So Jane is lez, delightful

<Professor Higgins>

DAMN, DAMN, DAMN, DAMN.

</Professor Higgins>

Dearest MTV,

Has someone put Tom Green in charge?

Injecting homosexuality into what is seen by most to be a childrens programme will SERIOUSLY backfire.

After seeing the America's 70 Million Jesus Freaks go ballistic over a purple muppet just because he has a purple triangle on this head.

One can only imagnie who they will react to blatent homosexuality in the plot.

I can see it now

<Bob Barr> Georgia Republican, Anti-Semite, Gun Fetisher

"The jewish Sodomites at MTV have CONSPIRED with the UNITED NATIONS to make our DEAR children HOMOSEXUALS, My Friens we MUST fight Lucifers JEWISH agents at MTV for the future of this great Christian nation"

</Bob Barr>

Although, MTV is already on the Jesus Freaks shit list, they havn't seen anything yet, If they brodcast this they are going to be snowed under by letters from irate parents "You Bastards took my daughters innocence"

You could also face a massive boycott against their advertisers. such as the gays have launched against Dr.Laura (For the record, I think Dr.Laura is a fraud and I hope she dies from some horrible veinerial condition)

Although on the upside, this could totally gross out the AOL Teeny Boppers who inhabit the daria site @mtv.com

I can see it now

Uhh, Pixie69 :Eeew this is like so nasty, I mean Jane is a lez, ugh, she wants to fuck other girls, that is like oh like so gross, but since daria is goin ta marry tom, jane should marry trent, yah he is her brother but that isn as grose as fucking other girls.

But then again N'Sync is OBVIOUSLY gay and that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Ahh, nice to be back to civilization, we really need a T3 at the cabin. I managed to sink a small boat, I fell off a Jetski and I wasn't wearing the wrist strap and the jetski obliterated a small wooden boat before comming to rest on a neibors patio. Parents pissed

Back to school next week, Ahh, Mrs.Lee the Ms.Li wannabe prinicipal was fired appretly she gave a boy a cavity search. my school might be featured on some special on FoxNews or MSNBC, (Can't remember which) about American Ex-Pat's If you didn't know my school is completely over-run by Americans

I got my new G4 Cube, http://www.apple.com/cube I still can't believe I want it, it is so, so Quinn.

American election, seeing as Dubya can't explain ANY of his policies without looking like an idiot, I am really starting to warm to Gore, He atleast appears to have a measureable inteliligence,

Missle Defence, DOA, Even if the US can get support at home, without international cooperation it is DOA, and it would seem no one except Taiwan is prepared to host the required new radars

UK Poitics, England has offically signed onto the International Criminal Court, pissing off the Klintoon admistration. Finally Blair does something worth while

Canadian Politics, Stockwell Day still obviously in his dream world, trying to United Canadian conservitives has further alienated Eastern Canada.

Me, Starting in November I may start writting for a New York based Advertising \ Marketing magazine

Boy, am I ever rambling

I will say one more thing, Americans: Starting this week WB will be showing a new show called "Popular" it has been shown in Canada since the spring, It is basically a satire of the teen soap opera's like Dawsons Creek. The only problem is most of these "Freshmen" look like they are in their mid-30's and one appears to have a receeding hairline. The Samantha character is alot like Daria. And there is a group that is EXACTLY like the fashion club.

I am sure to post an inchorent rant after the movie.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:03:00 GMT, The Contentious Objector wrote:

You are lying. You saw no such thing.

You saw a few very loud people claiming to represent the Christian religion going off about it.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :

Depends what he means by his statement, for the record I have nothing agains any religion etc, but it does piss me off when people justify their crimes / prjudises(sp?). I'm sure there are many very good, honest Christians, but unfortunatly it's the not so good ones that seem to be the ones that shout the loudest.

Phill.

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) writes:

Actually, you didn't even see that. What happened is that Jerry Falwell's newsletter ran a small story relating some things that had already been written in the UK (where Teletubbies is made). The gist of the stories was that the guy who played the purple teletubbie was not only gay, but was acting flamboyantly gay on the set, and even on camera. The directors told him to tone it down, and he balked. He was either fired or almost fired -- I forget all the details. If you care, you can probably still find the story on the web.

Anyway, someone in the media picked up the story and announced it as "Falwell condemns ....", and then gay rights groups were the ones that went ballistic. All the newsletter did was inform parents (and only parents who buy the newsletter and presumably tend to want its opinions) about something they might want to consider when putting their kids in front of the rectangular electric babysitter.

My first reaction to the story was, "You mean only *one* of them is gay?" My next reaction was to think that any parent who cared what his kid was watching certainly wouldn't allow him to watch Teletubbies based on its insipid stupidity, so any propaganda of the gender-bending variety is probably irrelevant.

Aaron

"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message news:[email]...

Actually, the story I heard was that the guy was fired because he was caught having sex under a table on the set -- with a WOMAN. There have been plenty of Teletubbies stories, but yours is the VERY FIRST that came up with this imaginative tale.

Face it--Jerry Falwell is a bigoted piece of shit. That doesn't mean all Christians are. But he is, and he always will be.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:46:55 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

Dose anyone happen to have a copy of the article?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) writes:

Here's a link: <http://www.falwell.com/press%20statements/prsarchives/prstubb.htm>

It's interesting to note that it quotes previous articles in Time Magazine, the Washington Post, and People magazine which all refered to Tinky Winky as a gay character or part of gay culture, but no-one got mad at those publications. :-)

Aaron

"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message news:[email]...

Something from "falwell.com" isn't going to tell the whole story, just his side of it.

"Jeg7777" writes:

Of course. I wasn't asked for the whole story, just for a link to the actual article that got people upset. If you want the 'whole story' -- if such a thing is even possible -- you can probably do a web search for "Falwell and Tinky" and come up with lots of opinions.

Aaron

Definition of a bigot: A conservative who's winning an argument.

John

Long live William Hubbs Rehnquist

"Al52228" wrote in message news:[email]...

I remember when he denied making certain anti-gay remarks, and publicly offered a lot of money (maybe a million bucks, I'm not sure of the exact figure) to anyone who could prove he made the remarks. Naturally, someone produced the tape showing him making the exact remarks he denied making. Falwell refused to pay until ordered to do so by a court of law.

So you can make your silly quote. But Jerry Falwell is a PROVEN bigot.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:21:29 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

What was the specific quote?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8okdll$d8m$[email]...

all

If you mean the Falwell remark, I can't remember. This was years and years ago. When I said "you can make your silly quote" I was referring to the "Definition of a bigot" quote above.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:51:10 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

I'm just concerned that Falwell is being condemned as a bigot for condemning homosexuality.

I hate to go with the Catholic church, but they got it right "hate the sin, love the sinner". Nothing wrong with gay people.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

anyone who condemns homosexuality, quite frankly, falls under my definition of a bigot.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Depends what you mean by condemns, some people might think homosexuality is unethical, but also believe in live and let live. Though I believe what you are saying is people who condemn it and shout about it loudly ?

<Beavis> Aggghhhh get off me fartknocker ! </Beavis>

:)

Phill.

i'd say that saying "homosexuality is bad" is condemning, while "i don't like homosexuality" isn't.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:10:59 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Depends. Do you want "don't ask don't tell" or do you want "don't tell unless asked"?

If you ask me, I'll tell you. but I'm not going to totter around like an idiot with "God hates fags" signs either.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8orbvd$biv$[email]...

is

you

Personally, I want neither. What I want is equal -- note: that's "equal," NOT "special" -- rights and equal treatment for all people.

Oh gee, thanks ever so much for that.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:13:53 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

I know, it really shouldn't be something that I have to point out.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

[email] (Jeg7777) wrote in :

Indeed, equal rights, to go off at a tangent what pisses me off about a lot of the "equality for women" bunch is taht they don't appear to want equality, they want superiority. Equality I'm perfectly willing to give to everyone, exact equality, no special treatment whatsoever. If this happened I wonder how many people would still moan ?

Come on he's entitled to his opinion everyone is, even if it doesn't aggree with yours that is what free speech is all about.

Phill.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 21:57:50 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

Don't confuse Catherine MacKinnon with a normal human being, nevermind a feminist. She's a fascist pure and simple, who wants to control all discourse in the world, and who wants to suppress dissent by main force.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

i don't know what the deal is with those "god hates fags" people. i mean, who cares what god thinks? can't they make up their own bloody minds?

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:41:09 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

No, that would kind of defeat the point of religion, wouldn't it?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

what point? ;)

On 5 Sep 2000 04:27:34 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

A bunch of NASA people who actually have PROOF say so. Their claims (unlike yours) are subject to DISPROOF. You don't like the scientific method because your philosophy pales in comparison. Therefore you attempt to coopt it. It never works.

I AM older than you are. I probably made my mind up about it before you were born.

I'm not so limited. I have no use for anybody ELSE'S religion either. Don't exaggerate your importance.

It's typical for religious zealots to label non-believers "bigots".

No, it prevents me from taking responsibility for the words of others for whom I take no responsibility. It doesn't matter if 1,000,000 people all claim that 2+2=5. I have no duty to go along.

