your opinions here on these discussion forums? Under the cloak of anonymous e-mails & pseudonyms many of you have left treasonous statements concerning government & elected leaders.

While this site is a Y2K discussion forum on the surface, the technology behind this site is sinister in its information tracking and monitoring capabilities.

SYSOPS has responded to some of my posts, only to remove and edit their responses in the same section, to reflect grammatical changes or add parenthesis around an added comment for clarification. One SYSOPS corrected my grammar on something I posted. It was an "is" to "are".

I have posted here less than 12 times. Two of my posts have had the most "hits" to date. The subjects were concerning your personal egos and sex.

SYSOPS has through subtle hints, made me aware that they know all my alias, server, and city and state I have been e-mailing from.

This ability to gather, track, and monitor information posted should make everyone aware that through technology your every thought is recorded. Everything is archived, though not for reasons you would assume.

As we move into the new millennium, let's not forget the lessons of history from this century. When the communist revolution took place, millions of dissidents were initially executed. The remaining dissidents were put in "re-education" camps to modify their thought and behavior patterns.

Today new medical technologies can modify "negative" behavior and thought patterns through mind altering medications.

The technology that exists behind this site is fascinating, yet it is several years behind the technology used by our government today.

"Profound and powerful forces are shaking and remaking our world. And the urgent question of our time is whether we can make change our friend and not our enemy." Bill Clinton

-- Legion (anonymitynot¶noia@runs.deep), October 13, 1999

Answers

Quit trying to make me paranoid.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 13, 1999.

No offense mind you...but I think you probably need to get your fingernails done, or a facial or something....

-- Psychotic (y2k@doom@gloom.com), October 13, 1999.

I haven't read anthing that seems so bad....at least in the last month that ive been around here.

I hear newscasters say worse things at times. Maybe you can recall some specific posts that were dangerous. Frankly I find it all VERY interesting that we should be made to feel paranoid about posting to this forum THIS LATE IN THE GAME....

hmm.

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 13, 1999.

The Sysops here have access to your IP address, the same address that is POSTED on sites such as debunky. Your IP address identifies your Internet Service Provider (ISP).

My ISP, at both home and work, is one of the originals, and one of the largest in the country. They are also in the same building as us, and I have quite a few friends there. I'm not worried about being "tracked."

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

Although you are correct regarding the tracking and archiving abilities of govt. systems, there is something more important to consider: do we protect freedom of speech and other related rights by cowering in the corner of "what IF I'm on THE BIG LIST?"...

You may, we may all, indeed be on the big list of trouble makers. But what is the price of freedom? Taking the initiative to speak the truth as clearly and frequently as one is capable of; living a life as free from harm to others and self as possible, both physically and emotionally; supporting what is right and working for the welfare of the larger body of the community; resisting that which undermines the common welfare and the welfare of the individual (these two are often in conflict and it becomes our duty to weigh the pros and cons and find the most graceful manner of balancing the two)...

So long as I live I will not cower or submit to this kind of intimidation. My mother was quite traumatized by the McArthur era (nothing happened to her personally, but she was sickened and shocked to see such a thing happen in this country).

When FBI agents came to our home in search of an uncle (mom's brother) who had gone AWOL from the marines they made the mistake of speaking in intimidating tones to her...threatening to take her to their offices for questioning. She read them her rights and ran them out of our home. I was 12 at the time...I will never forget it.

When my husband and I had credit card and stolen identity fraud commited against us a year ago, we went to the Secret Service for help..they were gracious, not affrontive, and very proactive in pursuing our case along with others like it. They assisted us in dealing with a few of the more resistant creditors who wanted to prolong the agony of settling the account.

So I've seen both sides of the law enforcement face. I've been helped, I've been intimidated. We've all seen justice, we've all seen injustice. I think it's important to withhold our globalized generalizations and instead deal with life and it's participants on a case by case basis.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 13, 1999.

Legion

Boy you are worried eh? and they aren't even your hairdressers. That is nothing! Try going to Deja News and doing an author history check through the news groups. It's scary how much information folks post and it is searchable.

I showed the feature to a friend and he nearly had a heart attack.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 13, 1999.

You think YOU are concerned, consider what list even a remotely semi- but not really radical SYSOP might find him/her self on. Should give you pause.

Night Train

-- jes an ol footballer, lookin for some light (nighttr@in.lane), October 13, 1999.

Someone from the now very non-PC, and vilified 1960s once said: "If your name's not on a list somewhere, shame on you." I've tried to live accordingly.

--She in the sheet, upon her hilltop, sings uni-verse.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 13, 1999.

I'm not worried about being on the 'list.' Let's all make it bigger. Pretty soon, they will have to gas the whole nation. We are the sheeple. Bleat loudly.

Baaahh!

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), October 13, 1999.

Hey Lane, Is this you?

Is this you?



-- Are you (THAT@Night.Train?), October 13, 1999.

Alright! Donna; :-) I couldn't remember who said it so didn't post it.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 13, 1999.

Duh! I meant McCarthy era.....not McArthur....

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 13, 1999.

Sheila,...actually I think it was Jerry Rubin, who, IMNHO, sold out/got coopted like so many from that time. Bought the lies that you could 'reform' an existing dominant system...but I digress. :-)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 13, 1999.

What's the old proverb- "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"? I revealed my concerns to an Uncle who retired from the ASA (Army Security Agency). Now, HE had plenty of real enemies at one time and slept with a .45 under his pillow. It used to annoy my Aunt to no end. But he laughed at my fears and told me that anyone who openly posts to one of these newsgroups doesn't have anything to worry about. Not that "they" aren't interested. Your posts ARE recorded and archived, but it's not you (or me) that they are concerned about. We're considered low threats. It's the Americans who don't post and who are preparing for Armageddon or an Insurrection or an act of Terrorism that keep them up nights. Not to mention the Islamic terrorist groups and the North Koreans and the Iranians and the Chinese and the Russians and even the French, "They" simply don't have the personnel to watch the "small fry". I don't know why, but I was kind of miffed at this.

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armageddon.com), October 13, 1999.

Donna: exactly what makes you feel Rubin copped out? That he decided he didn't want to spend his entire life being the voice of the disenfranchised? that he wanted a personal life unencumbered by the media? that he decided he needed to support himself -- i.e., get a job? No one should be doomed to live the life Rubin lived forever...have a heart. Each of us is required to stand up and be counted in our own time as dictated by own conscience.

commando: good call...I know several ex-military intell folks whose call is much the same as your Uncle has stated.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 13, 1999.

You are on to something!

