http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.mhtml

If someone wants to hotlink this, please do. Some very humorous reading. I cannot figure out wether or not they are serious. The society was mentioned in the HIV thread, and I went to look-this is too funny-but someone in the other thread said they were serious. What do YOU think?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 26, 2000

Answers

You cannot figure out whether this is a joke or not? Now I'm starting to understand how you can hold your political beliefs.

-- They Are Making A Joke (kinda@funny.too), December 26, 2000.

The reference to Robert Anton Wilson in #18 is a good sign this is a put-on. #11, #19, #20, #21 and #22 make it an obvious put-on.

http://www.flat-earth.org/platygaea/faq.mhtml

-- (They're@NOT.serious), December 26, 2000.

The Flat Earth FAQ

I can see how it may at first be confusing, but I'm thinking that if one clicks through to this section, Flat Earth Projects, Mr. Teapot Campaign and then clicks on Random Mr. Teapot Quote, there should be no confusion. This was one of the quotes that came up:

Mr. Teapot says:

I had to dump my last girlfriend because she was a spy, and I can't make friends because they're ALL spies (and the feds won't let me, it's part of their plan to break me, but they haven't yet!)

Then again.....

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 26, 2000.

Patricia-

I am thinking along your lines. There are people on this planet who are absolutely convinced they have been abducted by aliens and are convinced they have met the anti-christ in their backyards.

These folks could be serious-the first anon in this thread, however, is a coward of the highest proportions, for to make a blanket statement about someone's political beliefs under a previously unused anon is pathetic.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 26, 2000.

The flat-earthers are like the skeletons in the closet of the young- earth Creationists. They share nearly every belief, and for the same reasons -- Biblical interpretations lead equally directly to both beliefs. Does not the Bible speak of the vault of heaven, and of the four corners of the earth? Clearly, neither will work for a sphere.

Creationists cannot disavow flat earthers without disavowing their own beliefs, since there's so much overlap. But they are embarrassed because flat-earthism is so demonstrably false. Any self-respecting Creationist knows that the way to defend their belief is NOT to state the belief, but rather to attempt to discredit what science has learned over the centuries (and imply that their beliefs win by default, being all that's left!)

So the Creationist posture toward the flat earthers is to quietly fail to acknowledge them. When challenged directly, they change the subject. Being stupid is acceptable. *Looking* stupid is not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 26, 2000.

Syd, since apparently my message was correct and you can't defend yourself you have to go and attack the messenger.

-- They Are Making A Joke (kinda@funny.too), December 26, 2000.

Flint - very well put, I agree, but now I suggest (IQ test time):

Creationists are to flat-earthers as Bush-supporters are to doomers. (superset-subset relationship, the "Uncle Buck" effect:^)

(duck)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 26, 2000.

Here is a little of the text that Syd is having a hard time telling whether or not they are serious:

19) What is the "Springfield Effect"?

The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world.

20) Does Idaho exist

No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

21) What about North Dakota?

That doesn't exist either.

22) Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?

Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven.

-- They Are Making A Joke (kinda@funny.too), December 26, 2000.

Bemused:

You might have a point there. I don't spend enough time on EZboard to generalize accurately, but scuttlebut says they tend to be Bush supporters. Meanwhile, some who found no substance to Doomism are apoplectic in their hatred of Bush -- the optimistic women (Cherri, Patricia, Anita, Celia) and Doc Droolie. And Paul Davis surprises me.

On the other hand, I believe the conservative position redounds to the health of the nation on balance, and Ken Decker and Stephen Poole seem to agree with this. My biased assessment is that we tend to be the most analytical, and favor a philosophy rather than a political party or any particular individual.

I've looked back at the method used to *support* a position vis a vis y2k. Back then, I simply took it for granted that anyone who didn't expect doom had the intelligence to see through the hype and nonsense. In retrospect, I can now see that for some, "y2k as nothing special" was an article of faith as much as doom was to others, and real evaluation didn't apply.

Meanwhile, government has not invented the free lunch. I also consider this unfortunate and wish it were otherwise, but not enough to delude myself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 26, 2000.

Well, now, I don't know. The flat earth stuff is, at least to me, a lot less credible than some of the other things people profess to believe in this here internet place. Think about it--

We've got Chemtrailers. Tax Nuts who believe the law really doesn't require you to pay income tax (Hi, KoFE, Merry Christmas). Collodial Silver people. Last year, Steve Heller.

