subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
QisQos wrote:

Clearly Christianity has been quite inclusive for centuries. Adelard's
examples showing the point.  Casting Jesus as a white man, with blonde
hair is simply an attempt at inclusiveness which is aimed at European
Gentiles.  Blessed Jesus Christ was not a European Gentile, despite the
artistic efforts at inclusiveness.

In what way?  Are you refering to the same texts which use the word
"Elohim" meaning "gods" (plural)?  That God is referred to in a
pluralization would not make gods of God.  I don't see how some semantic
would put testicles on an incorporate Being.

The Jews of Biblical times came out of Egypt, like Anwar Sadat.

There does seem to be some spinning and de-spinning going on.

The Jesuits owned slaves 20 miles from where I live, and sold hundreds of
them less than 200 years ago.  For me to read that this did not happen, is
difficult.  I can't remain silent and go along with the propaganda
campaign.  So long as you allege that the Roman Catholic church has been
categorically opposed to slavery of all kinds since the Rennaisance (or
earlier), I will point out the facts.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


author: Steve Marshall

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal  wrote:

Not you, Call. You'd have been too uppity. :-)

cheers
Steve


author: Cal E. Rollins

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

You sound like a really good Baha'i, since they seem to express that
kind of twisted thinking when it comes to calling slaves servants.  I
have heard several whites say as you supposedly kid that Baha'u'llah's
slaves didn't have to be black and probably weren't.  --Cal


author: Adelard

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
<snip>

Because the Manifestation of God is the one who inspires the world
through the spiritual forces released by his\her revelation. That's
one of the spiritual verities of the Baha'i Faith.

Peace,
Adelard


author: Susan Maneck

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Dear Pat,

Actually grammatical form of the word means goddesses. In Hebrew, as in Arabic
the 'h' makes it a feminine form.

warmest, Susan

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Steve,

Would you have liked to have been a slave of the Bab or Baha'u'llah?  I
didn't ask whipped by them but made to work for free.  --Cal


author: Pat Kohli

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal,

Whatever you hear from several whites is something you heard from no one,
since there are no whites.  Right?


author: Dermod Ryder

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Adelard" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

He wasn't alive when the British commenced the process of banning the slave
trade - not that such an event will ever deter the "true believer" from
asserting the wildest of things.


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Susan Maneck wrote:

Thanks,

Q, what Susan says looks like what I said, times nine.  What were you referring
to?

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

Wrong.  According to the theory, five percent of American whites can be
considered white.  The rest are black based on the "one drop of black
blood law" on the books. You're black unless you've researched your
ancestry through genealogy such as the Mormons are expert in.  No
talking about how Irish you are will do much good.  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Dermod Ryder" <[email]> wrote in message news:<brqrbg$663kc$[email]>...

Dear Dermod,

But He was still alive spiritually even before his birth. How then
could Siyyid Kazim Rashti and Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsai and so on feel the
spiritual influence of the Coming of Baha'u'llah?

I believe a Manifestation of God can influence the world even a
century of years before his\her coming.

Not all things can be explained academically in these times.
I said that was one of the spiritual verities of the Faith. Even the
Bible says so concerning the Days of the Coming of the Lord.

Hebrews 8:10
....  I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people
....

Jeremiah 31:31-34
.......After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they
shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,
...

Peace,
Adelard


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Dermod Ryder wrote:

This is news to me.  Is this in some narrow legal sense, like "chattel slavery"
(where the slave can be sold up river for money, like a piece of lumber) vice
"serfdom" (where the slave conveys with the property, like a tree on a public
park)?  If the British were banning the slave trade, in any meaningful way, it
would have to have been after they dropped all of their major enslavings, like
forcing the importation of opium in China, etc.  I'm guessing ... 1950?

Shurely you don't believe all the patriotic prattling you were fed in 6th
grade, by the Brothers?

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


author: ALMA ENGELS

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Cal E. Rollins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Wrong Cal.  That is only YOUR theory.  Lets reverse it only 5 percent of
blacks can be considered black.  The rest are white based.  As for the law
you cite, please do tell where it is applied today.

Actually color or race doesn't matter though you are fixated on it.
Alma who is not black but rather a mongrel white.


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal,

Really wrong.  According to fact, skin color comes from melanin.  It is all
the same color, though some have more than others.  According to fact, all
humans have African ancestors - remember that physically our closest
relatives are the chimps and gorillas, and they are not native to Eurasia,
Australia, or the Americas.

We are all one family, but don't believe the facts, listen to the truth
from Baha'u'llah.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


author: Paul Hammond

subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
[email] (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

So, did you do a genealogy test on those "several whites" you
talked to - or was it really ignorant blacks who were your
informants (so ignorant, they didn't even know they were black)?


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Adelard,

Then you are one of us who feels that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation in
Pre-existence?  How then do you explain to the non-Baha'i  sceptic that
He had slaves, which to some is indicative of contributing to mankind's
social death?  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Dear Pat,

I think boarding ships on the high seas to ensure they weren't carrying slaves
(which they did in 1834 constitutes a serious determination to end the slave
trade. The Opium Wars are another matter entirely.

warmest, Susan

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"ALMA ENGELS" <[email]> wrote in message news:<jjODb.470225$[email]>...

Hear, hear!

Mongrel Paul, who couldn't care less how many drop of "black
blood" flow in my veins (isn't all blood red, even Iago's??)

Paul


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Alma,

The last fixation you gave me was boobs.  Now its whiteness and
blackness.  Well at least you didn't combine them and declare my new
fixation to be white/black boobs.

And if you present the theory that only five percent of American blacks
are black but white, you could have fooled an awful lot of us black folk
who get treated like we're black.  Of course your theory proves what
Darwin said all along: Black is dominant.  'Cause you don't see that
many white blacks walking around.  Man, you need to work on your
feminine logic.  That proves you're not the man Darrick said you were.
Right?  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Pat Kohli" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
all

Talking of Error ......

Do you have a theory as to how his ancestors reached Ireland?

Rubbish!  I'm not related to Error!


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

Well we don't know what Baha'u'llah meant about the oneness of mankind.
If He meant what you think or say He did how do you explain His having
had black slaves?  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Paul,

Nope I didn't test anybody.  Some Baha'i sociologist in the 40s
expounded that 95 percent whites being black theory based partially on
the one drop of black blood law still on American books and giving the
U.S. Census hell.  (See the brouhaha on Internet about the 2000 Census.)
It's not my theory.  I know I'm black and have no problem with it.  I
don't even have a problem with my French slave-master ancestry or my
Indian one drop of blood.  'S all the same to me. What you are is
anybody's guess, since you probably haven't the vaguest yourself based
on your Baha'i thingie.  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Oh, so that's how you get to be white!

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
[email] (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<[email]>...
  --Cal

 I will tell the non-Baha'i sceptic that back then, slavery
institution was one of the laws found in Scriptures of the past.
Christ didn't abolish it, and Muhammad didn't either, and he even
regulated it.

 I will tell him that Baha'u'llah released all the slaves from his
Dad's household when he died.

 In Islamic tradition, when a family's member dies, it's often
encouraged to release a Slave. If Baha'u'llah wanted Slaves, he could
have released one Slave or Two, but He released all of his Dad's
Slaves, when he passed away, which would indicate that Baha'u'llah
didn't want Slaves to work for him.

 Only one slave didn't want to go, because he might have been in need
of a roof, just like in Africa or in the Third World Countries, we
often use Servants who work for us, in exchange of food and a roof.
Later on, he even told him to leave.

 I will tell him that Baha'u'llah was one of the first Manifestation
of God to abolish the Slavery Institution.

Peace,
Adelard


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Susan Maneck wrote:

Addicting a nation to opium is a different kind of slavery than chattel slavery.
Owners feed chattel slaves w/ food which should sustain them.  All drug dealers
need to provide is the dope; since they don't pay for their salves, they have no
need to maintain them - the cost as much to keep as to get another one.

To say they oppposed chattel slavery during the Victorian era, would be correct.
To say they opposed slavery in general at that time would be incorrect.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Cal E. Rollins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
What about Thurmond's first child.  Is she black or white?


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Dermod Ryder wrote:

Obviously, they were beamed down by space aliens, in the time of the Longbow.
They would not try it now adays.  I don't have a theory if he is second
generation or third generation, but I really have to wonder which ninth is
Flemish.

"We", I said "we".

- Pat


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Dermod Ryder" <[email]> wrote in message
news:broaa9$5r07d$[email]...
all
Not even if he is the black sheep of the family?


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
[email] (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

So, you admit you didn't know what you were talking about, right?


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Susan,

I can't say how you got to be white, but most of the whites in
Mississippi get to be that way by hook and crook.  Blacks get to be that
way by passing for white and some black women having to put up with the
likes of Strom Thurmond and Prez Jefferson.   Whites have caused America
a real problem in that regard.  Luckily being white isn't that much of a
premium any longer although the vestiges of privilege still hang in
there.  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Alma,

Thurmond's daughter was black.  Thurmond thought so as well as did she
and her mother.  If she had been white, Thurmond would have publicly
embraced her, don't you think?  Cute, though mindless your question.
--Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Paul,

If you're saying I don't know what I'm talking about because I use
secondary or more sources for what I feel I know, you are quite correct
when you say I may not know what I'm talking about.  That's why I've
started to say "alleged" or "I heard," etc.  I've had too many
challenges recently to what I thought I knew from what others have
written in the Faith. In fact no Baha'i, educated person, or anyone else
really knows, since we're all ignorant of real events and facts not
having been there to witness them for ourselves. And we all can
appreciate how we spin the truth.  We Baha'is function under an onus of
"belief" which many facts, such as slavery in the early Faith, are
starting to challenge.  One belief is the old one that Baha'u'llah was a
Manifestation even unto Pre-Existence.  But, at least we have more
evidence that He evem existed than do the Christians that Christ did.