I've had Diane J. Squire publicly "out" me, violating what I consider my rights to privacy on more than one occasion. She even threatened to "talk to some reporters"...or my "employer"....guess she didn't like what I had to say....how would you like to have a "moderator" who practices such behavior? Well you do, here on this forumn.

It's been done to me. What a standard of behavior...gestapo in action I think....from a place where the concensus is against government snooping and "observations".....guess it's OK if TPTB on this forumn do the exact same thing....even make threats to try to muzzle "dissident voices" like mine here, as I take threats to "report my posting to my employer" or "to some reporters" to be in fact threats to attain my "silence". Think about it folks. This has happened to me. Here.

I have to wonder why would a person go to such trouble to "stalk" someone's on-line behavior. To link whatever tag lines I use on a post? Why? To somehow "protect" this place? From what? Me? Why have I not seen the same thing done to anyone else, let alone an apology? Bet it would be sincere.....lol....

Guess I'm not a doomer...or it would be no problem. Guess it's OK since I'm one of "them" pollys who doesn't think civilization will end next year. Guess I'm the "dangerous" voice around here, huh? Somehow I don't think any of you need to be "protected" from me...or are in any "danger" of having your pessimistic expectations of what Y2K will bring "damaged" from my post. Do you? Then why the need to "out me" and make threats? Where is that in the "rules" and "norms" here?

Who needs the NSA, FBI or any other government agency when you have your "moderator" to "protect you"????? Think about it.

Most of us who have been around here for awhile know there is a double standard when it comes to "moderating" pollys vs. doomers.

Think about the concensus of this place on "monitoring"....and then think about what I have said...and what has been DONE to me. Is this what you want here? Who's next....anyone?

Defiant One,

-- Genius (codeslinger@work.now), October 13, 1999.

Go cry somewhere else, Genius, you got exactly what you deserved. You dissuade people from preparation. That makes you dangerous. Diane has every right to do whatever she feels is necessary. Deal with it.

-- (its@coming.soon), October 13, 1999.

Donna: exactly what makes you feel Rubin copped out? That he decided he didn't want to spend his entire life being the voice of the disenfranchised? that he wanted a personal life unencumbered by the media? that he decided he needed to support himself -- i.e., get a job? No one should be doomed to live the life Rubin lived forever...have a heart. Each of us is required to stand up and be counted in our own time as dictated by own conscience.

I imagine Jerry could take the heat, and I'm not sure I'll ever quite "get" the notion of 'disenfranchisement'. It is very difficult to stand up the whisperings of mother culture, and I do cut people lots of slack...and me, too. I am intimately acquainted with the effort it takes to match my thoughts and actions. I don't think anyone gives up cherished ideals and dreams without a great deal of personal pain in the process. You are absolutely correct about the dictates of conscience. Don't misunderstand me, Sheila. Ah, for a yo-yo string attached to life decisions, eh? Instead all we get are these crummy Fischer-Price knobs....you know, like the darkness indicator on the toaster...just there to help us feel like we have a little control.

Life's an incredible adventure.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 13, 1999.

Sysops here have let this mickey mouse forum go to their heads. Look how they got rid of Al-D. I bet they just love digging through those IP addresses. I don't even know why Ed Yourdon attaches his name to this place anymore.

-- (2222@ .cOM), October 13, 1999.

its coming soon,

No tears here. Just a comment to this thread. My how those here like to spin, spin, spin the ad hominum attacks (among others) so as to spin docter the image of a non-doomer poster in the minds of other readers....think about it!

Suspect you can tell the difference between a whiner, which I'm not...and someone who contributed to the topic of this thread..with FACTS...the value of which I think you tried to minimize and distract from by trying...unsuccesfully to paint me as one "crying"....how's this for crying, "spindoctor"...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHA!!!!

Always amazes me those who "protest to much"...usually do! what they protest against. Like "spin" for instance.

-- Genius (codeslinger@work.now), October 13, 1999.

Isn't it funny that Flint, Hoff, Maria and the vast majority of other "pollys" here don't have the problems that GENIUS has. I wonder why that is? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

genius, the amazing thing is you haven't been TOS'ed.

And you ARE whining.

Oh well, only 79 days to put up with your BS.

-- lisa (lisa@work.nowwwwwwww), October 13, 1999.

For whatever it's worth, I've lived by a very simple rule: Never post anything on a board (or write in an e-mail, for that matter!) anything that you wouldn't want printed on page A-2 of tomorrow's newspaper or read aloud by Dan Rather at the end of the evening news. Everything can be traced back to the source, one way or the other. Good thing I'm shameless, or that might bother me.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 13, 1999.

Heh, not to worry Genius, they tried to do the same thing to me... but they are not at ALL net educated! It was funny as hell to watch them flounder around, trying to ID posters and failing miserably! What a joke, and a riot! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Diane "J.ust shag me" Squire tried to frame me for posts that could only have been made by a sysops,

Check out the out of order date posts! Goes from June 6 to June 8 then back to June 6. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! NOWAY can anyone but the sysop do something like that. They will do ANYTHING to try and protect their cult. When the attempted framing backfired, she tried to stir the forum up against me by putting me on an auto-delete list THis was after I was the only one to post the latest NERC results (they were much to positive for the doomers)

So don't be to hard on the cult leaders. They really are prime examples of the MEME in action, LOL!

PS, you just have to know how to outsmart them on the IP's; which isn't hard at ALL BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.

Why are the pollys so hysterical lately?

Was it the USA Today article?

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), October 13, 1999.

Must be, Liberty.

They do seem especially frantic as of late, don't they?

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 13, 1999.

I'm predicting that at least half our pollies are going to crack just before rollover.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 13, 1999.

So, then who are you recommending we fear? The Clintons' socialist/communistic government?

Odd - I've not read anything treasonous here - though I've seen direct evience of treason in the White House.....

Funny - and I thought the Democrats and the liberals were all for freedom of thought and expression...or that just frredom for them to attack politically incorrect religions while worshipping at the throne of their politically corrupt religions?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 13, 1999.

Genius and Super (idiot) polly

Why are you guys such cowards that you don't set up your own forum so you could spout your views? It isn't hard and I will set it up for you. This has been a standing offer for the last few months and no polly has ever taken me up on it. The answer is that no one would show up to listen to such idiotic rantings of confirmed lunatics.

I must be feeling nice today :o)

So get some balls or stop playing eh?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 13, 1999.

All of us, including the SYSOPS are being watched and recorded. Whether or not it comes back to haunt you or not depends on your political persuasion at the time of takeover, and the comments you may have condemned yourself with in the past.

