< Messages posted to thread: >

< Mollie downunder 08-Jan-98 >

< Nora 08-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 08-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 08-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 08-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 08-Jan-98 >

< Mollie 08-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 08-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 08-Jan-98 >

< Fran 08-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 08-Jan-98 >

< Mollie 09-Jan-98 >

< mollie 09-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 09-Jan-98 >

< Alex 09-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 09-Jan-98 >

< Henry Kavett 09-Jan-98 >

< Crystal 09-Jan-98 >

< Jean-Luc Picard 09-Jan-98 >

< Mollie downunder 10-Jan-98 >

< Fran 10-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 10-Jan-98 >

< Mollie 10-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 10-Jan-98 >

< Nora 10-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 11-Jan-98 >

< Moll the Doll 11-Jan-98 >

< Nora 11-Jan-98 >

< Dee (Dorothy/Young Hag) 11-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 11-Jan-98 >

< Mollie D 11-Jan-98 >

< mollie again 11-Jan-98 >

< Fran 11-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 12-Jan-98 >

< Ray 12-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 12-Jan-98 >

< Mollie dowunder 12-Jan-98 >

< Nora 12-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 12-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 12-Jan-98 >

< Dee 12-Jan-98 >

< Nora 12-Jan-98 >

< Fran 13-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 13-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 13-Jan-98 >

< Fran 13-Jan-98 >

< Ray 13-Jan-98 >

< Fran 14-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 14-Jan-98 >

< Irish Girl 14-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 14-Jan-98 >

< Fran 14-Jan-98 >

< Mollie Downunder 14-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 14-Jan-98 >

< XXX Mayor 14-Jan-98 >

< Fran 14-Jan-98 >

< Nora 14-Jan-98 >

< Alex 15-Jan-98 >

< Fran 15-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 15-Jan-98 >

< Ray to Mr. D 15-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 15-Jan-98 >

< Nora 15-Jan-98 >

< Warren 15-Jan-98 >

< Dee 15-Jan-98 >

< Crystal 15-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 15-Jan-98 >

< Fran 16-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 16-Jan-98 >

< Nora 16-Jan-98 >

< Alex 17-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 17-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 17-Jan-98 >

< OldTimer Ann 17-Jan-98 >

< Fran 17-Jan-98 >

< Fran again 18-Jan-98 >

< Fran - Hey People! 20-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 20-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 20-Jan-98 >

< Irish Girl 20-Jan-98 >

< Crystal 20-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 20-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 20-Jan-98 >

< Not Blessed 20-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 20-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 20-Jan-98 >

< Nora 20-Jan-98 >

< Fran 20-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 20-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 20-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 20-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 20-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 20-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 20-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 21-Jan-98 >

< Ray 21-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 21-Jan-98 >

< Mollie 21-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 21-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 21-Jan-98 >

< Ray 21-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 21-Jan-98 >

< Mollie 21-Jan-98 >

< Dee 21-Jan-98 >

< Alex 21-Jan-98 >

< Fran 22-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 22-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 26-Jan-98 >

< Fran 27-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 27-Jan-98 >

< Ray 27-Jan-98 >

< Jim D 27-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 27-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 27-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 27-Jan-98 >

< Ex Mayor 27-Jan-98 >

< Ray 27-Jan-98 >

< Crystal 27-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 27-Jan-98 >

< Ray 27-Jan-98 >

< Fran 27-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 27-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 27-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 27-Jan-98 >

< Ray 27-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 28-Jan-98 >

< Fran 28-Jan-98 >

< 28-Jan-98 >

< Ray 28-Jan-98 >

< Irish Girl 28-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 28-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 28-Jan-98 >

< Ray 28-Jan-98 >

< Ray 28-Jan-98 >

< Rhonda 28-Jan-98 >

< Ray 28-Jan-98 >

< Lynn 28-Jan-98 >

< Ray 28-Jan-98 >

< Fran 28-Jan-98 >

< Crystal 29-Jan-98 >

< Ray 29-Jan-98 >

< Fran 29-Jan-98 >

< Kathryn 30-Jan-98 >

< Fran 31-Jan-98 >

< Subject: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie downunder
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

Dr Richard Seed (unfortunate name).

Well here's a wonderful specimen of humanity, has taken it upon himself to play creator and wants to clone Mamas & Papas into babies.