They've been quite vocally wrong.

Why? Are they going to tell me personally something different from their public positions? Doesn't that make them LIARS?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 06:59:41 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

I don't like scientific method because it's not the same as truth. It's just "The best we can figure out".

Dilbert "I believe in evolution because it's the logical result of scientific method"

Dogbert "But science is based on the irrational view that just because we can't view reality all at once, things such as 'time' and 'cause and effect' must exist"

Dilbert "That's what I was taught and that's what I believe"

Dogbert "sounds cultish"

Why should we assume that just because even the smartest human being alive can't FIND the flaws in their logic that there are none at all? Science doesn't exactly have a track record of accuracy here. It keeps disproving itself.

Which is really sad.

I'm not. But they are the only ones relevant to this discussion.

Yeah. It's a fun label thrown around by anyone who feels like it.

Besides, it's also typical of irrational people to create strawmen. This is the second one you've created this thread.

But you should know that if you are trying to communicate "4" to them, don't use "2+2".

So? So's the NRA. Doesn't mean either one of them is worth a damn to anyone.

Maybe, everyone lies. Besides, the value of a human being goes alot beyond one or two public positions.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 5 Sep 2000 16:03:09 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

The scientific method is the path to truth.

You offer instead of "the best we can figure out", "whatever strikes my fancy".

Ok, now use "Batman" as evidence that there's a need for repressive gun controls and other tools of a police state. That's always a hoot!

It's called evidence. You operate without it. That's why your argument is quintessentially anti-rational. It's not only not subject to disproof, it doesn't even allow for factual PROOF. It's just "because I say so".

That is the VERY proof of the value of the scientific method. You seem to be saying that science is flawed BECAUSE it's self correcting.

Presumably, you view the disgarding of a flat earth as a MISTAKE by science.

It's only sad if you're upset by people making rational and logical decisions instead of acting on blind faith.

No, I've NEVER limited my comments to Christianity. They apply equally well to Animism as to Zoroastrianism.

But meaningless in this context. My comments are based on YOUR comments.

No, it's the second one of yours I've IDENTIFIED in this thread.

I don't dumb down my discourse to deal with the stupid. They can catch up or get left behind. If they think I'm going to stoop to their level, they can get bent.

The NRA is absolutely right. They're just not forceful enough in their presentation.

So, when someone advocates sexual relations between adult men and preteen boys, you don't judge them SOLELY on that, right?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:43:57 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

And both are just as likely to be right.

If it lightens up the thread, sure.

If not fooling myself into believing that organized guessing (aka science) is the same as fact is what defines "anti-rational", I hapiily accept the label.

If it were right, it wouldn't need correcting.

No, but I view the fact that it was there to be disregarded as a reason to doubt science. It doesnt' exactly have a track record of accuracy here.

Yeah. Blind faith in an admittedly flawed system like science.

Yeah, but you and I are the only ones here.

I was getting a little revenge. The only reason I ever got into this was because I was annoyed at being called a bigot.

That you've been using.

That's pretty irrational. It's usually to your benefit to cooperate.

I was just prodding there anyways.

Nope. For all we know they were born with an innate inclination to that, and are really good people in need of serious counseling. Just keep them the hell away from schools.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

no, because we have an indication that "the best we can figure out" WORKS in our measurable environment, which "whatever strikes my fancy" doesn't necessarily. while this ain't proof, it makes the former more probable.

science is organized guessing AND CORRECTING. trial and error.

that statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way knowledge works.

when people started thinking the earth was flat, it was because they hadn't the evidence to indicate otherwise. evidence that the earth was round arrived, and they (eventually) changed their minds, based on that new evidence.

no, but it corrects its mistakes. science today is more accurate than science 2000 years ago. the same cannot be said for religion.

what's flawed about it? do explain.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:40:20 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

You'd think so, but the track record ain't there.

Let me know when the correcting is done.

And what if even newer evidence comes along against that?

And why not?

Which one?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

huh?

it is always being done. many of the debunked rules still work - eg, newton's laws, which are accurate enough that you would not find them wrong on earth, but don't quite work when it comes to stuff involving large masses like planets.

the same. they update, allowing for the new evidence as well as the old.

because religion isn't really updated, is it?

eh?

Kyle said:

??? - The "track record" is our whole scientific and technological civilization, at least _one_ of the products of which you must be trusting in or we wouldn't have seen this post!

Since the Universe is effectively infinite, the "correcting" is never done. But unless one makes the attempt, one can never know when one is wrong.

Science contains built-in error-checking. Religion does not. And the errors inflicted upon philosophy by religion have had gruesome real-world consequences, time and time again.

the thing is that it's not that religion is never wrong, it's that it doesn't even check to see if it's wrong.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:11:20 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Furthermore, religion as often as not, KILLS people who attempt to do such checking.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

yes, but that's not really an inherant flaw in the idea of religion. most religious people are not responsable for that.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 10:43:39 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

I'm not sure it isn't inherent, given the ubiquity of the practice.

You might want to study pre-Tokugawa Shogunate Japanese history. Even the BUDDHISTS formed armies and duked it out with those with whom they disagreed... armies of MONKS, actually. Those were some of the most vicious wars fought in Japan.

There may be examples in which religions didn't use violence or its threat to enforce orthodoxy, but they're decidedly in the minority.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Alli said:

Exactly. Still worse, it contains mechanisms designed to prevent error-checking.

On 6 Sep 2000 04:10:47 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Only if you believe in proof.

If you accept whatever gets made up out of whole cloth that strikes your fancy, they are indeed the same.

Of course that's the same as a little kid closing his own eyes so that he'll be "invisible".

Everyone I've seen do it has been dead serious.

The scientific method is a way of TESTING for fact. Your "method" is just pure whim.

So what you're saying is that it's better to PRETEND you're right from the start than to actually examine your assumptions and conclusions against each other. This is of course why the religious have such a propensity for silencing their critics by any means necessary. Their claims usually can't stand up to too much close observation and it's easier to torture or kill those who question the claims than to prove the claims.

What you're saying is that science is bad because it doesn't arrive at all truth at once, but corrects its mistakes, while religion is good, because it makes unsupported claims which it NEVER corrects.

Blind faith admits to no flaws. Self-correction isn't a flaw.

The world doesn't revolve around you. Again, I haven't limited my remarks here to christianity. In fact, I've barely mentioned it. Christianity or satanism, it's all the same to me.

Sounds kind of silly to me....

I use what you create.

It's irrational to be wrong in order to fit in. Cooperation with stupidity is stupid.

What you seem to be saying is that I should cooperate with stupid, malicious non-religious people who want to suppress religion, so that I can fit in with them.

I just thought you needed reminding.

And they are far too whimpy in their presentation.

How about if they have an innate inclination towards killing little boys?

What's the record of success for "counseling" of pedophiles?

The only counseling they need is a bullet.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

slightly incorrect: it's what works. if predictions can be accurately made according to a theory, then the theory is "correct". eg, the theory of gravity predicts that on earth if you drop something, it will accelerate towards the ground at 9.81ms^-2. this has never failed in the past, but if it fails tomorrow then the theory will have to be changed to account for that.

nobody's assuming that.

of course - once a theory is found to be incorrect it must be updated.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

<Pedantic> There's not quite enough info there, the above figures only apply at "sea level" :) Also you seem to be ignoring air risistance :) </Pedantic>

And actually the theory of gravity has changed somewhat since it's first incarnation by Newton, ok most of Newton's laws still hold in the everyday world, but we seem to have figured out the finer detail, for more out of the ordinary circumstances.

Which is science's self correcting nature, it works out a model that works in the circumstances we can see, then when found not to work in a different set of circumstances is re-evaluated to take account of those.

Phill.

there are a quintillion number of planets like ours, where life could have been created.

whoever said they were? in fact they appear to be screwing it up fairly well as it is, which according to you is WITH the assistance of a god.

what the hell is risky about that?

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:22:04 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Prove it.

Not really. God doesn't force his help on anyone. If they are bound and determined to screw it up, they will.

C'mon, you've never heard the "if I'm wrong, what do I lose, but if you're wrong" speech?

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 5 Sep 2000 16:04:15 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

They have the same basic conditions which prevail or have prevailed here.

PHYSICAL proof is coming.

Don't commit suicide if you don't like it.

God doesn't appear to do ANYTHING. Lack of existence is a factor in that nonfeasance....

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:27:20 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

i won't. But you can't even prove the planet even exists, let alone it's really like what you think it's like.

Tell that to my mother who died of breast cancer after being diagnosed with it 16 or so years ago.

Oh wait, the church held an all-night prayer vigil and the cancer dissapeared completely from her system in a matter of days. My mistake...

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 6 Sep 2000 04:12:59 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Europa isn't a planet. This is a common problem in these discussions....

Ok, lack of existence is a factor in that nonfeasance.

Correlation isn't causality. You've done NOTHING to prove causality.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

[email] (Christopher Morton) wrote in :

Depends on how you define planet, it's cirtainly not a star or a commet or something like that. It is a planetary like body, even though it is in orbit around another planetary like body (Jupiter).

Indeed.