By the way, I fully expected Diane to humor me with her insights.

-- Legion (anonymitynotparanoia@runs.deep), October 13, 1999.

expect the unexpected

-- (words@to.liveby), October 13, 1999.

Well, on my part, I've never made it hard for anyone to find me. I am happy to say what I think...about anything or anyone and admit to saying it. Bring 'em on. I'm from the 60's - 'Free Huey,' Kent State, Selma, sit-ins, love-ins, dissention. Maybe it's old fashion, but a quiet life is not a life worth living, when lending your voice can effect change. Casey DeFranco, I'm in the book.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseyd@silcom.com), October 13, 1999.

Jes git yoself an IP scrambler.

-- (2222@ .com), October 13, 1999.

Why bother being concerned about what "they" might do. If I knew who "they" were, I would tell them anything I have posted plus some. I just cannot for the life of me find out who "they" are. Heck, life is short enough anyway and I have always "marched" to the beat of a different drummer. It my lot in life.

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), October 13, 1999.

Haven't I read a few dozen posts either stating or implying that the poster wanted to kill a certain president of the United States of America?

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 13, 1999.

"The technology that exists behind this site is fascinating, yet it is several years behind the technology used by our government today. "

OUR Government? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Ever try to ask them for help when someone hacks your lan, or steals long distance service? They have no one remotely qualified, and if they do, they are only interested in big dollar cases for large, powerful clients. Hell, our government can't even keep drugs out of PRISONS!

Seriously, though, if it ever comes down to executions or persecutions of those who may post their ideas freely on this board, I'll gladly volunteer to be shot. Because that means that it truly has become "the end of the world as we know it", and I will want no part of it.

So go ahead, discourage those who may fear this from posting. That seems to be your goal here. But I submit that most people here are strong-willed and intelligent enough to know that. Your motives for posting this nonsense are questionable at best. Paranoia has never stopped anyone here before, why would it now?

-- ariZONEa (they@know.who), October 13, 1999.

chairborne commando,

AHA!!!! I see that you "get it". I've never trusted the French. Sneaky little frogs. I think they're behind it all. Any country that has telephone operators that correct your grammar, cannot be trusted...

BTW, the way I heard the quote was, "Even paranoids have real enemies."

Regarding "The List": Maybe, maybe not. But if someone IS out to stifle your freedom of expression, and you refrain from speaking, just because of a mere possibility, then that makes it a rather easy win for them, doesn't it?

Regarding Robert Cooks question about liberals and free speech: There are no idealists from either side, in government. Just people willing to say anything and willing to pretend to be anything, in order to make a buck. Neither liberals nor conservatives can be blamed for our current mess. Just good old greed.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 13, 1999.

Live Free or Die.

To me, that is about as succinct as it gets.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), October 13, 1999.

I need to amend my statement that I didn't "get" disenfranchisement. I get it very well. Worked for 7 years in social services,...heavily disenfranchised population, residential program. Took a break. Now working with abused teens, again residential, another disenfranchised group of human beings. Lots and lots of us who cut teeth during those amazing times have not left off working with/living with 'the disenfranchised'. Doesn't elevate us any, but doesn't have the opposite effect either. Using my voice, hands, and mind to assist those whose voices are not heard (advocacy)is as much a part of me as anything else. Knowing when to rest and when to leave is important,...one of those better parts of valor, perhaps.

Put me on a list, or another list. All my infos for real.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 13, 1999.

Don't forget your "cookies"....

-- Helium (Heliumavid@yahoo.com), October 13, 1999.

I think one runs the risk of legal trouble if one instigates a run on the banks. But people talking about canned beans, trolls, stocks, and articles? Nah.

Just my own 0.02

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 13, 1999.

Instigate a run on the banks? Heh, it's YOUR MONEY! And if it's YOUR MONEY, and you let the bank legally hold it for you, and you want it back again, it's YOURS! If you don't want to be caught in the web, and you want and need your money, then go get it, it's YOURS! What's with the "instigating a run on the banks?" The banks and government have created this mess not YOU the owner of the money! GET REAL and DO GO GET YOUR MONEY!

-- get it now (getitnow@getitnoww.xcom), October 13, 1999.

Paula--wake up girl, where have you been? All kinds of threads here telling people to sell their stock, buy gold, cash in your 401K, stock up now, get your rice and beans, etc. Are you a newbie or something? What planet are you from? JEEEEEEESH!

-- hear yee hear yee (hearyehearyeee@hearyehearyeee.xcom), October 13, 1999.

Robert A. Cook, PE wrote:

>> I thought the Democrats and the liberals were all for freedom of thought and expression...or that just frredom for them to attack politically incorrect religions while worshipping at the throne of their politically corrupt religions? <<

Robert, I am sure my political beliefs would qualify me as a liberal in your view. I also vote for Democratic candidates far more often than for Republicans, and my registration is as a Democrat. And, yes, I believe in freedom of thought and expression. I also believe in *using* my freedom of expression, no matter whether you approve of the results or not.

If you do not like what liberals have to say about your cherished ideas and beliefs, fight back. Call what we say an "attack on politically incorrect religions" or anything else you like. But don't whine. We are here. We think the way we think. We are willing to say what we think. Get used to it.

OTOH, I have no problem with your saying whatever you like, providing I get *my* say, too. Let the best ideas and values prevail.

The fact that you seem to think that when *we* express our opinions it is somehow illegitimate doesn't reflect well on either your understanding of or commitment to freedom of expression. If you want us to shut up, tough luck. You'd be better off spending your time trying to out-think us, out-talk us and out-manuever us. That's politics.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 14, 1999.

Hi folks:
The forum regulators can find your IP address. This forum does not send cookies. I'm as paranoid as the next cat, but don't make life too difficult for yourself. In all fairness, the forum regulators can do whatever they want with the content here. I think post manipulation would be an incredible disservice to free speech, but your thoughts become their property after you hit the submit button.

-- Mori-Nu (silkenet@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

After one DISASTROUS situation, in which the perpetrator was so ROUNDLY chastised behind closed doors in a manner, from friends, that would have probably surprised a LOT of folks, content adjustment has STOPPED and will NOT be repeated. HOWEVER, in the interests of a more CIVIL playing field, someone handed me the keys to the delete key and said "have at it". I warned a bunch, ranted a bit and deleted a lot LESS than I had expected to and a lot less than a lot of folks might think. Now, I tend to figure that we are for the most part adults, and will let the game run without calling EVERY foul, but I DO try to keep a reasonable level of civility. there are occasions that deleting ANYTHING on a thread may be either too late or serves no purpose so I may ignore one or two threads. Sometimes when there are a LOT of responses no deletion is apropo.

