Conference back40::soapbox

Meg, how do you propose that "ritual mutilation of body parts" be "removed
from cultures?"

 .1 sharp knife?

    Offhand, I can't think of a culture that doesn't have some sort of
    ritual mutilation.
    
    And don't forget male circumcision, of course. Definitely falls into
    the category of mutilation.

    Forget the ear lobe Jim!!!
    
    How about all those ugly looking nose, eyebrow, tongue, belly-button
    ones!!!
    
    >ritual mutilation of body parts IMNSHO is something that needs to be
    >removed from cultures.
    
    Meg,
    
     Who are you to tell them what to do/not do??? Maybe you can pass some
    sort of local "amendment" or something??
    

    
    and if someone in new guinea really wants to put a hockey
    puck in their lower lip, who am i to quibble?

    -b

    We should obey the prime directive.

    
    You're right Glenn...
    
    If someone wants to get smashed and pull their pants down in the middle
    of the street... who are we to stop them?
    
    
    
    
      Maybe take pictures for future bribes and/or for a good laugh (Snicker..
    snicker!!! Did you see the size of that one??)

        >If someone wants to get smashed and pull their pants down in the middle
    >of the street... who are we to stop them?

    pulling one's pants down under the influence of alcohol almost
    universally leads to trouble... don't ask me how i know this...

    -b

    I can plead shrinkage!

    
      I'm 60% against ritual mutilation.
    
      bb

You shouldn't use such hot water.

I would bet that Meg was refering to mutilations forced on others by the 
culture/religion/tribal-lore/etc versus the voluntary. And yes some fads can 
be forced thru social/peer pressure but that is IMHO different than
having the tribal elders take 10-year old girls and hold them down while 
others perform various "cuts".

Amos

Amos, you'd prevent Jews and Muslims from circumcising boys?  How?

    Or a male newborn baby held down while others perform various "cuts".

    
      Ritual mutilation seems just about right for the designers of
     certain operating systems, however.
    
      bb

    
    re: circumcision
    
    Bull!!!
    
    If my parents had it done when I was born, I wouldn't have had to have
    it done when I was 34 years old!!
    
    Verrrrrrrrrrrry verrrrrrrry painful... especially when the drugs wore
    off!!!
    

        >  Ritual mutilation seems just about right for the designers of
    > certain operating systems, however.

    unix? (eunuchs)

  .16  thank you for sharing. ;>

    IMO Ritual mutilations, that do not have the full acceptance of the
    mutilatee, should be outlawed. This could be considered an objective
    law dealing with unwanted force upon an individual. Doing mutilations
    to small children and infants is the worst form of child abuse.
    
    However, if an adult consents to any form of mutilation, including that 
    leading to death, there should be no law prohibiting it.
    
    ...Tom

Elsewhere, this had been stated by Meg:

>    ritual mutilation of body parts IMNSHO is something that needs to be
>    removed from cultures.  

And I had replied:

There are those so bold as to suggest that male circumcision should be made
illegal, and that Jews should be prevented from obeying God.

And we have an example right in .-1

/john

    
    re: .19
    
    >Doing mutilations to small children and infants is the worst form of
    >child abuse.
    
    
     Is this where the shrinks probe and delve and bring up all those
    "suppressed memories" of that horrible mutilation done, oh, couple of
    three days after birth???
    

    
    re: .18
    
    You're more than welcome...  ;)
    
    
    As a matter of fact, I used to flirt with the nurse/receptionist at
    this particular clinic/out patient service for more than a few visits
    before the "mutilation"...
    
      So who comes walking into the operating room to assist whilst I'm
    getting prepped???
    
    Good thing she wasn't carrying a magnifying glass and tweezers!!! :)
    

    
    This question raises side questions, such as:
    
    - How do Western nations prevent the practice in, say, Somalia?
    
    - What about nations where the practices have been made illegal but
      enforcement is impractical or lackadaisical?
    
    - How prepared are Western nations to accept refugees from these
      places, if the refugees are fleeing for this reason?
        

>    However, if an adult consents to any form of mutilation, including that 
>    leading to death, there should be no law prohibiting it.

So human sacrifice is OK, as long as the victim's an adult volunteer.

    <<< Note 507.12 by TIS::HAMBURGER "REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS" >>>
>                         -< I'd ban the forcible ones >-

	I don't remember signing an informed consent document prior
	to losing my foreskin (of course the memory of the first week
	of my life IS a bit vague).

Jim

     >Is this where the shrinks probe and delve and bring up all those
     >"suppressed memories" of that horrible mutilation done, oh, couple of
     >three days after birth???
    
    No, suppressed memories are not the point, except to the money
    grubbing, self-justifying therapists. Forced permanent physical 
    affliction is the point. 
    
    ..Tom

    
    re: .26
    
    >Forced permanent physical affliction is the point.
    
    From a circumcision???
    
    Tell that to my nephew, who had to have it done when he was 11 years
    old because the foreskin around his penis wasn't expanding properly
    around the head and the poor kid couldn't even walk!!
    

    >So human sacrifice is OK, as long as the victim's an adult volunteer.
    
    That's right, the choice of each individual, in regards to how that
    individual treats himself, is no ones business except the individuals.
    This person is pretty stupid in my mind. But if we outlawed stupidity
    that would be the end of much of SOAPBOX.  :)
    
    ...Tom

    
    re: .25
    
    Jim,
    
    >(of course the memory of the first week of my life IS a bit vague).
    
    When the shrinks, through intense therapy, bring it to the "fore" front
    of your conscience... you can then sue your parents for child abuse and
    extreme mental torture... 
    
    

    >Tell that to my nephew, who had to have it done when he was 11 years
    >old because the foreskin around his penis wasn't expanding properly
    >around the head and the poor kid couldn't even walk!!
    
    Than it wasn't FORCED was it. Geesh!
    
    ...Tom

    
    >So human sacrifice is OK, as long as the victim's an adult volunteer.
    
    hey! They do it all the time and in public!!
    
    Bungee jumping... sky diving... 
    
    It's just that it might/might not become permanent at that particular
    point in time...
    

	So, is Ralston's suggestion

		stupid

		anti-Semitic

	or both?

    I'm afraid of the shrinks.

    
    re: .30
    
    >Than it wasn't FORCED was it. Geesh!
    
    Would it have been forced if he had it done at 3 days after birth??
    

    
    i personally don't miss my foreskin. can't imagine that i
    would have found much use for it had i kept it. i'm not
    mad at my parents for getting rid of it... besides, i
    kinda like that little helmet effect...
    
    -b

    >Would it have been forced if he had it done at 3 days after birth??
    
    Yes.
    
    

    >So, is Ralston's suggestion
    
    >                stupid
    
    >                anti-Semitic
    
    >        or both?
    
    Nice try John. I'm not used to you resorting to this kind of rebuttal.
    But, I guess I should expect it from one who's thinking ability comes
    from mysticism instead of conscious thought.
    
    ...Tom

  .32  could easily be "none of the above".

    
    Could just as easily be "all of the above" too...
    

    
>>    Could just as easily be "all of the above" too...

    sure, if you think mr. ralston is a stupid anti-semite.
    i know he's not stupid and have no reason to believe he's
    an anti-semite.  ymmv.

    

Mr. Ralston isn't prejudiced.  He's opposed to all religions.

    
    RE: .41
    
    >sure, if you think mr. ralston is a stupid anti-semite.
    
    If I recall... the question asked, referred to his "suggestion" and not
    his person.

    
>>    If I recall... the question asked, referred to his "suggestion" and not
>>    his person.

    okay, i should have said "sure, if you think mr. ralston is _being_
    a stupid anti-semite."  i don't.

>>                       -< His thought processes are... >-

	well what the heck do you think _i'm_ talking about - his
	arm movements??  taking exception to a practice of Judaism
	doesn't automatically make someone "anti-Semitic", does it??
	

    
    No... I never said that...
    
    I'm sure he isn't "anti-Semitic"
    
    But then again, I've said some really stupid things in my day too!!
    

There's a difference between taking exception to a religious practice and
suggesting that it be banned.

    Re.: Markey...
    
    Regarding the foreskin...I kept mine, it makes a great wallet..and if
    you rub it a few times...makes a nice brief case...
    
    
    sin-te-da

Banning circumcision is equivalent to banning Judaism.

    >Banning circumcision is equivalent to banning Judaism.
    
    As if Judaism hasn't modified it's beliefs numerous times. So, banning
    sacrificing of animals on the altar is equivalent to banning Judaism. I
    don't think so.
    
    ...Tom

    
    the truth is: circumcision is more difficult and painful as
    ones gets older.

    the truth is: the tradition of circumcision was probably started
    as a way of reducing vaginal infections since keeping the
    area under the foreskin clean means that it is less likely
    to harbor bacteria and other microbes, which would then be
    tranferred to a female partner.

    while rules such as eschewing pig meat and not mixing dairy
    and meat on the same plate were also born of biological
    necessity, they are somewhat outmoded given today's technology
    and therefore unnecessary. however, they do play an important
    role in tradition and there's nothing wrong with that.

    and, there's no technology to make anyone take a bath, and
    we all know horror stories about people with hygiene problems.
    while good hygiene helps prevent disease, i still think
    circumcision is a reasonable precaution.

    -b

    (oo! a topic w/ lotsa rxns!)
    
    According to previous US supreme court rulings, the US could not
    prevent Jews from performing circumcisions, as it is an integral part
    of their religion.
    

ZZ    So, banning
ZZ    sacrificing of animals on the altar is equivalent to banning
ZZ    Judaism.  I don't think so.
    
    Well, I disagree..
    
    
    
    Oh please let's not get get into the sensitivity thing again!
    
    -Jack

    Well Jack, I'm not sure what you disagree with but, sacrifice is no
    longer done yet Judaism continues. If circumcision was banned I think
    they would find a way to continue.
    
    ...Tom

re: Our Jack Martin

>    Oh please let's not get get into the sensitivity thing again!

Jack,
   How many times does it need to be pointed out that it's NOT a sensitivity
thing. It's simply that you have a flawed understanding of Judaism. The
fact that, IYO, there is something missing in modern day Judaism doesn't
make it so. It simply makes you wrong. How the hell do you figure that
as a Christian you are an authority on the matter? This really puzzles
me.

    
    How the H*!! did this become a thumper topic ?

    On the subject of "ritual" mutilations, I can't say that I'm completely
    opposed to them, I like women with earings, I think they are very
    attractive.... :-)

    :-)
    Dan

    I find earrings completely useless. 
    
    They just get in the way when you want to nibble.
    
    :)

There are no sacrifices in modern day Judaism because there's no Temple.
Jews pray daily for the Temple to be rebuilt and for offerings to resume.
Yesterday on the Jewish calendar, BTW, was observed as a day of mourning
for the destruction of the two Temples.  It was also the anniversary of
the expulsion from Spain, the beginning of WWI (which set in motion the
chain of events that culminated in the Holocause), and many other tragedies
throughout Jewish history.

SCOTUS has ruled in favor of animal sacrifices in a case involving
practitioners of Santeria in Hialeah FL.  Except for the "slippery slope"
aspect, the case was irrelevant to Judaism because Judaism only allows
offerings in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Shechita (kosher slaughter) _is_ banned in some "progressive" countries
in Europe (Sweden springs to mind).  The result is that Jews in those
countries have to import all their meat.

At various times in Jewish history, repressive governments intent on
destroying Judaism have banned circumcision.  Jews have risked their
lives to carry out this commandment.

    >>According to previous US supreme court rulings, the US could not
    >>prevent Jews from performing circumcisions, as it is an integral
    >>part of their religion.
    
    
    what about the non-jews?  is there a ruling to prevent them from
    circumsizing baby boys??
    
    

    I brought this over from the other discussion as it belongs here.
    
    from 155.378
    
    
        
    >It is interesting that my original comment, concerning the outlawing of
    >mutilations, was in response to the forced surgery being performed on
    >young women, removing their clitoris' and partially closing their
    >vaginas, so that the enjoyment of sex was removed. It would be
    >difficult for me to believe that anyone would condone this type of
    >forceful attack. But as usual in SOAPBOX someone causes a change in
    >direction and then attacks. Every instance of this type, circumcision
    >for example, should be discussed/debated on its own individual
    >merit. Personally I think it wrong to subject children to procedures that
    >may affect future performance of any kind. Surgery to correct defects,
    >or to save the childs life is of course acceptable, as well as as well
    >as treatments to eliminate illness. But, SOAPBOX is SOAPBOX and I enjoy 
    >being here or I wouldn't be proud to proclaim.....
  
    
      Well, the original subject was "ritual mutilation" was it not?
    Whether on a male or female, it's still "abuse" in your eyes... right?
    
     You stated above that "Surgery to correct defects, or to save the
     childs life is of course acceptable,..."
    
     Let's go back to the example of my nephew... 
    
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather..
    
     It was okay to fix the "defect" when he was 11 years old, even though
    it caused the boy pain, anguish and humiliation (yes, humiliation at
    that age).. rather than the "parental advances" which would have
    "forced" the child to have an "abusive" procedure done at 3 or so days
    after birth...
    
      Is that the gist of it??
    

     >It was okay to fix the "defect" when he was 11 years old, even though
     >it caused the boy pain, anguish and humiliation (yes, humiliation at
     >that age).. rather than the "parental advances" which would have
     >"forced" the child to have an "abusive" procedure done at 3 or so
     >days after birth...
    
    I guess I misunderstood the first post. I assumed that the boy wanted
    the procedure performed due to the pain that he was suffering. Did I
    misunderstand? Second, if the parents knew, three or so days after
    birth that the boy was in pain then it would seem locical to have had
    the procedure performed. However, to perform a procedure at 3 days, that
    because pain might be the result at 11 years old when 99.999999% of
    those who do not have the procedure performed never suffer a problem,
    seems like overkill to the max. 
    
    
    ...Tom

    Jack:
    
    You are correct in stating that it is just my opinion...and I don't
    necessarily claim to be an authority on the subject of Judaism.
    
    It is my opinion that the core of Judaism is the sacrifice offered to
    God at the temple in Jerusalem.  If one is going to refer to themselves
    as Jewish, then I fail to see how they can reconcile themselves to God
    without the atoning sacrifice of the offering at the Temple.  Without 
    this, being Jewish is of as much consequence as not being Jewish.
    
    -Jack

    
    > I find earrings completely useless. 
    > They just get in the way when you want to nibble.
    
    Interesting {ahem} bit of foreplay, if you nibble ... ah never mind, this 
    is a family type note... I'll tell ya later if your interested, but as a
    hint, you can only do this with a SO with earings...
    
    ;->
    Dan

    
    re: .63
    
    
    
    >I guess I misunderstood the first post. I assumed that the boy wanted
    >the procedure performed due to the pain that he was suffering. Did I
    >misunderstand? 
    
     You assumed the boy wanted the procedure done?? Do you think that an
    11 year old boy even understands the word "procedure"?? Of course! He's
    11 years old and knows what's best for him!! 
    
      I was 12 when I had my tonsils out... (another "mutilation" I guess)
    and wasn't informed, counciled, advised of the "procedure". It was a
    chronic problem, but not life-threatening... should I now sue my
    parents and doctor for forcing me to have a "procedure" I didn't want
    at the time??
    
    
    
    >Second, if the parents knew, three or so days after
    >birth that the boy was in pain then it would seem locical to have had
    >the procedure performed. However, to perform a procedure at 3 days, that
    >because pain might be the result at 11 years old when 99.999999% of
    >those who do not have the procedure performed never suffer a problem,
    >seems like overkill to the max. 
    
      Of course the parents didn't know, and your sarcasm is lost with
    this! But! If they could go back in time, they certainly would have had
    the procedure done. 
    
      BTW... I would question your percentage figure... I could just as
    easily say "See how many cases were PREVENTED because of this
    procedure??"
    
    ...Tom

>    It is my opinion that the core of Judaism is the sacrifice offered to
>    God at the temple in Jerusalem.  If one is going to refer to themselves
>    as Jewish, then I fail to see how they can reconcile themselves to God
>    without the atoning sacrifice of the offering at the Temple.  Without 
>    this, being Jewish is of as much consequence as not being Jewish.

Jack, I refuted this nonsense in the 'box several months ago.

    I know you did!

    
    well, for the record, my little brother had the same problem andy did,
    only he was 4 at the time...
    
    

    .68
    
    > I know you did!
    
    Jack, why do you choose to place your own ignorant opinion obove the
    word of an educated practicing Orthodox Jew about what the core of
    Judaism might be?

    RE: .66
    
      An 11 year old boy is perfectly cabable of understanding what the
    outcome of an operation is going to be. At least my kids were I
    wouldn't know about yours :-). By the way this is sarcasm in case you
    don't know the difference, which apparently you don't.
    
      >Of course the parents didn't know, and your sarcasm is lost with
      >this! But! If they could go back in time, they certainly would have
      >had the procedure done.
    
    I wasn't being sarcastic, but you were being foolish in assuming so. If
    it is your opinion that procedures should be performed on everyone, in
    order to preclude problems that occur in a very small percentage of
    individuals, then I disagree with you opinion. With that philosophy we
    should abort all babies, as they all have the potential of becoming
    murderers one day. We sould eliminate SOAPBOX because some people are
    prone to nastiness and sarcasm. We should not allow cars to be build
    because someday an accident is bound to occur. These are extreme
    (except for the SOAPBOX thing :) but this would be the natural
    evolution of such a philosophy.
    
    ...Tom

	What an interesting question..... I'm getting some popcorn, sitting
back in the easy chair, and am going to watch this one..... Monday afternoon at
the fights! :-)


Glen

    Well, first of all I don't believe my opinion to be ignorant.  I find
    it to be founded in some sort of reason.  
    
    The Jewish faith today in my opinion uses heritage as a measuring
    stick...and there is nothing wrong with this.  However, I am of the
    belief that the Jewish faith is also founded in the requirements of the
    Mosaic law.  I believe this takes prescedence over tradition and
    heritage.
    