Phill.

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 14:44:39 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

I was walking guard duty at Camp Funston on Ft. Riley, Kansas the night John Wayne died. Walking guard duty kills cowboy stars... I killed John Wayne!!! : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

[email] (Christopher Morton) wrote in :

:)

Phill.

commet or

in

A planet has to orbit a star, I think. Europa is a moon.

[email] (Reg Shoe) wrote in :

And what does Jupiter do then ? and since Europa orbits Jupiter by definition it also orbits the Sun, whcih last time I checked was a star :)

Phill.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:07:10 +0000, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

And since by some definitions, a wife is dependent upon her husband and you were at one time dependent on your mother, you're married to your father.... : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

[email] (Christopher Morton) wrote in :

In that case I'm a widdower he's been dead since 1992 :(

But the point was that Europa proably has more in common with a planet than a star or a commet or asteroid and I would think most astronomers would considder a moon of it's size to be a planetary body :)

Phill.

In article ,

:

is

star

planet than

would

Well, the sun may be a planet too then . . . it does orbit the center of the galaxy, which orbits something else (I forget what, really, but there might be a star in there somewhere). Anyway, it's not considered the 10th planet of our solar system yet (well, possibly 13th, because if Europa's a planet, the other Galilean moons must be too . . . then Titan would be eligible, I think . . . Charon is a double planet with Pluto, since they orbit each other . . . ARGH!) and it DOES fit the definiton of a moon, I'll . . . wait a second here. What was the point of this conversation again? *sits back confused*

[email] (Reg Shoe) wrote in :

No the sun is a star, though as you correctly state it is a satilite of the galactic core. If you notice I have for the most part used the term Planetary body, meaning it's more like a planet than anything else, the fact that it is the satilite of another planetary body, would also make it a moon.

The Charon-Pluto system and to a lesser extent the Earth-Moon system can both effectivly be considdered binary systems, as the mass ratios are such that they effectivly orbit each other. Yes I know this is also true for any pair of boddies, but for say Jupiter-Europa, the amount that Europa influences Jupiter is *MUCH* less than the ammount that Jupiter influences Europa.

Phill.

The sun actually orbits the whole galaxy's mass, not the core. A spiral galaxy, unlike a solar system, does not keep most of its mass in the core; we are actually _within_ the halo of mass of our galaxy, as is the whole visible disk. Most of the mass in invisible and occupies a sphere of tens of thousands of LY radius, centered on the core (which may contain a large black hole).

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Yes but any mass will act gravatationally as if it's mass was concentrated in one point this is what the "center of gravity" is. It is this that the Sun (and it's system of plannets) is in orbit with.

I think it's virtually cirtain that there is a huge black hole there, I believe the mass concentration is just too large for there not to be.

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

The major difference is that because we (and all other star systems in the Galaxy) are _within_ the mass in question ...

SPOILERS for Newton's Theory of Gravitation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ... all the stars orbit with roughly the same period, instead of the innermost stars orbiting faster and the outermost ones slower. This is highly relevant, because this is why spiral galaxies retain their "spiral" shape!

In article ,

concentrated

that the

in the

innermost

relevant,

Emerson)

Okay, I don't know WHY I thought the addition of spoiler space was so funny, but it really is.

Reg Shoe said:

Thank you :)

Incidentally, astrophysicists have calculated that the mass of the _stars_ in the Galaxy is inadequate to explain the gravitational attraction, by almost a whole order of magnitude. That's one reason why they postulate the existence of "dark matter" forming a halo around the core and containing the visible spiral structure.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

So pretty much the same reasons that have lead to the descovery of Uranus (uhuhuhuhu I said anus), Neptune and Pluto, the effects on the other plannets could not be explained by what we did know about, infact, I believe there is still an effect that they can't explain leading to the postulations about a tenth 'plannet'.

Phill.

In article ,

so

why

the

Uranus

the

Yes . . . Pluto was discovered in 1930 because astronomers could tell that there was a force acting on Neptune, such as another gas giant planet pulling on it with its gravity. But when Pluto was discovered, they realized that this tiny, rocky planet could in no way be responsible for the effect they'd witnessed on Neptune, so there's been speculation pretty much ever since that something BEYOND Pluto must be causing it. I don't know if this theory has been debunked or not, tho . . . I'm not "hip" to all the latest astronomical news. :)

Reg Shoe wrote in message

I'm pretty sure that it was later discovered that the calculations suggesting another planet were, in fact, in error, and that the gravitational distortions and such are accounted for completely by the known planets. It is just a happy coincidence that there was a ninth planet to discover when they started looking for it.

jason

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Looking at it externally then yes this is how the galaxy will behave as one single mass. But we still orbit the center of gravity whichever way you look at it.

Yes but this is due to mutual gravitation between the ajacent stars etc holding the shape together as it where, though the inermost stars must orbit faster or there wouldn't be a spiral shape it would be more like a bar :) Though because of ther mutual gravitation, I would imagine that the outer stars are dragged round faster than they otherwise would be.

Phill.

You do realize that the issue of Europa is a planet or a moon (it's a "moon") is not all that relevant to whether it has life, right?

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Yes of course, it's just that we seem to like arguing the toss over the simplest of things on atd :) Besides it can be both you know :)

Phill.

Homer: Not a bear in sight.  The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
 Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
 Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
 Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
 Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
 Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
       [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
       [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

Lisa said "specious" reasoning, Homer _misinterpeted it_ as a compliment (probably "spacious").

Yeah, I know... I realized there was a typo in the quote after I had sent the post. Like I said, I got it from the Simpsons Archive - I've already alerted them about the typo.

Sara

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:49:23 -0400, SM wrote:

"Now Lisa, you know that there's no such thing as vampires. They're imaginary, like elves, and fairies... and Eskimos!"

"So, what you're saying is that I'm going to have to hammer a fire hardened stake through my bosses heart? Dare I live out the American dream???"

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

you can't prove in the strictest sense that THIS planet exists. we can prove that those planets exist as well as we can prove that this one does.

well if that happens routinely every time a number of people pray for someone, it's evidence. alone, it is not.

and even then there are simpler explanations than "god did it", which relies on there being a god, etc - eg. the psychological effects of thinking god is curing your cancer - as we already know that thinking doctors are giving you morphine cures pain.

prayer appearing to cure breast cancer is not a reason to believe in god, it is a reason to believe that prayer cures breast cancer.

are you denying the fact that there are other planets, some of which have similar conditions to ours? why?

you're screwing up right now, honey.

ahh well, according to MY religion, if you love god and jesus you have to go to a hell that's even worse than your religion's hell. so you better convert in case you're wrong.

In article ,

(Kyle)

I think it's because it may have the closest conditions to Earth of any other object in this solar system; i.e. possible liquid water, possible sufficient temperature, possibility of breathable gas (at least breathable by our standards).

It may have all of those, or it may have some combination of them (I'm pretty sure that some probe sent there detected water, though the probe could always have made a mistake), but the point is, that of every thing that is in our "neighborhood," it has the best chance of having life "as we know it."

Whether a god (or gods) put it there or it happened by purely random chance, is a matter of debate (that I don't particularly want to get into).

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 00:46:52 GMT, Mike Quinn wrote:

How do we know that? Have YOU been there?

Smart idea.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

you can observe things without being there, you know.

In article ,

any

possible

No, why do you think I put the word "possible" in there as much as I could? No one (as far as anyone knows) has been there, so no one really knows what is there. It's just based on what we can find out, it seems like that of all the places we could get to in a fairly reasonable amount of time, Europa seems like it could be capable of sustaining some sort of life - whether it really could or actually does is another question entirely.

Kyle said:

No human has yet "been" to Europa. However, observation from robot pobes has revealed a surface of water ice, with fault lines that imply still-liquid water beneath. Analysis of tidal stresses and the Jovian magnetic field suggest mechanisms which could cause the satellite to be warm enough to support liquid water. The oxygen, of course, would be diffused in the water. Oxygen is a very common element, and there's no particular reason to suppose that there _is_ none in the water.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

By chemical definition of water H2-O there *HAS* to be oxygen for it to *BE* water :) Yeah I know that's not what you meant :)

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith said:

:)

Actually, the presence of water, and the fact that there are numerous reactions which disassociate water, make the presence of dissolved oxygen (and some hydrogen) in the water very likely. (The hydrogen will tend to escape in the long run though).

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

Yeah but the major one IIRC (it is 13 years since I studied Chemistry :) ) is auto-ionisation, where the H-O-H becomes [H-O]- and [H]+ though as the water is probnably no where near pure these may then react with other things. Also I suppose there is the effect of sunlight on it which yeah can break it up. Actually also IIRC Hydrogen Peroxide H2-O2 does tend to be broken up by sunlight into H2-O and O2, whcih is why you keep it in dark bottles, because obviously having it liberate O2 is a fire risk :)

Something hoever that does normally supprise some people is that water is a very weak acid :)

Phill.

Kyle said:

First of all, it's not as improbable as you think (read _Climbing Mount Imrpobable_ sometime).

Secondly, it's a big Universe, and in those corners of it where life _didn't_ come about, nobody's discussing the issue (the anthropic principle).