Anyway, to answer another question, have you ANY idea how old Night Train would have to be to be HIM?? I STRONGLY suspect that that is more in a manner of Homage (damn no accent ecute) to something out of a childhood. I'll e- him and ask him, as he and I have had a talk or two. Unless he answers for himself. I have found him to be quirky, HIGHLY unpredictable and fairly excitable. We'll see.

Enough for this time of the morning, except to point out that ANYONE can make lists, and we sysops have had discussions about our situations, and are fairly sure that we are collectors of Intel Red Flags.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 14, 1999.

I hope they come for me. I'm a shut-in and could use the company. Hehe.....Still smilin at both ends, Alobar

-- alobar (alobar01@webtv.net), October 14, 1999.

If I may, Brian, there is a big difference between exercising one's right to free speech and manipulating it. If we consider the number of citizens who have given their lives and service to protecting it, and then examine some of the twisted, immoral individuals who have used it to hide behind.......it becomes obvious that it's original intent has been manipulated by many.

Naturally, it takes backbone to stand up and defend it's 'original' intent by publicly denouncing those groups or individuals who continually abuse it. You run the risk of being labeled politically incorrect or insensitive to their rights and 'needs' by the liberal media or our current liberal crooks in our current liberal administration who have somehow managed to get away with manipulating a plethora of systems currently in place. I would attempt to begin listing examples, however, I doubt my system has the necessary memory available to do so.

Freedom of speech was never intended to mean 'free reign' to scum, the morally corrupt, the mentally ill, or the ethically challenged. Of course our founding fathers probably had provided it with the anticipation that our fellow citizens would create a certain amount of peer pressure in order to deter even the most obvious of scum in the first place. I'm sure they're terribly disappointed by the fact that our liberal friends have (through the previously mentioned method of 'hiding behind' and 'manipulating') managed to all but eliminate our society's moral and ethical foundation by creating an environment that labels, name calls, belittles and chastises all who acknowledge this occurence.

Robert Cook whining?????? I think NOT. Liberals have historically proven themselves to be the ultimate WHINING machine, and paaa- leeese, don't ask me for examples of THAT.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 14, 1999.

Sorry, I nearly forgot to ask Al K Lloyd if he has any friggin' ROPE.

Skoal? Guts? Didn't think so..........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 14, 1999.

Legion,

Would that be Mark 5:9?

Harpist

-- Harpist (Looking@up.com), October 14, 1999.

Hey Will Continue, the Cinc has moved on to mice and martians. Go read the URL we sent you! Heeheeheehheheheheheh, thought it couldn't get dumber than beanie babies?

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 14, 1999.

alobar,

:-D

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 14, 1999.

>> If I may, Brian, there is a big difference between exercising one's right to free speech and manipulating it. <<

That's odd. This sounds as if it means something, but try as I might, I can't fathom what this "big difference" could be, except that "exercising" sounds good, while "manipulating" sounds sinister.

Consider this. If this difference is so pronounced as you say it is, then it should be immediately apparent to the listener. In that case, it would be easy not to be manipulated by it. One would simply reject such manipulative speech.

OTOH, if it is beyond the capacity of most folks to distinguish the difference between "exercising the right to free speech and manipulating it" (although you, apparently are gifted enough to make this distinction) then how would it be possible to write a law to curtail the bad speech without curtailing the good stuff? If they look and sound alike, then you can't select the one you want to get rid of.

Of course, the preference of most people who think as you do (whether spoken or unspoken) is to set up a selective censorship that is controlled by someone who shares their own political values and who would stifle or silence their enemies. This is OK because their enemies are so bad they deserve to be stifled. Heck, shooting would be too good for them.

I can't get over how many people cannot grasp that the danger in this solution is far greater to themselves than the danger of letting scum have their say. Once the principle of stifling disagreement is accepted, you are on a greased slide to efficient tyranny.

>> Naturally, it takes backbone to stand up and defend it's 'original' intent by publicly denouncing those groups or individuals who continually abuse it. You run the risk of being labeled politically incorrect or insensitive to their rights and 'needs' by the liberal media or our current liberal crooks in our current liberal administration who have somehow managed to get away with manipulating a plethora of systems currently in place. I would attempt to begin listing examples, however, I doubt my system has the necessary memory available to do so. <<

Bravo, Will continue! THAT is what free speech is about. Use it to challenge your opponents, to expose them, to ridicule them, to convert them, to shame them.

SO WHAT, if you "run the risk of being labeled politically incorrect or insensitive". What the hell kind of risk is that, anyway? Being labeled? Jeez. I'm a liberal. Get a load of the labels your side sticks on me. If being labeled is your worst fear, get over it. Fight back. Show others why the label is stupid and it won't stick.

>> Of course our founding fathers probably had provided [freedom of speech] with the anticipation that our fellow citizens would create a certain amount of peer pressure in order to deter even the most obvious of scum in the first place. <<

Peer pressure. Hmmmm. That sounds so, uh, innocuous. But as far as I can see, it only a polite way of saying you and your neighbors put fear into them. So, what kind of retribution do you recommend they fear, Will? How far would you go to pressure these folks into silence? It's all for a good cause, of course. Hell, it's the BEST cause -- making the world look exactly the way Will continue wants it to look. Right?

TO HELL WITH THAT! Freedom of speech is an absolute. Retreat one inch from that freedom and you have destroyed it. What you call freedom of speech is nothing but the freedom to agree with YOU. As soon as you don't agree with me, you start hunting around for a way to silence my thoughts, my values and my ideas. I've got a better idea. Show us up. Convince people we are wrong. Use words to do the work of words. Not fear. Not censorship. Not silence.

Shame on you.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 14, 1999.

Freedom of speech was never intended to mean 'free reign' to scum, the morally corrupt, the mentally ill, or the ethically challenged. Of course our founding fathers probably had provided it with the anticipation that our fellow citizens would create a certain amount of peer pressure in order to deter even the most obvious of scum in the first place. I'm sure they're terribly disappointed by the fact that our liberal friends have (through the previously mentioned method of 'hiding behind' and 'manipulating') managed to all but eliminate our society's moral and ethical foundation by creating an environment that labels, name calls, belittles and chastises all who acknowledge this occurence.

Will,....there are some serious inconsistencies in this paragraph. Throughout it you do exactly what you lambast 'liberals' for doing. Could you explain how this is anything more than a demonstration of parroted dogma?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 14, 1999.