    If you recall your New Testament sacripture Dick, Jesus confirms this 
    very thing in the gospel of John.  
    
    "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.  Jesus said
    unto them, If you were Abrahams children, you would do the works of
    Abraham."  Ch. 8 vs. 39.
    
    Granted these people were seeking to kill Jesus, yet the fact remains
    Jesus made the distinction between one who followed the works of
    Abraham and one who claimed heritage.
    
    I don't poo poo the traditions or the precepts practiced today.  I am
    saying however that the law of Moses takes precedent and has not been
    nullified.  To the Christian faith, the sacrificial system has been
    nullified...for we have the savior.  But good works simply does not
    justify somebody before a holy God.
    
    -Jack 

	Jack, what is sacripture???? I didn't find that in my dictionary.

    .73> I am of the belief that the Jewish faith is also founded in the
    .73> requirements of the Mosaic law.
    
    Yabbut the more Reformist amongst us have upgraded to Netscape.
    

    .73
    
    Jack, how many years have you been a Jew?  How many courses have you
    taken in Judaism, taught by Jews?  Your opinion, not supported by
    authentic Jewish teachings AS THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD BY JEWS, is ignorant
    no matter what it is or what it is based on.

    
    How 'bout that thumper index !
    
    Dan
    

    Dick:
    
    That may very well be but by using your logic, you creedence in
    defending the Jewish faith is as null and void as my challenging it
    since you too aren't Jewish.  
    
    I believe it is necessary for Israel to reconstuct the Temple and go
    back to the sacrificial system in order to obtain the covering of sin.
    The heritage may be there but I believe adhering to the Mosaic law is
    vital in order to be justified....if we're going to be consistent here.
    
    -Jack 

    Maybe this should go in "things to wonder about", but why would
    a practicing Orthodox Jew even read the New Testament Jack?
    
    

    Because Dick isn't Jewish....and I was using the NT as a reference
    to Dick that the Jewish faith is evidenced by outward signs, not just
    heritage.
    
    Let it be known that the lovely Karen Reese continued the thumper
    index!
    
    -Jack

    
    re: .71
    
    Is a 15 year old girl "cabable of understanding" the outcome, physical
    and phsychological of, say, an abortion?
    
     As for the rest of your reply.... Now who's coming up with all sorts
    of non sequiturs???
    

    
    RE: .69
    
    Ummmmmm... raq?? It was my nephew... 
    
    I told of my circumcision, but never expounded on "why"...

    
    
    sorry, andy...it's been a long day...i just remember you wrote the
    note...
    
    

    .78
    
    Jack, I am not defending the Jewish faith.  Gerald, who is himself
    Jewish, is entirely capable of doing that in the face of inane remarks
    from the likes of you.  I was simply pointing out that since you are
    not Jewish, you don't know what you're talking about.  That is my same
    situation - which is why I don't try to defend Judaism.
    
    > I believe it is necessary for Israel to reconstuct the Temple and go
    > back to the sacrificial system in order to obtain the covering of sin.
    
    What you believe has little weight in the face of Gerald's assertion
    that your belief is wrong.

    
    re: .84
    
    No problem raq... No need to apologize... I really can't talk about it
    as it traumatized me so drastically being "forced" to undergo such a
    humiliating procedure and all... 
    
     Oh! I was 34 at the time? 
    
     Never mind....
    

    re: .81
    
     >Is a 15 year old girl "cabable of understanding" the outcome, physical
     >and phsychological of, say, an abortion?
    
    When given the information necessary to make an informed decision, yes.
    
    >As for the rest of your reply.... Now who's coming up with all
    >sorts of non sequiturs???
    
    I said they were extreme. However, you haven't come up with a
    reasonable thought out rebuttal, so I assume that you agree.
    
    ...Tom

    
    Dick !

    > I was simply pointing out that since you are
    > not Jewish, you don't know what you're talking about.  

    Are you implying that ONLY a Jew could be a valid source for Jewish
    History/Religion and the implications of such ?!?

    This is a rhetorical question of course, but on first read that is what
    it sounds like you are saying

    Dan

    
    > >Is a 15 year old girl "capable of understanding" the outcome, physical
    > >and psychological of, say, an abortion?
    > 
    > When given the information necessary to make an informed decision, yes.

    Tom, I have difficulty believing this.  In my early twenties I made
    decisions that were informed and educated etc. but they have effected
    me beyond even my informed comprehension.  The fact is that some things
    that seem to be cut and dried when we are younger, become much hazier
    as we mature.  This is, near as I can tell, a fact of life.  The old
    adage of "if I knew then what I know now..." is truer with each
    passing year.  As a result of this discovery on my part I find it
    difficult to believe that any but the most exceptional 15 year old
    would have any clue as to how reality works....

    Dan

    
    re: .87
    
    No, I don't agree...
    
    Besides, isn't every parent/guardian/whatever given the facts and
    choice just after the birth of male children (excluding Jews)??
    
     Your reply can also be taken as an affirmation of my statement (that
    future problems are prevented by such procedures, therefore worthwhile)
    

    .88
    
    > Are you implying that ONLY a Jew could be a valid source for Jewish
    > History/Religion and the implications of such ?!?
    
    I suspect that you're prepared to argue that a nonChristian simply
    cannot interpret Christianity correctly because such a person lacks the
    proper viewpoint.  Am I correct?

I wrote:

     Banning circumcision is equivalent to banning Judaism.

And Tom replied:
    
>    As if Judaism hasn't modified it's beliefs numerous times.

But Gerald wrote:

>At various times in Jewish history, repressive governments intent on
>destroying Judaism have banned circumcision.  Jews have risked their
>lives to carry out this commandment.

And Dick isn't screaming at Tom about his ignorance of Judaism.

/john

    Probably because Dick does a lot of NEXT UNSEENing here and just
    happened to drop in on Meaty's repetition of his earlier silliness.

	John.... maybe Jack is just being more ignorant.... :-)


Glen

     >The old adage of "if I knew then what I know now..." is truer with each
     >passing year.    
    
    Are you trying to say that the decisions that you made, that you now
    consider to have been in error, would have been the correct decision if
    made by someone else? Back to my point, everything could be outlawed 
    because of possible future events that might be considered unacceptable. 
    In regards to a 15 year old having an abortion, they are as capable as 
    anyone considering an abortion for the first time. Maybe later they will 
    find that the decision made was a mistake, that doesn't justify the 
    removing the decision, by law, from the one affected. 
        
    >Besides, isn't every parent/guardian/whatever given the facts and
    >choice just after the birth of male children (excluding Jews)??
    
    I assume so. Are now speaking of Clitoris removal, circumcision or
    abortion, or another subject? 
    
    >Your reply can also be taken as an affirmation of my statement (that
    >future problems are prevented by such procedures, therefore worthwhile)
    
    I never denied that future problems might be prevented. And you
    aren't denying that you think it proper to perform a procedure on
    everyone in order to prevent a low probability of future problems.
    These procedures are not worthwhile IMO due to that small percentage,
    except by choice of the individual involved.
    
    ...Tom

So, are you still proposing that male circumcision be outlawed?

And you still deny that the suggestion is anti-semitic?

/john

           
    > >The old adage of "if I knew then what I know now..." is truer with each
    > >passing year.    
    > 
    > Are you trying to say that the decisions that you made, that you now
    > consider to have been in error, would have been the correct decision if
    > made by someone else?

    Hello... I made what seemed like the right decision over the objection
    of older and wiser individuals.  I did not fully understand the 
    implications of my actions.  As I've grown older I now more fully
    understand things that I could not grasp at an earlier age.  We can
    never be certain that we are making the right decision, but with
    maturity comes greater understanding.

    Older and wiser
    Dan

    
    
    Well Tom... since you "IMO"... then I'll do the same...
    
    BTW (IMO) there's a big difference between mutilating someone because
    you don't want them screwing around on you and having a medical
    procedure done to "cut-off" potential problems later in life, no matter
    hos slight they may seem...
    

    Glen:
    
    Why don't you go get circumscribed!  

    an interfering SNARF!

| <<< Note 507.99 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Why don't you go get circumscribed!

	Cuz I down't have a writing utensil.....

    >So, are you still proposing that male circumcision be outlawed?
    
    I propose that this type of procedure be used only on as as needed
    basis for specific problems that occur, based on medical need. If
    circumcision is wanted for convenience to the individual then that
    decision should be made by the individual. Actually my opinion would be
    that children at around 8 years old are at a point where they can begin
    to understand the consequences of most actions.
    
    >And you still deny that the suggestion is anti-semitic?
    
    My thoughts concerning circumcision have nothing to do with the beliefs
    of jews, christians or beings from outer space. It has to do with my
    opinion that the performance of this procedure and others like it, or
    worse, have to little value to be forced on an unsuspecting infant. So
    yes I deny that the suggestion is anti-semitic. Your continuation of
    this anti-semitic argument seems childish.
    
    ...Tom

    .102
    
    Childish?  Hardly.  Circumcision is at the very heart of Judaism; it is
    the outward visible sign of the covenant between YHWH and his people. 
    To outlaw it is to outlaw Judaism, pure and simple.

    
    RE: .102
    
    >Actually my opinion would be
    >that children at around 8 years old are at a point where they can begin
    >to understand the consequences of most actions.
    
    
     and suppose, that some 8 year old children never experienced real pain
    in their short lives?? How would you go about demonstrating the
    repercussions of their decisions? 
    

    Mr. Binder
    
    I do not consider Anti-Semitism childish. What I consider childish is
    John Covert using Anti-Semitism as a club when he very well knows that
    it doesn't apply to me. I treat all religion the same, as unrealistic,
    irrational mysticism.
    
    
    re: .104, SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
    
    That argument can work with any age. It is my experience that an 8 year
    old can understand the basics of a situation and be able to contribute
    to any decision that affects him/her.
    
    ...Tom

OK, so now that you know that your suggestion that all circumcision of male
infants at eight days be outlawed cuts to the heart of Judaism, will you
withdraw it?

If not, how can you deny that the suggestion is anti-semitic?

/john

    
    re: .105
    
    Tom, this is not a slam, it's a question:
    
    Do you have any children, and if so how many, what ages, and what
    genders?  If you do not wish to answer this question, please say as
    much.
    
    Thank you
    Dan
    

    
    re: .105
    
    Then obviously "your experience" has never dealt with a child
    experiencing real pain...
    
      I'd like to see 8 year old kid's reactions to you if you sat them
    down and explained, oh say, a painful booster shot.... Not a really
    good example, but a mild one to throw out there for you...
    

    RE: .106
    
    >OK, so now that you know that your suggestion that all circumcision of male
    >infants at eight days be outlawed cuts to the heart of Judaism, will you
    >withdraw it?
    
    No
    
    >If not, how can you deny that the suggestion is anti-semitic?
                                                                  
    Because my belief is the same as that of human sacrifice, only on a
    lesser scale of course. If the outlawing of human sacrifice cuts to the
    heart of religion X it does not make me anti-religion X, only anti
    human sacrifice. My primary philosophy would prohibit unnecessary
    intrusion, by force.
    
    RE: .106
    
    Why would I not want to answer? I have two boys, ages 19 and 16.
    
    RE: .107
    
    >Then obviously "your experience" has never dealt with a child
    >experiencing real pain...
    
    And obviously you don't know what you are talking about. But I expect
    such outrageous assumptions from you, especially when you have no data.
    
    ...Tom

>    Because my belief is the same as that of human sacrifice,

How absurd, comparing a procedure which many doctors consider to be a
health-benefit (and not just a religious obligation for Jews), which
has been shown to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in these men's
wives, and thus is a life-saving procedure with the killing of a human being.

Go to 204.

/john

    
    Reminds me of a neighbor we used to have.  He was in his 40's and filed
    suit against his parents for having him circumcized.
    
     

    
    Mike, 
    Please tell me you ment to put that reply in the Jokes note....:-|
    ...Please... Pretty Please....
    
    Did he really do that?  Any idea why?
    
    :-|
    Dan

       Yeh, they never paid him his part of the profits on the wallet.
       

    
    
    Yup, he did Dan.  He was a real goofball.  Had 20some dogs, many cats,
    a few snakes, etc, etc.  He had a fireplace built on to his house and
    didn't pay the contractor.  They came back and filled the fireplace
    with cement.  Was funny seeing the house fill up with smike that night.  
    
    When they foreclosed on his house, I was able to go in and see the
    mess.  There was feces all over the place, dead animals and trash.  
    Quite the neighbor he was......
    
    Mike

    .114> Was funny seeing the house fill up with smike
    
    Hey, you're a real gas!!!
    

    
    re: .109
    
    > And obviously you don't know what you are talking about. But I expect
    >such outrageous assumptions from you, especially when you have no data.
    
    
     Ummmm... Tom? I would check your irony/sarcasm meter.. NNTTM...
    
     It was meatn to be sarcastic because of your previous replies about 8
    year olds being able to handle certain things (which I'll address
    next).
    

    re: .105
    
    >That argument can work with any age. It is my experience that an 8 year
    >old can understand the basics of a situation and be able to contribute
    >to any decision that affects him/her.
    
     I used the example of an 8 year old getting a shot, and obviously that
    wasn't a very good one as I was on my way out for the day and couldn't
    think of a better one (besides, you assumed I assumed so we'll start
    fresh)
    
      Why do you think drug dealers choose such young people (oh, probably
    around 8 or years old) to be their bag-men??? Do you think it's because
    the dealers want to start these youngsters on the ground floor and
    teach them a career?? Or could it be because an 8 year old has
    absolutely no conception of the cause and effect of such an
    undertaking? Do you think this 8 year old "contributes" to the
    situation.. or is the allure too much for a childish 8 year old mind to
    completely understand?
    
      How about this? You (generic) explain to your 8 year old all about
    hunting and safety... Give him/her a loaded 20 ga. shotgun and take
    them out bird-hunting with you... After all, they're 8 and "can
    understand the basics of a situation and be able to contribute to any
    decision that affects him/her." Now.. you're both happy and bonding and
    all... walking through the woods, and a bird flushes up between the two
    of you and is headed straight for you... You know, since you've
    explained it all to that 8 year old, that in the heat of the moment and
    adrenalin rush, the child will never, ever, ever point and shoot in
    your direction.... right?

RE: 507.110 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

>    Because my belief is the same as that of human sacrifice,

Absurd.


> comparing a procedure which many doctors consider to be a health-benefit 
> ... Go to 204.

Equally absurd.  The health benefits of hacking of the foreskin are less
than the health risks of having it hacked off,  and both risk and benefit 
are rather tiny.


Phil

Now wait a damn minute.   Sloppy quoting there.

I did _not_ write "Because my belief is the same as that of human sacrifice" !!!

That was Tom Ralston.

/john

    
      I don't even understand what Purina is saying, and I doubt he does.
    
      When I encounter a strange religion, with people doing things I
     know nothing about and seem outlandish to me, there are two courses
     of action available, tolerant and intolerant.
    
      The tolerant course is to shut up and try very hard not to interfere.
     If curiosity gets the better of me so that I have to seek an
     explanation, tolerance forces me to approach the subject with utmost
     circumspection, and overt evidence of respect.
    
      The intolerant course is to be critical, to ridicule, to oppose.
    
      I cannot imagine how TR thinks it is possible to do both.  It
     obviously isn't.  He needs a course in manners.  His own beliefs
     and practices may appear just as outlandish to others, and since
     he is American, I know they would offend many in this world.  If
     he expects toleration, he must give it.
    
      bb

    
    re: .118
    
    Tell that to those women who got cervical cancer from some slob's head
    cheese!!
    

re .121

Does that belong in the Switzerland topic?

    
    re: .122
    
    It may... depends on what they do with male children at birth over
    there...
    

RE: 507.121 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?"

Or the parents of a dead child.  Was a case of this in Houston while I was 
there doing an install:  tearful mother all over the evening news.

I see nothing wrong with leaving this as parent's choice.


Phil

    
    <-----
    
    What was the cause of the child dying??
    

RE: 507.125 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?"

The little operation to get the end wacked off.

    
    So was it a parental choice???
    
    What were the (obvious) complications?
    
    Whenwas the last time this happened (vs. cervical cancer death)?

Malpractice happens every day. It's the fault of the practitioner,
not the procedure. Not all moyels were always surgeons. Too many
doctors are just plain butchers, though.

Yes,  death,  and why don't you tell us?

re .122:

Head cheese would seem to fit the Spam topic better than the Switzerland topic.

    RE: .207, bb
    
    It is interesting how one such as you can make value judgements against
    someone they don't even know, and then make a statement about someone
    not understanding something. I'm not surprised. My philosophy is and
    has been very consistant. It includes tolerance of others. However, my
    opinions are as good as yours and I express them here. That is what
    SOAPBOX is for. I also look at all that a person writes and try not to
    extract portions out of context and use it as a club just to win. That
    can't be said for many in here. Now since you have taken it upon
    yourself to use purina in a derogatory manner I will from this time
    forward assume that bb stands for butt breath. Not very mature, but it
    seems to apply.
    
    ...Tom

>       <<< Note 507.131 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
>
>    RE: .207, bb

Tom, do you have ESP or something?

    Ralston get off your high horse.
    
    You have made it clear that you put people of the Christian faith in a
    box.  Who do you think you're trying to kid!!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    re, .131 : Huh ?  Why would it matter, in judging your words,
            whether I saw you ?  Would your gender or race matter ?
            I judge your statements, as you wrote them.  You have written
            about the least tolerant statements about various religions
            I've ever seen in the box, and never once have I seen you
            express the view "it takes all kinds,etc" which is the essence
            of tolerance.  As to whose opinions are "just as good as"
            whose, this is not consistent with what you have written.
            You have repeatedly stated that your views are better, and
            should be imposed by the state.
    
             Yes, you have been very consistent.  No, your views are
            incompatible with any kind of tolerance as commonly
            understood - which means putting up with practices of others
            even though they aren't your own.  By what conceivable
            standard are you anything but zero-tolerant ?
    
             bb

    .134
    
    Why, his own standards, of course.

