Utah?  Are you going to force people to live there?  Living in a desert works great for the fucking Ethiopians, doesn't it?

    2>  Destruction of this planet is due to the overuse of things.  By reducing the number of people, we reduce the use.

    3>  We are running out of drinking water.  By getting back into dynamic equilibrium, we can save ourselves from lack of water.  We will not be able to get water from Lake Michegan in 10 years.  That is the truth.

    4>  Flourocardons are screwing up the ozone layer.  By having only about 1`
 billion people on the earth, we cut back the use of flourocarbons 5 times.

    5>  We are using too much lumber.  The cutting of the rainforests is causing the greenhouse effect to happen more quickly.  By haveing fewer people we need less wood and can therefore allow the rainforests to grow back.

    6>  The way that man has fucked over nature is by farming.  We have ended up fucking ourselves over instead because we have now close to used up the largest undergroud water supply in the world.  Not only that, but our farming tactics have also cause VERY dangerous chemicals to be mixed into the soil.

         Do you know what will happen if the DDT that washed off from farms    
     into the ocean is still active enough to kill planketon?  We will
         suffocate to death.  Nearly the entire fucking earth will suffocate
         because that planketon is responsible for 95% of our oxygen.

   I could say more, but I have typed enough for now.

                       Rampage "Am I REALLY a deluded jerk?" W.W.

Msg# 456/485 [reply of 454]  Okee doke.
  From: Thanatos             To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 6/01/89 11:14 pm

Aye, religion could be a problem... but, religions change with the times, right? They're very accomodating to technological advances .  Other than that, though, I believe the life of FROZEN sperm  is nearly forever.  Of course, it only needs to last as long as you do, unless you plan on making collector's items out of it... <"Yeah, and here's my newest item... Elvis!">

-disgusting as always

Msg# 457/485  Deleted!

Msg# 458/485 [reply of 455]  you are incorrect
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/01/89 11:52 pm

Just so you know, Rampage, I will probably not be upset with you for long, so keep typing away, with your good AND bad points...[hey, I'm not perfect, either..]

And, you are incorrect about the oxygen supply.  The Amazon forest, not plankton, is responsible for appx. 50% of the oxygen supply in the world.  I have heard plankton is about 5-15%, but not 95!  that is a LITTLE unbelievable, but then again, 50% might seem high for a forest that is being cut down by the millions of acres per year....

Mfyudyu "The conservationist"

Msg# 459/485 [reply of 446]  I find it reasonably
  From: The Leviathan        To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/02/89 5:09 am

silly to be called an idiot (in caps, no less), by a person who spouts silly stuff about gladly giving up his or her life (somewhat bozish, one must admit).

But... in the name of interesting conversation, one must bear the jibes of the slow, as well as the fiery argument of ones intellectual peers, so I shall continue...

I hear a great deal of talk about what folk would do for various causes, yet seldom see much action..  Those who would Gladly give up their life for the planet, their friends & family & (of course) Spot the Wonder Dog, seem seldom willing to open their wallets, or even donate their time.  Assuming that you value your life more than your cash or free time, how much cash do you donate a year to the various groups (nature conservancy, greenpeace, etc.) that are fighting so desperatly - and with so few real victories - and how much of your time?

In my case, I must admit that other than funding a few such groups when they send me their pleas for cash, I do nothing.

I hope you are not word without substance??

The Leviathan Always willing to be taught about the true nobleness of fellow beings Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 460/485 [reply of 447]  ..
  From: The Leviathan        To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/02/89 5:17 am

I think perhaps you should have signed that, "The chimp who thinks he knows everything, and seems to know nothing" Mf...

A). Reread my letter, the writing tone was query... (eg: What would you do?) B). I fear you overestimate yourself. C). Genocide is being practiced all over the world, everyone is tolerating it, everyone talks about how they won't tolerate it, and very little indeed is being done about it.  Does reality never rear its head on your block?
 The Leviathan Amazed at both the force & emptiness of your words Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 461/485 [reply of 450]  Many men
  From: The Leviathan        To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/02/89 5:21 am

would be unwilling to have their tubes snipped.  As would many women be unwilling to have theirs done after one child.

The Leviathan Doctor, just what DO you intend to do with that scapel Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 462/485 [reply of 451]  Indeed,
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/02/89 5:28 am

the pollution problem will not be solved by spreading around the earths population.  One of two things would have to happen.  Either the population would have to shrink (by whatever means) or people would have to really rock
back on polluting habits.  In the industrialized countries, this would mean a real change in lifestyle.  I do not believe (talk aside) that we are ready to give up our fairly luxurious lifestyles to preserve our planet, although the illogic of not changing should be obvious to all.

The Leviathan Mass Transit, No spray cans, nuclear energy, ... not soon Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 463/485  Population control
  From: Professor What       To: Leviathan
  Posted on 6/02/89 2:30 pm

Your point that many men wouldn't want to be visectomized, as well as your implication that they probably have the right not to be, raises a question.
 Suppose 10 people must live in one room for, say, 7 years. Assume that one of the person enjoyed smoking. Now, do they have the right to spew noxious gases into the atmosphere, thereby poisoning everyone else in that room?
 Assume that these people got together, and decided that this smoking was a bad thing, and they told the smoker so. Do the 9 people have the right to make the smoker stop, whether the smoker wants to or not?
 Take another situation. 5 billion people must live on a planet for the rest of their lives. Some of the people on this planet, for whatever reasons, continue to pollute the planet with both chemicals and excess population. Does the remainder of the species have the right to make them stop?

I say, yes.

Msg# 464/485 [reply of 458]  Plankton
  From: The Catseye          To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/02/89 3:21 pm

Ramp is partially right, Muffy.. More oxygen comes from Plankton beds in the ocean  than from any other source, although 95% is not the correct figure.  it's something like 60%, I believe.
 In anycase, DDT does not kill plankton.. it was never meant to.  It does, however, get absorbed into the chemical physiology of the Plankton, which is then eaten by the fish who concentrate the amount of DDT in themselves, and the fish are eaten by people who concentrate it even more, etc.. the real problem here is that DDT is not biodegradable.

Msg# 465/485 [reply of 449]  see other reply
  From: Rampage              To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/02/89 9:11 pm

   Than, I don't want to take that type of shit.  I s'pose I set myself up for it, but I was hoping you might be able to understand it a LITTLE bit.  My reasoning was sound, and why the fuck shouldn't I forgive and forget?  It's over.  I can't change what happened.


Msg# 466/485 [reply of 452]  reply to me next time
  From: Rampage              To: Alf
  Posted on 6/02/89 9:16 pm

    ummm...  Alf?  Next time if you want me to take your reply seriously, reply to me.  After reading Mfy's reply to me, you would think I am some heretic demon worshipper who drinks cow blood everyday and human blood on special occasions.  What you did to my statements is horrible.  You warped my words into some insane persons wish for life.  What I said was that I am glad that Hitler did do some population control.


Msg# 467/485 [reply of 453]  eat this! 
  From: Rampage              To: Woodstock
  Posted on 6/02/89 9:20 pm

Woodstock, I would hasten to say that you agree 100% with mellow.  I have no gripes about that.  one thing:


I NEVER attacked his viewpoints.  I said that he was saying things repeatedly with no factual or intelligent backup.  If you want to sit here in stalemate for 3 years with the sam arguement but different words flashing over the screen, fine, you go right ahead.  If I see someone making the same post five times, however, I am going to tell him or her to type something that is new and with meaning.


Msg# 468/485 [reply of 458]  are you sure?
  From: Rampage              To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/02/89 9:22 pm

I am almost positive that it was 95% planketon.  Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter, since we're ruining both the planketon and the rainforests.


Msg# 469/485  Culprits
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/02/89 10:19 pm

Which US corporations are cutting down the rain forests? I only have a slightly small list. I know that all McDOnalds beef is South American, and also that TV Lenny's steaks are South American. Anything else?

Resolved: Rampage is not a bloodthirsty Nazi bent on world domination and the destruction of all races that are not his own.

Msg# 470/485 [reply of 467]  Common Courtesy
  From: zaRdoZ               To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/02/89 10:56 pm

Rampage, I generally skip your messages, but I couldn't help catching that last header. I don't believe you are as ignorant as you pretend to be; I do wonder why you go to such lengths for attention. What bothers me most is that there is nothing very extraordinary about you. 
                                   Which serves to illustrate the point I have been waiting to state. It is my opinion that intelligence, at least as far as the great mass of humanity is concerned, is an evolutionary dead end. People poison and destroy the places where they live. And although there are a few good people whos passing I would morn, for most I would not shed a tear.


Msg# 471/485 [reply of 467]  Ramp..
  From: Woodstock            To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/03/89 9:11 am

I said you personally attacked him, nott his view point. 

Msg# 472/485  And by the way
  From: Woodstock            To: All
  Posted on 6/03/89 9:13 am

If you have to be abuusive about an argument, obviously the points you are trying to make aren't strong enough to stand on their own.

Msg# 473/485 [reply of 459]  yes, I do
  From: Mfyudyu              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/04/89 7:33 pm


  I do not give the miniscule amount of money I have to groups such as that, as most of it ends up going into someone's pocket.  [I bet fully 50% of the money to help Africa goes into someone's pocket.]  What I DO do, however, is donate a few days each summer to talk to kids [as dumb as that seems] about stuff like the greenhouse effect, or pick trash up around the Arboretum [sp?], etc.  I have done both in the past, and I suppose I will do both this summer and fall, also.

  [Mfy actually HELPS people?  with 200+ asshle points?!?  :) ]

Mfyudyu Superman incarnate

Msg# 474/485 [reply of 468]  I think I am wrong
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/04/89 7:37 pm


   I did find out later, as I went and looked it up, that Plankton IS actually about 50% of the oxygen on the planet.  It doesn't really matter that either of us are right, because, as you have said, humans are destroying both.

Mfyudyu Mr. Arbor-day himself

Msg# 475/485  $0.02
  From: Jules Archer         To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/06/89 12:06 am

One small technical error:

Rainforests do not grow back.  The plant life in the rainforest gets virtually all of its nutrients directly from rain on leaves and the atmosphere.  The soil below can't support a dandelion.  When the forest is chopped down, the torrential rains common to the tropics are able to reach the surface, and wash away the soil, causing serious erosion problems.  With the soil gone, there is nothing at all for new plants to take root in, and a new rainforest will not grow back.  It has taken millions of years to develop the ones we have, and considering the time it would take to recreate them, they are irreplaceable.

Msg# 476/485 [reply of 463]  Saying yes
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/06/89 6:39 am

means very little.  Many of those who feel that they have the right to make "others" stop polluting engage in pollution increasing habits themselves, but feel others habits are the real pollution problem.  The problem of hypocricy would have to be solved first to solve many of the worlds problems...

More to the point, those who control most of the industrial countries (and the pollution centers) have a strong financial reason to disregard the need to control pollution.. They will not just say, "Okay guys!  We have all the firepower, we control the armies, navies, air forces, & police, but we'll just pretend that you folk can actually force us to do anything, so we will just do your bidding without further delay" - an unlikely concept.

While I support - with some minor reservation due primarily to the fact that you always seem willing to force whatever you feel is right on "others" - your strong desire to see pollution cut back, I still see no likelyhood of it happening in my lifetime.  Still, for once we seem aligned on something... the belief that something should be done to save what's left of our beautiful planet from the profit mongers.

The Leviathan Alas, sweet Earth!  We knew thee well Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 477/485 [reply of 466]  Whatever you do,
  From: The Leviathan        To: Rampage
  Posted on 6/06/89 6:45 am

DO NOT put ice cubes in your cows blood... it tends to coagulate if you do, and the clots are hard to swallow, even for a heretical demon worshipper such as yourself....

I would suggest drinking it heated, with a shot of rum on it, garnished with lemon & one of those cute little bumbershoots...

The Leviathan Taste is everything, good or bad... Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 478/485 [reply of 470]  I fear
  From: The Leviathan        To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 6/06/89 6:51 am

that the planet itself feels as you do with regards to our species.  Given control (to a horrible degree) of our destinies, we have - as a group - made the decision to die by our own hand, and to take most of the other species inhabiting the planet with us when we go.  The only real solace comes from the fact that the planet is resilient, there is every possibility that evolution will continue after we pass on, hopefully in a direction that will give Earth a chance to recover.