Okay Brian - well said.

Now, tell me what happens when the national media is so biased as to distort its news, to misrepresent and even change its own "self-reported" poll numbers - when the results aren't what they intend? The liberals dominate that media - some 94% of the national press voted for the Clintons, all the national media stories were (have been) heavily biased towards their agenda since 1990 - when he first began breaking his previous campaign promises to AR voters not to run for President. For example, refute the distortions present in just this one recent story: Are they exercising "freedom of speech" or "freedom to push propaganda"?

From Media Research Center, www.mrc.org

< The Media Allow No Conservative Idealism

Several journalistic practices are sending a clear signal that Republicans are disobeying media wishes on health legislation. Begin with the almost automatic recitation of the liberal term for their litigation scheme: "the patients' bill of rights." Few reports have even placed "so-called" in front of it. These same media outlets ignore conservative terms (for example, "partial-birth abortion" becomes "a certain type of late-term abortion," or on rare occasions is preceded by "what opponents call").

The other practice is heavy-handed linking of "bill of rights" opponents with the narrow financial self-interests of insurance companies. No opponent could have a sincere belief in a better, freer health care system [see box]:

NBC, Tuesday night. Tom Brokaw began by discussing "the rights of patients in this increasingly impersonal world of managed health care. The debate starts tomorrow, but we begin tonight with breakfast this morning, breakfast with the Speaker of the House and some of the most powerful health care lobbyists. They were paying for a lot more than bacon and eggs at $1,000 a plate."

CBS, Tuesday night. Bob Schieffer lamented Hastert's ill-timed fundraiser: "The bill that Hastert and the insurance industry are trying to kill, and the industry is mounting a massive campaign against it, would give patients the right to sue HMOs that wrong them."

ABC, Tuesday night. Peter Jennings announced that "on the eve of an important debate about managed health care in the country, it was the perfect opportunity to see money at work." Reporter Linda Douglass complained: "There has been very little pressure from the public, and when the public is silent, money talks."

ABC, Wednesday morning. Reporter Karla Davis concentrated on cash: "Doctors spent $45 million last year lobbying Congress. On the other side, the insurance industry spent $77 million and its lobbyists say the bill will hurt, not help patients....So it looks like Congress must make a choice to disappoint some very rich contributors or some who are even richer."

NBC, Wednesday night. Lisa Myers asserted: "With hundreds of millions of dollars and the health of American families at stake, tonight's partisan bickering appears to threaten House approval of new rights for 161 million Americans in HMOs. The President accuses House Republicans of using poison pills to try to scuttle reform... Republicans insist that's not true."

CBS, Wednesday night. Dan Rather announced, "The long-stalled, heavily lobbied patients' bill of rights is supposed to give people more say in the decisions of managed health care plans. Instead, it is the latest example of political gridlock turning into a chain reaction pileup of the nation's agenda." None of these stories allowed a Republican to explain their philosophical reasons for opposing the bill. That would only ruin the greedy gun-for-hire caricature. -- Tim Graham >>

Now - remember - NO national media even mentioned that Clinton's biggest supporters have been the trial lawyers - he has even gone so far as to get the trial lawyers (during private "fund raising" meetings) to decide how to use the Justice Dept to push new tobacco trials, veto'ed insurance legistlation, trial reform legistlation, and to set up the MicroSoft anti-trust lawsuit.

Which, by the way, was only begun after the Clintons' received campaign money from the competing Silicon Valley computer firms like Apple, Sun, and Netscape.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 14, 1999.

>> Now, tell me what happens when the national media is so biased as to distort its news, to misrepresent and even change its own "self-reported" poll numbers - when the results aren't what they intend? <<

What happens is that the media lose credibility. That is just what has been happening for the last couple of decades. The media now rate very low in the public esteem.

The other thing that happens is that the public airwaves are all but stripped bare of the useful information that bears on the public interest. This compels public-minded people to seek other sources of information, such as niche magazines or the Internet, to compensate for the barreness of the major media. This has also been happening for much of the last couple of decades -- although the Internet is mostly a phenomenon of the past 5 years.

>> The liberals dominate that media - some 94% of the national press voted for the Clintons [...] <<

This statistic tells me that liberals *populate* the media but not that they dominate it. My observation has been that the people who *dominate* an industry tend to be the people who own it and the upper management who set corporate policy and determine who is promoted or rewarded for their actions and who is marginalized or punished.

I would very surprised to hear that 94% of the Boards of Directors of the top 20 media corporations (Time-Warner, for example) voted for Clinton. However, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that all those big corporations contributed heavily (through soft money) to both major parties and gave contributions up to the legal limit to the campaigns of nearly every Congresscritter who sits on a committee that controls broadcast regulations or anti-trust legislation.

That is why I put little faith in the Democrats. My support for them is based solely on pragmatic politics, not a belief in their ultimate integrity. I support them to the extent they support my interests. It is a mildly Faustian bargain, as so much of politics are. If I can get a better bargain elsewhere, I'm outta their bed in a flash.

You cannot disturb me by tarring the conventional liberal whipping boys, like CBS or NBC, as biased. I agree. But their worst sin isn't being too liberal. Believe me, their liberalism is about as thick as the layer of pancake makeup on a news anchor's face.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 14, 1999.

Sorry Donna. I'm simply mad and unwilling to take it anymore.

Halloween is nearing. Perhaps you should cut some eye holes in that sheet you're wrapped up in and take a look around. Just how much of this immoral crap, that we've been made to accept and be tolerant of, would YOU die to protect?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 15, 1999.

Sir Brian,

Good points. Thank you.

The 94% "voted for Clinton" is for the national press - Washington, NYC, LA, and the networks, involving only the producers, writers, researchers, reporters themselves, and anchors. Corporate level was not measurers.

Traditionally and classically, the news media demands complete corporate freedom, although many stories self-critical of the owning organization have been killed. The bias is "internal" as each producing segment (newspaper, radio, or TV) chooses what to research,what to write, and how to say it on air. Once a story has broken, as Broaderick (ignored) or as Ramsey (continual reinvigorated), then the "collective mass media" decides whether to keep dragging it on. And that is not a corporate decision.

News is not a profit maker, seldom has been. It ALWAYS has been a prestige enhancer and power maker - since Murrow, the early space race under Cronkite, and a political power-maker since the Kennedy-Nixon debates.

AND THAT IS POWER.

BUT - Clinton just 20 months ago came up with a "minor" 5 billion dollar PAID anti-drug campaign from the federal government to the national TV networks....any connection perhaps? Before, all such "public service" messages were from the "donated" time of the national ad council.