So don't think I have you white folks' arrogance and project what I know
and say as Gospel.  Far from it.  I'm as humble as they come....  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Cal E. Rollins" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Mindless?  Well it takes a mindless to recognize or think he recognizes
another mindless.  As for cute,  hardly think that would apply to you.
Alma


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Everyone knows Thurmond's daughter was white; haven't you heard the news?
You have half a point about embarassment, but eventually the woman came
forward and acknowledged her half-witted father, so I say, "good for her,
even if her Dad" was a pea-brained bigot.  Just don't quote me speaking
ill of the departed, okay?

- Pat


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
"Cal E. Rollins" wrote:

Sure, and you don't seem to retract or apologize much for the allegations
you repeat.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

Sorry.  Thurmond believed his daughter was black.  So did her mother who
was black.  So did she.  Otherwise he would have embraced her publicly
except confining the embracement to the black community.  She didn't
seem to have felt he was "pea-brained."  In fact, she felt he was an
alright guy and not what his public image projected.  They obviously
loved each other, so who are we to say.  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat Kohli <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking
about because you started by insisting that "some whites"
had said something.  Then, when Pat paraphrased you
as saying that everyone who looked white was really
black, you confirmed that the only way to tell if
someone was *really and truly* white was to apply
to the Mormons in Utah for a pedigree.

When I asked you if you had perform such an exercise
for these "whites" that you asserted had said something,
you said that no, you hadn't.

So, logically, the import of Pat's first statement
still stands - you cannot say that "some whites"
said anything, because you do not know that they
are white.

Ergo, you don't know what you are talking about, and
the fact that you told Pat that there *was* a way
(according to you) to know that someone is white
was just a red herring.

Alles Klar?

Now, how are things between you and Charles these
days?

Paul


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

Have you ever heard a Baha'i retract or apologize for anything we repeat
or parrot (which is pretty much everything)?  Why should I be any
different from you or the rest of us?   --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal,

Even if his daughter believed that he was black, I'd still think he was a
pea-brain.  He ran for President of the US in 1948 on a platform of racial
segregation.

I am me Cal.  If you talk to me about something, I will say what I will
say.  It may not be profound; it may even be obvious, but it is what I am
saying.  I don't belong to a country club, Cal.  If a black man like me
can't speak his peace right here in this barber shop, where is he to go?  I
just don't understand why anyone would keep trying to shut me up, Cal.  What
is the problem?

I don't mean to disrespect the dead, but beyond his 30 seconds of youthful
discretion, he was publicly a career racist, and un-reconstructed about it.
I may have said that before, but I really can't add to it, I don't care if a
purple space alien beams down from the mother ship and declares him to be
her Daddy, too.

Best wishes!
- Pat


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Dear Cal,

I have heard a Baha'i retract and/or apologize for false, or inappropriate
statements.  Individuals make these statements, not groups.

I don't recall ever hearing anyone apologize for a slogan which their group
repeats.  Generally, when people don't like the slogans of their groups,
they get another group, or, if they just don't like one or two slogans out
of ten or so, then they just don't use those slogans.  Is there some Baha'i
slogan which you object to, maybe "One Planet, One People Please", or the
three onenesses?  You should be different from me out of the grace of God,
Cal.  Didn't you know that already?


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal,

I've been ignoring most of this thread but let me make a couple of comments in
response to your posts.

You wrote:

"His slave Fiddiyih was a good cook,
since she had responsibility for cooking, cleaning, entertaining, and
waiting on the Khanum head and foot from the time she was five years old
when other kids were out playing and having fun."

You assume that free children of the lower classes got to go out and play
rather than worked. On the contrary, many of them were forced to make silk
carpents all day long. Children worked in those days, whether they were free or
slave.

You wrote:

"Would you have liked to have been a slave of the Bab or Baha'u'llah?  I
didn't ask whipped by them but made to work for free."

Slaves in the Middle East were generally paid wages. And some of them would get
downright onery when they weren't paid on time. The Ottoman slave soldiers
would turn over their soup kettles and go on strike. In the Mughal Empire the
slave navy would resort to piracy.

You wrote;

"If she had been white, Thurmond would have publicly
embraced her, don't you think?"

Probably not. Having illegitimate children is still a political liability no
matter what color they are. But he wasn't so ashamed of it he hid it from his
staffers. She visited him frequently in his office, and the staffers all knew
who she was.

Susan

http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

I doubt anybody has determined that they can shut you up, so why would
they try? Futile.  Right?  We do know from long years of experience that
one of the frequently used Baha'i techniques is the Gag Order and its
variations;

But the Internet
has set us free
like Baha'u'llah did
with the slaves in 1873.

--Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Pat,

Great!  Why don't you lead the way as the Emperor of Apologies and
Retractions? But, in the meantime, please put on some clothes unless
you're a pretty sight to behold?  --Cal


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal,

Don't ask me why you've tried to shut me up.  If you're curious, ask
yourself; you'd know better than me.  Then tell me why you've tried to shut
me up.  Then, and only then should you ask me.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


subject: Re: Catholicism and racial justice

text:
Cal,

I am wearing clothes already.  If you are looking at some webcam
allegedly showing "Pat Kohli" butt naked, it is not me.

How can I be surprised, though; you've told other lies about me as
well.  You are one shameless @$$#*|+, Cal Rollins; I will concede you
are outstanding in that regard.

Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net


author: Ilena Rose

subject: Do you want this injected into your daughters, mothers, or anyone you love? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

text:
Note from Ilena Rosenthal, Health Lover:

http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm
Barrett, Probert, Langer,Polevoy,  Bowditch, Kingoff, Gorski and
others of the vast PR team pushing vaccinations.

Although the Healthfrauds / Snake-oil Vigilantes  and other
Vaccination Propagandists claim that Gardasil is 'safe' ... they are
merely salespeople for Merck and the vac industy.

This is but one of the ingredients in every Gardasil jab ... (along
with aluminum).

Boric acid:sodium borate (Borax)

Toxicity
Boric acid and sodium borate (Borax) are estimated to have a fatal
dose from 0.1 to 0.5g/kg. These substances are toxic to all cells, and
have a slow excretion rate through the kidneys. Kidney toxicity is the
greatest, with liver fatty degeneration, cerebral edema, and ...more
Toxicity
Boric acid and sodium borate (Borax) are estimated to have a fatal
dose from 0.1 to 0.5g/kg. These substances are toxic to all cells, and
have a slow excretion rate through the kidneys. Kidney toxicity is the
greatest, with liver fatty degeneration, cerebral edema, and
gastroenteritis. Boric acid solutions used as an eye wash or on
abraded skin are known to be especially toxic to infants, especially
after repeated use due to its slow elimination rate.

According to Handbook of Poisoning, Robert H. Dreisback, eighth
edition, p.314, boric acid, sodium borate, and sodium perborate are
estimated to have a fatal dose from 0.1 to 0.5g/kg. That's about one
hundreth to five hundredths of a teaspoon per pound of body weight, so
a teaspoon ingested could be toxic to a 100 pound body.

According to Goodman and Gillman's: The Pharmacological Basis of
Therapeutics, 6th edition, chapter on Antiseptics and Disinfectants,
page 971 says these borates are toxic to all cells, and have a slow
excretion rate through the kidneys. Kidney toxicity is the greatest
danger, but they also cause liver degeneration, swelling of the brain,
and gastroenteritis. Especially dangerous to infants.


author: roger and shirley boyd

subject: Re: Do you want this injected into your daughters, mothers, or anyone you love? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

text:
So how many millions of doses have been given sofar and how many reports of
ANY problems !!!!
Evidence based medicine delivers good results.
Or would you prefer your daughter to get Ca cervix.

"Ilena Rose" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: john

text:
"roger and shirley boyd" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Loads, but you have to take your head out the sand

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/cervarix_h.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gardasil_h.html

no poisons for mine.

Allopathy (aka evidence based medicine) is the leading cause of death, so
yes, it gets great results at killing http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html
unnecessarily

then just about every cas eof autism, asthma is from vaccination

while over 10 million are addicted to pharma drugs

and so on

so good results there for stockholders, yes


author: Jonathan Magnus

subject: Re: Sexuality, Rape and..(to re:No more Rapes!)

text:
[email] ("Avedon Carol") wrote:

Very good comment. I agree. An accurate observation and wry social
comment.

In the study I was refering to, I don't think the paricipants were
allowed to get drunk, and they were only shown photos and asked to
rate them on attractiveness.

What I said was very simplified, but what part of it is not true?


author: "Avedon Carol"

text:
[email] (Jonathan Magnus) hit a rich vein of pissed-offedness
when he wrote:

and I wrote:

and he wrote:

It's not true that women can do, say, and wear "anything they wish".
There are enormous numbers of social constraints on women that are
frequently in conflict with each other, leaving women at a loss to figure
out what to do, say, and wear.  What you see is frequently what's left
after all other choices have been eliminated.

That might even make some sense if the rules were consistent and clear.
The trouble is that the rules all contradict each other.  We _have to_ be
attractive, but we _can't_ be sexy.  We _have to_ be pleasant, welcoming,
attentive and smiling, but we _can't_ appear to be paying "too much"
attention to a man (or letting him pay "too much" attention to us).  We
_have to_ be accommodating, but we _can't_ let a man think his attentions
are welcome.  What do you do with that?

Both sexes think the other is in control.  Both sexes are taught to treat
each other as adversaries.

Well, you were right.  Why complain about it?  They could have said,
"Actually, I think you have the sex appeal of a raw egg."  Would that
have been nicer?

Ah, there's the problem.

Perhaps, but you don't get an angel food cake by following a sourdough
bread recipe.

And that's another problem.  Your Cake metaphor suggests you think you
are dealing with a large number of identical, undifferentiated items.
You're singing "You are woman, I am man," and we're singing, "I want to
be Johnny's Girl (except the ones who aren't).  Most of us will be
more-or-less friendly and polite to just about anyone who hasn't been
unpleasant or crude to us, but we aren't interested in _all_ men just
because we are generally polite.  We can tell the difference.  Guys -
including you - say things that suggest we can't tell the difference.  As
if we saw any randomly chosen man approaching and perceived him as the
representative of All Men, rather than as an individual who we might, but
more likely might not, want.  Eventually this suggests that you can't
tell _us_ apart, and trust me, women don't look for that in a man.  Like
Bonnie Raitt said, "I ain't no amoeba."