The Leviathan Life goes on, with or without ya' Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 479/485 [reply of 473]  Something is
  From: The Leviathan        To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/06/89 6:58 am

better than nothing.  I find I argue better with folk who back up their beliefs in sweat or cash, rather than words or hopes.

There are easy ways to check on charity expenditures, however, making the miniscule amount of cash you'd be able to donate capable of aiding your cause. In revolution, the donation of one bullet provides on round to be fired at the soldiers, so to speak......

Yes, that "on" should be "one".....

The Leviathan Bang!  Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 480/485 [reply of 470]  Zardoz, give it a rest.
  From: Rampage              To: zaRdoZ
  Posted on 6/06/89 12:30 pm

     Z, you are obviously still mad at me for a few posts I made on SE.  I don't REALLY give a fuck if you skip my messages.  At one point in time we were on very good terms.  Now you seem to consider yourself better than I.  Let's face it, I do a LOT of things that look like fuck-ups.  A LOT of them are intentional, just as many are not.  You say you wonder why I go to such lengths for attention.  I'll tell you why: I like it.  Now, before you go off and call me some little ignorant self centered boy or something equally distasteful, why don't you, for once, take a second and attempt to realize both sides.  Most of the time I know what I am talking about, and all of the other times I can bullshit my way into making others think that I have at least rudimentary knowledge of that which is being discussed.  In short, I am controversial, and I always will be.  Hate me now: I care not.  Like me later, and I shall care.  

     What you said about my not being extraordinary, however, I would like to discuss.  I am extraordinary.  I can do things no one else can do.  So can you. I have about had it with people who have the opinion that no one is important. We are ALL VERY importat.  Be I stupid at times?  I am certain.  I like shiiiiiiiiiiit..     starting over...   I like attention.  I am very successful at getting it.  I have gotten it in this case, obviously.  Anyway, I have said what I thought I must.  


Msg# 481/485 [reply of 471]  How?
  From: Rampage              To: Woodstock
  Posted on 6/06/89 12:32 pm

   How did I personnally attack him?


Msg# 482/485 [reply of 477]  lemon?
  From: Rampage              To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/06/89 12:37 pm

    I ALWAYS drink mine with a little twist of alf-alfa sprouts.  Does the lemon taste better?  Isn't there something new on the market, also?  Some type of Spider Monkey intestinal refuge?  If you see any of that, get me some. Chunky, preferrably.


Msg# 483/485  .
  From: Professor What       To: Leviathan
  Posted on 6/07/89 9:41 pm

You're too pessimistic. I, personally, would like to see the Earth hang around a little bit longer, and I am willing to work towards that. It's going to take a lot, but I think it can be done. Won't hurt to try.
 You "We Have The Right To Do Absolutely Anything We Want, You Fascist" people are starting to annoy me. Please tell me why you have the right to destroy my planet for your personal gain. Please tell me why I shouldn't stop you.

Msg# 484/485 [reply of 483]  Reality, refrain 44675429
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/09/89 6:17 am


I'm sure you find my "I have the right to do absolutely anything I want, you fascist" every bit as annoying as I find your "I have the right to stop anyone who's doing anything that I don't agree with from doing whatever it is that I don't agree with it, at the time they do it, provided that at that time I don't agree with it"... that's what makes political parties.

'Course, with someone from your political veiwpoint being President for the 3rd four year period in a row, you might well manage to force me to stop doing whatever it is you don't like, after all.

As to saving the planet, do you drive?  If you do, I don't need to tell you why I should have the right to destroy YOUR planet for my personal gain, you already know, as you're following the same path I am... you're just yelling about the inconsiderate attitude of your fellow beings as you engage in similar activity.

As for why you shouldn't stop me... that answer is obvious - you can't.  

While I doubt you are doing much (other than complaining about the bad habits of others) to change our environs, there is little that you COULD do - if you were inclined to turn word to deed - other than in your personal life.  You obviously don't have the cash, power, firepower, or whatever to force your will upon the masses - if you did, we'd be a dictatorship already.

As a result, all you can do is makje changes in your personal habits which will aid nature in bringing the balance back, and hope a couple of billion of your fellow humans will do so right alongside of you.

I don't know you personally, so if I am incorrect about the level of your commitment to the planet, I stand corrected.  On the other hand, there's little I can say regarding my veiw of your stance on forcing others to bend to what you feel is right for all of us.  The fact that a republican again rides the throne is proof that you are not alone in your thinking.  That fact, however daunting I may find it, doesn't mean that I should immediately take off for a mountain hideaway, nor even mean that the shift to right-wing politics will prove fatal for my kind of folk.  It just means that there are a lot of you out there right now all thinking the same way, and that for awhile, harsh laws will be passed, and personal freedoms not in step with the majority opinion will be dearer and more costly.  Still, our country tends to swing right & left like a pendulum, and in ten years we'll be back to a more liberal, laid-back attitude, I believe... or perhaps the whole midwest will be a concentration camp - only time will tell.

The Leviathan One eye on the door Road Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 485/485 [reply of 484]  Me
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/09/89 12:59 pm

I'm not sure how I became the subject here. Prehaps you have nothing against what I am saying, and have decided to discuss me, instead?
 No, I don't drive, and I don't own a car, and I try to use buses quite a bit. I would use them more if the Madison busing system got its act together.

Let me get this straight. The two of us must live in the same, nonventilated room for 5 years, you begin to smoke, I ask you to stop, and you say, "Make me"? That is an incredibly selfish attitude, one that cannot possibly be defended, and it must be changed.

Board: Bee Hive Debate Team Messages 294 to 485, Highest 485

B6:Enter command ([?]=menu)

Msg# 487/605 [reply of 458]  ungh
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/10/89 3:42 am

I know this message is quite outdated, but what the hell.  From what I learned
in Bio in 8th grade, plankton and various sea plants are responsible for some
45-50% of our oxygen.

[R]eply [A]gain [Q]uit [X]press:x
Ctrl-S stops/starts, [space] skips message
Use Ctrl-X to abort Xpress mode

Msg# 488/605 [reply of 486]  Smokin
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Blackie Lawless
  Posted on 6/10/89 3:57 am

I agree with your friends shift boss .. I have lived in a smoking
environment all 14 years of my life.  for the first 8 or so, from both parents.
My father eventually quit, while my mother still does.  I feel they have no
right whatsoever to poison my person as they do.  I hate to think of that the
smoke did to my lungs as a child, as both parents did smoke at least 2 packs a
day.  Blah blah blah, preach preach preach.  In general, I dislike smoking, and
people who smoke.  There is not much I can do about it except avoid the smoker,
which I do.


Msg# 489/605 [reply of 485]  You
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/10/89 5:50 am

became the subject (for a second) by mentioning that you were annoyed by those
who found your (shall we say perceived in the name of tranquility?) attitude
toward forcing your wants upon the masses somewhat daunting....

Re: Environmental responsibility.. If you don't drive, you are (just by that
fact) doing a great deal to aid natures comeback, and as I stated, I stand

No, in this case I do not have much against what you say.  Anyone can see the
deathtrap we are building on our planet, I just doubt that much will be done -
before it is way too late - to save ourselves.  We're like that.

Also, I'm honest enough to admit that I drive the Harley for recreation as much
or more than for transportation, it is my primary vice, and even knowing its
effect upon nature I am unlikely to give up the soul softening it provides me.

On smoking:  While I might put out a cigarette upon reasonable request at a
restaurant, and always defer to other folks attitude in their homes or
automobiles, if I were forced to reside (by some stroke of sheer lunacy) with a
nsmoker for 5 years in an unvented room, I fear the nonsmoker would get a great
deal of second-hand smoke.  I am, alas, addicted to cigarettes, and am unlikely
to be able to (or be inclined to, were I able) to quit smoking to please the
whim of one person, whose opinion would obviously be of less importance to me
than my own.  After all, the nonsmoker would probably fart, belch, or wear
cheap cologne during that time period.

The Leviathan
Reasonable to a fault Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 490/605  Smokers
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/10/89 2:14 pm

No, "discriminating" against smokers is not the same as discriminating against
I cannot help being white, so I should not be punished for that. Eugene Parks
cannot help being black, so he should not be punished for that.

Leviathan can help being a smoker, therefore it is not discrimination to ask
him to not smoke near you.

Even if a smoker is far away, over a long time period you can still inhale all
of the carcinogens and toxins from the cigarette. I find it intolerable that
those of us with enough willpower to not smoke must suffer because others
cannot resist doing it.

Personal rights, I am afraid, do not allow you to spew forth noxious gases onto
an unwilling recipient. Unless, of course, you Libertarians see the situation
in some different way.

Msg# 491/605 [reply of 488]  still smokin'
  From: Blackie Lawless      To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 6/11/89 12:10 am

I know that no person has the right to pollute another person's air, but if
someone chooses to smoke and does it in a manner which does not interfere with
someone elses air purity (such as only smoking outside, or in their own house,
or somewhere isolated enough where the smoke will not reach non smokers), they
have every right (I realize smoking is not a right, but that's the only way
that I can think of to phrase it) to smoke if they so choose.


Msg# 492/605 [reply of 490]  Smokers
  From: Blackie Lawless      To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/11/89 12:18 am

Okay, I realize that it's not the same discriminating against smokers as it is
discriminating against races.  That was a poor choice of words and I apologize
for that.

If somebody smokes outdoors, you inhale very very little of the carcinogens
from the cigarette.  It is not right to, as you say, "spew forth noxious gases
onto an unwilling recipient".  I dont smoke, but I dont mind if someone decides
to light up in, say, a park that I'm currently standing in, or even if someone
decides to light a cigarette in a restaraunt, provided they are in the smoking
section.  Professor, are you saying that it upsets you if someone decides to
smoke in a designated smoking section in a public area?  It is not a right to
smoke in that area, but that area is set aside for that purpose.  There's
nothing you can really do about it.  Smoking has been around for a very, very
long time and people will continue to smoke after you and I are long gone.  It
would be much easier if you learned to tolerate a small amount of smoking
around you.  True, you dont have to tolerate it, but chances are there's
absolutely nothing you will be able to do about it and it will save alot of
frustration if you do.


Msg# 493/605 [reply of 491]  smokin'
  From: Lone Wolf            To: Blackie Lawless
  Posted on 6/11/89 3:23 am

 when you smoke or pollute, you are not just polluting your oxygen around you,
you are polutting everyones air. my father had to give up smoking because his
long term smoking played a large role in the heart attack he suffered a while
ago. i am glad he has quit. now all i have to do it get my mother to quit. 
 although she is not as bad a smoker as my father was. she only smokes in the
car while on her way to work. my father smoked every chance he had.  when i got
my car, i decided i was not going to allow anyone to smoke in my car . not only does is smell bad, it is bad for your health.
i don't need to be sucking in the passive smoke as i am sure many non-smokers
don't either.

                                 Lone  Wolf

Msg# 494/605 [reply of 490]  While
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/11/89 5:03 am

I see your point, I fear that (although many, many people - I work in a smoke
free environ & leave the building to smoke when I wish to do so) it is just one
of lifes little intolerabilities that one must live with - the second hand
smoke, that is.  While I never smoke in nonsmoking sections, elevators, etc.,
there is little likelihood that I will quit smoking so as to not offend
nonsmokers - although I try on occassion to quit due to the obvious health
risks smoking entails.  I guess part of my reason for not quiting is the
pressure from nonsmokers.  Over all, I find that rabid nonsmokers tend to be
rabid non-all-sorts-of-things, with a lust for complaint, and a need for a
cause, any cause.  Once we quit smoking, they'll find something else to rail
about, punch drunk on the original victory.  

While I do honor smoking sections, a person who asked me (while I was seated in
a smoking area) to put out the cigarette would probably gain my co-operation,
provided there had been no seats in nonsmoking, I would not even consider it if
there had been seats in nonsmoking.  A convoluted sentence, to be sure, but I
hope my meaning is obvious.

The Leviathan
When they get rude, I get crude, followed by lewd, who cares if there's a feud?
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 495/605 [reply of 461]  Hmm...
  From: Thanatos             To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/11/89 9:26 am

This is a bit late ....

credit for being the first to note that flaw in the plan.  That's where the
trouble comes in - just how do you enforce something like a mandatory
vasectomy? It could be made a requirement for certain concessions, like
government work, or whatever, so only a few  individuals are affected...
but, the plan still sounds workable.  Think about it in a few years, when your
next door neighbor asks to camp out on your roof and the family down the road
sleeps in the street.


