Anyone notice these spots on the afternoon showings of Daria? They're announcing "Teen Read Week" at Barnes & Noble stores during the week of October 17-23. Since I don't have a local Barnes & Noble store I have no idea what's up and I see no mention on the Barnes & Noble web site. Anybody see anything?
Anyway, damn fine idea, using Daria as a reading advocate. Damn fine idea. I have to congratulate whoever might have come up with such a brilliant insight.
"R. K. Henry" wrote:
I'm kinda torn about this idea. Yes, I can see how Daria would make a fine reading advocate, but I worry about what would happen if the majority of american teenagers started to peruse Daria's reading list.
"Epidemic of teenage exploding heads, next on Sick Sad World."
Jon Armstrong wrote:
I'm more concerned with the fact that Daria would *never* support a major chain/would-be monopoly like Barnes & Noble (or their Lawndale equivalent, Books By the Ton). She wouldn't like the way they put small stores and independent booksellers out of business with their tactics. (btw-- a plea to visit the nicest indie bookseller on the www before it's gone in a poof-- Mark V. Ziesing books at www.ziesing.com. thank you </ad>)
As if B&N would even carry the obscure type of books she reads. Even the big chain stores which brag about having over 10,000 books are usually just 9,000 copies of whatever's on the bestseller list or on Oprah and then 1,000 copies of the "For Dummies" series. ;)
It's independently owned and operated local stores all the way, baby...
but still, it was a novel idea, even if they have *Quinn* (?) announcing the part that says "visit your local B&N this week..."
Callie who prefers Buffalo's own Talking Leaves Bookstore, thankeeveddymuch *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Vanity Press Online http://www.angelfire.com/on/vanitypress "I will complete this book, then I will write others. They won't be about you as much." -Will Tupper, "The Priorities Are Changing"
hmm... maybe you should actually GO to your Barnes and Noble some time, as opposed to just listening to what you've been told.
They have a fine selection of books- I'd venture every book we've seen Daria refer to or read could be found there. Not to mention that in Grand Rapids their section on post-modern philosophy is probably the largest in the area (I only know this because my father's writing a book on post-modern-type philosophers).
Funny, I have never seen that happen. Maybe West Michigan is an exception to every rule, but I doubt it (we're a pretty average area by all standards!!). We have a Barnes and Noble (soon to be 2!), but our local independent, Schuler's, is probably more successful... they moved into a larger building soon after Barnes and Noble came, which shows you how much they were hurt :) Plus there are lots of "bargain" book stores (for Dutch people who are cheap. Actually one had Spike Milligan books so they're cool) and some used book stores downtown.
I don't see what "tactics" Barnes and Noble uses, besides "existing", which has never been a crime in my book. They never went and bombed Schuler's or anything... and they're really a fine bookstore.
There's nothing on the show to make one think Daria is anti-corporation.... if you recall, her lack of enthusiasm for Books by the Ton was returning to the mall and seeing her picture at the Doo Dad place.
Of course chains like Wal-Mart that supposedly did the same thing (take over a market and force local businesses out) has been not-too-successful because we already have Meijer, which is a huge thing around here. And all the home improvement stores went quickly out of business, although they, for some reason, keep building more at other locations while the buildings of the first ones lie empty. I don't know.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Jennifer Callahan said:
Um ... why? If you're looking for books, B&N is pretty much heaven. About the only books you can't find there are out-of-prints (at MOST Barnes & Nobles), and the REALLY big ones have even those.
What were you expecting to find there, anyway?
Horrors. You mean that I can buy books cheaper from them than from anyone else?
(That's not even true, cause I know where to get books a LOT cheaper than Barnes & Noble. And legally, too. Course, you don't get as much of a selection ...)
Yeah! They should up the minimum wage! And people who can't get work at that wage ... well tough, at least they won't be "exploited!"
for
The alternative would be to keep the chain stores out of the market through regulation, and thus make the consumers pay to subsidize these stores.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
maybe you should look into politeness. despite the fact that the tone of your comment was supposedly humorous, it still stated an opinion, and I still have every right to disagree with that opinion.
Good for them. Are your friends so talentless they can't work anywhere but Wal-Mart? Doesn't somebody offer better wages?
that's reality for you. Obviously there was no great advantage to that store over Barnes and Noble or it would have kept its place in the market.
huh?
I never really look into the religion and political orientation of every business I go to. Come to think of it, I can think of one group that told people not to visit stores owned by people of a certain religion... they wore little swastikas on their arms...
(hey, it's a joke. fair's fair.)
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
if you're in school and just need a saturday job then somewhere like that'd be fine... most people in my year work in supermarkets and shops and fast food places and the like... sainsbury's has got an ad up in our common room for part time jobs..
Dagny said:
Oh yes. And if you want one they don't have they can order it for you. They can get you pretty much anything in print, and some out-of-print stuff too.
Barnes and Nobles usually have really great cheap racks too. The biggest ones have huge used-book sections. With food and a bathroom included, I can stay in one of those places for hours and hours :)
one
Yes ... B & N isn't a direct competitor with small used book stores (except for the mega-outlet ones, but those are rare).
I agree. I'd be sad if B&N went out of business, and I think jealousy at its success is pointlessly destructive. Imagine if we had the power to force the chain stores to go out of business ... everything would be a lot harder for us as consumers.
Heh heh heh ...
*envisioning cyberpunk world where bookstores compete by means of Ray Bradbury "Fireman" squads*
Arrr, little missy. That be a curs-ed store, ever since the mass murder back in `63. Twas a dark and stormy night it was, when Weed Whacker Wally escaped from the county asylum. Only a dark and evil fate could explain that the first place he found was the garden supply department ...
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
which has
I read this and almost fell out of my chair laughing. IIRC, here in sunny LotusLand, in The Peoples Republic of Santa Cruz, there was some big hoohaa about a B&N moving into downtown. The SuperPC locals were convinced that B&N was an instrument of satan, bent on killing off the local indie bookstores. They wanted the city to outlaw any and all chainstores from downtown. I do remember a news interview with the owner of the local indie bookstore, him being asked what he thought about the whole thing...
"I don't understand what the fuss is all about."
I've got to wonder where you saw this, as it is printed on the back of one of my DarwinFish(tm) t-shirts.
In article , [email] wrote:
We don't have B&N in the UK (although Books Etc are pretty damn good) but when I'm in NY I spend at least an afternoon in the big B&N on Union Square and even bought my treasured copy of Blake Nelson's Girl there (even though Andrea is in some ways like the anti-Daria.) And, even better, I bought my Daria books there and had a long conversation with the girl on the till who told me it was her favourite show. So B&N is cool. That's all the evidence that you need.
Anyway any event that encourages teenagers to read books has got to be a good thing and it doesn't really matter where they buy the books. In the scary real world where I work on a teen magazine I do book reviews and try to cover everything from Truman Capote to Francesca Lia Block but the majority of our readers would rather devour the latest (insert name of suitable boy band here) cut and paste fan book. Still, at least they're buying books...
Sarra
Sarra's Rich Inner Life Code G-1, VIIPAs-5 IOTB-8 90p CL+JG+JL+AG+LK+HG HSSPIM
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:54:53 GMT, [email] wrote:
(Snip)
Nope, sorry; circumstantial and subjective. ;)
Well... so long as it isn't Hitler's Book Barn Though they do offer that free lighter if you didn't like the book.
(Godwin's law not applicable, as this was not a comparison...)
Depends. I've seen some of those books, and literacy isn't always required...
OT: I was always upset that Coles never carried any Poppy Z Brite. After reading "Lost Souls," I now count that as a blessing.
on a website selling said t-shirt.
I could offend more people by not wearing one. Of course I'd also freeze and stuff. Michigan in October is not the time or place to become a nudist.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
-Dagny
Now there's one for the sig file!
I like B & N, but as an anti-social creep, I prefer amazon.com 'cause I don't have to talk to people or even leave my home. But used bookstores (and record stores, for that matter) are easier on my budget (and I got most of my Heinlein collection at used stores, including the UK version of "Tunnel In The Sky". )
Dagny said:
I wouldn't be offended. Trust me.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Dammit you two! Cut it out or I'll get the hose! <visions of bing cherries>
As an aside, I finally got all the stuff needed[1] to whip[2] up a batch of UBER, which Mindy kindly provided the recipe. If I don't kill myself mixing the stuff, I'll post about the effects starting approx 0030hrs PDT 10/24/99.
[1] Bomb disposal and full hazmat/biohazard suit. 6 to 8 weeks for delivery. Should of had it sent FedEx.
[2] Bad term. This stuff is probably going to react to violent action along the same lines as nitro.
On the mountaintop, [email] spake thusly:
Oooohhh... *laughs very evilly, then suddenly stops* RICH! What sort of statement do I need to make so I'm not legally liable if he gets killed by this diabolical mixture?
Hehe... if you can imagine four of my already-hyper friends on this stuff... in the same house...
-Mindy
"Daria, you're giving me a headache!!" -Quinn Morgendorffer, "Daria"
Dcode: Ap D+ T7 Wl Q++ Fn^Fr O- Or+Os+Od m-- c MV-- C5X F:101,308 BBd FCJ -DT-- q fJ^fM^fO(Artie :-P) Find the Daria Geek Code at http://www.geocities.com/TelevisonCity/Taping/3017/
[email] (Mindy) wrote:
Sorry, Mindy, I don't do Products Liability or Negligence work. I'd recommend hiring good local counsel, or, well, I hear that Mexico is really nice this time of year. ;-) Just make sure that you take goood care of the evidence. Reaaal gooood care of it.
wishing season 4 would show up so that things'd get a bit more bearable here, rich. (the preceding was not intended to be legal advice, and should not be considered as a solicitation of legal advice. no attorney-client relationship should be construed or implied from this communication. should you need legal advice, consult a local licensed legal professional.)
Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.
Jake: Jefferson!
Helen: Stalin.
Jennifer Callahan wrote in message ...
have
for
that
within
I agree, it does suck, but it's like TV programming. You vote for the shows you like by watching them, so networks can charge higher rates for ads. They show what we vote for so they can make as much money as possible. fair enough, right? the problem, however, is that people just ain't no good. (apologies to nick cave.) That is, TV programming sucks cos everyone votes for The Nanny, et al, and not stuff like Daria. So, can you really blame the networks for showing complete crap (and sport) the whole time?
So, all i'm saying is, consumer's choose who goes out of business and who doesn't, and you can't blame B&N or other huge companies for this. (you can blame them for shit customer service etc, though.) Ideally, the market should consist of a couple of large players, who'd compete with each other via price, and hopefully there'd still be room for some independent stores to cater for niche markets, and the owners of which, you can get to know.
policies
Yeah, recently here (Australia) Telstra (kinda like AT&T) floated on the stock exchange, and everyone knew the IPO would make heaps of money. so, everyone in the county bought Telstra shares for something like $3.20. Now (a few months later) they're something like $9.00. The problem? Telstra are anti-competitive, conservative, anti-technology bastards, so as a matter of principle i didn't buy any shares. That's a lot of nice cheap bed sets i missed out on for bloody principle.