It doesn't really make sense.  Men seem to be far more possessive about
the idea that "their" woman should be practically a virgin.  So why do
you talk like we have to say "yes" to every one of you?

There's a rather astonishing thing some guys say when a woman turns them
down.  It is: "What are you, a lesbian?"  To a woman, this is a complete
non-sequitur.  Surely you don't have to sleep with _every_ man who hits
on you to be heterosexual?  Surely no one thinks that if a woman is
attracted to one man, she must be attracted to _all_ men?  But guys
actually say this.  Do they think that they personally are delegates for
the entire male sex, and thus, if a woman turns _him_ down, she is
turning down all men in perpetuity?

Guys who broadcast that they don't think we can tell one man from another
are broadcasting that they cannot tell one woman from another.  That
level of insensitivity holds no allure for most women.

Nope, we aren't cakes.  You may be able to repeat the experiment of
mixing specified amounts of flour, milk, eggs, butter and sugar together
and getting the same result many times, but women aren't just separate
bags of flour.  If you walk into a lab and see several unlabelled beakers
of clear, colourless liquid, you can't assume they are all water and
therefore can simply be mixed and stored together safely.  They may be
things that will explode when combined.  They may change colour when
combined.  They may turn into a cure for cancer when combined.  You don't
know, because you don't know what they are.  They may all look the same
to you, but they have different properties.  You seem to be making the
mistake of thinking that all women have identical properties.

Worse, you seem to have a perception of women that makes you interpret
all of their actions as being relevant to you.  We are not inert
ingredients waiting for you to come along and catalyze us.

There's your first mistake.  I can go down to the off-license and buy
booze much cheaper than in a bar, and drink it in the comfort of my home.
 If I'm in a bar, it's probably in the hope of some sort of social
interaction.  Maybe I'm meeting friends.  Maybe I'm already _with_
friends.  Maybe it was a convenient, central location for me to get
together with someone who lives on the other side of town.  Maybe my
friends hang out here and I'm hoping to run into one of them.  Maybe I
know that other people in my profession hang out here and I'm hoping to
make some contacts.  Or maybe I'm just hoping for a miracle.

Buying a strange woman a drink without an introduction is something that
desperate alcoholics appreciate, and it's standard procedure for
introducing yourself to a hooker.  Young women don't usually appreciate
it.  And unless you really _are_ Adonis - AND your chosen female is at
loose ends and not terribly busy - your drink is more likely to be seen
as an intrusion and an insult than anything else.

No.  We go to bars for a lot of reasons.  We assume you have more than
one reason for going to a bar.  We don't see why you don't understand
that we didn't go to a bar just to meet you, personally.

Good luck.  Most people can't even explain what they like to people they
are already intimate with.

Gee, I would have said that a society that sets males and females up to
be in adversarial roles should get most of the blame, if we're talking
about the confusion between the sexes.  When it comes to forcing yourself
on someone, though, rapists can take 100% of the blame, thanks very much.
 All guys are raised in this stupid society, but most of them don't rape.

I wish everyone (especially the airlines, who really need a lesson in
safe bondage) would read SM manuals.  The protocols of SM are pretty
strict and revealing, but mostly they are things that _everyone_ needs to
know.

Foremost among them is that different people like different things, so
you have to spend some time negotiating with them to find out what they
will or won't appreciate.

Next among them is that even when you think you've got that all sorted
out, you might be wrong - and at some point, one person may want to stop
what is going on, right then and there, and you _have to_ stop right then
and there.

When people are talking about SM, mostly the idea of having to stop -
using a "safe word" - is assumed to apply to things like hitting too
hard; say, you have said you want to be spanked, but your partner is
hitting you a lot harder than you anticipated and now it hurts too much.
Or there are some acts that you just don't want to do but you forgot to
tell your partner that that was off limits.  So you say your safe word
and they stop immediately.

Only, as many SM-ers can tell you, it doesn't just apply to "kinky"
stuff.  It can also apply to simpler things, like fucking.  And in SM,
there is no such thing as "I'm too carried away now, I can't stop."  It
is understood that you have to stop.  Maybe you can't stop yourself from
coming, but you can stop yourself from penetrating someone - so you pull
back, regardless of where your head/body are.

It's ironic that the wild and crazy perverts (the people your legislators
have warned you against) are so much more civilized about sex than
"normal" people.  If those totally depraved weirdos in leather can take
"no" for an answer, why can't "normal" guys?  What is so complex about
this?  It's _obvious_ to most women.  It's even obvious to _men_ who are
into SM.  Why is it opaque to guys who sit around and quibble over
whether there is such a thing as date rape?

In SM, it is understood that even something as explicit as saying, "I'd
like to have some sex with you," isn't necessarily an invitation to fuck.
 And, as JJ has pointed out more than once, a kiss is not an invitation
to fuck.  As near as I can tell, almost _nothing_ is an invitation to
fuck short of saying, "Let's fuck - now!" or some similarly overt and
unambiguous communication.  And yet, you've got guys running around who
think they are being invited to fuck when a woman is shouting "NO!" and
trying to scratch his eyes out.  And then you've got people saying,
"Well, she went there with him, what did she expect?"

What we expect, obviously, is that you make some reasonable attempt to
find out what we actually want to do and that, having done so, you don't
go ahead and do what we don't want.  A woman shouldn't have to take out a
gun and shoot a guy to convince him that she really, really did mean "No."

I don't have room in my life for "everything".  I prefer just to have the
things I _really_ want.  In my experience, the other stuff is more of a
hassle than a pleasure.

choice.

I'd always rather be reading a good book than having bad sex.  If I can't
find a good book, I'll settle for good comics.  If I can't find good
comics, I'll settle for Marvel comics.  Failing that...I'd rather watch
_The Love Boat_ than have bad sex.

Similarly, I'd rather have no lover than a bad lover.  Being alone is one
thing, but there is nothing lonelier than being lonely when you are
actually with someone.

No. That's what we don't understand.  You want sex.  We want _good_ sex.
We know sex can be bad.  Why should we want that?  Why should you?  If
I'm alone, I can find lots of things to do.  If I'm with someone who
isn't much fun to be with, I have to put up with _them_.  It's boring.
Sometimes it's scary.  I'd _much_ rather have "nothing" than something
crummy.

No!  Don't you get it?  Masturbation is _better_ than bad sex with
someone else.

I know you do.  That's why you expect us to _act_ like aliens.  You
wonder what a _woman_ (alien) ought to do in a situation, rather than
saying, "What would _I_ do in that situation?"  Even when it's 100
degrees out, you think we should cover up because of our effect on _you_,
without asking yourself whether you'd want to do the same.  When we stay
up late talking to our colleagues, you don't think, "Well, other men do
the same," you think that because it's a woman it has to have something
to do with sex.  You think everything we _do_ is supposed to be about
sex, and about you.  Even men do things that don't have anything to do
with sex.  Why should we be any different?

"Walk a mile in my shoes."

Unfortunately, that is true.  Now, how are we supposed to deal with a
world like that?  We _can't_ spend all our time wondering whether some
man is going to think we are "sexy" or leading them on.  There are men
out there who think nun's habits are sexy.  We can't second-guess you, so
we may as well just wear what feels good and let you worry about taking
responsibility for your feelings.

No, that's the terrible thing.  Half the time you are being obnoxious
just to _impress_ us.  What we don't understand is how many times you
have to drive women from a room before you will tumble to the fact that
it isn't working.

We like to talk.  But not just about cars, stereo equipment, and sports.

Why do men wear ties?

We have doors on the stalls.  Women don't piss into a trough.  Why do you
think we keep telling you to lift the seat and then put it back down?

And what would most boys say they would like their _dates_ to wear to the
prom?

(Note: "Nothing" is really not an honest answer.)

And I bet no man ever asks you, "Why don't you ever smile?"

That doesn't work either, because then you tell us how we could be nicer
to you.  You do, after all, seem to think it is our _job_ to be nice to
you.

You'd be better off if it did mean sex.  Heterosexual women are always
running around thinking life would be so much easier if they were
lesbians.  Nothing cures you of such thinking like actually dating a
woman.  Men are actually simpler.

I already know your point of view, though.  I can see that you are trying
to communicate, but what you have to understand is that we've _heard_
your point of view.  We've heard it from our mothers, our girlfriends,
our fathers, all the great (dead white male) writers, and the guys we
hang out with.  We _know_ you have all these weird ideas.

Your jokes aren't the problem; they are humanizing.  The problem is that
you perceive _your own reactions_ to women as female "power".  You have
to realize that women are raised to think of their sexuality as an enemy,
not as power.  We're raised to think of _your_ sexuality as an enemy, not
as "our" power.  There are a million things in society that tell us that
we are supposed to take responsibility for _you_, and we don't like it,
and we rebel against it by dressing like we want and saying we want you
to take responsibility for yourselves.  And what do you do?  You complain
about how powerful we are.  You want us to be sensitive to how you feel
(our traditional job), but really, what have you done for me lately?
What about how _we_ feel?

And in the meantime, I haven't exactly heard you exuding praise for all
those women who helpfully go around dressing like lumberjacks.  Isn't it
wonderful that there are these women who wear big heavy flannel shirts,
gain weight in massive quantities, and cut their hair off to marine
length, just so you won't be disturbed by the power of their sexual
allure?  C'mon, where are the glowing words for Doc Martens and hairy
legs on women?

All you have to do is listen to the way people talk about fat, dumpy,
frumpy women to know why women try to be attractive.  It's certainly not
because we want to have sex with every man we bump into.  We usually have
to at least have a conversation with someone before we know whether we
want to sleep with them.