    In regards to circumcision it is my thinking that it is an unwarranted
    procedure of dubious value. It has not been shown to prevent a greater
    number of problems then it causes. If someone can show me rational 
    statistics that shows otherwise I will concede the issue. Due to this
    thinking of mine I consider circumcision a forceful action against
    innocent children. Now, Mr. Covert tried to sway the issue in a
    different direction, by inferring that I was either stupid, an
    anti-Semite or both. This is expected by me from this individual. But
    it is not in my mind worthy of intellectual discussion. My thinking on
    religion is well documented in the box. If this makes me an anti-Semite
    then so be it. I don't think that it does. Also, I never have and never
    will spend any amount of energy on trying to eliminate religion. It is
    my thinking that the normal evolutionary process of man will do that
    soon, where rationality will cause religion and non-competitive
    governments to be crushed by their own weight. I will stick to running
    my businesses and leave the changing of the world to those so inclined. 
    I also believe that in a rational world, one not dominated by mysticism, 
    that the difference between objective and subjective crimes would be 
    axiomatic (unwanted force). This would result in the elimination of laws 
    as we know them. Why, because subjective laws or political policy laws 
    which are used to control individuals against their will, would be 
    eliminated and objective laws would be totally understood.  
    
    ...Tom

How do you feel about vaccinating children?

    >Why, his own standards, of course.
    
    Mr. Binder, do you live by someone elses standards? If not then this
    applies to you as well.
    
    >How do you feel about vaccinating children?
    
    Haven't given them much thought. I guess off-the-cuff I would say that
    they are OK. The medical advances of man are usually good and would be
    better if not for the FDA and AMA. I think, without much study on my
    part that vaccinations have been shown to eliminate childhood and other 
    illnesses and have shown little problem to humans. I don't think they
    should be forced. If they are shown to be beneficial people would make
    the decision themselves.
    
    ...Tom

>                                                       I don't think they
>    should be forced. If they are shown to be beneficial people would make
>    the decision themselves.

How to you propose to let an infant make the decision?

    
    re: .129
    
    Let me expound...
    
     What were the (obvious) complications that resulted in the child
    dying?
    
    > and why don't you tell us?
    
      You're the one that put the info in about children dying from
    circumcisions... I can look up the statistics about cervical cancer
    deaths... You'll have to come up with the numbers for infant-pecker
    syndrome...

    .138
    
    Since you've elected to be formal, Mr. Ralston, I shall address you in
    kind.  I live by my standards, tempering my behavior so that, for the
    most part, it remains within the law.
    
    However, the question put to you by Mr. Braucher asked nothing of the
    standards by which you live; it asked by what standards you judge
    others.  It is clear to even the most casual observer, let alone the
    astute BoxIntelligentsia, that you judge others by your own standards
    and, in so doing, declare them irrational fools.   You should, it
    stands to reason, have no objection to being yourself judged by others'
    standards, since that mode of assessment is itself according to your
    own standards.  Mr. Braucher so judged you and declared you intolerant. 
    If your standards are actually as you declare them, I must agree with
    Mr. Braucher's assessment of you.  I would, however, add a noun to his
    adjective; the most applicable noun I can think of is a colloquial term
    for a male donkey.
    
    Have a nice day.

    >How to you propose to let an infant make the decision?
    
    I think I know where this is going, but maybe not.
    
    Due to vaccinations being shown to be of benefit in the vast mjority
    of cases where they are used it would be logical for the parents to
    make the decision to use them, logic would dictate. 
    
    ...Tom

>    Due to vaccinations being shown to be of benefit in the vast mjority
>    of cases where they are used ...

How do you know this?

    RE: .141
        
    >I live by my standards, tempering my behavior so that, for the
    >most part, it remains within the law.
    
    And I do the same.
    
    >You should, it stands to reason, have no objection to being yourself 
    judged by others' standards, since that mode of assessment is itself 
    according to your own standards.  
    
    I care not how I am judged by the BOX. Judgment is not an action. 
    I voice my opinion as do the others in the BOX. I live by my standards as 
    do others in the BOX. I also allow others to live by their standards 
    without interference from me, outside of voicing my opinion, unlike many 
    in the BOX.
    
    >I would, however, add a noun to his adjective; the most applicable noun I 
    >can think of is a colloquial term for a male donkey.
    
    Thank you for inviting me into your stable, but I have other plans.
    
    >Have a nice day.
    
    I always do, and you as well.
    
    ...Tom

    .142
    
    > Due to vaccinations being shown to be of benefit in the vast mjority
    > of cases where
    
    Well, let's try it this way, then:
    
    Due to circumcision's being shown to be of benefit in EVERY case in
    which it was used on a Jewish boy, it would be logical for the parents
    to make the decision.
    
    Oh, yes, it is of benefit.  Without it, the boy is not Jewish.  To some
    people, being Jewish is more important than being alive.  This, of
    course, shows up your vaunted tolerance as so much hogwash.

    >How do you know this?
    
    I hate having to repeat things. It is such a waste of time However,
    this is what I said. If it is different than I assume, please show me
    and I will change my opinion. I am flexible when it comes to the facts.
    
    >>The medical advances of man are usually good and would be
    >>better if not for the FDA and AMA. I think, without much study on
    >>my part that vaccinations have been shown to eliminate childhood and
    >>other illnesses and have shown little problem to humans. 
    
    ...Tom

Dick sorta stole my thunder.  I would have phrased it somewhat differently.
(For instance, not being circumcised doesn't make a boy not Jewish.  There
are cases where it's actually forbidden to circumcise a Jewish baby.)

Many parents who have their infants vaccinated do it because they think
it protects their physical well-being.

Many parents who have their infants circumcised do it because they think
it protects their spiritual well-being.

    The physical impact is not just with babies; please pay attention
    to the possible affects on women.  I know; was there, did that at
    age 35!!
    
    That was over 15 years ago, I'm darn lucky and I know it; however
    the emotional and physical pain from the required surgery took a
    looooong time before starting to fade.
    
    My OB/GYN asked the question about whether or not hubby had been
    nipped as a nipper (NOT) so medical professionals knew back then
    that there was a connection.
    

    
    re: .149
    
    >so medical professionals knew back then that there was a connection.
    
    But obviously a very miniscule connection by some people's standards..
    
    
    Glad you made it... even through all the pain and trauma...
    

    >This, of course, shows up your vaunted tolerance as so much hogwash.
    
    Why? When have I ever said that Jews should be prohibited from
    circumcising there male infants? I used the word outlaw once and as
    explained later, I was refering to the forced clitoris removal
    operation. Having an opinion against the actions of a person or a group
    of persons isn't being intolerant of them. I don't like beets. I think
    they are discusting. Am I intolerant to beet lover's because my opinion
    is that beets suck? I don't think so.
    
    On the contrary Dick, If by your definition, I am intolerant then your
    intolerance is showing by your use of male donkey, this "shows up your
    vaunted tolerance as so much hogwash".
    
    ...Tom 

>    When have I ever said that Jews should be prohibited from
>    circumcising there male infants? I used the word outlaw once and as
>    explained later, I was refering to the forced clitoris removal
>    operation. 

You wrote:

>    There are those so bold as to suggest that male circumcision should be
>    made illegal, and that Jews should stop using god as an excuse for
>    force upon an innocent child.

    RE: .152, John
    
    I wrote that as a *mock* reply to a previous note. So as there is no
    confusion, though I think circumcision is as I have said, a forced
    procedure of dubious value, I in no way advocate a law that would
    prohibit Jews from performing the operation upon their male children. I
    would be against any law that forced the procedure be done, however.
    
    FWIW, Due to a work commitment, I will have to be away from the BOX
    until next week. Have fun.
    
    ...Tom 

re .151:
    
>    Why? When have I ever said that Jews should be prohibited from
>    circumcising there male infants?

================================================================================
Note 507.19              Interference in other cultures                19 of 153
DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!"           9 lines   4-AUG-1995 15:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IMO Ritual mutilations, that do not have the full acceptance of the
    mutilatee, should be outlawed. This could be considered an objective
    law dealing with unwanted force upon an individual. Doing mutilations
    to small children and infants is the worst form of child abuse.

================================================================================
Note 507.102             Interference in other cultures               102 of 153
DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!"          19 lines   7-AUG-1995 16:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >So, are you still proposing that male circumcision be outlawed?
    
    I propose that this type of procedure be used only on as as needed
    basis for specific problems that occur, based on medical need. If
    circumcision is wanted for convenience to the individual then that
    decision should be made by the individual. Actually my opinion would be
    that children at around 8 years old are at a point where they can begin
    to understand the consequences of most actions.

>                                     I used the word outlaw once and as
>    explained later, I was refering to the forced clitoris removal
>    operation.

Where did you mention clitorectomy?

    John, and a few others here, who also are ignoring another religion
    that does ritual male circumcision (the followers of islam).  
    
    Would you be rising to the defense of this practice if it 
    
    1.  Was not performed until the child was 11?
    
    2.  Involved the removal of the penis, rather than just the foreskin
    
    3.  Involved destroying much of the tissue surrounding the stump and a
    pinhole left for urination and another hole left for ejaculation?
    
    4.  Destroyed all ability and interest in normal sexual intercourse?
    
    meg
    

    
    re: .155
    
    Obviously, they don't do it on every follower of Islam, otherwise, from
    the description, there wouldn't be any followers of Islam.
    
    Could you elaborate some? Your 1-4 are very vague...
    

Meg is likening male circumcision to so-called female circumcision.
BTW, I believe Muslim circumcision is done at puberty.

    .155
    
    The reasons you're not getting many replies is that the collective male
    population is currently still recovering from that image. (That's what
    that collective "oooouuuueeeeeeeggggghhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa....." was.)
    Just like watching someone take it in the crotch when watching a hockey
    game.  
    
    oooouuuueeeeeeeggggghhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa.....I have to stop typing now...

    re: .157
    
    
    
    I wondered what that breeze was wafting over my head!! :)
    

    
      We must obey the Prime Directive, captain.  It is against Starfleet
     Command regulations to interfere in other cultures.
    
      bb

>    Would you be rising to the defense of this practice if it ...

But it isn't, and I'm not.

/john

    re: .155
    
    Let me try again...
    
    Apples and oranges meg...
    
    I admit the conversation has drifted toward male circumcision, but
    that's a medical procedure.
    
    What they're doing to those women in Africa is unconscionable as would
    your list be...
    

    (as he strokes his bearded chin)... should I get involved????
    
    (Thoughts of Stupid, anti-semite and male donkey dance in his brain)
    
    Maybe if I just say something nice?!?! 
    
    NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

    Maybe no one should interfere wiuth other practices that cause
    unnecessary pain and death, as well, such as widow burning or exhorbitant
    dowries either, but I don't subscribe to the "prime directive" when
    practices that maim, and kill large numbers of people just because it
    is a tradition or culture to do.  
    
    Infibulation affects me the same way the "hockey puck" scenario affects
    some men, and on top of it is a practice which is also partially
    responsible for the spread of AIDS, is a major contributing factor to
    making the odds of maternal mortality 1 in 700, and contributes to men
    commiting "adultery" with prostitutes and anal sex with their wives to
    avoid the amount of pain  and risk of hemorrage "normal" sexual
    intercourse does to one's spouse.  Do you realize bridegrooms are
    given knives so they can consumate their marriages?  There is no way in
    complete infibulation that virginity can be comromised without same.  
    
    meg

    
    Ummmm meg?
    
    Can we get an accurate % of how many women (people) this happens to?
    
    I realize one is too many, but just to put things in perspective..
    
    Thanks
    

I'm confused.

Why is it that we seem to be discussing infibulation (which nobody in
here is trying to defend specifically, and which everyone seems to be
agreeing is a horrendous practice, and which is most likely illegal
in our particular culture) in relation to circumcision (which only a
few people seem to be condemning, most people, including practically
all of those who've had it done, seem to be defending, which is
a widely accepted practice in many societies, including our own, and
doesn't appear to have vast amounts of evidence against it), as if they
were comparable?

Millions of people are opposed to the practice of infibulation. Only
some fringe radicals appear to be against circumcision.

Is the point to try to drum up support, or what?

    Infibulation is not illegal in the US, but as far as I know there
    aren't Dr's who will practice it.  However, dr's don't often perform
    this procedure in Eastern Africa either.  It is done by local
    tribespeople generally in unsanitary conditions.  
    
    FWIW, it isn't one woman who has had this done it is many (thousands) I
    don't have the exact Stat's but will dig through my old Ms.'s to see if
    they have them.
    
    meg

    .167
    
    It's pretty much done to all women in Kenya and Tanzania who don't live
    in the cities (and some that do.)

    
    Ban Kenya and Tanzania!!!
    

RE Note 507.166             Interference in other cultures               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Millions of people are opposed to the practice of infibulation. Only
>some fringe radicals appear to be against circumcision.

    Read some Men's notes files and the nurses that refuse to have anything
    to do with. It is quite an eye opener.
    
    
    Open your eyes
    
    Steve

    
      Well, I'll defend the Prime Directive, since nobody else here
     will.  There are hundreds of practices I consider immoral or
     ridiculous, and would oppose appropriately in my own society,
     but against which I would raise not a finger or a word in somebody
     else's country.  The key question is this : "Just who do you think
     you are ?"  In my view, you or I have earned no votes in how others
     choose to live.  Societies are so complex, it is not possible
     to predict the unintended consequences of forcing their modification
     except in the most gentle manner.  Even our presence in another's
     country may cause untold human misery, without our intent.  The Prime
     Directive arose because of the series of disasters associated with
     uncontrolled cultural interaction.
    
      bb

>    Open your eyes

Poppycock, Steve.

Regardless of the forum in which it's discussed, the majority of respondents
(assuming it's not a one-sided discussion) are rarely if ever on the side
of opposing circumcision.

I mean, let's face it, if it weren't socially acceptable, you wouldn't
see millions of non-Jewish/Islamic parents having it done to their sons,
would you?

The fact that there may be "lots of" people opposed neither means that
it's a majority view, or that they aren't radical fringe.

    And personally if I had sons, only if it were medically necessary would
    I amputate their foreskins.  
    
    Now, as to Jim's question about ears and nails, I resemble that remark,
    but I did it to myself as a semi-responsible 15-year-old.  I did not
    get any of my daughters' ears pierced until they were old enough to
    follow the complete discussion and take care of same on their own. 
    Since Frank doesn't approve of any mutilation of the body, they also
    have to argue successfully with Papa to get their ears pierced.  
    
    meg

>    And personally if I had sons, only if it were medically necessary would
>    I amputate their foreskins.  

And that's perfectly fine and I certainly wouldn't argue with you.

But is that any reason to claim that it's as destructive and abusive and
problematic a procedure as infibulation is for a woman?

No woman has ever had her lot in life improved by infibulation. On the
other hand, very few (percentagewise) circumcized males have ever
experienced any negative impact. Look around - there are millions upon
millions of circumcized men that aren't complaining. As Steve suggests,
open your eyes.

    Mr Dogface sir:
    
    Please do a little research. The number of problems caused by lack of
    circumcision is miniscule. Removal of the labia minor or clitoris will
    prevent cancer of those parts in women. No one however sees the
    miniscule benifit as being worth the risk.
    
    There are problems with circumcision. I read some place years ago that
    something like 500 babies die DIE each year from complications from
    that procedure. I personally know of one at which time they discovered
    that the baby was a hemopheliac (sp). The baby bled for hours. I seem
    to reacall that they had to cordorize yes CORDORIZE the wound that they
    inflicted upon this helpless child. 
    
    I will post the WWW page and suggest that you investigate it before you
    make such a ridiculous uninformed charge of 'radical fringe' upon
    someone who disagrees with you.
    
    Thanks
    Steve

    cauterize yes CAUTERIZE
    
    nnttm no really NNTTM
    

    WWW page 
    
    
    http://mail.eskimo.com/~gburlin/circ.htmlh
    
    
    
    Look at it. Read it. Understand it. THINK...

    http://mail.eskimo.com/~gburlin/circ.html
    
    nnttm
    
    :-)

    
    >>  Look at it. Read it. Understand it. THINK...
    
    SPELL...
    
    

Been there. Read it. Do understand it. Have thought.

My point remains. That's a one-sided exposition and the numbers of problems
(percentagewise) of cases of circumcisions, including deaths, is very
small relative to the total circumcized population. Those opposing it
as a percentage of the populations accepting it are also (percentagewise)
few in number, which makes them fringe. Radical is my own preferred adjective.

I said it earlier in this string  - the cases in which there are severe
injuries and death are the cases which are the result of malpractice,
(yes - including the hemophiliac) and are the fault of the practitioner,
not the procedure. While I don't like to take this approach, the reasons
for high medical costs, according to the medical profession itself, are
due to the high costs of malpractice insurance. If malpractice DOES
occur (which it certainly, measurably does in these cases), it's the
proper position to sue the pants off the faulty practitioner and recoup.
Let's make that insurance pay.

Attempting to mount some silly campaign of false principle over a widely
accepted procedure is ludicrous.

    
    Jack's right, of course.  This has been argued to death in MENNOTES,
    but it's a lot of energy expended over nothing.  The problems 
    associated with having or removing a foreskin are so insignificant,
    especially when compared to the truly horrid "female circumcision,"
    that it is hardly worth arguing over.
    
    Worse problems would be created if people who do attach such
    religious significance to circumcision were being forced to stop
    the practice.
    
    
    Rob
    

This organization "NOHARMM" claims not to be Anti-Semitic.

How can one propose ending circumcision without being Anti-Semitic?

/john

    Doesn't strike ME as such an anti-semitic proposition...  Silly yeh,
    but not anti-semitic per se, in the conventional meaning of that latter
    term.
    
    imho.
    

Yeah, but you're another one of the opposed-to-religion camp.

/john

    Jewish circumcision is usually done by a Rabbi or some other religious
    individual as I recall. Opposing non-religious circumcision is what
    this group proposes as I understand it.
    