Will. "The darkest spot in modern society is a small luminous screen, except maybe when Daria's on." - Regis Debray. (ok, i may have misquoted him a little.)
Bert Newton wrote in message news:MoSP3.4492$[email]...
shows
They
Yes. Because I can blame them for turning the making of money (within the law) into the one criterion they base their decisions on. We are each responsible for the forseeable effects on others of our choices. Broadcasters aren't exempt, however rich they are, however many stars' parties they've been to, however many lickspittle toadies surround them.
I do recognise -- and applaud -- the honourable exceptions.
There was a brilliant programme on Radio Three on Wednesday night, looking at the impact on broadcasting and culture of Bronowski's series _The Ascent of Man_. One of the commentators gave a succinct and searing analysis of the state of broadcasting today, that put me in mind of the dying (TV playwright) Dennis Potter's indictment of the industry he'd given his life and his talent to. Listening to it was one of those breathtaking moments: you think, "I could take a cabin in the woods, try for a month, and not put it any better than that." I'm trying to get a transcript from the BBC; if I succeed, I'll quote it here.
Martin.
Martin Sylvester wrote in message ...
(within the
Well said Martin. But let me clarify my position, which i didn't do before because the whole TV programming example was just an analogy.
Having realist tendancies, i somewhat compassionately accept that; the directors of the company are answerable to shareholders whose sole criterion for board-position election is net profit. so if they don't programme for max-profit-generation, they'll be replaced by people who do.
However, the youthful idealist in me proclaims "they have a moral and social obligation, that overides all other priorities, to show informative, entertaining, diverse, high quality programmes. This obligation follows from the special power they derive from posessing such influence on society. So how dare they abuse their position to make money. the industry should be deregulated, with more broadcasting licences issued."(this may only be relevant in australia.)
so what's the conclusion? well, as i said before, the easiest way to solve the problem of the current crap standard of broadcasting/ journalism (yes people, i'm still talking about "The Nanny" here), would be for people to only watch good stuff. but this just ain't gonna happen. so anyone got any suggestions?
me too.
Disclaimer: being an Australian, i can only assume the situation in the US and UK is pretty much the same as it is down here.
Will.
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 15:20:35 +0930, "Bert Newton" wrote:
IE blame the shareholders?
Methinks you'll hear a line similar to that given in that Michael J Fox movie (can't remember it; yuppie plastic surgeon gets trapped in a small town)
"We produce profit-making crap in order to fund our informative, entertaining, diverse, high quality programmes."
What we're doing here: whine loudly in the hopes of inspiring some segment of the population to increase their standards. (Or at least pity us enough to pretend during sweeps week...)
Glenn, wondering what part of that Canada falls under...
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:45:53 +0930, "Bert Newton" wrote:
(Snip)
And people still think democracy is a good system...
Yes. I blame it all on biased rating groups. <paranoid> Y'see, they specifically pick those groups out of data compiled by the census bureau so that they can justify (via ratings) the production of mindless drivel intended to socialize us into good little sheep who go out and buy the advertiser's product. Quality shows like Daria, which encourage free thought, are Bad for the networks because they can't guarantee that the viewers of that kind of show will respond to the crap they spew out for commercials. </paranoid>
No... on the other hand, if you really want to be uptight about principle you *can* blame them for unethical manipulation of human nature in the name of greed.
I get that way sometimes; I'll pay 20 bucks to the shopkeeper who wants to provide a valuable service rather than pay 15 to a guy who just wants to make money. Assuming I'm not broke at the time.
Which is why I'm constantly disappointed by chain bookstores. Quality occult works (as opposed to the regurgitated horoscope/tarot/love spell crap which keeps the entire field marked as laughable...) only shows up in the niche market.
On 21 Oct 1999 17:22:50 GMT, [email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
Why wouldn't she? I would think the economic efficiency of large bookstores over smaller ones would appeal to her. Functionality over sentimentality, and such.
exactly. I doubt she's one of those who look for a great deal of "human interaction" when buying books either (a typical- though not necessarily true- complaint of Barnes and Noble)
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Actually, I think that while she would primarily go for books, she would enjoy "human interaction" at an independent book dealer if the people who owned/worked at the store were intelligent, well read people who could hold their own in a literary discussion.
DJ
unless
1.) she didn't give them a chance (just let me buy my damn book!) 2.) they turned out to be pretentious snobs ala "Gifted"
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Hmmmm... true, but if it was close to home, had books she wanted to read, and the people didn't act like pretentious snobs ala "Gifted", there is no real reason to not enjoy shopping at an independent bookstore.
DJ
On 22 Oct 1999 23:38:35 GMT, [email] (Wammy2) wrote:
Other than the needless higher costs, of course.
On 22 Oct 1999 23:47:15 GMT, [email] (Howling Lunatic) wrote:
That would depend on your (or rather, her) definition of needless.
Avoiding the throngs of nitwits blocking the entrance whilst they peruse the latest editions of "Val" and "Waif" might be a worth paying an extra buck or two.
Though in all fairness, this whole discussion is moot: she'd be more into going down to the local library.
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:25:23 GMT, [email] wrote:
Of course. This is ATD, it always depends on your definitions of something. Depending on your definition of "depends", "always", and "definition", that is.
Well, see, speaking for myself, nitwits don't bother me.
Can't disagree. And you all know how much I love disagreeing.
there's no real reason she wouldn't shop at Barnes and Noble, either.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Exactly!
DJ
On 22 Oct 1999 19:34:36 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
2 is obvious. 1 would depend on the personality of the person in question. The shopkeep would have to make the right impression with the first few words.
[email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
Oprah is evil. You know, she's building an army of zombies to take over, don't you?
I understand your feelings about B&N, but, frankly, we used to have a local bookstore that had a very mediocre selection of what I'd consider to be "good books"-- they were a smaller outfit, so they tended to only have a few bestsellers and a bunch of useless coffee-table books, and a microscopic paperback section (for us cheapskates.) The worst part was that the books weren't organized at all, they were just all thrown in a heap, and you had to "browse" (read: search every damn spine) to find that the book you wanted wasn't in. And don't even ask me about the outrageous prices they charged. Nobody except the owners really complained when they went out of business-- in fact, a few of my friends worked there, and the pay wasn't so hot, either. They had a monopoly on the town before B&N showed up, and they blew it because they took advantage of us. If I'm going to be taken advantage of, anyway... I still don't buy much at B&N, though-- their art selection sucks (a lot of crappy technique books, and the prices are waaay too high on the collections), and the paperbacks they have I can get used for 1/10th the price-- I sure as hell wouldn't've found a complete collection of Mondrian's works for $30 at B&N, that's for sure.
Oddly enough, the second hand bookstores have all thrived around here...
As for Wal-Mart, well, I try to avoid that as much as possible. *Shudder* No particular reason, they just get on my nerves there.
rich.
Jane: You know, I don't know why people say we have a bad attitude.
Daria: Screw 'em.
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:49:11 GMT, [email] (paperpusher) wrote:
Faithful viewers?
Sidenote: I just checked the B&N website, and was pleasantly surprised by their selection. They do know who Peter Carroll is...
In article ,
I wrote a fanfic called
THE COMPLETE IDIOTS GUIDE TO...
about Ms. Li trying to encourage students to read (with help from the MALL and BOOKS BY THE TON).
Catch it at
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/idiots.html
or at OUTPOST DARIA.
I'd like some commentary back especially given its new relevance.
bill
On 21 Oct 1999 17:22:50 GMT, [email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
Putting aside the ample evidence that she's really more of a library hound, she didn't "not support" Books By The Ton. Her unenthusiastic reaction in "Malled" was due to her less than wonderful experience at the MotM (and possibly dread at the prospect of her family seeing her face on a poster in the Doo-Dad Shop window).
I really don't think Daria would care whether or not a place like B&N is a "would-be monopoly" (which isn't true in my area, anyway, as they have lots of competition from Border's and Waldenbooks). If she wanted a book, and B&N (or BBTT) had it, I doubt she'd hesitate to get it there. IMHO, she's well aware of what the game is and how it's played, so she saves her wrath for important things like book-burning incidents (even though the extent of her wrath was to yell at the TV screen).
MY problem with B&N has to do with barnesandnoble.com, its online store. I've ordered stuff from them that's taken FOREVER to arrive, even though it's in stock. By contrast, Amazon.com has always been extremely fast. Survival of the fittest at work; I give my business to Amazon.com now, and barnesandnoble.com (and B&N itself, which I don't need thanks to Border's) can take a flying leap.
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
well I personally get my books through Baker and Taylor at 40% off because my mom can do a staff order at the library :) although out of print or never in print in this damn country books I have to order online from like powells.com or amazon.co.uk
wheeeyah... I loved that 40% off books thing... I got everyone books for Christmas last year :)
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Dagny Scott wrote:
Damn you!
I LOVE Powell's. Definitely the book lover's Mecca. It's got the spirit of an independent bookstore coupled with the selection that comes with being the biggest bookstore in the country... and with tons and tons of CHEAP used books... all within 15 minutes of my apartment. :-D I'm going there tomorrow night, actually, to hear Stephen Pinker (the cognitive scientist/linguist with style!) talk about his latest book "Words and Rules." *bounce bounce* I'm a bit excited. :-)
You've got lucky friends and family. :-)
--J.
I tend to order the really rare stuff (i.e., anything I can't find in Chapel Hill, which is damn near little) by using addall.com, which has a wonderful price search engine-- it searches for both new and USED books in the online bookstores. Very Very nice. AND it tells you about the shipping, too. (Which some online stores will absolutely nail you with out o' the blue.) *A warm feeling about a few of his rare art technique books ensues...*
rich.
Daria: He said master *painters.*
[email] wrote:
Ya know what's sad? the world would prolly be better for it :) - Jaymz
wrote in message news:7umia2$k88$[email]...
"Teen Read Week" is sponsored by the American Library Association http://www.ala.org/teenread/
You might also be interested in the reading list linked to that page.
I'm still curious as to how B&N and/or ALA have tied Daria into this though. Are the ads on MTV the extent of it? I'm still quite encouraged that they'd connect Daria to it at all.
In article , "R. K. Henry" wrote:
Dammit! No Daria-related materials on the ALA site!
Typical half-assed MTV tie in!