A. Carol
Feminists Against Censorship
http://www.fullfeed.com/hypatia/censor.html
-------------------------------------------
"Any sufficiently advanced political
correctness is indistinguishable from
irony."    - Stolen from Jane Hawkins


author: Abhay Thatte

subject: Women's Minds, Sex, and Rape.

text:
Women will NEVER be in any large percent of cases, the initiators
of romantic/sexual relationships.  Or pure M/F friendships for that
matter.  Don't ask me why.  Maybe it's because men are stronger, maybe...
	Who the hell cares.  Guys, you want women, right?  Well, just keep
asking them out.  The law of percentages will work and soon you will get a
gal.  (Recently worked for me:)
	Rape?  No means no?  A loud no, means no.  That's true.  A moany
no, a soft no, a giggly no...U LUCKED OUT!!!
	Men, treat women like a mysterious device.  Try not to understand
HOW it works, but how to GET it to work.


author: Jim Webster

subject: Re: HUNTING AND ENVIRONMENTALISM the lies justifying animal abuse exposed.

text:
hi pete]

for uk environmental conservation pete is a pretty low grade troll who
is soon going to end up in court because of various forged postings.


author: swroot

text:
Jim Webster <[email]> wrote:

We know about him. Pete showed up on uke* before he materialised on uba.
Consider the utility of such an obvious reminder that the *average* IQ
is 100. For every 'Pete' we may have, nay, statistics say we must have,
several intelligent posters :-)

regards
sarah


subject: Re: HUNTING PETE may be classed as animal abuse.

text:
swroot <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
who
uba.
have,

I always thought that pete was living proof that some people will piddle
in the gene pool rather than get out to go to the toilet.


text:
Jim Webster <[email]> wrote:

Wicked :-)

regards
sarah


author: Raving Loonie

subject: The Happy Hooker Goes to Washington

text:
Jan Drew wrote:

Happy St. Patrick's Day, Mark.

  T'would seem that you have been blessed by the kiss of the blarney
stone.

At least, Jan seems to *think* so.


author: cathyb

subject: Re: ADHD Experts Head To Washington - Is the FDA Up To The Task?

text:
Jan Drew wrote:

And yet another utterly pointless post from Jan, proving only that she
can't rebut anything Mark said!


author: [redacted]

subject: ' Bullshit sticks together '

text:
Jan Drew wrote:

BAWAWAWAWAWAWAH !!!!!!!!

  I DEMAND to post and tell the truth!

Cordially,

RL


text:
Jan Drew wrote:

Another utterly pointless post from Jan, proving only that she can't
rebut anything Mark said.

<snip>


text:
Twittering One wrote:
Are you sure about this?

  I never took stimulant medicine when I was a kid.

When I first took it in my mid 30's, I had a genuine identity crisis.

   Who is the real me?

      ... w/o stimulants
      ... with stimulants

It was very, very confusing.
  I was quite concerned about the issue
  . ... I continue to revisit the question occasionally.

The understanding of an adult is qualitatively different to that of a
child.
The motivations of adults are different than that of children.

It's all to easy to stand here & now and look back as myself as a child
considering it from an adult's perspective; from the experience of
reality with which  I am presently, most familiar.

  I.E.  I am projecting the 'adult' me onto the 'myself' as a child.
.. I don't think that it is the same point of view.   In short ..  I am
fooling myself.

Frankly, I don't think that any child would choose to take a reality
altering drug  ( .. on occasion, perhaps to escape fear, or stress
.. but these are abberant situations in some ways )

I suspect the kid  ... any kid,  .. would prefer most of all to be him
or her 'self'.

Ergo:   ... No drug could feel right!

   Eh?

Cordially,

RL


author: Twittering One

text:
You know,
as I have always said, ask the kid.

If the kid hates the meds,
something is wrong.

If the kid feels better on the meds,
feels better about his/her abilities,
something is right.

I went for 24 years before I ever
took a an ADD-like med (diet pill)
and felt GOOD about my abilities.

And then I went another 18 years
without any medication options.

If I had been offered a choice,
I would have taken the meds.

But that was another decade.


text:
As I have ALSO said,
Adderall did cause me cardio and mood problems.
Dexedrine does not.

All meds are not the same.


author: Mark Probert

subject: Re: The Happy Hooker Goes to Washington

text:
Raving Loonie wrote:

Please do not put *kiss* and *Jan* in the same post. If you do it again,
the fabric of the universe may rip.


text:
Twittering One wrote:

Agreed. Input from the patient, child or adult, is always important.


author: Jan Drew

text:
"Mark Probert" <[email]> wrote

It is noted you forgot to comment on the FACT cathyb LIED, she posted her
reply AFTER I proved you indeed LIED and I indeed rebutted what YOU said.


text:
Jan Drew wrote:

You forgot that no rational person believes your claims that anyone lies.


text:
"Mark Probert" <[email]> wrote in message

Not interest in your claims of who is rational, as the PROOF is there for
all to read.


text:
Jan Drew wrote:

I know you are not interested in dealing with rationality. Sad that.


author: Tang Huyen

subject: Re: Free empowerment (was Re: What Works)

text:
tara wrote:

You and everybody are invited to blow my cliches to
bits, or to show me better perspectives or better
expressions, and I'll be most grateful. You and everybody
see my limits better than I can.

Tang Huyen


author: Ch'an Fu

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

All of buddhist talk is nothing but cliche after cliche,
so feel free to use your own as often as you like. Join the
crowd. My latest is 'reality' - just another in the long
list - so what's to 'blow to bits' but one's own boredom and
desire for new ways of saying the same damn thing? That's
what a lot of newage is - boredom and appetite for variety
of word arrangements. If one understands the first buddhist
cliches, one won't bother with the rest except to smile and
nod. It's beyond me to understand why people have to be told
the same things over and over in different words when it's
all about no words at all.


author: Raan

text:
"Ch'an Fu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I thought it was the Hokey Pokey!


author: stumper

text:
Ch'an Fu wrote:

What do you know about others?
Why don't you just talk about yourself.

Your toxic self is
killing all the good words, moron.


text:
Ch'an Fu wrote:

I take that cliche back. They need new words
because they haven't stopped needing words.


author: raeL

subject: Re:hypocrite (was Re: What Works)

text:
"stumper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

are you talking about yourself moroon?


text:
stumper wrote:

When there's no self and other, you
can talk as you like. You're only
talking to you, after all.


subject: Re: hypocrite (was Re: What Works)

text:
raeL wrote:

"It's beyond me to understand
why people have to be told
the same things over and over
in different words
when it's all about no words at all."

Why do you eat breakfast everyday?

~Stumper.


author: Keynes

text:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 22:00:57 -0400, Ch'an Fu <[email]> wrote:

Zen trump card?   Not hardly.

What 'you' 'liking' to talk to 'whom'?

No self, no other, no action, no talking,
and definitely no self-justification.

Conceptual tar babies those cursed sutras.
The more you understand, the less you understand.

Poker players and zennists are great liars and bluffers.
Don't believe any of them.  Look out for yourself.


text:
Ch'an Fu wrote:

That's the most wonderful
and incredibly deep reply.
Thank you.

Feeling better?

how about letting others
follow their paths in peace
unless you are willing to
teach them in person.


author: Evelyn Ruut

text:
"Ch'an Fu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Maybe you ought to heed them.
After all, it is free, and he can see you better than you can see you.


subject: Re: hypocrite (was Re: What Works)

text:
"stumper" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
'blow

i don't


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

To whom then would Stumper's insult "moron" best apply?


text:
stumper wrote:

you're welcome.

except when I sneeze, yes.

sorry, did I get in your way?


subject: Re: hypocrite (was Re: What Works)

text:
"Ch'an Fu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
appetite
buddhist
over

maybe the moon is cheese and i am well, how are you?


subject: Re: hypocrite (was Re: What Works)

text:
raeL wrote:

<ooo! tsunami!>

goodly and enjoying the cheese -
it ripens daily. glad 2 c u again.


author: Andrzej Pindor

subject: Re: Paul Davies on Physics & Ultimate Reality

text:
In article <[email]>,
 <[email]> wrote:
Why is it "strange"? If you have some other propositions, less 'strange" but
with a greater potential of accuracy and potentially less interference from
other forces, spell them out. I am sure that you would become famous.

One of the differences between physics and mathematics is that you cannot
"prove" anything in physics, no experiment can conclusively "prove" a theory
even if only for the reason that you can only perform it with a finite
accuracy. One cannot even "disprove" (falsify) a theory with a 100% certainity,
since we cannot completely exclude some totally unknown effects. However,
the progress physics made in describing observed phenomena shows that one
can make a progress through nature's mysteries in spite of these uncertainities.
If you start insisting on absolutes and trying to exclude even the most
insignificant contributions to the phenomena you are trying to analyse, you
will not be abble even to take off from the starting blocks, not to mention
to make any progress.

You are wrong. It is all about analysing various contributions to the
phenomena investigated. Your suggestions above are not based on any real
quantitave analysis. People who have done such measurements supported them
with careful analysis and it is unwise (actuall 'silly' seems more appropriate
here than above) of you to claim that you know better without going through
such analysis yourself.

Andrzej


author: Josh Landess

text:
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:02:21 GMT, [email] (Andrzej Pindor)
wrote:

My dear Andrzej,

While you are busy attempting to attack every attempt at independent thought in
this thread, you might consider actually devoting some thoughts to your posts so
that fruitful discussion can take place.

As to the above point, the response is fairly simple.  Discover's article on
this matter (March '96, p. 96), which I specifically referred to earlier in the
thread was specifically about the fact that this method of measurement has
persisted for centuries, though in other areas of experimental science, methods
of measurement and experiment have changed.  Hence my use of the word "strange".
Ever so sorry if my use of English is not quite exact enough for you, to the
tenth decimal place.  As for suggesting a new method other than the torsion
ballance, this is also highlighted in the article, as a team in German is trying
to measure G based on masses pulling on pendulums.

This is foolish.  I am pointing out something about Galileo's experiment which
bothered me because I felt that it did not clarify for me some important points
about gravity.  If you wish to give thought to my posts, perhaps you will say
something that will spark thought in me.  As it stands, I cannot find anything
you've said that even appears to be a response to what I've said.

Josh Landess


text:
In article <[email]>,
Josh Landess <[email]> wrote:
I am not attacking "every attempt at independent thought". I am simply trying
to point out to some people that before they criticise what scientists do,
they should perhaps familiarize themselves better with what it is that
scientists actually do and say and why.