Also, Clinton Justice department has allowed many market mergers, tax writeoff's, and corporate re-structuring on very, very, shaky legal grounds to be done in newspaper, TV ownership, and radio "umbrella" corporations that do affect the bottom line.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 15, 1999.

((Donna))

((Aston and Leska))

((Lisa@worknow))

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 15, 1999.

Just how much of this immoral crap, that we've been made to accept and be tolerant of, would YOU die to protect?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 15, 1999.

Not addressed to me, but, as for myself, all of it.

And which immoral crap do you refer to? The ideas espoused by INVAR and his minions, such as the idea that the American Indian deserved to be wiped from the face of the land because they as a people didn't bow to INVAR's God. Yeah, I'd fight for INVAR's right to spout his religious venom. And I'd fight for your right to foam away at the gate. And I'd fight for the rights of "immoral" people to live in "sin". And any other peaceable activity indulged in by consenting adults.

That's the thing you to miss about freedom, freedom is only freedom if ideas with which you disagree are allowed to be expressed. Freedom is only freedom if people are allowed to live a life that you find disagreeable.

But I have hope for you.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

Why thanks Unc. I have hope for you too! You guys are talking about ideas being 'expressed'. I'm talking about expressions being 'enforced'. Agendas hiding behind 'freedom of speech'.

I know how you feel about Christains. You know I am not a practicing 'churchiast'. Please don't mount your horse and go there with me...OK? We do not need to be avid followers of *anything* to know right from wrong. Good from bad. What works and what doesn't. Appropriate and inappropriate. Acceptable and unacceptable. You get the picture. Let's be realists here and cut the philosophical phoo- phoo on both sides.

Two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is one thing. Forcing the examination of these chosen 'activities' upon elementary aged *children* in the hopes of convincing them that it should be considered acceptable behaviour is simply dumb as hell and void of any common sense. For this same 'home away from home' (public school) to next announce to same *children* (ages 5 thru 12) that discussion of ANY faith has no place within the walls of knowledge, paints a perfectly crystal clear message as far as I'm concerned. (I'll refrain from offering my reply).

There are MANY other examples of liberal insanity that I can think of (women's lib **really** torches me, national security, quotas, government sponsored abortion......hummmmmm), but I've not the time or patience to indulge my whims. Thanks for responding and I hope I've made my position clearer, but I'm not counting on it. I know I can count on your response however and please don't be offended if I don't make it back. We have weekend projects galore. Have a good one! :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 15, 1999.

Will,

Before you go...I don't like ideas being "enforced" either, unless the idea behind the "enforcement" is one of an open, freedom loving ideal. Sound strange? Me too, but like pornography, I know freedom when I see it.

I know how you feel about Christains. You know I am not a practicing 'churchiast'. Please don't mount your horse and go there with me...OK? We do not need to be avid followers of *anything* to know right from wrong. Good from bad. What works and what doesn't. Appropriate and inappropriate.

Sorry Will, but I'm going there. How I feel about Christians has a LOT to do with how those Christians lead their lives, and how they treat their fellow humans, and lest ye forget, I married a Southern Baptist, so saying that Deedah dislikes Christians cuts no mustard. Anyway, how do these Christians lead their lives? What do they preach about the treatment of others? Does it stack up to how Jesus would have treated them? That is a question that holds a ton of truth for me.

Now, on to good and bad, works doesn't work, appropriate- inappropriate.

As you are well aware, ALL morals have a religious basis. Well, most conventional morals anyway. Some religious morals have no problem with circumcising women, a painful and brutal practice that is, none the less, "moral" in those societies. Does that make it right? Does it fit that the screams of these unfortunate young girls is a price of living the "moral life"? Really?

How about the "morals" of throwing young men in prison and ruining their lives because they chose pot instead of beer? Is that moral? Does it serve the common good? A generation of young people who have done what the millions of boomers have done, yet most of the boomers just didn't get caught? But yet the boomers are able to stand and shout the "evils" of weed and the strict punnishment required to those who stray, now that they have quit doing so themselves? Fairness? Christlike? Moral?

Two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is one thing. Forcing the examination of these chosen 'activities' upon elementary aged *children* in the hopes of convincing them that it should be considered acceptable behaviour is simply dumb as hell and void of any common sense.

OK, I agree if you are expressing a disdain for the teaching sexual activities among adults to young children. But that's not what you are saying is it? I'm not sure that teaching young children about anal sex is wise, whether the participants are of differing sexes or of the same sex. Nor fellatio, ditto on the sex thing.

But what of love and kindness and fidelity? Do these concepts lose their meaning because of the sexes involved? I don't think so, but then I find myself reluctant to follow a two thousand year old dogma to the letter. So tell me, does love not have any power because those involved with it do not fit the norm?

There are MANY other examples of liberal insanity that I can think of (women's lib **really** torches me, national security, quotas, government sponsored abortion......hummmmmm),

OK, you get torched. Would you stop these ideas through force of arms? Is a woman's place barefoot and in the kitchen? Can I slap my bitch because she disobeyed me? The bible says that I should stone my willful son who disobeys me, should I? It is moral afterall, if that book is the basis of your morality. Should I throw the bitch who aborts a child into prison? (PS, since you hate woman's lib I will refer to all women as bitches, and keep for myself the perogative of calling you all the C-word, get back into the kitchen bitch.) Hey bitch, I don't like your additude, time for a beating, slut.

Is that the world you would rather see? Please tell me no.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

Freethinkers don't make many friends, huh Uncle?

I'll be your friend if you don't call me a bitch ;)

-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 15, 1999.

OK, sweetie!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

I must point out that many only THINK they are 'free'-thinkers. Wrong.

"no happiness without liberty, no liberty without self-government, no self-government without constitutionalism, no constitutionalism without MORALITY-and none of these great goods without stability and order."

-Clinton Rossiter......February 15, 1961

We're about to loose stability and order, which after having lost the previously mentioned ingredients, shall afford us a golden opportunity to either restore our presently terminally hemorrhaging system, or welcome back the system put in place by morally correct, highly intelligent, FREE-THINKING individuals. You see......... without morality, you can NOT be FREE! Without morality, you can only DREAM of liberty.

Back to painting............

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 16, 1999.

Sorry Unc, I forgot to suggest you need to get in touch with your common sense. You appear to have misplaced it. Try looking under your sofa cushions............

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 16, 1999.

Please don't feel bad about it though. It's an ailment many a liberal suffers from. A lonely soul sorta thing. They tend to believe themselves to be 'free-thinkers' in no need of guidance from anyone or anything. Sad really.