All things considered, I find it easier to believe the earth is flat.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), December 26, 2000.

Flint:

On the other hand, I believe the conservative position redounds to the health of the nation on balance, and Ken Decker and Stephen Poole seem to agree with this. My biased assessment is that we tend to be the most analytical, and favor a philosophy rather than a political party or any particular individual.

While very biased would be more accurate, you are getting closer to the truth. Keep searching and you will find the truth.

*<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), December 26, 2000.

The world isn't flat?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), December 26, 2000.

The universe is infinite but bounded.

-- (AlEinstein@Princeton.edu), December 27, 2000.

What about the Hollow Earth guys?

-- Shaker (Mt@Shasta.con), December 27, 2000.

Sigh.....I don't know why I bother.

Contrary to YOUR belief, Flint, you are NOT "always right" -- and this would be one of those cases.

I am not "apoplectic in [my] hatred of Bush". I think the man is incompetent (being governor of Texas does not qualify one to be President; failed business after failed business does not qualify one to be President; having a Daddy who was a President does not qualify one to be President); I think the man is a few cards shy of a full deck (as he continues to prove every time he opens his mouth); I DO NOT LIKE/TRUST virtually ANY of the people with whom he has surrounded himself (you can call them "advisors"; I call them "babysitters" and the people who are REALLY going to be running the country; I call them "Daddy's Friends and Cronies"). I DON'T think he has the best interests of the nation as his priority; I DO think he has the best interests of BIG BUSINESS as his priority (and considering his "business track record", perhaps THEY should be worried). I do NOT like his family history; it's shady at best and I think we should ALL be worried about that. I see this "Presidency" as being more of Bush Version 2.0 than even CPR realizes: the irony is that normally when a "Version 2.0" is released, one can expect some improvements; I DON'T see that happening. I think he is somewhat less than honest, and if his attempt at covering-up his past isn't indicative of that, then who's the one who's going on "faith" here?

Lastly, I think his so-called "supporters" are considerably less than honest; as I've been saying since the summer, it's not so much that the majority of them actually support GWB, it's that they hate Clinton (who, BTW, wasn't running.) So who's a bit skewed here?

If you purport to imply that my thoughts on Y2K were "faith-based", you'd also be wrong -- and this would apply to those of us who you've chosen to single out in your post as well. Each one of us has/had the "insider know-how" in various areas to **DEDUCE** that Y2K wouldn't be much of anything. So that pretty much shoots that "argument" to shreds.

Simply because people disagree with you (oh the horror; the shame; how COULD they) doesn't make their position/beliefs/views wrong. Simply because you happen to have chosen the "winner" in this election doesn't make your position/beliefs/views right.

Can you just imagine that?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 27, 2000.

Hollow earth, I like it. I want to travel inside to find a totally different universe, "inside out" sorta, with a mini sun and moon and mini people.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 27, 2000.

The interior of the Earth, some believe, is home to strange races of technologically advanced beings. Who are they and where are the hidden entrances to their subterranean cities?

Many readers of the paranormal and the unexplained are familiar with the theory that the Earth is hollow. The idea is based on the ancient legends of many cultures that say there are races of people - entire civilizations - that thrive in subterranean cities. Very often, these dwellers of the world beneath are more technologically advanced than we on the surface. Some even believe that UFOs are not from other planets, but are manufactured by strange beings in the interior of the Earth.

Who are these strange races of beings? How did they come to live inside the Earth? And where are the entrances to their underground cities?

Agharta

The Network. One of the most common names cited for the society of underground dwellers is Agharta (or Agartha) with its capital city of Shamballa. The source for this information, apparently, is The Smoky God, the "biography" of a Norwegian sailor named Olaf Jansen. According to Agartha - Secrets of the Subterranean Cities, the story, written by Willis Emerson, explains how Jansen's sloop sailed through an entrance to the Earth's interior at the North Pole. For two years he lived with the inhabitants of the Agharta network of colonies who, Emerson writes, were a full 12 feet tall and whose world was lit by a "smoky" central sun. Shamballa the Lesser, one of the colonies, was also the seat of government for the network. "While Shamballa the Lesser is an inner continent, its satellite colonies are smaller enclosed ecosystems located just beneath the Earth' s crust or discreetly within mountains."