Kyle said:

We have strong reason to suspect that Mars at least once had life, and hints that it may still. Europa probably has water oceans, under the ice.

On 5 Sep 2000 04:25:26 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Yes. I don't believe you do.

Then you don't know what logic is. Buy a dictionary.

I can construct a logical argument based on the earth being flat. I KNOW that's NOT true. I can still construct a logical argument based on it.

Says you.

Of course that's irrelevant anyway.

I can be reasonably certain enough to take practical action.

Which you've yet to do.

Your definition is flawed... and self-serving.

They wouldn't do me any good because they're based in the anti-rational.

Your outline was flawed.

An angry strawman lurking behind every premise.

If they're the MAJORITY, why CAN'T I prop up my side with them?

No, you could just be ignorant or oblivious.

Thanks for echoing what I've said.

You believe it on FAITH.

Anything so fundamentally unproveable is unknowable.

It's hard to choose which is more boring or irrelevant.

If it's unproveable to such a degree it's unknowable and irrelevant.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 07:08:05 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

Then it's not pure logic. It's a bastardized version of it.

Yep, says me.

Not really. If you want to use logic to prove something, then you have to have a truth to start with.

And I can be reasonably certain enough to believe in God, although I can't prove he exists.

What happened to "If you can't know, it's not worth knowing about"?

Which I don't have to do.

No, it's right.

You are REALLY good at assuming things you don't even know. You don't know my reasons, but you've already made up your mind that they are anti-rational.

Just like you think you know people you've never even met. I'm noticing a pattern of knee-jerk reactions here...

Nope.

But a strawman nonetheless.

Because they are still wrong. If even 1 person out there believes in God and is doing it right, then you are wrong.

Which is usually the kind of people who are angry.

Which is really just repeating what I've said in every religious discussion on this board for the last 10 years.

Faith based on subjective evidences.

Not if you believe that human's have an ingrained knowledge of their creator deep down in their psyche, which I do, and you can't prove doesn't exist.

To you. It brings millions of people lots of enjoyment and doesn't hurt anyone. I don't see the problem.

I don't see why you link unknowable and irrelevant.

Yet another person you've never met but have already think you know him well enough to judge him.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Logic has do do with reasoning, not truth. You *can* use logic to prove that which is false. The concern of logic is whether or not an argument is valid. A valid argument which contains a false premise may have a false conclusion, but it remains a valid argument. The conclusion would be proven, but untrue.

Christians argue from premises which we believe are true. We believe they are true because of faith, by the gift of grace. Those who have refused this gift are under no obligation to accept these premises as true. (Which, in the Christain view, doesn't make them any less true.) Nonetheless, we *can* attempt to use logic to argue from these premises. If we do so, we will come to conclusions which will be undeniably valid, but will only be seen as true by those who accept the premises as true. The argument will be proven, but not the truth.

I happen to like the preface to Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli's "Handbook of Christain Apologetics" (InterVarsity Press, 1994). It reads as follows:

"Our compelling reasons for writing this book are three: 1. We are certain that the Christian faith is true. 2. We are only a little less certain that the very best thing we can possibly do for others is to persuade them of this truth, in which there is joy and peace and love incomparable in this world, and infinite and incomprehensible in the next. 3. We are a little less certain, but still confident, that honest reasoning can lead any open-minded person to this very same conclusion."

They then proceed, in 400 or so pages, to make perfectly valid arguments in favor of Christianity. There are 20 valid arguments for the existence of God. There are two for the Divinity of Christ. And so on. From my unabashedly Christain viewpoint, they speak the truth. Absent the gift of faith, another may not think so. But even absent the gift of faith, another may not say they haven't logically proven their argument.

Peace Kevin

On 5 Sep 2000 15:57:44 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

No, it's pure logic.

Are you saying it'd be logical if I SINCERELY believed that the earth was flat?

Without proof.

Which you don't have. You only have an ASSERTION which others are supposed to take on faith.

Without evidence of ANY kind.

Some things are by their definition unknowable. Others are easier to prove.

Good thing to, since you couldn't.

No, it's flawed and self-serving. It's nothing but special pleading.

If they weren't, you wouldn't be embarassed to state them. You're like my ex-girlfriend. You know they'd provoke laughter, not interest.

I know people by their own words.

Yes it was. It was based on special pleading rather than evidence.

An angry strawman who stands in for you.

But I haven't the slightest evidence of even ONE. You seem embarrassed to provide any evidence.

Exactly.

So then I'm right?

"Subjective evidences". No evidence at all... or evidence that changes to suit you.

You haven't demonstrated there's a creator. Now you're telling everyone that they know about him. Just more special pleading.

I don't want to ban it. I just disdain and ignore it... which sets me apart from the religious.

If it's unknowable, it's irrelevant to you.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

which would be what?

again, which would be what?

don't you think god is a bit of a bastard if he offers us the option to do x and then says he'll send us to hell if we do?

well this is usenet.

but he made it that way, so it's "i love you because i was made to do that, by you".

yes, but i would be offended if my boyfriend told me he only loved me because i made him.

that's what religious people say. :p

yes but the reason for this is that we must have some kind of traffic system for vehicles so they don't crash into each other. god supposedly created us, for fun, and then, for fun, made silly irrelevant rules about not sleeping with members of the same sex, and told everyone he'd send them to hell if they disobeyed. it's not analagous to a situation in which there has to be order in order for the system to work, and someone messing up the system can result in death for a number of people.

it's kinda tempting fate, as people are gonna do it anyway. it can't exactly be important, or he wouldn't have given us the option of doing it for fear of the people who would.

eh?

that's the same as "i love you because you made me". it's invalidating.

evidence please?

i disagree. and in any case, he made my rebellious spirit, didn't he?

i don't see where you got that from. why did he even bother with hell in the first place? it's just so he can manipulate us, because he knows we don't want to go there.

[...]

the burden of proof is on you, kyle. it would be impossible to disprove the existance of god, so it's no damn surprise that nobody's done it yet.

yes, however there is no REASON to believe in god. if, for example, there were signs of god's intervention going back through history, that would not be proof of his existance but it would be a reason why one might believe he exists. at present there is little or nothing that has more probable explanations than your god for its cause.

what IS your evidence?

On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:28:23 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Then your definition is stupid, kneejerk, and trite, quite frankly.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

why would that be? what justification is there for condemning homosexuality?

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 04:38:51 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Religious.

It's like animal "rights".

Anti-gay sentiment and the idea of "rights" for non-human animals are both overt or covert expressions of religious faith, by and large.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

that's hardly a justification.

"god doesn't like gay people, so i don't either."

i'd disagree with that. for a start the bible says that man is superior, doesn't it? (does it?)

until we have evidence that there ARE other planes of existance, and that anything we do in this one affects them, yes. how do you know worshipping God isn't having bad effects on other planes of existance?

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:25:09 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Faith. Just like you are using to guess that it doesn't.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

i ain't guessing, dear. i'm saying that it's pointless to have "faith" in something that is unlikely to exist. ANYTHING is unlikely to exist, but some things do. rather than picking random things to believe in, i wait for indications that said things exist. there has been no indication so far that gods or other planes of existance, exist.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:49:07 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Or rather, you choose not to believe the indications.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 5 Sep 2000 18:09:02 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

There AREN'T any indications. You've tripped and fallen on Occam's razor and are bleeding to death....

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

what indications?

I'd like to summarize the previous posts on this matter in a few sentences. Ignore me if you wish - I'm just trying to cut through all the bs and possibly (I know, wishful thinking) get back on topic.

• Kyle is a Christian (denomination TBD)
• missy aggravation is an atheist
• Christopher Morton is an agnostic
• They _really_ don't agree :)
• missy aggravation can't be bothered with the shift key ;)

No one is going to change anyone else's mind by posting something on Usenet. If this does happen, then that person had a pretty weak mind/belief system to begin with. So the semantic arguments are futile.

Now - my 2 cents

I consider myself a non-denominational Christian. I believe in certain things that I do not expect others to believe in - if they happen to agree with me, well then that's nice and I can talk to them about my faith. If not, well than I am sure there are other things we can talk about. I do not push my beliefs on others because that's not my place. If someone wants to know what I believe in and why, I am more than happy to tell them, but not if they think that engaging in an argument will change my mind.

Personally, I do feel that homosexuality is immoral. That does not mean that I condemn those people who are homosexuals. I have several very close friends that are gay and bisexual. And that is their choice. That doesn't make me like them any less or more as friends. I don't care what you do in the bedroom, heterosexual or homosexual, because I am not in there with you. :) And condemning someone because they prefer the same sex and then going around lying, stealing and cheating is extremely hypocritical. Let's face it - everyone is flawed and no one is perfect. So just shut up about judging everyone else and try to unf*** your own life the best you can, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

<Homer> "... doesn't The Bible say, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?'" </Homer> <Homer gets hit on the head with a rock> <Todd> "Got him Dad!" </Todd>

Sara

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 13:57:02 -0400, SM wrote:

Which I think all 3 of us have agreed on. I just play along because it's an interesting lesson in logical twisting.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

missy aggravation finds that her little finger starts aching if she uses the shift key too often. :)

no, but i can try. just because i'm unlikely to succeed doesn't mean i shouldn't try, does it?

but arguments are *fun*. ;p

On 5 Sep 2000 16:04:57 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

No, you have faith, belief without proof.