--.\\<-H--
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:23:46 -0700, [email] (Michelle Klein-Hass) wrote:
Well, I *did* see several copies of The Daria Database, and one copy of The Daria Diaries (the first time I'd seen the Diaries outside of an online bookstore), and the Daria notepad at Barnes and Nobles when I went there, complete with a big picture of Daria advertising Teen Read Week. There were another couple titles there but I don't remember them because they were non-Daria and didn't look that interesting ;)
Damon Orca on #Stars!
Damon Domjan said:
I bought my copies of the Daria Database and the Daria Diaries at the Brick Township Barnes and Nobles. Since I've moved to the small town of Tuckerton from New York City, I do most of my new-book shopping at B&N; I get my used books mostly at this Book Trader up in Silviton and various library and thrift sales all over Ocean County.
One nice thing about B&N's is that they stock the majority of new stuff that is published; smaller bookstores simply can't offer anywhere near as wide a selection of titles. Since my interests tend to broad, eclectic, and often downright eccentric, I appreciate the convenience.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
RK Henry wrote:
that they'd connect Daria to it at all.
All I saw was a poster of Daria in the B & N. That's about the extent of it.
Bob wrote in message news:1mbQ3.1395$[email]...
of
Thanks for that report. I might have hoped for more. What kind of poster was it?
Jon Armstrong (The Space Ranger) sayeth:
Here in Alabama, I'd be amazed to even find half the books that Daria reads, at B&N, Books-a-Million, Waldenbooks, or any major chain. Books such as _Sons and Lovers_ and _Catch 22_ would never be found on any school reading list, & in some counties minors cannot buy these books or check them out at the library, at least not without parental permission. Usually the only way I can get books written by Henry Miller or Anais Nin or James Joyce is via the Internet. Hell, if it weren't for Amazon.com, I would not have _The Daria Diaries_ or _The Daria Database_ in my possession right now. None of the local bookstores, big or small, would carry them.
Additionally, when B&N opened up the street here, the state Attorney General tried to shut them down by claiming they were selling child pornography. It turns out that while the book in question had a couple pictures of unclad children, (1) the pictures didn't arouse any prurient sexual interest -- they were actually tamer than most diaper commercials; (2) the book in question was found not to be obscene in several other states; (3) the book was not one that B&N regularly sold -- it had been special-ordered, in fact; and (4) the person who ordered it was none other than the AG himself, in an attempt to get the store closed. (Why? I don't know).
I just consider that a further indictment of this state, which has the distinction of having the highest illiteracy rate in the US, the highest percentage of high-school drop-outs, the lowest percentage of college graduates or attendees, and just voted against a lottery that would have funded full college tutition scholarships to in-state schools. Say what you will about monolithic book-store chains; in this place, it's a miracle that bookstores of any size can thrive.
I think I'll write a book about this. Wonder if it'll sell in 'Bama? Maybe I'll just go read a good book instead.
Chirping (& reading) through the night,
Cricket
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:19:22 GMT, [email] wrote:
Trust me, it could only be a good thing.
Natural selection at work is a beautiful thing. (Well, unless you wind up picking up the pieces.)
[email] wrote:
Yes, well, since that *is* my job...
There is a certain beauty to it. The decontamination part is annoying, though. And there's way too much paperwork involved.
Peace Kevin
[email] (KTrick45) wrote:
Tell me about the paperwork. One of the reasons I hate being a lawyer is because I always feel like "society's garbageman." Believe me, it ain't pretty, either. (Although there is considerably less bodily fluids involved on my end than on yours. ;-)
rich.
Helen: Bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality.
Jake: Jefferson!
Helen: Stalin.
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:19:22 GMT, [email] wrote:
Yeah, they might actually up their intelligence quotients a notch or two. Can't have that! :-)
Well... yeah, that too. :-)
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
they have the right to sell whatever the hell they want and NOT sell whatever the hell they want and to say they don't WOULD be censorship.
But you're making an issue out of it on usenet. That's hardly silent protest to me.
there are multiple business opurtunities in any area and they have a right to work or not work at any one of those places. how is that snotty or rude?
I was just trying to tell you what sort of people shop at stores based on their owners religion. I figure you wouldn't mind being called a Nazi, since it was a "joke".
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Oh, so now that you've had the last word I'm expected to shut my mouth like a good girl? When did this become the rule? And that thread was NOT a paranoid raving, it was a response to a personal attack on me. I tend to respond to those, although I see that might become a full-time job seeing how many you seem to be pulling off.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Dagny Scott wrote:
Please..."personal attack"? Don't make me gag.
You're the one who launched the personal attack against me. You're the one who was being irrational and who was the one hellbent on hurting someone's feelings. You're the one who started the whole deal. Not me.
You don't know the first thing about a "flame" or a "flame war". I could have been nastier. In fact, right now I'm so fighting the urge to be downright nasty with you (because you deserve it...you've trampled all over me even when I haven't been able to defend myself against it). But I'm not. So PLEASE just GROW UP right now.
Oh yeah, and if you guys don't ever see me here again on this newsgroup, blame Dagny. I'm sick of having to sit here quietly while she defames me. I can't do it anymore. So...Dagny, you've gotten what you wanted, i.e. me out of this newsgroup. See if I care.
D.
Umm.... helloo? Does anyone here have a memory lasting more than a week? You posted "I've been annoyed this girl two years younger than me dares be smarter than me..." or post to that effect.
They blame me for everything already. You don't have to work to get them to do that. They've sided with you all along and you know it.
No, what I want is not to be attacked, and then be called an agressor for defending myself. Call me irrational, but that's what I want.
You're not doing a real good job of that, are you? Because defending myself against being an ungrateful little bitch like you accused me hardly seems like trampling all over you... and what the fuck made you unable to defend yourself? Or is this just a ploy to make everyone convinced you're a victim? They think that already either.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Dagny Scott wrote:
week? You
smarter
I have the post right here that I believe you're referring to:
In the days that followed was a rather extensive discussion consisting of many a.t.d participants reassuring Diane and urging her to stay. I would have joined in but I was preoccupied at the time and by the time I was prepared to comment the issue seemed to have died--or so I thought/hoped. Am I correct in assuming that the incident in question didn't actually occur in a.t.d but within a chat room? Is that really what this is about? That probably accounts for why I missed it.
Then can anyone post a transcript of EXACTLY what was said that could have upset Diane so? It must have been amazing.
Diane impresses me and I can't quite imagine how anyone could let slip a comment suggesting that she's anything but smart. She does seem to have somewhat low self-esteem though, for some mysterious reason seeming to consider herself less valuable. I've noticed that isn't uncommon among smart people.
Dagny impresses me as being smart as well. She has her opinions and she's not afraid to express them but I've never seen any evidence on the NG that she has any malicious tendencies.
I observe that each lady has disparate areas of expertise and neither should be derided for lacking knowledge the other possesses. The point in hanging out with smart people isn't to compete with them, it's to enjoy them. They entertain you, they enlighten you, they challenge you, they teach you, and maybe you teach them. Goodness knows I've been challenged by participants in this newsgroup, having discovered numerous shortcomings in my knowledge requiring remediation. It shouldn't be considered a put-down, it's a call to run to the nearest library and read up. That's one of the reasons I enjoy "Daria".
I once accidentally insulted someone online. I'd posted a quip when they professed a lack of knowledge about a screen actress who had been famous for at least 40 years. I was surprised they were unaware of anyone so famous. It was a fairly harmless little jibe, I figured they'd take it in stride. They didn't. Once I realized someone's feelings were hurt I posted an apology online. Problem solved. They sent me an E-mail observing that it was a "classy" thing to do. That's interesting. When apologizing for missteps is considered classy what's the world coming to?
I'm appalled that this feud has continued this long without resolution or apparently any attempt at a resolution. I'm really mystified by that as well. To continue a dispute where there's no real bone of contention isn't...well...smart. That seems to me to be unworthy of either of these two delightful ladies.
End it, don't send it.
mentioning Nietzsche, Joyce, etc. It wasn't even a chat room, though; it was a private conversation (on AIM) that Diane dragged into a public forum when it could have been adressed to me personally.
No one has. I certainly never have, since I have no basis for that. I have the basis, however, that she has had something against me out of jealousy for which she drags her issues with me out into public.
It's a shameless attempt for praise, a female thing. As John Cleese said, a woman will say "This house is a mess" to get the response "No, it looks lovely". A better response would be "No, I enjoy a little squalor". What's mpre, she got you to start degrading the object of her jealousy (me). All in all, a win-win situation for Diane.
I, for one, have seen exactly one Duran Duran video in my life. I think I have a right to an inferiority complex over that.
I regret the fact that I kept any of this in the group rather than bringing it back between Diane and myself where it belongs. I'll apologize for that. I'm sticking behind what I've said, but I regret I did not bring it back between Diane and I where it belongs. By now, of course, Diane probably wouldn't even speak to me if I begged her, so it's all rather irrelevant.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
R. K. Henry said:
They're both really excellent girls, and I wish it was possible for them to make up.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
My impression is the chat was the final straw of the camel, it seemed to me that this thing started with the thread where Diane expressed the opinion that it was better to believe in God to be on the safe side, otherwise you risked going to Hell, at which point several of us took issue with this notion and said we wouldn't want to follow such a god. Looking at the thread in question, Dagny and Kyle certainly posted the most follow-ups to this, but at least half a dozen regulars jumped on Diane for her beliefs, which culminated in her saying on that thread that she didn't feel capable of engaging in intellectual arguments about her religious beliefs. My assumption was that the "chat" thing was a continuation of this, and the reason Diane was distressed was because it was her deeply held religious beliefs that were at stake, not simply who knew most about Duran Duran or Daria.
It seems people have said Dagny should apologise, but if this was meant in respect of the positions taken vis a vis religion I don't think that is appropriate, certainly I know I would not have retracted anything that I said on that thread, as I do feel that although Diane is basically a nice person, the beliefs she expressed were misguided and come from what I would call the dark side of Christianity. For two millennia Christianity has generally claimed to be the One True Way, but finally during this century the Christian mainstream has made the difficult shift towards embracing relativism, ie. accepting that it is one of many religions and that the same spirituality that is behind Christianity can also find expression in other religions. There are many paths to enlightenment, and all of them are equal. In the past Jesus and his teachings have been put on a pedestal over and above other religions. But this was an expression of pride and arrogance which is in contradiction to Jesus's teaching of humility. Finally after nearly two thousand years many Christians have finally swallowed their pride and learned the important lesson of humility. I think those who have managed to take this, perhaps the most difficult of steps, have felt much better about themselves and their religion as a result. I'm not a Christian myself but I think the Church can be a very positive force in the world. But there are also many who still follow more absolutist or fundamentalist beliefs. This mindset has been the source of bloodshed and oppression down the centuries, and I personally find such beliefs profoundly disturbing and will always speak out against them, even if it does mean offending some people. I know that Dagny has also thought a great deal about religion and, I don't know, but maybe this is one of the reasons why she has taken umbrage at what perhaps she feels has been an attempt to shush her or marginalise her own strong feelings on these things.