A few thoughts on the subject:

What if Mama/ Papa is cloned, then ten years down the track Mama/Papa decides life with Mama/Papa is intolerable. How would she/he feel about her/his child who is the clone of Mama/Papa.

What about all the practice clones including any deformed babies...after all there were 280 odd practice/unsuccessful sheep before Dollie!

What will happen to DNA identification? What happens if Mama/Papa turns criminal and leaves her/his fingerprints on stolen property or vice versa where babyclone grows up and leaves her/his fingerprints at scene of crime. Who will the police arrest?

Has it ever occurred to Dr Seedy that maybe not everyone is going to be able to have children?

Finally, what are Dr Seedy's motives for carrying out cloning?

Anybody care to comment?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

Shades of The Boys From Brazil!

The whole idea scares me, Mollie.

Isn't this what Hitler was aiming at all along?

I think the potential for abuse is too great and we should just leave it alone.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

I wonder what pedigree info goes on the 'birth' certificate.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

On the surface I think cloning humans is unthinkable. There remain a lot of questions to be answered, only some of which were mentioned above.

This just came to my mind. Could you and would you clone someone who was on his death bed to give him/her new life? Now talk about those implications!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

As someone who is coming to terms with my own infertility, I have a few things to say about Dr. Seed and his quacky ideas.

First, I feel no shame in using fertility drugs to have a child that my husband and I can call "genetically" ours. Adoption, in my opinion is not an ALTERNATIVE to having your own genetic child. That would make it a "second prize" or "last ditch effort" and I don't think that is fair to all those children fortunate to have been adopted. Adoption is great and it takes special ppl to adopt. I however, am looking to have a child that shares MY genetics.

Second, Dr. Seed is making it difficult for ALL infertile couples seeking treatment to be taken seriously now, and that PISSES me off! Between the Iowa septuplets and Dr. Seed, I am afraid to tell anyone I know that I am taking fertility drugs. Why should I be ashamed to try to have my own child? PPL make the argument, "Oh well, maybe it wasn't meant to be...some ppl just aren't meant to have children. Its G-ds will." That makes me so angry. Its easy to say when you aren't in an infertile couples' shoes. Dr. Seed adds to my shame! Third, anybody who wants themselves cloned must be dangerously narcissistic. I know I always want to improve upon myself. Most normal ppl strive to be better. Why would you want a carbon copy of yourself??

And last, yes, Mollie, the potential for evil exists. It is the stuff of science fiction novels. Very scary stuff. This man must be stopped. Trouble is, there are probably others like him. Who knows whats going on right now that we are not hearing about. On a remote island somewhere...the island of Dr. Moreau?!

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion, Mollie. -Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

Does such a thing as the human 'soul' exist?

If you clone the guy on his deathbed, will the copy grow up to be the same person?

What makes each of us unique? Is it nature or nurture?

Who is financing this ur-Frankenstein?

I remember a Twilight Zone episode where the main character yearned for a world full of people like himself. It ended up a nightmare.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

thanks for answering this topic. It is also worrying me quite a lot. In 1996 I started to do a MA in Philosophy concentrating on Bioethics. I came under such pressure from the pro-doctors groups that I temporarily dropped the project. I realise that in a conservative University such as I was at, philosophical thought along the lines of contemporary birth, death, medical practices, burial/funeral arrangements(rorts) were definitely a no-go area.

Which is a shame because the world is facing a multitude of new ethical issues right now and many of them involve science and Medicine.

Rhonda, I understand what you are saying and knew that perhaps you might feel upset at me mentioning el Seedy. But you said it exactly, there is nothing wrong at all with trying to have your own genetic offspring by whatever safe means are available. My worry is that you and your partner, and every other infertile couple who wish to try for genetic offspring are so vulnerable.

There are some, maybe many, devious, nasty and evil people amongst the dedicated, well-meaning and selfless medical researchers who are out there to further their own greedy needs(difficult topic this!). Do you remember the women who had the fertility hormone from cadavers used on them in the 70's and are now finding they have Jacobs-Kreutsfield's disease? Apologies and financial compensation are pretty pathetic at this stage are'nt they?

I feel personally that we have a responsibility to try and protect the future generations from quackery.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

The clone is genetically identical to the source individual. That's it. Can never be the 'same' person: won't be raised by the same people, interact with the same individuals, etc. In fact, because the source individual is X years older than the clone, they will never really appear the same physically.