She's playing the odds. I suspect that if she found out differently, she'd say so.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

<snip all the names . . . I don't know if that's frowned upon here, but at this point, the list of posters is much longer than the bit of information I'm replying to . . .>

Science is also taken on faith. It's stated, and generally agreed upon, that no law/theory/hypothesis based in science CANNOT be proven true -- they can only be proven false, and the whole point of scientific studies (pure science, not technology) is to do so, and thus weed out false beliefs. Many people have taken scientific principles on faith before . . . there may be EVIDENCE that a law/whatever is true, but no absolute proof. There was evidence that the atom was the smallest particle of matter possible, and many scientists had faith in the studies that were done, even though there was no way to prove this true. They were wrong . . . Einstein proved them wrong. Which isn't to say that Einstein's theory has been proven right yet. Scientists who believe in quantum theory do so on evidence rather than proof, just as Christians hold their beliefs because they have personal evidence of them being true, even if they can't prove it to a non-believer.

My whole point being that we're not so different, after all.

no, on probability. occam's razor, y'know?

science doesn't concern itself with absolute proof - because it's impossible to find in most situations - it tries to find what WORKS.

that's because science is about finding theories that fit the evidence. you cannot prove something true in science in the same way that you can in mathematics. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, but you cannot prove that under some circumstances e will not equal mc^2. you can only show that all evidence *so far* shows it does.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:25:09 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

It's a secret! : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

In article ,

I just hope that the people on this newsgroups are mature enough to avoid the pathetic BS that drove me off alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer. After the Willow/Tara relationship was out in the open, every other post was: "I can't believe they made Willow a dyke." "I hate Tara. Bring back Oz."

The straights would bash gays and the gays would bash back. The straights AND gays would bash bisexuals and the bisexuals would bash back. It got really ugly.

Some preemptive words of wisdom. "Repeat to yourself 'It's just a show. I should really just relax.'" And it's an animated show. There are not even actors, just blobs of ink. I hope that nobody on this group will have serious gripes with the "sex lives" of...blobs...of...ink.

In article ,

Some will, believe me. I've seen discussions about that topic in threads over 100 messages or more plenty of times, usually the first 5-10 are about the show, then the rest are people trying to state why their stand on the subject is right, usually religious beliefs get thrown in soon after. Remarkably, for the most part, the flames for a subject like that are nearly non-existant, this NG is very good at handling discussions like this maturely, though I do usually stay out of them, I just read them, I'll usually just try to stick to the on-topic stuff around here to post to.

A.J.

Michael Sears wrote in message news:8o9hvb$k0h$[email]...

You mean it wasn't my endless insistence that Faith is completely innocent ?

Um..... well,wasn't that better than "Willow did not have sexual relations with that woman" and the "What? are you blind ?" responses. And didn't everyone already want to bring back Oz ?

You must learn to use the killfile in your mind- and on your newsreader too.

That's absolutely perverted.

My sympathies exactly.

[email] (Krimren) wrote in <20000826144943.20572.00000774@ng- cn1.aol.com>:

I *HOPE* you are not saying that you have a problem with Lesbians/Gays/Bis ? Actually I would say that strictly speaking Jane would be Bi, as she has been with at least two guys (Bobby Bighead and Tom).

Phill.

The Contentious Objector said:

Actually, we can build missile defenses without any other countries having to cooperate. The sensors can be put in space, at sea, in the air, and in our own territories.

That was the Star Wars programme, The Clintonian plan involves installing radar stations in Canada, Australia, England, Iceland, Taiwan and Bahrain.

With the exception of Taiwan, everyone else has said hell no, or not unless the Russians accept the US plan, so in it's existing format, it is DOA, and Al Gore will never sign off on a Reagan style Starwars Defence industry welfare programme.

And if Bush is elected, the GOP will loose the House so his plan is irrelivent.

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

True, though other countries co-operating would probably make it easier :)

Ahh "Star Wars" Mk2 ? Have they changed their minds and decided that such a system would work after all ? I know I'm not all that sure I'd like to rely on it :)

So they gonna build a death star then ? :)

Phill.

<Quinn>DAR-ia! You're friends with a LESbian!? Ewwwwww! Mooooommm, I need a whole new wardrobe because Daria got lesbian germs on mine! </Quinn>

Jane seems to me to be the least unlikely character for it. She's one of a few characters on the show who isn't a stereotype, and, therefore is the easiest to bring out new aspects of.

And the Backstreet Boys, and at least one member of 98 Degrees (unfortunately, neither of the Lachey bros. ;-) )

The school board voted not to renew the contract of mine last spring, due officially to insubordination (but I don't think that ignoring daily arsons, bomb threats, and violence helped any). Then, on the same day, allegations came out that she had asked teachers for letters of support during their performance appraisal interviews and the bookkepper announced that $500,000 was missing. She was helped by several police officers in moving out of her office that afternoon.

<Quinn>Eeeew! G4 Cubes are soooo 6 milliseconds ago!</Quinn> (Then again, at, school, I fix machines too old to handle OS7.6)

All Dubya has done for Texas is reduce overcrowding on death row. The governor has virtually no power here.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:03:00 GMT, The Contentious Objector wrote:

Hmmm, I'm not an anti-Semite, nor anti-homosexual. I like guns and refuse to give mine up. Does that make me a "gun fetisher"?

Maybe you're a lot more like Bob Barr than you're willing to admit....

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

[email] (The Contentious Objector) wrote in :

Though it shoudn't after all there are Gay/Bi/Lessbians out there so why shouldn't they be represented ?

So why did they go ballistic over this, did they think it was Satanic or something ? I did once hear one of thos wackies claim that the "Care Bears" where also Satanic...if you've ever seen the show it's so sickly sweetly goody goody it makes most adults want to puke :)

You know that's a remarcably good impersonation of a Facist....heheh reads like Di-Martino crossed with Hitler :)

Yeah like "you bastards caused my trailer to burn down even though we don't have cable and my 3 year old son shouldn't have had matches in easy reach anyways" (anyone that is unaware of the refference, go and check why MTV removed all the occorances of the word Fire from B&B episodes). It's basically people trying to find a scapegoat for their shortcomings.

<Buzzcut>Vanerial Disease !<Buzzcut>

Just Who is Dr Laura, not heard of her.

Indeed, might be fun to watch :)

<Butthead>Uhuhuhuhuh sizty-nine uhuhuhuhuh</Butthead>

And there is something wrong with that ? (I know you don't think tehre is CO, I'm just anserwing as if it where really Pixie69 uhuhuhuh 69 uhuhuh).

Just like she is gonna marry Trent, but I thought Bigamy was still illeagal :)

Well Jane-Trent would definatly be illeagal, just waht is the sentance for incest in the US.

N'Stink ?

Hey a T3 would be nice here too....<Rant>hopefully getting DSL soon, except that the fucking incompetent Bollocks Telecom, can't get their asses into gear.</Rant>

I would imagine they would be :)

<ATF Agent>Agent Hurley, full cavity searches, go deep on 'em</ATF agent>

If said School oficial did authorise such I'm damn supprised that the student's parents didn't pursue sexual assault charges.

Hey my Mac Plus is Quinn...dunno what I'll call the LC if I ever get a monitor/keyboard/mouse for it....prolly Stacy.

[Snip!]

Commented on in another post.

Cool, hope all goes well.

That's ok :)

[Snip as I'm not an American, or even living anywhere near the US :) ].

That's ok I'm sure you won't be the only one :)

Phill.

The Contentious Objector writes:

Re-read that and think about how dumb it sounds. Do you realize how ugly it'd be if 70 million people -- 1/4 the population -- went ballistic over *anything*? Even a small bit of ballistic-ness on that scale would have meant PBS stations burning, toy stores destroyed, Hollywood executives drawn and quartered. In reality, what did we get? An article or two in some newsletters, and probably a few people changing the channel. Oooh, how *ballistic*.

I think you're *way* overestimating the number of people who pay attention to 'Daria', or have even heard of the show.

I don't see a big deal with the show anyway, at least as the synopsis described it. Whatever your beliefs about homosexuality, we all know they're out there, and they're probably looking for dates just like everyone else. So Jane's on the rebound, someone picks up one those signals and makes a pass, Jane turns her down, and later has some doubts. Whoopee. Given the fact that Jane's fairly adventurous and has just been treated fairly poorly by a guy, it all seems rational to me.

Very nice. How very sensitive and un-prejudiced of you. I guess you wanted to show you can be just as hateful as your caricature of Bob Barr. Except, of course, that Barr has never said he wished someone a horrible death.

So the school will be empty this year as all the parents take their kids elsewhere, right? Sorry, I know I'm being ridiculous. I'm sure almost all the parents will just rationalize it away and send their kids back for more 'education.'