How and Why They Went There. The many cataclysms and wars taking place on the surface drove these people underground, according to Secrets: "Consider the lengthy Atlantean-Lemurian war and the power of thermonuclear weaponry that eventually sank and destroyed these two highly advanced civilizations. The Sahara, the Gobi, the Australian Outback and the deserts of the U.S. are but a few examples of the devastation that resulted. The sub-cities were created as refuges for the people and as safe havens for sacred records, teachings and technologies that were cherished by these ancient cultures."

The Entrances. There are allegedly several entrances to the Kingdom of Agharta throughout the world:

Kentucky Mommoth Cave, in south-central Kentucky, US. Mount Shasta, California, US - the Agharthean city of Telos allegedly exists within and beneath this mountain. Manaus, Brazil. Mato Grosso, Brazil - the city of Posid supposedly lies beneath this plain. Iguaçú Falls, border or Brazil and Argentina. Mount Epomeo, Italy. Himalayan Mountains, Tibet - the entrance to the underground city of Shonshe is allegedly guarded by Hindu monks. Mongolia - the underground city of Shingwa allegedly exists beneath the border of Mongolia and China. Rama, India - beneath this surface city is a long lost subterranean city, they say, also named Rama. Pyramid of Giza, Egypt. King Solomon's Mines. Dero Caves, ?. North and South Poles. Nagas

The People. In India there is an ancient belief, still held by some, in a subterranean race of serpent people who dwell in the cities Patala and Bhogavati. According to the legend, they wage war on the kingdom of Agharta. "The Nagas," according to The Deep Dwellers, "are described as a very advanced race or species, with a highly-developed technology. They also harbor a disdain for human beings, whom they are said to abduct, torture, interbreed with and even to eat."

The Entrances. While the entrance to Bhogavati is somewhere in the Himalayas, believers assert that Patala can be entered through the Well of Sheshna in Benares, India. Says William Michael Mott in The Deep Dwellers: "According to herpetologist and author Sherman A. Minton, as stated in his book Venomous Reptiles, this entrance is very real, with forty steps which descend into a circular depression, to terminate at a closed stone door which is covered in bas-relief cobras. In Tibet, there is a major mystical shrine also called 'Patala,' which is said by the people there to sit atop an ancient cavern and tunnel system, which reaches throughout the Asian continent and possibly beyond. The Nagas also have an affinity with water, and the entrances to their underground palaces are often said to be hidden at the bottom of wells, deep lakes and rivers."

The Old Ones The Beings. In an article entitled "The Hollow Earth: Myth or Reality" for Atlantis Rising, Brad Steiger writes of the legends of "the Old Ones," an ancient race that populated the surface world millions of years ago and then moved underground. "The Old Ones, an immensely intelligent and scientifically advanced race," Steiger writes, "have chosen to structure their own environment under the surface of the planet and manufacture all their necessities. The Old Ones are hominid, extremely long-lived, and pre-date Homo sapiens by more than a million years. The Old Ones generally remain aloof from the surface peoples, but from time to time, they have been known to offer constructive criticism; and it has been said, they often kidnap human children to tutor and rear as their own."

The Elder Race

The Beings. One of the most controversial tales of inner Earth dwellers is the so-called "Shaver Mystery." In 1945, Amazing Stories magazine under the editorship of Ray Palmer ran a story told by Richard Shaver, who claimed he had recently been the guest of what remained of an underground civilization. Although few really believed the story, any many suspect that Shaver may actually have been psychotic, Shaver always averred that his story was true. He contended that the Elder Race, or Titans, came to this planet from another solar system in our prehistoric past. After a while of living on the surface, they realized our sun was causing them to age prematurely, so they escaped underground, building huge subterranean complexes in which to live. Eventually, they decided to seek a new home on a new planet, evacuating the Earth and leaving behind their underground cities populated by mutated beings: the evil Dero - detrimental robots - and the good Tero - integrated robots. It was these beings that Shaver claimed to have met.

The Entrance. Despite the enormous popularity of the Shaver Mystery in Amazing Stories - Palmer milked it for all it was worth, and then some - the location of the entrance to this underground world was never divulged.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 27, 2000.

I just did a little poking around on the Net and found some information about a flat earth society. I don't know if it's the same one Syd was talking about in his first message, but I did find out there are debunkers of a certain flat earth society.

Two debunking links which explain the views of this flat earth society...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

-- the (world@is.round), December 27, 2000.

Flint, I know you, Ken Decker, and Stephen Poole seem to be Bush supporters. I wouldn't have anticipated that, and I'm dissapointed. I'll get over it. In the meantime, I get to watch myself proven right over the next four years. :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 27, 2000.