Msg# 496/605  Smoking
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/11/89 10:17 am

Yes, I'll admit that if you are outdoors, far away from anyone else, on a
desert island, in your own home, completely isolated, then I will not be hurt
by your drug use.

Merely because a cause cannot be won is no reason to not fight for it.

Msg# 497/605 [reply of 495]  I will
  From: The Leviathan        To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/12/89 3:09 am

wear my cup to bed as a precaution.....

The Leviathan
Sorry I dulled your scapel, Doc! Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 498/605 [reply of 497]  Heh...
  From: Thanatos             To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/12/89 5:55 pm

Hmm... looks to me like we're going to need to use extraordinary measures to



Msg# 499/605  Smoking
  From: The Solar            To: All
  Posted on 6/12/89 11:48 pm

        Does anyone here know what the major cash crop in the United states was
in 1776? Tobacco? No. . . It was opium.  Ironically, whereas smoking does
horrid things to your lungs and cardiovascular system, opium does not.  It's
major drawback is severe constipation.  Why then was opium removed from
America?  Two reasons: It produced addicted individuals who were dependant on
it and it was associated with the chinese.  It was after the civil war when
family members noticed "Solder's disease".  Basically this involved solders
needing their fix when they came back from war(after hospitalization
w/morphene(sp)). There was such an outcry from the public that the drug was
eventually banned from store shelves.  The vets were not hacking up a lung or
suffering heart disease, they were just too happy and non-carring for the
public eye and therefore were discriminated against and forced into treatment. 
What does this have to do with smoking?  Well, it shows how the carring or
intruding of the majority of the people affected a nation and drastically
reduced a drugs use.  Is it such a bad thing that Opium was driven off the
market?  Yes it was discrimination, both in the chinese and addict sense, but
it achieved a cleaner and better society.  Therefore, I would say that merely
from this one standpoint, the discrimination against smokers is serving the
entire nation.  It is eliminating(ideally) one substance abuse which affects
not only the individual, but everyone that individual knows as well.  It is
amazing to me that we spend so much money trying to cure cancer and still allow
our own people to die like this.  We may not be able to stop cancer(yet), but
we(society) can certainly eliminate one of the nation's biggest killers.  It is
not a question of being able to, it is a question of wanting too.  Can anyone
here say that smoking is benificial to the nation?

                                           My 2 cents worth,
                                           The Solar

Msg# 500/605 [reply of 496]  this is a joke, right?
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/13/89 2:35 am

"Merely because a cause cannot be won is no reason to fight for it."

  I will agree with it one one condition.  If it is the right cause, in a field
of all bad causes.  I do not know how else to say it, but if you had looked at
it for just a second, Prof, you would have seen your statement in need of

The eternal perfectionist

Msg# 501/605 [reply of 500]  Causes
  From: Professor What       To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/13/89 11:48 am

No, I believe in that statement, Muffy. If we totally deny that anything can be
done, we will never do anything.

If we say, "No way will the population ever get under control; I'm not going to
do anything about it", we will have a much, much worse chance of controlling
population growth then if we try to do something about it. The same goes for
every cause.

Unless you're just in a cause for the glory of it, not really caring at all
about the cause but just wanting praise for doing it, petty limitations such as
a cause being impossible to acheive (theoretically) mean nothing.

One interesting thing on cancer: I have heard that there are more doctors and
nurses and researchers who LIVE off of Cancer; that is, sell their services to
care for cancer patients and research the disease, then there are people dying
from cancer. That's Capitalism for you. The economy is better of without cancer
being cured.

Msg# 502/605 [reply of 499]  Christ
  From: Thanatos             To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/13/89 3:44 pm

This has already been said, but... why do you consider the public's unfavoring
look at abusers of drugs/alcohol/cigarettes as discrimination? Discrimination,
in its currently accepted sense, is the act of treating someone of another
race, sex, etc. as lesser than yourself, simply for their differences.  These
CANNOT be changed, therefore SHOULD NOT be held against the person.  Drug abuse
however, <,however,> can be thwarted with enough work.  'Discriminating'
against these people  is perfectly acceptable in society, although many fight it, justly
or otherwise.  Not the object of your message, I realize, but maybe YOU will
realize what a fool you sound like...


Msg# 503/605 [reply of 502]  Well. . .
  From: The Solar            To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/13/89 11:43 pm

        If you had read the message you would have seen that I do not go
against the discrimination of smokers in society.  If the discrimination was
instituted into law, It would benifit our society as a whole.

        However, for you to make a distinction between descriminating against a
person on a basis of race, sex , creed,etc and smoking is in fault. 
Discrimination is, "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other
than individual merit".  Therefore your attempt to catagorize what
discrimination is falls short.  A women could become a man, a black person
could bleech out his color.  The distinction is that one form of the
discrimination , in the end, does not benifit all of society and is based on
complete ignorance and hate.  To discriminate against smokers IS
discrimination.  If you will not hang around a smoker for no other reason then
he happens to smoke, then you are discriminating against him/her.  If you deny
it then you are in falacy.  It is the same thing.  As far as saying that an
addict can overcome his problem is perhaps one of the most ignorant things I
have ever heard.  How many people here are addicted to caffeine?  You think you
can stop, but just try it sometime.  For one reason or another, You'll go back
to it because it is easily obtained and socially accepted.  I would like to get
you hooked on cocain and see you get off of it anytime soon.  Stop being so
high and mighty on what you know.  I have known several addicts and still know
several.  Their addiction was/is as much a part of them as their skin color! 
Why don't you step into someone elses shoes for a moment.  Because you don't
smoke, you are no better than someone who does.  As far as your argument that
it is because his smoking bothers you as far as a health risk, wrong.  If you
are so concerned about your health don't drink your faucet water and don't
breath any air outside.  And oh, what about radon? Have you checked for that
yet?  It's like smoking two pacs of cigarettes a day!  Gee. . . Maybe I should
discriminate against you.  You can prevent all those things...
        Anyway, the point of my previous message was to point out that the
discrimination in society is necessary to curve the smoking trend, but it is a
form of discrimination.  To clasify it as anything else is to make an excuse
for your bigotry.  It is a form of discrimination by definition, but if society
wants to eliminate the problem it is going to have to discriminate against them
and make it illegal or very unattractive.

        I realize that much of this message is scatterd thought, but you should
be able to get the basic drift. Next time I'll just make an outline. :)

                                                The Solar

Msg# 504/605 [reply of 499]  Being
  From: The Leviathan        To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/14/89 5:22 am

Benificial to the nation is hardly a criteria for allowing or banning a thing,
Solar.  I doubt that you could prove that allowing Solars continued survival
was "Benificial to the nation", and yet, I'm sure you wouldn't want yourself
"banned" as a result.  A drastic & twisted logic path, I realize, but the point
is valid.

The Leviathan
Gosh, I hate it when I'm not beneficial to the nation Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 505/605 [reply of 503]  ack
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/14/89 7:34 am

go back to board three where you belong. dont infect other good boards.


Msg# 506/605 [reply of 503]  I know...
  From: Thanatos             To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/14/89 12:02 pm

I know the entire point of Tom's debate is being destroyed repeatedly, but,
truly, does he HAVE a debate? I find it infinitely more entertaining to attack
his ignorance on semantics than his actual  "point" ...

Anyway, Tom-o, I'm still not convinced you know what the hell you're talking
about when it comes to discrimination.  Your definition was, no doubt, very
accurate, but your interpretation of that definition needs a bit of work.

However - I'm not going to get into this unless I get a little support.  I
don't intend to wage a full-scale war on something as silly as this.  But,
suffice it to say, I find it vastly amusing to attack this weenie, basically,
because he's an asshole.


Msg# 507/605 [reply of 505]  double ack
  From: Randall F            To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 6/14/89 6:01 pm

Why the lengthy discussion on smoking?  I smoke, and I'm going to die.  If I
gave up smoking, I would still die.  If people are around me, I don't smoke if
they don't ask if I'd would feel like it first.  

So, anyway, I'm new to this board, and to this state actually.  Why are you
wasting time on if not liking the smell of smoke has anything to do with
discrimination when you have a plethora of discrimiation going on up North?

I'm am still at odds over the phrase, so maybe someone can help me....What in
the heck is the treaty rights CONTROVERSY all about ?  We took all of the
Indians' land, gave them a smattering of it back for a place to live ("humored
them" as ol' Ronnie would say), plus the right to fish on some lakes.  We also
gave our word on the matter (and we can see how much some people think that
means).  And now they say there is a controversy about it?  Sounds like a pure
matter of racism/discrimination to me.

Can anyone help me understand this?

Msg# 508/605 [reply of 507]  Spearfishing
  From: Professor What       To: Randall F
  Posted on 6/14/89 11:20 pm

The controversy involves the fact that under a treaty, Native Americans are
allowed to spearfish (method of fishing that catches many more fish than your
standard rod-reel system) where ever they want, with little or no restrictions.
This is given to them by a treaty that dates back to the 19th century.

Opponents say that Native Americans are causing lots of damage to the
environment (even though they actually have caught many fewer fish then their
opponents), and that it is unfair to give a race rights to do something

Proponents call Opponents rascists, and site that the rights are based not so
much on race, but ancestry; modern Native Americans are related to the ones who
signed the treaty.
I'm not sure, but I think that the Department of Natural Resources is capable
of halting ALL fishing (spearfishing or otherwise) on a certain lake, should it
deem that lake environmentally un-safe. Am I correct?

Anyway, about "discrimination" based on smoking.

It has been said that laws designed to control the actions of smokers, and
smokers alone, are discriminatory, because they do not affect non-smokers as
Meaning, if I were to outlaw smoking in the workplace, that discriminates
against smokers.
The smoker made a conscious choice to smoke, therefore is not really being
discriminated against on the same level as Jim Crow laws or such.

Now, if I were to pass a law saying that if your grandfather was a smoker, you
can't be seen in public on Tuesdays, THAT would be discriminatory, because
something has happened which is not your own choice.

"A black man may bleach his skin"? What? Has the NAACP been told about this?

Msg# 509/605 [reply of 504]  Being
  From: The Solar            To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/14/89 11:46 pm

        If I were to ban, and I am not sure I would for questions of liberty, I
would be banning a substance and not a person.  The person, with much help,
could be removed from the substance.  Your point is logically valid however and
is perhaps the reason I will not condone a banning.  Still, if you wanted to
get rid of it, that would be the best way in my opinion.

                                                    The Solar

Msg# 510/605  Smoking
  From: The Solar            To: All
  Posted on 6/14/89 11:58 pm

I think the major difference between smoking discrimination and racial
discrimination is the motive.  In one case, you are discriminating on a motive
of superiority and the other is based on a long-term social goal.  The se
of which benifits everyone the same in the end(Ideal of course).

Msg# 511/605 [reply of 510]  Smoke
  From: Professor What       To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/15/89 12:06 pm

So, wait a second. If I were to outlaw the act of blowing noxious gases at me,
then I am discriminating against smokers, yes?
If I were to outlaw the application of a hunk of metal against my cranium where
the hunk of metal is moving at an incredibly high velocity, then I am
discriminating against...murderers, aren't I?
Gee, if I were to outlaw the abduction of small children and then the demand
for ransom thereof, now I'm discriminating against kidnappers!
This definition sucks..

Msg# 512/605 [reply of 511]  Aye...
  From: Thanatos             To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/15/89 2:07 pm

Personally, I don't see this argument going any further until Mr. Solar decides
just what the hell the 'socially acceptable' definition of discrimination is.  

Hmm...  bigot? ignorant? my my this boy's just HUNTING for a debate...