Sorry, this seems to have turned into something of a sermon! But it seems to me this deep-seated difference of religious outlook is how the recent acrimony started, and the waters have subsequently been muddied by great quantities of postings which spoke only in generalities about Diane's and Dagny's feelings and not about the issues that had stirred those feelings in the first place.
I would suggest you look at the thread "Free will and the nature of objective truth (was: Re: An Open Letter to Daria FanFic Writters)" starting with Diane's post of 9th October, which spawned about a dozen relevant followups, leading to Diane asking if we couldn't just forget the whole thing. This was a separate post to the one about the fateful "chat", but my impression has been all along that both posts must have been about the same thing as they happened at the same time and involved the same people. (If I'm wrong you can just forget this entire post.....)
-Shez.
In article , Shez writes:
How can anyone's own personal beliefs be misguided, unless they are hurting other people with them. The belief you call misguided, that "it was better to believe in God to be on the safe side, otherwise you risked going to Hell" generally help the people who believe them to be kinder, more patient, and more understanding of the people in this world who are nasty and do mean things. How is believing in God (any God) more misguided then believing in no God?
In our part of the world, perhaps, but Hinduism and Buddhism been around for about 3500 and 2500 years respectively and they are each hailed as "the One True Way" by their followers/believers.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Christians have always acknowledged that there were other religions out there (The Bible warns against them excessively). I have always understood the core of the Christian religon to be that you MUST go through Christ (thus, CHRISTanity). This has always seemed to me, an unarguable precept and disallowing of any other way. I don't see anything wrong with that belief in itself, (or any other major religious belief) once you realize that it has usually been for political reasons (masquerading as spiritual reasons) that religion of any kind has been forced on other people (ie. the Crusades) not for spiritual ones.
I disagree. Jonestown, Aum Shinriko(sp?), and Satanism are but a few religions (or paths) that I would not consider equal to the more benevolent faiths. A regard for human life should be an important consideration in comparing the many 'paths to enlightenment.'
Most religions put their deities on pedestals, otherwise, they wouldn't really be religions. Likewise mose followers are proud of their Deity as well as their faith. I don't see how Christians, as a whole, have become less prideful but I'm not sure I completely understand what you meant by that statement. Christianity is a prismatic religion, it has many facets. Some are more militant (ie. The Knights Templar) while others are more passive (The Amish). Christainity does not have the solidarity that Hinduiam and Buddhism have (which is understandable since Christanity is a younger religion) but I think that the "shift towards embracing relativism," that you mentioned earlier, is more a shift (or a step) towards a new solidarity rather then a dilution of Christainity.
I do call myself a Christian but my belief system is a bit more complex and evolved then any one religion that I've ever seen. Oops, am I being too proud? <g> I agree that some kind of belief system (ie. belief in a greater power, whatever it may be) "can be a very positive force in the world." Actually, as you might have guessed from previous posts, I believe it a necessay thing to the survival of humanity (humanity as a humane society, that is).
As do I... but Christainity is not the only religion to cause these things, it's just been the latest... What follows (out into the stars, perhaps?) might be even worse...
Marie
"Round that corner, man hiding in the trash can Something's waiting now to pounce, and how you'll scream"
Well... Christianity can be a good thing if it helps to give you a good moral basis for acting kind, compassionate, etc. with others. For most people, this works fine, and this is good.
It can be-potentially- more damaging to believe in God than not to, however. It is possible if people are convinced God is on their side-- they're more easily convinced to do something against another or another group than they would simply out of self-interest. They're more willing to commit atrocities if they have backing that this is what God wants and will give them eternal salvation. People can be most easily persuaded into some sort of political idea by religious leaders, allowing them to covertly control society-- a dangerous thing in some cases.
Satanism I doubt would be considered a path to enlightenment. Enlightenment, in and of itself, implies a good intention at the heart of the religion.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
Dagny said:
I'd have to say that this is the main social effect of Christianity in America. Including on you, actually.
would
salvation.
True. Though, this century, I think that secular faiths such as Naziism and Communism have done far more damage than religious ones.
in
I agree with you ... but a Satanist would argue that awareness of the true bestial and evil nature of the world, and acceptance of it, was the only possible form of "enlightenment".
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 28 Oct 1999 19:29:23 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
(Snip)
IMO, that's a problem with organized religion - not with whichever deity the religion claims.
Belief in God is a neutral, just like any other knowledge (pause, waiting for the atheists to quit laughing at my equation of belief and knowledge...) The danger comes from how one applies that belief.
Which version of Satanism? La Veyan, from what I've seen of it, isn't much different than objectivism. It just has better imagery. The natural assumption, is that you're talking about actual satan-worshippers; but there've been many belief structures labeled 'satanic,' so there's a risk of some confusion.
Assuming we're talking devil-worship, you took the words out of my mouth.
Kaos said:
A lot of confusion ... people have labelled everything from hardcore Satanism to ordinary Wiccan paganism "satanic" (wrongly in the case of the latter); I even know of an imbecile named Jack Chick who claims that Dungeons & Dragons is not only "satanic" but that you can learn to cast real spells when your characters rise enough levels!
I have no idea what percentage of even self-professed "satanists" are willing to take it to the level of human sacrifice and suchlike. I would suspect a very, VERY small percentage (getting away with serial killings isn't the easiest thing in the world), but on the other hand I'm pretty sure that those who ARE that insane wouldn't advertise the fact.
I will say that a religion which openly attempts to glorify Man's dark and bestial side, even if it stays within the law, is not one which would appeal to me. Perhaps it is because I fear my OWN darker nature, which is probably a bit darker than most.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 31 Oct 1999 04:21:03 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Jordan S. Bassior), and it said:
Bwahahaha! Now that is rich. My oldest continuing character, Lance the Wanderer, made it to 24th level as a bard, after continuing in the form of a proxy for the god "Johndolar," then, though his fame during life and Johndolar's leniance regarding his actions beyond life, achieved deification himself, and is currently a demi-power, with the potential to rise. Damnit, Jack! Where's my magic?! ;p
You do remember when Rich asked about "Heart of Darkness?" I hear you there, friend.
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:44:41 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Have you performed the ritual sacrifice?
Y'know, burning all your second edition books (forcing you to purchase "players options" to continue playing) while stoned on Acid?
(Warning: the above was a joke. Anyone performing the above ritual will instead be shunned as an idiot feeding into the rabid-right's Gamer-stereotypes.)
On the mountaintop, [email] (Tarvok) spake thusly:
Hey! Thsi is discrimination! What about those of us with fighter characters? When do we get the ability to justify murder with "I'm chaotic evil. It was roleplaying."? When do I get my 20 strength, dammit (Janet) ?! And when do I get my horns? Does my female minotaur character (note: there are definite advantages to dating your DM) have to reach eighth level first?
I never posted anything on that thread, but did read most of it with deep interest and much nodding of my head. I'm learning to live with my darker side, and trying to be a better person for it. I hope I'm doing well.
-Mindy (Who just gained a level in AD&D for the first time last weekend)
Dcode: Ap D+ T7 Wl Q++ Fn^Fr O- Or+Os+Od m-- c MV-- C5X F:101,308 BBd FCJ -DT-- q fJ^fM^fO(Artie :-P) Find the Daria Geek Code at http://www.geocities.com/TelevisonCity/Taping/3017/
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:16:39 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email], and it said:
Personally, I think preaching politics from the pulpit, such as saying something like, "God wants you to vote for <insert cantidate here> because he's against murdering babies," or some such, is a bad idea. It might be true, but it's more likely little more than the opinion of the leadership, and if God _really_ wants everyone to vote for a particular cantide, and the church genuinely has the Holy Spirit guiding it (which all should at least claim) the people just will vote that way, naturally, assuming they all have their priorities straight.
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
Tarvok wrote in message news:[email]...
Big assumption! <g>
I was so impressed with the document "The Common Good"[1] that the Catholic Bishops in England and Wales brought out in the run-up to the last election here. Carefully avoiding favouring any party, they urged Christians to clarify before they cast their vote what *values* they wanted to vote for, and spelt out some values they see as essential to a society where love and compassion are to flourish.
Having asked us to clarify our values, they asked us to weigh up for ourselves the values of the candidates and parties, and vote as we saw fit.
Martin.
[1] http://www.tasc.ac.uk/cc/cbc/cg.htm
It's always dangerous criticizing someone else's religious beliefs. You run the risk of alienating a friend. You run the risk of diminishing someone else's opinion of you. The standard advice has always been to avoid these topics, but I think we in a.t.d are better than that. We've repeatedly demonstrated that we can discuss these difficult, controversial topics without starting a flamewar. It's unfortunate that in this one case that an "accident" occurred. Oh well, when you attempt difficult things it's inevitable that some accidents will occur. The problem now is to repair the damage.
I believe that it is incumbent upon EVERY intelligent person to critically examine their own religious beliefs. Preferably at regular intervals. God would never given you a brain if he hadn't intended you to do that. It seems to me that mindless belief is meaningless. It's one thing to believe because you're too stupid to do otherwise, it's another to apply your superior mind to belief. Intelligent people who are willing to do that deserve a certain amount of respect.
Now, how do we fix this thing?
Marie said:
True. And in the modern world, Christianity is one of the MORE tolerant faiths.
That is very true.
Indeed. In the case of the Crusades, a whole melange of political reasons, ranging from the Byzantine desire for help against the Turks to the Pope's desire to increase his prestige in Europe to the monarchs' desire to send a lot of unruly lords and knights far far away where they couldn't trouble the peace of their kingdoms.
Yes. I'm not a cultural or philosophical relativist ... I do NOT believe that all ideas and customs are created equal.
Heh ... that is somewhat implicit in the concept of a "deity".
Not even really the latest ... Christianity's been pretty tolerant this century, especially compared to (say) Shi'ite Islam.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 28 Oct 1999 22:04:25 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Centuries of reputation to outlive, though... and it always seems the most vocal 'christians' are the ones screaming for a return to the dark ages.
Aye; but that's the path to the Kingdom of God.
I've never been convinced that the Kingdom of God was the only one out there. In light of that, it's easy to see multiple paths - only one leads to Heaven, but who's to say the rest all lead to hell?
As for myself, I'm not an absolutist - in that, I don't believe that there is one "best" idea.
Oddly enough, the two aren't necessarily contradictory.
What I had in mind was the going to hell bit: "if you don't believe in God ... you will be ... forever thrown in with the forces of evil and live a torturous eternity." which is guaranteed to get a few billion people's backs up, ie. all the people who follow other religions.
I didn't mean to suggest Christianity was the only religion to think this, Islam I would say is more reactionary than Christianity, I'm not sure about Buddhism, I thought they were accepting of other religions.