    Kind of like abortion, if you (medical professional) don't want to do
    it, you don't.

>    Jewish circumcision is usually done by a Rabbi or some other religious
>    individual as I recall.

I know Gerald could speak more authoritatively than I on this, but I believe
that you'd find in the USofA that (many/most?) moyels are actually Jewish
pediatricians or surgeons operating under rabbinical authority.

I'm not sure what point that makes, though.

>I know Gerald could speak more authoritatively than I on this, but I believe
>that you'd find in the USofA that (many/most?) moyels are actually Jewish
>pediatricians or surgeons operating under rabbinical authority.

I don't think I've ever met a mohel who's a physician.  Most are rabbis
though it's not a requirement.  The (religiously) preferred person to
do it is the father.  I've been to one bris where the father did the
actual cut after a mohel set everything up.  Most mohels have a lot of
experience.  Supposedly the British royal family has used a mohel rather
than a physician to circumcise their tykes (but this may be urban legend).

I think that in the secular world, it's the obstetrician who usually does
the circumcision.  A friend of mine who's an Orthodox Jewish OB just had
his first baby, but he didn't get a chance to perform a bris -- it was a girl.

I stand corrected, then.

    Not to put too fine a point on it...
                                         a blunt one.

    re: /john, circumcision, and antisemitism...

    Say /john, if I felt alcohol was wrong, and was pushing for the
    ban of wine and beer, would that make me anti-catholic?

    Don't be silly.  My success might AFFECT catholics, but it's
    just wrong to attribute it to malice.
    
    \john

What sacrament uses beer?

    
    Sacred frat hazings?
    

        > What sacrament uses beer?

    not sure about the direct ceremonial connection, but my
    experience is that it flows pretty heavily soon after
    most sacraments...

    -b

    I gotta convert to that there nativemurican religion what uses
    peyote...

>    Say /john, if I felt alcohol was wrong, and was pushing for the
>    ban of wine and beer, would that make me anti-catholic?

If you were pushing to have the Episcopal Church, Roman Catholic Church,
Lutheran Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, etc., stop using wine in the
Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, yes, I would say that your proposal was
anti-catholic.

Note that Prohibition did not forbid the sale of wine for use in religious
ceremonies.

/john

    Well then if we are not anti-semitic then we are just plain "stupid"
    then, right John?
    
    ...Tom

    
    Two minutes for excess "then"ing.
    

    Yea then, but then what would I do then for two minutes??  :)

re:.195 (/john)

No, /john, not just Episcopals or Roman Catholics, everybody.  I don't
think it's good or healthy to drink, and I'm interested in helping
keep folks healthy.  Everybody.

Am I anti-catholic?

\john

	Well, I think banning alcohol or circumcision would be just
	plain stupid; whether it's anti-Catholic/anti-Semitic depends
	on whether there is a religious exemption granted.

	I think the evidence that circumcision is beneficial to
	general health and welfare is substantial.

	Of course, I never sought the hand of a damsel whose father
	demanded a gift of a hunnert foreskins in return for his dotter.

/john

>       -< _Not_ receiving the Holy Blood of Christ is _very_ unhealthy >-

That's odd. I feel just fine.

re: .200

I mean no offense, /john, but it's about as stupid yelling "anti-semitism!"
when someone suggests eliminating circumcision.

The situation is resolvable without resorting to wild, inflammatory language.
We don't need demonization, we need education and explanation.

We're not dealing with someone who said, "let's put Jews in their place
by banning circumcision!"  If we were, I'd be right there with you, telling
all within earshot about this slime.  

And even if education and explanation doesn't work, and you don't change
their minds?  They're STILL not anti-semites and anti-catholics.

HTH, NNTTM.
\john

>The situation is resolvable without resorting to wild, inflammatory language.

In Soapbox?

    What does this have to do with Shania Twain?

    .199
    
    > I don't
    > think it's good or healthy to drink
    
    You are wrong, according to both ancient wisdom and modern medical
    science.  The latter has shown that moderate consumption of alcohol, a
    drink or two per day, has a significant beneficial effect because it
    reduces the chances of heart attack.  Red wine is also beneficial to
    the digestion.

  .205  margaritas are good for your sex life.  this is a little-known
	fact.

    
    With white or gold??
    
    

>>    With white or gold??

    yes.
    i like the cuervo gold or the 1800 (i mention this 1800 with the
    full knowledge that it might give mr. binder an aneurysm, but so
    be it.)    
    

    'Speshally good when you surround a navel wiv NaCl...
    

A navel engagement with an old salt?

    I ain't talkin oranges, sonnyboy...
    

    |     <<< Note 507.205 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out."
    |>>>
    |
    |    .199
    |
    |    > I don't
    |    > think it's good or healthy to drink
    |
    |    You are wrong, according to both ancient wisdom and modern medical
    
    Bad news, Herr Binder. You are mistaken in your statement. Fallen into
    that pit of Soapbox reasoning that so many of us inhabit. A very
    slippery-sided pit, no doubt.

 >   Bad news, Herr Binder. You are mistaken in your statement. Fallen into
 >   that pit of Soapbox reasoning that so many of us inhabit. A very
 >   slippery-sided pit, no doubt.

 Huh? What does soapbox have to do with it. It has been widely reported
 that 1 ounce of alcohol a day can have significant health benefits but
 like anything else, when taken to excess, can be very detrimental.
 This is no great mystery.

 Doug.

    .213
    
    Another one into the pit!
    
    (Waiting to see how many people will collect down in the darkness
    before someone turns on a light.)

    All this talk about slippery-sided pits in the context of a
    circumcision note has got ME very... shall we say...
    
    or shall we not...
    

    I think I'm gonna start liking Margaritas......:-/

    .208
    
    The aneurysm was triggered by the thought of wasting 1800 in a
    Margarita instead of using it for body shots.

  .217  you lie.  why do you lie?  you were spouting off about how
	tequila should taste like tequila - it should have that 
	mezcal kick to it!  i have witnesses.

	besides, you use plain old tequila for shots, body or otherwise.
	1800 is fine sippin' tequila.

    
    Please stop talking about margaritas.  I'm having a craving.
    
    

>	fine sippin' tequila.

Oxymoron alert!

I drink the stuff but that doesn't mean I like it.

TTom

    
    whistling away in Margaritaville, looking for my long lost shaker
    of salt...

    egads Joe, yours does sound so much better.

    
    re: .223
    
    Only in Chicago (seeing as it's so close to Ohio)
    

    
    well Andy, I'll take Chicago over Bawstan anyday!!! 

    Female circumcision remains a curse, workshop says 


    (c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

    Reuter

    HUAIROU, China (11:41 a.m.) - Foot-binding and chastity belts have
    vanished in China and Europe but female circumcision remains a curse on
    women in African and Islamic countries, a women's workshop said on
    Thursday.

    About 130 million women in more than 30 countries have been circumcised
    and African immigrants to the West maintain the tradition, Mohammad
    Mustafa Khalil of the Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights told the
    workshop at this week's U.N.-affiliated world women's forum outside
    Beijing.

    Five women every minute -- or two million women worldwide -- undergo
    some form of genital mutilation each year, Khalil said.

    "Foot-binding and chastity belts are also forms of mutilation," Khalil
    said in an interview.

    Foot-binding ended in China in 1949 when the communists swept to power.
    In the Middle Ages in Europe, men supposedly forced their wives to wear
    chastity belts while they went off to war.

    Violence against women and health care, particularly for girls, are
    major issues in a controversial platform for action to be adopted by
    the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women which starts next
    week in Beijing.

    In Egypt, 90 percent of rural women and up to 65 percent of women in
    urban areas had been circumcised, which usually involves partial or
    total removal of the clitoris, often with crude implements in
    unsanitary conditions, Khalil said.

    There remains an entrenched belief among Egyptians, both Christian and
    Moslem, that female genital mutilation is still necessary to preserve
    hygiene, femininity and sexual morality or that religion demands it.

    Egypt's influential Islamic institution Al-Azhar, a bastion of Sunni
    Moslem orthodoxy, has thrown its weight behind the ancient practice,
    which dates back to the pre-Islamic era.

    "It's very hard to end the tradition," Khalil said. "We are very
    pessimistic."

    Pre-marital chastity, a deeply rooted value in Eygpt, is inextricably
    linked to female genital mutilation. Advocates believe circumcision
    reduces sexual desire and arousal and is an effective guarantee of
    virginity.

    "Uncircumcised women are considered dirty," Khalil said. "People
    suspect they are constantly aroused and cannot be loyal to their
    husbands...they themselves fear being refused by men."

    Participants at the workshop were divided over whether governments
    should ban female genital mutilation.

    "It is against human rights," said Olayinka Koso-Thomas of Sierra
    Leone, author of the book "The Circumcision of Women."

    But Rafil Dhafir, vice-chairman of the Islamic Assembly of North
    America, argued that women should be allowed to choose for themselves
    whether they want circumcision.

    "Let them choose for themselves," Dhafir said, adding however that
    operations should be performed by doctors.

    Seventy-five percent of female circumcisions in Egypt are performed by
    midwives and barbers who have no formal training.

    "In some cases, the same knife is used on 10 girls," Khalil said.

    Harmful effects of female genital mutilation include severe pain,
    haemorrhage, damage to adjacent organs, shock and infection from
    diseases such as hepatitis and acquired immune deficiency syndrome
    (AIDS), women's activists said.
     

    
    First of all, before someone thinks otherwise, I do not support female
    genital mutilation.
    
    But I found this snippet interesting:
    
    >There remains an entrenched belief among Egyptians, both Christian and
    >Moslem, that female genital mutilation is still necessary to preserve
    >hygiene...
    
    Isn't this what we say about circumcision?  Why is this belief about 
    circumcision called "a medical fact" while the same belief about F.G.M. 
    called "an entrenched belief"?
    
    Just curious.
    
    

    Deb,
    
    I don't plan to chop the ends off of genitalia on any male offspring I
    may have.  My girlfriend and midwife who is Jewish also declined to
    have her sons mutilated in this fashion.  She says there are far better
    ways to show a covenant with one's diety.
    
    meg

    FWIW, KFC, IPA etc.

    My nephew had to be mutilated at age three because he kept getting
    infections because of excessive foreskin. As far as he is concerned, he
    went to the hospital to get a new pee pee.

Deity.  NNTTM.

    
    Well, my question really is, do these countries that practice F.G.M.
    have medical studies that back up their claim that F.G.M. is necessary
    for hygiene, or not?
    
    And what about the religious aspect?  Do these countries that practice
    F.G.M. have a religious tome that backs up their claim that F.G.M. is a
    requirement of their deity?
    
    

    Deb,
    
    since it is practiced by both xians and moslems, I would imagine the
    only religion that requires this practice is one of patriarchy.  
    
    meg

Presumably it's a local variant of said religions.

    
    re: xians...
    
     Is that like, some kind of martian alien or a candidate for "The X
    Files"???
    
     Will a witch melt if she {gasp!} says the other word? Or will she try
    and convince people that it's just the Greek variant and it's easier to
    use?
    
     Film at 11:00!!!
    

    
    Andy, are you trying to be a dink?
    
    

    
    
    I don't get it....
    

    sounds like a personal problem.

    some of us abreviate.  christian if you prefer but people who practice
    this are quite removed from the original teachings of their founder IMO
    
    
    ................
    
    
    Oooh, I'm melting, melting, all my beautiful wickeness.......
    
    meg

    
    Andy, I believe Mr.Binder also uses the X shorthand, and I doubt he's a
    witch 8^).
    
    

    
    re: .240
    
    Someone pour some cold water over that woman!!!!
    
    mz_deb
    
    I knew that... I was just curious... (my personal problems
    non-withstanding)

    Well, we could dress him up like one. A bit. A bit. Well a NOSE and a
    HAT.

    But is he made of wood?
    
    

    
    Aah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

    But wood burns!
    
    

    Explain to me again how sheep bladders can be employed to prevent
    earthquakes.

    
    Does wood sink in water?
    
    No... No!  It floats!
    
    Throw her into the pond!
    
    

    
    <------
    
    >Does wood sink in water?
    
    
    
    
    Natalie Wood does...

But what else floats on water?

Mud!  Gravy!  Cider!  Churches!  Very small stones!

    A duck!

    
    Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of modern science?
    

    
    I am Arthur, King of the Britons!
    
    

    My liege!

    
    Good Sir Knight, will you come with me to Camelot and join us at the
    Round Table?
    
    

    It is a silly place.

    
    I like to push the pram a lot....!
    
    

    
    
    time for the holy hand-grenade.

    Consult the book of armaments!

    And the Lord spake, saying:
    
    "First shalt thou take out the holy pin.  Then thou shalt count to three.  
    No more, no less.  Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the 
    number of thy counting shall be three.
    
    "Four shalt thou not count, nor shalt thou count two, excepting that thou 
    then proceed to three.
    
    "Five is right out.
    
    "Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest 
    thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at thy foe, who, being naughty in 
    my sight, shall snuff it."

    
    Amen.
    

    Women flogged or beheaded in Arab states 

    Robert Fisk 

    Mon, Oct. 9, 1995 

    BEIRUT - Saudi Arabia's system of Islamic justice has notched up a new
    tally of victims: a dozen women publicly beheaded in less than three
    years. 

    After Islamic trials, most of them were decapitated by sword in public
    squares. The majority of the executions were kept secret from all but
    spectators for fear of public reaction in the West and followed
    hearings that often denied the women defense lawyers. 

    Among the more shocking cases over the past three years were a mother
    and her daughter who were decapitated together before an audience of
    men in the marketplace of the Saudi port city of Dhahran in August for
    allegedly killing the elder woman's husband. 

    Since January of this year, 176 men also have been beheaded in Saudi
    Arabia. 

    In most cases, the condemned women - who include not only Saudis but
    Filipino, Sri Lankan, Nigerian, Indonesian and Pakistani nationals -
    were taken from their prisons to be beheaded with no warning that they
    were about to meet their deaths. In the Saudi coastal town of Dammam, a
    Christian Filipino woman accused of killing her employer and his family
    was dragged into a public square in 1993 and forced to kneel on the
    ground where her male executioner snatched her scarf from her head
    before decapitating her with a sword. 

    In the emirate of Ras al-Khaimar last April, a Sri Lankan girl stood
    weeping in the prison courtyard before a seven-man firing squad shot
    her dead for killing her employer's child - a crime she had told her
    fellow prisoners she never committed. She was 19 years old. 

    One woman, a Saudi named Fatima bint Abdullah, was publicly beheaded on
    March 27th for allegedly running a brothel and chewing qat, a leaf
    containing a mild drug from Yemen. According to a Saudi source, it was
    the chewing of qat rather than brothel-keeping that prompted the
    Islamic court to sentence Fatima to death. 

    During the same three-year period, hundreds of women - most of them
    foreign workers from the Philippines and Sri Lanka - have been lashed
    in Arab prisons of the Persian Gulf, usually for alleged sexual
    misdemeanors; dozens of others have fled the region after claiming they
    had been beaten or sexually abused by their employers. 

    Their plight is causing growing horror among human rights
    organizations, which have been told by Saudi Arabia and other gulf
    states that the punishments are an internal affair, inflicted according
    to Islamic law. 

    The nature of the Islamic trials and the cruel methods of execution
    call into question the morality of the West's military and political
    support for Saudi Arabia and other gulf states whose supposedly
    civilized values were defended by half a million American, British and
    other Western troops after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Not a
    single Western embassy, however, is reported to have protested at the
    beheading of women - nor at the increasingly ferocious lashings. 

    The chilling list of executions - most of the women were younger than
    30 - bodes ill for Sarah Balabagan, the 16-year old Muslim Filipino
    housemaid whose death sentence for the murder of her employer comes
    before an Abu Dhabi appeal court Monday. She was only 14 when she
    killed the elderly man, whom she claimed was trying to rape her.
    Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have
    appealed for her to be spared. 

    Her appeal was adjourned Monday until Oct. 30 after a court session of
    less than two hours. 

    Philippines Labor Attache Danilo Cruz said Balabagan reiterated before
    the court that she stabbed her Arab employer in self-defense. 

    The rapidly increasing number of women beheaded in Saudi Arabia - six
    of them this year alone - has shocked even normally conservative
    Saudis. "Most people accept traditional "Sharia' Islamic law, but the
    principles of execution are in doubt," a Saudi Islamist intellectual
    said Saturday. 

    "Nobody can produce anything from the Koran which says that the only
    way to execute people is by beheading - this is an old "Nejdi' tribal
    tradition and has nothing to do with Islam. The fear of a breakdown in
    security is now pushing our rulers to put women as well as men under
    the sword." 


    � Mon, Oct. 9, 1995 San Francisco Examiner

    Meg:
    
    A few points to note here.  You have just confirmed what I said all
    along...that UN Conferences are so far from achieving their ultimate
    goal it is uncanny.  It's sad to say but there are so many diverse
    ideals within so many cultures that concensus will simply not happen.
    
    Secondly, I eagerly await Mr. Topaz to come in here with his Batman
    outfit and call you a liar, a deceiver, and scorn you for making racist
    remarks against Arab men.  This sort of thing just doesn't happen in
    this day and age!
    
    -Jack

   <<< Note 507.262 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>
    
>                  -< And this shouldn't be condemned either? >-
    
>    tally of victims: a dozen women publicly beheaded in less than three
>    years. 
>
>    Since January of this year, 176 men also have been beheaded in Saudi
>    Arabia. 
    
    	What are you looking to condemn -- the disproportionate number of
    	men to women being beheaded?

    
    	The ratio of men:women beheaded is 44:1.
    
    	No fair!!
    

    Not only that, but they are beheading 44 times more men than women.

    	Hey, where's your head, Gilligan?