Msg# 513/605 [reply of 512]  Discrimination
  From: Longshot             To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/15/89 5:04 pm

 The Solar; [Not Than]
 What Thanatos is attempting to say is that discrimination occurs on the matter
of 'ascribed' status, as opposed to 'achieved' status.   Ascribed status, for
all those people who didn't take sociology is something that you are born with.
  Achieved status is something you attain by doing certain acts.  And Solar,
gimme a break, you really think a black with his skin bleached would look and
act white?  HAHAHA.  And most guys who get a sex change and vice versa tend to 
broadcast it, well forget it, I did my good deed for the day. . .
 Anytime Than!  :)

Msg# 514/605 [reply of 508]  thanks, but....
  From: Randall F            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/15/89 8:20 pm

Thanks for the explanation of the background, most of which I was familiar
with.  However, I still don't see where controversy can be used as a term to
describe the situation.  Stupid, overtly racist, typically white supremist,
etc. come to mind, but not controversial.

Maybe these poor sportfishers should take Solar's advice if they feel they are
being discriminated against.  They could all paint themselves red, and then
maybe they could catch all the fish they want.  (I want to publicly state that
the quote about a black man bleaching his skin was fortunately not stated by

Msg# 515/605  Hmmm...
  From: The Solar            To: All
  Posted on 6/15/89 10:55 pm

        If you people are going to continue to only try to take things out of
context, then what purpose is there for a debate board.  The remark about a
black man bleeching his skin white was not ment a serious thought.  It is an
exageration used to hopefully get someone to get a decent, constant definition
of descrimination.  Discrimination is discrimination by definition. Period.  If
you don't want to call certain actions against smokers discrimination, use
another word to describe the policy.  As far as PW's(I think) exagerations as
to what we consider descrimitory laws goes, he makes a valid point.  When the
smoker is trying to do harm to another person, the law has a right to step in
and stop it.  But a smoker is seldom intentionally trying to do another person
harm by simply enjoying his smoke.  If you merely wish to regulate smoking then
there is very little objection from me.  If however, you were to come out with
a law that stated you could not smoke somewhere for no other legitimate reason
then ,"Because smokers are ", you would be discriminating.  To outlaw
smoking totally, In my opinion, would probably produce discrimination against
the smokers. Would anyone disagree?  This discrimination would produce a less
drug dependant society in time.  A smoker might be looked at by an employer as
a marjuana smoker is looked at today, inferior.  Would you, as an employer,
ever higher someone who smokes pot?  Probably  not even though they are
qualified to do their job when they are not smoking. 

                                        The Solar

Msg# 516/605 [reply of 515]  SOlar..
  From: Professor What       To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/16/89 12:39 am

This "argument" is a small, piddly little squabble over a definition. Not even
an important definition at that. Plus, it is an argument for which neither side
cares too heavily about, and both sides probably wouldn't shed a tear over if
it were to quickly go into spasms, roll over, and die. Indeed, I'm trying to
trace the exact origins of this debate, such that we may never run into a
similar one in the future.
Just let it stand that I agree with Longshot's decidely clear statement of
position, regarding ascribed and achieved status. You've already stated your
ideas, Solar, so, if there aren't any objections, we can all let this thing die
a horrible death.

Anyway, getting on to Native American spearfishing rights. Though I do believe
that the opponents of treaty rights are in the wrong, it is a cruel and unjust
characterization to label anyone who protests treaty rights to be a racist.

Without question, some demonstrators use this issue to vent racial anger. But,
there ARE non-racists who see this as a form of reverse racism, and don't like
it at all.

Does anyone know if the DNR is capable of preventing over-fishing (of any kind)
on a certain lake, to prevent serious environmental damage? If they can't do
this, they should be able to.

The WORT public affairs program has been having some shows on this subject
recently. Try listening to it; 1 PM every weekday.

Msg# 517/605 [reply of 511]  Is it
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/16/89 8:09 am

o.k. if we just blow the "Noxious Gases" away from you, Prof?

The Leviathan
Appeasement, always appeasement Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 518/605 [reply of 517]  Noxious gases
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/16/89 11:39 am

Blowing the smoke away from me only takes care of the mainstream smoke.
Sidestream smoke, which comes directly from the burning end of your insideous
cigarette, goes wherever aircurrents take it, invariably towards me or some
other person. Besides, after a short period, if the room isn't well ventilated
enough I will still get some of the negative effects of your cigarrette,
because the 4000 poisonous chemicals in that smoke will be floating around the
room for hours to come.

Msg# 519/605 [reply of 518]  DNR Enforcement
  From: Jules Archer         To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/16/89 6:29 pm

DNR wardens watch certain areas in rotation...they try to enforce limits per
angler.  If they catch you with more than the allowable quota, they can issue
you a citation (much like a traffic ticket) or even arrest you.  The entire
spearfishing issue blew up just a few years ago when DNR wardens arrested some
Indians who were spearfishing (back then, a violation of DNR regulations).  The
Indians said "Whoa, it says in the treaty we can spearfish", it went into the
Federal court system and the rest, as they say, is history.

I personally doubt little can be achieved through negotiation with the state;
after all, it's a treaty with the federal government and as such, the feds
should be the ones footing the bill for protection.

Msg# 520/605 [reply of 518]  It appears
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/17/89 3:58 am

that you are the victim of an insidious plot to gas the worlds crusaders,
replace them with vermin guided by a less higher righteousness, and eventually,
kill off all lifeforms higher than a garden slug on Ms. Pripits List of the
Living.... I had not considered the conspiracy angle on this, nor even thought
that perhaps such evil WAS deliberate... Heck, even the aircurrents are in on

In light of this new data, I am forced to side with the forces of Purity,
Goodness, and the Unamerican way!  Not only shall I crush my vile, odious,
noxious, and insidious cigarettes, I shall crush those of others, without
concern for their thoughts, deeds, or persons.  I shall hold pogroms!  Purges!
Heads, butts (pun intended) & tanks shall roll!  Smash the imperialist running
dog cigarette-smoking warmongering pig-dog lackeys!  Aaaaaaaaarrrggggghhhhh!

Sorry, Zeal got the best of me for a second there.....

Actually, I think you're correct, Prof.  This is not much of a debate, among
causes it is pretty well a kicked-to-death horse.  The Spearfishing concept
masy get interesting, or China..... Odd to see no commentary on that...

The Leviathan
No news is No news Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 521/605 [reply of 520]  China
  From: Professor What       To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/17/89 3:02 pm

Well, the latest I have heard about China is that there is no civil war, there
never was a civil war, and there isn't going to be a civil war. Rumors of such
a war were started by the Chinese government, in an effort to distance itself
from the army by blaming it all on one regiment. It turns out that tanks from
both the 27th and 35th regiments rolled over students.

Why, then, did they do it? I do not accept the American media's response that
the attack was to put down the protest. The protest was already dying, fast.
Three million students, two toilets.. it wasn't working out. There was no way
that the government would throw away carefully forged diplomatic relations and
trade with other prominent nations, just so that they could speed up the
dispersion of the students. They knew what would happen, yet they did it.
Perhaps this is an attempt by one side in the government to gain power over

Msg# 522/605  Prof...
  From: Blackie Lawless      To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/18/89 2:22 am

Msg# 523/605 [reply of 521]  All the Tea!!!
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/18/89 4:00 am

Yes, you may well be correct.  It could be that the more liberal faction saw a
chance to push the old, infirm hard-liners out.  If that is the case, I fear
they should just have waited for Mr. Reaper to come a-knockin'.....

On the other hand, the "Goddess" did bear a striking resemblence to the Statue
of Liberty, which must have been a real slap in the face for the hardliners -
esp. in light of Gorbies visit.  A lot of face was being lost & tempers must
have been high.....

The Leviathan
It could happen here (and has) under the right circumstances Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 524/605 [reply of 523]  the consulate is in
  From: Randall F            To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/18/89 10:25 am

Perhaps someone more enlightened than myself could explain the international
'rules' regarding consulates, embassies, and the like in regards to harboring
the suspected dissidents of a host government.  In this case, I am referring to
the astro-physicist, Fang, who is currently being harbored within the U.S.
embassy in Beijing.  Is this a normal diplomatic action of the U.S.?  Would we
be as demanding towards another government as the Chinese government is being
to the U.S. if they were harboring a supposed U.S. dissident?

Not that I should want the U.S. to release this guy, but I'm wondering if the
U.S. is once again bending their own rules because this time it's dealing with
a communist government.

And finally, what would the U.S.'s response have been if the same set of
circumstances had happened in someplace like Nicaragua?  I'm sure we would have
pulled all of the Coca-Cola plants out immediately (and probably much more).

Msg# 525/605 [reply of 524]  International Rules
  From: Professor What       To: Randall F
  Posted on 6/18/89 2:57 pm

There are no real rules, only pretend ones. Even the pretend ones don't really
have enforcement, except pretend enforcement, which is usually only threatened

However, I think that if Charles Manson were to go out and kill 20 people in a
shopping mall, call it a political act, and then take shelter in the Chinese
embassy, the US might get a bit put off.
Since Fang has not committed any real crimes by US standards, however, we are
maybekindasorta in the right. By our viewpoint, anyway. This COULD be
considered interfering in another country's domestic affairs, which is a major
no-no; wars can start over that.

Are we in the right? Who knows...

Msg# 526/605 [reply of 521]  Reasons
  From: Ansel                To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/18/89 4:08 pm

    I think that the main reason was to break up the protest like the media
says.  There wasn't as many people as before but movement for democracy was
still there.  The fire had been started and there wasn't any water around tp
put it out.  People were there for over six weeks; they were not just looking
for fun and excitment. 
    Now, the fire is an inferno after this attack of tanks.  Like I've said
before, the old senile leaders of China did not know how to handle the
situation.  This is the biggest thing to happen to them since the revolution. 
It seems they didn't want to seem so wimpy that they couldn't even handle a
bunch of radical students.
    I was at a seminar last week that had two student leaders that live in
Madison, and they said that there will not be a civil war.  Also, there is a
massive underground movement.  They said there is no way to tell what is REALLY
going on unless you are actually there.  They had contacts in the underground,
but they still didn't know for sure what was happening.  The only thing for
sure is that the student leaders (or supposed) are being executed by Ping's

Msg# 527/605  Chinese power plays
  From: Jules Archer         To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/18/89 11:27 pm

Close, Lev.  The hardliners moved against the moderates.  Deng Xiaoping cast
his formerly semi-liberal dice with the hardline conservative faction led by LI
Peng.  For the moment, he seems to have won.

Msg# 528/605 [reply of 524]  I'm not sure
  From: The Leviathan        To: Randall F
  Posted on 6/19/89 4:30 am

that we have anyone more enlightened than yourself to provide the explanations
you seek, Randall....

This is not the first time that a US embassy has provided sanctuary for someone
running from another governments harsh reality.  I remember one incident in
which sanctuary was provided for what seemed like forever.

Regarding "bending the rules", we - and most other governing bodies, be they
communist, democratic, a monarchy, etc. - all seem to bend our rules to fit our

And although I am not a supporter of the Sandinista regime, I have to agree
that we are treating the communist government of China (with its new market
starting to open up & its nuclear weapons) with an awful lot more restraint
than we treat the Nicaraguans - who have little financial interest for us & no
nukes.  I'd assume that the reasons behind the differential treatment toward
China are twofold.  One, China is not on our continent like Nicaragua and two,
there really isn't much we can do about the chinese.  We can pull out, but we'd
lose - China has survived without us this long.

On a personal level, the Chinese students have done more to prove that there is
a "universal brotherhood" to me than all the fancy-assed speech givers in the
world.  I'll carry the picture of the guy in the white shirt standing in front
of those tanks to my grave, and spent the rest of the day I saw that picture in
the paper grinning ear to ear.  It made me pleased to be human.

The Leviathan
Odd indeed to be proud of someone you've never met Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 529/605 [reply of 527]  Yeah...
  From: The Leviathan        To: Jules Archer
  Posted on 6/19/89 4:35 am

For now, the Hard-cores seem to have won.  Reading todays paper, it seems the
government has things pretty well in hand.  On the other hand, there are an
awful lot of chinese (on both sides of the fence), & I wouldn't want to be
in-country when the shit hits the fan.

The Leviathan
Glad to not have the cash to go see the great wall Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 530/605 [reply of 516]  Let me mention....
  From: mellow               To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/22/89 11:04 pm

 ... while i'm catching up on several weeks of messages and skipping most, that
this saturday at the capital, i believe, is a treaty rights rally featuring
people who've walked from Lac du Flambeau ....

     (who's not spending this weekend       doing anything political after 
      last weekend's Insurgent....)

Msg# 531/605  Deleted!