Firstly, the measurement based on pendulum is as open to your misguided
criticisms as the one with the torsion balance (that all other effects cannot
be exactly accounted for).
Secondly, did they use the word "strangly" in the Discovery article?
I was wondering why you have used this particular word, since for me it has
a connotation of there being some other explanation behind this fact than
a very simple one that this method provides a best accuracy and best
conditions for other effects, which might be difficult to account for, to be
small. I find it strange that instead of telling us why you consider the
mentioned fact strange you start accusing me of "attacking ....". So can
you explain why you find this "strange"? This may not be your case, but
my experience is that if a person is asked a quetsion and instead of
answering it, accuses the questioner of some sins, it usually means the he/she
either does not know the answer buyt does not want to admit it (very unlikely
in your case) or that he/she does not want to provide the answer, which
would be just as surprising. In short, your reply leaves me puzzled.

Galileo experiments were very crude, so it is fully understandable that they
could not clarify many points about gravity, in particular asked from
the perspective of 300 more years of physics. Instead of complaining that
Galileo experiments did not clarify for you for instance what happens when
we have more objects than two, shouldn't you perhaps try reading more modern
text about gravity?

Andrzej


author: Thomas J Wheat

text:
TIBETANS SLAM DALAI LAMA PORTRAIT BAN AS PROVOCATIVE
2003-11-23
http://origin.rfaweb.org/front/article.html?service=eng&encoding=10&id=121479
Tibet's government-in-exile has described as provocative a ban by the
Chinese government on portraits of the Dalai Lama in two Tibetan areas
in the southwestern Chinese province of Sichuan, RFA's Tibetan service
reports.

Tibetans in Lithang and Karze have been warned they would lose their
land unless they surrendered portraits of their spiritual leader by a
mid-December deadline, according to the government-in-exile, based in
Dharamsala, India.

"Since His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the political and religious
leader of six million Tibetans, it is very important to keep and
display photos of His Holiness to show respect and devotion,"
spokesman Sonam Norbu Dakpo told RFA in an interview.

"We believe that such restrictions are aimed at provoking Tibetans to
violent acts for the Chinese to suppress."

He said the ban aimed to deprive Tibetans of their right to practice
the religion of their choice, which is enshrined in the Chinese
constitution.

"There were also reports of the confiscation of land if photos of
Dalai Lama are not surrendered by [the] deadline," he added.

"This is a serious situation for local Tibetans whose livelihood and
survival is dependent on land and livestock. The exile government
would like to request that the Chinese government withdraw such
restrictions."

A local government official in Ganzi was quoted by Agence
France-Presse as confirming the ban. "This order has been in existence
for years," the agency quoted an official surnamed Li at the Ganzi
Religious Affairs Administration as saying.

The Dalai Lama fled Tibet for India in 1959 following a failed
uprising against Chinese rule in Lhasa.

China regularly accuses the 68-year-old monk of being a "splittist"
and objects to his meetings with world leaders.

The Dalai Lama is scheduled to meet this week in Rome with Pope John
Paul II and address a conference alongside fellow Nobel peace laureate
Mikhail Gorbachev.#####


author: Water Barbarian

subject: Re: TIBETANS SLAM DALAI LAMA PORTRAIT BAN AS PROVOCATIVE

text:
The remaining thing you can post is either some propaganda
stuff from Dalai Lama or herpes of Mao.

Carry on, Tom, victory is nearer for you.

"Thomas J Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://origin.rfaweb.org/front/article.html?service=eng&encoding=10&id=121479


author: Harbinger

text:
There is every reason to ban the display of the portrait of DL

Would any government give prominent display to a collaborator of CIA  ?

Imagine a portrait of Quisling displayed at the British home  !!

"Thomas J Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
http://origin.rfaweb.org/front/article.html?service=eng&encoding=10&id=121479


author: Sutek

text:
"Water Barbarian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:lSgwb.219178$9E1.1197353@attbi_s52...
That's the way, just dismiss it. Anything against the communists is
automatically untrue.
http://origin.rfaweb.org/front/article.html?service=eng&encoding=10&id=121479


text:
"Harbinger" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bptd1v$l0l$[email]...
It's called freedom, Sad Sack. Pix of Mao, Stalin, Hussein are all legal in
the US. Nobody gets executed or imprisoned for it.
http://origin.rfaweb.org/front/article.html?service=eng&encoding=10&id=121479


text:
But those liars had been saying that DL's protrait was banned
several years ago. Why it need to be banned again?

"Harbinger" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bptd1v$l0l$[email]...
http://origin.rfaweb.org/front/article.html?service=eng&encoding=10&id=121479


text:
"Sutek" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
in
Mr. Sutek. Don't give freedom a bad name.The rights of freedom do not
entitle one to sell his countriy.

The difference between Mao, Stalin and Hussein of one part and Dalai Lama of
the other is that the formers loved their countries and the latter is a
Quisling.


author: Brian Jackson

text:
In article <UrAwb.224278$9E1.1230257@attbi_s52>,
"Water Barbarian" <[email]> wrote:

I think you didn't even read the article. It said the ban had been in
place for years, but many apologists here always say it's only been
strictly enforced in TAR. They often bragged about how easy-going the
authorities were on the issue outside of TAR, and would cite news
reports from Kham or Amdo areas where the portraits caused no fuss by
the police. Well, it seems that has all changed now, and probably
required no more than a central directive to be equally strict in all
Tibetan areas. This childish, intolerant oppression simply spreads to
a wider area than the 1/3 of Tibet's land inside the TAR. It sure says
something about the Chinese government's sincerity in improving their
relations, or establishing mutual trust with the Tibetan government.
While the Tibetan side has gone to great lengths to compliment the
Chinese for having a good attitude during the recent visits, avoids
sharp criticism and even discourages overt protest against Chinese
leaders in order to continually improve the atmosphere, now the
Chinese pull another clampdown on free religous expression. And if you
read it, what was the Tibetan government's response? Something like
"We request the Chinese authorities to reconsider this decision."

It's certainly very clear to me who's making the real effort here.

Brian


text:
"Water Barbarian" <[email]> wrote in message news:<UrAwb.224278$9E1.1230257@attbi_s52>...
Blame the CCP. Supposedly the chinese government allows freedom of
religion, yet then it bans portraits of the dalai lama. Gosh can the
CCP really take your house from you if your caught with a picture of
the Dalai Lama? It looks very much that way.


text:
"Harbinger" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bq0ru0$j58$[email]...
of
Mr. Hardliner, don't get confused. What I said is true and is an example of
a free country that is not afraid of free speech. You Maoists are cowards.


text:
So, who is right, the apologists or the liars? The former said
that the protrait wasn't banned outside TAR while the liars
insisted that it was banned in China.

"Brian Jackson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:7CDx/[email]...
organisation,
prohibited
barley-flour-throwing


text:
"Thomas J Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<UrAwb.224278$9E1.1230257@attbi_s52>...

Tom, now you just keep blabling out nonesense. What happened to you?


text:
"Water Barbarian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:kJ1xb.234007$275.876062@attbi_s53...
You already decided.
You don't believe either one.
celebrating
2001


text:
"Water Barbarian" <[email]> wrote in message news:<OQSwb.226793$mZ5.1714771@attbi_s54>...
I was being topical. The article I posted said that those Tibetans
found with portraits of the dalai lama in their homes would lose their
land. Now who is the imperialist dispossessor, none only then the CCP.


text:
"Thomas J Wheat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<OQSwb.226793$mZ5.1714771@attbi_s54>...

How do you know it is "that way"? Any thing to support your assumption?


author: * US *

subject: Re: Trayvon Martin was an innocent unarmed pedestrian victim yet the rabid feebleminded frenzied racist still wants to rationalize lynching

text:
On 12 May 2012 05:24:23 -0000, "Keyboard Shittlins!" <[email]> wrote:

You're sad, indeed.

On 7 May 2012 18:05:57 -0000, "Keyboard Shittlins!" <[email]> wrote:

You do have problems.

Real Americans don't want to be murdered by vigilantes.

Zimmerman is no longer able to intimidate the neighbors.

Zimmerman is now being prevented from threatening his neighbors.

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:26:41 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like it when an innocent American kid is deprived of his freedom and his life.

Zimmerman needs to be kept off the street until he can function normally.

Zimmerman has been stalking and harassing neighbors.

Zimmerman is a ticking time bomb in need of being defused.

Zimmerman's racist hatred is quite obvious.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11503803-george-zimmermans-old-myspace-page-includes-slurs-against-mexicans?lite

On Tue, 01 May 2012 07:43:02 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like the way your racist idol spews hate.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:00:43 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like those who harm Americans.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:00:10 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like Americans being harmed.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:56:09 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like kids being terrorized.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:51:32 -0700, Pimples<[email]> wrote:

You like it when Americans are harmed because you hate all Americans.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:45:43 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like it when a loser panics and murders an innocent kid.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:14:44 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You adore his cowardice because you're defective.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:50:05 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like embarrassing yourself in public.

Zimmerman would have heeded the recommendation that he not
follow his victim, except then he wouldn't have had a victim.


author: Donn Messenheimer

subject:
Re: Trayvon Martin was an innocent unarmed pedestrian victim yet
 the rabid feebleminded frenzied racist still wants to rationalize lynching

text:
Blowjob, aka *I Hate the US*, lied:

Martin should have stayed at home - in Miami - instead of prowling for
unlocked cars and open windows in Orlando.


text:
On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:05:35 -0700, Blowjob <[email]> wrote:

It's not about you, though.

It's about how Zimmerman could have avoided killing his victim,
except that he was determined to kill his victim.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/05/the-trayvon-transcripts-witness-describes-zimmermans-attititude-just-tell-my-wife-i-shot-somebody-li.html

On 13 May 2012 21:58:55 -0000, "Dachshund Diddler" <[email]> wrote:

Trayvon Martin certainly had that.

On 12 May 2012 05:24:23 -0000, "Keyboard Shittlins!" <[email]> wrote:

You're sad, indeed.

On 7 May 2012 18:05:57 -0000, "Keyboard Shittlins!" <[email]> wrote:

You do have problems.

Real Americans don't want to be murdered by vigilantes.

