Steven Quint -:- Help Wanted -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:27:29 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- Help Wanted....What's Help? -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:55:18 (GMT)

__ Salam -:- Oh hello Steven -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:08:56 (GMT)

__ Sir Dave -:- Actually I thought that was funny -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:23:04 (GMT)

__ DV -:- Whats your fucking problem? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 00:17:23 (GMT)

__ __ John K -:- Whats your fucking problem? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 13:22:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ DV -:- Hey John! Give me a clue! Nice to hear from you!nt -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:29:53 (GMT)

__ __ AJW -:- Maybe Steve is... -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:36:00 (GMT)

__ __ Steven Quint -:- Whats your fucking problem? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 06:40:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ cq -:- DV seems to have as much sym/empathy as the maha -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:25:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Steven Quint -:- DV seems to have as much sym/empathy as the maha -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:53:55 (GMT)

__ me -:- Help us maintain proper forum behaviour -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 22:09:52 (GMT)

__ __ Steven Quint -:- Help us maintain proper forum behaviour -:- Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 08:49:02 (GMT)

JohnT -:- Une perle pour Joan -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:35:43 (GMT)

__ Selene -:- thanks for the poem -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:39:20 (GMT)

__ __ JohnT -:- thanks Selene -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:59:46 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- Perfectly pithy poem, John -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:23:49 (GMT)

__ __ JohnT -:- Perfectly pithy poem, John -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:39:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, I agree -- and also, I dare you to try this -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:18:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Look, you dared me to 'come-out' here ... -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:52:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I'd love to but tables? How 'dat? (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:15:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- turning tables -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 08:12:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Great, thanks a lot (nt) -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 19:29:30 (GMT)

__ Oliver -:- To Joan...Do not cast your pearls before swine. NT -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:17:58 (GMT)

__ __ JohnT -:- a finesse! -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:35:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- How do you do small print? (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:45:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- How to do small print -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:58:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- font tests +3 to -3 -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:53:27 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- The only swine she served her swill to was you -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:27:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ Oliver -:- Do you know what I like about you Jim? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:23:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Blue Point Persian -:- Absolutely Nothing! -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:39:47 (GMT)

Steven Quint -:- Waking Up To The Bizarre -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:03:35 (GMT)

__ Steven Quint -:- Waking Up To The Bizarre -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:16:47 (GMT)

__ __ Shri Hans Ji Maharaj -:- What part of 'God' didn't you understand?-ShriHans -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:25:59 (GMT)

__ __ And On Anand Ji -:- Eating meat, smoking cigs, drinking booze etc. -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:42:43 (GMT)

__ __ Steven Quint -:- Waking Up To The Bizarre -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:39:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ Steven Quint -:- Help Me Pleasse (ot) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 22:40:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- A 'sharpener' is a good cure , but........ -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 00:50:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Help Me Pleasse (ot) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 05:58:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ none given -:- Help Me Pleasse (ot) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 23:54:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- what a snotty rebuke. pure premie league.. -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 13:41:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ none given -:- what a snotty rebuke. pure premie league.. -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 17:19:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Abusing alcohol? -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 18:10:50 (GMT)

Joe -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:35:26 (GMT)

__ bill -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:42:55 (GMT)

__ __ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 13:48:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ bill -:- Global Finance. -:- Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:05:18 (GMT)

__ Salam -:- Nadar is a boofhead -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 12:39:27 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- Nadar is a boofhead -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 18:53:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ Salam -:- Sure. -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 07:03:29 (GMT)

__ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader & 'Ace of Hearts' (0T) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:43:48 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 00:07:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:03:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Schools and Improvement -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 18:49:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Schools and Improvement -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:03:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Schools and Improvement -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:43:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Schools and Improvement -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 23:59:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- A 'study' v. a real voucher program -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:45:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A 'study' v. a real voucher program -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:48:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Nonsense, Scott -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:43:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Nonsense, Scott -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 18:18:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- More Nonsense, Scott -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 21:39:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- More Nonsense, Scott -:- Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:21:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Nonsense, Joe. -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 23:51:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:27:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:16:16 (GMT)

__ Rick (formerly P-man) -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:57:51 (GMT)

__ __ TD -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 22:06:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ Rick -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:34:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:12:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:59:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Why no test? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 14:27:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Why no test? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:08:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 00:24:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joe -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 22:43:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ TD -:- Family values and all of that -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:14:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Family values and all of that -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:20:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ TD -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:09:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:37:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:02:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 04:43:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:57:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 20:41:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 22:16:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Family values and all of that -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 00:46:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TD -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 19:07:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TD -:- Family values and all of that -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 15:41:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Nuclear Family and the Feminine Mystique -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:39:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ ExTex -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:20:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:54:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ ExTex -:- Why Fascist?(0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:21:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Why Fascist?(0T) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 13:21:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Z Magazine -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:55:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ExTex -:- Z Magazine -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 07:07:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well at least you're not foaming at the mouth -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:27:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Background to your anti-radicalism -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 08:28:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Well at least you're not foaming at the mouth -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:11:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Why Fascist?(0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:44:50 (GMT)

__ __ Cynthia -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:45:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ ExTex -:- Ralph Nader (0T) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:55:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Mickey the Pharisee -:- Do you want Bush choosing the next Supreme Court? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:41:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Tactical Voting -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:00:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Do you want Bush choosing the next Supreme Court? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 06:14:37 (GMT)

Jerry -:- What do you think of this, shp? (OT) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:17:21 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- Sorry, Jerry -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:42:59 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- No problem (nt) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:17:26 (GMT)

__ shp -:- Progressive G party keeping politics honest in USA -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:30:37 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Progressive G party keeping politics honest in USA -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:28:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ shp -:- Progressive G party keeping politics honest in USA -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:50:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- Nader's Raiders for Gore -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:01:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- Nader's Raiders for Gore, more from -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:25:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- More rhetoric from Others for the weak-willed and -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:53:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- weak-this-and-that -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:06:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- to G -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:13:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- But they are not similar -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:02:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Nader: millionaire hypocrite? -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:31:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- He deserves more than he has! -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:04:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- It's not the money -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:15:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- It's not the office either -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 16:20:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Tired -:- Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 18:12:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So do the wittow, wittow wuns, shippie! (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:18:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ shp -:- Out slumming on the threads are ye? (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 21:06:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Sierra Club on Gore vs Bush -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:57:59 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- unrealistic -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:13:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- unrealistic -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:25:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- To G -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:45:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Translation -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:25:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- it's all clear now -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:23:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ shp -:- I urge you to vote your conscience whatever that -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:56:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- the right guy -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:12:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ shp -:- semnatics correction -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:23:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- ok, understood (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:28:26 (GMT)

__ gerry -:- What do you think of this, shp? (OT) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:49:34 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- nonsensical -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:39:00 (GMT)

__ __ cq -:- vote against Bore/Gush=vote FOR Nader? Speak on... -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:55:10 (GMT)

EddyTheTurtle -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:52:01 (GMT)

__ Michael Dettmers -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:23:50 (GMT)

__ __ TeddyTheTurtle -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:38:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:40:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ EddyTheTurtle -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:16:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ a0aji -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 20:29:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 18:29:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Michael, I've got a burning question for you? -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:29:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Michael, I've got a burning question for you? -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 13:15:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ a0aji -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:24:56 (GMT)

__ __ Rob -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:35:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:05:47 (GMT)

__ Bin Liner -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:08:31 (GMT)

__ gerry -:- The Swiss foundation -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:12:11 (GMT)

Brian -:- Loaf - email me -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:47:17 (GMT)

Rob -:- Glen's 'Close Encounter' - Director's Cut (part 1) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:03:20 (GMT)

__ Rani -:- Glen's 'Close Encounter' - Director's Cut (part 1) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 17:30:21 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- The reason you don't understand is simple -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:45:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- Jim, that's not fair -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 18:51:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Jim, that's not fair -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:25:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- Yes, I'm not looking forward to the time when I -:- Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:19:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Yo to Renaissance (nt) -:- Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:03:13 (GMT)

__ Jack Nicholson -:- As good as it gets? -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 14:08:47 (GMT)

__ Rob -:- Part 2 - Guru-illas in the Mist -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:20:07 (GMT)

__ __ Jack Nicholson -:- Part 2 - Five Easy pieces? -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 14:13:24 (GMT)

__ __ janet -:- don't you mean guru-lila's in the mist? -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 07:51:11 (GMT)

__ __ a0aji -:- Nice use of color (not much text, don't bother) -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:38:20 (GMT)

__ __ Rob -:- Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:32:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jack Nicholson -:- Part 3 - The Shining -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 14:16:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ cq -:- Part 3 - The Shining -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:06:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ Oaobs -:- Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:26:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ janet -:- Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey--jagdeo...? -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 07:58:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Oaobs -:- Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey--jagdeo...? -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:40:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ any guideline to remove -:- above post? -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:02:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Seconded. Though it does show the premie mind at -:- Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:07:36 (GMT)

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:27:29 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Everyone Subject: Help Wanted Message:

Anybody here know how to navigate a yacht around Florida, Puerto Rico and Bermuda (The Bermuda Triangle)? Click Here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:55:18 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Help Wanted....What's Help? Message:

Dear Steven, What the hell are you pulling here? I can manipulate along with the best. So, what's your pleasure? You looking for a good, nasty fight? Do you want pity? How about a dose of mothering? Need a good father image? Looking for a mentor? Having fun pissing people off? I wanna be bratty I like it so much I wanna annoy you 'till you give me a punch! Thinking of going back to school? Made a decision about the psych hospital yet? How about astrology? What about philosophy? Feeling a bit bratty lately? Ya wanna fight? Ya wanna get some attention? Are ya in the middle of a cult crisis? Jesus, Maria, and Joseph, what the fuck is it you want?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:08:56 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Oh hello Steven Message:

Bit hard to get away from here. Bet you could not get laid in that hospital you were going to go to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:23:04 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Actually I thought that was funny Message:

when I realised where the job opportunities page was. I will submit an application. I've experience writing defaming, satirical literature about cult leaders and have successfully edited a website which exposes one such person. I think he could make good use of my talents.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 00:17:23 (GMT) From: DV Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Whats your fucking problem? Message:

You're like SHP in drag. You are like an employee I just fired. Any inane thought that came to his head, he manifested. It totally screwed up his ability to function properly, and in the process, affected everyone else. I can understand the premie detox syndrome process- At first I used to drink a six-pack, read this site, laugh, cry, walk laps, rant and rave, and if everyone here was lucky, I didn't post, or was timed out by aol before I finished my masterpiece. So, I guess, on the other hand, do whatever you want, I don't know how long since you've exed. Maybe you're lonely and need to talk. I'll avoid your posts, like I do SHP's. I haven't read his for at least a year. When I want entertainment, I just read Jim's responses.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 13:22:38 (GMT) From: John K Email: None To: DV Subject: Whats your fucking problem? Message:

Hey DV! love your post, my sentiments exactly. had lunch recently with a guy you probably remember from dc, who has recently become an ex. I guess I'll keep him annonymous, since I have not seen his name posted here. remember, if you're in the rtp area, please look me up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:29:53 (GMT) From: DV Email: None To: John K Subject: Hey John! Give me a clue! Nice to hear from you!nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 08:36:00 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: DV Subject: Maybe Steve is... Message:

...lost on a yacht somewhere in the Bermuda triangle. Anth the new age navigator

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 06:40:06 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: DV Subject: Whats your fucking problem? Message:

Sorry I offended you, Mahahaha.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:25:56 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: DV seems to have as much sym/empathy as the maha Message:

even though he/she claims to have been through the 'de-tox' themselves. I guess a big realisation/change for you Steve, might be when you realise we don't know what's going through your mind, other than what you post here. Perhaps a more conversational post from you now and then might elicit a bit more understanding - for all of us? PS (Thinks ... is this a criticism? Well, if it is, I hope it's constructive.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:53:55 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: cq Subject: DV seems to have as much sym/empathy as the maha Message:

How do you know this is not how we converse up in Canada? Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 22:09:52 (GMT) From: me Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Help us maintain proper forum behaviour Message:

Please dont make a new thread each time you get a thought:) Keep to the thread you already started:) We will see that you have added a post in that thread:) We read posts all the way to the bottom of the forum and you using new threads all the time pushes the forum posts to the archives too soon:) thanks for your cooperation:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 08:49:02 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Forum Administrator Subject: Help us maintain proper forum behaviour Message:

How do I know whether the above post comes from you? If it does, why did you use the handle 'me'? Do you really care if a thread disappears to the inactive page a few minutes earlier or later because someone started a new thread creating a half-inch of white space because they had a new thought that they considered different from their previous thought? Some people are capable of generating more than one thought a day. If the above post did not come from you, how did someone get away with impersonating you? Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:35:43 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Une perle pour Joan Message:

Une perle pour Joan Wandering lonely, weeping & mourning, trudged the poor rich kid, Ashram to Ashram. Her plight, a sad sight, broadcast a warning -- 'I'm so godhungry, I'm dying I am.' So plucked by THAT love, THAT destination, to live in holy perfection for ever, 'Greater than God! Lord of Creation!' So said Joan then. But now she says 'Never!' 'THAT's not IT,' says the cheerleader of fraud, 'He's just this guy kindly helping me see there's stuff in my life I've left unexplored.' (HUH?! says the poet, he's THAT crap is he?) Like him you are lying -- then or right now. This pearl before you tells the world how.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:39:20 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: JohnT Subject: thanks for the poem Message:

Don't know what to say about Joan. I liked the part about another rich kid over in India looking for spritual nirvana. You said it better. But it makes me think. I mean it would have been really unfair if the whole trip WAS real and the majoritey of the people that got to be closed to God got there because they were rich. She always annoyed me at festivals mostly because the rebel in me reacted to the awe she inpired in those around me. ps Hi Oliver, hang in there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 05:59:46 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Selene Subject: thanks Selene Message:

I wondered whether to include that point, and decided to make a guess about her background. As she is still riding the lie to benefit her career, I felt it was a fair comment. PS I read the news about your poor Mum, here. I'm sorry. The waiting must have been terrible. Love and respect JohnT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:23:49 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Perfectly pithy poem, John Message:

Should we send it to her? Along with my A / B comparison post?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 11:39:49 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: Perfectly pithy poem, John Message:

Like Janet says, she'd almost certainly appreciate the 'heads-up', Jim, if she hasn't already had it. Her public words in Who is Guru Maharaj Ji and on the present EV website do make a strange contrast, as you pointed out. She has a right to know that she is being lampooned for her public stance, and it may be kind to reassure her that she is not being accused, as such (unlike Rawat!) -- she is merely being publicly lampooned for her delusionist and revisionist posturing in support of a sociopathic fraudster. She could do something about that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:18:07 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Yes, I agree -- and also, I dare you to try this Message:

Can you say 'Perfect Pithy Poem' five times out loud? Come on, John, I bet you can't do three. Come on, let's hear you: perfect pithy poem (I can't get past two myself.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:52:05 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: jtucker@dircon.co.uk To: Jim Subject: Look, you dared me to 'come-out' here ... Message:

... and all I got was robot generated abuse from, um, whatisname, the forger. I know your game Jim! You're a premie plant who wants me to get my tongue in a tangle, fall into a state of bliss, and start babbling. Well, I won't. What I think would be quite tasteful is the poem (as amended, the rhythm of the third quatrain doesn't really work); and by way of explanation a three column table. Then; Now; and cogent comments from JH. Do the metadata right, put in links to EPO etc, and wait. Tich tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:15:21 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JohnT Subject: I'd love to but tables? How 'dat? (nt) Message:

gggggggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 08:12:48 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: turning tables Message:

I've saved your then versus now comparison; and finished polishing JOAN'S PEARL. When I've time (!) I'll rustle up a rough based on what we've got so far.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 19:29:30 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Great, thanks a lot (nt) Message:

ffffffff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:17:58 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Joan Subject: To Joan...Do not cast your pearls before swine. NT Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:35:55 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Oliver Subject: a finesse! Message:

Nicely turned, Oliver. The metaphore is on a cusp! Joan's call, I think (pick up the phone, Joan! PICK UP THE PHONE! )

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:45:49 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JohnT Subject: How do you do small print? (nt) Message:

gggggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:58:49 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: How to do small print Message:

< font size=-1 > this will appear in smaller print this will appear even smaller How do I do < > ? Have a look!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:53:27 (GMT) From: a0aji Email: None To: ne1 Subject: font tests +3 to -3 Message:

Note: all instances of quotation mark are represented by an apostrophe (') instead. +3 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs +2 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs +1 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs +0 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs -1 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs -2 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs -3 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrs

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:27:53 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Oliver Subject: The only swine she served her swill to was you Message:

Joan wasn't talking to people OUTside the cult, idiot. But then I guess that's all you've got, huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:23:59 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Jim Subject: Do you know what I like about you Jim? Message:

NOTHING!! But don’t fret, I know the feeling is mutual. I was reminded of the saying regarding pearls and swine when reading Joan’s pathetic rave about comparing Maharaji to a precious Tahitian pearl in her necklace. Of course the swine I was thinking of was Maharaji. My favorite dictionary defines the word swine as, amongst other things, ‘a course, gross, or brutishly sensual person, a contemptible person.’ So it seems obvious to me that if at some time Joan was talking her drivel somewhere and you where in attendance, she was certainly casting something in front of at least one swine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:39:47 (GMT) From: Blue Point Persian Email: None To: Oliver Subject: Absolutely Nothing! Message:

you piece of puke JIMBO. Shoot first then blame the hair trigger. You really are gutless.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:03:35 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Everyone Subject: Waking Up To The Bizarre Message:

Sorry, I just can't stay away any longer. All my education taught me that when you wake up from a nightmare things should be rosy. Have you, like I, had nightmares where you thought you were awake from the bad dream only to find yourself in another bad dream? The reality is bizarre. It is getting better though. Thanks, Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:16:47 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Everyone Subject: Waking Up To The Bizarre Message:

Check out bizarre, grotesque and incongruous.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:25:59 (GMT) From: Shri Hans Ji Maharaj Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: devotees Subject: What part of 'God' didn't you understand?-ShriHans Message:

'Sublime devotion, however, comes from implicit faith and confidence in the Satguru of the time, and it must be clearly understood that only He who can bestow God-vision instantaneously within oneself is the Satguru of the time, and no one else. In reality, He is God incarnate.' Shri Hans Ji Maharaj June, 1961 Prem Nagar, India http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/indian.hmt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:42:43 (GMT) From: And On Anand Ji Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: all Subject: Eating meat, smoking cigs, drinking booze etc. Message:

I noticed that even when I tried to shoe-horn my desperation back into the cult after living foot-loose for so many years away from it, that certain taboo practices that were once unthinkable seemed perfectly ordinary and acceptable, even among 'holy' company. Holy company! Hahaha. Holy shit. :) This one guy ate a chicken sandwich, with a big smile on his face, chewing like a horse, obviously enjoying it. Of course I was out of the cult long enough not to care, but it did reach me to the point where I couldn't resist but ask, since I knew this guy when we both were wide-eyed zealots for all those tiny cultural tidbits that helped us identify ourselves as the 'right' kind of premie. I think this premie gave me a kind of a shrug and a wink. :) I still would feel real uncomfortable eating meat in front of another ex-premie. So I better go practice eating meat when I finish this post, so I'll be real good at it next time I see you. :) Little things, like eating with chop sticks, even -- things that couldn't possibly have come very directly from anyone 'on high' because they were such small details. Well, you'd think so, but I can remember a few satsangs by uppety-ups telling us about their experiences in the shower, struggling with 'agya' on personal hygiene and all that. I recently visited (well, just a few years ago) with a full-bore practicing premie, who knew Maharaji from events as far-off in the myst as Montrose, Guru Puja '72, and all that (just a bit before my time). The number of details of this person's home life that synched exactly to the premie culture of my day '76 to '79 -- was astonishing. Little things like that funny batik-patterned (Indian?) cotton cloth, used as table cloth, bed coverings, etc. Anachronisms of all kinds, as if time stood still. Like surrounding yourself with mung beans sprouting in a jar bring you closer to Fraud Ji. Wed Oct 25 19:42:48 EDT 2000

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:39:02 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home To: Everyone Subject: Waking Up To The Bizarre Message:

Sorry, I can't resist this one. 'Guru Marijuana the Big Weed is Cracked.' Anybody here work for the New York Times?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 22:40:15 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Everyone Subject: Help Me Pleasse (ot) Message:

Does anyone know a good remedy for severe hangover? Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 00:50:12 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: A 'sharpener' is a good cure , but........ Message:

...... it just goes on & on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 05:58:39 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Help Me Pleasse (ot) Message:

Steve: I don't drink, but after severe long periods of exertion (100 mile bike rides) I get something like a hangover. Someone once suggested that it may be protien deficiency and that some sort of protein-rich food would help. I bought a gallon of home made ice-cream. It may not work for you, but what the hell. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 23:54:45 (GMT) From: none given Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Help Me Pleasse (ot) Message:

They give vitamin injections to people in detox. I don't know what else. You could probably find a lot of good home recipes at an AA meeting. This is an inappropriate place to seek mental health or substance abuse help. We're here for a completely different purpose; we support each other through specific cult-related matters. Alcoholism isn't one of those matters.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 13:41:05 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: none given Subject: what a snotty rebuke. pure premie league.. Message:

steve--some things to know and use: OFF TOPIC--OK? OFF TOPIC!! SEE? O-T? is it ok if i help the guy? anybody mind? i beleive there are a few drinkers present? alcohol depletes you of water. you must replace it. drink a lotta water. alcohol sterilizes your intestinal tract. it kills all the beneficial bacteria that digest you r food for you and make b vitamins, which feed your nerves. kill the bacteria, kill all digestion, kill the vitamin B production, nerves start frying.. solution: put back the normal bacteria. eat yogurt with live cultures. drink miso soup no warmer than your finger can stand to be immersed in. eat natural sauerkraut if you can find it. once you have food in your stomach, take a multi mega B complex. if youre nauseous, take extra b6. if you drink as a habit, take more b 12. nausea can be controlled with B6, no mater what the cause. morning sickness, hangover, motion sicknes-it works on them all. you can induce nausea by witholding B6 from someone's diet. don't expect to recover in ten minutes. more like a day.drink water till you piss. rest. sleep if you can. if you think you're hurtng your liver, get milk thistle tea. it stops cirrhosis. take it daily.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 17:19:28 (GMT) From: none given Email: None To: janet Subject: what a snotty rebuke. pure premie league.. Message:

What's this: 'Give an alcoholic a drink, keep him drunk for a day, but teach an alcoholic to drink, keep him drunk for a lifetime'? The guy doesn't need help learning how to cope with abusing alcohol. He needs to stop drinking. It could kill him. No, you did not help. You only taught him how to conceal his drinking problem from others. -none given (ex premie / M is a cult leader)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 18:10:50 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: none given Subject: Abusing alcohol? Message:

Or does the alcohol abuse us?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:35:26 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

So, I went to see Ralph Nader in Oakland last Saturday night. There were over 7,000 people there. Ralph seemed to be backpeddling somewhat on the 'tweedledum/tweedledee' comments he had made in the past. I wondered that now that the polls show the election dead even, that he doesn't want to get blamed for costing Gore the election. He WAS great, though. I'd really like to vote for him, but I'm not sure I can. By the way, I heard a report today that people like Jesse Jackson, Gloria Steinam, Robert Redford, Paul Wellstone, Barney Frank and Teddy Kennedy are fanning out to the Nader strongholds, like Madison, Eugene, Seattle, St. Paul, Ann Arbor and San Francisco, to try to persuade Nader voters to vote for Gore. By the way, the latest California poll shows that Gore's lead has been cut in half, to just 5 points, but that Bush hasn't gained any ground whatsoever. He is still at just 39%. Nader has almost doubled his support in the state, however, and has 12% in the Bay Area, a critical area for Gore. The pollster said, however, that the Nader vote was very 'volatile' and that he would likely lose some support to Gore if people knew it was close. (The previous polls showed Gore ahead in California from 9 to 13 points.) Anyhow, the pundits are saying that if the numbers don't change, Nader could cost Gore the traditional Democratic strongholds of Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. So, Powerman, what are you going to do? I guess I'm going to wait until election day and decide then. Maybe I'll do what a couple of my friends are doing and wait until 6:30 pm West Coast time, and decide how to vote then. This is a bizarre election.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 12:42:55 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Cmon Joe, It should be super easy for you to vote for GOre. A slam dunk. What I am most amazed at during this election is how Bush is masking the horde that rides behind him and the vast repercussions that will result from thier empowerment. I am not opposed to a couple of thier intentions, but there are lots and lots of reasons for you in particular to go for Gore. The gay influence in the federal government will vanish. Not in the media, but in the govt.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 13:48:13 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: bill Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

bill: Why do you assume that Bush isn't lying to them as well? In the back pocket of the oil industry is one thing, but he isn't really a Christian Conservative in spite of their wishful thinking. (It's merely the price vice always has to pay to virtue.) He will probably have to give them something, but no more for instance that Clinton had to give to the left wing of the Democratic Party. I'm concerned about two things, should Bush be elected. The sudden realization on the part of investors that he really isn't intellectually competent might fuel a long term market decline or recession. Also, key advocacies in some areas, especially tort and court appointments, might seriously damage citizen rights and consumer sovereignty... which again could fuel recession. Then there's the foreign policy thing, but he may have Colin Powell as an advisor. Anyway, we'd see policy in all areas devolve quickly to the staff level, and a virtual end to the sort of hands on presidency that Clinton represents. Again, that might be very bad for the markets. So, in the end it comes down to the economy, and the Rs in their arrogance just have nominated the wrong person. I suspect that had they run Jeb Bush instead they'd be on their way to a landslide. On the other hand, a Bush presidency might prove once and for all that the presidency really *is* irrelevant. Happy thought. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:05:18 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Global Finance. Message:

Good points as usual Scott T. I like it when you post under that name because I make a point of not missing the posts when I see a Scott T post. On the economy issue, bush was asked what he would do in the face of a recession, he answered 'talk to greenspan about liquidity'. Which is actually the correct answer. I say the creative invention of financial instruments of all sorts involving debt managment will keep the ball rolling. Even though previous financial geniuses like Minsky have nailed issues like 'any evolution toward fragile finance is therefore bound to show up as increasing difficulty rolling over debts as they mature..' That is not an exact qoute of his but it is the essence. The usual rules of finance that were written in stone are not the same as finance is like a living organism and the big boys of finance right now are in a creative explosion that is patching over debt flows that threaten to go bust. Not small busts, they can burst, but systemic ones. My main area is watching that action and I am at the point of having confidence in those boys sustaining the action for some years ahead. They cannot let America go into a real recession, not now, the debt issues around the world will eat us all. The big boys are ahead of the curve now and are determined to stay there. The rest of the worlds currencies are doomed. Dont tell them!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 12:39:27 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Joe Subject: Nadar is a boofhead Message:

and should come to Australia training kangoros instead of wasting ever body's time with his stupid ideas. Vote for him an see Bush as president for the next 8 years.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 18:53:33 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Salam Subject: Nadar is a boofhead Message:

With all due respect, Salam, whatever you think of Nader and his ideas, not all votes going to Nader would be going to Gore if Nader wasn't running. Quite a number of those people wouldn't vote for either of the presidential candidates. You have to assume that if Nader wasn't running all those people voting for him would otherwise vote for Gore. Some would, and some wouldn't. To the extent Nader brings voters back into the political process, I think that's great. In this country less than 50% even vote, and a large number of them don't because they as disaffected by both major parties. I really believe that if we are going to get a movement for change, it has to address all thos disafffected voters, and give them something they really want to vote for. I think Nader and the Greens see this as a grass-roots movement, that is building for the long term.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 07:03:29 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Joe Subject: Sure. Message:

In Autralia everyone has to vote, if you do not your ass is trash. Nadar reminds me of the Australian Democrats. They say that they are here to make a difference. Their leader jumpped the fence and joined the Labor pary, while the party lined up with the Liberals to bring the up the new GST tax.(not sure if they did this to despise their ex-leader). Now it look like inflation is going up the roof because of the rise of fuel costs and the govermentis poised to lose the next election. Democrats and Nadar my foot. Maybe if he stops running then we can see where the votes are going. Do not forget that dickhead Bush is in front.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:43:48 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader & 'Ace of Hearts' (0T) Message:

Joe: I heard RAND gave Bush a hit. I think there are now two factions within RAND, one being traditional and the other a more progressive social science group. Anyway, no matter how you look at it Texas is doing quite well in terms of absolute achievement, and the so-called 'gap,' according to the NAEP. (I have that data on my computer, but not sure it's broken down by state in my version.) The issue is that the Texas performance is probably not attributable to Bush's reforms. My thinking is that RAND put this out because they felt some obligation to make the point, since Bush has been tooting his own horn so much based on their other report. As for Nader, I've said before that if Nader is not willing to cost Gore the election then he probably should not be running, and if Nader voters are not willing to have George Bush in office for 4 to 8 years then they should probably vote for Gore, in the battleground states at least. Third parties really play only one role in US politics. They move the party that's closest to their position closer, by costing the major party critical votes in key areas. Absent that strategic committment they would probably be better off just lobbying within the party. Saw a great silent movie last night. Lon Cheney in 'Ace of Hearts.' One of only a few movies he did that were not in he horror genre. He did one talking picture too, that I haven't seen. It'd be interesting just to hear what his voice was like. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 00:07:39 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

I don't think Nader can back down now, and I'm sure he has always been willing to cost Gore the election, but that doesn't make it any easier for those who consider voting for him. And I don't think he could start publicly saying anything else at this late date. Although, in Oakland on Saturday, he did talk about 'tactical voting' as a good alternative, acknowledging the problem people are having. I also understand that a group of people supporting Nader are going to run ads saying that 'a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.' However, they have decided to run them only in Texas, Colorado, New York and Massachusetts, all states where it won't make a difference. They, just today, decided to NOT run the ad in California, because they said it had gotten too close there. I think the Rand report is devestating to Bush. They say the the Texas tests may be too easy and that teachers are just teaching the tests. This is the only explanation they have for how Texas did well on the Texas tests, but no better than anywhere else on the national tests. And by the way, the Rand report says the GAP is acutally growing not narrowing. I read part of it online today, and it undermines nearly all of Bush's claims. Great ammunition for Gore.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:03:36 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Joe: This is the only explanation they have for how Texas did well on the Texas tests, but no better than anywhere else on the national tests. I think this statement refers exclusively to the 'gap' rather than overall achievement. In other words the gap is not better in Texas than anywhere else. Texas is actually numero uno in Math achievement according to the NAEP, and something like 10th in Reading. Not bad, but not attributable to Bush either. The gap has been growing for a number of years... and white achievement has *not* been growing. Lots of theories about why. School funding is not the most convincing theory, nor do many researchers see it as a primary cause. Suffice it to say that the only area where predominantly black schools clearly have not at least been equal to white schools in terms of overall resources (and they often exceed predominantly white schools because of special ed programs) is in the recruitment of math teachers. Class size is even the same. Maybe our class sizes are too large, but that variable doesn't explain the gap. I discussed this with a friend of mine recently, and it also seems plausible that the reason resources are not correlated with success is that schools don't have much in the market to choose from. It's as though you wanted a new scooter. Your allowance is expanded by 20%, but the quality of scooters being produced is sort of mediocre so about all you can buy is a mediocre scooter no matter how much money you have. This is true of other sorts of school resources too, with the possible exception of computer stuff. Returning to the school predicament, you could hire one of the many Ph.D.s being over-produced... but then you can't, can you? They don't have the right certifications. They can teach at the college level, but not at the secondary level. The logic is a bit like that 'clean water' admonition: 'Drink, but don't flush.' Moral: change the system of higher education that produces teachers and you'll get better scooters... er, teachers. Fat chance of that happening. So, I don't like Gore because he's just blowing it out his...., to put it bluntly. Ralph is much more erudite about the reforms needed in the education system. He doesn't have a prayer of changing anything though, unless he costs Gore the election. You'll note that I'm inadvertently building an argument for a Nader vote, that'll put Bush in the white house. Think of it as a sort of moral decision. Would Bush really be *that* bad? It's definitely a gamble, but let's be clear about the stakes. Interesting election. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 18:49:35 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Schools and Improvement Message:

Returning to the school predicament, you could hire one of the many Ph.D.s being over-produced... but then you can't, can you? They don't have the right certifications. They can teach at the college level, but not at the secondary level. The logic is a bit like that 'clean water' admonition: 'Drink, but don't flush.' I don't think a PhD is any kind of an indication that someone can teach. I had plenty of PhDs in college who were horrible teachers and if I had kids I wouldn't want them to be taught by them. Teaching is a skill that can be taught, but I think the key is attracting people to teaching who have the talent for it. Your analogy escapes me, but I think there are many great teachers, despite horribly low pay, bad facilities and supplies, and not the greatest working conditions, let alone a fairly low social status. And this is especially true of inner city and poor rural schools. Discrepancies in test scores between the rich, white suburban schools (much better funded) and the poor schools isn't at all surprising. The poorer schools have less money, worse conditions, higher teacher turnover, more social problems to deal with and all the rest. Of cousre they do poorly. On this subject, Jonathan Kozol's book 'Savage Inequalities' is about the best indictment of the inequitable funding of our educational system I have ever read. Moral: change the system of higher education that produces teachers and you'll get better scooters... er, teachers. Fat chance of that happening. So, I don't like Gore because he's just blowing it out his...., to put it bluntly. I don't think it's just changing higher education, but encouraging people to become teachers instead of high-tech workers. We need better teachers and we need schools that aren't overcrowded, falling apart and with outdated supplies. 'Competition' won't help that unless the States are willing to fund education to a level where those things can happen. Like I said before, vouchers, especially like the program being proposed in California wouldn't help at all, and, in fact, likely would mean the public school system would deteriorate further and have even more problems -- and less funding. Class size reductions have been successful in raising scores in California. Getting the state to at least average in per-pupil spending would be the next important step. Paying teachers a decent salary would help in the long run. I look at the dedication and skills of some teachers I know, and when I realize I make 4 or 5 times as much money as they do, I wonder how they possibly survive financially, and why they bother to teach, when they could make a lot more money doing something else. It really gets me when people like Bush say we need vouchers to introduce some kind of 'competition' but then we aren't willing to pay teachers at a level that 'competes' with the job market.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:03:39 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Schools and Improvement Message:

Joe: And this is especially true of inner city and poor rural schools. Discrepancies in test scores between the rich, white suburban schools (much better funded) and the poor schools isn't at all surprising. The poorer schools have less money, worse conditions, higher teacher turnover, more social problems to deal with and all the rest. Of cousre they do poorly. On this subject, Jonathan Kozol's book 'Savage Inequalities' is about the best indictment of the inequitable funding of our educational system I have ever read. I'm presently gearing up to write an article on school resources, so will probably read Kozol's book before long. Most of the stuff I've seen on resources indicates that it's not related to achievement (Eric Hanuschek, et al). Even if there is some relationship I strongly suspect that it doesn't justify the emphasis you place on it. If you don't control for socioeconomic status then you get a lot of spurious relationships. I'll withold judgment until my feet are a bit wetter though. I used to be ideologically on the left. My experience is that the generalizations made by the left are as likely to be wrong as right (correct). For instance, one thing we know with near certainty is that schools have little influence over achievement, or I should say the range of choices we now have in public schools has little influence relative to child rearing practices, etc. I suspect this is where the gap could actually be closed. BTW, the US has the best post-grad schools in the world so having a Ph.D. is at least indicative of actually knowing something about a subject. We may not teach these people to teach, but we do teach them to learn. It really gets me when people like Bush say we need vouchers to introduce some kind of 'competition' but then we aren't willing to pay teachers at a level that 'competes' with the job market. If we expanded the role of private institutions, who generally have to compete in an open market for the services of teachers, then wouldn't you expect the salaries of good well-trained teachers to rise accordingly? All Bush is talking about is the inherent corruption in any overly-bureaucratized industry. For instance, in the School of Education at my institution the most highly qualified people all came from outside the education field. I'm talking about the difference between mediocrity and world class excellence. Nonetheless none of these excellent scholars are allowed to actually teach classes in a secondary institution. You're telling me something isn't rotten? Apart from the need to expand the pool of private educational institutions (and charter schools), which might involve scalability issues, I haven't heard a good argument against vouchers. As I said, there is nearly a consensus within the polysci field. But in the final analysis we'd be a lot better off paying attention to child rearing practices than worrying about elementary and secondary schools anyway. Head start really begins too late. By age three you're already fighting holding action, trying to maximize the potentional of the limitations you've already set in concrete. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:43:55 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Schools and Improvement Message:

Most of the stuff I've seen on resources indicates that it's not related to achievement (Eric Hanuschek, et al). Even if there is some relationship I strongly suspect that it doesn't justify the emphasis you place on it. Well, maybe after you read Kozol you might think differently. Frankly, I think in public institution people should be entitled to equal resources in public education even if it doesn't automatically result in higher test scores. But I think its just common sense that if your high school is filthy, dangerous, has incredible teacher-turnover, has outdated textbooks and technology, the students have a number of strikes against them. No, it's not everything but it certainly isn't a level playing field to begin with. And there is more to education than test scores, especially with what appears to be 'teaching-to-the-test' in Texas, as a recent example of the problems. If we expanded the role of private institutions, who generally have to compete in an open market for the services of teachers, then wouldn't you expect the salaries of good well-trained teachers to rise accordingly? No, I wouldn't. Private schools, except the very exclusive, well-off private schools, usually pay LESS than public schools. This is especially true of the Catholic School system, which used to rely on nuns who were paid almost nothing, and now generally pay less than public school teachers. Often, teachers want to teach in private schools, and will do so for less money, because private schools don't have as many problems. They can be selective about who they allow into the school, and the public schools can't. And this is a central problem with your argument. The competition in w voucher system isn't REAL competition, because public schools are required, by law, to accept everyone and private schools are free to admit only the cream, and the public schools are left with the problems, both kids with learning disabilities, behavior problems, low test scores, and kids from lower socioeconomic problems who don't have the money needed, in addition to the voucher, to send their kids to a private school. This isn't real competition by a long shot. (By the way, this is a pretty convincing argument as to why vouchers are a bad idea, in case you haven't already heard it.) For instance, in the School of Education at my institution the most highly qualified people all came from outside the education field. I'm talking about the difference between mediocrity and world class excellence. Nonetheless none of these excellent scholars are allowed to actually teach classes in a secondary institution. You're telling me something isn't rotten? Maybe it is, and I don't know where you are talking about, but I know in California, the state dept of education can give waivers for qualified people to teach who are not certified. This is a relatively new program, but has partly come out of the fact that there is a severe shortage of teachers in the state, and a hot job market where people can make a lot more money doing something else. However, not surprisingly, there have been relatively few requests for the waivers because of the low pay. Even people without credentials can do better elsewhere. So, I don't think you have to get into a voucher program to get additional people into teaching. But I am very much opposed to just letting anyone teach. There needs to be regulation in that area. Kozol takes the example of New Trier High School in the North Chicago suburbs and Roosevelt High school, both ostensibly 'public' high schools as examples of the inequality. STARTING salaries for teachers at New Trier, in the 80s, was $60,000 and I bet they are at $90,000 or more now. The same for Roosevelt was $20,000. And that doesn't even get into the other huge problems Roosevelt has in terms of facilities, underpaid teachers, textbooks, over-crowded classes, and on and on mostly due to a huge discrepancy in funding. It is nonsensical to suggest that Roosevelt's educational prospects wouldn't improve if it had the advantages New Trier had. I suggest that without doing something about that, a voucher program is worthless. Yeah, the left and the right can both be wrong and there is likely some right and wrong on both sides, even if you categorize what you MEAN by right and left, especially when it comes to a specific issue like education. I don't think it's as black and white as you think, and by the way what is your point? And, again, just because somebody has a PhD, or a JD, or anything else, it doesn't mean they can teach. Apart from the need to expand the pool of private educational institutions (and charter schools), which might involve scalability issues, I haven't heard a good argument against vouchers. As I said, there is nearly a consensus within the polysci field. Well, you might come out to California right now because there are plenty of good arguments being proposed at the moment, and I think that's why the proposed voucher initiative is losing, badly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 23:59:36 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Schools and Improvement Message:

Joe: I'm going to drop the school resources issue for now, because I'm just beginning to look at the lit. What you're saying makes sense on it's face, if the facts are true and generalizable. Only one comment about vouchers, re: They can be selective about who they allow into the school, and the public schools can't. And this is a central problem with your argument. The competition in w voucher system isn't REAL competition, because public schools are required, by law, to accept everyone and private schools are free to admit only the cream, and the public schools are left with the problems, both kids with learning disabilities, behavior problems, low test scores, and kids from lower socioeconomic problems who don't have the money needed, in addition to the voucher, to send their kids to a private school. This isn't real competition by a long shot. (By the way, this is a pretty convincing argument as to why vouchers are a bad idea, in case you haven't already heard it.) In the sole field trial on the voucher system, conducted by the Harvard group I discussed earlier, there was random assignment. That's random assignment. Furthermore, what was measured was not absolute achievement anyway, but improvement. So, 'picking the cream' was not even an issue. To make the point even clearer, the only group that showed improvement was black students. That improvement was not only very large (about half the current gap between blacks and whites), but highly significant. These students (black, white and hispanic) were all drawn from the same inner city schools. The inference seems pretty clear. But there may be sufficient uncertainty that it seems prudent to conduct further field trials, even if they are expensive. Should further trials, perhaps even at the state level, yield similar results... then the only question left is: 'How do we implement this on a broad scale?' You're going to see black inner city residents demanding it. My guess is that they'd even vote Republican, if necessary. I'd suppose that opposition will come from white Republican voters. It should be interesting. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:45:12 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: A 'study' v. a real voucher program Message:

In the sole field trial on the voucher system, conducted by the Harvard group I discussed earlier, there was random assignment. That's random assignment. Furthermore, what was measured was not absolute achievement anyway, but improvement. So, 'picking the cream' was not even an issue. I don't know about this study, but there have only been a couple of voucher systems in operation, in Cleveland and Milwaukee, and a complete failure of a program in Florida. There is a big difference between a controlled study and an actual voucher system, where you actually have to operate in the 'market.' The devil is in the details, Scott. A voucher system is frought with problems, mainly that there aren't enough private school spaces, the private schools, even if they decide to participate and the best private schools have no motivation to do so because they have waiting lists already, can pick the cream, unless you are going to FORCE them to take all students, which is probably unconstitutional, and because a voucher won't be enough money for poor people to afford the private schools, at least one that is any good. The California proposal is to give a voucher of $4000 which is about what the state spends per-student in public schools. But private schools, even Catholic schools, cost $10,000 and more, so if you are poor you can't afford to pay the additional, and by that proposal we have just given a $4000 windfall to wealthy people who are already sending their kids to private schools. I think this is nuts. And, the private schools can reject anybody they want, as long as it isn't based on race or creed. So, there can be an entrance exam, for example, and if the applicant doesn't measure up, the school doesn't have to accept the applicant. So, who are they going to accept with limited spaces? Chances are it will be the cream and the public schools will be left with the 'non-cream' and the poor, less $4000 for each student who heads for the private schools. This is how the 'market' tends to work, Scott, when the quantity is scarce -- you can be selective, and we will send the public schools on a downward spiral. I just don't think that improves public education, except for the kids who already are doing well, and have the financial resources to go to a private school. And the potential downside to de-fund public education is massive. It's just a really bad idea. I would just rather use the money to improve public education, along with teacher salaries, instead of giving a windfall to rich people who are already sending their kids to private schools. I can sort of understand a limited program for poor students in failing schools (even Gore said he would be open to that), but, again the devil is in the details, and I think a statewide program just has way too many downsides.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:48:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: A 'study' v. a real voucher program Message:

Joe: The California proposal is to give a voucher of $4000 which is about what the state spends per-student in public schools. But private schools, even Catholic schools, cost $10,000 and more, so if you are poor you can't afford to pay the additional, and by that proposal we have just given a $4000 windfall to wealthy people who are already sending their kids to private schools. I think this is nuts. I see what you mean, but the Harvard study randomly assigned people to the program, not to the schools. The schools still had the option to select or reject, and the program administrators worked to make certain all the children who wanted to be in the program found a place in some private school. There are a number of private schools in DC that have been organized by minorities precisely because they don't trust the public schools. Scaling these programs up, to accomodate a large influx, would definitely be problematic. On the other hand, there would be some incentive to do just that since a pool of voucher money would became available. The percentage of tuition covered by the voucher is also critical. So, yeah, the devil is in the details. But clearly the promise is sufficiently alluring that we might invest at least a little in order to get the details right. A field trial is about the best and most informative social experiment we can conduct, and they are enormously expensive. That's why there are so few. You can download the Howell study from their website at: http://data.fas.harvard.edu/pepg/ Go to 'Research Papers' and click on: Test-Score Effects of School Vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington D.C.: Evidence from Randomized Field Trials --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:43:56 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Nonsense, Scott Message:

Scaling these programs up, to accomodate a large influx, would definitely be problematic. On the other hand, there would be some incentive to do just that since a pool of voucher money would became available. Maybe so, but don't you see that you would likely just end up with two tiers of private schools, those above and those below the amoung of the voucher? And those private schools would not be subject to the same requirements as public schools -- like hiring qualified teachers or admitting students without an eye on socioeconomic status, academic ability, gender or religion. Advocates say the system will put market pressure on the public school system and force improvement, but this couldn't be more misguided. Reducing funding for public schools is almost guaranteed to have the opposite effect. And despite your studies, NO ONE has ever proved that schools respond to market forces. There is no proof of that whatsoever. Maybe in those tiny, controlled studies you talked about, some kids improved by going to private schools, but, again, the real issue, the thing the voucher-proponents claim it's all about, is improving education in general, not just for a few kids. And, again, those studies cannot possibiliy be analogous to a state-wide program. There are just bigger public policy issues that those studies couldn't possibly address. I just think that to contemplate taking money away from the state's educational budget, especially in a state like California where education has been chronically underfunded for two decades, is a travesty. To advocate using a dime of it to make it easier for wealthy families to send their kids to private schools is incomprehensible.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 18:18:20 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Nonsense, Scott Message:

Nonesense? You're prepared to claim that the only problem with the system of education in the US is underfunding, lack of adequate pay for teachers, too small classes, etc.? You're unprepared to consider an alternative to the present 'racket' because you're willing to infer, without conclusive evidence, that your logic of how it *would* work is definitive? Frankly, I don't see as much as a hairsbreadth difference between your position and that of the NEA. Sheesh, your unwillingness to even consider alternatives (beyond a few charter programs) has almost convinced me to vote for Bush. Whatever he does we'd at least obtain a hearing for an alternative approach. Short of that, I'm beginnig to think all the legitimate studies in the world, no matter what they prove, or how close to the 'gold standard' they come, will mean nothing. I know you've read 'Savage Inequality' but have you also read Eric Hanushek's 'Improving America's Schools,' or do you simply decide that anything that doesn't agree with your priors must be nonsense? Hanushek (Brookings) raises questions about whether inner city and minority schools are indeed 'underfunded' or simply mis-managed. I don't start with a set of priors and then try to prove them. While one possible scenario for a voucher system might be a two-tiered system of private education it's not at all clear that no voucher system would be able to avoid that outcome, or that it is even the dominant outcome. You are presuming a great deal. For one thing, there is little evidence that private education provides any significant advantage or benefit for white students, so I'm just not clear what the incentive would be for them to abandon public schools in droves. I attended private school, and failed to prevail upon my parents to let me attend public school. Private schools are not an unalloyed good for their students, and I see no reason to presume that public schools would not be able to compete. Like many liberals you are willing to assume the outcome of the story before the first act, often in direct opposition to documented facts and reliable and painstakingly compiled social science evidence. Sorry, but I call that nonsense. --Scott 'Wondering if I'm wasting my time discussing anything with liberals, and wasting my vote on a Democrat' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 21:39:09 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: More Nonsense, Scott Message:

You're prepared to claim that the only problem with the system of education in the US is underfunding, lack of adequate pay for teachers, too small classes, etc.? Your lack of precision is once again showing, Scott. When did I ever say this? Of course underfunding isn't the only problem, and I never once said it was, but maybe you just assume it because you have already labeled me 'liberal' and hence have me all figured out. kind of condescending, Scott. You're unprepared to consider an alternative to the present 'racket' because you're willing to infer, without conclusive evidence, that your logic of how it *would* work is definitive? Frankly, I don't see as much as a hairsbreadth difference between your position and that of the NEA. Again, you continue to just make things up. I never said I wouldn't consider alternatives and you know it. I am questioning a voucher program as an alternative that will really help. I think there are lots of 'alternatives' that are great ideas that don't siphon off scarce resources and give a windfall to the rich. They include, charter schools, choice among public schools, programs like the Edison project (a school in my area is part of that program because it was failing and scores have improbed.) And as to how a voucher program 'would' work, you are really ass-backwards. Before you advocate changing a system you really ought to have some kind of proof that the change will actually do more good than harm, other than wishful thinking I mean. It's called 'burden of proof' Scott. It's prudent to not make drastic changes just to see if it 'might' work. And I think I already said that I could see small-scale voucher systems for failing schools, like in Milwaukee and Cleveland. They don't jeopardize funding for the entire system. And I think you are saying all of this because you are simply unable, as I pointed out earlier, to point to any kind of proof that competition acutally would work to improve the public school system. There just isn't any proof, Scott, other than you bald statement that you just don't see any reason why public schools can't compete. Well I gave you one that you don't seem to want to deal with either, and that is that private schools get to pick the cream and public schools don't. That isn't competition in any fair sense of the term, and it's the main reason public schools can't compete, other than the reduced funding they will suffer as the result of vouchers. For one thing, there is little evidence that private education provides any significant advantage or benefit for white students, so I'm just not clear what the incentive would be for them to abandon public schools in droves. Well, if there isn't any advantage to going to a private school, what is the point again, of providing billions of dollars to send kids there through a voucher system? By the way, if the California prop is initiated the state will spend $3.3 billion a year just subsidizing CURRENT private school students. Not one dime of that would go into any kind of educational program, let alone any kind of educational improvement, and I say that's nuts from a public policy perspective. Any maybe not all schools are underfunded, but in a state like California which was until recently 49th out of 50 states in per-pupil funding, (It's now in the low 40s), it's pretty clear that the schools are under-funded. And that doesn't account for the fact that the state is going to have to build an average of a school a week for the next 10 years just to keep up with the explosion of students coming into the system. And of course, it's always easier for you to label me a 'liberal' or what was it earlier?...'on the left' than to really deal with the issue we are discussing. And as for assuming things without proof, I ask you again for the evidence that competition would actually work in public education. If that's true, how come we haven't seen improvement just from the private school competition we have already? Do you have any evidence?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 02:21:09 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Joe Subject: More Nonsense, Scott Message:

Joe, you know, I have noticed how in Hartford, the closest urban area to me, at any time of year, not just summer, the kids are playing out on the streets till 11 pm. I think kids need to be in bed early to be sharp in school. Maybe that effects the problem also. In Hartford, more girls have babies than graduate. I read your discussions but I dont have much to add.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 23:51:52 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Nonsense, Joe. Message:

Joe: Your lack of precision is once again showing, Scott. When did I ever say this? Of course underfunding isn't the only problem, and I never once said it was, but maybe you just assume it because you have already labeled me 'liberal' and hence have me all figured out. kind of condescending, Scott. Sorry, it's just that there isn't much left after you eliminate the possibility that the problem isn't systemic. Most of the measures you've proposed have been tried, and while they've had some impact it has been marginal. And again, I don't see any sky between your proposed solutions and the position taken by the NEA, which indicates to me that you do not believe the problem endemic at all. What I see is just more of the same, with a little tweak around the edges. The only significant change, as always, to funding. Again, you continue to just make things up. I never said I wouldn't consider alternatives and you know it. I am questioning a voucher program as an alternative that will really help. Well, the one thing we know a voucher program *would* do is upset the NEA. As to the rest, that's conjecture. There are studies suggesting that local schools don't compete substantively with charter schools or a small number of private schools. This suggests to me not that they aren't afflicted with 'scarce funding' but with a 'scarce will to compete.' The other piece of evidence that you keep ignoring is that there is some evidence that voucher programs help... and that they especially help minorities. Surely you're not going to fall back on the notion that this is due to funding differences are you? Surely you're no just jerking your knee? Surely not? Well I gave you one that you don't seem to want to deal with either, and that is that private schools get to pick the cream and public schools don't. That isn't competition in any fair sense of the term, and it's the main reason public schools can't compete, other than the reduced funding they will suffer as the result of vouchers. Again, I don't know that they can't compete... because there are no cases to cite. I do now that they don't compete. Not even with charter schools. And this clearly has nothing to do with funding. More like 'something's rotten in the state of Denmark.' So, perhaps what they need is more significant competition. Look I grant you that there are empirical issues here that have been dealt with, of necessity, rather lightly. But as research closes in on this issue it's all pointing in one direction, and it's not toward the NEA's so-called 'solutions.' And as to how a voucher program 'would' work, you are really ass-backwards. Before you advocate changing a system you really ought to have some kind of proof that the change will actually do more good than harm, other than wishful thinking I mean. It's called 'burden of proof' Scott. It's prudent to not make drastic changes just to see if it 'might' work. And who is making things up here, Joe? I said only that the research is sufficiently promising that a voucher program would benefit minorities that 'we might invest at least a little in order to get the details right.' After admitting that scaling up would be difficult I suggested that vouchers might provide sufficient incentive. To this you responded 'nonsense' proposing your theory that vouchers would result in a two tier system. Maybe you're right... but perhaps your assumptions are in error. We can probably get some purchase on this without inaugurating a full fledged statewide system. There are plenty of people not on the payroll of the NEA willing to do the research. But 'nonsense?' I think not. And I think you are saying all of this because you are simply unable, as I pointed out earlier, to point to any kind of proof that competition acutally would work to improve the public school system. There just isn't any proof, Scott, other than you bald statement that you just don't see any reason why public schools can't compete. It may be that I'm just getting tired of talking with you, Joe. You don't have any proof that competition won't work either. We do have proof that public schools don't bother to compete with charter schools, yet you tout them as some sort of solution. The contention that schools can and will compete under a systemic change is 'falsifiable' and yet you don't seem to want to put it to the test. Odd, really. Well, if there isn't any advantage to going to a private school, what is the point again, of providing billions of dollars to send kids there through a voucher system? But billions of dollars won't be provided unless parents send their kids to private schools. And having been, I think there are lots of reasons they won't... primary among them that there isn't a benefit in terms of achievement. And if they see that then they won't use the vouchers, etc. etc. Have you studied economics? Do you know what 'utility' is? And of course, it's always easier for you to label me a 'liberal' or what was it earlier?...'on the left' than to really deal with the issue we are discussing. And as for assuming things without proof, I ask you again for the evidence that competition would actually work in public education. If that's true, how come we haven't seen improvement just from the private school competition we have already? Do you have any evidence? I'm just hard pressed to figure out why you're not thinking outside the box. It occurs to me that ideology might be the culprit. I'd never consider you to be a 'liberal' otherwise. Clearly you're a pretty conservative guy, Joe. As for the other, there are some studies involving charter schools with a small number of private schools... and these are inconclusive. Last I checked the gold standard in the scientific method was 'falsifiability' not 'validity.' The latter went out with the Vienna Circle. You have to actually try something in order to falsify an hypothesis. We do know that public schools don't bother to compete with charter schools. Why should they, with folks like you in their corner? --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:27:04 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

. In other words the gap is not better in Texas than anywhere else. I know. That's why it undermines Bush's claim that it is. I don't know how Texas is scoring in math, but personally I can't believe Texas is outscoring Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin. Is that really true?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:16:16 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Yes. Without a doubt Texas is doing something right, but it's more attributable to people like Ann Richards than GWB. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:57:51 (GMT) From: Rick (formerly P-man) Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Hi Joe, I still don't know how I'm going to vote. It's the same old story... Bush is so disgusting and repulsive I'd vote for almost anybody to keep him out. But Gore is a dolt; the guy's a fake and just isn't as bad as Bush. I'd really hate to vote for Gore but I think in the end, if it means keeping Bush out, I'll do it. Nader is obviously far and away the best, and the only real, candidate. He's not perfect, but who is. Sometimes he seems more concerned with consumer rights and the environment than human and civil rights. It should be the other way around. Bush is so unbelievably ugly, as a human being, that I can't think of anything worse than having him as president. He's one of those people I can see through before they even open their mouth. It's like he's still in high school, and as Robin Wiliams described him... a 'towelsnapper'. I've never once heard Bush display any intelligence whatsoever. So... as I'm thinking through this, unless Gore really upsets me with his phoniness, between now and the election, I'll vote for him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 22:06:31 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Rick (formerly P-man) Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

It's interesting watching how similar in some ways some of the scenarios of your elections are to ours. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of people who would probably vote Nader because they're not satisfied with Gore, will - because the threat of Bush getting in has gotten stronger recently, on voting day go and vote for Gore instead of Nader, coz the idea of Bush getting in, is worse than that of Gore!! Is that a trait that you've seen before? Did that happen with Ross Perot too? I'm so glad you all find Bush scary because so do I - and I'm not going to be living here come December. He seems different from his father, but then maybe he is very much his father's son - if you know what I mean. I think that term 'towelsnapper' is very apt! Seriously, I still can't get it out of my head the way he spoke about putting those guys to death.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:34:14 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: TD Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Hi TD, As Joe mentioned, it was different with Ross Perot because his platform wasn't easily catagorized like Nader's (left vs right). But there may have been people who didn't vote for Perot in order to keep either Clinton or Bush Sr. out of office. Other than that election, and the one with Anderson, I don't think we've ever had this situation. Although, I think it might happen in primary elections. Certainly, people sometimes vote for one of two candidates to keep the other one out of office. Bush is absolutely scary. But where his father was evil, Bush Jr. is mediocre and adolescent... fine for driving a truck or being a low-level administrator, but not good for a major power position. What I want to know is... what politician (local or national or even other countries) in recent history has displayed such clear mediocrity and low intelligence as Bush? And don't say Dan Quayle because even he presented himself as more intelligent. Incidentally, the way Bush spoke about putting those guys to death is pretty typical of the Republican mentality. It probably didn't change anyone's mind who was thinking of voting for him. It's a very 'tit for tat' way of thinking; 'you get in my way, and I'll mow you down' sort of thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:12:38 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Rick Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Rick: I just heard a comment by a humorist that both presidential candidates have body temperature IQs with the best education money and family could buy. The only person who has been in office during my lifetime that I'm *sure* is smarter than me is Clinton. The most intelligent candidate we've had in this election cycle was Bradley (or possibly Nader) and neither had a very broad base of support. I think that Bush's frequent verbal gaffs will be a constant embarassment to us, should he be elected, but an enormous source of mirth on Australian radio and TV and a really decent antidote for Aussie Cultural Cringe. You have to look for the silver lining. (Not that they haven't gotten a kick out of Clinton, mind you.) On a more serious note, what Bush said was that those three racist murderers would be 'put to death,' which strictly speaking was merely accurate (except that only 2 of the three got the death penalty). I really don't see anything particularly barbaric or sinister in the statement, though perhaps it was something in his demeanor that offended TD. He did appear to be sort of boastful about it, which ought to make me cringe a little I guess. It could be that since I went to SMU in Dallas the speech patterns and sense of propriety of Texans isn't shocking to me. After all, the 'unwritten law' was actually a written statute in Texas as late as the sixties. (If you shot and killed your wife's lover that was your business. You could not be convicted of murder.) I can't imagine LBJ using pricisely the same words as Bush, but he wasn't as refined. 'Kill the bastards' would be more like it. Well, we were cruder when 'The Bull' was president. I might have said something more along the lines of 'will lose their life' and would be expecting a thump on the head from mom if I didn't have a properly sombre demeanor. Incidentally, whatever you think of Milosevic or the other Serb war crimirals there is no death penalty sanction for war crimes now. Somehow death doesn't seem sufficient anyway. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:59:10 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Hi Scott, That's funny about their IQ's being compared to body temp. Clinton is definitely smarter and more savvy than these guys. Personally I couldn't get past Bradley's dryness to pay attention long enough to determine his intelligence. But I could tell he was smarter than Gore and Dubya. The thing I notice about Bush is that there's *alot* in his demeanor. In fact that's where *it* all is. His 'message' is so terribly simple that it's indiscernable and even less remarkable than every other Republican I've heard. Reduce taxes, reduce government and blah, blah, blah. But his demeanor says 'I'm a tough whippersnapper and as long as ah'm 'round, ain't no guff gonna be passed to this cowboy.' His comment about executing those three guys carried all his ignorance about the inequities and ineffeciencies of the justice system. And that not withstanding, it carried no regret, or acknowledgement of the awfulness of execution. I really think Bush is a punk. He's a dumb high school kid in a suit, trying to prove something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 14:27:41 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Why no test? Message:

I just saw Bush interviewed on NBC... dumb as ever. Say, why don't they have a test that candidates have to pass in order to run in the election? You have to take a test to get a driver's license, or become a lawyer or doctor. Why isn't there a test to become president? It should include material that verifies candidates have enough information to make informed decisions, and sufficient problem-solving skills. And it should be pretty hard to pass because we only want really smart people fussing with nuclear weapons and resolving major problems. Right? Right?!!? RIGHT?????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:08:51 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Rick Subject: Why no test? Message:

Rick: Say, why don't they have a test that candidates have to pass in order to run in the election? Excellent idea. It should be a threshold test though. If we actually give weight to the score, beyond pass/fail, then I suspect all the smartest guys will be libertarians. That's the way it is around here. --Scott 'dimwit' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 00:24:26 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: TD Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

TD: It's interesting watching how similar in some ways some of the scenarios of your elections are to ours. This dynamic is true of all two party 'winner-take-all' electoral systems. What's different about the US is that we have one of the only successful 'presidential' systems in the world. The only other pure presidential system that has had similar success is Finland. In presidential systems you not only have the winner-take-all dynamic, but you also have weakened political parties, so that elections are to a much larger extent determined by the 'personal vote.' Of course, we also have optional voting. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 22:43:50 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: TD Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Hi TD, Yes, it must seem like a very weird election. It seems that way to me as well. I think Ross Perot had some appeal in 1992 as just 'somebody else.' But he had more of a draw from both of the major parties than Nader does. Nader definitely draws from the left, a group that has been disaffected by the rightward drift of the Democratic party under Clinton and Gore. I can't recall a third-party candidate possibly making a difference a presidential election for a long time, except perhaps Anderson in 1980, who arguably tipped a number of states away from Carter to Reagan. Bush is in many ways a 'stealth' candidate. He doesn't really want to talk about what he stands for because much of it is very unpopular. He just wants to push this 'compassionate conservative' nonsense and offer tax cuts. It's kind of the way Reagan got elected, although that was a time when people were much more unhappy with the economy than they are now. But despite the 'compassionate face' the unhappy fact is that Bush, together with Tom DeLay, Dick Armey and Trent Lott, is the de facto leader of a party and a movement that seeks to reverse decades of social progress as it simultaneously emasculates the federal government's avility to defend the interests of its poor and middle class citizens. Bush could not oppose those policies and maintain his power base even if he wanted to -- and there is no evidence he does. It's even more of a concern in foreign policy. An almost total novice (and frequent nitwit) when it comes to foreign affairs, Bush is dependent on his father's national security advisor, including Dick Cheney, Richard Perle (aka the 'prince of darkness'), Richard Armitage, Condoleeza Rice, and some others. All remain intellectually imprisoned inside a cold war paradigm that was already out of date when they first came into power in the 80s. Bush's team believes in an aggressive US foreign policy backed by a strong military, but it couldn't care less about promoting human rights, labor rights, or environmental protection. (Dick Cheney's disgraceful vote against freedom for Nelson Mandella is entirely consistent with this worldview.) Those advisors do not understand, much less embrace, that issues like depletion of the ozone layer, third world debt reduction, the global AIDS epidemic, increasing depopulation of ocean fisheries qualify as foreign policy issues. 'Global social work' is what Armitage calls these causes. This crew has little more use for the UN than does Jesse Helms. What's more, Cheney publicly endorsed the illegal campaigns of Oliver North during the Iran/contra scandal. Bush would just be relying on these scary people completely, because he hasn't a clue himself. In that way, he is not unlike Reagan was, and we all know what a success HE was.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:14:52 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Joe/Scott/Rick Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Wow. It's like something out of an Oliver Stone movie - all of this! Very interesting all you guys said. And now even a tad more scarier now I know a bit more about the guys behind him. I mean the fact that Cheney voted against the release of Nelson Mandela - unbelievable. Christ, is Gore advertising that fact to all the African-Americans? If not, he should .... I watched one of Bush's ads last night (doing what you said Joe, stealth techniques) and what I am trying to understand is how much will the American people really buy into this 'family values' trip, given that the makeup of the majority of modern American society, surely has to be similar to most other western countries. High divorce rates, single parents, merged families, same sex couples marrying/having kids, women having abortions etc etc? It's funny, but I find I have such a different perception of the US outside of the US than when I'm here. As soon as I get here, there is not just the very religious side of the US that hits you, but also this kind of almost childlike (and somewhat endearing I might add) very genuine striving to be 'moral and good', even if it's not always based on the right facts and can lead people to make incongruent choices. Love of Jesus and all he stood for? OH YES! Execute a murderer, don't forgive? OH YES! It's almost like the idealistic puritan streak takes over .... even when it is in total contradiction to the issue at hand. The US I perceive in Australia seems to be different - but that's probably to do with the aspects of your popular culture that we see. All the bands/celebs that come touring. Your TV shows. Shows like South Park, Sex in the City, the Simpsons and the Awful Truth which are so refreshingly honest - that's the perception of the US, we tend to get, so I guess that's why it is always a bit of a shock to come here, and be reminded that there is still a very conservative aspect. Do you think that many Americans who don't have the 'nuclear family' situation feel guilty in a way that they're not living up to some sort of ideal, and wish that they did? Would people vote for Bush, to try and create a society that he says he will, rather than the reality of the one you've got now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:20:04 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: TD Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