I do have hope for you, however. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 16, 1999.

I see that you've managed to neatly side-step every question that I posed to you. But that's pretty much what I expected. You are quite adept at spouting on about "morality" while ignoring my examples of "immoral morality".

Better luck next time.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Instead of worrying about morality,which will differ from creed to creed,we could try Lord Buddah's (guideline) for virtue: If an act removes suffering in others,it can be called virtuous,if an act causes suffering,then it would be unvirtuous.(((())))The guise of morality is all too often touted as an excuse to tyranize minority viewpoints.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Gee, I leave for a few days and you slip off the deep end, UNC. Answer your questions?????? Most every one of them were too ignorant to read much less deserving of an answer. Clit piercing AND Bible bashing. You really out did yourself there. Do you think the women's movement stopped anyone from using foul language towards women? HUH? Did it improve men's attitude toward us? Has it stopped domestic violence? Has it prevented us from being considered or treated as sex objects? Do we have equal pay? That would be no, no, no, no and NO. Jesus H Christ....our own president has proven it's hunky-dory to flash and grope unwilling employees and business volunteers, rape and plunge himself into employees on company time. He's proven men can favor or destroy women's carreers based upon their responses to his sexual advancements and women's lib said, "ok". I won't even mention his disregard for his 'moral' obligation to the 'christain' vows he took with his wife. You might turn purple.

Did WL make our role as mothers and wives appear to be inferior choices? Did it strip us of being treated like ladies, different than our male counterparts and rob men of being allowed to express this difference through gracious, mannerly, gentelmenly behaviour out of the *requirement* to consider women as 'just one of the boys'? Do many men resent our demand of equality (as we shove ourselves into work places where we are physically inferior to meet the needed requirements of) coupled by fear of litigation if we're treated too equally? Yes, yes and yes. They've made it nearly stupid for men to even WANT to hire women in many instances. They've attempted to rob us of our physical, sexual and biological differences under the guise of improving our lives. We are NOW considered useless, mindless, gutless 'muffins' if we CHOOSE to behave like women and assume the traditional role of being mothers, wives and homemakers. Even that wasn't good enough for them. They've now begun flooding the media with *brainless* studies promoting the idea that 30 minutes PER DAY of 'quality time' is more than enough needed to raise happy healthy children, in hopes of aleviating the guilt of the many women who *choose* (not out of need) to be elsewhere as their children raise themselves. What bull-shit. Most Americans use our public schools as day care. How many women work to keep up with the Jones'?

Women's liberation has done JUST that. It has liberated women from all obligation to being women. BUT, they didn't stop there either. They next began demanding that women 'loving' women must be accepted. I've loved MANY women in my life and still do. Attaching my face to their genitals has never been my idea of expressing my love for them however. THAT IS LUST, pure and simple. Same for men. It is a *biologically* invalid, useless act, and I'm sick of them whining that nobody likes them. NO SHIT! Get a clue. At what point did it become politically correct to be emotionally challenged? If they want to practice it in the privacy of their own home.....good for them. Get it off the streets (that includes heterosexuals.....get a room).

You, Unc, are a rabid dog foaming at the gate when it comes to christains. You attack with your superior attitude, whining about the christain superior attitude. Grow up. Your wife must be one lousy southern Baptist to be living with such a spiritually void pile of flesh. If I tell you how sick you make me, you will then be able to spew how I'm not 'practicing' my faith by the book, and am a lousy example. I don't practice my faith by the book, so:

"You make me sick with your hateful, venomous, christain-bashing vomit. Don't even speak to ME about patriotism, butt-head."

"One Nation, under God, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all."

So most morals have faith for their source. SO WHAT? It seems to be more common sense than anything else. The only arguement you've presented here is "who's to say what's right from wrong?". Am I to assume you equate freedom with anarchy? I present the fact that true freedom cannot be obtained without assuming responsibility for our personal actions, holding ourselves within boundries of acceptable, ethical and moral behaviour in an invironment of stability and order. I consider my version to be a healthy society. Your version appears to be one big free-for-all. I'd put my life on the line to prevent THAT from happening.

Is that the world you would rather see? Please tell me no.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 19, 1999.

Yes.

Myself and Diane are numero Uno's...

we answer to our higher selves...

we could give a shit for ourselves when all is said and done (sorry Diane for "putting words in your mouth...:))) )

correct me if I'm wrong :)

later,

-- Andy (AUVENGER@cs.com), October 19, 1999.

Jeez, is this thread still alive?

Does anyone realize the implications of using the internet?

Hummm... searching... searching... searching... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Hey Will, call me all the names you want, but watch your fucking step when you start in on my wife.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Oh, and lest you accuse me of avoiding your questions to me:

Do you think the women's movement stopped anyone from using foul language towards women? HUH? Did it improve men's attitude toward us? Has it stopped domestic violence? Has it prevented us from being considered or treated as sex objects? Do we have equal pay?

No, but I doubt that things would be better if you were still treated as property, as per the Bible. Coveting thy neighbors wife was a property crime, Will. Hey, are you willing to give back your right to vote? Really? And as far as your rant against Bill Clinton, I agree with it, he is a lying cheating snake. And yes, it was a crime that NOW didnt stand up to him, so does that makes the womans lib movement wrong about everything else? Who cares about your example of pay inequality? Not the guy who is making more than you.

Did WL make our role as mothers and wives appear to be inferior choices? Did it strip us of being treated like ladies, different than our male counterparts and rob men of being allowed to express this difference through gracious, mannerly, gentelmenly behaviour out of the *requirement* to consider women as 'just one of the boys'? Do many men resent our demand of equality (as we shove ourselves into work places where we are physically inferior to meet the needed requirements of) coupled by fear of litigation if we're treated too equally? Yes, yes and yes. They've made it nearly stupid for men to even WANT to hire women in many instances. They've attempted to rob us of our physical, sexual and biological differences under the guise of improving our lives. We are NOW considered useless, mindless, gutless 'muffins' if we CHOOSE to behave like women and assume the traditional role of being mothers, wives and homemakers. Even that wasn't good enough for them. They've now begun flooding the media with *brainless* studies promoting the idea that 30 minutes PER DAY of 'quality time' is more than enough needed to raise happy healthy children, in hopes of aleviating the guilt of the many women who *choose* (not out of need) to be elsewhere as their children raise themselves. What bull-shit. Most Americans use our public schools as day care. How many women work to keep up with the Jones'?

Being stuck barefoot in the kitchen has made you exceedingly grumpy, Will. Time to get out and about.