Zimmerman is no longer able to intimidate the neighbors.

Zimmerman is now being prevented from threatening his neighbors.

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:26:41 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like it when an innocent American kid is deprived of his freedom and his life.

Zimmerman needs to be kept off the street until he can function normally.

Zimmerman has been stalking and harassing neighbors.

Zimmerman is a ticking time bomb in need of being defused.

Zimmerman's racist hatred is quite obvious.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11503803-george-zimmermans-old-myspace-page-includes-slurs-against-mexicans?lite

On Tue, 01 May 2012 07:43:02 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like the way your racist idol spews hate.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:00:43 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like those who harm Americans.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:00:10 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like Americans being harmed.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:56:09 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like kids being terrorized.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:51:32 -0700, Pimples<[email]> wrote:

You like it when Americans are harmed because you hate all Americans.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:45:43 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like it when a loser panics and murders an innocent kid.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:14:44 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You adore his cowardice because you're defective.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:50:05 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like embarrassing yourself in public.

Zimmerman would have heeded the recommendation that he not
follow his victim, except then he wouldn't have had a victim.


text:
On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:54:16 -0700, Blowjob <[email]> wrote:

Zimmerman certainly was.

On 12 May 2012 05:24:23 -0000, "Keyboard Shittlins!" <[email]> wrote:

You're sad, indeed.

On 7 May 2012 18:05:57 -0000, "Keyboard Shittlins!" <[email]> wrote:

You do have problems.

Real Americans don't want to be murdered by vigilantes.

Zimmerman is no longer able to intimidate the neighbors.

Zimmerman is now being prevented from threatening his neighbors.

On Thu, 03 May 2012 08:26:41 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like it when an innocent American kid is deprived of his freedom and his life.

Zimmerman needs to be kept off the street until he can function normally.

Zimmerman has been stalking and harassing neighbors.

Zimmerman is a ticking time bomb in need of being defused.

Zimmerman's racist hatred is quite obvious.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11503803-george-zimmermans-old-myspace-page-includes-slurs-against-mexicans?lite

On Tue, 01 May 2012 07:43:02 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like the way your racist idol spews hate.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:00:43 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like those who harm Americans.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:00:10 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like Americans being harmed.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:56:09 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like kids being terrorized.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:51:32 -0700, Pimples<[email]> wrote:

You like it when Americans are harmed because you hate all Americans.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:45:43 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like it when a loser panics and murders an innocent kid.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:14:44 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You adore his cowardice because you're defective.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:50:05 -0700, Pimples <[email]> wrote:

You like embarrassing yourself in public.

Zimmerman would have heeded the recommendation that he not
follow his victim, except then he wouldn't have had a victim.


author: william mosco

subject: Re: New survey on teen sexual activity fails to present whole story

text:
On Aug 7, 1:15 am, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

you're an idiot.


author: james g. keegan jr.

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 william mosco <[email]> wrote:

did you cry when you whined that?


text:
On Aug 24, 8:33 am, "W.T.S." <[email]> wrote:

100% know, because they were told, that abstaining from sex is a
guarantee that they won't get pregnant.

i never said it couldn't work.

that is pure bullshit. 57% have proved you wrong.

the study didn't say that 100% of the 43% were pregnant.  it didn't
give the percentage.  so, you're just bullshitting again.


text:
On Aug 26, 8:27 am, "james g. keegan jr." <[email]> wrote:

you clearly believe it doesn't work, when it has worked and i
documented where it has worked.  it's not a failure if it doesn't
reach 100 percent.

abstinence education takes less than five seconds.  i don't see how
that can destroy anything.


text:
In article <7445655b-a9ac-43e7-ba60-
[email]>, [email] says...
Bottom line:  Comprehensive sex education works.  Abstinence only
education is a total failure.

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
http://www.imnotsorry.net
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 william mosco <[email]> wrote:

here billy documents that abstinence education doesn't work while
whining that it does. typical billy.


text:
In article
<[email]>,
 william mosco <[email]> wrote:

and here billy simply repeats some of his previously refuted lies.

i know you don't. that's why i cut you so much slack.


author: Gwynne S Mayer

subject: Astrology/Mythology

text:
Astrological Mythology
Mythology is very prevalent in Astrology and is understood both on a
spiritual level and a personal level as being associated with the archetypal
processes in each of the signs, Aries through Pisces.  The myths that go
with the different signs also can be analyzed as a personal myth if you
associate with the characters to any degree.  Myths are lived out in our
deep unconscious, termed by Carl Jung as the Collective Unconscious.  Your
astrological myths that are indicative of your personal chart provide a type
of River Bed by which to let your RIVER EXPERIENCES FLOW.  So your
experiences can be varied and very personal and reality based, however as we
move deeper into those experiences we find a myth or STORY which is the base
of your experience.  You may have FAMILY MYTHS, RELATIONSHIP MYTHS, CAREER
MYTHS, WARRIOR MYTHS, RELIGIOUS MYTHS, all relating to your own personal
chart.  Your chart may show you at any one time (usually by transit or
progression) engaged in multiple MYTHS or ARCHETYPAL STORIES, depending on
the planets involved.
I follow a Jungian pattern of thinking in regards to
astrology/psychology/metaphysics and if any of you are ever interested in
further explanations regarding any of the principles that I will mention,
please feel free to contact me through e-mail for more explanation, HCJA14A.
I am a great believer that we need to tell our story, write our story, go
inward to find our story.  I will be doing a lecture series in September on
RELATIONSHIPS and it will be important for you to have some of this
background philosophy in order to understand where I might be coming from
ideologically.  We share our archetypes and our myths, unbeknownst to us,
most of the time in relationships..This is how I will approach the
astrological/mythological relationship ....through the field of PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIPS, working with the POLARITIES OF EACH SIGN. Remember there is
so much more information regarding all of this and much more depth ...we
might have time from your QUESTIONS.
Let's begin with the Aries/Libra axis...and speak to the mythological
characters which define these two opposites...forming a soul relationship
for balance.  Aries is the god of warriors and also during the age of
ARIES...the following gods reigned supreme...Indra, Zeus, Thor, and Lugh,
these gods being very phallic and masculine, primal fire...energy
plus...This is the person who has great gusto and spirit and looks for the
beauty of the LIBRA...the goddess of wisdom, whom I associate with Athena
who sprang from the head of her father, Zeus.  So much of the Aries/Libra
axis has a narcissistic quality about it, always valuing beauty, wisdom, and
honor above all other, usually in that order.
Taurus/Scorpio axis...Taurus is the Bull and the Dionysis, the earth god,
the lover of all things which appeal to the senses and will indulge the
senses to the point where all wisdom and good judgment go out the window,
sometimes the indulging is in materiality and possessions other than
food/wine and all things related to Dionysis..  The lord of Buddha's
birthday falls on Wesak which is the full moon in May (Taurus) and is
considered the most important full moon of the year, honoring the great
blessing of earth and the fullness of the spring.  Scorpio the opposite is
the great Kundalini, Pluto the god of the underworld..the god of the
unconscious, the Kundalini of the Inner Path...Scorpio's live in this world
quite naturally, never realizing that others may be fearful of this
undercurrent world filled with the snakes of manipulation and deceit which
are also part of being alive, and they are fearless whereas we are more
fearful of those dark underworld characters in our lives, if we are not
Scorpio's.
Gemini/Sagittarius axis --- Gemini is the dual sign..Romulus/Remus...duality
of relationships, youthful twin gods, and also not to forget Hermes, the
mercurial god of communication...There is indication that it is the
beginning of man...with the ascent of Adam and Eve...the male and female
side of us..our communication with the two sides of our beingness,
male/female.  The interplay of these two sides often account for the mood
swings in these twins which make up one sign.  The Sagittarius is the
Archer/far reaching Centaur...Chiron..This sign is half man and half horse
who is aiming his bow at the heavens, learning to set his vision toward the
higher philosophies and teachings of the universe..the fall back being that
this sign misses the real world point of earth at times because the vision
is moving toward the heavens.  Try to get a Sagittarian off the subject when
they are in a lecture/teaching mode...and you will see what I mean.  These
two have  an eternal dialogue between the earth and the heavens.
Cancer/Capricorn axis --- Cancer represents the Lunar Goddess, the mother
goddess, such as Ceres/Demeter, who protects her children from the harm of
the underworld.  She can also represent the Courtesan, taking care of her
men, however their is a dichotomy of thinking regarding the pull between the
matron/Madonna and the courtesan/lover...It is one that is eternal and pulls
at the very soul, similar to the tides of the oceans, reacting to the moon
cycles with mood swings.  Capricorn on the other hand is the Wise Old
God..or the Devil...the fallen Lucifer..the wisdom of the EARTH as opposed
to the Heavens...however this sign was once the angel who lived in the
Heavens and came to the earth to experience the hell of the earth.  Much of
the practicality that surrounds Capricorns is there because of the necessary
experience of the earth plane and all that entails.  These folks have the
firmest grasp on what the earth bound soul needs to do to evolve back to the
home Heaven..
Leo/Aquarius  axis --- Leo is the Sun God...Zeus..the paternal Father of
all...bringing in the importance of the king of the beasts, the necessary
authority figure which needs to own up to the responsibility of expression
and spontaneous heartfelt care.  The Leo needs the father figure to be an
appropriate authority figure...so that role models can be  addressed and
responsibilities adhered to.  Aquarius is the waterbearer..and also the
Uranus God of Chaos..representing the beginning of time and mankind..always
looking at the organization of the universe through chaotic lenses, able to
understand rebellion and disorganization.  This sign thinks very clearly in
that mode.
Virgo/Pisces axis --- Virgo represents the Madonna, the Virgin Goddess,  the
Virginal side of Demeter, the whore side of the Madonna also..as Mary
Magdalene...This pristine sign has a strong duality and obsession with
purity  which comes just in time to meet the polarity of the
Piscean...purging healer the Christ/Master/Buddha...the Master teacher..the
reformer..through absorption's of all negativity on this planet..These two
truly carry the cross for the universe...and help others almost to the point
of enslavement to get the spiritual essence of being on the planet...One is
the mother...of the son of a God...and the other is the son of a God that
originated when the earth was born...Whether it is a Christian principle or
not..it is of the PISCEAN age...when martyrs were birthed...


author: Saul Steinberg

subject: Re: Astrology/Mythology

text:
Dear All . . .