Bemused:

Please don't get the wrong idea. I believe the conservative philosophy holds a lot more promise for the health of the nation. I believe government is the "best" solution only for a limited number of problems for which no good solution exists. I find most of what our tax dollars buy to be inappropriate, inefficient, or undesirable.

I also think the Republicans put up a weak candidate this time, which disappoints me. If he does a poor job, this wouldn't surprise me at all. But any of Gore's successes I regard as potentially dangerous, because they'd have to be undone to correct them, and government is damn near impossible to shrink. Do you really *like* government (at all levels) taxing and spending hearly 50% of GDP? Are YOU getting your money's worth? If you are, I'm disappointed in you as well.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 27, 2000.

Flint, my taxes are being used well. I have well-maintained roads, safe bridges, and a decent public school for my kids. I think all of the local utility companies are subsidized to some extent by taxes. Our roads are sanded in bad weather, and the tree that fell across the highway nearby was pushed off of the road within minutes by a state road crew. (The tree was too big for us to handle, we did try to remove it ourselves first.) While I mind $400 hammers and expensively ridiculous projects undertaken by congressmen, overall the system provides me with more comfort than it takes away.

-- h (b@r.f), December 27, 2000.

h:

OK, I guess, if you're happy. But it strikes me what you've done is pointed out some of the benefits government bestows on you, rather than made even the slightest effort to either (1) compare those benefits with what could be done privately; or (2) compute the price you are paying form them.

Yes, at maybe 5 times what they're worth, I get some services for "free" that the private sector could provide better. But they are very real services, oh yes they are. And in the "bargain", I get a whole LOT of "services" I would gladly pay to STOP GETTING! The $400 hammer is insignificant compared to the War on Drugs, for example. For the price of that war (in dollars, in ruined lives, in the boost to organized crime, etc.) every man, woman, and child could have *hundreds* of $400 hammers.

And you like this? Tell me something then -- just what are you getting for the several million a year we pay for the Bureau of Mines? The BoM hasn't even had a mission statement for 80 years!

Patricia:

My, look at all those capital letters. Apoplexy indeed. Now that Bush has named a cabinet full of minorities his father never even heard of, your screeching is wearing a bit thin. Has it occurred to you to *look* at the people Bush is choosing, and use *actual data* to check your fears against? Apparently not yet...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 27, 2000.

---But it strikes me what you've done is pointed out some of the benefits government bestows on you, rather than made even the slightest effort to either (1) compare those benefits with what could be done privately; or (2) compute the price you are paying form them.---

I sincerely doubt ALL the highways could be done privately. You'd have nothing but toll roads of varying quality. As it is, you can tell when you cross county lines on a highway in certain states. I know MY taxes will never pay for all the asphalt I've used for free. What happens if I live at the end of a private toll road and lose my job? I don't get to use the road to look for another job? Can I afford all the tolls on all the roads I need to use in order to relocate?

---Yes, at maybe 5 times what they're worth, I get some services for "free" that the private sector could provide better. But they are very real services, oh yes they are. And in the "bargain", I get a whole LOT of "services" I would gladly pay to STOP GETTING! The $400 hammer is insignificant compared to the War on Drugs, for example. For the price of that war (in dollars, in ruined lives, in the boost to organized crime, etc.) every man, woman, and child could have *hundreds* of $400 hammers. ---

Your groceries are delivered to the store on roads. Traffic lights keep your grocery delivery truck in some semblance of moving order. The highway department will drag a fallen tree off of the highway as quickly as possible. If your grocery delivery truck has an accident, cops and other emergency services will attend to it.

There are several "services" that I object to as well, and I've been doing something about getting those "services" in better working order.

---And you like this? Tell me something then -- just what are you getting for the several million a year we pay for the Bureau of Mines? The BoM hasn't even had a mission statement for 80 years! ---

I didn't say I liked it. I said it worked well enough to suit me. WE aren't paying several million a year. WE will never pay several million in taxes even if we include three more generations of our family. If you think something ought to be done to better manage or dismantle the BoM, why don't you start or get involved in a movement to do this? Explain it to me in such a way as to convince of the rightness of the cause, and I may join your fight.

I've tried to keep the example to something simple, like the highway system. But we all use public systems, whether it's libraries or streets or calling 911 when you see a wreck or have one yourself.