Hehe, that's the first time I've heard Gore accused of that. :-)

Aaron

Aaron Baugher said:

SPOILERS for IIFY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Indeed, the way things worked out, Allison came off looking pretty obnoxious and classless, while Jane demonstrated the usual integrity that makes us all love her. Jane felt stupid about the whole situation, but watching it I can't see that any of it was her fault. She thought that Allison simply liked her and wanted to be friends: later events showed that she greatly overestimated Allison's own ethics.

I don't think that this was meant as an attack on lesbianism or bisexuality, by the way. I think that it was part of a larger theme about the difference between a real artist (Jane) and a bunch of "artsy" types who care only about acclaim rather than real art.

If you notice, Allison's ultimate behavior (having an affair with the mentor) shocked Jane from two antles, simultaneously. First of all, because she was willing to _sleep_ her way to artistic success (the sexual-morality issue) and secondly, because she was willing to sleep her way to _artistic success_ (the artistic-integrity issue). Knowing Jane, the second aspect was at _least_ as upsetting as the first.

It probably didn't make Jane feel any better about this that Allison clearly hadn't regarded her attraction to her as anything special. It was obvious that all Allison wanted was some sex: note how quickly Allison focused on someone else when Jane proved unavailable, and how little friendliness she displayed towards Jane after Jane said "no".

All this underscored two points: 1) Artistic people can be as shallow, sleazy, and downright phony as any other people, and 2) Daria really _is_ a special person. At that moment, I suspect Jane was missing Daria very deeply, and feeling very much like she couldn't fit in _anywhere_.

In article , The Contentious Objector wrote:

Vote for Ralph Nader.

And throw away your vote on a pipe dream. </devil's advocate off>

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:16:04 GMT, Lar wrote:

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

In article , Lar wrote:

And watch your civil rights get steadily eroded once Bush gets his hands on the Supreme Court. Oh, and let's not forget all the low-income women who will die in back-alley abortions if Bush gets in.

Bush is very stupid and very scary. A lot is at stake. This is no time to be throwing away your vote on a no-chance candidate like Nader.

I am a British citizen, so I can't actually vote for Nader, but if I were an American of voting age I would probably vote Gore, just because although he won't be an especially good president he probably can't do much harm.

Certainly what scares me most about Bush is the prospect of the addition of two more Justice Antonin Scallia's to the bench.

If you don't know Scallia is the brilliant legal mind who brought the world such brilliant legal opinions as "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentance properly reached"

In that case, in which the defendant was executed in Virginia in 1997, Scallia did not dispute the man was innocent, he simply felt because no legal errors occured during the trial other than the wrong man being on trial his death would not consitute wrongful execution.

Why the US media hasn't assialed this clown for the ruling simply escapes me.

Well, if it helps any, it was made into a storyline on The Practice....

    --Lee

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 21:49:30 -0400, [email] (Andrew) wrote:

I don't recall Algore speaking out against the Communications Decency Act, Defense of Marriage Act, Clipper, Digital Telephony, Carnivore, warrantless searches in public housing, SLAP suits by HUD, or Waco.

If you hold your breath waiting for either the Republicans or the Democrats to stand up for the Bill of Rights, we won't see you post here anymore....

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Just for the record, one big IMHO... I don't think Jane is gay. I mean, she totally turned Alison down and was pretty adament about being straight. Even if she doubted herself for a while it doesn't make her a lesbian. In fact, in psychology they even state that one lesbian/gay experience does not make a person gay. If you can even count that as an experience. Jane hasn't shown any stereotypical (if any) signs of being attracted to girls, and that would be rather strange for her to pop up gay all of a sudden when this is a show mostly about stereotypes. Jane summed it up pretty well when she said that Alison was messing with her mind to get in her pants. She tried to make Jane doubt herself to get what she wanted. Okay, I'm done.

cheryl

Cheryl said:

SPOILERS for IIFY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Alison seemed nice when first encountered, but turned out to be a really nasty piece of work. She wouldn't take "no" for an answer, and it's very obvious from her subsequent behavior that if Jane _had_ given in, she would have treated her as a mere diversion. When she found that she _couldn't_ have Jane, she then proceeded to go out of her way to make Jane feel bad about herself, even though Jane was still willing to be friends.

A real b***h, and her nastiness had nothing to do with being a bisexual.

One thing that worries me is that Jane doubted herself so easily. While under the influence of wine, I could understand being somewhat confused. But after that's cleared up?

Person 1: You're gay.

Person 2: No I'm not.

Person 1: Yes you are.

Person 2: No I'm not.

Person 1: Yes you are.

Person 2: Hmmm... You really think so? Are you good at figuring these things out?

Sort of worries me that a person would reconsider their own sexual orientation on someone else's opinion of them, especially a near-stranger who clearly has something to gain from it. I mean, if you don't even have *some* idea by your late teens, aren't you in trouble?

Though it is nice to see a non-heterosexual character who is like that, as it seems that no TV show has the guts to actually have a bad guy these days who isn't in the majority in every way possible. Not saying that ALL members of a minority are bad, but they're not all good either.

Len

Len Pitre said:

<gives sample dialogue>

It wasn't just the wine. You have to consider Jane's total emotional state at this point.

Jane has spent most of her life alone save for the company of her brother. About two years ago she met Daria, and for the first time had a real soulmate. Then, about a year ago she met Tom, and for the first time had a boyfriend.

Then her boyfriend left her for her best friend. Now she had noone except Trent to turn to. She went off to the art colony, where she _seemed_ to have duplicated her initial encounter with Daria (did you notice the similarities between her first conversation with Allison and her first conversation with Daria?). She began to hope that maybe she'd made another real friend.

Then Allison starts coming on to her. When Jane says "no, I'm not interested, I'm not gay", Allison tries to convince her that she _is_ gay. Before this, Jane has never experienced someone whom she had real reason to assume cared for her seriously messing with her head.

In case it's not obvious, Jane is a rather sweet and trusting soul under her armor of sarcasm. She had let Allison in, and Allison was using her privileged position to hurt her, and Jane had no idea how to deal with this treacherous behavior.

(And, in case this _also_ isn't obvious, the "treacherous" thing Allison did wasn't making a pass at Jane ... it was pushing the matter _even after Jane made it obvious that she wasn't gay_. Allison obviously didn't give a damn about whether or not what she was doing ... especially if successful ... would hurt Jane. She was betraying the friendship she had established with Jane, _in exactly the same way that men often do when they want to get women into bed with them._ (*) And _that_ was, and is, wrong).

(*) Including deliberately getting Jane drunk, which is also a low tactic.

Keep in mind that Jane had just seen the complete failure of her love affair with Tom. She was paticularly vulnerable and uncertain at that moment.

At that, note that it _didn't work_. Jane was knocked off-balance, but not badly enough to sleep with Allison.

I had the same thought myself. It's refreshing to see the occasional Evil Lesbian, since there are evil members of every group, and without the evil, the good is not believable.

"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:

and she pushed Jane back away from the door, if you noticed. not exactly a tender moment.

hehe - it's also an ineffective tactic, in my experience. ;)

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Though not as effective when used by somone on a man....and any man who claims never to be affected by alcohol in that department, is a liar.

Phill.

no, i've tried it on a man and it didn't work, though that may have been because he was a raving homosexual. ;)

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Yeah that may er be the problem :)

Phill.

Not if he is unconscious,

You know that is a real possiblity,

Yeah, but given that would have been the ultimate conquest that probably was worth giving it a try,

[email] (The Contentious Objector) wrote in :

Please explain what you mean ? The point I was getting at was that alcohol has a definate measurable pysiological effect, which admittedly you can work up a tollerence to, but the point I was making is that men wh say they can down 20 pints of stong beer and still um "get it up" imediatly afterwards are lying. I believe those phsological effects would effect him even if he is asleep.

:)

Phill.

The Contentious Objector said:

I don't think that it's a happy thing to get someone else, drunk, to do something sexual that they would despise themselves for sober. Unless you _hate_ the person you're doing this to, of course.

I was being sarcastic,

Although about half a dozen of my friends are trying to screw this evengelical Christian from Virginia. None of them have been able to provide any reason other than, "He is a Christian Fundementalist, It would be a conquest!"

In article , [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) writes:

Actually, I can claim it quite honestly - since I never drink alcohol. ;7

-IdentityCrisis

[email] (IdentityCrisis1) wrote in :

Yes but if you did, you *WOULD* the sort of people I'm on about are the one that think they can still "perform" after 20 pints of pickling fluid :)

Phill.

Alli said:

You're used to liquor. Jane isn't.

no, i meant me trying it on other people.

In article ,

Allison did

after Jane

damn

successful ... would

Jane, _in

into bed

tactic.

Actually, when men get women drunk and have sex with them, it's called rape. Consent doesn't count if you're drunk. I see no reason why it wouldn't be rape is this case - had Allison succeeded.

Not to mention a lesser charge of providing alcohol to a minor. Allison knows Jane still has a year of high school left, and thus probably isn't 18 yet.

In most states, Jane's not old enough to consent even when sober.

And Allison's seen enough of Jane's strong personality (e.g., Jane was not impressed by Daniel of any of the other artists, despite being younger than all of them; and demanded dinner as a payoff to a previous unspecified bet) to guess that Jane might press charges and not be intimidated out of it.