We have a marvelous set of 4 videos on Astrology.

They are each 2 hours and are for the benefit of  . . .

The Beginner, The intermediate and the advanced.

Anyone interested, please let us know.

We are Mind and Miracles in Ft Laud., FL call 954 389 8076 or e mail.

Happy New Year. and Love.


author: Deborah Mattingly Conner

subject: Re: Astrology/Mythology

text:
Gwynne and fellow pilgrims,
And when we are dealing with intuition and symbols, as we are here, it is
good to be reminded that these are slippery things: the stuff of Mercurius.
What you process into your personal mythology, or adapt in drawing on
another's Imagination, can quickly turn into dogma when you bring it into
consciousness and 'name' it.  Isn't that always the poisonous part of
religion and academics?  I think following anyone or anything has a danger
(which we rather like: Mercurius as Lovelace or Lilith.  My, but yielding is
erotic...), and not what Jung was ever suggesting we should do.  He knew the
wisdom of sitting at the feet.  The moment of grasping a truth, cosmic
vision, etc. is so overpowering, the very meaning of awe; and it's our
nature to want to keep it and own it.  When the memory of the moment becomes
more important than the mystery that led you there, it transmogrifies itself
into dogma... and dogma is a hungry thing that wants to be fed, served, and
fought over.  It just doesn't make a good marriage (an affair, maybe; and
burning has its value).  I think there are all sorts of yogas of magic,
philosophy, astrology... that are methods of expanding reality (Florence
Farr wrote beautiful tracts on this a century ago; she also left herself to
us in her lover's work: Yeats & Shaw.  She is worth putting in your
constellation... but back on target) that are valuable exercises.  But I
think it is hugely, monstrously (BIG) important to see them as tools...
sticks that help one sound the depths -- reach into dark woods -- as you
create your own path.
I really do believe that consciousness is god waking up in the field of
time.  It's a difficult alchemy, wrought with danger and mistakes, all
performed on the fly, an ever realigning matrix that grows and awakens only
through experiment and imperfection.  It is wonderful... and it does aspire
to the condition of music: the minor chords make it rich.
There.  I've had my little mass.  (And yes, I am a Scorpio.)
Regards and good wishes,
Deborah Mattingly Conner
[email]
www.artistfirst.com/conner1.htm


subject: Re: In Trayvon Martin's text messages, talk of marijuana, fights and guns

text:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:28:38 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

Of course not, I am saying jury decisions are a question of competing
narratives and a legally binding decision not a matter of truth.

No, he mangles and snips texts,removes cites and claims they were
never posted and suggests claims were made when they were clearly not,
as in this instance.

Anything to create FUD and confusion.


author: RD Sandman

text:
GOP_Decline_and_Fall <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Juries and courts tend to do their best to make it the truth compared to
an opinion blog.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

Old Air Force adage..The only time you have too
much fuel is when you are on fire!!


text:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:49:16 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

They are enjoined to make a decision based on the evidence presented.

Hence the furious scramble to try to prevent the jury knowing that
expert audio analysts conclude Trayvon was shot while screaming
begging for his life and Zimmerman is a pathological liar.


author: Johnny Johnson

text:
In article <[email]>, DNC_Slip_and_Fall
<[email] says...
Uh, Slippy:

Zimmerman Speech Expert: Trayvon Martin?s Scream On 911 Call Is ?Imaginary
Stuff?
by Evan McMurry | 9:51 am, June 9th, 2013

A recorded scream was at the center of an unusual Saturday court hearing in the
George Zimmerman pre-trial, with speech experts differing over whether it was
Trayvon Martin who could be heard in the background of a 911 call.

Earlier this week, voice forensic experts testified that the voice belongs to
Martin, who would have been screaming just before Zimmerman shot him; one of
the analysts claimed that Martin could be heard saying, ?I?m begging you.? The
identification was made by comparing the audio to other recordings of Martin?s
voice.

But on Saturday, ZImmerman?s attorney called speech scientist George
Doddington, who said, ?That?s imaginary stuff,? and labeled the earlier
experts? methods ?absurd.?

The hearing was held to determine whether the audio should be admissible when
Zimmerman goes on trial for murdering Martin in early 2012. Both sides seem to
think the tape redeems their case. Zimmerman?s attorney argues it is in fact
his client screaming on the call, vindicating Zimmerman?s claim that he acted
in self-defense. Prosecutors intend to use the tape to prove Zimmerman was the
aggressor.

Watch the clip here, via ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/speech-expert-imaginary-hear-trayvon-martin-pleas-
911/story?id=19356188

-30-

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/zimmerman-speech-expert-trayvon-martins-scream-on-
911-call-is-imaginary-stuff/


text:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 16:53:33 -0500, Johnny Johnson
<[email]> wrote:

The self documented liar that is Zimmerman's attorney says it's
"imaginary" so the experts must be wrong?

We can also hear his attorney telling the judge  his buddies beat up a
homeless guy while Trayvon videoed it, but that's all lies too.

We can expect many of the never ending Zimmerman lies that have been
the hallmark of this case to unravel at trial, even if he doesn't have
the courage to answer any questions or give evidence.


author: Spartakus

subject: Former congressional page tells of sexual encounter with Foley

text:
Here's the story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-page8oct08,0,3896853.story?coll=la-home-headlines

OK, now we know that Foley had sex with at least one page, although he
was careful to wait until the young man was a consenting adult.  Was he
*always* this careful?  Would it be a safe bet to say that he always
waited for these pages to reach the age of consent before having sex
with them?

And is it irresponsible to speculate?  According to Peggy Noonan, it
would be irresponsible *not* to speculate.


author: zzpat

subject: Re: Former congressional page tells of sexual encounter with Foley

text:
Spartakus wrote:

I didn't read this particular story but it looks like an American
soldier fighting in Iraq was targeted by Foley a few years ago. He has
to testify before Congress about what Foley did or didn't do.


text:
zzpat wrote:

Saw that just this morning.

To be followed shortly thereafter by a 21-putz swiftboating.


author: George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.

text:
On 8 Oct 2006 06:31:08 -0700, "Spartakus" <[email]>
wrote:

Yes. THe age of consent in Washington DC is 16.

Peggy Noonan is insane. She thinks god sent porpoises to save Elian
Gonzalez.


author: Rich

subject: Hate Crime Hoax At Claremont Colleges

text:
Interesting, when a female college professor creates a fraudulant hate
crime, the effects are the same as when a college student makes a
false rape accusation, in both cases everyone acts as if the crime
were real, even after it's known that it is not, and in both cases the
women involved are not charged by the police or sanctioned by the
University for a clear violation of the campus's codes of conduct.

Is there anything a women can do on Campus for which she will be
blamed or held responsible? Seems unlikely.

Rich

---

http://www.discriminations.us/

Hate Crime Hoax At Claremont Colleges  March 17, 2004

Long-time readers will recall a series of posts here about the Daisy
Lundy alleged hate crime at the University of Virginia. (Too many
posts to cite. To find them just search for Daisy in the "search the
site" box to the right.) Ms. Lundy, for those of you were not here
then, is a UVa undergrad who was running for president of the student
council last year, and seemed about to lose. She claimed that she had
been attacked early one morning, both physically and with racist
verbal abuse. The university community convulsed, a large reward was
offered, committees were set up, new programs were instituted, vigils
were held, hands were wrung. Ms. Lundy won the election after her
opponent withdrew, and nothing has been heard of the incident since.

For the past several weeks the Claremont Colleges in California have
been experiencing a hate crime convulsion that was set off by what
appear to have been real incidents. A Message from President Steadman
Upham of the Claremont Graduate University provides some of the
background of the series of events.
The series started with the theft of a cross from the Pomona College
art gallery by undergraduate students from three of the colleges. The
cross was taken to the Harvey Mudd campus and set ablaze.

The cross burning is a deep affront to our minority students and
faculty, and to everyone associated with the colleges. Ironically and
sadly, the students - athletes on campus before the return of students
for the spring term - say they did not fully realize the symbolism of
the event. A judicial conduct board is currently hearing their case,
and the students face a variety of sanctions, including expulsion.

In the weeks that followed, African-American posters have been defaced
at Claremont McKenna College and Scripps. There have also been threats
made to gay and lesbian students, again, at the undergraduate
colleges. These senseless acts violate the very principles that
guarantee the free flow of ideas in an academic community.

Then matters escalated. As Claremont McKenna College President Pamela
Gunn explained in a letter to CMC alumni on March 10:

Last evening, after the most recent community forum at CMC's
Athenaeum, an absolutely shocking and unconscionable act was
perpetrated against a CMC faculty member who has spoken out on these
issues. In particular, the faculty member's car was vandalized on
campus. The windows were broken, the tires were slashed, and the body
of the vehicle was spray painted with various racial, religious, and
gender-based epithets.

The Claremont Police responded and classified this incident as a hate
crime. The Claremont Police will pursue a serious investigation of
this crime, and if any alleged perpetrators are arrested, they will
pursue the ultimate penalties under law. I have also asked every
single member of this community and of The Claremont Colleges to help
us solve this crime and to cooperate with the police investigation. I
announced to our students Tuesday evening that CMC will offer a
$10,000 reward to anyone who comes forward with information leading to
the solving of this crime.

A hate crime such as this one is the greatest imaginable affront to
everything that we stand for at CMC. Our community and our ability to
have discourse have been directly and violently attacked by conduct
and speech in an unconscionable act that was specifically targeted
against a faculty member. We cannot possibly carry on as a teaching
and learning community if persons physically threaten property and
person in a way that leaves no doubt that it was in response to
speech. We remain committed to maintaining a college community that
has zero tolerance for these types of incidents.

Students and others responded spontaneously and forcefully last
evening. They justifiably want Wednesday to be a day to gather to
respond to this event and earlier events at The Claremont Colleges.
The students have organized numerous events throughout the day on
Wednesday, including a sit-in on the North Quandrangle, and a
5-College rally on the CMC campus at 8:00 PM Wednesday night.