and what I am trying to understand is how much will the American people really buy into this 'family values' trip, given that the makeup of the majority of modern American society, surely has to be similar to most other western countries. High divorce rates, single parents, merged families, same sex couples marrying/having kids, women having abortions etc etc? I think 'family values' are code words for Christian conservatives, a key constintuency in the Republican Party, but one that appears to be losing some political power in recent years. The ideology of the right-wing is that 'the family' should be the basis of everything, with little or no support from outside 'the family.' And of course you are right, the 50s version of the American family is a distinct minority. But I think there is a certain nostalgia for the 50s, and a kind of fear of the changes that are happening in the society and a kind of desire to go back to a time which was, supposedly, better. There are all kinds of other stuff buried in there, however, including patriarchy, submission of women to men, a rejection of non-conventional families like gay families, anti-feminism, a rejection and demonization even, of single mothers, etc. I think it is motivated by fear of the modern world, which, I think, all fundamentalist movements, whether they be Christian, Islamic or whatever, are essentially based upon. Ask a gay person, or any other minority who doesn't fit the norm, and they will tell you right away what the term means, and it DOESN'T include them, that's for sure, and they are very aware of it. Very astute about the disconnect between what is in the media, and what is happening on the ground, and the image that Americans often have of themselves. This country is based on the puritanical model; that is what is espoused. But I have other friends from other countries who point out the very same thing you do, and that is the disconnect between that, and what Americans are bombarded with every single day in advertising, media, etc. We have this puritanical image, but then are fascinated by, and inundated with, sex, violence, glorification of greed, titillation of all sorts, and it sells, sells, sells. Americans can't get enough of it, maybe partly because it seems sinful, whereas in some other societies, France for example, it just isn't such a big deal. The other thing is that we expect our leaders to be puritanical as well, kind of religious role models or something equally ridiculous, and so the candidates say and do ridiculous things to try to prove that. That was what was amazing about the Clinton sex scandals, and I think it did demonstrate a real change. When the scandal broke, I was sure Clinton was toast. But something changed, and I think is speaks well of the American people, that perhaps they have evolved. They didn't just reject him, but actually a large group rallied around him as being unfairly attacked. It was fascinating to watch. By the way, Clinton's biggest supporters where those very groups that don't fit the 'family values' model, like blacks and gays.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:09:49 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Joe Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Really interesting perceptions Joe, and I find that whole family values trip very alienating to me too. And yet because it is constantly dredged up and reinforced as the solver of all problems, I think a lot of people still aspire to reach it. For example, a relative of mine, HAD to get married by 30, now he HAS to have children by his MID-30s (because that's what his father did) even though there are all sorts of issues with his wife. Anyway everyone who knows him says he's a mid-life crisis just waiting to happen, as he has lived his life according to society's acceptable deadlines as opposed to what was really right for him. I think your take on American society, the puritanical side vs. the fascination with sex, violence - taboo stuff etc is very similar to the Italian situation, where they have the whole Catholic guilt thing, but then we know what Italian men are like!! One of the guys who I worked with at my previous Italian company was so funny. He used to constantly have affairs and rip people off bigtime, but then go to mass every Sunday without fail! I agree with you about the Clinton thing being such a fascinating event to have happened, and as you say, a good reflection that people supported him. I think probably the issue most people are left with in regards to him, is not the fact that he had a blow-job, but that he lied the way he did. If he hadn't lied, it wouldn't have been as big a deal as it was. In Australia there would be more respect for Clinton for what he has done for your economy, than disrepect for the fact that he got sucked off by Monica. What is it about 'role models' and the higher up the pedestal they get put on, the more likely they are to do something not expected of someone in their role. ie, Maharaji!! Just before I left, our 60 minutes did an interview with Larry Flynt and his million dollar reward to out any political figures who are doing anything deviant and being hypocritical by espousing family values, and I thought it was a great idea. Wouldn't it be funny if they got something on Bush before the election!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:37:52 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Joe, TD: Just to set the record straight, the individual who first raised the issue of 'family values,' and the devasting impact that breakup of the family structure and resultant values decline was likely to have on the US inner city (though not on the middle and upper class where the practices began) was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the currently retiring Democratic Senator from New York whose seat is now contested by Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio. There is now a huge body of sociological literature that supports his original contention, that break up of the family structure begets a general disruption in 'social capital.' TD is correct that this is now a fact of life. Pat Moynihan accurately points out that measures that attempt to tear down programs like Aid to Dependant Children on the theory that they're trying to rebuild 'family values' are really extensions of the same disruption in social capital and values decline that began in the 1960s, and amount to an enormous 'breach of faith.' There's a lot of knee jerk in this area on both sides. This is one reason that I see the guaranteed annual income as so important, and why it was such a tradgedy that it was defeated... by the left. The history is that Moynihan promoted it to Nixon, who was a typical 'noblesse oblige' Quaker conservative. (He belonged to the Reformed rather than the 'Friends' branch. The Reformed Quakers have ministers like most protestant denominations, and are politically conservative... but highly moralistic.) Nixon then proposed the statutes thinking that he would go down in history as a great progressive reformer, to equal the role he played in opening China to the West. To his chagrin he met systematic opposition by the left, who hated him for quite different reasons. The left, it seems, had become puritanical in adherence to their 'own cause' and their conviction that Nixon was some sort of secular anti-christ, to be opposed at all costs no matter what the context. God, politics in the US is fun! To reiterate, it was a Democrat who first raised the issue of family values. Indeed, it was probably the greatest Democratic Senator in American history. (I shook his hand in September.) --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:02:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

I'm aware of Moynihan's statements back 25 years ago, but, as I's sure you know, that isn't at all what TD or I are referring to, and I'm sure Moynihan would also not be very enthused about the meaning the right-wing has laid on that term, and how they have co-opted it. By the way, if you wanted to see a lightning rod on the issue of 'family values' especially concerning the role of women, you would never find a better one than Hillary Clinton. Man, what that woman has put up for the audacity of trying to control her own life, amazes me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 04:43:39 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Joe: but, as I's sure you know, that isn't at all what TD or I are referring to, and I'm sure Moynihan would also not be very enthused about the meaning the right-wing has laid on that term, and how they have co-opted it. Well, there really are two issues and it is not always clear what people are referring to, since the term 'family values' like the term 'liberal' have been coopted. 'Family values' does not refer to the specific values held by individuals within the family, but to the value of family itself as an institution. That's the legitimate meaning. A number of changes in the 20th century have had negative impact on the value of family. Two that are controversial are openness about homesexuality and women's liberation. While there might be a net benefit in terms of social welfare it is undeniable that these changes have disrupted family, primarily because they have changed the role of men. However, the biggest catalyst for change in the value of family has been the birth control pill. This, again, may be a net benefit... but we are still left with the dilemma of what to do about declining social capital, etc. And it should be obvious that there's no going back. I think Moynihan's approach addresses the problems directly, rather than obliquely, without being reactionary. There is an interesting social experiment underway at the moment. Japan legalized the birth control pill in 1999. Up until that time Japan had resisted many of the trends we've seen growing here and in western europe. So watch what happens in Japan very carefully. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:57:18 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

I'm aware of the distinction, Scott. And I have never heard anyone suggest that the family isn't valuable. Of course it is. But that's where the agreement ends. First, what is meant by 'family?' How do you define what is really a 'family' and what isn't? Plus, how do you address social change, especially the changing role of women, going from unpaid to paid work, partly due to a system which totally devalues any labor that isn't paid. And do you recognize, embrace, and adjust policies to address the new reality, or do you either pretend the new reality doesn't exist, or try to revert back to an earlier time when a different reality existed? I think the major changes have all been economic. Now it is essential that women work. It isn't an issue of women just having the choice, due to 'liberation' and birth control. I saw a study the other day that women are returning to work much earlier after having children. I think this is of economic necessity, not because they want to. With the majority of women working, the family has changed, forever. How does 'openeness about homosexuality' change the role of men? That doesn't make any sense. Regarding birth control in Japan, I think somehow they had their own form of birth control, because I think Japan has one of the very lowest bith-rates in the world and this has been true for a couple of decades. So, I'm not sure that legalizing the birth control pill will have that much effect, although I agree with TD that it's about time. I mean, it's not like Japanese women have been barefoot and pregnant until now. I guess they just used other means of birth control. So, I think there won't be all that much change.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 20:41:59 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Joe: But that's where the agreement ends. First, what is meant by 'family?' How do you define what is really a 'family' and what isn't? This is not the source of much controversy in social science, except for those who want to define long term homosexual relationships as family. Those probably perform some of the roles of family, but so far they don't seem involved in the more critical social function of instilling in young persons a sense of community, and a conviction that antisocial and asocial behaviors have consequences, and the opposing sense that following the rules will be rewarded, etc. Plus, how do you address social change, especially the changing role of women, going from unpaid to paid work, partly due to a system which totally devalues any labor that isn't paid. Maybe I don't understand the question. The role of women has changed, in the workplace and elsewhere. That has consequences. The fact that we don't regard unpaid work very highly is a matter of the deeply buried adolescent psyche in our society. We'll soon have an unpaid baby boom generation with a hyperactive social conscience. Maybe they can change things. They'll hafta do something... And do you recognize, embrace, and adjust policies to address the new reality, or do you either pretend the new reality doesn't exist, or try to revert back to an earlier time when a different reality existed? Well, clearly I'm not pretending the new reality doesn't exist. But, I'm not rushing forward to embrace it either, which probably devalues any opinion I might have with you. It takes time to adjust to change, to evolve new social institutions. What's your social context, and to what degree are your opinions shaped by it? Is it the preeminent social context? Should we all just drop our perspective and adopt yours? Is that what you mean by accepting change? I think the major changes have all been economic. Now it is essential that women work. It isn't an issue of women just having the choice, due to 'liberation' and birth control. Oh, but it was. It may now be a necessity, just as expanding our highway system seems a necessity. What is causal should be pretty clear before too long in Japan. Regarding birth control in Japan, I think somehow they had their own form of birth control, because I think Japan has one of the very lowest bith-rates in the world and this has been true for a couple of decades. Yeah, but they didn't have a system that was as reliable as the pill, or more importantly one that as clearly removed the responsibilities and obligations associated with pregnancy from the shoulders of men. So, I'm not sure that legalizing the birth control pill will have that much effect, although I agree with TD that it's about time. I mean, it's not like Japanese women have been barefoot and pregnant until now. I guess they just used other means of birth control. So, I think there won't be all that much change. You want to bet? How does 'openeness about homosexuality' change the role of men? That doesn't make any sense. Did you ever read Fukuyama, by the way? What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Look, a 'homosexual family' is just barely a conceivable entity, according to the most generous and least restrictive definition for what 'family' means. Is 'generous and least restrictive' some sort of clue? What role did your father play in your life, and how would you ever have that same meaning for another 'little Joe?' We've been around this barn before, about the impact of these social changes on rule following, willingness to 'play fair,' to defer gratification, social constraints on men to take responsibility for offspring, etc., etc. The fact is that social constraints are about the only way to have men hang around. They have a biological first impulse to wander. Homosexual men have a wandering subculture, which is no real surprise, so that even if it doesn't hurt it sure doesn't help. This may not apply to you personally, but I can see that you're not really willing to concede the role of your peers in fomenting the general social disruption, so let's skip it. I'm single, so I'm not doing much good either, at least in that realm. This is not to say that there isn't some sort of compensating benefit, or that the net effect isn't positive. If you want to refer to my little three person household as a family go ahead. But it's a remarkably anemic little family, at best. It doesn't meet my needs and it doesn't meet anyone else's. It's just that things are too disruptive to be out in that milieu, with few effective constraints on anyone just taking the shortest route to personal gratification, abandoning a commitment because they've seen a better offer, the incessant sound of Velcro as we loose the bonds of our relationships with ever greater frequency, and then reattach with as little fanfare or fuss as possible lest we get superglued by our privates. And the situation is far worse for women, especially over 50. So, pardon me if I'm not celebrating anyone's liberation just yet. Maybe the freedom was worth it. What's the difference? It's not like there was an alternative. It's probably a matter of where we reside anyway... what Marx called 'cross-pressure.' But, at least I can see the cross-pressure that's affecting me. I honestly think I'm more open than you on most of this stuff. Thanks for giving me your point of view. --Scott 'still undecided' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 22:16:05 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

This is not the source of much controversy in social science, except for those who want to define long term homosexual relationships as family. Those probably perform some of the roles of family, but so far they don't seem involved in the more critical social function of instilling in young persons a sense of community, and a conviction that antisocial and asocial behaviors have consequences, and the opposing sense that following the rules will be rewarded, etc. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that families with children headed by a homosexual couple only perfom 'some' of the roles of family? Why do you say that? Other than espousisng the value that a homosexual relationship is normal, why would there be any other differences about whether 'antisocial and asocial behaviors have consequences,' especially because many families headed by heterosexuals also teach their kids that homosexual relationships are not antisocial and should be accepted? Yeah, but they didn't have a system that was as reliable as the pill, or more importantly one that as clearly removed the responsibilities and obligations associated with pregnancy from the shoulders of men. Well, according to TD, there were a lot of abortions in Japan, and that combined with IUDs and other birth control must have been used to keep the birth rate so low. I have never seen much evidence that men have taken much responsbility for pregnancy obligations, other than 'shotgun' weddings which is a kind of 'forced' responsbility, that is, and I think probably the legalization of abortion did more to undo that than the pill did. Look, a 'homosexual family' is just barely a conceivable entity, according to the most generous and least restrictive definition for what 'family' means. Well, you were talking about 'openness about homosexuality' and now you're talking aobut a 'homosexual family' (whatever that is) and they aren't the same thing. You said that such 'openness' has 'changed the role of men.' You haven't answered that question as to how that is. And if you want to stereotype gay men as 'wanderers' well, fine, but if that's true that's always been the case and you don't say what 'openness' about it has done to change the role of men. What are you talking about? And you really ought to make a distinction between single men, either gay or straight, and men who consider themselves in committed relationships, gay or straight. I think in both cases, once there is a spouse and children, the wandering tends to stop, until men reach a mid-life crisis, maybe, but that applies to both orientations, as the majority of men (and women) of both orientations end up cheating at some point. Frankly, I think the prevelence of divorce has had much more to do with disruption of 'families' than anything else. It's up to 50% of marriages, and you don't seem to mention that. Life isn't easy, Scott. And relationships and families are difficult. For some people they work and for some people they are a nightmare. Plus, we are a very mobile society where people often don't live near extended families, but I have seen that people make their own families. I guess I see that in my life. I have a terrific relationship, and I have a great biological family, although I don't live near them, they tend to visit me often, maybe as much for the location as for me, and I have this terrific circle of friends, who are every bit as close and supportive, and committed, as families. And it includes gay couples who have kids, who seem to be doing a pretty excellent job at having a 'family' and I think I get to be a part of it and I would disagree with anyone who says that's not a family. I guess I agree with what Pat Schroeder said, that a 'family' happens when you go home at night and the people there don't throw you out. Maybe they even love and cherish you and make you feel wanted and cared for. So, I guess the definition of 'family' shouldn't be static, and perhaps your ideas about it, and that of the christian right, shouldn't be so rigid. And perhaps those 'non-traditional' families out to be supported and condoned, and I think if they were, it would just make them even stronger and we would all benefit from that. Just a thought.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 00:46:51 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Joe: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that families with children headed by a homosexual couple only perfom 'some' of the roles of family? No, just pointing to the rather obvious fact that most homosexual couples don't have children. Well, according to TD, there were a lot of abortions in Japan, and that combined with IUDs and other birth control must have been used to keep the birth rate so low. I have never seen much evidence that men have taken much responsbility for pregnancy obligations, other than 'shotgun' weddings which is a kind of 'forced' responsbility, that is, and I think probably the legalization of abortion did more to undo that than the pill did. I'm not really willing to discuss this. The theory is expounded by Frank Fukuyama, who has not only evidence but a rather convincing argument. If you're not willing to read that then we'll just have to wait for the evidence from the Japanese social experiment to come in. Anyway, are you just arguing for argument's sake? I'll betcha. That's all. Frankly, I think the prevelence of divorce has had much more to do with disruption of 'families' than anything else. It's up to 50% of marriages, and you don't seem to mention that. Jesus Joe, don't you ever get tired of typing? The divorce rate is up because the glue that holds marriages together has 'gone soft.' The issue is, why? (Well, that's not really an issue, but it seems to be with you.) And more importantly, what to do about it? I think the disruption can be traced to the low regard in which we hold the family, and family bonds, the role of fathers and mothers, etc. In short, 'child rearing.' These defifiencies can, in turn, be traced to a series of social changes that may have been unavoidable, but have nonetheless been destructive. You seem to feel a compulsion to provide a counter argument, though I don't see why? The argument proposed seems perfectly plausible, simple, and sufficient. Perhaps the fact that it doen't involve some sort of capitalist conspiracy bothers you. I can't figure it out. Perhaps more committed homosexual relationships are part of the solution, though probably not a big part. There aren't that many of you guys, and as a rule you don't have children. Some of you are role models though, so maybe it would help. What sort of institutions would promote less wandering? Seesh, how about a pilot program? A field trial? I don't know. Didn't Hawaii recently legitimize homosexual marriage? There yah go, a ready-made social experiment. We need answers. I'm open concerning what to do about it, but not very open as to why. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. There are a number of alternative theories about why the disruption of families has occurred, most of which Fukuyama successfully demolishes in 'The Great Disruption.' Have you bothered to read it? Not that you have to, but I've been over this material before as I recall. I guess I agree with what Pat Schroeder said, that a 'family' happens when you go home at night and the people there don't throw you out. Maybe they even love and cherish you and make you feel wanted and cared for. Pat Schroeder is a nincompoop, and that definition of family is 'nincompoopery.' No further comment is necessary. So, I guess the definition of 'family' shouldn't be static, and perhaps your ideas about it, and that of the christian right, shouldn't be so rigid. And perhaps those 'non-traditional' families out to be supported and condoned, and I think if they were, it would just make them even stronger and we would all benefit from that. Just a thought. Thanks, I appreciate that. It's precisely what I was looking for. I don't recall having suggested a rigid definition of family. All I'm really interested in is an effective definition, relevant to the role of family in producing... what? Willingness to play by the rules, and a conviction that playing by the rules and being dependable, responsible, and accountable, is or will be rewarded. I contend that this education begins, and often ends, within the family. Turns out that family also plays a dominant role in establishing the IQ, and subsequent achievement, of children.... But that's another story. BTW, don't bring up Pat Schroeder's definition of family again or I'll vote for George W. Bush. That scared me. Fair warning. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 19:07:30 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Joe Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

You're right Joe about women in the West starting work due to economic necessity. I think it was due to the world wars, and men being away, that western women first started to do work on mass outside of the home. Nothing to do with there being a conscious social decision to allow women to start working out of any equality issues. Joe. re the low birth rates in Japan - it's a pretty ugly story. High abortion rates have been standard in Japan for many years. I have seen a number of docos on it over the years, how basically there has been this enormous money-making legal industry in abortions, and also in addition, women paying a lot to have their hymens sewn up again to be once again 'virginal' for their husbands. Ironically it has been the abortion doctors and their lobbyists who were helping prevent the introduction of the birth control pill. I think the WHO criticized the Japanese medical industry a lot for this policy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 15:41:33 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Family values and all of that Message:

Interesting the definition changes. I guess when I think of the term 'family values' it is the idealised perception of what a traditional family should be like that and was shown in all the 1950's shows. We had the same thing in Oz and there is for some people this fantasy how everything was perfect back then - although fortunately the media has done a pretty good job debunking this notion, especially with all the domestic abuse stories and Priests molesting those orphans in their care, who now as adults are coming out and seeking retribution from the church. There was this great doco on debunking the 1950s myths in Oz. Anyway one old guy said about the aborigines, 'I wish we could go back to the 1950s. There weren't any of the aboriginal problems back then', and the reporter goes 'yeah, that's because nobody knew who the aborigines were then!' because their contempory plight hadn't been caught on any footage until the early 60s... I think if anyone actually did a survey and found out how many American families actually fitted that traditional model, they wouldn't find as many as they thought, and whose to say one that fits that model is functional. Nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. And I have yet to see one family who is 'functional'. Scott, your point on Japan. A bloody long time coming, and was equally tied up with greed as it was with the submission of women. I'm glad that the strangehold the abortion doctors of Japan had on preventing the birth control pill being readily available - has finally been stopped.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:39:08 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: TD Subject: Nuclear Family and the Feminine Mystique Message:

TD: Interesting the definition changes. I guess when I think of the term 'family values' it is the idealised perception of what a traditional family should be like that and was shown in all the 1950's shows. I'm not necessarily endorsing her perspective on everything, but Betty Friedan's motivation for The Feminine Mystique had to do with the unhealthy stress the the nuclear family put on women, and ultimately therefore on the family. Betty was, at the time, working on her Masters in Family Psychology at Berkeley. I don't think she ever completed the program after the success of the book, though. The Nuclear Family, a point Betty and others have made frequently, is a sort of emasculated version of the traditional or extended family. I think Betty would agree that the traditional family was a good deal healthier, and that women were not subject to quite the same level of stress. They were, for instance, often regarded as at least equal partners in pioneer families. My great grandmother, Belle, was simply known as 'Mom' to everyone... and was very clearly the matriarch of a family that had no patriarch. You might say that the 'feminine mystique' arose as a sort of surrogate and inadequate replacement for the amputations that resulted in the nuclear family. Concerning the changes about to occur in Japan, that have already reached an advanced stage here, I think we pay a price for the absence of due deliberation about the negative consequences of change. I don't see anything as an unalloyed good. At some point in the not-too-distant future we'll begin to create and institutionalize replacements for the cohesive family unit, which might place some rather weighty obligations on both men *and* women. I'm hoping that we talk about this a good deal more, and I'm not in favor of dealing anyone out of the conversation right now. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:20:25 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

You are absolutely correct. They are a scary bunch, and you just scraped the surface. Their financial backing opens up another wave of stench. But let's not back away from labeling them exactly what they are....CORPORATIST FASCISTS!! And YES IT IS HAPPENING HERE! What to do???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:54:46 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

ExTex: Nice to see you again. Just curious about your terminology. Why fascists? Are you a reformed Texan, or just a Californian? -Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:21:08 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Why Fascist?(0T) Message:

Oh, if the shoe fits...etc. It would be too long of a speel to write here. It would turn into a 'history lesson'. Let me just say that if one studies the real agenda that has been afoot since oh.... around the time that Kennedy, Kennedy, ML King, Malcolm X and a few other less well known individuals were shot...around that time...until now...it seems that the core of the elite right wing movers and shakers cannot be called anything else but fascists. And even their mouthpiece lapdogs like Rush, GG Liddy, Ollie North, etc practise their art so that Herr Goebbels (Nazi Minister of Propaganda) would be very proud of them. They certainly do not really believe in or try to practise real democracy (representative or otherwise) in spite of all their patriotic babble. Why call them the 'nice' acceptable names that they label themselves with? For more of where I am coming from may I suggest writings by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and other progressive leftists. Z Magazine, Covert Action Quarterly, and Prevailing Winds are also very good.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 13:21:45 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Why Fascist?(0T) Message:

ExTex: I may have been a bit over the top in my criticism of your ideological leanings, but was very disappointed in a Chomsky lecture I heard recently. He would gain a lot of insight by reading Louis Hartz, I think. The problem with the American left is that they seem to talk exclusively amoungst themselves, and at a certain point the rhetoric begins to spin out of control. It might be a good idea to give someone a scholarship to the Institute for Humane Studies, just to see what the opposition is actually saying. The danger, of course, is that you might actually be impressed by some of their arguments. I've seen the socialist movement deliberately marginalize itself for so long that I'm used to being disappointed that their frequently utilitarian insight about some issues can be so easily ignored. And, of course, if they don't have a profound conspiracy theory then they're not nearly as interesting... but that door swings both ways. Kapital is basically one huge conspiracy theory. Without that it's just a slightly off-the-wall treatise on human nature. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:55:40 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Z Magazine Message:

Hey ExTex, I agree with you that Z Magazine is great. One of the best publications out there, if you ask me. I have taken to giving subscriptions to Z Magazine as Christmas presents to family and friends. Most of the people I have given it to love it. Actually, it's one of the few magazines that has regular stuff by Chomsky in it. Michael Parenti is also geat. Also his son, Christian Parenti, has written an excellent book on the prison industrial complex, that just came out this year. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 07:07:08 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Joe Subject: Z Magazine Message:

'Lockdown America' by Christian Parenti...yup, got it. Very good. I also like Mr Howard Zinn, Vandana Shiva, and that Australian Dr who has done such a great anti-nuclear fight. I can't think of her name just now. Yea I've been giving away Z subscriptions too. Nothing but 'thanks' in return. Their website Znet is very good too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:27:32 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Well at least you're not foaming at the mouth Message:

Or maybe you are. It's hard to tell in this medium. But good points, all, ExTex. It looks like you've really got it all figured out. Good for you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 08:28:44 (GMT) From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: Background to your anti-radicalism Message:

You've made a few comments recently which make it sound like you see no point in fighting the system from any kind of radical perspective. Would be interested to know if this is a change of position over the years, and if so why?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 21:11:15 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well at least you're not foaming at the mouth Message:

Heh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:44:50 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Why Fascist?(0T) Message:

ExTex: Calling this fascist severely undermines the credibility of these detractors. As brilliant as I think Chomsky is, his political musings are light-headed. Worse, the left has been down this road before and got absolutely nowhere. I'd continue the argument, but don't think they'll get any further this time than last. Chomsky--what a waste of a brilliant mind. The day the left opposed the guaranteed annual income convinced me they didn't know cake from gravel. Ideology can be a really ugly thing. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:45:56 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Joe Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

Hi Joe, I also have found myself between a rock and a hard place regarding this year's election. Bernie Sanders is the only Progressive (he started the party in VT when he became mayor of Burlington years ago and the progressives are going strong here). In Congress he has caught quite a bit of attendion in DC since he was first elected as an Independent. He's friends with Ralph Nader and Jim Hightower, etc., etc. Right now, Ed Flannagan is running against Jim Jeffords (R) for his long held senate seat and I am voting for Flannagan. He was the state auditor for years and royally pissed a lot of folks in Montpelier off because of his fearless exposure of corruption and waste in the Vermont government. He's also gay. Jeffords is pretty safe if he gets back into the US Senate, but I'm still going with Flannagan. I've decided to vote for Gore. I'm not happy with this, but if Bush gets in I really believe this country is in for more than a rude awakening about what the power of multi-national corporations are doing to our society. It's become very clear to me that in this particular election the stakes are too high for us to allow Bush and his Republican machine to start running the country. Very scary. I don't believe that Gore will do as much harm as Bush would. The main issues for me are 1) women's choice-abortion 2) the possible gutting of social programs, such as welfare, which both parties brag about, ('we've reduced the welfare roll by 1/2...blaa...blaa...blaa..) when they have in fact, placed many people in abject poverty; 3) universal health care, which the democrats probably won't consider, but in Vermont, programs have been put in place which help a lot of the working poor; 4) the Supreme Court spots which will be open for the next president to fill. Voting for Nader would be the same as writing in Homer Simpson at this stage in the game. It's all a sorry state of affairs. I know in my gut though, that if Bush wins this election, we'll all be in for a very nasty surprise. Gore doesn't bother that much, but Bush? No way. I can't play around with my vote this time, it's just too important to the needs of the poor, the working class, and middle class. It's amazing to me how the middle class doesn't understand that the 1% of the wealthy receiving tax cuts will take the U.S. on a long road downhill. Bernie Sanders has been talking for years about the 1% (which includes goomraji) of the wealthiest getting the best tax breaks. It's not a myth, and last time I looked, I wasn't in that category, nor are the majority in the country. This year Ben & Jerry's Ice cream sold out to a multi-national corporation and it was a great disappointment to many in Vermont. I won't buy another pint of that ice cream again, and I am royally pissed at Ben and Jerry, who have for years held their 'One World, One Heart' annual stockholders meeting/music festival in my own home town. Now they are millionaires off the backs of those in Vermont who got them going in their very successful business (they started in a garage)! There are many social issues which concern me about Bush, and again, I think he's as stupid as a stump. No, this time I have to do the traditional thing and vote in my party. I really, really, wanted to vote for Nader, too. It's a crappy situation we've got here, but lesser of two evils? Definitely, Gore. My 2cents, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:55:24 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Cynthia and All Subject: Ralph Nader (0T) Message:

I am a BIG Nader supporter and a Green Party member. I believe in Ralph and think he is as honest as it gets, in politics. I also think that the Democratic Party is untrustworthy to the core. But George Dribble-yew is a totally moronic puppet for the corporate fascists, ala Ronald Reagan (Grampa Caligula). A smart-ass jerk-off 'towelsnapper' who unconvincingly recites back the crap that has been written for him to say and then smirks and mugs for the camera as he looks around with that 'I-know-that-I'm-gonna-be-elected-cuz-my-rich-friends-are-making-sure-of-it-so-fuck-yew' look on his puss. (Makes me want to slap him.) Your argument for supporting Gore is starting to convince me....a little. But I am not completely convinced as the Gore record is really very very conservative. He is no leftist, or even a liberal (in the historical sense) by his record. And he is completely in bed with BIG CORPORATE MULTINATIONALS! ALL THE WAY! TOTALLY PRO-WTO, WORLD BANK, IMF, NAFTA etc. And do not kid yourself one bit...people have been, and will be dying as a result of these policies. Gore is in the thick of it! He isn't as blatant about it as Dribble-yew....but he has mean and ugly friends too! But your arguement is convincing in ....HOW FAR CAN WE AFFORD TO HAVE THE EGALITARIAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE LAST 30 YEARS (not that there have been THAT many) ROLLED BACK AND DESTROYED BY FASCISTS? What to do?? I sure am enjoying your viewpoints. Thanks for posting them. ps- Did anyone see 'Frontline' on PBS last night? 'The Future of War' or some such title...Boy what a load of BLATANT PROPAGANDA! Whew. Years ago that program was really good. But everytime I turn it on...CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY DISGUISED AS JOURNALISM. Yuk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:41:50 (GMT) From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Joe, Scott, Rick, et al Subject: Do you want Bush choosing the next Supreme Court? Message:

I think that one of my fears is the thought of Bush being the one to choose several members of the Supreme Court; I hope that those of you who are willing or considering a vote for Nader can live with that thought!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:00:45 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Tactical Voting Message:

Mickey, I agree with you about the Supreme Court, but I think one can ethically and morally vote for Nader depending on where you live. If you live in New York or Texas, for example, your vote will not help elect Bush and might help the Greens get the 5% for matching funds. As I said above, when I saw Nader in Oakland last Saturday, he even used the word 'tactical voting' although he wasn't enthusiastic about it. As I said above, I'm waiting to see if it will be safe to vote for Nader in California. I think this is true of a lot of Nader support, it will move to Gore if it is close in the particular state. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 06:14:37 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Do you want Bush choosing the next Supreme Court? Message:

I say No, No, No to Bush as president. His Supreme Court and federal court choices will affect my life and those of my clients immeasurably. Look for many more executions. Even though I like what Nader has to say, I have to vote for Gore because he will appoint federal judges who are much less likely to engage in mass slaughter of death row inmates. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:17:21 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Everyone Subject: What do you think of this, shp? (OT) Message:

Democrats Hear Thunder on Left, and Try to Steal Some of Nader's By JAMES DAO ASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — Concerned that Ralph Nader has become a major threat to Vice President Al Gore's ability to win the presidency, the Democratic Party and its allies in the labor, environmental and women's movements are mounting aggressive campaigns in swing states across the country to dissuade liberal voters from supporting Mr. Nader, the Green Party candidate. In the Pacific Northwest, the League of Conservation Voters is preparing to run radio advertisements asserting that voting for Mr. Nader would be tantamount to voting for Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican. In Ohio, the state Democratic Party has begun flooding college campuses with leaflets urging students not to waste their ballots on the Green Party. In Wisconsin, the Service Employees International Union has dispatched hundreds of organizers to implore its 12,000 state members to vote Democratic, not Green. And the Democratic National Committee has organized an array of prominent liberals, including Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Gloria Steinem and Robert Redford to stump for Mr. Gore in Nader strongholds like Eugene, Ore., Madison, Wis., and Seattle. Not wanting to offend Mr. Nader or his supporters, those surrogates have been paying homage to his long record of fighting for a cleaner environment, consumer protection and labor rights. But they warn that a strong Nader showing can only help Mr. Bush — with potentially dire consequences for the very causes liberals hold most dear. 'Mr. Nader is a good man, he's raised important issues,' said Mark Fabiani, Mr. Gore's deputy campaign manager. 'But he himself admits that he can't win. What could be lost in this election is a woman's right to choose, what could be lost are tough environmental protections.' Told of the effort to squeeze the air out of his campaign, Mr. Nader said in an interview tonight: 'Their policy for six months has been to ignore me. So obviously we welcome this enhanced attention.' He added, 'All these good people who have succumbed to the lesser-of- two-evils syndrome are setting themselves up for another cycle of political betrayal.' Indeed, the sudden mobilization against Mr. Nader comes after Gore campaign officials had for months dismissed him as inconsequential. But Mr. Nader has stubbornly continued to hover around 5 percent in polls taken in half a dozen tightly contested states where a shift of just a percentage point or two could determine the winner, including Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico. A poll released today even shows Mr. Nader cutting into Mr. Gore's once- substantial lead in California. Now, with just two weeks left in one of the closest presidential campaigns in decades, Democrats say the last thing Mr. Gore needs is to be forced into a two-front war against both Mr. Bush and Mr. Nader. And while Gore campaign officials continue to express confidence in public that Mr. Nader's support will dwindle by Election Day, they are telling their surrogates in private that they are worried the Green Party candidate has become a real danger. 'Bill Daley is well aware that it's extremely important to deal with Nader voters,' Mr. Wellstone said, referring to Mr. Gore's campaign chairman. 'He understands this could be the margin of defeat or victory in the battleground states.' Mr. Gore himself has begun addressing Mr. Nader's challenge head on, telling voters in Washington on Monday that his environmental record was as strong as Mr. Nader's. 'I don't want to use the argument that a vote for him is a vote for Bush — that may be true,' Mr. Gore told a reporter for KIRO-TV in Seattle. 'I prefer to say, `Look, I want you to look at my record and my agenda and my passion for doing the right thing.' And I'll match that against anybody.' But Democratic strategists say they want Mr. Gore to avoid mentioning Mr. Nader, arguing that doing so only elevates the insurgent's profile and draws attention from their real target, Mr. Bush. For that reason, the Democrats are trying to shift the burden of wooing Nader voters to a stable of well-known liberal politicians and advocates. Ms. Steinem, for example, has been traveling by bus to campuses along the Pacific Coast, reading her list of 'the top 10 reasons I'm not voting for Nader.' On Sunday, she plans to join Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian organization, Robert Cox, president of the Sierra Club, and the rock singer Melissa Etheridge for a concert and rally in Seattle. Their roadshow is scheduled to visit Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico next week. 'Whatever value Nader brings to the public discourse,' Ms. Birch said in an interview today, 'it pales compared to handing the federal government and Supreme Court over to George Bush. We will do everything we can to peel votes away from Nader and give them back to Gore.' Mr. Nader has tried to argue that he is not likely to hurt Mr. Gore, asserting that many of his supporters are non-Democrats who probably would not vote if he dropped out of the race. Democrats dispute that. He has also said in recent weeks that he would focus his final campaigning on states where either Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore holds a substantial lead. But his tentative schedule includes stops in closely contested states like Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. The Democrats have asked Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, to campaign for Mr. Gore in the Pacific Northwest. And the Sierra Club will begin running television spots next week in five states where Mr. Nader is polling well that carry the message: 'Think there's no difference between the candidates? Think again.' Former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Mr. Gore's rival in the Democratic primaries, is being dispatched later this week to campaign in Oregon and Washington, where Democratic strategists are counting on him to woo liberal white men for Mr. Gore. Mr. Jackson has been sent to colleges where Mr. Nader is considered popular, including the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Because Mr. Nader could also win votes from union members who are angry with Mr. Gore for supporting global trade, the Democrats have organized a list of heavyweight labor leaders to help. Earlier this week, John J. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., toured the Northwest with other labor officials urging labor activists to stick with Mr. Gore. Andrew L. Stern, head of the service employees union, said in an interview that he had been telling crowds in the Northwest: 'If you can wake up the next morning and live with George Bush as the next president, then I guess you can vote for Nader. This is not a low-risk protest vote.' The Democratic Party has also been asking Gore supporters to flood the Nader campaign with e-mail messages urging him to drop out of the race. It has also been promoting a Web site created by a group of former colleagues of Mr. Nader's called nadersraidersforgore.com. Yet for all those efforts, some Democrats say they think the Gore campaign was slow to respond. Gary Sellers of Nader's Raiders for Gore, said of Mr. Gore's campaign: 'I think they are not taking him as seriously as they should. The Nader people are true believers. It's going to take some time to convince them to vote against him.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 19:42:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Sorry, Jerry Message:

I should have read your post before I posted a new thread about Nader. Thanks for posting the article, it was very similar to what I had heard.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:17:26 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Joe Subject: No problem (nt) Message:

goobladiidywasfklly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:30:37 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Progressive G party keeping politics honest in USA Message:

begins with first step, even if it means a loss to Shrub. Maybe that will wake more people up sooner, (as ExTex said on an earlier post) than to maintain the 'stagnant quo' and live in our holes and pick the lesser of the two evils all de time. Nothing is going to change if we don't do this and do it now. The political blackmail rap of a third party being the perennial 'spoiler' is an old outworn argument. The Green Party is the hope for the future of American politics becoming truly free and representative of the people and not the corporations. If Ralph gets 5%, then the Green Party gets millions of campaign money and will be an even more viable force to reckon with in the next elections - local, state and national. shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:28:09 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: shp Subject: Progressive G party keeping politics honest in USA Message:

The Green Party is the hope for the future of American politics becoming truly free and representative of the people and not the corporations. You might be right about this, but what you're missing is the reality, that's the REALITY, that the only thing the Green party is good for in this election is helping Bush get elected. Personally, I think a lot of Nader supporters are going to change their minds at the last moment, realize what they're doing, and cast their vote for Gore. You could be one of them, unless it's true what they say, that Nader's Raiders couldn't care less if it was Gore or Bush. Is that true? Do you care one way or the other? If Ralph gets 5%, then the Green Party gets millions of campaign money and will be an even more viable force to reckon with in the next elections - local, state and national. Do you want 4 years of Bush between now and then?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:50:40 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Progressive G party keeping politics honest in USA Message:

If Ralph gets 5%, then the Green Party gets millions of campaign money and will be an even more viable force to reckon with in the next elections - local, state and national. -shp Do you want 4 years of Bush between now and then? -Jerry Do I want it? No, but if that is what it takes, then so be it. I really don't think there is that much difference between them. Justice Scalia was ratified 98-0 by the Senate. That means that the Democrats and Republicans colluded to load the bench the way it was loaded. If Roe vs Wade got overturned by an ultra-conservative influx into the Supreme Court, I think that would blow the Republican Party as we know it apart. Like the Mets say: 'You gotta believe.'...and also put your money where your mouth is to make change happen in this thick material plane of US politics. -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:01:11 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Nader's Raiders for Gore Message:

Speaking of Nader's Raiders, 12 of the original Nader's Raiders wrote an open letter to Nader in support of Gore. See www.nadersraidersforgore.com And from Nader Is Poised to Play Spoiler: ... But in a news conference Saturday in Oakland--where more than 6,500 supporters packed a downtown coliseum to see Nader alongside Harvard professor Cornel West, singer Patti Smith and the former lead singer of the Dead Kennedys, Jello Biafra--Nader hinted that anxious Democratic voters could practice 'tactical voting' this year. ... In Oregon, where Gore's lead over Bush had shrunk to 1 percentage point in a recent survey, with Nader at 6 percent, Democratic leaders are becoming openly angry at the longtime consumer crusader. The Nader bid for the presidency is 'irresponsible and reckless to the progressive movement,' said Neel Pender, executive director of the Oregon Democratic Party. 'All the things he has worked on for 30 years he is willing to jeopardize for his own ego.' The same argument was made directly to Nader in an open letter at the end of last week by 12 of the original 'Nader's Raiders,' the team that worked with Nader to expose faulty consumer products, such as the Corvair automobile. 'It is now clear that you might well give the White House to Bush,' the letter said. 'As a result, you would set back significantly the social progress to which you have devoted your entire, astonishing career.' ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:25:50 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: all Subject: Nader's Raiders for Gore, more from Message:

. News articles from Nader's Raiders for Gore

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:53:31 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: G Subject: More rhetoric from Others for the weak-willed and Message:

weak-minded and weak of heart. A cause does not fit into a microwave or a drive thru. Things like this take time to make change happen. -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:06:54 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: weak-this-and-that Message:

More rhetoric from Others for the weak-willed and weak-minded and weak of heart. A cause does not fit into a microwave or a drive thru. Things like this take time to make change happen. -shp Have you actually read those articles? There's more than just rhetoric there. It looks like Gore is stronger (in a good way) on certain issues than Nader. Why you're calling them 'Others' and weak-this-and-that I don't know. Those are just vacuous insults. I think they are showing courage, moral conviction, and tactical smarts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:13:29 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: G Subject: to G Message:

G, I heard a 'Nader's Raider for Gore' this morning on TV. He says that Ralph pledged not to campaign in swing states and now that he is, some of his supporters are bailing because they think he's sabotaging the election to go to Bush. I don't know the whole story. Things may have changed that I am not aware of. I happen to believe in the man. He is dead serious about how similar both candidates are and I can see it too. If we keep on waiting and not doing anything, nothing will ever change, and every year the same guilt trip will be laid on the folks who are sick of the corrupt two party system. shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:02:00 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: But they are not similar Message:

Al Gore and George Dubya Bush junior (junior in more ways than one) are not similar at all on many issues. Try using the VoteMatch site and see for yourself. I did and found that Nader and Gore represent my views equally as much, Bush not much, Buchanan last. I see the environmental crisis as the most important issue we face. Damage to the environment is causing permanent changes to the earth, such as the extinction of species. Repairing the ozone layer (if allowed to happen) will take a very long time. Al Gore has been an environmental activist and has a decent voting record, whereas Texas is the most polluting state, partial thanks going to the guv. Bush denies that global warming is even happening. Four years is too long to wait while the environment gets destroyed more than is avoidable. Another thing, campaign finance reform is much more likely to happen if Gore gets elected and the democrats take control of congress. Gore has stated that reform will be one of his first orders of business. If reform happens, than both parties will both go towards the left and be less influenced by corporations and the rich. I really do think the democrats want reform, it stands to reason that they benefit by it. I think that Nader has already made quite a statement. It's not necessary now to give the election to the shrub. The likelihood that Nader will get 5% is quite low and is diminishing. I don't think I'm laying a guilt trip on anyone, I'm just pointing out the hard facts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:31:45 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: Nader: millionaire hypocrite? Message:

. Nader: millionaire hypocrite?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:04:06 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: G Subject: He deserves more than he has! Message:

G, I flipped over to the Salon article, read it and saw that the only possible handle they have on criticizing him is the Cisco stock. Did you read the article or just see the title and grab it? The article clearly states that he should by rights have more than what he has, based on the service he has provided to the Americna public and compared to the corporate heads. Whenever anybody tries to do something good especially in a big way, a witchhunt starts, and us all being fallible human beings, each has something in our closet that is not cleaned a pressed. I think growth and evolution is the ability to let go of the inevitable negatives that will always be around and clinging to the inevitable postiives that will also be around. Like being in an R&D department for all of one's life, keeping the good stuff and letting the bad stuff go.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:15:01 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: It's not the money Message:

Yes, I read quite a bit of it. I'm not bothered by his money, just pointing out that he seems a bit hypocritical, as most people are. The guy's fallible, not a saint. All in all I think he's a good guy, I certainly would prefer him to Bush. But is he a better candidate for president than Gore? No, he's not electable, not now or in the forseeable future. America is not that liberal and his personality doesn't appeal to most people. Would he make a better president than Gore? Overall, I don't think so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 16:20:31 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: G Subject: It's not the office either Message:

G: But is he a better candidate for president than Gore? No, he's not electable, not now or in the forseeable future. America is not that liberal and his personality doesn't appeal to most people. Would he make a better president than Gore? Overall, I don't think so. That's kind of irrelevant, given the institutional role of third parties: 1. They give a voice to those too distant from the majors to get any representation, and therefore keep them from becoming too isolated, radicalized and marginal. They remain effectively invested. 2. They can strategically impact the majors, moving them incrementally in the direction of the third party's voters. Given those functions, whether or not Nader would actually make a good president irrelevant. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 18:12:51 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Tired Message:

Verbs and pronouns omitted for lack of interest.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:18:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: So do the wittow, wittow wuns, shippie! (nt) Message:

ggggggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 21:06:48 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: Out slumming on the threads are ye? (nt) Message:

ffffff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 21:57:59 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: all Subject: Sierra Club on Gore vs Bush Message:

Think again if you believe there is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. Let's consider just one issue, environmental protection. Check out Sierra Club's Voter Guide: Presidential Election Their stands don't look the same to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:13:21 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: unrealistic Message:

It's unrealistic to think that by attempting to split the Democratic party in two something good will happen. No, that is to the Republicans' benefit. The Democratic party turned somewhat more centralist for a very good reason, to win elections. Without winning elections, guess what, we lose and the Republicans win. There is still a HUGE difference between these two parties. I object to this calling Gore 'evil' and characterizing Nader as some kind of Holy Saint. Based on VoteMatch Gore reflects my political viewpoints just as much as Nader does. I'm voting for Gore with a clear conscience because he's the only candidate who can beat Bush and he is MUCH better than Bush. I like a lot of what Nader has done, but this is reckless. It is very unlikely that Nader will get 5%. If he were to get 5%, Bush would likely win and Nader still wouldn't win in any future election. Instead, people would blame him for Bush getting in, he wouldn't be popular at all. Environmental groups, including those mentioned above and the League of Conservation Voters, have endorsed Al Gore for president. Also consider that Nader resently said that his supporters might want to practice 'tactical voting' (i.e. vote for Gore) in this election. Want the source? 'If only us Greens had voted for Gore.' - what Greens might say as President George Dubya Bush junior helps destroy the environment, ruins the economy, appoints anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:25:16 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: G Subject: unrealistic Message:

G: I agree with you to the extent that you're correct about having to move to the center to become electable. On the other hand, the political space is probably multidimensional (according to the National Election Survey), while the candidate space is one-dimensional (C-L). This leaves a lot of room for maneuver since the position taken outside of that one dimension do no more than cast a projection no the C-L dimension. Furthermore, I have a couple of friends who think that winning candidates were actually less moderate than losing candidates in 1996 and '98. They may be right. Looking only at incumbents running in 1996 this is certainly true, but they may have been running against even less moderate candidates so the generalization may still be false. I also think that either a conservative or a liberal could propose measures like a flat tax with a demogrant or guaranteed income (or negative income tax). Since I believe that the US is fundamentally a classical liberal country I expect some politician to eventually figure out this formula. All that's left to argue about would be the percentage of the tax, and the amount of the demogrant. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to propose a tax structure that is redistributive as long as it involves no 'needs test' and therefor doesn't feed a bureaucracy. That would sell to both idealogues and the rank and file, once they got over the novelty. Interesting election, but not because the candidates are interesting. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:45:24 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: To G Message:

I agree with you to the extent that you're correct about having to move to the center to become electable. On the other hand, the political space is probably multidimensional (according to the National Election Survey), while the candidate space is one-dimensional (C-L). This leaves a lot of room for maneuver since the position taken outside of that one dimension do no more than cast a projection no the C-L dimension. I'm sure you are as glad as I am that Scott has cleared up that issue for you once and for all. I know I am. :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 02:25:59 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Translation Message:

Joe, G: Sorry about the typos, for one thing. These pudgy little fingers don't always do what I want them to. A single liberal to conservative scale for everything is one-dimensional. In other words, it's a line. Let's say you have a two-dimensional model for voter preferences: social and fiscal with conservative to liberal on each scale. If the social dimension is 'orthogonal' (at right angles) to the fiscal dimension (meaning that the two are uncorrelated) then someone who is profoundly liberal in the social dimension can still appeal to conservative voters if he's a fiscal conservative, depending on where his opponent is situated and what weight the voter gives to social and fiscal issues. Two party candidates can't exploit this very well, because the two party system and the primaries force them to present themselves one-dimensionally. So you have multi-dimensional voter preferences and a single dimensional offering. This gives a third party candidate the possibility of appealing to both conservatives and liberals at the same time, and drawing voters from both Ds and Rs. There was a little of this with Perot, except there were a confusing array of dimensions popping out all over the place. If the situation became bad enough we'd probably demand proportional representation of some sort, giving more voice to more dimensions. There are some forms of PR that might work in our system, but most would cause chaos. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:23:49 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Joe and Scott Subject: it's all clear now Message:

Let's see, the political space is multidimensional because some people can't be neatly categorized as liberal or conservative. Why is candidate space 1-dimensional? What is C-L? Regarding the projection, does that mean that voters weigh the different issues according to what matters most to them? So you could have a different mix of positions both averaging to say, a centralist viewpoint?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:56:16 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: G Subject: I urge you to vote your conscience whatever that Message:

may be. I am also aware of Nader's tactical voting strategy, heard it from his own mouth. If everybody votes their conscience, the right guy will get in. -shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 04:12:44 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: the right guy Message:

I am also aware of Nader's tactical voting strategy, heard it from his own mouth. If everybody votes their conscience, the right guy will get in. -shp So if Bush gets elected, even with less than 50% of the vote, you think he would be the right guy? I don't get it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 16:23:22 (GMT) From: shp Email: None To: G Subject: semnatics correction Message:

I am also aware of Nader's tactical voting strategy, heard it from his own mouth. If everybody votes their conscience, the right guy will get in. -shp So if Bush gets elected, even with less than 50% of the vote, you think he would be the right guy? I don't get it. -G Dear G, Please let me slow down a bit and explain what my last post was about: 'I am also aware of Nader's tactical voting strategy, heard it from his own mouth.' I heard Ralph say at Rutgers that if a Democrat is concerned about throwing the election to Bush, then that voter should keep aware of how the race is going in that state and vote accordingly. If there is a spread, vote Nader, if it's close, vote Gore if your conscience tells you to. 'If everybody votes their conscience, the right guy will get in.' That was my own thought that was too close behind the last thought...sometimes I am in a hurry when I post and it is not totally edited and clear as it could be. Sorry about that. What I meant was that if everybody (every eligible voter) voted their conscience (meaning that if every eligible voter knew who was running and what they stood for), I believe that the right person would get elected. shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 00:28:26 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: shp Subject: ok, understood (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:49:34 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jerry Subject: What do you think of this, shp? (OT) Message:

For the last few weeks, I have been watching a two-headed monster argue with itself in front of a live audience. The monster is called the Presidential Campaign, and its two heads have names too. The head on the left bears a disquieting resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman, but its name is George W. Bush. The head on the right looks and sounds a little like Butt-Head, but its name is Al Gore. In some ways, it was a relief to see the two of them appear together. Since I had never heard of them being seen together at the same time in the same place before, I had wondered if they were the same person. Their opinions are that similar. They are two conservative, corporate-minded politicians whose only major disagreement is over who should get the job they are both applying for. Very little need be said about Bush, an ignorant buffoon who is in bed with big business, can barely speak in coherent sentences, and seems completely incapable of debating any of the issues. No matter what questions are put to him, he simply talks about what a caring guy he thinks he is. But liberals seem determined to identify Gore as one of their own, as they previously insisted on doing with Clinton. And the reality is that the only difference between Gore and Bush is that Gore is the more intelligent right-winger. Al Gore is a glib and shameless liar, a man who has shown himself to be devoid of any real opinion or principle. After writing a book on environmentalism, he has consistently voted against restrictions on large businesses being allowed to pollute the environment. He supported the construction of a nuclear reactor in his home state. He fought for a free trade agreement on timber with no conservation measures. He has described homosexuality as 'abnormal sexual behavior.' He fought against abortion rights. He voted with Jesse Helms against a bill that would have protected people with HIV from discrimination. He spoke out strongly in favor of the Gulf war. He favored Star Wars, and came out in favor of the neutron bomb, and missiles such as Trident II and Midgetman. A record any far-right conservative could be proud of. So, in his public debates with Bush, it must have been hard for him to find anything to disagree about. He managed it, thoughkind of. Since polls had shown that the public was concerned about education and taxes, the two applicants for the presidential job bickered about their different approaches to these matters. But they still had something in common: neither bothered to mention that the President has very little influence on education, and almost zero influence on taxes, which are decided by Congress. This is what the New York Times considers to be 'a clear-cut choice represented by the major-party candidates.' Of course, the Times had a good reason for such apparent idiocy: it was trying to scare its readers out of voting for the candidate who actually does offer a choice Ralph Nader seems to terrify those who support the status quo. Gore and Bush (oh, let's just make them one and call it Grush) are so afraid of him that he not only wasn't allowed to take part in the debates - when he showed up, as an audience member, with a ticket, he was ejected and threatened with arrest. He was told that he wasn't welcome at the debates, with or without a ticket. Why? What makes this old man so scary that he has to be effectively censored? The answer is a simple one. He does something that neither Grush nor the New York Times wants. He offers the possibility of change. Nader promises to take power away from the minority of people who control the majority of the money. He offers commonsense ideas for ending corporate welfare, reducing poverty, protecting the environment, and generally allowing this country to be the country it's supposed to be, the country we sing about in the National Anthem. And so Nader is dangerous. Many commentators, while conceding that Grush is basically the same politician, still argue that it's important to vote for the Gore half of Grush rather than give your vote to Nader. They offer two reasons. The first is that Nader can't win, and therefore a vote for him instead of Gore is really a vote for Bush. The second is that, even though Grush is the same politician, the Bush half of the monster will probably appoint scarier Supreme Court judges than the Gore half would. (Although, if you take a look at Gore's running mate's record, even that becomes doubtful.) The argument that Nader can't win is clearly nonsensical. Of course he can't win. But, if winning potential was important in deciding which way to vote, the logical way to decide would be to wait till the last minute, see who was leading in the polls, and vote for them regardless of what they stood for. There is more substance to the argument that voting for Nader might help elect Bush. It may be true that, in terms of Supreme Court appointments, Gore is the lesser of two evils. But, if the choice is between being burned at the stake or given a lethal injection, do you want to vote for the lethal injection? Or do you want to vote for being allowed to live? A vote for Gore is a vote for the relatively painful option rather than the excruciatingly painful one. And, because it is a vote for the lesser of two evils, it is a deeply cynical vote. It is cynical because it is despairing. It accepts the status quo, and believes that things cannot be made better. It doesn't matter that Nader can't win this particular election. A vote for him is a positive action, a vote against the present monopoly. It is a vote against corporate control of the country, a vote against the liar and the sell-out. In contrast, a vote for Gore is a vote to legitimize the status quo. Or, as a friend of mine who is voting for Nader puts it, 'I'm sick of being told that a vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush. I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting against Bush, and I'm voting against Gore. I'm voting for Nader.' From www.grahamslam.com