    The spiritual darkness in this region is frightening.  As I said
    elsewhere today, this month, Christians around the world are uniting in 
    intercessory prayer for the 10-40 Window (10-40 degrees north of Equator 
    from NW Africa to East Asia).  This window contains over half the 
    population of the world, but also the poorest in the world and the 
    smallest representation of Christianity in the world.  could this be a
    coincidence?  Possibly.  Some speculate that its Satan's final
    stronghold because it was his first victory (region of the Garden of 
    Eden).  The spiritual darkness and basic human rights are the worst in
    this window and this news report shows it.  News reports from China,
    India and Iraq also prove it.  There is a topic in CHRISTIAN that lists 
    the cities to be prayed for each day.  Pray for God to be glorified in 
    this area and especially pray for today's cities: Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and 
    Gaza.  There is a Bible promise of blessing for all who pray for the peace 
    of Jerusalem.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    >As I said elsewhere today, this month, Christians around the world are
    >uniting in intercessory prayer for the 10-40 Window (10-40 degrees north of
    >Equator from NW Africa to East Asia).
    
    Nothing like a prayer to make the praying person feel good about
    themselves. Of course, that's the only good it does.

    	Well of course, Tom!
    
    	And even if you are correct, is that so bad?

    Wot, is the Bermuda Triangle outta fashion or what?!!  All this
    "Christians around the world are praying for the 10-40 Window" is imho
    what we in my family call "Mental Farting."
    

    
    Dan.  Please.  "Intellectual Flatulence".
    
    TYVM.
    
    ;^)
    

      Nope, sorry...  Your euphemism's yet another example of Mental
    Farting.
    
    HTH... :-)
    
    |-{:-)
    

    Instead of the 10-40 Window, how about Windows 95?

       re .268:
       
       Once again, for the zillionth time (with many, many more to
       follow), Heiser tells us that his way of spirituality is The Right
       Way, and anyone else's is wrong.  
       
       And that's the problem, Mike: it's fine to tell people how you
       feel wonderful about your beliefs, but it becomes small-minded and
       ignorant when you start telling other people that their beliefs
       are no good.
       
       Few things are as unpleasant as a misinformed zealot.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    Mr. Topaz, pointing this out to him only gives him more proof that he
    is right.

       What Glennnnnnnnnnnnnnn means to say is Hallelujah!

    Not only that, it encourages him too!

    What IS it that defines an opportunity for a Gilliganism??
    
    Can anyone write a strict set of circumstances when one is likely to be
    echoed in that way?
    
    And not only that, WHY does he do that???
    
    |-{:-)
    

    If you can repeat something in simpler terms, then you have an
    opportunity. However I have encountered `virtual void' Gilliganisms
    from time to time.

    
      Decapitation has its good points.
    
      bb

    <<< Note 507.270 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
    
    >Well of course, Tom!
    
    >And even if you are correct, is that so bad? (speaking of prayer)
    
    Yes, those who believe in speaking to the sky, to solve the ills of the
    world, do nothing of value to help the world correct problems. They
    also default on the conscious thinking process which is the only way
    problems are solved. Religionists think that the world's ills are
    caused by a turning away from god when it fact the ills are a result of
    mystical thinking, like everything being in gods hands. This allows them 
    to be relieved of any responsibility of finding a cure. Therefore not
    only is prayer a waste of valuable time, it is also "bad".

    Topes:
    
    What do you believe?

       re .283:
       
       That you're a bumb.

    Thank you

    	re .282
    
    	Well, Tom, since you put it so convincingly, I think I'll
    	stop praying.
    
    
    		After I say a prayer for you!  :^)

    And if the prayer works, isn't that interference in the culture?

    	Absolutely!

    
    	"Interference in the culture" is when you spit into a day-old
    	petri dish growth.
    

    Well Kalikow and Ralston don't appear to be doing much about the
    decapitations either, unless you count belittling the efforts of others
    as progress.
    
    Mike

    >Well Kalikow and Ralston don't appear to be doing much...
    
    Well, at least we aren't trying to convince others that we are.

    Nice comeback too!  Keep up the good work and your successful progress!

    >Keep up the good work and your successful progress!
    
    Thanks Mike, I'm always moving forward. Same to you. 

    NOTE:  The news article quoted below is not for the squeamish!
    
  Quoted without permission from today's Toronto Star
  by Susan Ruttan


  In parts of rural Nigeria, young girls between the ages of 10 and 14 are
  still being married off to older men.  Many get pregnant long before their
  pelvis has developed enough to handle childbirth.

  These girls go into labour for days and days, with no possibility of a 
  caesarean.  Usually the baby dies.  Sometimes the mother dies.  But in many
  cases, the young mother survives terribly injured.

  The injury is called `obstetric fistula'.  It means that the wall between the
  vagina and the bladder rips, or the wall between the vagina and the rectum
  rips, or both.  The girl loses control of her bladder and/or bowel functions,
  dripping urine and feces out of her vagina.

  There are an estimated 150,000 cases of obstetric fistula in Nigeria alone.
  Most of these girls are cast off by their husbands, and sometimes their
  family as well.  They become pariahs because of the constant smell they give
  off.

    thank you for sharing

Well, who wants more people anyway, especially in an overpopulated world.

    
                          (__)
                          (##)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| Gak! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
    A group of Canadian doctors and health care workers are in Nigeria as
    part of the `Canada-Nigeria Safe Motherhood Project', which is backed
    financially by the Canadian Gov't and the Knights of Malta, a Catholic
    service organization.
    
    The doctors train local midwives to identify at-risk mothers-to-be so
    that an ambulance can be sent to the scene before the birth, removing
    the mother to hospital where the child will be delivered by caesarean.
    

    John,
    
    these women are obviously not being given control of their reproductive
    choices or health, why do you think this is a good thing?
    
    

    
    Uhhhh...Meg...which `John' (snarf)?
    

    .296

You don't recognize sarcasm when you see it, do you.

Using the overpopulation argument to justify death is baloney.

/john

    But John,
    
    It is after all a cultural thang, should we leave it alone or work to
    help these kids?

Of course not.  Convert them all to Christianity; then they wouldn't be so
daft.

/john

    
    
    Absolutely!!!! And then make them sing Christmas Carols!!!!!
    

<---at halloween!

    
    I saw my first Christmas-gift commercial this morning 8^p.
    
    It's not even Thanksgiving yet!  These people should be shot.
    
    

    John,
    
    You mean like Victorian England, where little girls were raped to cure
    syphilis by erstwhile "good" christians?
    
    Or like Beverly?  (Believes in raping step-daughters, and, BTW is
    getting his place back in the GOP in Carolina)

    re: Intereference in other cultures
    
     Pasteurization

    
    <---- !!!!! :-)

    Beverly?
    

    
    re: .308
    
    Good note meg!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    	re .307 -- Christmas commercials
    
    	Are you suggesting that someone should interfere with this
    	foundation of our culture?  :^)

    	Meg, your claims sexist slurs notwithstanding, that's an excellent
    	example of hysterics.
    
    	Or maybe you're just yanking chains...

    And you Joe are doing a great job of demonstrating your excellent
    manners.  Your poor maternal unit.
    
    You are saying it is hysterical to point out the forcibal sexual
    assault of 12 year-old girls, and stepdaughters, from people who claim
    to be good X?

    Meg, now that Joe realizes that it is insulting to chant 'hysterics'
    at women's notes, he is making sure to do it at every available
    opportunity - even if it means sounding like he's defending the 
    rapes of 12 year-old girls.

    He's a man with a mission now.

    	You know, Meg, you write a lot of "You are saying" entries, and
    	I can't recall a single instance when the person you were asking
    	actually was saying what you suggested they were saying.
    
    	Including 507.315.
    
    	Perhaps you'll figure out some day that such tactics are included
    	in what I consider hysterics -- regardless of the author's genetic 
    	mapping.

    	You know, Suzanne, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether 
    	you two actually enjoy getting called hysterical, given the
    	concentration of such entries from you lately.

<---Joe, you seem to say a lot of that, lately...funny how you're the one
saying it....

    See, Meg?  Now Joe is having trouble writing a note to a woman without 
    using the *very word* he has discovered to be insulting.
    
    Just imagine if you were also a racial or ethnic minority.  It could
    get pretty tense around here.

	Joe, my last note was for .318...you snuck another one in while I was
writing

    
    Well...just call Joe a "cracker" and be done with it...
    

    Nah - if we called him that, he'd start begging again with his
    'Where have I insulted you?' stuff.  Then we'd probably tell him 
    so he could be sure to put the insulting word in every single note
    from then on.
    
    We'd be right back where we started. :|

>         <<< Note 507.321 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
    
>        -< And he used this word again while I was typing this entry. >-

    	Why does this remind me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

    Hey Joe, you didn't use the word in your most recent note.
    
    Did you jump into some sort of 12-step program in the last few 
    minutes?  :)

    
    Don't fall for it Joe...
    
    These two babes are just parading in front of you (so to speak)... just
    like those chicks do in front of all those construction guys...
    

    Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the penultimate sexist slur or
    imagery.

    You'll probably take that "75 Reasons why women (bitches) should
    not have free speech" and wallpaper your house with it.

    
    
    Just the bathroom...
    

    Well, I won't even hazard a guess as to what you might want to do
    while reading this list in the bathroom, Andy.
    
    [Ewwwwww.]

    
    Andy, just keep it OUT of the cedar closet, ok?  We don't want to upset
    Christine 8^).
    
    

    
    
    Well... okay mz_deb... ;)
    
    Maybe I'll paper the rec....er I mean bedroom with it... Might be more
    suitable in there...
    

    Ewwwwwww++
    

    
    	Only 75 reasons, eh?  Is that all they could come up with?
    

    
    re: .334
    
    You're right.... too tacky... it'll never go with the furniture in
    there!!
    

    
    Anyone know where I can get a copy of those???
    
    I'm playing poker with the boys tonight, and it'll be good for a few
    laughs...
    
    It should be a lot of fun... as long as Harry's bitch of a wife makes
    sure to fix the snacks right this time around!!!
    

    RE: .335  Shawn
    
    / Only 75 reasons, eh?  Is that all they could come up with?
    
    After all the heat these Cornell freshmen have taken for this,
    I'm sure they believe now that the list had 75 reasons too many.

    This list may have one good point - the worst knuckle-dragging
    sexists will be enticed to crawl out from under their rocks to
    salivate over it in public.  :)

    < dab, dab >
    
    Have a hanky, Andy.

    >Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the penultimate sexist slur or
    >imagery.
    
    Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the *next to last sexist* slur or
    imagery.
    
     Still doesn't make any sense.

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| This string is hysterical, and that's no bull. 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
    >  < dab, dab >
    
    >Have a hanky, Andy.
    
    
    Sorry.. don't use one. Why should I when I've got a perfectly good
    sleeve!!
    

    >After all the heat these Cornell freshmen have taken for this,
    >I'm sure they believe now that the list had 75 reasons too many.
    
     No, they probably are sorry they didn't add 76.
    
    76) So they can't give us hell over the other 75 reasons...

    RE: .342  Mark Levesque
    
    // Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the penultimate sexist slur or
    // imagery.
    
    / Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the *almost ultimate* sexist slur 
    / or imagery.
    
    You have a point, Mark.  He's really looking for the *ultimate*
    sexist slur or imagery, no 'almost' about it.  :)

    *almost ultimate* != penultimate. Penultimate means "next to last" or
    "of or relating to a penult." It most certainly does not mean almost
    ultimate. /hth /nnttm

    Mark, I was referring to the word's derivation: 
    
    	[Latin] paene, almost + ULTIMATE
    
    I thought you understood that.
    
    /hth /nnttm

  it's kinda tricky, this language thing.

    
    
    Listen... if I win enough at poker tonight, I'll go out and buy Suzanne
    a good Latin-English dictionary...  okay??
    

    Mark didn't disagree with the meaning of the Latin word, though...
    
    	[Latin] paene = almost

  it's the "ultimate" part that gets the whole thing twisted
  up into a fine little mess though.

    You're right, Di.
    
    Ultimate - [Latin ultimus, last]:
    
    	1. beyond which it is impossible to go
    	2. final; conclusive
    	3. beyond further analysis; fundamental
    	4. greatest possible - n., a final point
    		or result

    
    
     I had an ultimate pen like that once.... lasted well over 15 years!!
    
    Boy could it ever write!!!!
    

    Andy, I'll bet you had to keep it an auto-pilot a lot, though.
    
    Ar ar ar.

    
    That's the beauty of that particular ultimate pen!!
    
    It was long enough so's I could prop my head up against it and take a
    nap whilst looking like I was concentrating!!!
    
    :)
    

    >Mark, I was referring to the word's derivation: 
    
     You can refer to anything you want, but your usage was simply and
    plainly incorrect, and your inability to admit your error is just the
    latest piece of evidence that you cannot admit when you are wrong (as
    if further evidence were necessary.) You are wrong. I challenge you to
    be woman enough to admit it.

    
    	Suzanne, you're using the wrong meaning of "almost".
    

    RE: .357  Mark Levesque

    // Mark, I was referring to the word's derivation: 
    
    / You can refer to anything you want, but your usage was simply and
    / plainly incorrect, 

    Mark, my usage was consistent with one of the ways I have heard 
    the word used - and I showed the derivations of both 'penultimate' 
    and 'ultimate' to show how the derivation supports this use of
    the word.  ['Ultimate' does mean 'last', but our culture more often
    uses the word 'ultimate' to mean "beyond which it is impossible to
    to go", "final; conclusive", "beyond further analysis; fundamental",
    "greatest possible", with the noun being "a final point or result".
    'Paene' is Latin for 'almost', with the word 'penultimate' being
    'almost + ultimate'.]

    I have ALSO heard it used as, for example, 'the next to the last
    round' in a tournament.

    English is a living language - it's possible that the other use
    I've heard for this word is 'slang' of some sort.  It may even
    be a colloquialism for a particular region of the United States.

    / and your inability to admit your error is just the latest piece of 
    / evidence that you cannot admit when you are wrong (as if further 
    / evidence were necessary.  You are wrong. I challenge you to be woman 
    / enough to admit it.         

    You can take your dick out of my face now.  I didn't say that your
    definition of the word was wrong.  I've heard it used more than
    one way, that's all.

    Perhaps others here have heard this same usage.  I've lived in too
    many regions of this country (and have known too many people from
    even more regions of this country) to pin it down, if it is regional.

    Thanks, Shawn.  :)

    
    	And wide misusage of a word doesn't make it correct.
    
    	Like "ain't" and "alot".  8^)
    

    
    You're flat wrong Suzanne. The fact that this gets pointed
    out to you and you go on about "dicks in your face" shows
    where you're at... ANOTHER WASTE OF TIME!!!
    
    -b

    "Ain't" is in the dictionary now as a colloquialism.  :)

    "Penultimate" isn't a mistaken contraction - it probably goes along
    with the more popular use of the word "ultimate" in the way I mentioned
    a couple of notes back.

    RE: .362  B. Markey

    / You're flat wrong Suzanne. 

    English is a living language.  It is changed by those who use it.

    / The fact that this gets pointed out to you and you go on about 
    / "dicks in your face" shows where you're at... ANOTHER WASTE OF TIME!!!

    You're flat wrong.  I wrote "you can take your dick [singular] out
    of my face now'.  :)

    
    >You're flat wrong.  I wrote "you can take your dick [singular] out
    >of my face now'.  :)
    
    	I guess this one depends on the meaning of "dick".  She might
    	have meant "dick" to be "private eye", loosely used as "personal
    	visual detection device", or ...
    
    	... telescope.
    

    >English is a living language.  It is changed by those who use it.

    Does this apply to the word "hysterical" as well?
    

    >You can take your dick out of my face now.  
    
    ?!! nice talk.
    
    >I didn't say that your definition of the word was wrong.  
    
     And compound your error? Please.
    
    >I've heard it used more than one way, that's all.
    
     Then you've heard the word misused, and your insistence on continuing
    this misuse is wrongheaded. (NPI)

    RE: .366  Collins

    // English is a living language.  It is changed by those who use it.

    / Does this apply to the word "hysterical" as well?

    This is actually a good example of a word that's changed.  The word's
    derivation [hystera, uterus] shows that the original meaning of the
    word was for a condition that was 'originally thought to occur more
    often in women than in men'.

    Now we know better - or some of us do, anyway - so the word is now
    used to refer to certain types of non-gender dynamics, such as 
    'mass hysteria'.  

    Some individuals still use the word as a negative stereotype about 
    women, though.

    >Some individuals still use the word as a negative stereotype about 
    >women, though.
    
     Some individuals still find a negative stereotype in a word that "is now
    used to refer to certain types of non-gender dynamics," raising the
    question of whether the stereotype is perpetuated by those who use the
    word in such a manner as to reinforce the stereotype or those who
    infer a negative stereotype in order to be able to dismiss out of hand
    the notion that they are being less than rational. 

    RE: .367  Mark Levesque

    // I've heard it used more than one way, that's all.
    
    / Then you've heard the word misused, and your insistence on continuing
    / this misuse is wrongheaded. (NPI)

    Where have I used this word again aside from responding to your
    queries/flagellations about it?

    Next time I'll use the word 'quintessential' and will wait to see the
    fireworks which result from that one.  :)

    RE: .369  Mark Levesque

    // Some individuals still use the word as a negative stereotype about 
    // women, though.
    
    / Some individuals still find a negative stereotype in a word that 
    / "is now used to refer to certain types of non-gender dynamics," 

    Considering the sexist origins of the word and the cultural tendency
    to persist in using the word to describe individuals of one sex far
    more often than individuals of another sex, it's certainly legitimate
    to regard it as a negative stereotype.

    / raising the question of whether the stereotype is perpetuated by those 
    / who use the word in such a manner as to reinforce the stereotype or 
    / those who infer a negative stereotype in order to be able to dismiss 
    / out of hand the notion that they are being less than rational. 

    So it's just a matter of 'dismissing out of hand' the act of being
    'dismissed out of hand'?  :)

    It's also a negative stereotype to respond to a careful argument with
    'gee, you disagree with me, so you must not be arguing rationally' - 
    although this line *is* getting more widespread use among people of 
    different political parties as well as people of a different [i.e.,
    female] gender.