I mean accepting them as valid alternative routes to spiritual enlightenment, instead of telling people they'll go to Hell if they follow them.
I think it depends on whether you put the stress on following a recipe for going to heaven, or on following the teachings of Jesus, notably the commandment to love one another. It seems to me that Jesus led by example, so I find it hard to see him sending someone who had led a virtuous life to Hell simply because they didn't believe in him. I feel that would contradict the essence of his teachings, as it would be an act of selfishness and egotism whereas it seems to me he taught selflessness and humility. Maybe I've misunderstood Jesus and been taken in by Christian propaganda about him, but that's what I always thought he was about.
Was Jesus just interested in accumulating as many worshippers as possible, or did he want as many people as possible to live virtuous lives? I was under the impression that he never asked anyone to worship him at all. And if it didn't matter to him, why should it matter to his followers if others have found an alternate route to living enlightened lives.
Well ok, that treats religion as a sociological phenomenon, although I don't think it follows to say that is ok because it was done for political rather than theological reasons. I would say it remains equally bad. Indeed I would tend to agree that it is politics (or nationalism or racism) that is to blame for twisting religions into vehicles for hating outsiders, when they were supposed to be about love.
Those are not paths to enlightenment though. Most religions and some non-religious systems of enlightenment share a common principle, namely ego-loss. The problem of the human condition is people spend their whole time thinking "me me me", hanging on to themselves desperately, like a drowning person to a not quite buoyant enough log. The solution is to think not of yourself but of others, putting other people's needs first. People who are able to totally let go of their selves, and stay in that state of having no ego, will achieve enlightenment. One reason this works is that society works much better that way, the result being a synergy with the whole greater than the parts. It is not an easy thing to do though, which is where religions can help. Religions differ from other mystical systems in having a God at the top who acts as a guarantor that things will work out ok., and for many this enables them to make the leap of faith and let go of themselves.
I mean that instead of condemning other religions as heathen, the main churches now accept and where appropriate work alongside them as equal partners. Although I expect some of the people involved see this as a matter of political expediency, I don't think the acceptance of the followers of other religions is inconsistent with being a Christian, and I'm sure many clergy consider it a strength rather than a weakness in modern Christianity. I used to know a guy who was a CoE vicar and he was totally at ease with my being a pagan just as I was with him being a man of the cloth. What matters is what's inside people, not the brand name of their religion. And yet only a few decades ago, things were very different, eg. when my mum was young she had to keep secret the fact that she'd never been baptised (her dad was an atheist), as she would have been shunned and banned from her friends' houses as "unclean". Fortunately things have moved on during the closing decades of this millennium.
-Shez.
In article ,
hurting
better to
Hell"
patient, and
things.
God
live a
And I do believe that, and I refuse to apologize it. It'd be pretty stupid to believe in a religion you didn't think was true, so when God tells me that's how it works, that's how it works.
You may choose not to believe it, and I wholly respect anyone's right not too. But nonbelief is not a valid defense, I'm afraid, from the fires of Hell.
around for
"the One
this,
Well, more peaceful.
towards
and
warns against
follow
That's ridiculous. The goal of Christianity (as most interpretations of the Bible) is not "spritiual enlightenment", but to serve the Jehovan God.
always
the
be
But NO ONE lives a virtuous life. Everyone sins. Heaven is a perfect place, and the standard for entrance is perfection. People are not going to hell directly because they do not believe in Jesus. They are going there because they are imperfect, and that is where all imperfect things go. A few of us happen to know a way to be made perfect, but we are not going to heaven because we follow that way. We are going because we will be perfect.
matter to
enlightened
It is impossible to live a truely virtuous life without serving God.
religious
reasons
been forced
political
racism)
outsiders,
That is your right to disagree.
statement.
the
and I'm
a
Yes, it is fortunate. Religous tolerance is a virtue. Religious relativism is not neccessary to be tolerant, though.
Yeah... well, obviously Christians believe Christianity is true and even the only real truth. That makes sense. However there is room to disagree about whether God really says "believe in me or go to Hell". He says pretty clearly believe in me and be saved, but not as clearly "don't believe in me and be damned". For one thing, a lot of the references to Hell in the Bible are massive misinterpretations, or rather mistranslations of a word that referred to the garbage dump outside the city.
And while many people believe you are saved by faith, some Christians (i.e. Calvinists) believe in salvation by grace, which does not require belief or works. The Calvinist response to "When were you saved?" is generally either at the crucifixion or at the beginning of time. In a way this follows the idea of the crucifixion: Christ was the "scapegoat" like the animal sacrificed in the Old Testament and because he died, you are saved. Whether you believe or not. Admittedly this isn't as good of a threat as "believe in God or go to hell" but it allows to choose to do the good out of gratitude.
Perhaps we have a differing definition of "virtuous". A virtuous person I'd think would be of strong principles, and unwavering, but also compassionate, forgiving, etc. One with virtues which I've mentioned or others. I don't think you can claim those belong solely to one religion or even to religion itself.
Well relativism itself can be dangerous... since basically NOTHING has meaning or anything. Logic even falls apart. And obviously in the religious case it's hard to say that a religion that, say, practices human sacrifice is really just "another path to enlightenment"
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On 30 Oct 1999 14:43:18 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
DAMMIT, QUIT POSTING MY THOUGHTS BEFORE I DO!
:)
(that's supposed to be seen as 'well said.')
In God's eyes, sure; after all, God has defined one of the aspects of virtue as "Serve God above all others."
Hard to fulfill that one if you don't believe in God.
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:49:37 GMT, [email] wrote:
Yeah, which is why no one should choose not to believe in him.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
Kyle wrote:
But what about those people who didn't have that choice?
It seems to be a little unfair that millions of people during the last two thousand years were automatically sent to Hell because they hadn't even _heard_ of Christianity.
Boolean
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:45:48 +1000, boolean wrote:
No such. Even if they had not been directly exposed to Christianity as we know it, the Jehovah God revealed himself in their hearts, and they chose to know him or to reject him on that level.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:45:48 +1000, boolean wrote:
I'm sorry, but you should've realized by now that logic and common sense have no place in a discussion about religion. Please step to the back of the bus and exit quietly, and thank you for playing. :-)
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
http://www.lawndale.net -OR- http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:48:33 -0500, Martin J. Pollard wrote:
The funny thing is, you are dead right! Logic and common sense are the ways of man's thinking. The idea of an infinite force that is God transcends common sense AND logic.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On 31 Oct 1999 18:08:56 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle), and it said:
I think that it isn't that common sense and logic, being Man's ways, are inately corrupt, or inadequate, or whatever, but rather that Man, with his limited view, can't see every factor there is in a decision; unlike God, who sees everything, hears our most inner thoughts, knows our every intention, and is generally aware of everything that goes on in the Creation. Thus, where one doesn't understand the logic behind a decision of God's, it's just best to trust Him. And he ain't got the time or inclination to explain _everything_, but with thousands of years of history to look at, a little thought can explain a great deal.
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:48:33 -0500, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from Martin J. Pollard , and it said:
I'm not sure if you're trying to be silly or not, Martin, but I would think that, as a priest, you would believe otherwise. I was going to avoid this, but I must quote something... as soon as I find it.
<spends hours looking for a passage he hasn't read in at least a year...>
Oh! It didn't take a year. Open your bibles to Romans 2:12... ;)
"For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on a day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
In other words, someone who has never heard of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but does what is right, obaying his conscience, which I am convinced is a part of every person (who hasn't destroyed it by defying it continually), will be judged the same as the one who _has_ heard of God and done what was right, obaying the words which God has spoken through His prophets.
There are probably still people in some extremely remote regions today who've _never_ heard of God. There are yet others, I believe, who, though they've heard _of_ Him, have been given an atrocious example of what it means to follow Him, and thus rejected false religeon in favor of what he knows in his heart is right. But those who truely know Him, and have rejected him out of selfish reasons (probably giving lame rationalizations); those are the ones that will be rejected _by_ Him.
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:44:43 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
You'd better re-read the name that's at the top of the header, m'friend. Martin Sylvester is the priest. I'm the smart-ass. Remember that. :-)
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
http://www.lawndale.net -OR- http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:04:50 -0500, Martin J. Pollard wrote:
As if it's impossible to be both.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
Kyle wrote in message news:7vitka$j5s$[email]...
Why, Kyle, you flatterer, you.
Grinning and proving Kyle's point, Martin.
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:26:59 -0000, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
What can I say, I'm a Pastor's Kid, the evilest of all breeds.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:44:43 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
It follows, though. Logic and common sense are based entirely on the physical world; the laws of cause and effect.
The spiritual (metaphysical, hokey-newage-voodoo, whatever) world transcend the physical world; they are inherently free of the limitatoins of cause and effect. Thus, Logic (and it's baby sister Common Sense) cannot be applied to spiritual matters.
Infinity is not comprehensible to the human psyche.
Tarvok wrote in message news:[email]...
[...]
Ahem. Wrong Martin. AFAIK MJP isn't a priest. 8-)
For my defence of reason and common sense, see my posts in other threads on similar topics.
I've chosen so far not to get closely involved in the present thread, 'cos I'd simply be repeating points I've made in similar threads this month. That may well irritate others: it would irritate me. 8-)
The Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner called these people "Anonymous Christians." Without knowing Christ, they serve Him, by being faithful to what their conscience tells them to be good, true, and right.
Isn't there a parable about those who knew what their master wanted, but hadn't begun to carry out his desires, being punished more severely than those who deserve punishment for something they've done? "Much will be expected of those who have been given much."
Far from being condemned to hell for failing to embrace Christ, as some groups seem to teach (I'm not saying anyone here has said that), ISTM the Gospel is telling us that those who, through no fault of theirs, haven't been able to recognise the truth will be judged with more indulgence than those who have, but have taken no action in consequence. Wilful incredulity is a different matter. I'm not sure where in the scale a refusal to even think for oneself about such things would fall.
Martin.