Msg# 532/605 [reply of 490]  huh?
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/23/89 1:51 am

I'm afraid that I'm somewhat of a libertarian.  However, you do seem to confuse
two basic psychological motivators.  A statement like "those of us with enough
will power not to smoke...", shows a lack of understanding between "willpower"
and a chemical addiction - which is exactly what smoking is.

Don't hate smokers.  Pity them.

Mad "I just kicked the habit" Arabian

Msg# 533/605 [reply of 499]  National Smoking Benifit
  From: Mad Arabian          To: The Solar
  Posted on 6/23/89 1:54 am

No message, I just wanted to post again.

Msg# 534/605 [reply of 501]  Huh?
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/23/89 1:56 am

Considering the SEVERE shortage of Nurses, Doctors, and hospital space, your
argument is a bit lame.

Mad "hope I NEVER fucking get ill" Arabian

Msg# 535/605  Abortion
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/23/89 3:05 pm

I'm considering re-starting the abortion debate on this board. Last time we had
one was in late 1987, and some things have changed since then.
Before I make an opening statement, though, are there any anti-abortion people
out there? That was a problem last time.
By anti-abortion, I mean opposing it for any reasons; only for rape, not as a
method of birth control, etc.

Msg# 536/605 [reply of 535]  Abortion
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/23/89 5:01 pm

Hmm.. could be intresting, Prof.  I am basically pro-choice, aside from women
using it as a method of birth control, as you stated.. 


Msg# 537/605 [reply of 536]  Abortion.
  From: Woodstock            To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 6/24/89 9:01 am

Wel sounds like if we do this it could cause a real storm!

Msg# 538/605  Phone Sex
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: All
  Posted on 6/24/89 10:33 am

What did you all think of the Supreme Court decision on the Phone Sex banning? 
Congress shouldn't have to watch the kids, that's what the parents are for.. 


Msg# 539/605 [reply of 538]  Phone Sex
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 6/24/89 5:48 pm

Do you have to have a special phone to do this?  How does one protect
themselves against "Phone-Aids"?

Msg# 540/605 [reply of 539]  Hmmm. . . Abortion. . .
  From: Longshot             To: Mad Arabian
  Posted on 6/24/89 8:23 pm

 PW and Others;
 Personally, in my opinion, I think abortion is fine, EXCEPT that it shouldn't
be used as a method of birth control.  That's about it in my opinion. . .
 Geez, anyone here wanna start a discussion on religion?  I'm a Roman Catholic
who is kinda like fading into Taoism. . .  
 The Omnipotent. . .  [?}
 Naw, the ever wondering. . .

Msg# 541/605 [reply of 540]  Heh. . .
  From: Longshot             To: Schizoid
  Posted on 6/24/89 8:23 pm

I just wanted to do one of these so I wouldn't be left out!  :)

Msg# 542/605 [reply of 540]  okay
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Longshot
  Posted on 6/24/89 10:31 pm

Thanks, but why was that message addressed to me?

Msg# 543/605 [reply of 539]  Phone Sex
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Mad Arabian
  Posted on 6/24/89 11:22 pm

Congress passed a bill banning Phone Sex because of the high amount of children
calling, and not only doing such things as dementing themselves , but racking up high phone bills and credit card bills.. 


Msg# 544/605 [reply of 540]  Religion
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Longshot
  Posted on 6/24/89 11:26 pm

I am Athiest, but as far as my mother is concerned, I am also Roman Catholic..
she does not accept my decisions I have made on religion, nor does she care..
<100% Irish mother if that matters any..> I will have to attent Church and
"CCD" until I am 18 and confirmed.  Nothing seems to want to change her mind..
ex: wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt to church, not bothering to comb my hair
when I go , sitting
through everything while others stand , and
bringing my walkman in with me.. :)


Msg# 545/605  Burning the Flag
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/25/89 7:29 am

Last night on the Bee Line, I got into a semi-heated debate with Bee, Thorin,
[JB]/Bracketman/Gusto, and some others, about what I believe is the right to
burn the American flag as a form of political protest.
What I said was that we have a right to political expression. To burn a flag is
to express a distaste for the United States, its history, its foreign policies,
and other things associated with the US. I believe that people should have a
right to express such distastes, and burning a flag is an extremely effective
way of doing this.
Because I said the above, the other side in the debate called me unpatriotic
(true), and threatened to attack me if I ever burned a flag near them. I say,
if we cannot express disgust with the United States government without getting
beaten up, then we are no better off then the Chinese citizens.
It is the highest insult possible to America's veterans to destroy the very
rights that they fought fo
r behind their backs. American soldiers bravely
fought back fascism in World War II; now, they must fight it again, but this
time in a different form. In the form of a new breed of fascist, the American
Fascist. American Fascists yell, "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT" to people who disagree
with the policies of the United States. They believe that respect for country
is manditory, and if you don't have it, you deserve to be beaten up.

The veterans did not fight for the flag. I can just see it now.. "Gosh, Hank,
I'm so glad I volunteered to have my brain blown into 72 bits such that I can
help keep a piece of multicolored cloth on top of a pole". They fought for the
FREEDOMS that that flag represents. One such freedom is the freedom of
political expression. If the fascists take this away from us, to any degree
whatsoever, then we have lost World War II, and have effectively slapped every
American veteran in the face.

Msg# 546/605  Abortion...
  From: Thanatos             To: All
  Posted on 6/25/89 9:13 am

Well, much as I'm TEMPTED to get into this discussion again , the 'debate'  of abortion will always be a
bullshit topic on this or any other board in Madison.  Everyone sitting around,
spittin' in the ol' chaw bucket in the corner <"Yup, Bill, abortion shore is
keen." > just doesn't make much of a debate, doncha know.  Although it
would be sort of fun to put on the ol' fighting gloves again, I don't really
BAT!!!!! frenzy.  So, Prof, I say scrap this before it starts.


wucka wucka sptang

Msg# 547/605 [reply of 545]  Flag...
  From: Thanatos             To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/25/89 9:20 am

Okee doke.  Call it Fascism if you will, Prof, but some people are willing to
die for a principle.  The American flag IN ESSENCE is the symbol of America's
freedom, as you stated.  However, it is more than just a physical symbol, it
holds its own power as an emotional/spiritual/whateveral alliteration of what
most  Americans feel is their most precious asset - that being, of
course, freedom.

Think about it - the only reason to HAVE a flag is to symbolize your country's
creed, beliefs, etc.  The colors and shapes all have specific meaning, as do
their number.

Anyway, the flag, again to most Americans, isn't a physical symbol at all.  We
fight FOR THAT FLAG.  In battles, one of the key turning points is the capture
of the enemy's flag, and more men die protecting this 'piece of... cloth on a
pole' than had a reason to.  YOU explain it... you're dealing with something
incredibly valuable to America, Prof.  As I said, some people are willing to
die for a principle.  Burn your flags if you wish, but don't be surprised if
some people take it upon their hands to put you in a hospital.

Americans... what FUNNY people.  I'm DAMN proud to be one of them.


oooooh say can you see...

Msg# 548/605 [reply of 542]  Because. . .
  From: Longshot             To: Mad Arabian
  Posted on 6/25/89 11:30 am

 Because of the fact that umm, you were the last message and I was doing a
newscan and I didn't wanna stop, so just replied to yours. . .
 Got it?  Good.  :)

Msg# 549/605 [reply of 535]  ABORTION
  From: Lone Wolf            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/25/89 7:36 pm

I'm not for it or against it. I don't care. I don't see much wrong with it.


                                     Lone Wolf

Msg# 550/605 [reply of 540]  Religion
  From: Lone Wolf            To: Longshot
  Posted on 6/25/89 7:46 pm

I was also brought up to be a Roman Catholic. I don't really believe there is a
god.. only someone to blame things on when we don't want to blame them on
ourselves..  I know people who believe in no god and are better off than i an
in anyway. I believe in science. it was said in the bible that the sun was
created long after the 7 days. how did they know it took 7 days? no sun, no
time. i week could have been a 1,000 years-1,000,000,000! 
I may have the story a little mixed up, I don't know..never really studied the
 If there is a god and he can do anything. Can he create a boulder he cannot

                                             Lone Wolf

           "God did not create us. Wr created god."

Msg# 551/605 [reply of 548]  Got it:
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Longshot
  Posted on 6/25/89 8:07 pm

Got it...Thanks.  :)

Msg# 552/605 [reply of 547]  Flags
  From: Professor What       To: Thanatos
  Posted on 6/25/89 9:22 pm

"[the Flag] holds an emotional/spirtual/whateveral alliteration of what most
Americans feel is their most precious asset."
When Congress issued the last proclaimation to change the flag (adding Hawaii's
star on, July 4, 1960), they made no official declaration that the flag
represented anything but the United States.
Any emotional or sentimental value ascribed to the Flag is of a purely personal
nature; you may feel that way about it, but I do not.
It is insane that a group of people can say, "This has emotional significance
to us. Don't burn a replica of this, or we'll throw you in prison for a year".
When I was six, I had an emotional attachment to a piece of flannel, as did
many other children. Do I have the right to violently attack anyone I see
burning flannel? No.

A little bit on the history of flags in general. In the very early days of
wars, soldiers couldn't read and write; they hadn't even developed written
languages yet, sometimes. In order to tell one army apart from another, each
army carried a different colored flag, based upon whoever your leige lord or
tribal chief was. Armies were, in effect, color-coded. The flag symbolized the
The custom has stayed with us, much like other archaic customs (such as
neckties) have. In modern times, a flag is useful only as an international way
of identifying a country; a person who doesn't speak English can just glance at
the flag and realize what nation it represents.

The above is about all that the flag means to be. I realize that it has
emotional value for some of you, but hey, that's your affair. If I want to go
to Woodmans, and buy my own flag, and burn it, that is entirely my affair, and
you have no right to have me arrested for it.
By my burning a flag, I in no way endanger your personal safety or well-being,
nor do I destroy the nation or the rights gauranteed to American citizens.
What's the problem?

Msg# 553/605 [reply of 552]  Odd...
  From: The Solar            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/25/89 10:04 pm

        I find it very odd that the country which prides itself on freedom and
free expression would inhibit the burning of a flag.  Seems kind of a circular
argument. "The flag gives you freedom, but if you burn it we'll arrest you
because we(govt.) think it is wrong"  To abridge the right of every American to
burn the flag is to abridge the freedom that the flag symbolizes anyway.  Come
on, it's a piece of cloth.
        On faith:  If there is a God, fine.  If not, fine.  I am not going to
modify my life because there MIGHT be a God.  If I die and there is a god, I'll
worry about it then.  I doubt he'd hold it against me for being sceptical.  I'm
human and he(God) supposedly created me.  If this holds, then I am not
responsible for my actions. He is.  I was brought up Roman Catholic, but I
suppose I define God for myself in a different way.  I am God, you are God, we
are all God.  If you take that part of matter which is it's smallest unit, that
is God.  To give a supposed entity human qualities is to demean(sp) it, in my
        There are my views on the flag and faith, but what I still want to know
is what were neckties originally used for?  What Idiot thought up the whole
idea?  (Please do answer i am curious to know)

                                                The Solar

Msg# 554/605  Deleted!

Msg# 555/605 [reply of 554]  What do YOU know?
  From: Cigarette            To: Mad Arabian
  Posted on 6/25/89 11:31 pm

  If you have a point to state, do so; but, do not hack away at age! For that
shows your lack of it!

Msg# 556/605 [reply of 552]  Alrighty...
  From: Thanatos             To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/25/89 11:54 pm

Nay, it isn't the government's responsiblity  to
interfere with flag-burnings... I was simply stating what I, and, I should
think, the popular opinion for Americans is concerning the flag.  I didn't mean
to imply the government had any business interfering with the burning of the
flags .  I should have established this more clearly.

What I meant to say is that although it is PERFECTLY legal, there are those
people who would take SERIOUS personal affront to your burning of the flag, and
would retaliate quite violently.  Although I don't support the use of violence
as a frontal approach to a problem , I wouldn't
take too kindly to someone burning a flag in front of me.

As an example, consider the cross-burnings of the South.. although this has
been outlawed, the same principle applies.  And, no, I'm not agreeing with this
either, just a point...


Msg# 557/605 [reply of 550]  the Bible
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Lone Wolf
  Posted on 6/26/89 12:36 am

 "Can god create a boulder he cannot lift?"