>it's certainly legitimate to regard it as a negative stereotype.
    
     Whether or not that was the intent, right? This is perfect, you see,
    because you can always "legitimately" claim that the word "hysterical"
    was being applied to you because you are a woman and the person using
    it is sexist, and thus you never have to consider that the word may
    have aptly described your behavior.
    
    >It's also a negative stereotype to respond to a careful argument with
    >'gee, you disagree with me, so you must not be arguing rationally' - 
    
     Whether this applies in your latest situation or not is unknown to me,
    but I've certainly seen that dynamic used before. It's pretty similar
    to other hyperbolic statements of the "you're either with us or against
    us" flavor that seem to permeate the political landscape.

    
    	Take it to ::JOYOFLEX
    

    
    
    Naaaaaaaaah..... it's more fun to see someone other that Jack Martin
    get their come-uppance for a change!!!!
    
    :)
    

    .364
    
    > English is a living language.  It is changed by those who use it.
    
    Your grandiose ambition to become renowned as an arbiter of word usage
    is destined to reamain unfulfilled here, I fear.  Perhaps you should
    apply for membership to the usage panel for the American Heritage
    Dictionary; I hear they're looking for a few people with delusional
    fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

    RE: .372  Mark Levesque

    // it's certainly legitimate to regard it as a negative stereotype.
    
    / Whether or not that was the intent, right? This is perfect, you see,
    / because you can always "legitimately" claim that the word "hysterical"
    / was being applied to you because you are a woman and the person using
    / it is sexist, and thus you never have to consider that the word may
    / have aptly described your behavior.

    The word means 'wild, uncontrolled feelings' and yet it is often used
    against women as a 'catch-all' when women disagree with certain positions
    or when women write something which would be described as sarcasm or
    irony if men wrote it.

    Remember also that the individual who used the word 'hysterics' in
    that other discussion did so repeatedly without any objections from
    women.  No one discussed this word until he demanded repeatedly
    that someone show him where he'd been insulting.  Then the word
    'hysterics' came into the conversation.  

    // It's also a negative stereotype to respond to a careful argument with
    // 'gee, you disagree with me, so you must not be arguing rationally' - 
    
    / Whether this applies in your latest situation or not is unknown to me,
    / but I've certainly seen that dynamic used before. It's pretty similar
    / to other hyperbolic statements of the "you're either with us or against
    / us" flavor that seem to permeate the political landscape.

    Well, I think you're savvy enough to realize that a number of individuals
    employ sexist stereotypes when discussing politics in particular _because_
    of the divisive nature of the political landscape.  It's a convenient
    tool for some.

    
    
    Suzanne...
    
    Why don't you just step out of the hole you're digging yourself...
    cover it back up and move on...
    

    RE: .375  Dick Binder

    // English is a living language.  It is changed by those who use it.
    
    / Your grandiose ambition to become renowned as an arbiter of word usage
    / is destined to reamain unfulfilled here, I fear.  Perhaps you should
    / apply for membership to the usage panel for the American Heritage
    / Dictionary; I hear they're looking for a few people with delusional
    / fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

    Gee, did you think I was trying to change the language myself by using
    a word in an unusual way _once_ in Soapbox?  :)

    My use of this word has been influenced by others who have used the
    word in this way a number of times in my presence.

    Undoubtedly, they were influenced by others still who used the word
    in this particular way.  This is how living languages change.

    
    A lot of people say "nuke you larr" instead of "new clear".
    

    
    and "eye" raq... and "eye" ran...
    
    
    Bluuuuuuuuuuuurgggghhhh!!!!
    

    .378
    
    Isn't it odd that of all the people who care to comment on your
    definition of penultimate, you are the ONLY one who has ever heard it
    used as you describe.  This situation does tend to bring up the
    question of whether you might have heard it used that way at a
    convention of Jukes and Kallikacks.

    and don't forget Sadd'm (ala GHWB)

| <<< Note 507.378 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>



| Gee, did you think I was trying to change the language myself by using
| a word in an unusual way _once_ in Soapbox?  :)

	Hmmm....did you mean, once in soapbox, as once you were in soapbox, or
was it, once in soapbox, as in one time in soapbox? heh heh...I feel a slap
coming on.... ;-)


Glen

    RE: .381  Dick Binder

    / Isn't it odd that of all the people who care to comment on your
    / definition of penultimate, you are the ONLY one who has ever heard it
    / used as you describe. 

    It's not that odd.  Only 3 or 4 people have commented about the word
    here.  

    How many hundreds of millions - or billion(s) - of people on this planet 
    speak English?

    If the usage I've mentioned here 'catches on', it may become more
    common.  Or it may die out.  That's the nature of a living language.

    The English language still contains racial/ethnic/gender/etc slurs,
    and it probably will for a long time.

	Dick, you forgot that many hit next unseen....

    ZZ    The English language still contains racial/ethnic/gender/etc slurs,
    ZZ    and it probably will for a long time.
    
    Right...so this whole PC argument is an exercise in futility...right?!
    

    RE: .388  Jack Martin
    
    // The English language still contains racial/ethnic/gender/etc slurs,
    // and it probably will for a long time.
    
    / Right...so this whole PC argument is an exercise in futility...right?!
    
    The fact that such slurs exist is not a mandate to use them.

    .389
    
    > The fact that such slurs exist is not a mandate to use them.
    
    The fact that unorthodox meanings exist for some relatively obscure
    words is not a mandate to use them.

    
    
    "Mandate"???
    
    By who???  The Trilateral Commission???
    

    RE: .390  Dick Binder

    // The fact that such slurs exist is not a mandate to use them.
    
    / The fact that unorthodox meanings exist for some relatively obscure
    / words is not a mandate to use them.

    So far, I've only USED the word once here. If I'd known how relatively
    obscure the word was to some people - and how unorthodox the meaning
    would seem to be - I wouldn't have used the word at all in the 'Box.  
    I'm fairly certain I've used the word elsewhere without this much hassle 
    associated with it.  :)

Re English is a living language,

if you want to modify our language, kindly call it something else to avoid
confusion; may I suggest American, or in this case, Politican, as the aim of
the claimed flexibility of usage of established words would appear to be in
order to evade the point...

Chris.

    
    	Maybe you used it correctly elsewhere, Suzanne.
    

    I've been skimming over these replies.  Is this all about using the
    word Hysterical?  Just wondering.
    

    RE: .394  Shawn

    / Maybe you used it correctly elsewhere, Suzanne.

    The word's derivation is consistent with the meaning I used for it
    here.  It's just an unorthodox meaning for a relatively obscure word,
    as Binder put it.

    I'm fairly certain that I've used this word with this meaning
    elsewhere.

    RE: .395  Jack Martin
    
    / I've been skimming over these replies.  Is this all about using the
    / word Hysterical?  Just wondering.
    
    The word is 'penultimate'.

    Thanks.

    
    Jack (Martin)
    
    You oughta take some lessons from Suzanne....
    

    Interference snarf!

    >I'm fairly certain that I've used this word with this meaning
    >elsewhere.
    
     Perhaps they're not as literate there.

    re: .376
    
>    The word means 'wild, uncontrolled feelings' and yet it is often used
>    against women as a 'catch-all' when women disagree with certain positions
>    or when women write something which would be described as sarcasm or
>    irony if men wrote it.

    ...or perhaps it was used to point out a certain argument was a bit
    irrational.  
    
    Could it be that the author of said notes containing "hysterics" was 
    actually telling the truth when he said the word wasn't meant to be 
    sexist?  The evidence shows that he did use the term in a previous
    discussion when responding to a male individual in this very forum.
    
    Could it be that you have supersensitized yourself to any word that may
    have, at one time, been used in a sexist way?  
    
>    Well, I think you're savvy enough to realize that a number of individuals
>    employ sexist stereotypes when discussing politics in particular _because_
>    of the divisive nature of the political landscape.  It's a convenient
>    tool for some.
    
    And some use phrases like "and argument of hysterics" to mean that they
    percieve an argument to be less than rational.  What can I say, some
    folks are just silly that way.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .401  Mark Levesque

    // I'm fairly certain that I've used this word with this meaning
    // elsewhere.
    
    / Perhaps they're not as literate there.

    They probably understood the word's meaning by considering the context 
    in which it appeared.  Some people are actually capable of doing this.

    / -< nor as pedantic >-
    
    Interesting that you chose this word after _demanding_ that I accept
    your definition for the word 'penultimate' and no other:  :)

    	pedant - n., a narrow-minded teacher who insists on exact
    	   adherence to rules - pedantic, adj.

    RE: .402  Steve Leech

    // The word means 'wild, uncontrolled feelings' and yet it is often used
    // against women as a 'catch-all' when women disagree with certain positions
    // or when women write something which would be described as sarcasm or
    // irony if men wrote it.

    / ...or perhaps it was used to point out a certain argument was a bit
    / irrational.  

    It was used in place of the words "I disagree with you".  The argument
    in question was an explanation of an objection to a certain piece of
    legislation.  This explanation was later supported by prominent figures
    on both sides of the legislation in question.

    / Could it be that the author of said notes containing "hysterics" was 
    / actually telling the truth when he said the word wasn't meant to be 
    / sexist?  The evidence shows that he did use the term in a previous
    / discussion when responding to a male individual in this very forum.

    The 'evidence' showed this author using the word 'hysterics' about a
    male _once_ and that he practically apologized to the man - in the
    same note - for doing this.

    Once the insulting nature of the word 'hysterics' was discussed openly,
    he made a point of using the word - or hinting at it - repeatedly after
    that.

    / Could it be that you have supersensitized yourself to any word that may
    / have, at one time, been used in a sexist way?  

    One doesn't have to be 'supersensitized' to the use of a word to notice
    it.

    / And some use phrases like "and argument of hysterics" to mean that they
    / percieve an argument to be less than rational. What can I say, some
    / folks are just silly that way.  8^)

    What is "AND argument of hysterics"?  It doesn't make sense, so therefore,
    it could be called 'irrational'.  Does that make it hysterical, though?
    Is everything 'irrational' also 'hysterical'?

    'Rational' can be defined as 'sensible or sane'.  When you disagree
    with an argument, is it really necessary to imply - whether you
    believe it or not - that the person must be 'insane' or possibly
    'incapable of rational thought' to disagree with you?

    Such statements are used disproportionately against women, and yes,
    I think such disproportionate usage is sexist.

    /me laughing hysterically! :-) :-) :-)
    

    
    	This is the penultimate topic, eh?
    

    'Laughing hysterically' has a whole different meaning, of course.
    
    It's a description that is somewhat popular to use about oneself.  :)

    
    	RE: Suzanne
    
    	I thought it meant "laughing like a wild woman".
    
    	But I could be wrong.
    

>    Interesting that you chose this word after _demanding_ that I accept
>    your definition for the word 'penultimate' and no other:  :)

 It's not MY definition, it's THE definition. I had nothing to do with it.
You can't admit that your friday definition is an invalid use of the word.
You can't admit when you're wrong, even when it's roundly obvious to
everyone. It's perfect; perfectly Suzanne. But since we're making up 
definitions of words, I'd like to propose a new one myself. When someone
is obviously in error but refuses to admit it, it's called Suzanning.

    
    
    re: Suzanning

    Let's not get into ugly sexual stereotyping, Andy.

    RE: .409  Mark Levesque

    // Interesting that you chose this word after _demanding_ that I accept
    // your definition for the word 'penultimate' and no other:  :)

    / It's not MY definition, it's THE definition. I had nothing to do with it.

    You're the one demanding that this definition be used, though, as if
    the word 'penultimate' is so popular in our culture that a great deal
    of damage will be done if one person uses it one time in some way that
    you don't like.  

    / You can't admit that your friday definition is an invalid use of the 
    / word.

    Mark, I didn't make up this use of the word.  It's a meaning I've known
    about for quite a few years.  I just don't use the word very often.
    Who does?

    / You can't admit when you're wrong,... 

    You shouldn't put your virtual manhood on the line like this over the
    use of an obscure word.  Obviously, I don't consider it worth it to
    save your skin [so to speak].

    I'm not going to lie and say I've never heard the word used in the
    way I used it in my note.  Actually, it's the way I've heard it used
    most - and the word's derivation does support it:  almost + ultimate.

    Why don't you scour the world of notes for the past ten years and find
    legitimate examples of words I've used incorrectly.  I'm sure you'd
    find some good ones if you looked.  When I don't use spell-checker,
    my typos can be horrendous, too.  You could probably make a career out
    of locating these errors if it's important to you.

    / But since we're making up definitions of words, I'd like to propose 
    / a new one myself.

    Interesting that you've decided to make up a definition of a word as a 
    retaliation for your perception that I made up a definition of a word.
    So your stated objections to this very activity have been disingenuous.

    / When someone is obviously in error but refuses to admit it, it's called 
    / Suzanning. 

    If you're proposing to make me more famous than I already am in notes,
    I won't object.  :)

         <<< Note 507.412 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    / You can't admit when you're wrong,... 
>
>    You shouldn't put your virtual manhood on the line like this over the
>    use of an obscure word.  
    
    	It's telling when someone out to defend herself against sexism 
    	(whether real or imaginary) will resort to something like this.

    RE: .413  Joe Oppelt

    /// You can't admit when you're wrong,... 

    // You shouldn't put your virtual manhood on the line like this over the
    // use of an obscure word.  
    
    / It's telling when someone out to defend herself against sexism 
    / (whether real or imaginary) will resort to something like this.

    Well, I'm glad you recognize - at least - that I was pointing out
    Mark's use of sexism in his highly aggressive stance over the solitary 
    use of one obscure word.

Here, I'll type the words so they can be cut-n-pasted into a reply
without actually having to type them:

    Oops, sorry, I made a mistake.

Hope this helps.
\john

    
    re: .414
    
    Bull!!
    
    You're using the same tactic you rail against others for using...
    
    That's "hypocrisy", BTW....  look it up...
    

    RE: .415  John Harney

    John, my use of the word was a deliberate choice, though.  I've heard
    the word used this way most often.  The word's derivation also supports
    this use.

    Obviously, it's not a popular usage and Mark found it horribly upsetting,
    so I probably won't use it again here.  :)

    
    	Harney, we have a brand new note for stuff like that.
    

People who use penultimate when they mean ultimate are pretentious.

I have spoken.

    >You're the one demanding that this definition be used
    
     I'm demanding nothing. I simply pointed out that you erred in your
    usage of the word. And you just can't bring yourself to admit that you
    made a mistake.
    
    >You shouldn't put your virtual manhood on the line 
    
     Nice sexist slur, Suzanne. When all else fails, start smearing.
    
    >I'm not going to lie and say I've never heard the word used in the
    >way I used it in my note.  
    
     Nobody asked you to, but nice straw man anyway.
    
    >Why don't you scour the world of notes for the past ten years and find
    >legitimate examples of words I've used incorrectly.
    
     A) I couldn't care less B) You'll just Suzanne about them, too. C) I
    already found a legitimate misuse, and you've danced like an ant on a
    griddle ever since. Let's see, we've had the attempt to blame other
    parties for the misuse (I've heard it used), we've had the "it's too
    obscure to use properly excuse. We've had an accusation of my putting
    my private parts near your face (you couldn't beg me enough), we've had
    the accusation that this is a "manhood" issue (ha ha! if this is about
    anything it's about your failure to accept responsibility for your
    mistake- maybe you think that refusing to accept your plain as day
    mistake will net you less loss of face than simply admitting you made a
    mistake. Wrong!)
    
     I think that I could look through the last 10 years of your notes
    without finding an instance of you admitting a mistake, though. If I
    were so inclined, which I'm not.
    
    >If you're proposing to make me more famous than I already am in notes,
    >I won't object.  :)
    
     To be perfectly pedantic, the proper term is "infamous." /hth
    
    

    RE: .419  Gerald Sacks
    
    / People who use penultimate when they mean ultimate are pretentious.

    This is the first legitimate objection to the word in this topic. :)
    
    / I have spoken.
    
    Thank you.

 I had an English teacher in my freshman year of High School who used the
 word "penultimate" frequently, it's meaning forever etched on my brain.


 Jim

    
    	"it's" should be "its"
    
    	UNTTM, HWADD
    
    	[Urgent need to thank me, hopefully with a dozen donuts]
    

    How could you possibly remember such an obscure word?

    Yes, penultimate means forever, and if diamonds mean forever, then
    penultimate  means ...
    
    

    
    Anyway, I'm still reeling from that superfluous hyphen in 578.34's
    "clap-trap" (sic).  Talk about language abuse.

    RE: .420  Mark Levesque

    // You're the one demanding that this definition be used
    
    / I'm demanding nothing. I simply pointed out that you erred in your
    / usage of the word. 

    You demanded.  You said, 'Are you woman enough to...?'

    / And you just can't bring yourself to admit that you made a mistake.

    I do admit it was somewhat pretentious.  I hadn't thought about this
    before, but what Gerald wrote was probably true of me and most everyone
    I've heard use the word in this way.

    / I think that I could look through the last 10 years of your notes
    / without finding an instance of you admitting a mistake, though. If I
    / were so inclined, which I'm not.

    Well, I can think of several examples and most of them are humorous. :)

    You don't sound like you're in the mood to laugh right now, though,
    so I won't try to put a damper on your rage.  :)

    
>    	"it's" should be "its"
    
 
    Ooops...fortunately Di is not around to blast me for that.


>   	UNTTM, HWADD
    
>    	[Urgent need to thank me, hopefully with a dozen donuts]
    


   Right ;-)

>    How could you possibly remember such an obscure word?



  he was a good teacher..I remember much of what I learned from him (except
 when/when not to put an apostrophe on "its"



 Jim

    RE: .422  Jim Henderson
    
    / I had an English teacher in my freshman year of High School who used the
    / word "penultimate" frequently, it's meaning forever etched on my brain.
    
    How did this English teacher use the word?

    
    re: .426
    
    Oh.. oh!!!
    
    Another hyphen-cop on the loose!!!!
    

    
>    How did this English teacher use the word?