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 01:44:43 GMT, [email] (Tarvok) wrote:
Wrong Martin. This Martin is not a priest.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:48:33 -0500, Martin J. Pollard wrote:
that's thank you for PRAYING! :>}
On 31 Oct 1999 01:13:17 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Hmm...I believe in Aleph...maybe - is that good enough? :) (no you didn't ask what my beliefs are, but I'll answer anyway - it being a public forum and all) I personally don't believe in a god or gods that actually gives a rat's ass about mankind. Or about this planet. Hell, probably not even on the fate of the Milky Way Galaxy. Why should It? There are untold billions of galaxies containing billions of stars. Somehow it seems to me to be the height of arrogance to assume that we are the pride and joy (or whatever) of the hypothetical deity(s) who created the universe. Of course, this doesn't help me feel any better about death, since without an afterlife, all there is is *this* life. And the void isn't very comforting. But no more comforting than seeing people suffer and die pointlessly, and where's God then? I guess my ultimate problem with most of the major established religions is on the nature of God - and in that my views coincide fairly well with Yossarian's from Catch-22: namely that if God is good, why do pain and suffering exist? Unless God is either a) a monster who enjoys watching submicroscopic (on the scale of the universe) virii suffer or b) so preocupied with other concerns that It is wholly unable or unwilling to care for the human race (or *a* human) (and all the other species that live and die by our hand). I personally see the latter as far more likely than the former since I shave with Occams Razor (when it suits me ;), mainly because any thinking being needs to offload anything it can to unconscious processing to allow it to think beyond moment to moment management of its own functions. Put another way, can a human being afford to be conscious of an individual virus floating about in its body? Can you afford to consciously regulate the amount of insulin in your blood? Cause your muscle cells (or a single cell) to increase its number of mitochondria? Tailor the antibodies and prime phagocytes to attack a specific bacteria? If you can, does it leave any room for you to consider the nature of God(s) and your place in the universe? :)
Ok...enough spewing ideas at the keyboard for one night/morning.
Damon Orca on #Stars!
we were taught in RS that buddhists believe there are many "true ways".. i don't know, though, i've never met a buddhist. :)
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 21:22:47 +0100, "endless, nameless" wrote:
My sifu was almost a buddhist. And he said pretty much the same thing.
That's what I thought too, for one thing Buddha isn't considered a god, which seems to be a promising start.
-Shez
The Buddha also said there are many ways to enlightenment and his way through the Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and such was a description of how he became enlightened. It is certainly an accepting religion at its root than Christ saying he was the only way. Of course even if Christ hadn't said he was the only way, someone would probably assume he did, like so many people conveniently forget about that "love your enemies" bit (I'm thinking "Darwin is the Devil"/"God hates fags"/etc.)
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On 31 Oct 1999 12:41:43 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
The correct version (of course, I am again claiming that my view of God is the correct one)
God hates the pride that leads man to believe that he can outthink God, and God hates homosexuality.
God loved Darwin, and God loves Ellen, Liberracci, Elton John, and Ben Stiller.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
Loved? God has no love for the people in hell? (as I assume you believe Darwin is...). Damn. Or was Darwin suddenly raised to the level of Antichrist or something and therefore unloveable? Because Darwin can't be the Antichrist, I have to give birth to the Antichrist, dammit!
the number of mentions agianst homosexuality are small, esp. New Testament wise. It's expressly forbidden in Leviticus, but so is eating shrimp. The story of Sodom is about hospitality, not homosexuality, quite like "Baucis and Philemon" in Greek mythology.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On 31 Oct 1999 18:09:16 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
No, not at all. That was just a little brainfart on my part. Change it to love, then.
Even if you believe that, remember that my belief system goes beyond the Bible, to the heart of God. Homosexuality is an affront to God. It is saying that you reject the way he decided sex and love should work, and want to do it your way. It's a rejection of God. THAT is why it's a sin.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
And how do you know the heart of God outside of the Bible? How do you know it is an affront to God? Do you think God reeeally spends his time thinking about sex (although that would prove God is male...) I don't know why God would care. The world's overpopulated anyway, so it can't be that they don't have children...
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On 31 Oct 1999 22:44:21 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Answers:
4) God cares because he set up the system a certain way. Homosexuality is a symptom of the sinful heart of man. It is the desire to reject God and His ways. If God had decided to set up the world so that men naturally loved men, and women with women, then heterosexuality would be a sin.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On 31 Oct 1999 22:59:04 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Anyone thinking of _Inherit the Wind_ right about now?
Damon Orca on #Stars!
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 00:38:31 GMT, [email] (Damon Domjan) wrote:
Faith is a wonderful thing, isn't it? How it allows one to explain away all kinds of socially unacceptable behavior (such as bigotry and racism and just plain ol' general holier-than-thou arrogance). Not that I'm referring to any one specific person, of course. :-)
Martin (send all e-mail to "[email]") +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Outpost Daria: Your Online Database for All Things Daria!
http://www.lawndale.net -OR- http://systech.simplenet.com/daria/I try not to. I was in that play (I sat around in the back and shouted "Amen!") and refuse to picture Mencken (Hornbeck) as anyone but Jim Ranta or Bryan (Brady) as anyone but Jason Schrontz.
Plus that was the play where Mr. Rose stopped directing (as a result of arguments with administration and fact they totally screwed up the auditorium) and this totally annoying woman I hate came in, who keeps casting reeeally small casts so you can't get involved if she doesn't like you, or if you're overweight (she doesn't let them in her plays), or whatever.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On 31 Oct 1999 22:59:04 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
He tells me otherwise.
No. It is a reversal of traditional gender-based aesthetic senses as pertains to the human form. The gays that I know only rejected God after hearing of His hatred for their inner feelings.
wrote in message news:[email]...
I think their image of God has been damaged by the failure in some Christian groups to differentiate between homosexual sexual acts and homosexual people, portraying the latter as evil, and merely *being* homosexual as a wilful sin.
Compare that to this: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition.... They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..." [1]
Martin.
[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2358. The Catholic Church teaches that intercourse is only ethically sound when between people married to each other, and then when it's not prevented by artificial contraception from any chance of creating new life. See the same book for a better and more nuanced explanation - URL: http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/catholic-books/0003.htm for info on the printed version, and URL: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html for an online version (which sadly lacks effective indexing).
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 06:49:27 GMT, [email] wrote:
Possibly. I cannot know that for sure. My suspicion would be that you are at the very least decieved, possibly consciously rejecting God, but I can never know for certain, so I must not make any assumptions.
How would you know? The rejection of God is very, very rarely an outward rejection of the "church" as we know it, but an deep attitude of the heart.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On 1 Nov 1999 13:22:39 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Aye; my suspicion would tell me that you are also decieved. So, we are at a draw; neither of us can truly back up our claims to the other, and the best course of action is to say "well, guess we'll find out on judgement day..."
Discussions with them, in a forum where lies (either to me or to themselves) were futile; both by nature of the discussion, and by length of the discussion (a lie would have been caught, unless said lie was ingrained so deeply into the psyche that it was effectively truth.)
On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:15:34 GMT, [email] wrote:
I've said that in EVERY religious discussion we've had on this NG since I've been here (which probably means all of them).
Lies to themselves are quite easy.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
this thread has gone to hell, the witch has entered the discussion...
In article ,
(Kyle)
find
Look people, I say that religion and belief of deity should be examined from a distant and non-dogmatic point of veiw. Let others believe what they want, I mean, just because you tell someone why your belief is best and the "right one" will not make them suddenly go "Oh wow Dick your right, I've been all wrong in my beliefs. Your vision of religion and God is the true one!" in fact it will make them defensive and more set against you. You will get nowhere by arguing and forcing your beliefs upon someone else, even if you are right, and they will not hear you out the harder you try. You wouldn't expect it to work the other way would you? So just be content in the fact that *you* believe you are right, and be and tolerant of those who may difer in belief. In fact you should be happy that they can be that faithful, and devoted in their beliefs, and that this gives them satisfaction. As Daria says "It's what works for *me* now". No one really knows who's right, and we won't cross that bridge until we get to it, will we? And remember, I don't expect you to take this in full agreement or say "wow that's right". But please just think about it a bit if anything. And also I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong,(we're far of from flaming) just giving you something to ponder.
sticking to her bumper sticker: " My Karma ran over my Dogma",
cheryl
On 2 Nov 1999 22:04:19 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
So... why did you bring up the unprovable revelation?
But as I said, futile.
For any student of history, change is the law of life. Any attempt to contain it guarantees an explosion down the road; the more rigid the adherence to the status quo, the more violent the ultimate outcome will be. - Henry Kissinger, "Years of Renewal"
On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 02:36:18 GMT, [email] wrote:
Because, provable or not, it's highly relevant. The fact that it is proves that religion is beyond the realm of logic or reason, as I've said all along.
You place far more faith in your lie-catching ability than I do.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On 4 Nov 1999 22:17:09 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Not so much in my ability, but in the amount of time I've had to deal with these people (coupled with a lack of faith in the consistency of people in general.)
this here is the problem with using revelations as a means in any conversation... many people have them, and they are contradictory, but part of every revelation is "this is the true one". It doesn't prove anything to anyone else. The Catholic Church dealt with this saying all revelation comes through the church. Exceptions being like Joan of Arc who you were likely to believe if you were French (and think she's a witch if you're English...)
So revelation becomes irrelevant in discussions, because it is irrelevant to all but the person. Everyone else is bound to think you're a schizophrenic. Whichever one's right, there's no logical way to reconcile the two. A psychiatrist is not going to change the mind of that person and the others minds will not be changed short of having a revalation themselves.
And if God takes the trouble to talk to me, I hope it's to say something better than "homosexuality is evil". Like maybe some stock tips or something.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
It's a pitty mankind is not allowed to change from this appearantly fixed system... this kinda stops us from evolving/growing to a better people alltogether...
Aran
On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:21:17 -0700, Aran wrote:
Um. Do you people not think ahead sometimes? Not being mean or anything, but you are forgetting the basic premise that I make all these posts on. As I've said all along, this is all based on the assumption that God is omnipotent. The system he puts in place is the best possible system. ANY change is inherently bad.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
Uhm... okay let's say God invented a system that is the best possible system, I'm not sure if I agree, but let's say He did... than that system should be flexible. I hope we can all agree mankind is less than perfect... LIFE is less than perfect... there are many things in life that are just downright wrong. These things should be CHANGED. Change is good. Change is fun. Change is evolution, evolution is change. I don't really care if you agree man became what he is by means of evolution... but the basic principle of evolution can't be denied. If there are two different types entities that reproduce themselves, the one that is better adapted to it's environment eventually will get the upper hand.
Anyway, I think even changing the things that are wrong today, we wouldn't be finished. Why do we have brains? Why are we able to think? What is the point in life if we don't develop ourself as a people... Like we did from simple hunters to people who are able to talk about religion in a Newsgroup. And how can we possibly develop ourself if we are restricted, even tied down, by a fixed system... a fixed set of rules? Unfortunatly the technological advance of mankind was/is more or less equal to the extend of pollution caused by mankind. So there are more things that need to be changed. Maybe the way we look at life altogether. If you ask me, I think birth control should be far more widely used. It might be THE way of life for a primitive species to just reproduce untill there is not enough food and then get a balanced population, for an intelligent species this way of living is quite... uhm... old fashioned... So it becomes less and less important to just reproduce... and people decide to spent their lives together purely out of love... in a world like this there is actually room for homosexuality...