 Yes.  He just lifts it in ways we cannot comprehend.

  Oh well...I was raised a Roman Catholic, have studied the Bible since I was
2, went to catholic school up until 8th grade, and my god is science.  I have
a fanatic, or it makes you a hater of the catholic "god."  I was one of the
lucky god haters.

"Ya wanna know any Bible facts?  Just ask..."

Msg# 558/605 [reply of 552]  jesus CHRIST!
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/26/89 12:40 am

  The problem is, Prof, you are an ASSHOLE!

  Fuck!  I mean, the GALL you have to say that you would go over to Woodman's,
buy an American [or Russian or Nazi] flag and burn it!  You little whining,
squirming toad!  Of course we are not going to throw you in jail for burning a
simple flag.  We will just look at you and say, "What an ASSHOLE!"


Take this any fucking way you want.  I've had it with you.  You and your
14-year old ideas...pffft.  I'd like to bash your head into a wall, that's what
I'd like to do.  You are one of the FEW people to anger me, Prof.  And when you
post your reply to this, don't gimme any shit me being ignorant, etc, of others
opinions and ideas like you always do.  We all do that, Prof.  Just tell me to
go to hell, and you'll feel much better.

Msg# 559/605 [reply of 558]  Take a Pill,Mfyudyu...
  From: The Solar            To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/26/89 1:07 am

Msg# 560/605 [reply of 545]  Yes, respect is manditory...
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/26/89 1:28 am

Yes, Prof... respect for the country IS manditory.  Not necessarily respect for
its policies, its leaders, its religious background, etc., but respect for the
country & its peoples.  For the country that rebuilt Japan & Germany after the
second world war,  didn't keep land taken in combat - as did Russia, etc.,
consistently goes against its own majority to pass laws protecting the
minority, etc.

The land that nutures, feeds & clothes you, while giving its citizens the
option to respect it or not.

While I do not really care if you burn a flag - other than to think "What a
bozo", I do feel that we all owe respect to America's goodness', even as we
raise our voices in protest of her wrongs.  It has always annoyed me that many
out there are so quick to condemn our deeds, yet so slow in praising our many

I have much more cause (I'll wager) to dislike this government, and I do so
with a vengeance, but I have no problem respecting our country & most of what
it stands for.

The Leviathan
America Lives   Road
Linatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 561/605 [reply of 550]  God
  From: Mr. T                To: Lone Wolf
  Posted on 6/26/89 2:45 am

We'll I believe in God,  How do you think we got here? 

     Mr. T

Msg# 562/605  Fighting for the Cloth
  From: Jules Archer         To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/26/89 9:21 am

I must disagree with you, Prof.  If you look back at history, human have often
fought behind a piece of cloth.  Regiments have carried banners into combat
since Alexander the Great and possibly earlier.  Following the regimental
colors inspired the men, and they sought to destroy the opposing banners. 
Wrecking the enemy's flag or capturing it was often a large part of battle
In World War II the entire country was inspired by the scene on Iwo Jima, where
a bunch of greasy men raised the United States flag.  Yes, the scene was
re-created for a camera, but it DID take place before the photo was shot.
I think that you are badly overstepping your argument by claiming to know the
mind of the veteran.  You have not fought, you have not shot someone, you have
not been shot at, you have not sat in a bunker while someone lobbed shells at can you claim to know how veterans feel?  
The flag embodies what this republic stands for, and to many of us, burning it
is a deliberate stamp on everything the country stands for.  Not the current
government, not a particular law, or one war, but the entire country from 1776
to now.
As for the "love it or leave it", there is a certain amount of truth in that. 
You sit there and constantly criticize the nation.  Well, perhaps you should
leave...after all, you are enjoying things provided you by your parents
exploiting the masses!  Shouldn't you renounce your house, your bed, the food
on your table and go earn it yourself?  It's very hypocritical to denounce the
system when you're enjoying the fruits of that system.

Msg# 563/605 [reply of 554]  Mad..
  From: The Catseye          To: Mad Arabian
  Posted on 6/26/89 10:12 am

By attacking Prof's writing style, you aren't proving anything for your side.
I found Prof's last message to be very interesting, and it DID state his
position very clearly.  The flag is a piece of cloth.  It may, or may not,
symbolize something.  A vetran can worship it because it represents the country
that he faught for, or, someone who is less satisfied with the country can burn
it to say so.  I suppose if, for some nutty reason, a law came up that the
American flag could not be displayed ever and had to be kept in safety deposite
 boxes or whatever, you'd fight tooth-and-nail about it.  Same thing.  When you
remove the right of someone to do something, you are not proving any freedom;
you are simply coming closer to the Stalin-type rule that you all scream so
vehnemolently  against, but, fascinatingly enough, embrace it more and
more every day.

  P.S==>  Just to add something now that I've read some other messages.  There
is a problem here that seems to surface in a lot of Bee-Hive debates.  NO ONE
is telling you, Mad Arabian, or Muffy, or whomever, to LIKE the fact that
someone burns a flag.  Infact, most people don't.  Prof isn't  trying to get you to LIKE the fact that people do this.  I
don't think ANYONE really likes to see sentimental items of a country, town,
whatever destroyed.  BUT, this ** IS ** America, folks.  The EXACT SAME powers
that give you the right to sit here and bitch and whine at each other are the
EXACT SAME powers that give someone the right to strike a match and set old
glory a'blaze.  You have to accept this and live with it, otherwise America is
no better off than a south american dictatorship or whatnot.  You are free to
voice your distaste at someone who wants to burn a flag, and, I would imagine
if said person would TRY to burn a flag, he'd get kicked shitless, but,
regardless.  If he/she wants to, he can.  Besides.  before all this crap about
the supreme court decision, I find it INCREDIBLY amusing that none of the
groups screaming loudest right now had anything to say.. this case has been
going on for a looooong time if it ended up in the Supreme Court.  What an
amusing country this is, isn't it?  

Msg# 564/605 [reply of 555]  What do I know...?
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Cigarette
  Posted on 6/26/89 12:02 pm

Enough to say that you're correct, my apologies for hacking away at age.  I was

Msg# 565/605 [reply of 563]  hmmmm
  From: Mad Arabian          To: The Catseye
  Posted on 6/26/89 12:09 pm

I do support the "right" to burn a flag.  I just feel that someone who would
use that right is practicing overkill.  If you don't like something your
country has done, why would you burn the symble which represents EVERYTHING it
has done?

As a veteran, I think I have a little more insight on what "sacrificing" needs

I also stand firm in my belief that the example used by PW was tacky.  Maybe if
PW's father, or uncle, or grandpa was killed in a war, he would have given it a
bit more thought.

Msg# 566/605 [reply of 545]  Patriotism vs. TV Lenny
  From: Randall F            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/26/89 5:01 pm

Here, Here, Professor W.  I couldn't agree with you more.  So sorry to hear you
were caught all alone in your 'semi-heated' discussion, but that seems to
always be the case in the 'conform-or-else' society.  It seems the flag can be
very elastic at time, allowing everyone to drape themselves in it at once.

Now, if people are against flag burning as a sign of political expression, why
are not they also against the use of the flag, Uncle Sam, the Bald Eagle, etc.
in commercialism.  You can't tell me that all of these veterans of foreign and
Civil wars gave their lives so that T.V. Lenny could sell more VCR's and lazy
boy recliners.  Actually, I find the use of the flag in advertisements more
repulsive than burning it in defiance of governmental policy.

Msg# 567/605 [reply of 562]  flag wars
  From: Randall F            To: Jules Archer
  Posted on 6/26/89 5:14 pm

well, from your comments, the solution seems simple.  Do away with flags and
there will be no more wars.

(And please stop that 'perhaps you should leave' bit.  Wasn't it Thomas
Jefferson who thought that a country should have a revolution every four years
or so?  Someone has to keep this country from going stagnant -- although
methinks it is too late for that....)

Msg# 568/605  Flags
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/26/89 6:10 pm

I have not seen one argument as to why I don't have the RIGHT to burn a flag.
I have seen several messages telling me why I SHOULDN'T.
People, and Muffy especially, I never was planning on burning the flag. Not for
the reasons that you mentioned, but more practical ones, which are irrelevant
to this discussion.
Mfy's personal attack (I'm sorry, I couldn't find any semblence of debate in
that message), and Mad Arabian's now retracted and deleted post reflect my idea
that patriotism is replacing common sense; that love of country is overpowering
As for why I am still in Madison, my reason is simple. Can you, Jules, or you,
Leviathan, honestly say that you have never disagreed with the government on at
least one point during your life?
I am in the United States because I want to change the United States. If I were
in the Soviet Union or Switzerland, it would be much more difficult to do that.
I do not think that the fact that I am fed, clothed, and sheltered from the
rain justifies depriving me of my rights to speak out against the government.
I'm sorry if my "bitching" disturbs you so; try pushing the space bar as soon
as you see something you'd rather not read instead of trying to deport its

Msg# 569/605 [reply of 558]  Personal attack]
  From: Professor What       To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/26/89 6:13 pm

Personal attack is the last tactic in a losing argument.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Msg# 570/605 [reply of 561]  God
  From: Marquis Primarius    To: Mr. T
  Posted on 6/26/89 6:28 pm

Evolution, of course.


Msg# 571/605 [reply of 568]  blah
  From: Mfyudyu              To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/26/89 6:49 pm


  It wasn't a debate.  I rerely debate here. I state my opinion.  I must say,
the attack upon your age was unfair of me, but you going around burning flags
is gonna get you in trouble, at least when other people see it....that's why I
said you were an asshole...cause a lot of people [and I] think of it as a very
rude act...blah...why do I keep attacking you, and then apologizing?  this is
the third time I've done this...:P  


Msg# 572/605 [reply of 571]  Debate
  From: Professor What       To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/26/89 9:23 pm

Mfy, seeing as this is a debate board, the practice of debating on this
subboard is customary. All that involves is stating your opinion, along with
some sort of reason as to why people should agree with you.

I repeat, I've never burned a flag, and I don't intend to. I don't agree that
it is an unkind act against you, however, and I don't see why burning a flag
should mean that I get my head smashed against a wall.

Msg# 573/605 [reply of 567]  ...
  From: Thanatos             To: Randall F
  Posted on 6/26/89 10:44 pm

Something like: "Rebellion now and again is a good thing."


Msg# 574/605 [reply of 568]  Right?
  From: Ansel                To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/26/89 11:49 pm

   A right as to to not burn the flag?  Try the Schrenk vs. U.S. Government (I
think that's what it's called) which limited your right to freedom of speech. 
Remember, you can't yell "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater.  The case meant that
freedom of speech should be controlled when it could mean h
arm to a person in
some way or another.  Burning a flag would almost certainly cause some kind of
fight, be it a little skirmish or a all out riot.  Back during the "Red Scare"
in WWII, they U.S of A executed some of its own citizens because they were
thought to be communist.  Burning the flag would definitely be considered an
act of defiance towards the U.S government, and you could be incarcerated if
you did it during a "time of crisis".

   The people that say all it is is a piece of cloth are being a little
single-minded.  The flag is the symbol that soldiers used to represent what
they were fighting for.  Look at that statue about Iwo Jima.  What do you think
the soldiers were working so hard to put up?  What was the first thing done
when the Americans landed on the moon?  The flag, of course, and burning it
would show that you don't really care for the ideas represented by the flag. 
And you would be disobeying (well, not anymore, after this decision) the law
according to how the Supreme Court ruled in the Schrenk case.

Msg# 575/605 [reply of 570]  Evolution
  From: Mr. T                To: Marquis Primarius
  Posted on 6/27/89 6:06 am

Even if we did evolve from apes(which I dont agree) someone had to make the
                 Mr. T

Msg# 576/605 [reply of 568]  Reread - slowly
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/27/89 8:09 am

Prof -

Reread my msg - s l o w l y....

I do not quibble with your desire to disagree with the government (though I do
agree that you tend to do so from a vantage point of no risk/high security,
with little in common with the "masses" you support so strongly), nor much with
your comments re: flag burning.  I would find it slightly distasteful, and
consider you a twit, but I wouldn't carry it beyond that...