In light of these events, I have also directed that CMC cancel classes
today, and the other Claremont Colleges have also cancelled classes.
One never lightly cancels classes, for to do so in some way suggests
that we can be bullied by the perpetrators of such a heinous crime.
Yet, we need every single person in this community to come together,
to follow his or her conscience, and to start a process of regaining
control of our community. In this way, we can hope to tell the
perpetrators that they will in the end be defeated and repudiated.

As President Gunn's letter indicated, the Claremont colleges mobilized
quickly. Also on March 10 the Senates of the Claremont Colleges and
the Rally Organizing Committee distributed the following partial
schedule of anti-hate activities:

Apathy towards hatred is not acceptable in any situation, but a
passive response to the recent events in Claremont is no longer
acceptable either. It is time for every member of the Claremont
Colleges community to act to reclaim our campuses.

It is unacceptable that our peers feel unsafe at our Colleges. It is
intolerable that individuals among us feel justified in a violent
expression of hate. We must not allow these events to sabotage our
community or to dominate our lives.

The events scheduled today are not only a response to the recent
hateful vandalism in Claremont, but a concerted effort to reclaim our
community. The course we are on is being perilously steered by a tiny
minority who would have us fearful and divided. We as a community must
come together and reverse that course, pointing it in a direction of
tolerance for everyone that comprises the Claremont Colleges.

The schedule of events for reclaiming our campuses is as follows
(please note that due to the short notice some events may change ï¿½
check your email for updates):

8:00 am ï¿½ 12:00 pm: Individual Campus responses. Pomona will show a
video of the vandalized vehicle at Marston Quad and have both written
and verbal forums for student responses.

10:00 am: Office of Black Student Affairs Press Conference, to be held
at the OBSA Office, 139 East Seventh Street.

11:00 am: Lunch at Collins Dining Hall, CMC, hosted by OBSA.

12:00 pm: Sit-in Show of Solidarity in the center of North Quad at
CMC.

OBSA requests that you wear black for this event in order to show
community solidarity.

7:15 pm: Community Members not already participating in events at CMC
should convene as individual college communities at the following
meeting places:

Harvey Mudd ï¿½ Lawn in front of the Linde Activities Center.
Pitzer ï¿½ The Mounds.
Pomona ï¿½ Marston Quadrangle.
Scripps ï¿½ Turf in front of Malott Commons and Balch Auditorium.

7:30 pm: Assembled College Communities will begin to walk towards
Parents Field in the Center of the Claremont McKenna campus.

8:00 ï¿½ 8:30 pm: Five College Community Rally at Parents Field, CMC.

There will be a brief introduction, a keynote speaker, and a three
minute speech from a member of each of the five college communities.
Speakers will be announced as they are confirmed.

8:30 pm or End of Rally: Community members will be encouraged to
proceed to a multitude of forums, discussions, and reflection sessions
around campus. More information will follow regarding meeting places
as they are confirmed.

College communities seem to have an unmatched ability to work
themselves up into a frenzy of self-flagellation over incidents of
hate, even though the hateful acts themselves are isolated incidents
of a few individuals, or less. (Here, according to President Upham's
letter cited above, the students who stole and burned the cross were
athletes who "say they did not fully realize the symbolism of the
event."). In a move that has now become predictable in such
situations, the Claremont Graduate University Board of Trustees moved
quickly "to create the Permanent Group on Tolerance, Fairness, and
Diversity composed of trustees from every working committee of the
board."

At the Board meeting that created this group one of the trustees spoke
in a manner that, in other circumstances, would have been described
as, well, corny. As described in a statement by CGU President Upham:

Trustee Matthew Jenkins, an African-American who has experienced the
sting of racial intolerance throughout his life, spoke eloquently and
forcefully in board committee meetings and in front of the full board
about racism and its origins. Using a powerful reverse metaphor, he
said that if corn is planted on the sidewalk, it will not grow no
matter how much it is fertilized and watered. But if corn is planted
in a fertile field, it will sprout and flourish. He then compared the
environment of the Claremont Colleges to the fertile field. He said
bluntly that racist and anti-Semitic acts would not have happened
unless the environment at the Claremont Colleges provided nourishment
for them to exist.

Dr. Jenkins is right. Incidents of intolerance have occurred because
we have allowed the conditions that sustain racism and anti-Semitism
to exist. Eradicating these conditions must become a priority of
everyone associated with CGU and the other Claremont Colleges. This is
not a job for someone else to do. Rather, each one of us needs to
examine our own actions, fears, and motivations in light of this
recognition.

Up to this point the trajectory of moralistic self-abasement (the
guiltier you say you are, the more moral you prove yourself to be) was
very similar to the course of events last year at UVa. But what
appears to be the conclusion is very different. Or is it? Consider
this last letter that President Upham distributed to all CGU students
today (March 17) (sent to me by a CGU student) and posted on the CGU
web site. Here are the first two paragraphs:

Update on Hate Crime from President Upham:

Dear Colleagues:
Today the Claremont Police Department issued a news release concerning
progress toward solving the recent crime involving a visiting
professor at Claremont McKenna College-a crime of vandalism and theft
that was deemed a hate crime. I wrote to you regarding this situation
last week. In its news release, the Claremont Police Department
reported that:

"The Claremont Police Department and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation have completed their investigation into the alleged hate
crime on the Claremont McKenna College campus. During the course of
the investigation, two eye witnesses came forward who positively
identified the victim as vandalizing her own vehicle. Additionally,
interviews with the alleged victim revealed inconsistencies in her
statements regarding the incident.

You might think that at this point it would be in order to heave a
presidential sigh of relief that the Claremont Colleges are not such a
fertile breeding ground for racism, anti-Semitism, and intolerance
after all. Moreover, it might occur to you that a thoughtful president
should observe that the real hate crime is the fraudulent accusation
of hate crimes and call for campus-wide consideration and discussion
of exactly why it was that the collection of colleges was so ready to
implode in a paroxysm of racial guilt.

But if you thought that would be how a modern college president would
respond to this shameful series of events, you'd of course be wrong.
How President Upham did conclude this letter is as predictable as the
series of events leading up to it:

Whatever the ultimate outcome, I remain heartened with the outpouring
of support we saw last week on our campus and throughout the Claremont
Colleges for the values of inclusiveness, tolerance, and diversity. As
a university, we are committed to taking concrete steps to make CGU a
place where all people feel welcome and included, regardless of their
race, gender, culture, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality. I
look forward to reporting to you on our progress. As always, I welcome
your comments on how we can build a better community.

There is no word yet whether the hoaxing professor, Kerri F. Dunn, a
visiting assistant professor of psychology, will be prosecuted.
According to a recent story that recently ran on the AP wire,

Dunn could not immediately be reached for comment. She was not taken
into police custody.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said
she had no comment because prosecutors have not received the case.

UPDATE

I should have known: Erin O'Connor beat me to this one, as usual. See
her post and her additional links.

UPDATE UPDATE

Today's Los Angeles Times has an article today about the Claremont
fake hate.
[Kerri Dunn] was not arrested, but Claremont Police Lt. Stan Van Horn
said the case would be sent to the Los Angeles County district
attorney for review and that the likely charge would be filing a false
police report, a misdemeanor. The FBI said she might face more serious
felony charges of lying to federal investigators.

.... The police contention that Dunn staged the incident triggered a
wave of anger against her Wednesday and fears that students would
become cynical about racism.

"This is like a very big deal if they think I'm a suspect," Dunn said
in the doorway of her Redlands home. "I didn't want any of this from
the beginning. This is so overshadowing the bigger problem on campus,
which is that the administration has turned its head regularly on hate
speech and hate crimes."
Like a very big deal? Now why would she say that? True, there was no,
like, actual hate crime, but think how much better everyone feels now
that they've been given an opportunity to demonstrate how "inclusive"
and "welcoming" they are.

Katherine Lind, chairwoman of the Claremont Committee on Human
Relations, a city agency, said she was upset by the news but that her
biggest concern was that students would be discouraged by the outcome
of the investigation. "What they did ï¿½ the rallies, the forums ï¿½ was
really inspiring," she said. "Their passion was a lesson for us all.

"I urge the students to continue to articulate their problems and not
let this incident dissuade them in any way," Lind said.

Claremont McKenna College President Pamela Dunn said that Dunn's
continued employment was under review "but that the college remained
committed to ï¿½academic freedom and free speech.'"

Call me paranoid, but I think there's a double standard at work here.
If I made all this stuff up, someone would surely accuse me of making
it up ï¿½ and be more upset at my prevarication than inspired by the
Ultimate Truth of my cause.


author: Daran

subject: Re: Hate Crime Hoax At Claremont Colleges

text:
On 18 Mar 2004 13:04:15 -0800 Rich <[email]> wrote in message
<[email]>...

Of course, there's no "alleged" in there.  She's just presumed guilty.

The case has been forwarded to the DA, and her employment at the college is
"under review".  This of course, is ridiculous.  There should be no inquiry
or time for reflection.  The instant a question is raised about the truth of
an allegation, the lying bitch should be sacked and tossed in jail without
further ado.

The page is now at <http://www.discrimination.us/storage/002534.html>

[...]

Why bother.  Like you, the website has found her guilty without trial.  We
should proceed straight to the lynching.


text:
Daran <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

There was no "alleged" in the hate crime Daran. Funny you're not
complaining about that. Well, not really. You are as biased as they
get, it's to be expected.

Unlike the hate crime, there were two witnesses who saw her deface her
own car Daran. Clearly you must think that they are lying.

Yeah, it gives the appearance of doing something.

So you post like you claim soc.men posters post. How nice.

What was your complaint again?

In fact, despite your hyperbole, women who make false rape accusations
or create fraudulant hate crimes are almost never sanctioned or
punished. Clearly you don't think that it should even be possible. You
create impossible barriers to FRA convictions, and hyperbole to defend
women whom all the evidence shows fabricated a hate crime. Is there
any crime by a woman you think should be punishable?

Rich