Even if Jane didn't press charges, they're in a building with a lot of people who know each other's business and who might know what happened. They don't all like each other, and a promiscuous bisexual could really make enemies fast. They could report her.

I'll bet Allison loved to play with matches as a child.

Emerson)

M Man said:

I'm not sure if that's legally the case, at the level of intoxication Jane had reached (which wasn't much). She was clearly still coherent, conscious, and able to reason (and hence give or withdraw consent). It's still a low tactic, though.

Possibly. Jane is half a year to a year older than Daria, which makes her 17-18, we're not sure of her precise age.

We do not know how old _Allison_ is: keep in mind that when they raised the age of consent to 18 they usually also included a proviso that the other partner had to be more than "x" years older for it to be considered child molestation.

Not Jane's style, though. She'd be more likely to just keep it bottled up inside.

I don't know if Allison realized this, though.

Probably.

Jordan S. Bassior wrote:

I'm gonna have to guess 17, at least at the start of the movie. Unless she had to repeat a grade somewhere along the line, it's unlikely that she'd be 18 at the end of her Junior year in high school. She may have turned 18 during the summer, though. That would make her one of the oldest students in her class, which seems plausible enough.

Peace Kevin

In article ,

makes her

Unless she had

be 18 at

during the

class,

I never had to repeat a grade, but I did start kindergarten a year later than I could have. I still didn't turn 18 until halfway through my senior year of HS.

Trying to hit on a high-school girl still seems legally risky as well as ethically questionable. Allison doesn't know Jane's precise age either; even if Jane claimed to be 18, Jane could be fudging a year to appear more sophisticated in the company of older artists who already know she's the youngest among them. Or just to get them to share their booze with her.

M Man said:

SPOILERS for IIFY:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

True. You're not going to find me defending Allison's conduct, but the part of it which bothers me is her pretending to be Jane's friend in order to get her into bed: that's the part of it that hurt Jane. That would have hurt her if she were 15, or 21. Compared to that, I see her age as a side issue.

In article ,

to

their

the part of

get her

her if she

Of course. My point was that Allison was being legally reckless in addition to being manipulative and dishonest, and therefore leaving herself wide open for retaliatory possibilities that wouldn't exist if Jane were older than she (most probably) is.

Emerson)

M Man said:

I totally agree with you. Fortunately for her, Jane is way too nice to do anything like that.

Just as a point that someone brought up - I know that in New Jersey the two have to be 4 or more years apart to be considered illegal if the younger one is between 13 and 15. A 13 year old having sex with an almost 17 year old is not statutory rape in Jersey. Age of consent in Jersey is 16.

So, let's say that Jane is 17 (we know she has to be at youngest 17) and Allison is 21. Not illegal. In fact, in _most_ states, no matter what Allison's age, it's not statutory rape. In Hawaii, the age of consent is 14.

I got this info plus other stuff from the following web site: http://www.frc.org/fampol/fp96fcr.html

Sara

In article ,

the

and

what

Well, I believe you. But I've read stories recently about some local authorities enforcing statutory rape statutes to the letter - in some cases involving 17 and 18 year olds just weeks apart in age and formally or informally engaged to be married. So I don't think the above limits on age differentials hold everywhere.

But it's occurred to me that Allison is clever enough to have covered her ass legally, somehow.

remember though that lesbian sex is illegal in some states... here's a chart that was posted to a newsgroup a couple of years ago (so it may be slightly out of date, and i can't promise it's accurate anyhow):

Ages of consent

State                 Male & Female | Male & Male | female & female
------------------------------------------------------------------

Alabama                     16      |    illegal  |    illegal
Alaska                      16      |      16     |      16
Arizona                     18      |    illegal  |    illegal
California                  18      |      18     |      18
Colorado                    15      |      15     |      15
Connecticut               13/16     |      18?    |      18?
D.C.                        16      |       ?     |       ?
Delaware                  12/18     |       ?     |       ?
Florida                   16/18     |   illegal   |   illegal
Georgia                     17      |   illegal   |   illegal
Hawaii                      14      |      17     |       ?
Idaho                       18      |   illegal   |   illegal
Illinois                    16      |      18?    |      18?
Indiana                     16      |      18     |      18
Iowa                        14      |       ?     |       ?
Kansas                      16      |   illegal   |   illegal
Kentucky                  14/16     |       ?     |       ?
Louisiana                   17      |   illegal   |   illegal
Maine                       14      |       ?     |       ?
Maryland                    18      |   illegal   |   illegal
Massachusetts               16      |   illegal   |       ?
Michigan                    18      |       ?     |       ?
Minnesota                   16      |       ?     |       ?
Mississippi                 18      |       18    |       ?
Missouri                    14      |   illegal   |   illegal
Montana                     18      |       18    |      18
Nebraska                    16      |       ?     |       ?
Nevada                      16      |       ?     |       ?
New Hampshire               18      |      18     |      18
New Jersey                16/18     |    16/18    |     16/18
New Mexico                  13      |      18?    |      18?
New York                    17      |      18     |      18
North Carolina              16      |   Illegal   |   Illegal
North Dakota                18      |       ?     |       ?
Ohio                      14/16     |    14/16    |     14/16
Oklahoma                    18      |      21     |      21
Oregon                      18      |      18     |      18
Pennsylvania                14      |       ?     |       ?
Rhode Island                16      |       ?     |       ?
South Carolina              16      |       ?     |       ?
South Dakota                16      |       ?     |       ?
Tennessee                   18      |       ?     |       ?
Texas                       17      |   illegal   |    illegal
Utah                      16/18?    |   illegal   |    illegal
Vermont                     15      |       ?     |       ?
Virginia                    16      |   felony    |    felony
Washington                  18      |      18     |      18
West Virginia               16      |      18?    |      18?
Wisconsin                   18      |      18     |      18
Wyoming                     18      |       ?     |       ?

^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ <bitter sarcasm> You have to love a state that sees no problems with consentual 14 year olds having sex, or even a 14 year old having sex with a 35 year old, but deems it illegal to have homosexual sex at any age. </bitter sarcasm>

Absolutely mind boggling.

Sara

yes i noticed that myself, on reading that list. pretty shocking.

[email] (SM) wrote in :

I'll probably get slated for saying this, especially considdering the "peodophile(sp?) witch hunts" that are taking place in parts of the UK, but I have no probs with the male & female figure quoted above, if that state considders that a person of 14 is mature enough to give consent, also what's the difference between a 14yo and a 35yo and say a 39yo and 60yo, the age differences are the same and both couples are over the age of consent. I do have a problem with homosexual sex being illeagal tho.

Just let me state for the record that nothing in this post is meant to support peadophilia whathat ever that is defined as in the location in question.

Phill.

a fourteen-year-old is emotionally still little more than a child. there must be *very* few mentally mature 14-year-olds.

i'd say that the difference in maturity is likely to be huge in the first scenario.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:08:11 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, Georgia's anti-sodomy statute was declared unconstitutional by the state supeme court.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

In article , [email] wrote:

It violated the Georgia Constitution's privacy clause.

The US Supreme Court declared the same law to be constitutional (as regards the US Constitution). Bowers v. Hardwicke, 1988. Ugh!

The weirdest part of the Georgia law is, it outlaws all oral-genital and anal-genital contact, even between man and woman, even between husband and wife. It cracked me up to read all those conservative columnists praising Bowers v. Hardwicke without knowing that.

Steve Cross ex-Georgian (I relocated for my job. Honest!)

In article ,

[email] wrote:

and

husband and

praising

That's the way it works in Michigan too. There's no law stating outright that a homosexual couple can't have sexual relations, but oral and anal sex are illegal. I'm not sure about other "alternatives," though.

And the age of consent in MI is 16. I think the chart gave it as 18, but I can't remember.

[email] (Reg Shoe) wrote in :

Which to be frank is sad, because what business is it of the (state) govenment what two consenting, rational adults do to each other.

Phill.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:02:06 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

I dunno. It doesn't seem so clearcut.

Imagine the AIDS epidimic is reaching near extinction levels, for example...

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :

Yeah but hopefully as in the real world, education has stopped it well before it has reached those levels. Besides cirtainly oral sex has a statistically lower chance of transmission than normal sex. Dunno about anal, I would imagine that's pretty much the same as for normal sex.

Or under such epidemic conditions would you outlaw all sex....well then you're just delaying the extinction for 60 or so years :)

Phill.....who is feeling a bit silly so don't take any of this personally :)

[email] (Christopher Morton) wrote in :

Indeed as the USSR I believe attempted to do.

Phill.

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 14:59:41 +0100, [email] (Phill Harvey-Smith) wrote:

And China, Albania, militarist Japan, NSDAP Germany, Cuba, etc.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

On 2 Sep 2000 23:41:13 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

So then it's ok if heterosexuals do things which might spread AIDS?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

Kyle said:

That would require a practically suicidal mainstream culture, you realize ... ?

why not just make it illegal to have any kind of sex if you're HIV positive? rather than something silly like barring people who aren't carrying HIV from doing what they like with other people who aren't carrying HIV.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 05:55:20 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

I suspect that ActUp! wouldn't be pleased with that solution either.... : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

In article , [email] wrote:

the

in

and

what

consent

Yeah, it's inaccurate. 13 or 14 is the age of legal consent for girls, as long as the boy isn't more than 5 years older. I don't think there's an age of consent for boys. Anyone over 13 can marry with parental consent. Anyone over 16 can become independent of their parents.