What I took exception to were your lines about "Mandatory Respect" for the
country.  America - like any other power it's size - has committed both great
rights & great wrongs in its history.  On the run from England, we pillaged a
country from the savages (in our european eyes) who inhabited it, and in two
hundred years, turned it into a leading world power.  We kept our black
citizens in the rear of the bus, and bled all over europe putting down Hitler,
abet our late start.  We nuked Japanese cities, then aided in the rebuilding. 
Do you see the balance here?  Only a fool could be born here & not respect the
country, Prof.  Policies & Politics aside, we have been both land of freedom
and land of despair for millions, and our good does indeed outweigh our bad in
the long run.

As to whether or not I have ever disagreed with the government, surely ye
jest..  I have disagreed with it in ways you are unlikely to, and paid
penalties for doing so that need not be gone into - suffice it to say that I
have lived what you preach - and what the right-wing preachs.

None of what I have done has made me interested in burning a flag.  Not in
respect to the government, but out of deference to the men and women who have
fallen world wide in defence of America, and respect for the farmers,
socialists, bikers, short-order cooks, giant chickens, outraged activists,
anti-abortionists, pro-abortionists, racists, nonracists, skinheads, yuppies,
guppies, muppies, and all the other folk who actually make up this country. 
And yes, I respect them.  They are America - right or wrong, and we are.

The Leviathan
Why must even the simple things be re-explained?  Must you always resort to
empty defence, Prof?  Or did we just not really read the note?  Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 577/605 [reply of 568]  You're
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/27/89 8:14 am

in the United States because you want to change the United States... and cause
Mom & Dad live here, etc.  Kind of an egotistical lil' devil.... Plus, you tend
more than anyone else I've run across (board-wise) to want things your way -
yet, when a government lives in Profs footsteps, you feel abused... you
actually can't have it both ways.  If you want to preach freedom - believe in
it for others.

The Leviathan
Life is a drag when one must treat others as one would be treated Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 578/605 [reply of 552]  Flag
  From: Lone Wolf            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/27/89 10:56 am

Burning the flag is like burning what the soldiers in various wars fought for.
That's like saying they fought for nothing..Personally if i saw someone burning
the flag..I wouldn't give them a chance to do it again. The flags holds our
history..families of men who died in a war mostly likely proud of it. Their
son/husband fought for it. To me, that's really becoming an AMERICAN. Fighting
for your country and your countries symbol.
If you want to burn a flag, may i suggest burning it where others will not see
you do it? You are more likely to survive. If we allow you to burn OUR flag you
ARE endangering our well-being. You are burning our heritage.

                              Lone "burn and die" Wolf

Msg# 579/605 [reply of 561]  Darwin
  From: Lone Wolf            To: Mr. T
  Posted on 6/27/89 11:04 am

We came from an organic soup! I'll believe science over some drunk guys a long
table drinking wine saying "bahahah let's write a book!  uhh..we'll
make that guy jesus over there a hero type guy  hehe they gotta believe
To me, science holds more truths than does the bible. 

                                            Lone Wolf

Msg# 580/605 [reply of 550]  I believe ya. . .
  From: Longshot             To: Lone Wolf
  Posted on 6/27/89 5:27 pm

 I totally agree with you, I think the roman catholics are all fucked up
nowadays, that's why I'm more Taoist than anything else, I believe that there
is a 'supreme entity' out there somewhere, but really doesn't have much to do
with us. . .
 'The Omnipotent!'   :)

Msg# 581/605 [reply of 571]  Hm. . .
  From: Longshot             To: Mfyudyu
  Posted on 6/27/89 5:32 pm

 Er, well, I don't know, the Japs do HAVE better quality and are cheaper in
most cases. . .   :)
 My two cents. . .  :)
 The Editoralist,
 P.S.  This isn't meant to offend anyone, just break some ice. . .  
 P.P.S.  You SURE you want that scotch on the rocks?  :)
 P.P.P.S.  Muffy, this isn't addressed to you specifically, I just replied to
your letter, father, the FORCE IS STRONG.  :)

Msg# 582/605  Flags
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/27/89 6:49 pm

Lev: You messages do not contain any argument as to why the right to burn the
flag is wrong, so I'll pass over both of them in this message. Should you come
up with any such arguments, feel free to post them.

Wolf: I understand your opinion. You have expressed your love for the flag very
well. But, please realize that the very freedoms that the veterans fought for
include the right to express political ideas, no matter how morally offensive
or repugnant you find those ideas to be. Burning the flag is an excellent way
of expressing distaste for the nation, its history, its heritage, its moral
beliefs, and everything else it stands for. Granted, most people here
(including myself) do not hold such political views, and therefore burning the
flag would be unwise. For the few who do believe this, however, they should be
allowed to do this.

Msg# 583/605  USA
  From: Professor What       To: Leviathan
  Posted on 6/27/89 7:00 pm

I wanted to keep this separate from my Flag message, as I see the two topics as
completely different.

You touched on the aparent contradictions in my opinions. Namely, the fact that
I do not believe in the "rights" to own and use drugs and firearms, but I do
believe in the rights of free political expression and speech. I have supported
the latter in debates on banning violent pornography and this debate, on flag
I do not see the "right" to own guns as inherently linked with 1st amendment
rights. They are two completely separate topics. I support one, I don't support
the other. Judging from a previous discussion with you, you do not support the
"right" to kill civilians for political ends, yet you support the right to own
drugs. If there is a contradiction in my opinions, then there is also a
contradiction in yours.
Finally, Manditory Respect for Country. You seem to have evalutated the
situation, and you have concluded that "our good does indeed outweigh our bad".
Accordingly, you have given the country your respect.
This does NOT mean that the country is respectable. There are those who have
also considered the idea, and they have come up with different conclusions then
you. It is most definately not a given that this nation is respectable.
Even if we were living in some sort of a Utopia, with an ivory-white history, I
do not believe that respect for our nation should be manditory. Think for a
moment.. if someone does not respect their country, why, that makes them a
dissident, doesn't it? They probably are a subversive! Love it or leave it!
Deport this insideous Communist! Better yet, send 'em off to a prison camp in
Alaska! Better yet, run over their faces with a tank!
"Manditory Respect for Country" is nothing but a long step towards an
autocratic dictatorship.

Msg# 584/605 [reply of 583]  Flag/USA
  From: Mystul               To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/27/89 10:03 pm

I agree with Prof.  Regardless of what the flag represents to whomever cares,
interfering with our RIGHT to do what we want with it is fascism.  Whether
burning it is RIGHT or not is a personal decision.  Note, the meanings of the
two capitalized words are entirely different.

On the US, respect is again personal opinion.  There are people that detest
this country and everything it stands for.  Others are fanatically patriotic,
and think that every law passed and every action taken must be right, solely
because this is America.  The "Love it or leave it" argument is illogical, it
is because Prof (and others advocating change, like me) love this country that
they want to change it.

                                      -=[> Mystul <]=-

I hope Prof doesn't mind me speaking for him in that last paragraph, but I
believe our ideas are the same on this topic.

Msg# 585/605 [reply of 576]  Thumbs up!
  From: Mad Arabian          To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/28/89 12:09 am

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap!

Msg# 586/605 [reply of 582]  Flag
  From: Lone Wolf            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/28/89 1:01 am

If an American is burning the flag to express distaste for the nation, its
history, its heritage, its moral beliefs..then why the fuck are they goes for any other country burning their flag.

                                   Lone "love it or leave it" Wolf

Msg# 587/605  R.E.S.P.E.C.T, Sock it to me!
  From: Ansel                To: anyone
  Posted on 6/28/89 1:48 am

   About manditory respect leading to dictatorship, that is true but we are
allowed to voice our opinions in so many ways, why burn the flag?   Banning
flag burning is not making us a dictatorship.  We can insult the president,
government, and anyone else we want to and still not get in trouble for it. 
You don't have to burn a flag when you know it's going to cause public unrest. 

The soldiers that fought for our freedoms used the flag for their inspiration
and a symbol for those freedoms.  When you burn the flag, you're burning those
   This is becoming an endless circle, but aren't all arguments anyway?
     One other thing, it's seems weird that Supreme Court actually made this
decision.  Over half the judges now were appointed by republican presidents. 
This is not the decision you would expect from a conservative rule Court.  Even
Bush has shown his dislike of the decision.  It's funny how Reagan's appointee
(O'Connor) always seems to be the one in the middle and usuall siding with the 

Msg# 588/605 [reply of 583]  Silly....
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/28/89 5:26 am

One can respect the country & be a dissident, the two are not mutually

You are locked into rhetoric, Prof.

Analyze, then theorize.

Also, reread my letters (again, I stress slowly, perhaps even thoughtfully). 
The country IS NOT the government, the country is the people within it.  Their
goods & bads, their sacrifices & gains, blah, blah, etc.

You seem to know little of reality, though you are obviously well versed. 
Travel the country a bit by yourself to learn about what it really is, and
you'll understand.

The Leviathan
Empty rhetoric is a lot like masturbation, Prof.  It may feel good, but it's
not really fuckin' Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 589/605  Deleted!

Msg# 590/605  Right to burn the Flag;
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Prof. What
  Posted on 6/28/89 10:07 am

Although I do support the "right" to burn a flag, here are some reasons I could
think of why that right shouldn't exist.
1) Burning the flag publically would very likely cause bodily harm to the
individual doing the burning.
2) Because some individuals consider the flag with higher regard than the 
cloth it's made from, they would consider this defamation.  The American 
Government respects the private individual's right not to be offended in 
this manner.  Some people find pornography obscene, some would find burn-
ing the flag obscene as well.  
3) Publically burning a flag might invoke a riot, and I do believe there 
are laws against that type of activity.
4) The stench of burning cotten and nylon is pretty bad.
5) There are laws against publically defaming religious symbols and icons.
Some consider the flag in the same catagory.
6) Since there are numerous ways and methods to express dissatisfaction with 
the United States that yield far more results than a flag burning.  I would 
assume that the only reason one would burn the flag would be to piss 
off a large amount of people at the same time.  Nobody has the right to 
do that.
You now have six reasons why you shouldn't have the "right" to burn 
the flag. 

Msg# 591/605  Right to burn flag
  From: Mad Arabian          To: All
  Posted on 6/28/89 12:38 pm

I was being ironic.  I don't REALLY support the right to burn the flag.  

Mad "just in case anyone took me seriously" Arabian

Msg# 592/605  Flags
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/28/89 4:29 pm

One of your reasons, Mad, has nothing to do with rights, tho burnt nylon does
smell rather nasty. Another reason, bodily harm, depends largely upon who you
do it in front of. The other four reasons are all, basically, "because we've
made laws against it". Whether or not an activity is legal says nothing about
whether we should have the right to do it.

Ansel: "When you're burning the flag, you're burning [your] freedoms". Not
true; we are burning a piece of striped cloth that some people think represents
our freedoms. But, our freedoms are not suddenly revoked as soon as we burn the
flag -- at least not since the Court's decision.

Lev: The country is the people within it? How, then, can I be expected to pass
judgement on 275,000,000 people without having met most of them yet? I refuse
to make generalizations.
I have now read, and reread, at varying speeds, your message. You hold the
belief that all americans must respect all other americans? I don't quite
understand that point; you are somewhat ambiguous.

Also.. this discussion is supposed to be about flag burning, and not the fact
that I have not yet travelled the country in order to learn about what it reall
y is.

Msg# 593/605  Burning the US Flag
  From: Maverick             To: All
  Posted on 6/28/89 5:06 pm

One day there may be a reason why I might want to burn a U.S. Flag.
Right now, there isn't.   If that day should come, law or no law...
It would be a symbol of protest, and i'd do it.

Msg# 594/605 [reply of 586]  love it or leave it
  From: Randall F            To: Lone Wolf
  Posted on 6/28/89 8:59 pm

I take it then you support the "hard-liners" (that new media term for
conservatives) in China for shooting civilians.  If they don't like China, they
should have just left.  Otherwise, we'll just shoot them.

I love your simple statements.

Msg# 595/605 [reply of 592]  Tsk
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/29/89 3:00 am

Never end a sentence with a preposition.

Msg# 596/605 [reply of 592]  I will try
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/29/89 5:32 am

to do this slowly...

The country is comprised of its peoples, and the sum of its peoples deeds since
the country declared itself such.

The deeds of americans since that time include both actions of great kindness,
courage, generousity, etc., and villiany such as genocide towards the indians,
slavery, and myriad other naughtiness'.