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:39:00 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: gerry Subject: nonsensical Message:

... The argument that Nader can't win is clearly nonsensical. Of course he can't win. But, if winning potential was important in deciding which way to vote, the logical way to decide would be to wait till the last minute, see who was leading in the polls, and vote for them regardless of what they stood for. ... From www.grahamslam.com That is a nonsensical twisting of the argument. The argument is to be practical, not by voting for whoever is ahead in the polls, but by voting for the candidate you prefer, selected from those who have a chance of winning. I'm certainly not going to vote for Bush if he's ahead in the polls!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:55:10 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: gerry Subject: vote against Bore/Gush=vote FOR Nader? Speak on... Message:

... this might make a difference (as far as ex-premie vote goes, that is). Now, who can I email that to?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:52:01 (GMT) From: EddyTheTurtle Email: None To: M Dettmers Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Michael Sorry , but you dont create a Swiss foundation to act as a hub for non-profit organisations... You say the structure simplified the organisation and financing of world wide programs.. On the contrary, creating any organisation in Switzerland is extremely costly and from the point of logistics somewhat convoluted...Much simpler and less costly to handle this out of the US or UK...whereas u need about 100K USD in switzerland about from the high legal and professional costs which is another 5-10k usd Example.. It costs only 150 USD to set up a limited company in the UK or US **************************************************************** There are only two reasons for creating a Swiss foundation: 1. Either you are a large organisation like the Red Cross or UN and you have deep pockets ... 2. Or you want secrecy May I suggest that according to your testimony option 1 is certainly out of the question, as you said DLM/EV was constantly in the red.. That only leaves the second option... If you want any further info on Swiss foundations pls let me know...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:23:50 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: EddyTheTurtle Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Eddy: You are entitled to your opinion and, I’m sure if you were in my position, you may have done things differently. In any case, I created the Élan Vital Foundation in Switzerland in 1979 and not in the USA or the UK for several reasons. First, Maharaji had recently disbanded Denver as his International Headquarters, so it wouldn’t make much sense to turn around and set up the new international coordinating structure in the USA. Nor would the UK be a suitable choice because we had just won a long drawn-out battle with the UK Charity Commissioners over the control of DLM against Maharaji’s mother who had laid claim to it, and we didn’t want to have to deal with them to make whatever changes were necessary to fulfill the Foundation’s aims. Second, we were able to start fresh in Switzerland and set up a Foundation whose aims and objectives accurately reflected what it was intended to do, that is to support Maharaji’s programs and tours around the world. Third, we named it the Élan Vital Foundation (the term was coined by the French philosopher Henri Bergson and means “life force”) because the name did not need to be translated in all of the countries where DLM existed. And it wasn’t too difficult to have all of the DLM’s around the world change their names to Élan Vital. Even though these newly named Élan Vital organizations were independent of each other, they were able to contribute some of their funds to its sister organization in Switzerland because their purposes were aligned and their names were the same. Fourth, from an international perspective, Switzerland is very highly regarded and its strict laws governing Foundations is well known, again making it easier for countries around the world to gain permission, if such was required, to contribute some of its funds to the Foundation. Finally, Maharaji had devotees around the world, including Switzerland, who were willing to volunteer their time and money to handle the logistics and costs, so that was not really an issue in this case. I was the only non-Swiss Director. The foundation presented its books and records for review to the Swiss authorities every year and there was no latitude to spend the funds on anything other than for its stated aims and objectives. From my perspective, the structure fulfilled its intended purpose very well. What, if anything, has become of it since I left, I have no idea. I will grant you one point, however. Despite the Foundation’s struggles with cash flow and meeting expenses as I mentioned in an earlier post, that factor didn’t dampen our delusions of grandeur. We may not have been the UN or the Red Cross, but we were certain that it was only a matter of time before Maharaj’s mission dwarfed those organizations, and we would be ready. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:38:32 (GMT) From: TeddyTheTurtle Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Mike You say that M disbanded his international HQ in Denver and therefore it did not make sense to have the foundation in the usa. I dont see really the connection between the two, what was the reason M disbanded his international hq in denver?. He or someone obviously decided that international was not gona come out of usa period. Was the IRS chasing that hard...? You also say that DLM as a registered charity in the uk was going through legal problems re: Mataji. But you would have had to register EV anyway as a charity again in the UK so you would have had to deal with the charities commision. As you know, running a foundation in switzerland requires significant legal and financial expertise , and I would be surprised if the swiss premies were up to that task. You are telling us that the CEO or the Commander in Chief and his HQ staff are based in one country (us) whereas the foundation and the logistics of running an international organisation is based in another countery who's mother tongue is an obsecure dielect of german, just because M has some local premies and it is a prestigous location. Sorry it does not make much sense. Also Mike, remember in those days ('79) I would be extremely surprised if such a complex idea of running a swiss international foundation has come from premies. We were running soup kitchens and launderets and car wash shops, albeit loss making. It sounds to me the whole idea came from very astute financial advisors...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:40:53 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: TeddyTheTurtle Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Teddy and Eddy the Turtles, I will explain why M disbanded Denver as DLM HQ when I respond to Joe and Susan’s question about that period. You will see that it had nothing to do with the IRS, nor did M make Switzerland his new HQ. It was simply the place where the activities I described in my earlier post were funded and coordinated. Your point in paragraph 2 is exactly why we didn’t want to get further involved with the UK Charity Commissioners. I think that many premies, some of whom may now be ex-premies for all I know, will find your suggestion that the Swiss premies were not up to the task, or that most premies were only capable of running soup kitchens, launderettes and car washes at a loss, to be insulting. While what you say may be have been true in some cases, it does not reflect the capabilities of premies in general, nor those with whom I worked. I have always acknowledged that I secured expert legal and financial advice, but the idea of coordinating the Élan Vital operations out of Switzerland was my idea. TM (Transcendental Meditation) had had its international HQ there for years. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 16:16:02 (GMT) From: EddyTheTurtle Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

SOrry...Mike..you misconstrued what I said. I am not insulting premies, I was one. The reality of the situation is that most premie businesses that I was aware of, did not require the level of sophistication of a swiss foundation. Your explanation of denver still does not answer why not relocate hq to somewhere else in the usa. You mention TM having its international hq in switzerland...sure , but did they also have a swiss foundation. One of the objectives of a swiss foundation, is that it actually hides the eventual benefeciaries or owners. The name 'foundation' is confusing and implies some kind of charitable status, in fact it is not. It is a construct that can be used for annonymous asset holdings. By the way, are you familiar with a Miami company sold in the mid 80's called 'Star enterprises' or a similar sounding name. The person who bought it told me that it belonged to a Mr Singh, and since it is a jet fitting business based in Miami, I thought there may be a connection with M. Were you involved in anyway with this outfit?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 20:29:42 (GMT) From: a0aji Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: thread Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

What about AITTA? What was the story on that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 18:29:32 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: EddyTheTurtle Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Eddy, I do not know anything about Star Enterprises. I will explain about the disbanding of the HQ when I respond to Joe's question. I don't know anything about the inner workings of TM. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:29:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Michael, I've got a burning question for you? Message:

Did you ever in a million years imagine that you'd be explaining yourself to someone called Teddy the Turtle? The Lord works in mysterious ways, huh? :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 13:15:50 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Jim Subject: Michael, I've got a burning question for you? Message:

No I didn't. Jim, does this mean that I'm finally on the road to true enlightenment? Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 15:24:56 (GMT) From: a0aji Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: TeddyTheTurtle Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

TTT - M Dettmers said he's going out of town. You may wish to bookmark your post and refer him to it upon his return.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:35:49 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Good evening Michael, You know, your explanation here sounds perfectly reasonable and not at all sinister, it just puzzles me as to why Elan Vital don't open up more on their website and lay everything out in the open. Admittedly I wouldn't have thought Switzerland was the only viable alternative, given the high cost of doing business there - I would have looked at different off-shore locations, like Jersey, Bermuda etc, what no matter. Still one thing bothers me. If I'm getting the correct message from what you are saying here, all their finances are completely above-board and accountable, so why not just publish audited accounts for each Elan Vital worldwide and put an end to all the speculation? This is not a 'loaded' question, I genuinely do not see a problem if they are squeaky clean. Did you ever suggest as much in your term of office?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:05:47 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Rob Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Rob, No, I never suggested as much, nor was there ever a request to do so. Of course, when I was in office, the internet didn't exist . You will have to ask EV why they don't publish their numbers. You ask a very good question. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 02:08:31 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Eddy and gerry Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

1st : thought MD was bullshitting. 2nd : thought he wasn't. 3rd : not sure what to think. It's the confidentiality clause that's bugging me. Got to think about that some more.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:12:11 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: EddyTheTurtle Subject: The Swiss foundation Message:

Thanks Eddy, much appreciated...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 11:47:17 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Everyone Subject: Loaf - email me Message:

I need to talk to you re your Journeys entry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:03:20 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Glen's 'Close Encounter' - Director's Cut (part 1) Message:

Somebody just sent me a copy of 'The Divine Times - Special Anniversary Edition, 1996', which is a wonderful broadsheet-sized newspaper packed with oldies-but-goodies stasang, interviews, photos etc. For the purpose of lawful critical review, I'd like to share an excerpt here, comparing the changing styles of one of it's contributors, a Mr Glen Whittaker. First, compare this terse, politically-neutral reporting of Mr Whittaker as he describes Maharaji's arrival in London in 1971, taken from the EV Perspectives page: Maharaji's First Visit to the West It took Maharaji's own arrival in the West, in June 1971, at the age of 13, to point the way towards a more settled plan for moving forward, based on the controversial idea that a little financial help might not be a bad thing, and that sensible planning and organization might actually help people benefit from Knowledge. Basic, no-nonsense journalism at its best. Now observe a slightly more effusive Mr Whittaker recounting the same moment in the Divine Times S.E.: Hours waiting at Heathrow for his arrival. He stepped lightly between hundreds of reaching hands. The atmosphere was strong and intensely beautiful. After he left people hugged each other in tears, flowers strewn on the ground like a battlefield. I was offered the opportunity to garland his golden, serene face, so many garlands, he could hardly see. Then I walked behind, tossing petals over his head. A great auspicious occasion. The reader will note a remarkable difference in style. Is it the same person writing these two pieces? Can it be that beneath the outward normality of a non-cult non-member participating synchronously as part of a well-groomed public relations team, there lies hidden a doe-eyed devotee struggling to contain THAT joy, THAT love? More to follow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 17:30:21 (GMT) From: Rani Email: None To: Rob Subject: Glen's 'Close Encounter' - Director's Cut (part 1) Message:

Yes, I do see this difference, and it bothers me not that one person has changed his tone in so many years. People change and we all have a right to change. If he had written the 1971 version in 1996, would it have been published? If not, why not? I don't understand.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 23:45:16 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Rani Subject: The reason you don't understand is simple Message:

You don't understand, Rani, because you're not very bright.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 18:51:20 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim, that's not fair Message:

Unless I've missed something, you are basing that on one or two posts! I think the question Rani is asking is how come the '70s version of Glen would no longer receive acceptance in the modern world of Knowledge..........to which I would reply 'good question. I, personally, was very surprised to discover how much I had forgotten about my own past as I trustingly followed Maharaji's switchback path of 'wisdom'.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 19:25:31 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Lotus Eater Subject: Jim, that's not fair Message:

That's so right. The memory business amazes me . I can remember loads of stuff about my life , going right back to early childhood : but the premie years (all 28) , how I felt , when & why , is only now coming out of the deep pit of forgetfulness. (by premie years I mean my 'relationship' with Barry Bollix Shwar) No doubts + Lila , is a devilish combination. I worry that I might have been a Nazi , if I'd been born in a different place at a different time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 20:19:47 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: Bin Liner Subject: Yes, I'm not looking forward to the time when I Message:

have to sit down and assess the years I have spent as a premie. At the moment though, it makes sense to get on with doing what I want to do, and allow time and distance to give me sufficient perspective. I am fairly intent on making the most of this 'renaissance' in my life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 01:03:13 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Lotus Eater Subject: Yo to Renaissance (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 14:08:47 (GMT) From: Jack Nicholson Email: None To: Rob Subject: As good as it gets? Message:

I dunno Rob ,your tellin the story. You seem to be playing a nice handle on it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:20:07 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: All Subject: Part 2 - Guru-illas in the Mist Message:

Continuing with this critical review of writing styles, we notice that there are two distinct characters living inside the writer. One, the journalistic, 'just-the-facts' historian, anxious to avoid giving the impression that he ever belonged to a cult, and the more believable, 'human' devotee, sharing his blessed memories with his peers. The question is, which is the 'real' Glen? You decide: From EV Perspectives, Glen describes the introduction of the first (of many) lawyers to be given THAT opportunity to participate synchronously: He suggested one day that if his work was to go forward, a legal organization might be helpful, and would I look at the possibility of setting one up. My first instinct was, why would we need one of those? But gradually a few of us worked on it. By this time a London lawyer had received Knowledge and was happy to help, and a year or so later Divine Light Mission was registered as a charity, the British version of non-profit organizations. Now, what really happened? Let's see how he describes it in Divine Times S.E.: People never left his room, even when he wanted to eat. He seemed to get no privacy, but always joked about it. 'I will get a couple of those apes from the zoo to protect me,' he said. I said 'You can call them guru-illas.' This absolutely tickled him. He could not stop laughing, rolling on the bed, holding his sides. Later he gave me the honor of asking me to make things legal in the UK and be the first 'general secretary'. I was the only premie with a suit and was already acting as general co-ordinator, but I think the reason Maharaji asked me was because of the guru-illa joke. Never let it be said the Lord doesn't have a sense of humor - and a sense of how grown men should play, as we'll see in our next installment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 14:13:24 (GMT) From: Jack Nicholson Email: None To: Rob Subject: Part 2 - Five Easy pieces? Message:

Now Rob , I get it. 'What do you call a Premie in a suit?' The Defendant? Shit , Rob, you are a funny guy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 07:51:11 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: Rob Subject: don't you mean guru-lila's in the mist? Message:

havent read the post yet--just had to make my wisecrack...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:38:20 (GMT) From: a0aji Email: None To: Rob Subject: Nice use of color (not much text, don't bother) Message:

Nice use of color.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:32:50 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: All Subject: Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey Message:

For some reason, Glen chose to leave this encounter out of his EV Perspective altogether. Or maybe it was edited. Frankly I can't think how they could turn this little frolic into something acceptable to a family audience. You be the judge: From Divine Times, Special Edition: One night as he ran in the house after a trip out to buy Indian sweets, dodging hands as he ran along the hall and up the stairs, I felt very playful towards him and tipped a bucket of petals over his head. A reckless impulse made me follow through with the whole bucket. He tore it off and, beaming, tore at me. We fell and rolled on the floor, him pummeling me, not very hard. I wrestled back. I daren't punch him back. Suddenly he stood up, breathless and excited, and ran into his room...... Fortunately he was wearing a loose-fitting kurta at the time. No mention is made of Jagdeo's whereabouts at the time....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 14:16:06 (GMT) From: Jack Nicholson Email: None To: Rob Subject: Part 3 - The Shining Message:

Well fuck me Rob , you do have the darndest dirty little mind!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:06:47 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jack Nicholson Subject: Part 3 - The Shining Message:

That's what comes from polishing the bishop ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:26:01 (GMT) From: Oaobs Email: None To: Rob Subject: Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey Message:

What a bastard that Glen is!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 07:58:32 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: Rob Subject: Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey--jagdeo...? Message:

woo- flash. do you suppose Jagdeo first did the nasty on M-J when he was still a child???? maybe that was his real enamorment of little sant ji?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 13:40:23 (GMT) From: Oaobs Email: None To: Wise Crack Subject: Part 3 - Spanking the Monkey--jagdeo...? Message:

Did Jagdeo masterbate Maharaji when he was child? or did Maharaji masterbate or suck Jagdeo's penis?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:02:04 (GMT) From: any guideline to remove Email: None To: Oaobs Subject: above post? Message:

I think any person who was abused by Jagdeo would be offended by it. And if M were abused by Jagdeo when he was a kid that would have been tragic, not something to joke about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 20:07:36 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: any guideline to remove Subject: Seconded. Though it does show the premie mind at Message:

work.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index