It doesn't really matter wether or not there is a God... what matters is that many, many many people, interpret their God... and many, many many times this goes wrong, sometimes horribly... Last night I saw this Jerry Springer show (I know, I'm sorry) about the KKK... THEY believe God created different races and put them on different continents for a reason and therefore differend races shouldn't mix... now if this isn't misinterpretation... Okay, so this is just one example and I know the vast majority of christians don't have these ideas.... but I believe this is one of the big dangers of religions... they provide these kind of moral excuses.
To cut a long story short... If there is a God and he wanted to make mankind perfect, He'd make room for change... People thinking God wanted us to live by fixed rules misinterpreted Him, in my view. Which is not something to be ashamed for, God being omniscient and mankind being less than that. As long as we make sure this misinterpretation doesn't grow out of hand and lead to KKK situations... just make sure you keep thinking for yourself...
and in the meantime...
Take care of yourself, and eachother ;)
Ciao,
Aran
"God as we know Him is a poor creature, but He's halfway between Quinn and Daria and He's travelling in the right direction." (or, what was it?)
On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 05:25:36 -0700, Aran wrote:
<Snipped a good analysis>
Which is all well and good. I totally agree with all that. But I think you'd agree that if you believed in the system God set down, that any change that goes against it would be bad. He may allow leeway inside the system, but the rules are the rules, so to speak.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
OK everybody, round up the kids, give up that job in middle management, give up that new house, we're going to start herding animals in the middle east....
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On 31 Oct 1999 22:44:21 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Dagny Scott), and it said:
I think the idea of overpopulation is overrated. Every time there seem to be more people than land to feed them, man comes up with some way to squeeze yet more food out of the land. Just imagine trying to support the world's present population on a hunter-gatherer style of food gathering!
Maybe it can be called faith, but I think the idea that we _will_ find a way to feed the world of the future is actually quite scientific, as far as the Theory of Natural Selection and the geological record are scientific. Both rest on the assumption that things have worked this way in the past, things work this way now, things will continue to work this way in the future...
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
Tarvok said:
Indeed, energy rather than land is the ultimate bottleneck, because with enough energy it is possible to produce any quantity of food, assuming sufficient volatiles and minerals as feedstock. Today it is less economically effective to grow food hydroponically than the old-fashioned way, but in a sufficiently energy-rich and land-poor environment, especially with more advanced technology, the economics would reverse themselves.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 01 Nov 1999 02:30:33 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
And eventually waste heat becomes the problem...but that's much *much* later.
Damon Orca on #Stars!
Damon said:
By then, hopefully, all the really energy-intensive industries have been moved offworld.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 31 Oct 1999 21:40:08 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Then why *does* God allow man to feel lust for another man? (Free will corresponds to the decision to act apon that lust, not on the feeling itself.)
If it's to test faith, then why does He only test - at most - one tenth of the population? A breach of His Impartiality, of His eternal, unchanging nature?
Is there another answer?
wrote in message news:[email]...
An essential distinction. I can't agree with Kyle if he's saying that merely being homosexual is a rejection of God (disclosure: I'm a celibate heterosexual male). That's like saying that it's a sin to be tempted. I've always been taught that sin is surrendering to temptation. And if we're drawing no distinction between temptation and sin, where does that leave the temptations of Christ?
We all have our tests. Just different.
I might equally ask why God allows me, as a celibate priest, to feel desire for a woman (no-one in particular right now, thanks for asking!). Or allows somebody who's married to feel desire for someone who's not their spouse.
You can see that as a burden, but there is another facet: how can we call ourselves faithful if we've never had the desire or opportunity to be unfaithful?
Free will goes "Phht!" and disappears if God goes round shielding each of us from desiring anything we can't licitly enjoy.
Of course, there are other tests besides sexual ones: just review the ten commandments and the seven deadly sins.
The only answer, in as far as I can grasp these things (there's a limit to what reason and common sense can achieve - but that's not an invitation to fail to apply them), is that the particular temptations that particular people have to confront weren't part of God's original plan, but are an inherited effect of humanity's refusal to live the life of unselfish love that God called us to. The term "Original sin" might be familiar to some.
Martin.
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:31:52 -0000, "Martin Sylvester" wrote:
And unequal, it would appear.
(Apologies for the gender-bias here...) The straight man has the chance to experience his love, sanctioned. And, while he may be tempted by others than the one he chose, he still has that one.
The gay man is doomed to loneliness, if he wishes to remain in your god's good graces.
I was raised Lutheran, and never could understand the celibacy thing. My pastor is happily married, and a good father; and I've yet to meet a man as inspiring and devoted as he is on the pulpit.
Aye; but then, His impartiality goes out the window when His tests don't equate. But then, I've always wondered about his impartiality anyway... when t'was said "it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle, than a rich man through the gates of heaven" - well, there's that extra burden - or extra opportunity, if you wish - for the child born to wealth. Either way, something doesn't balance.
I heard a rumor that the commandments Moses spoke weren't the commandments God gave.
AH! So, God is not infallible? His Plan was diverted? Throws a rock in the 'omnipotent being' concept...
Original Sin speaks to me of a lazy or petty God; why would an Almighty, Just and Fair Being allow the children to suffer for the crimes of the parent?
Could not an almighty being wipe out the legacy of that sin, allowing the children opportunity to avoid or commit it on their own?
Little sidenote: I do believe in God, and even respect Him. I've had too many 'minor miracles' and even an instance of divine inspiration to doubt. And yet, despite my words here - which I have uttered in various forms in the past, He still bestows those favors to me. This leads me to believe that He approves of my take on religion.
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 06:49:27 GMT, [email] wrote:
The feelings of lust follow the rejection of God. Once the rejection of God is made inside a man's heart, there's going to be a lot of nasty stuff going on, much of which he has no control over (i.e. the work of the devil). If he reverses the rejection, the lust will go away.
Nah. Even if I subscribed to the "test of faith" theory, it is not neccessary for him to test us all the same for him to test us all equally.
But of course!
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
Lust does not exist after you reject God, or whatever. Lust exists in everyone, naturally, part of the animal nature we have in us...
The question is: do you act on your every impulse? If you do, you're probably a psychopath, and should be in a padded cell, because you're a potential serial killer.
So you don't act on your every impulse. You take your desires and you try to fit them in to what is realistic and what is ethical. That is where your decision takes place. If you feel lust- even if it is EXTREMELY inappropriate- this is the crucial step. Do you act on it, or does your rational side repress that desire?
she who has been in psychology too long,
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
I wonder who it was we inherited this animal nature from.
Aran said:
Our pre-sapient primate ancestors.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 1 Nov 1999 13:25:11 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Odd, then. There must be a lot of subconscious rejection going around...
And the experiences I've heard (second hand) of the various ex-gay programs seem to deny your last sentence.
I deny that the test is equal.
My personal favorite, is that God is not as omnipotent as He's made out to be. The concept of Free Will, if it truly exists, is a limitation on His power.
My adherence to this theory, coupled with my faith, is why I *know* I'm not invited to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Don't worry. You go to heaven for the weather, hell for the company, as they say. Hopefully we'll get thrown in with the heretics and homosexuals like James Joyce, Oscar Wilde, etc... most of litererary history, actually :)
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:15:41 GMT, [email] wrote:
Loads. My suspicion is that it could be as high as 99.9999% of the population, or as low as perhaps 75%.
Go ahead and deny it, no one appointed you "Test Judger".
Free will is something God has chosen to give us.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On 2 Nov 1999 22:06:35 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:
Which doesn't invalidate the argument :)
Damon Orca on #Stars!
On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:19:42 GMT, [email] (Damon Domjan) wrote:
Why not? Saying "I won't do this" is not the same as not being able to, is it?
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
Dagny said:
Don't worry, hon. Your little Meffie (short for "Mephestophiles") will be a SPECIAL child. Aww ... look at his cute little horns and tail, they show up even in the sonogram ...
Uh-oh. I love shrimp.
Right. The Sodomites want to rape the guests, which would have been not-ok even were the rape hetrosexual. That is the sin for which they are punished, not "sodomy" per se.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 31 Oct 1999 21:27:34 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
Offbeat Pseudo-Interpretation (I do that a lot, throwing out reinterpretations of the bible offered by random unendorsed churches)
The antichrist is not the devil's child, but merely the return of Jesus; since his return is not to save us, but to herald Armageddon, he cannot be called teh Christ (savior) but instead, the Anti-Christ (anti-savior, possibly destroyer.)
On 31 Oct 1999 18:09:16 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Dagny Scott), and it said:
I have a theory about homosexuality. Personally, I neither condemn nor defend homosexuals, but I do have an idea as to a potential explanation for one of the non-genetic things which tend to coincide with homosexuatliy.
Now here's what I've heard: homosexuatliy and a history of sexual abuse tend to coincide. Not that homosexuals do the abuse, but were abused. If this is nothing but pure fabrication, go ahead and ignore me; I have no verifiable statistics to back this up. It's just something I've heard.
Now, consider the idea that love can exist without sex. Anyone with a healthy family life can accept this, since one loves mother, father, siblings (even if they are a bit hard to get along with, at times). I think a person with a truely healthy outlook on life can identify a love for non-family; their best friends and such. It is even possible to _love_ a non-related member of the opposite sex, without sex being a factor. The same is true for the _same_ sex.
There are those who have difficulaty with this concept on various levels. One who's parents are absolute monsters, doing perhaps more harm then good, might be confused about what love is and end up in self-destructive relationships, or turn to drugs, alcohol, etc. A man who, though he loved his mother, was taught early that excessive sentiment toward a man, including his father, might have extreme difficulty with the concept of love for another man, a recipe for homophobia, among other intolerances.
Now consider the one who, though he had an otherwise amicable relationship with his family, also experienced sexual abuse. It was probably posed in a pretty benign way. It may have even been enjoyable, despite the feelings of guilt that resulted when he learned that society considers this wrong, and that it, however benign, is carefully hidden, for one reason or another. However, it also lead him to associate, on a very subconcious level, love and sex. The simple comradery of a close, same-sex friendship might spark sexual urges as well. Combine this with an otherwise low level of... for lack of a more succient word, "hornyness" (different people react to members of the opposite sex to different degrees), and you very likely would have someone who considers himself homosexual. Someone who has this subconcious association, along with a strong degree of instinctive attraction to the opposite sex might consider themselves bisexual. Throw in a genetic predisposition toward this behaviour (and just about all human behaviour has a genetic component), and it's almost guarenteed.
Agree, legitmately dispute, flame, I don't care. I won't be back for another week. ;)
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
On 23 Oct 1999 15:13:59 GMT, [email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
Poster's Note: Venemous aspects of this post (although the poster makes no claim as to whether they were called for or not, and refuses to take sides) were deleted to make this message more acceptable, and for the purpose of irony.
Why don't they? The companies have every right not to comply.