Only a true shrubbery could have read those notes, and not understood the
meaning, Prof.  Your leafy green matter is showing...  No, I do not believe
that all americans should respect all other americans, I believe that all
americans should respect their country for its achievements, which does not
stop one from railing it when it blunders.

As to the conversation being about flag burning rather than your lack of
practical knowledge & insight into the people of your land, had you attained
the aforementioned insight und knowledge, we'd not need to be having the

More on flag burning:  Do you believe that a parent has the right to
psychological abuse a child.  Does a parent have the "Right" to scream at a
child, swear at it, tell it it's stupid 24 hours a day, etc?

If not, can you understand that a mother who had a son fall at a firebase in
'Nam, or an ex-grunt who watched a best friend scream his life away with his
intestines ripped open from an AK burst, might suffer the same sort of mental
anguish watching a defender of freedom burn a flag that the mentally abused
child suffers during the abuse?  A thing need not be legislated to be wrong.

On SE, it is pretty much forbidden to use the words, "Faggot", "Queer", etc.,
over & over in a sentence... Do you stand up for the right to do so?  Why not? 
I assume that you feel that the trampling of the rights of those who find
"Gayness" distastefull is better than the tolerance of gay bashing, which will
hurt the feels of the gays using SE?  Do you see the parallel?

The Leviathan
666 Heavenly Lane Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 597/605  Flags
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/29/89 6:44 pm

Mad Arabian: Why shouldn't I?
Your definition of "country" seems to be changing daily, but I'll go along. You
have now defined "country" as "[the people of the United States], and the sum
of its peoples deeds since the country declared itself such". Further, you
believe that everyone must respect their country. Therefore, you have stated,
quite plainly and simply, that everyone must respect everyone else, and they
must also respect all of our deeds (the sum of our deeds) since July 4, 1776.
Unless my "leafy green matter" is showing again, I don't see how you can
possibly deny saying the above, or how you can possibly justify it.
It is unfortunate that some people chose to take the peaceful, nonobtrusive
activities and protests of others so personally. Merely because some people
incurr "mental anguish" by watching a flag burn is no reason to outlaw flag
burning. Suppose I were to claim to be suffering "mental anguish" every time
you used the title of your message as part of the first sentence in your
message; is that just reason to command you to stop, or else?

When someone burns a flag, they do not do it to intentionally cause harm to
someone. When someone yells at a child, they do have such intentions. Your
metaphor does not hold.
As for SE, I am a relatively new user there, and I only read a precious few of
the subboards, but I have never noticed any rule, written or otherwise, that
forbids heterosexist and homophobic language. I think, however, that since it
is Gav, Cav, and Demon who put in the time and expenses into their system, that
they have the right to ask people to not insult homosexuals. Personally, if I
ran a BBS, I would allow people to insult any socioeconomic group that they
please without fear of reprisal. That way, I can find out who holds incorrect
ideas, and hopefully try to change their minds. The sysops of SE, however, are
free to chose their own policy, as SE belongs solely to them.

Msg# 598/605 [reply of 597]  Flags
  From: Mad Arabian          To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/29/89 11:18 pm

I didn't read anything of the sort that "everyone must respect everyone
else" which you interpreted from Lev's message.  Instead, Lev stated
quite clearly that everyone should see both positive and negative, 
and then pass a fair judgement.  I believe he put it, "no, I do not 
believe that all Americans should respect all other Americans, I 
believe Americans should respect their country for its achievements, 
which does not stop one from railing it when it blunders".  Quite 
You should also be aware that "mental anguish" is not an ambiguous term 
liable to more than one interpretation.  Simply being annoyed with the 
style of Lev's message is not the same as suffering mental anguish from 
it.  You can claim that it does all you want, I doubt anyone sane would
take you seriously.
Lev's metaphor does hold quite well.  Somebody yelling at a child may
or may not have the intent of causing anguish.  Whether or not it does
is quite a different story.  Burning a flag publically would have the
same deliterious affect on many people, regardless of the flagburner's
intentions.  Again, I find you utterly glib to say that "it is unfor-
tunate that some people chose to take the peaceful, nonobtrusive
activities and protests of others so personally."  Burning your
country's flag in publi
ca). I did not state that you were positively a twit, merey
that I personally find you to fufill my personal criterium of raging, insipid,
twithood (or should that be twitism? I'm never certain)... and b). This is not
a personal attack as part of an argumental tactic, but a feeling that in your
case, pruning you might bring forth better results than talking to you -
although all the "green thumb" magazines claim that talking to you will
increase your vigor... to date, I am unconvinced.

No, my explanation of the country doesn't change every day, Prof.  I merely
change it's phraseology in the hopes of making the concept easier for you to
grasp, with (I'll admit) little success.

No, I didn't state that everyone must respect everyone else, nor did I state
that we must respect all America's deeds, I stated that we must respect the
great good America has done, while railing (a slang term meaning to attack
agressively) her ill deeds - and yes, your green leafy matter is showing, alas!
'Tis not uncommon, however...

There is substantial difference between the soul crushing agony suffered by
someone who has lost a child to war, and the annoyed mutterings of a self
centered poser at a keyboard, I'll wager.  That comparison was typical of your
convoluted, self-grandiose illogic, Prof - and should tell you a great deal
more than you'd like to know about yourself.

If a person intending to burn a flag thought that no one would suffer from the
deed, it would be useless, empty & rhetorical, now wouldn't it, Prof.  Let's
play grown-up games... the metaphor holds, your logic does not.

I agree with most of your paragraph on SE, because I like Gav & Cav, etc.
However: "That way I could find out who holds incorrect ideas & hopefully try
to change them" - What a geek...

I hope that you are one of a kind, Prof...

The Leviathan
Polluted groundwater may be the only hope Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Afterthought: Are you a Jehovahs Witness, Prof?

Msg# 600/605 [reply of 598]  Just as long
  From: The Leviathan        To: Mad Arabian
  Posted on 6/30/89 4:48 am

as the ill effects are not on the Prof himself, and the action is one HE wants
to commit - read his letters on things he's not in agreement with, and then try
to see this free-wheeling, ever-so-liberal person in them...

All: one one other point, I'd better reiterate.  I AGREE with the Supreme
Courts opinion that it is a constitutionally covered right to burn the flag. 
American belief in freedom is too strongly rooted to have had them vote any
other way.  In fact, it is this type of decision that makes arguement like
Profs about respecting the country so wrong.

The Leviathan
Just one more of Profs "Wrong Thinkers" Road
Lunatic Fringe, WI.

Msg# 601/605 [reply of 600]  More applause
  From: Mad Arabian          To: The Leviathan
  Posted on 6/30/89 12:55 pm

Masterfully put, wonderfully stated, an absolute joy to read.  Lev grasps the
concept of "thinking before writing" quite well.  We give Lev a double thumbs
up on his messages.

Mad "practicing my Siskel & Ehbert" Arabian

Msg# 602/605 [reply of 597]  incorrect ideas?
  From: Randall F            To: Professor What
  Posted on 6/30/89 5:34 pm

PW, I have read pain-stakingly read almost of all your often laborious messages
every since I've been on this board and have agreed with you on almost all of
your opinions (including the topic of smoking/discrimination, and I am a
smoker).  However, I was quite shocked to find you snooping around other BBS's
(what is "SE" anyway?) hunting out "[anyone] who holds incorrect ideas."

I never realized you were so all-knowing (read arrogant) that you have the
ability to determine what correct/incorrect ideas are.

Sorry for the tone of this reply, but couldn't you have used a better adjective
than "incorrect."  (Enlightened, liberal, accepting, etc. come to mind.)  For
someone who is so vehement about defending the right to display disagreement
with the country, I find this language quit contradictory.

Msg# 603/605  Deleted!

Msg# 604/605  FLags
  From: Professor What       To: All
  Posted on 6/30/89 10:20 pm

If I burn my own flag, that is a peaceful action; it isn't a threat to fight
someone. Some people are very emotionally charged about the flag, and may lower
themselves to violence, but then it is they who start the fight, and not I. The
burning of a flag is also a silent action; it can be ignored. It is therefore
unobtrusive. For these reasons, I believe that one person's burning a flag
causes no physical damage to anyone else (as long as they don't get foolishly
close to the flag). If anyone disagrees with the above, please say how and why.
That shows how a flag burning causes no physical damage. What of mental damage?

I don't think that anger is mental damage. Theoretically, I am not obligated to
make sure I don't get anyone angry at me. If a flag-lover sees me burning a
flag,then he or she is not sustaining mental damage, they are just getting
Now, this leaves one category, or exception if you will, that I have not
covered. That being the relatives of deceased soldiers who died in wars. Your
points, which are well taken, are that these people suffer serious emotional
angush every time they see the symbol that their late friend died for go up in
I have two problems with this, the first a purely technical point. Did their
friend die for the flag, a mere piece of cloth, or for the freedoms that it
represents? If you had to choose between having a flag but no freedoms, or
having your freedoms but no flag, which would you choose -- the symbol, or the
real thing?
That is just a technical point, however. My problem is that every time we trade
one of our rights of expression in exchange for not hurting someone else, we
havetaken a step closer to Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, in which all books
are banned because they were all found to offend someone in some way. "They
only ause pain, Montag."
Suppose we do outlaw flag burning, solely on the grounds that it causes mental
anguish. In Hmong culture, masks are associated with death. Young Hmong
immigrants (of which there are millions) are sometimes terrified on Halloween
by all of the masks. Should we outlaw masks?

There are several cases in which people were tortured by their parents when
they ere children, by being burnt with a cigarette. These people then incurr
serious, soul-crushing agony every time they see a cigarette. Their numbers are
many. Shall we outlaw cigarette smoking on these grounds as well?

My point is that there are many, many people who are psychologically disturbed
at everyday events. The solution is to get these people some counseling, not to
remove these events.

And now to clear my name. When I said "incorrect", I meant ideas that cannot be
upheld in a rational debate. I wish to debate every idea that I do not agree
with for two reasons; to see their ideas, and so they can see mine. If I decide
that they are right, and I am wrong, then I will change my opinion. Yes, I have
indeed done this.

By calling someone "incorrect", I guess that does conjure up images of Thought
Police. It was a bad word to use. My sentence should read, "That way, I can
learn about other ideas, compare them to my own, discuss them, and maybe one of
us will change our minds". Better?

Lev: You say, in message 600, that you do agree that flag burning is a
constitutionally protected right. You do not believe we should have this right,
however. How then, should the 1st amendment read? "Except when someone is
offended, Congress shall make no law.."

A final word. I haven't insulted any of you, and I ask that you show me the
same courtesy. Refering to me as a twit, geek, an immature brat, or an organism
capable of photosynthesis just lowers the quality of this debate from a
polemical discussion to something found on a bitch board. Please, no more.

Msg# 605/605 [reply of 604]  Reply..
  From: The Leviathan        To: Professor What
  Posted on 7/01/89 2:47 am

I have not said that we "should not have this right", I have said that I
disagree with it - a world of difference, except in your world, Prof....

As to your not having insulted us, each takes insult in different manner, I
fear.  In the last series of notes, you have translated my words into whatever
YOU thought they said, might have said, could have said - had it been 12pm in
Jamestown, etc., and then sworn that not only had I made the statements as you
interpreted them, but gone on to debate the points you made in my name...  a
truly one sided debate, with Prof. W playing both roles - poorly.  I find that
insulting, very.  Then you went on to go into correct/incorrect thinking, got
chastised for quite the Big Brotherish attitude, which you "cleared up" by just
changing your wording, which obviously wasn't really what you meant to say
anyway, cause you'd never say such a thing, and anyway, you weren't there, your
brother borrowed the car that night, etc.  I've seen you snivel about Bush &
rQQegeans doublespeak in the past (often), and here you are vindicated (for
lack of a better word) by saying it is so.  I wish that your theory of truth
worked in a court of law...  Anyway, this kind of action insults other users,
who then insult you, at which point you go into the "Please, no more" routine,
full of the vigor & outrage of the innocently wronged.  One might apply the
"Please, No More" to oneself as well as the rest of us.

Board: Bee Hive Debate Team
Messages 414 to 605, Highest 605

B6:Enter command ([?]=menu):

Back to list of memorabilia