-- h (b@r.f), December 27, 2000.

h:

We are not communicating well, I see. Yes, the public highway system is fine. I also like the court system, the police system, national defense, and public education (though I'd like to see a couple of voucher system pilot projects, the taxpayer foots the bill one way or another). Private firefighting companies worked out very poorly. Government does a good job issuing and backing currency. It really does a lot of important, necessary things. I'm not asking everyone to pay tolls to walk on the sidewalks!

But cherry-picking a few things appropriate for a government isn't a very accurate way of characterizing the entire enterprise. Indeed, government did *all* of the above when it spent 4% of GDP, and we're up over 40%. So it's a matter of degree, of philosophy. We die without enough water, we die in too much. There is an appropriate amount of everything, and government has swollen well beyond that point. We are out of balance.

So you are correct to point out that the best balance involves *some* government. You are incorrect to imply that therefore, everything we're trying to solve with government is appropriate.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 27, 2000.

---So you are correct to point out that the best balance involves *some* government. You are incorrect to imply that therefore, everything we're trying to solve with government is appropriate. ---

You asked the question: Are YOU getting your money's worth? You weren't asking me personally, but I answered. Yes, I'm getting my money's worth. I don't think everything the government is trying to take on is appropriate, but overall the system is more positive than negative. This is just an opinion.

-- h (b@r.f), December 27, 2000.

h,

Flint is a classic Libertarian (I don't know if he's registered that way, but he should be!). Libertarian philosophy doesn't say that we should eliminate government; it says that government should be strictly limited to those things which a government does well.

Roads are a good example, as is (of course) the military. Those are things that governments do better than private enterprise.

You feel that the government, all in all, does a good job with 50% of the GNP. There, we disagree strongly.

Since I'm a Christian type, I can imagine an analogy (based on experience): you tithe 10% of your income to the church. Most of that goes to paying the church's officers, the mortgage on the building, the light bill, etc. But then you look closely and discover that a substantial portion of the collection plate is being used for strange projects in which -- you feel -- the church has no business engaging.

There you go. That's about how I feel about the US Government. And in either case, the only solutions are to leave and start over somewhere else, or to try to reform where you're at.

To everyone in general:

You know, I have actually found myself drifting toward the Libertarian viewpoint over the past several years. I call myself a "conservative," and yet, I don't toe the line on several key conservative litmus tests -- ex, the war on drugs (which I also think is a grand and glorious waste of time, treasure and energy).

What you should understand is that people like me voted for Bush through partially-clenched teeth. I am not an enthusiastic supporter. Most Libertarians feel that way, too; right now (at present ONLY -- subject to change!), Republicans generally get their support primarily because the alternative is even worse.

Flint,

I don't see Patricia as a "rabid" anti-Bushite; she strongly disagrees with his election, but I don't see her (or Pam or Paul) as as "rabid."

I'd reserve that label for my good friends Cherri and Doc, God love 'em. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 27, 2000.

Stephen:

Yes, I agree there are degrees here. Cherri is rabid, in the sense of raving mad, incapable of thought altogether. Paul and Patricia haven't abandoned sanity, but what they see is very strongly filtered through what they expect to see. No matter how pale the gray, they still choose to see only the black. Doc Paulie I regard as simply retarded but enthusiastic about *something*, often hard to tell what.

I also voted for Bush through clenched teeth, but for reasons probably quite different from yours. He is too closely aligned with those who would impose their religious teachings on me for comfort. I consider the abortion issue to be a matter of straight church and state separation. Strictly hands off for government. Also, I think some of Bush's environmental preferences are effectively irreversible errors.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 28, 2000.

Law pimp; I see you are still doing what you do best; using invective to argue your case, while perverting the facts. The "aw, shucks" condescendsion might work in a courtroom, but it's easy to see through here.

For those of you not familiar with porter, this is a lawyer who thinks that rules and regulations can violate your countrys' constitution, and still be valid. Why? because we have precedents for it. Pooles first reaction to the "tax quesion" awhile back, was " Admit it, you've been reading some tax protester sites, haven't you?" Even threatening to delete debate at his own forum. So, what's up, poole? No one to talk to?

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 28, 2000.

Jeez, Flint, it's so unlike you to twist words and ignore a blatantly obvious point being made. (<---dripping sarcasm alert)

I give you my **actual reasons** as to why I do not like GWB (as I have been for quite some time now) and you brush it aside as basically emotionalism (as you have been for quite some time now). Because *my* opinions do not jive with yours, it's painfully obvious that I am not basing my opinions on fact -- that's a fairly accurate assessment, yes?