But imagine making 10 clones of one individual and starting them all off at the same time. Rod Serling! Come back!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

Bioethics is difficult territory.

As a nurse, I've found that alot of the time I am really confused when it comes to these things.

I'm going to say some things here that may make me unpopular, but I'll say them anyway. Just please withold judgement until I'm done.

I find cloning a reprehensible, very dangerous thing. I think the potential for harm is great, and the potential for quackery enormous. But that's only one issue.

What about the so-called right to die movement? Granted, most people hate the idea of a drawn-out, painful death, hooked up to hoses and tubes and monitors. I do too. But are we really aware that this whole movement has been pushed by hospital organizations, HMO's, and the like, in order to save money? Not our money. Their money. Too many patients taking too long to die run out of money and become charity cases or Medicaid cases, which are not profitable for these institutions.

What about organ donation? How many stories have there been lately about people's organs being harvested while they were still alive? It happens all the time! Again, money is the issue, not just trying to save the life of the recipient.

I won't even go into partial birth abortion, or even abortion in general. Then again, yes I will. I'm spilling it all... why not that too?

I believe abortion should be legal, affordable, accessible, private and unnecessary. Personally, I could never do it. I know, never say never, but I don't think I could, under any circumstances. I think abortion has cheapened our regard for life to the extent that partial birth abortion and infanticide are only the next logical steps. How can it be okay to kill a fetus in the womb and not okay to kill it once it's born?

Ironically, the Right to Life people have hurt their own cause here, because by keeping the issue in the media they've actually insensitized people to abortion.

Sometimes I hate being a nurse. I'm glad I'm in orthopedics now. I just can't deal with this. I became a nurse because I love life, I love people and I wanted to make a positive contribution to the world. What I've found out is that love, caring and compassion aren't always cost effective, and that's too often the bottom line.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

I am also a nurse by profession, Lynn. I got out of nursing for those very reasons. (Major burnout was also an issue.)

I now do private duty only, where I am responsible to my patient and the attending, and no one else. Whether my care is cost effective or not is up to my patient to decide, and no one else. If it is, fine. If not, I either volunteer my time or I go on.

As for cloning, I also wonder whose money is behind this Seed guy.

The powers that be have to do something to stop it.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 08-Jan-98 >

Lynn, you're a master at words. Gifted really, in expressing your thoughts. Frannie, apparently the Seed guy is nearly bankrupt. He's made and lost a fortune and recently was evicted from his apartment according to tonights network news. Perhaps HIS need for money is the driving force.

The organ donation scenario is scary. Suppose some rich guy wants a plantation of his own. So, he grows a few clones so there will always be fresh organs for him and those who are tissue compatible. A whole new industry. Grow clones, harvest organs. The human clone is a nothing, a non-entity. Not educated, not loved, just nurtured to the extent necessary to be available for later use.

Since every human being has a unique personality and individuality, what the hell is the legitimate purpose for human cloning? Who needs a 50 year younger version of themselves? It wouldn't really be THEM anyway.

It's one thing to be motivated by the need to be THE FIRST person ever to clone successfully a human being. But can Dr. Seed or anyone else explain to me the social utility in even considering such a process?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

thank you for expressing yourself so well Lynn. I am going to try and add something to what you've said. Like you, I am confused but thinking about these issues is something I value as precious and about as spiritual an issue as I might ever need to contemplate.

Also like you, I could never have an abortion but I did contemplate it once when I was pregnant with Pip. Often I have thought about how difficult Pip's life has been. Would it have been better if I had not carried him to term? From my perspective I frequently think that his life has been shocking, but strangely enough he has told me things over the past few months which make me wonder whether the incidents in his life were more painful to me, and others in the family, than to him.

I also mentioned last week about my son Pip being in a coma in 1989 not expected to live after a very serious drug overdose.. The ER doctor that night was very angry about the number of drug overdoses coming into the hospital and told me I would have to take Pip home to die. Finally he calmed down and made arrangements for Pip to be transferred to a private room (a very strange thing to happen in a public hospital). During the next 16 hours it crossed my mind a number of times that I should simply put a pillow across Pip's face and bring a merciful end to his and our suffering. But I didn't do it, probably because I was a coward and also I thought I did not have to as he would die shortly anyway.