"You make me sick with your hateful, venomous, christain-bashing vomit. Don't even speak to ME about patriotism, butt-head."

And you provide the forums best example of the kind of Christian that makes me sick, butthead. I guess those of us who dislike suffering holier than thou religious hypocrisy are not patriotic? What a hoot! How did you come up with that tortured logic?

So most morals have faith for their source. SO WHAT? It seems to be more common sense than anything else. The only arguement you've presented here is "who's to say what's right from wrong?". Am I to assume you equate freedom with anarchy? No, Will, you assume too much. My firm belief is that each person should be free to live their lives as they see fit. Even shallow, narrowly defined lives. I no more believe that homos have special rights, than I believe that you have special rights. And I dont think that either of you has a right to stop the other from living as they chose, so long as they live peaceably. I present the fact (FACT?) that true freedom cannot be obtained without assuming responsibility for our personal actions, holding ourselves within boundries of acceptable, ethical and moral behaviour in an invironment of stability and order. I consider my version to be a healthy society.

Spoken like a true zealot! The only healthy society is one run along the ethics and morals of Ms. Will Continue! Do you think that Hitler thought Nazi Germany was healthy society, Will? How about Stalinist Russia, think old Joe thought his version was pretty good? Of course you consider your version of society healthy, but the point is that the world does not revolve around you, nor does everyone share your own special way of seeing things.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

There are far more who 'share my special views' than you may know about, and as for your suggestion that I attacked your wife's beliefs (as if *you* need any help in that department???? HA), allow me to suggest to each and every left-wing extremist:

Some of us are fighting an uphill battle to raise children in this country and having them surrounded by faithless, hopeless, unethical, immoral, "me, me, me", "anything goes", whining, selfish, self- indulgent behaviour SUCKS. We've had just about ENOUGH of it. Have you even noticed what this PATHETIC society is turning out in the children department? For these individuals to even suggest that gun control is the answer is LAUGHABLE BEYOND BELIEF.

Free-thinkers my big, round, rosy, red rump. BTW, I have never (*never*) announced that I am a Christain, so back off, oh frothing one..................just swallow your spewing vomit and spare us your 'special views'.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 19, 1999.

Gee, Unc, do you kiss your wife with that mouth?

You seem a little 'proprietary' with regards to your wife. Is it because traditionally, Southern Baptist women haven't ever been big supporters of Women's Lib?

Or is it because it rankles you that someone said something about 'your' woman? Property and chattel and all...

You have a real *interesting* way of looking at things, Unc. I'll bet you are a real prize.

My condolences to your wife. She must be very practiced in 'longsuffering'.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 19, 1999.

Unc is correct in theory and Will is correct in reality.

-- lisa (lisa@good.god), October 19, 1999.

Will,

I almost hate to insert my two cents worth here. I agree with everything you have said. I quit my job earlier this year to stay home and take care of my family. My out of control teenager is no longer out of control. I'm here every day when he walks in the door. I bake cookies, iron shirts. It's the best decision I have ever made.

Uncle Deedah you are the most arrogant person I have ever seen. Your pompous attitude on this forum is a joke. You make me sick.

-- (RoseColored@glasses.com), October 19, 1999.

Will,

If the shots ever take effect I'll debate you further, as it stands now you are waxing incoherent. By the way, we live in a Republic, not a mob rule democracy. One more thing, you forget the last line in the Pledge you quoted earlier: "With liberty and justice for ALL", not just the ones who think like you do.

Wilferd,

I find it interesting that you fault a man for defending his wife's honor. Why is that?

Rose,

Pompous indeed, pot meet kettle.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

"Does anyone that follows this forum, realize the implications of posting..."

The subject has a new meaning for me now... Yes I realize, we stand to get flamed, or be a flamer unless we're secure and well adjusted.

Play nice people, try to disagree without slinging excrements like monkeys in a zoo.

-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 19, 1999.

WOW!!! How did I miss this one.........actually very glad I did!!!

How about those Jags??? :-)

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), October 19, 1999.

Unc, you weren't defending your poor wife's honor. You were offended by WC's accurate assessment of YOU. You weren't defending her, you were defending YOU, and used her in 'righteous indignation'. What a cowardly thing to do.

I would dare say that your wife has the sympathy of a preponderance of the posters here on this forum. The Southern Baptist women aren't known for their espousal of women's lib. Maybe that works in YOUR favor, huh?

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 19, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Hey..., don't go insulting the monkeys, now!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 19, 1999.

Wilferd

To quote WC: "Your wife must be one lousy southern Baptist to be living with such a spiritually void pile of flesh."

That is not only a poke at me, it is also a stab at her. I can defend myself just fine thank you, but I do get ticked off when she is called "one lousy" anything. I'm not sure if you will see the logic in that, and that's OK with me.

BTW you understand the sympathy of a preponderance of the posters here by what means? Voodoo? Not that I really care whether I have legions of fans here or not, I am very comfortable with the fact that people who hold stong convictions have many detractors. Will is one of those people too, unfortunatly, her convictions are in error. ;)

One last thing, my dear wife is a strong willed person too, like the guy she married. We agree to disagree on many things, but should you think that I run roughshod over her, and she takes it like a doormat, you have another think coming.

She is also a fine shot with a 357, the thought of which tends to keep me in line.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Wilferd and Will C, I've gotten to know Uncle's wife pretty well over the past 9 months, and your perception of her is totally off. She is a very vibrant, intelligent woman, who is quite capable of handling Deedah! :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), October 19, 1999.

Deano -

Good offense, but I'll take the Chargers "D" any day. And that AFC Central: "weak" is being charitable. Jax gets (twice) Cinci, the Browns, and Bal'mur. If they don't finish up 11-6 at least, someone forgot their playbook.

Hey, wait. This isn't the "Is the NFL Y2K-compliant" thread, is it? Sorry.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), October 20, 1999.

Mac

The #1 defense in the NFL currently resides in JAX....:-)

Junior is still bad to the bone though.........gotta love him!!

Ya know, our schedule WAS one of the toughest around at the beginning of the season........then the NFL turned upside-down.......very wierd season it is!

Anything less than a super bowl berth will be a disappointment down here.

See ya in the AFC championship!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), October 20, 1999.

hi every body i am docter nick and i hate the french because they look like frogs like my only friend j f

-- cirel (foo@bar.comf), March 05, 2003.

plz help me with my problem. a porn dialler has installed it self on my computer and i cant get rid of it plz help!

-- alex (nutty_mad_mental@hotmail.com), May 25, 2004.