Bah.

Did it ever cross your mind that I did, in fact, look at the people around GWB (many of whom served with Daddy and/or have been Daddy's friends for quite some time) and drew my conclusions through my very own faculties? IOW, did it ever cross your mind that I did, in fact, use my *brain* and my *thought processes* (which, BTW, have served me quite well over the years and, your protestations notwithstanding, continue to do so) to come to a completely different conclusion than you did?

(And how different a conclusion is it really, Flint? How eager are you to support GWB? It doesn't seem to me that you're all that gung-ho on him, yet you never miss an opportunity to attempt to demean anyone who dares to disagree with your POV on this particular subject.)

Has it further occurred to you that perhaps it's *you* who is described with your words above: "what [he sees] is very strongly filtered through what [he] expect[s] to see"? Frankly, this seems to describe you to a proverbial "T" when it comes to anyone who dares to disagree with you on *any* subject.

Did it ever once occur to you that maybe, just maybe, YOU are the one who's only seeing black-n-white?

And finally, have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, YOU are the one who's **wrong** here?

Oh, the horror.

Stephen, I'd be more apt to consider this an "election" had the Republican shenanigans not been so terribly obvious; had the voting irregularities actually been investigated; had the man who actually received more votes been elected; had the Supreme Court not been so blatantly partisan; I could go on, but what would be the point? Flint's only going to jump in here to tell me how wrong I am, the facts be damned. Or maybe it's *your* turn to do so.

Whatever.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), December 28, 2000.

Trish,

Hmmm, I was actually defending you in a roundabout way. There is plenty about this election that you could feel unhappy about -- Florida being the main example.

The only thing that I'd say in response to your argument is that there was plenty of evidence of Democratic "shennanigans," too (images of that Gunsberger woman, or whatever her name was, playing Carnak with ballots, comes to mind). In my mind, they roughly cancel out, leaving a mere bad taste in my mouth. You can certainly disagree.

Flint,

He is too closely aligned with those who would impose their religious teachings on me for comfort.

As a practical matter, Bush would find it difficult to do anything really outrageous, because his opponents are already watching him like a hawk for the merest suggestion that he's going to do so.[g]

The biggest difference between me and the quote-unquote Christian Right, even though I share many of their core beliefs: the ability to separate personal beliefs (and even practice) from State.

For example, you may recall that we sparred over the subject of pornography. I'm agin it, plain and simple. I think it's harmful and degrading. But I am inalterably opposed to government censorship. My approach would be an ad campaign or something like that.

Live and let live.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 28, 2000.

Patricia:

I'll reserve judgement on Bush's cast of nominees until they are actually appointed and do some things. I am definitely not pleased with his AG selection based on Senatorial voting record, however. We shall see how that works out.

Indeed, we should probably wait and see how anything works out before deciding one way or another so rigidly, don't you think? Please understand that I place as much stock in someone quoting The Guardian as I do in someone quoting Jeff Rense -- NONE! The fact that you fall for that foolishness and *then* claim you are thinking for yourself does you no credit (though it's pretty good comic relief).

But hey, look how successful Clinton was, presiding over the longest economic boom in history. Who could ask for more? And yet look at the hatred some people have for him anyway. Ain't prejudice amazing? But I'm glad I voted for Clinton. I hope I'll be glad I voted for Bush. I suggest you hope so too, since he's who we've got.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 28, 2000.

Doc Paulie I regard as simply retarded but enthusiastic about *something*...

ROTFL.

Someone wheel Doc Paulie in here, enthusiastic retardation is always welcome!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), December 28, 2000.

Here I sit once again,in the aftermath of another election pondering on many of the same thoughts as I have after other election cycles.

I gave up voting through clenched teeth and decided to let my conscious be my guide and hopefully an example to others,and besides,it makes your gums hurt and takes absolutely no character of conviction.

My response,as before,is to hope and pray that the future admin. will do little or nothing to further the erosion of the Constitution and will take less of our dollars to fund whatever agenda(s) they envision.

As with Mr Clinton,I wish Mr Bush good fortune,to do otherwise is to wish against what might be best for America.

3 cheers for an almost evenly divided government,that,IMHO is our best ally at the present.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), December 28, 2000.

How did we get from flat earth back to politics? All roads lead to our government... oh no, another government control conspiracy theory!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.