"Len Pitre" wrote in message news:KOuq5.20$[email]...

under

after

things

orientation

has

your

it

who

of a

So you didn't watch Richard win the money on "Survivor," then? :-)

Hmmm? That went over my head, as I never watched that show and avoided coverage as much as possible (I disagree with the whole concept) - all I know is that the winner was some sort of nudist that everyone hated.

Len

"Len Pitre" wrote in message news:mePq5.85$[email]...

bisexual.

as

days

members

know

He's also gay.

Jeg7777 wrote:

Ah. Rather incidental, considering all his other traits.:)

Len

In article ,

While under

after

things

orientation

clearly has

by your

No. Some people don't figure it out until well into adulthood. Some marry, have kids.. maybe even grandkids.. before they either realize it, or come to terms with it.

She's also just coming out of a particularly harsh breakup. She's probably going to question everything about herself. Why did it fail? Why did he pick Daria? Why wasn't she more interested in making it work? Why wasn't she picking up on the signals long before the breakup happened? Then to be told "you're putting out a gay vibe" she would think "Well, maybe that's why...?"

She did realize she was being played pretty fast, though. Jane knows herself really well.

SorrowRuffian wrote:

I'd think that a lot of inward-looking thought (or at least brooding) would need to go into that sort of thing, and not just some (hangover-laden?) mulling of a single comment.... I mean, what woman wonders about her own taste after turning down some ugly male jerk who tells her "You know you want me."? Jane being weak in a time of trouble, I can understand. Jane being *that* weak, I can't, unless she has some really nasty psychological problems bubbling underneath.

Still, having others think you're gay and thinking it yourself are two different things. It just felt to me like they were pushing suspension of disbelief too much.

Len

In article ,

idea

it,

would

(hangover-laden?)

own taste

want me."?

The difference here is it wasn't an ugly male jerk. It was a woman that Jane WAS getting along with and having fun talking to.

*that*

She's 17-ish. Isn't that enough for what feels like really nasty psychological problems?

fail?

breakup

of

If others think you are, even just once, one MIGHT question themselves. "Well why did she think that about me?" And like I said, right after a breakup, if she's already doubting herself, it would make her more prone to influence.

Jane did also doubt herself for *only* a very short time, and did look for the other woman to find out what made her assume Jane was gay.

SorrowRuffian said:

1) Even if it had been a guy ... even a guy who Jane liked but just didn't want to get sexual with _at that moment_ ... Allison's approach would have upset Jane. Wouldn't _you_ be upset if an attractive member of the opposite sex befriended you, came on to you (but you for some reason didn't feel it would be right to say 'yes') ... and then started being _nasty_ to you?

2) It must have been especially painful to Jane because the early stages of her meeting Allison precisely paralleled the early stages of Jane's meeting Daria. Jane was hoping that she'd found another soulmate ... instead (as Allison made _very_ obvious), Allison didn't even really _like_ Jane, she was just hoping to use her.

spoiler space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I_am_the_archon@Doom!.com (Len Pitre) writes:

I really didn't see the sexual ambivalence on Jane's part that everyone else seems to have seen. She told Allison the next day that she was confused, but I just took that to mean that it caught her by surprise and she was confused about how to handle it, not that she was unsure whether she liked it.

Also, Allison's confident insistence that Jane was giving off 'signals' could have gotten her wondering what those signals were. She could be confused about that while still being certain of her preferences.

Aaron

(Looks at scene again.)

Hmmm. I can see it that way too. But it sort of falls either way. Maybe the writers should have chosen their words better, or some of us are just investing too much in it.

Len

In article ,

That's how I took it, too. I don't think Jane had any doubts at all about her orientation. I thought she was just confused as to why someone would think she was gay. Jane also put it together pretty quick that the other woman wasn't really getting signals... but was more interested in trying to score.

Len Pitre wrote:

i think the point may have been to set up a (still-unresolved, by the way) conflict between what Daria says about Jane's unflappability (there's that word again) near the end (the "ego-stroking" bit) and Jane's actual situation, which was that she perhaps DOESN'T know exactly who and what she is. Jane even starts to say "Actually, i..." but gets cut off at one point.

i wouldn't say you're necessarily in trouble. i think a lot of people are more unsure than they'll ever admit, at a much later age. i know a guy that took until he was like 20 to figure out why girls didn't interest him a whole lot.

In article ,

really nasty

obvious from

treated her

then

even though

bisexual.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to use the movie as ammunition in their ant-gay agenda. "Finally, MTV has the courage to show the truth of these manipulative deviants and their insidious plot to corrupt the innocent youth of America."

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:05:07 GMT, Michael Sears wrote:

The contrary problem is that if you NEVER show gays, or Blacks or Latvians, etc., etc., etc. as being evil, then they're never really human beings with free will, just two dimensional props.

I'm Black. That doesn't mean I'm going to claim either that OJ isn't a murderer or that he isn't Black. You have to take the good with the bad, and for better or worse, gay people will at some point have to accept that Quentin Crisp, Ernst Roehm, Freddy Mercury, and Jeffrey Dahmer were all gay. To do otherwise is to pretend that there was a Mother Theresa but not a Torquemada.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

"Christopher Morton" wrote in message news:[email]...

True. But when most of the prior depictions were extremely negative or stereotypical, there needs to be a counterbalance.

I'm not familiar with the name Ernst Roehm, but why would anyone not accept that the other three were gay? Just because Dahmer was a murderer? Or Freddie Mercury stayed in the closet? Why mention Quentin Crisp at all in this context?

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:18:51 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

ALL good isn't a counterbalance, it's just inaccuracy with a different bias.

Ernst Roehm was head of the SA (Brownshirts) and a pedophile.

Exactly. People are what they are, good or evil.

Because I presented an equal number of gays who were evil and who weren't. Crisp was quite a witty writer, and to my knowledge anyway, never did anything which would put him in the category of Roehm or Dahmer.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

I believe he was simply selecting four people who have nothing whatsoever in common except their sexuality.

BTW Ernst Roehm was one of Hitlers henchmen from the early days of the Nazi party in the 20's. He was the head of the Stormtroopers but was arrested and executed during a power struggle (1936 I think).

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:45:45 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

'34 actually, I think. He was one of the victims of the Night of the Long Knives, and yes, that's exactly what I was saying, with the proviso that I was citing an equal number of evil and non-evil people who were gay.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

In article , wicka_chick writes:

Pretty belated for this thread, but here's some spoiler space anyway...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"Having an experience" in the sense of making or accepting a pass would have made her bisexual. "Having an experience" in the sense of being on the recieving end of a pass and refusing means nothing. You're right; calling Jane lesbian or bisexual just for what happened with Alison would be like calling me a smoker or alcoholic just because I've had to live with them.

OC, even if she *had* taken Alison up on her offer (or decides to experiment later) she wouldn't necessarily be locked into lesbian/bi status either. As soon as she decided she didn't care for it, she'd technically be hetero again.

Agreed.

It seemed to work to a certain extent, based on her comment to Daria about not requesting a sleep-over. Jane's the more adventurous of the two, so it's *possible* that now that the suggestion has been made to her she might give it some more thought in the future. Whether anything permenant (or, for that matter, anything at *all*) comes of it, we'll see. <shrug>

-IdentityCrisis

In article ,

anyway...

about not

it's

give it

that

I kind of thought the comment about not requesting a sleep-over was because she was still kind of bugged by the comeon and didn't want to be thinking about it -- especially in the context of the best friend she very nearly lost.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:55:42 GMT, SorrowRuffian wrote:

Same here. In fact, I think it's rather amusing that some people insist on reading things into the whole situation that aren't there.

"Martin J. Pollard" wrote in message news:[email]...

And the reason some people think Jane is questioning her sexuality is because that idiot writer put that in the article (the same one that dared compare "Daria" with "Undressed").

Jeg7777 wrote:

Actually, not in all cases. While I won't deny it in mine, the person I was sitting with (who knows nothing about computers, never mind the Internet) punctuated the scene with an expletitive (meant to convey surprise, I gather), along with saying "I thought she was straight!"

Len

I completely agree with you. In fact, I don't think the comment meant anything about Jane or her sexuality. I think she didn't want to talk about it so she came up with a sarcastic, not too serious remark that would briefly explain the subject but require no further discussion.

In article ,

Exactly. Once Allison revealed her true intentions, Jane came to her senses right there that she isn't gay. Of course she's going to be weirded out by that for awhile, if it happens to anyone for the first time, they could be weirded out by it as well, give her a little time to forget it and she'll be ok, and we'll never hear of Allison again.

A.J.

Umm... The show has been on in the US since about February.

"Coming up next on the WB another bad show that no one will see." -Michigan J. Frog