Sure it is. Differences in volume are not the same as differences in type.
Lessee:
1) Intimating your friends were "talentless" was an extension of your own argument. She was simply pointing it out.
2) If you have to point out that you are taking the moral high ground, you probably aren't taking it at all.
On 23 Oct 1999 16:10:17 GMT, [email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
I weep not for the uninformed consumers.
She wasn't (as far as I could tell) implying that your friends actually were talentless, but that if what you were saying was true, that they must be talentless. The implication of the statement would be that "I'm sure your friends aren't talentless, so your statement must be flawed".
So you weren't trying taking the moral high ground?
(admits that was a cheap shot, but makes no claim to the moral high ground)
But mah-ooooom, everyone else was doing it, I *had* to!
You have a very strange sense of humour, it seems to consist of making unadorned statements of opinion or apparent fact and then saying "it was a joke" when someone queries them. I didn't get the first one, about the sort of books that Barnes and Noble stock, and I haven't got any of the others either.
-Shez.
I regret you're an asshole too.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
and
"I didn't start the fight, I was just DEFENDING myself, but now I've killfiled that bad person, so I win"
nice comeback!
On 24 Oct 1999 00:58:25 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
*regretfully resets the "ATD: XXX days without a flame war!" clock to zero*
Couldn't we have just chalked this one up to a personality conflict and been done with it?
did you even read the message I was responding to? It was all saying "I regret that Dagny was an asshole" followed by a bunch of lies, then implying that I go around flaming anyone I disagree with regularly, which you should know better than. I don't like putting up with being called a troll and my posts being either mindless insults or paranoid ravings. That's a bit more than a personality conflict, that's someone with something seriously against me for God knows what reason.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
On 24 Oct 1999 14:49:15 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Considering I was responding to both, yes I did.
Mommy, she hit me first!
So? I've never made any claims as to which side was right or wrong.
No, this is more "She pulled out a machine gun and I managed to slap her before falling down in a pool of blood", since everything she's done the past few days on this newsgroup has served as an attempt to convince all of you I'm a troll, not that you weren't convinced of that already...
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
On 24 Oct 1999 17:48:20 GMT, some letters randomly coalesced from individual pixels, claiming to be from [email] (Dagny Scott), and it said:
Um... Dagney? I wasn't here for the "discussion," but may I point something out? You've been here for quite some time; I don't even recognize the fellow that was dragging your name through the mud. So what were you worried about?
Personally, I think your buttons are, perhaps, a bit too easy to push. Don't let whoever said whatever bother you; none of us (or at least, none of the longtime regulars) are that easily changed in our estabilished opinions of the characters of other regulars. If someone came on and tried to convice us that Alli, or Kyle, or Joe, or Rich, or Dianne (what's her new handle?), or anyone else who might fill this list, was a troll, would you be so easily convinced? The same goes for you. I may disagree with your vehement opposition to team sports, but hey, your one of us. You are, in effect, a member in good standing.
Due to his present occupation, the author doesn't often read messages. If you want him to actually see the reply, please e-mail it to him.
On 24 Oct 1999 17:48:20 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
See, that's the thing. Not only are we not convinced of that, I would have assumed we all knew better than to ever think that.
before
days
troll,
I'm not sure that anyone thinks you're a troll. You've been posting here for yonks, and been quite popular and cool-seeming. You ARE one of the fighters in both of the 2 flamewars that have struck here very close togethor (Diane-gate and Walmart-gate) and perhaps people other than me find that, plus the fact that you haven't really apologized for either, potential evidence of going a bit over the top. I don't know. I think you're probably innocent of everything. But we certainly weren't flaming you in the "we love Diane" thread, and you're still better known than Jeniffer C. So relax :P <end attempt to type responsible post>
My keyboard works! I can type the letter B! bBbBbB! YES! Greg
Well, as I believe I said, it's a little hard to apologize for that last one since I've been killfiled by the other person. Besides that, I was not the one who engaged in personal attacks (until after MANY had been launched against me, and even then in a limited manner), so I don't see what to say besides apologizing for saying t********* (that dreaded t-word)
And on the Diane thread I was just pointing out that the nameless person you all HAD been attacking was me, which was followed by a huge, direct attack on me.
I don't know when out of this I became a paranoid raver and all of that. Everything that's been posted is about how I've gone over the top and am paranoid. I don't like that. I like this group, but I don't know if I'm so convinced since you all seem to think I'm paranoid and insane.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
So, who wants to be sane? That's so... ordinary... ;) And as for paranoid? Well who doesn't feel that way sometimes? How does the saying go? Just because you think they're out to get doesn't mean they aren't... (or something like that) of corse the converse is also true... And even if any one did think these things, so what? As others have said, Dagny, you're a member of the atd family too...
Marie "It's much more fun, I must confess When lives are on the line Not mine, of course, but yours, old boy Now that'd be just fine" -Oogie Boogie (fromThe Nightmare Before Christmas)
Hey! what's wrong with being paranoid and insane all of a sudden?
-Shez.
A 'raver' is someone who goes to those 'rave' parties all the time. I've never met one who was paranoid.
And....(evil laughter) Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you!
Dagny said:
I never killfile anyone. Too much like covering one's own eyes.
You're not paranoid. And who told you about us?
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
Must resist urge....to....be....sexist...... AH HELL!
if I had a dime for every time I've heard THAT excuse......
AH! Kidding! PUT THAT CHAIR DOWN! Ouch!
Get the Midol.
Not for you! For me!!
</done being silly>
Jennifer Callahan wrote in message news:[email]...
the
already
This may refer to the Fenty case, in 1996.
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/96/12/13/timnwsnws01022.html
To view the page, you'll have to enter your Times user code, or apply for one if you're not already a Times user.
Mrs Fenty was tried by a court martial because she killed her husband in an army dwelling. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility because she was suffering from PMS and was depressed. She was set free to serve a year's probation, having spent a year in an army detention centre awaiting trial.
Martin.
That's my wife with the chair. And Don't call me sweetie, or my wife will find out if that deffense will work here in America!
Good. You're not the other person.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
yeah! dammit, maybe you should all killfile me so I can be totally ignored! Or I should just leave, is that it?
Yes, that was horridly hostile of me to dare to disagree with you.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper." -T.S. Eliot
And all this time I thought it was a prerequisite.
Look folks, just knock it off! Ok?
I've reviewed the thread. I know what was said and who said it. Just drop it.
Personally, I think a round of apologies might be a good idea. Something along the lines of, "I'm sorry if I inadvertently said something that upset you." might be about right. It won't kill you, you know. And you won't lose face, especially in this group, for simply stating regret over what was not a even a disagreement but simply a misunderstanding. We have here an online community of, yes I'll say it: Friends, who without need of a moderator are capable of civilized discourse on a wide variety of difficult and controversial subjects in a manner that is the admiration of the 'net. It's stupid to squander that over a squabble precipitated by a few quips that just didn't work.
So just drop it. Toss the whole thread into the bit-bucket and forget it ever happened.
I'd do that, but I've already been killfiled.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
In article , "R. K. Henry" wrote:
Something
wide
the
it
Yuppers, quoted the whole post again. Read it twice folks.
Once, a good while back, I returned from the rim to find something similar going on. Then, as now, just let me say...
"Ok, it's over folks. Belly up to the bar. The first round's on me."
On 23 Oct 1999 23:53:49 GMT, [email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
I remember reading about one incident where a passenger on a flight made a joke to the stewardess about having a bomb or being a hijacker and they made an emergency landing and had the anti-terror squad raid the plane. MSB
people in airports tend to not have a sense of humor. I had to convince Stephen to shut up when we went to pick up Alley. At least our airport lets you go into the area where the people are coming in, Newark doesn't.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Dagny said:
ROFL!! Knowing Stephen (and his bizarre sense of humor), I can envision this all too easily :)
Never shall you find such a hive of scum ... and villainy.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 12:07:09 GMT, [email] (Matthias Benkmann) wrote:
I remember going to an airport, and seeing a sign that said "Bomb threats are no laughing matter!" The fine print had something saying don't even joke about it, because the security people have no choice but to take it seriously.
Actually I was implying they weren't talentless, and therefore capable of getting a job elsewhere.
Do I need to put "WARNING: SARCASM" on that site?
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
On 23 Oct 1999 15:50:21 GMT, [email] (Howling Lunatic) wrote:
And yet...
You added in 'venemous content' of your own.
Not that I can argue with points 2 or 3. (I could argue point 1, but I'd prefer not to do it here.)
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:14:27 GMT, [email] wrote:
I didn't think it was venemous. If I had attacked her personal character, perhaps. Simply pointing out aspects of a post isn't really venemous.
Kyle, he who means well The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago.cubs
On 23 Oct 1999 16:10:17 GMT, [email] (Jennifer Callahan) wrote:
(Snip)
Actually, it's a common idea among the fiscal conservatives; the quality of one's occupation is a direct indicator to the quality of the person.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I can understand the logic behind it.
except that no one actually claimed anything of the sort...
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
Jennifer Callahan said:
They have the right to "insist" anything they want. The music companies then have the right to decide what to do about their demand.
Not labelling the product as altered might be considered fraud, though. So they probably don't have the right to do that.
Sincerely Yours, Jordan
"Man, as we know him, is a poor creature; but he is halfway between an ape and a god and he is travelling in the right direction." (Dean William R. Inge)
On 23 Oct 1999 12:52:15 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Not quite. It would be an infringement of corporate freedoms; which is a related issue, but not quite the same.
Just nitpicking... on a less petty note: I don't think anyone here is talking about regulating them. They are expressing distaste for their policies - the particular manner in which they are exercising their freedoms.
They have the right to make their decisions based on ideology; I have the right to shop elsewhere because of that policy, and to encourage my friends and associates to do likewise. To tell me that I have no right to complain about the way they run their business - that is censorship. (You can, of course, argue against my complaints - either by claiming them as being uninformed or petty.)
The use of the word "talentless."
I'll admit, my own opinion on your use of that word was based on knee-jerk reaction; having worked minimum wage jobs in the service industry for most of my life (due primarily to low self esteem,) I have to fight the urge to feel insulted by claims that, by extention, label me as 'talentless.'
Aargh! Is the word "talentless" suddenly a word that causes death and destruction simply by its utterance, like f*** or n*****? My point was they are NOT talentless and can get a job somewhere else (not necessarily better, just ELSE.) and no one forces them to work at Wal Mart, so they're policy towards their workers can't really be seen as opressive in the sense a government or public school policy could.
Dagny
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/9441/
"If they outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve"
On 25 Oct 1999 19:29:46 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:
Due to generations of use as a 'polite' insult, yes.
wrote in message news:[email]...
Yes. So from now on we'll use the PC terms: "Talent Impaired" or "Talent Challenged". <G>