 Usually in a sentence.



 hth

    RE: .432  Jim Henderson.
    
    Ok. :)
    
    What meaning did your English teacher use for this word?

 My English teacher (Dr. Don Brown) defined the word as "next to last".




 Jim

    
    
    Ignore me all you want Suzanne... your hypocrisy will not go away
    simply because you put your head in the sand...
    

    RE: .434  Jim Henderson
    
    As in, "If you have two cookies in the jar and you remove one to
    eat, you have taken the penultimate cookie"?
    
    Ok.
    

    i have not the tiniest scintilla of doubt that suzanne
    will think twice, nay thrice, before uttering the blasted
    word again.  

    
    	Or 99 is the penultimate number in the series 1...100.
    

    Or, how about...
    
    "2 bottles of beer on the wall, 
     2 bottles of beer....
     Take the penultimate one down and pass it around,
     Now there's one bottle of beer on the wall."

    
    Here, I can fix this:
    
    Suzanne, quit your effing ululating!
    
    Now go away until you have a clue what that means. And while
    you have the dictionary out, look up "penultimate" so you don't
    look like such a throbbing twit next time.
    
    I'm sick of this $#!+ !!!!!!
    
    
    -b

 re .436



 Correct.

    RE: .441  B. Markey

    / Suzanne, quit your effing ululating!
                         ******

    Is this what they call a 'recognizable obscenity'?

    It's sort of a 'hoot' to see you use it in that context. :)

    / look like such a throbbing twit next time.

    No, that's the thing that was shoved into my face earlier.
    It's gone now. :)

 INTERFERENCE IN OTHER CULTURES, PEOPLE, INTERFERENCE IN OTHER CULTURES!!

The whole string is interference.

    You said it, Gerald.

    
    .414

    >Well, I'm glad you recognize - at least - that I was pointing out
    >Mark's use of sexism...
    
    This statement is...bizarre.  Yes, that word will do.
    
    .421

    >/ People who use penultimate when they mean ultimate are pretentious.
    >
    >This is the first legitimate objection to the word in this topic. :)
    
    I have always understood that this *was* Mark's objection.
    
    Was it not, Mark?
    

    .417
    
    > I've heard
    > [penultimate] used this way most often.
    
    Yes, and I've heard the name Suzanne used most often to refer to a
    blonde who used to star on Three's Company.  Oddly enough, that
    particular Suzanne is one in a rather large pool of Suzannes, and she
    does not define the actual meaning of the name.  Apply this to your use
    of the word "penultimate."  If you're capable of seeing past your own
    nose, that is.
    
    I have never seen your definition "penultimate" in any English
    dictionary, and before you used the word in that manner I had never
    heard it used to mean what you meant.  Now, I will admit that I'm not
    conversant with the verbatim contents of the OED, but still I have a
    fair command of the English language.  As for the derivation of the
    word, it's a clue to a possible meaning, but beyond that it's
    meaningless.  A word means what it is used by the general speaking
    populace to mean, not what its etymplogical antecedents meant centuries
    ago.  As a Latin teacher, I'm well aware of what paene meant in ancient
    Rome, but that's not what pen- means in English today, and no amount of
    insistence from your small corner of the world will change the
    situation such that you won't be wrong.

    >You demanded.  You said, 'Are you woman enough to...?'
    
     That's called a challenge, not a demand.
    
    >I do admit it was somewhat pretentious. 
    
    Omigoodness! We are perilously close to admitting imperfection! I'm
    stunned at this latest turn of events.
    
    >You don't sound like you're in the mood to laugh right now, though,
    
     I've been laughing right along, Suzanne. Quite heartily, actually.

    RE: .447  Collins

    /// People who use penultimate when they mean ultimate are pretentious.
    
    // This is the first legitimate objection to the word in this topic. :)
    
    / I have always understood that this *was* Mark's objection.
    
    / Was it not, Mark?
    
    He'll probably change his objection now that you've said this.  :)

    re: .414
    
    I'm having a hard time categorizing this note.  Should it be classified
    as "backpeddling" or "doubletalk"? 

    RE: .449  Mark Levesque

    // I do admit it was somewhat pretentious. 
    
    / Omigoodness! We are perilously close to admitting imperfection! I'm
    / stunned at this latest turn of events.

    Well, we all have our little foibles - don't we, Mark?  :)

    // You don't sound like you're in the mood to laugh right now, though,
    
    / I've been laughing right along, Suzanne. Quite heartily, actually.

    If you've been able to laugh while I've been laughing, then I'm glad.
    You sounded pretty enraged for a while there.  :)

    
    .450
    
    >He'll probably change his objection now that you've said this.  :)
    
    Nope.  It was clear (at least, to some) all along.
    
================================================================================
Note 507.342             Interference in other cultures               342 of 451
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "but I can't make you think"          7 lines  10-NOV-1995 15:28
              -< I'll take misappropriated words for $1000, Alex >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the penultimate sexist slur or
    >imagery.
    
    Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the *next to last sexist* slur or
    imagery.
    
     Still doesn't make any sense.
    

    RE: .448  Dick Binder

    / Yes, and I've heard the name Suzanne used most often to refer to a
    / blonde who used to star on Three's Company.  Oddly enough, that
    / particular Suzanne is one in a rather large pool of Suzannes, and she
    / does not define the actual meaning of the name.  Apply this to your use
    / of the word "penultimate."

    Well, that's a pretty strange argument, Dick.  The name 'Suzanne' is
    the French version of 'Susan' - no matter how many women are given
    the name 'Suzanne', this doesn't change.

    / As for the derivation of the word, it's a clue to a possible meaning, 

    If the derivation of the word didn't support the meaning I used, 
    I wouldn't have used the word in the first place.  Or, if I'd 
    discovered that it didn't support it later, I would have withdrawn
    the word.

    / but beyond that it's meaningless.  A word means what it is used by 
    / the general speaking populace to mean, 

    ...and I've heard the general speaking populace use the word in the
    same way I used it.

    Obviously, you haven't heard it.  I have.  That's how words change.

    >If the derivation of the word didn't support the meaning I used, 
    >I wouldn't have used the word in the first place.  
    
     So it would be ok to call Jerry Garcia an assassin, for example? After
    all, the word comes from the arabic word meaning "user of hashish." By
    your standards, it would be ok to do that because the etymology of the
    word supports such a use. Nevermind that the dictionary definition
    shows such usage to be inappropriate.

    
    re: .456
    
    > Stawberry (sic) extract can help that.
    
    
     What? Is that some sort of stuff Suzanne can put on top of her head so
    as to catch everything???

    <----- Strawberry extract can help that.

    .454
    
    > The name 'Suzanne' is
    > the French version of 'Susan'
    
    No, actually, "Suzanne" is the French version of "Susannah," which I
    believe is of ancient Hebrew origin; Gerald can correct me if I'm
    mistaken.  "Susan" is the English version.
    
    > If the derivation of the word didn't support the meaning I used,
    > I wouldn't have used the word in the first place.
    
    We can therefore expect that you will never use the word "gay" in
    reference to homosexuals, because the derivation of the word "gay" is
    from the Medieval French "gai," meaning merry or joyous.
    
    Give up, Suzanne, before you dig yourself deeper than you already are.
    Quadrantem auferas de stercolino mordicus ad te correctam probandum.

    Dick is speaking in tongues again.

    RE: .457  Mark Levesque

    // If the derivation of the word didn't support the meaning I used, 
    // I wouldn't have used the word in the first place.  
    
    / So it would be ok to call Jerry Garcia an assassin, for example? 
    / After all, the word comes from the arabic word meaning "user of 
    / hashish." 

    Another strange argument.  Both "Jerry" and "Garcia" are names.
    People don't usually translate them into other words based on
    the names' derivations.  I certainly haven't advocated this.

    / By your standards, it would be ok to do that because the etymology 
    / of the word supports such a use.  Nevermind that the dictionary 
    / definition shows such usage to be inappropriate.

    My dictionary doesn't have definitions for the words "Jerry" and
    "Garcia".  Does yours?  

    They're names.

    And you're blowing smoke, kiddo.

    >Another strange argument.  Both "Jerry" and "Garcia" are names.
    
     Jerry Garcia is a (respiration challenged) human being who has
    admitted to using hashish. On the basis of this hashish use, using your
    etymologically based justification, one could call him an assassin.
    What's so difficult to understand about this example of the exact same
    behavior you exhibited? (well, I didn't blame this usage on someone
    else, but other than that...)
    
     You claim that on the basis of the etymology of words, one can use
    words as if there were no commonly understood definition, deriving the
    meaning from the word's roots. I have provided an example that
    demonstrates the folly of such reasoning. /hth

>    No, actually, "Suzanne" is the French version of "Susannah," which I
>    believe is of ancient Hebrew origin; Gerald can correct me if I'm
>    mistaken.  "Susan" is the English version.

The Hebrew is Shoshana, meaning rose.  That's the name we gave the little one.

    RE: .459  Binder

    // The name 'Suzanne' is the French version of 'Susan'
    
    / No, actually, "Suzanne" is the French version of "Susannah," which I
    / believe is of ancient Hebrew origin; Gerald can correct me if I'm
    / mistaken.  "Susan" is the English version.

    You could be right about that.

    // If the derivation of the word didn't support the meaning I used,
    // I wouldn't have used the word in the first place.
    
    / We can therefore expect that you will never use the word "gay" in
    / reference to homosexuals, because the derivation of the word "gay" is
    / from the Medieval French "gai," meaning merry or joyous.

    Actually, 'gay' is a good example of a word having its meaning changed
    over time by those who speak the language.  As recently as the 1940s,
    people referred to themselves as "gay" to mean merry or joyous.

    Now, the popular meaning is in reference to homosexuals.  If a person
    said to a visibly happy heterosexual, 'Wow, you really look gay' - some 
    might be offended by this.  It wouldn't be incorrect to use the word 
    to mean merry or joyous, though.  It would be unpopular as heck in
    some circles, but that's a different matter.

    / Give up, Suzanne, before you dig yourself deeper than you already are.

    The word was used in the way I've heard others use it and the word's
    derivation supports this usage.

    .464
    
    Translate the last line of .459 for us, Suzanne.  You're obviously a
    Latin scholar...

    RE: .462  Mark Levesque

    / Jerry Garcia is a (respiration challenged) human being who has

    Mark, I'm not particularly fond of your propensity to joke about
    people who have died.  I didn't enjoy it when you announced
    Amos Hamburger's death with the title "He's dead, Jim" either
    (in 40.870).

    Pick some other name if you want to keep going with this.

    / What's so difficult to understand about this example of the exact same
    / behavior you exhibited? (well, I didn't blame this usage on someone
    / else, but other than that...)
    
    I didn't 'invent' a meaning for a word at all, much less someone's
    name, so I suggest you check the meaning of the word 'exact'.

    / You claim that on the basis of the etymology of words, one can use
    / words as if there were no commonly understood definition, deriving 
    / the meaning from the word's roots. 

    I said that others have used the word the same way I did and the 
    word's derivation supports it.  I said nothing about inventing a 
    whole new meaning on my own.

    / I have provided an example that demonstrates the folly of such 
    / reasoning. /hth

    You've shown that you can't even follow the meaning relayed in
    a simple statement:  Others have used the word in the same way
    I used it and the derivation supports it.

    I'll forgive you, though, if you stop making jokes about people
    who have died.

    <yawn>

    No apology for making a joke when you announced that Amos Hamburger
    had died, eh Mark?
    

    Buzz off. Your naked attempt to divert attention from your
    contretemps will gain you no quarter.

    Still no apology for making a joke in an announcement of the death
    of a beloved member of the Soapbox community, eh Mark?
    
    Do you even feel any remorse about it?

    
      I'm amused that left/right everybody in here is agreed on this
     interference thing.  A large number of irrelevant replies ago,
     somebody posted some account of some hideous behavior taking place
     completely internal to some country or other.  And everybody thought
     we the USA had a moral imperative to intervene on the side of good,
     right, truth, and justice.  Hiyo, Silver !
    
      I remember when this would have been considered eccentric, but it's
     been drilled into most people under 40.  For goodness sake, please
     at least have a plan before you send in the marines.  Personally,
     I doubt the whole concept, as long as they don't bother us.
    
      bb

     <<< Note 507.444 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend, will you be ready?" >>>

> INTERFERENCE IN OTHER CULTURES, PEOPLE, INTERFERENCE IN OTHER CULTURES!!

    	Doesn't the latest in this topic pretty much sum up the Soapbox
    	culture?
    
    	Trying to derail the discussion would therefore be interference
    	in a culture!

    .466
    
    > Mark, I'm not particularly fond of your propensity to joke about
    > people who have died.
    
    Poor baby.  You know where the NEXT UNSEEN key is.
    
    > I didn't 'invent' a meaning for a word at all, much less someone's
    > name,
    
    Actually, Mark did neither.  The origin of the word "assassin" is from
    the Arabic "hassas in," meaning "hashish users."  The word "assassin"
    came into use through a French corruption of the Arabic, as a result of
    the 11th-century French Crusaders' encounters with members of a secret
    Islamic order, who used hashish to get high before going out to murder
    Franks.  The assassins' devotion to duty was such that once, when their
    leader was hosting a Frankish commander, he commanded the whole band
    present to jump one after another to their deaths from a precipice. 
    They jumped, each in turn, until the Frank begged that they stop.
    
    And Mark did not make some sort of bogus definition out of Jerry
    Garrcia's name; he merely used Garcia as a known example of a hashish
    user and hence, by your rules, an assassin.

    
    I have become convinced that this whole thing has been a windup
    on Suzanne's part.  Yeah, that's it.  A windup.
    

    RE: .474  Dick Binder

    // Mark, I'm not particularly fond of your propensity to joke about
    // people who have died.
    
    / Poor baby.  You know where the NEXT UNSEEN key is.

    So it was ok for Mark to make a joke when announcing the death of
    Amos Hamburger as long as I 'next unseened' as soon as I read it,
    eh?

    // I didn't 'invent' a meaning for a word at all, much less someone's
    // name,
    
    / Actually, Mark did neither. 

    Good - well, at least you agree that I didn't do this.

    / And Mark did not make some sort of bogus definition out of Jerry
    / Garrcia's name; he merely used Garcia as a known example of a hashis
    / user and hence, by your rules, an assassin.

    My 'rule' said nothing about translating a person's name into some
    other word for any reason whatsoever.

    
    re: .475
    
    >I have become convinced that this whole thing has been a windup
    >on Suzanne's part.  Yeah, that's it.  A windup.
    
    You think so !Joan???
    
    Hmmmm... maybe you're right...
    
     I can just see it now... Suzanne going back into -wn- with extracted
    snippets... with all the rest of the "see-no-evil, speak-no-evil,
    hear-no-evil" monkeys.. howling the night away!!!
    
     Yep!!! Definite possibility!!!
    

    
    	Wow.  I must be incredibly gifted because I caught this right
    	away:
    
    	Jerry Garcia = hashish user = assassin
    
    	This has nothing to do with his name, it has to do with the
    	fact that he was a hashish user.  And "hashish user" is derived
    	from "assassin".
    

    .476
    
    >> Actually, Mark did neither.
    >
    > Good - well, at least you agree that I didn't do this.
    
    Try reading for comprehension.  I didn't say "Mark didn't do it,
    either."  I said "Mark did neither [of the things you were complaining
    about]."

    >Still no apology for making a joke in an announcement of the death
    >of a beloved member of the Soapbox community, eh Mark?
    
     I knew Amos, and I don't think he would have minded. People who knew
    and loved him, people who were really, really out of sorts about his
    demise did not say anything to me about the title in question being
    inappropriate. But because you bring it up when you're being dragged
    over the coals, all of a sudden I'm supposed to lend credence to your
    pious wails? Ho ho! My attention span is longer than that. Your
    credibility on this count is in the low single numbers. If Brian Markey
    or Jim Sadin or someone who really cared expressed even the slightest
    misgivings about that title, I'd retract and offer my apologies in a
    heartbeat. Your use of the memory of Amos Hamburger to score
    points/divert attention from your own poor debating position is
    particularly scurrilous. But apparently there are no depths to which
    you will not plunge.

    
       Never having plumbed -wn-, would S.C.'s "penultimate" performance
     be a fair sample of that conf's delights ?
    
      bb

    RE: .479  Dick Binder
    
    /// Actually, Mark did neither.
    
    // Good - well, at least you agree that I didn't do this.
    
    / I didn't say "Mark didn't do it, either."  I said "Mark did neither 
    / [of the things you were complaining about]."
    
    You're right.  My mistake.

    >would S.C.'s "penultimate" performance
    
     If only it were. ;-)

    >You're right.  My mistake.
    
    Thud!

    RE: .480  Mark Levesque
    
    // Still no apology for making a joke in an announcement of the death
    // of a beloved member of the Soapbox community, eh Mark?
    
    // Do you even feel any remorse about it?
    
    / I knew Amos, and I don't think he would have minded. 
    
    So you really don't have any remorse about the joke you made when
    announcing his death.
    
    Amazing.

    .485
    
    You don't know much about friendship, do you?  The biggest honor you
    can pay a deceased friend is to treat his death with the same love you
    would apply to his life.  Amos had a sense of humor.  It's a pity you
    have none.

    RE: .484  Mark Levesque

    // You're right.  My mistake.
    
    / Thud!

    / -< the impossible is now possible! >-
    
    No - you were just mistaken about it, that's all.

    I told you earlier that a few of my 'ooops, sorry' situations were
    rather humorous.  I didn't provide details because you seemed to
    be enjoying your rage too much to stop back then.  :)

    
    
    I don't know, Dick.  I think you are way off base on this one.  What if
    a family member of Amos' saw the note and took offense to it.  
    
    
    Mike

    RE: .486  Dick Binder

    / You don't know much about friendship, do you?  The biggest honor you
    / can pay a deceased friend is to treat his death with the same love you
    / would apply to his life.  Amos had a sense of humor.  It's a pity you
    / have none.

    I've seen people tell humorous, endearing stories about a loved one
    or a good friend who has passed away - but I've never witnessed 
    someone make a joke about the person's actual death in a public forum.

    It was tasteless.

    
    	Funny how this "offensitivity" is just kicking in now.
    

    
    .489

    >It was tasteless.
    
    You mean, as opposed to the act of bringing it up in an urelated
    discussion to (desperately try to) score points?
    

    
    I doubt Amos would be happy with the way his name and death are
    being used within this topic!
    
    Whoever brought it up first should be ashamed of themselves...BIG TIME!
    
    Argue the topic or get lost! Amos does not deserve this!
    
    
    						I'm disgusted!
    
    							Hank

    I would have liked such tasteless jokes about my demise. In fact, I
    would like it if people danced on my grave singing hallelujah. Somehow,
    somewhere, I would be laughing.

    
    "Mistah Glenn, he dead."
    

    RE: .494
    
    Those you leave behind may not enjoy the jokes as much as you
    would, though.
    
    I know that my family doesn't joke about death much since the recent
    deaths of close family members.

    
    I agree with Hank - leave Amos out of this discussion.
    
    

    Let's leave Jerry Garcia (and jokes about his being dead) out of this 
    discussion, too.

    I'm waiting for someone to say "I take penumbrage at your last reply."
    
    Chris

    
      Oh, yes, let's be tasteful and oh-so-correct and never say anything
     naughty ever again.
    
      bb

    <guffaw!>

    >I don't know, Dick.  I think you are way off base on this one. 
    >What if a family member of Amos' saw the note and took offense to it.
    
     See .480
    
     /hth

    .496
    
    Well, Suzanne, I know that my father-in-law wants a New Orleans
    funeral.  He wants it to start from a bar, after a suitable amount of
    loosening-up by the participants.  In case you don't know what a New
    Orleans funeral involves, it starts with a procession to the graveyard,
    led by a street band playing a dead march.  There's some speechifying
    over the departed as he's placed in the tomb, and then the procession
    returns, to the sound of a quicktime march, to its self-lubrication. 
    This is not a sad affair, it is a happy one; it's a sendoff to a better
    place.
    
    Chacun � son go�t, n'est-ce pas?

    RE: .500  bb

    / Oh, yes, let's be tasteful and oh-so-correct and never say anything
    / naughty ever again.

    Surely you aren't suggesting that people refrain from making a big
    deal out of it if they perceive a word to be <gasp> INcorrect?

    
    
    When I die, I'm gonna have a cassette recording in my casket playing:
    
    Hi Folks!!! Isn't it nice that I look just like myself??"
    
    "Keep the line moving now.."
    
    "Don't forget about the buffet!"

    
      We could rename ourselves NICEBOX perhaps ?
    
      bb

    
    >Let's leave Jerry Garcia (and jokes about his being dead) out of this 
    >discussion, too.
    
    
    	Is he still dead?
    
    	If there is any change in his condition, please let me know im-
    	mediately.
    
    	[BTW, there should have been a huge "WHOOOOOOSH!!" on this one
    	 awhile ago.]
    

    It runs in my family. When my mom's dad died, about a week after his
    burial it started to pour rain. Everyone was looking at the sheets of
    rain coming down in silence until my grandmother said "Well Dad, you're
    getting your first real good soaking!" Everybody proceeded to bust their
    guts for the rest of the day.

    RE: .504  Dick Binder

    / Well, Suzanne, I know that my father-in-law wants a New Orleans
    / funeral.... 
    / This is not a sad affair, it is a happy one; it's a sendoff to a 
    / better place.

    In my family, the reception after the funeral is the time when people
    get together to remember and tell their favorite funny and endearing
    stories about the loved one who has passed away.  It's a celebration
    of the person's life.

    No one makes a joke out of the announcement of the beloved person's
    death, though.  The death announcement is the sad part that leaves
    everyone feeling shocked and in pain.

    Do you see the difference?

    It's the penultimate announcement! It's hysterical!

    Well, that probably depends on how many people are left in the
    family, right?

    .510
    
    Suzanne, if I were a psychologist, I'd tell you to stuff the passive-
    aggressive behavior.  But I'm not, so I'll just remind you that
    laughter is some people's way of coping with grief.  I'd rather get a
    kick out of a silly little joke like "He's dead, Jim," than spend the
    rest of the day/evening/whatever bawling in my cups.  YMMV.
    
    Don't bother responding to this, I've wasted enough time on you.  When
    will I remember that it's never worth the effort?

    When I saw the "He's dead, Jim" title, I didn't believe the death
    announcement was real.  I kept looking for confirmation at first,
    because I couldn't believe that someone would make a joke at a time
    like that.  I still find it hard to believe.

    	"He's dead, Jim."
    
    	Was **THAT** the "joke"?  I kept wondering what it was...
    
    	Sheesh.
    
    	This "Boy (girl) who cried wolf" stuff regarding offense is
    	really getting hys...,  er, ridiculous.

    
    I never interpreted it as a joke in the first place. I read
    it as a sad acknowledgment of Amos' passing, using a phrase
    that has taken its place in the vernacular due to the
    popularity of Star Trek.

    -b

 Gee, I go to a meeting for a couple hours and look what happens..this topic
 has ratholed!




 Jim

    
    So!  Howabout them Red Sox!
    
    

    
    They interfere in other cultures (Kenmore Square) all the time...

    -b

    Think the rain will ruin the rhubarb?!

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  \
                 *  ||W---||  Rhubarb is the penultimate in edible plants.
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    
    It's also another term for a brouhaha...
    

    Brouhaha??  Ha ha ha ha...
    

    >I never interpreted it as a joke in the first place. I read
    >it as a sad acknowledgment of Amos' passing, using a phrase
    >that has taken its place in the vernacular due to the
    >popularity of Star Trek.
    
     Thanks, Brian. That's all it ever was. Now perhaps we can halt this
    cynical usage of Amos' passage as a means of diverting attention and
    scoring debating points.

    RE: .524  Mark Levesque
    
    // I never interpreted it as a joke in the first place. I read
    // it as a sad acknowledgment of Amos' passing, using a phrase
    // that has taken its place in the vernacular due to the
    // popularity of Star Trek.
    
    / Thanks, Brian. That's all it ever was.
    
    So, I see that the story about this title has been changed now.
    
    Yesterday, you wrote [in .480]:
    
    	/ Still no apology for making a joke in an announcement of the death
    	/ of a beloved member of the Soapbox community, eh Mark?
    
     	I knew Amos, and I don't think he would have minded.
    
    Binder wrote[in .513]:
    
	I'd rather get a kick out of a silly little joke like "He's dead, 
    	Jim," than spend the rest of the day/evening/whatever bawling in 
    	my cups.  YMMV.  
    
    Yesterday, the joke was ok.  Now, it wasn't a joke at all.

    
    Where's Ragucci when you need 'im?
    

    You just can't resist using Amos to score points, can ya, Suzanne?
    Yet you simultaneously take me to task for the way I announced his
    death. Talk about callous, talk about cynical, talk about slimey, talk
    about dishonorable. But perfectly in character.

    |the epitome of disingenuousnous
    
    is that d word spelled correckly?

    Azzamattaoffack, she's only got one defense remaining: to accuse me of
    being unpatriotic.

    > is that d word spelled correckly?
    
     It is now. <blush>

    RE: .527  Mark Levesque

    / You just can't resist using Amos to score points, can ya, Suzanne?

    You brought the subject up again this morning, Mark.  The subject
    had closed, but you couldn't resist raising it again to change
    your story.

    / Yet you simultaneously take me to task for the way I announced his
    / death. 

    Mark, you are such a coward.  YOU bring up Amos' death again (after
    the subject had been closed) so you can rail at me for responding
    to you about it.  Then you heave at me with another round of your 
    stupid insults while you're safely surrounded by your cronies in
    here.

    If you do honor Amos' death, let it drop again (the way it did
    yesterday.)  If you don't let it drop, then blame no one but 
    yourself for the subject being pursued again here now.

    It's ok Mark, it happens to the best of us. And me too apparently.

    
    Re: Doc (.527)
    
    "You just can't resist using Amos to score points, can ya, ...."
    
    Reprehensible tactics such as these stand on their own scoring no
    points. Sadly, I fear that the noter using such tactics doesn't
    realize what they reveal about themselves.
    
    							Hank
    
    
    

    >Mark, you are such a coward.  
    
     Right Sooz. Here we are 200 notes later because you couldn't admit
    your error, and you call ME a coward. It is to laugh. 
    
    > you couldn't resist raising it again to change your story
    
     The hell I did. Unlike the reference to "respiration challenged,"
    "he's dead, Jim," was not intended to be a joke. Even the quote with
    which you "prove" I "changed my story" does no such thing; it indicates
    that I didn't think that Amos would have objected to my saying "he's
    dead, Jim." That's all it indicates. It most certainly does NOT
    indicate that I accepted your characterization.
    
     Do something respectful and let it drop. Betcha can't.

    
    	Can't we all just get along?
    
    	Maybe hold hands and sing that Coca Cola song ...
    
    	[everybody now!!]
    
    	"I'd like to teach the world to sing"
    

                      ^`.
       ^_              \  \
       \ \             {   \
       {  \           /     `~~~--__
       {   \___----~~'              `~~-_
        \                         /// `  `~.
        / /~~~~-, ,__.    ,      ///  __,,,,)
        \/      \/    `~~~;   ,---~~-_`~=     -- SHADDUP!
                         /   /
                        '._.'
    

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\ ---happy happy joy joy
               ~  \__U_/  ~

    Hank, if you and Mark are so concerned about it, all you have to
    do is to drop it now.  The subject had already dropped yesterday.

    RE: .534  Mark Levesque
    
    // Mark, you are such a coward.  
    
    / Right Sooz. Here we are 200 notes later because you couldn't admit
    / your error, and you call ME a coward. It is to laugh. 
    
    We're here 200 notes later because you are too lame to accept the
    fact that I'd heard a word used in a particular way elsewhere
    and words' meanings DO change over time.

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| I think we're beating a dead horse, here. 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    >We're here 200 notes later because you are too lame to accept the
    >fact that I'd heard a word used in a particular way elsewhere
    >and words' meanings DO change over time.
    
     So you heard it used incorrectly and now insist that you be allowed to
    continue doing so. Go ahead. You'll still be wrong. Not that that has
    ever stopped you before.

    RE: .541  Mark Levesque

    // We're here 200 notes later because you are too lame to accept the
    // fact that I'd heard a word used in a particular way elsewhere
    // and words' meanings DO change over time.
    
    / So you heard it used incorrectly and now insist that you be allowed to
    / continue doing so. Go ahead. You'll still be wrong. Not that that has
    / ever stopped you before.

    Mark, this is almost as idiotic as your argument yesterday that I was
    doing the 'exact same' thing as trying to change a person's first name.  

    It's also a lie.  This argument hasn't been about requests from me
    to be 'allowed' to use the word again, and you know it.

    You apologized to me a few months ago in mail for using a lie to rail
    at me.  I see that you're still doing this.

 ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    .525
    
    The diversion continues.
    
    > I knew Amos, and I don't think he would have minded.
    
    Where is the suggestion that this was intended as a joke?
    
    > I'd rather get a kick out of a silly little joke...
    
    Where is the suggestion that I am able to read Mark's mind such that I
    knew what his intentions were?
    
    Grow up.  Admit your error like an adult, and let's move on.

Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
and Try to love one another RIGHT NOW!

    >           -< Or did the entire argument go over your head? >-
    
    >Mark, this is almost as idiotic as your argument yesterday that I was
    >doing the 'exact same' thing as trying to change a person's first name.  
    
     This juxtaposition is a gem, considering that nobody ever made that
    argument. You totally blew the assassin comparison. You missed it. You
    didn't "get" it. Your response to this turn of events? To accuse me of
    missing an argument.

    RE: .544  Dick Binder
    
    / Where is [Marks'] suggestion that this was intended as a joke?
    
    Right here:
    
    	/ Still no apology for making a joke in an announcement of the death
    	/ of a beloved member of the Soapbox community, eh Mark?
    
     	I knew Amos, and I don't think he would have minded.
        
    / Where is the suggestion that I am able to read Mark's mind such that I
    / knew what his intentions were?
    
         I'd rather get a kick out of a silly little joke...
    
    You were certainly anxious to defend him for it, though.
    
    / and let's move on.
                                              
    Everyone moved on yesterday.

                                   
                             __       
                             -\= \=\ 
                           --=_\=---
                         -_==/  \/ //\//
                          ==/   /O   O\  Is this where I enter the pissin
             _ _ _ _     /_/    \  ]  /  contest?
            /\ ( (- \    /       ] ] ] /
           (\ _\_\_\-\__/     \  (,_,)/
          (\_/                 \     \-
          \/      /       (   ( \  ] /)
          /      (         \   \_ \./ )
          (       \         \      )  \
          (       /\_ _ _ _ /---/ /\_  \
           \     / \     / ____/ /   \  \
            (   /   )   / /  /__ )   (  )
            (   )  / __/ '---`       / /
             \ /   \ \             _/ /
             ] ]    )_\_         /__\/
             /_\    ]___\
            /___\

    RE: .546  Mark Levesque
    
    / This juxtaposition is a gem, considering that nobody ever made that
    / argument. You totally blew the assassin comparison. You missed it. You
    / didn't "get" it. Your response to this turn of events? To accuse me of
    / missing an argument.
    
    Ho ho.  I thought your argument was idiotic, that's all.
    
    Using a word's derivation to change a person's name is hardly like
    using a different meaning for a word (and noting that the word's
    derivation happened to support this unusual meaning.)

    
    SUZANNE!!  IT HAD *NOTHING* TO DO WITH GARCIA'S NAME!  
    IT HAD *EVERYTHING* TO DO WITH GARCIA'S DRUG USE!
    
    I SINCERELY HOPE THIS HELPS!
    

    you say yes!
    i say no!
    you say stop!
    i say go, go, go!
    
    ahhhhhh....
    you say goodbye
    and i say hello.
    hello! hello!
    i don't know why you say goodbye,
    i say hello!
    

    RE: .550
    
    Yes, but it had to do with changing words, not using a different
    meaning for one particular word.

    
    	It was a "word association" game.
    
    	This is a "change name" game:
    
    
    	m - - - p
    	a - - - e
    	r - - - t
    	k - - - e
    
    	Change 1 letter at a time to change "mark" to "pete".  All
    	steps must include a verifiable word.
    

    
    	And, ummm, Suzanne, is was a "word derivation".
    
    	Sound familiar?
    

    Umm, yeah, Shawn - it does.

wannamonkey....too funny!

 Say kids!  wwwwwwwwwwwaht time is it?



 It's Howdy Doody time, it's howdy doody time..

    mark park pare pate pete

    >Using a word's derivation to change a person's name is hardly like
    >using a different meaning for a word 
    
     You idjit. Ok, Suzanne, since you are so utterly clueless about the
    argument that you labeled "idiotic," please demonstrate where I changed
    Jerry Garcia's name.

 The name game!  Let's do marsha!

 Marsha marsha bomarsha bananafana bo marsha
 fee fie fo marsha, marsha!

                 _____________________
                 |###################|          
                 |###################|          HEY! It looks like a song and
                 |###################|          dance in here! Can I join in?
                 |###################|             /
     ((-----------------------------------------  /  
     | \         /  /@@ \      /@@ \  \ -----------
      \ \,      /  (     )    (     )  \            _____
       \ \      |   \___/      \___/   |           /  __ \
        \ ""*-__/                      \           | |  | |
         ""*-_                         "-_         | |  """
              \    -.  _________   .-   __"-.__.-((  ))
               \,    \^    U    ^/     /  "-___--((  ))
                 \,   \         /    /'            | |
                  |    \       /   /'              | |
                  |     "-----"    \               | |
                 /                  "*-._          | |
                /   /\          /*-._    \         | |
               /   /  "\______/"     /   /         | |
              /   /                 /   /          | |
             /. ./                  |. .|          """
            /  | |                  / | \
           /   |  \                /  |  \   
          /.-./.-.|               /.-.|.-.\

    
    	Good job, Doc.  I had
    
    	mark, mare, mate, mete, pete.
    
    	Same result, of course.
    

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  \
                 *  ||W---|| Howdy Doody is annoying.  Very much like
                    ~~    ~~ this topic.  

    You're clearly going too fast for her, !joan.

    
    .567
    
    Really?  I feel as though I'm stuck in the mud.
    

    
    as-sas-sin  n. [ML *assassinus*, fr. Ar *hashshashin*, pl. of
    *hashshash*, one who smokes or chews hashish]
    
    <insert drug user of choice, such as Jerry Garcia> was an assassin.
    
    Right, Suzanne?
    

    cherry garcia.  so there.

    
    You say tomato, I say tomato
    You say potato, I say potato
    Tomato, tomato, potato, potato
    Let's call the whole thing off!
    
    

    >cherry garcia.  so there.

     What's this supposed to be in reference to? I was accused of playing
    games with his name, and I didn't say cherry garcia anywhere. So, like,
    your point is?
    

    
    I believe Bonnie was referring to the ice cream of choice for
    assassins.
    

 .573


 Or hashish users

    Oh, so you do a little hash under glass and then it's time to chow some
    Ben and Jerry's?

	Deb, why did you type the same words twice? They sound the same...

    RE: .560  Mark Levesque
    
    // Using a word's derivation to change a person's name is hardly like
    // using a different meaning for a word 
    
    / Ok, Suzanne, since you are so utterly clueless about the argument that 
    / you labeled "idiotic," please demonstrate where I changed Jerry Garcia's 
    / name.
    
    Actually, you changed the name you were calling him - you went from
    hash-user to assasin.  
    
    You exchanged actual words, not just the meaning of a single word.
    So it had nothing whatever to do with using an alternate meaning
    for a word.

        >cherry garcia.  so there.
    
       | What's this supposed to be in reference to?
    
    
       are you serious?  if you are, better check yer
       yumah metah.