Well that was nine years ago. Often I have thought about my non-action on that night and pondered whether or not I should have acted differently. The truth of the matter is that whilst I would not call myself religious by church standards, I seem to have a lot of respect for the fact that I have no right to decide another person's fate(or my own for that matter). Interesting really as I show very little respect if any for the worldly authority of government officials, doctors, lawyers etc, etc,.

Let me say I am frightened of the overwhelming power which is wielded by doctors and the medical profession generally. I fervently hope I do not become an invalid before I die.

One nice quick heart attack would be fine. No dragging on with ventilators, dialysis machines, or nursing homes for me thank you very much.

I didn't intend to say this much but there I go again...and this is an important subject.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >mollie
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

an afterthought about Richard Seed

...The Richard Seed Need Factor...

Have we agreed that Mr Seed, has just one need, his need is GREED?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

Thanks Mollie. Cute rhyme. I'm betting that Saturday Night Live has something on Seed tomorrow night.

Another ghastly thought, prompted by Mollie's post.

Suppose parents were dissatisfied with their young child? The kid turns out to be a bit less than they expected and they'd like a second chance at starting the kid out differently? Relocate. Dispose of child one. Raise the clone instead. Use the same birth certificate. The clone is just suffering from stunted growth.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Alex
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

Isn't a clone just the exact genetic copy. There's so much more that goes into making a person who and what you are. You know, the old nature vs. nurture thing.

I guess theoretically you could make several clones and have them be different personality-wise because no two would have the exact same environmental factors.

Gee, what a thought! Maybe some scientist will want to do a study trying to control the environmental factors. Shades of Frankenstein. This sounds like a moral and legal nightmare.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

The whole thing of cloning is simply to try to create human life without normal procreation, and I think that someone better show me why. Ex- mayor, you expressed my feelings exactly.

Saw another interesting article in the Star Ledger this AM about a the State Supreme Court overruling a lower court's decision about a divorce. It seems that this wife had been previously divorced in 1966, but unknown to her it was illegal. So she remarried and was so for 16 (?) years. Now she & her husband want to divorce and she is looking for her fair share of the split. Her husband found out that her previous divorce was invalid and therefore tried to have their marriage anulled on that basis. Therefore, if they were never married, they could not be divorced and he would owe her nothing. Cute, right? The superior court said he was right, the supreme court said sorry, Charlie.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Henry Kavett
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

Hello to this very intelligent group...

One more thought on the cloning concept, which I belive is dangerous and ought to be stopped.

This thread has considered the variants on the clone; the differences in life circumstance, etc. What about that unspoken angle: would it not be possible to obtain DNA matter from the remains of history's worst and recreate them? Or maybe you decide to make a copy of Grandpa? Or that of an Egyptian mummy. Maybe the scientist looks back and clones a person from the DNA of the earliest man/woman!

I worry about the creation of a human robot force, bred solely for their fighting capabilities, encamped away from society. No, cloning people must not be done.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

Cloning is interesting to me when it has to do with reproduction of viruses, biological medicines, that kind of thing. When you're talking about cloning people or even animals, I think it's a bad idea.

Not that cloning animals is bad in itself, but it's too close to cloning humans. Too much temptation to go one more step.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jean-Luc Picard
< Date: 09-Jan-98 >

So this is how the Borg started! Bad seed indeed!!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie downunder
< Date: 10-Jan-98 >

OK...can someone fill me in on Cher's tears for Sonny Bono?

Don't I remember seeing a film of their story where Sonny was a domestic violence expert or is my memory failing me?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 10-Jan-98 >

Cher's tears for Sonny...

That's a tough one, Mollie. People are very strange. We can forgive anything. It all depends on what the payoff is for us.

I have a friend who is in an abusive relationship. It's pretty new, so she can't possibly be too invested in it, and yet she stays. She takes it. Why? Beats the hell out of me. There must be a payoff I'm just not seeing.

I'm reminded of my ex-hubby. He was pretty tough stuff when he was young, but I stayed, for whatever my reasons. (Youth, fear, lack of resources, stubornness, etc.) Fortunately, he improved with age. We went through alot of pain and animosity, but we've been able to become friends since the divorce.

If he were to die, there would be tears. We shared alot in life - many years together, happy or not; our youth; children.

Human nature is not always sane. It's just human.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 10-Jan-98 >

I don't understand it. They didn't seem to have been close after they divorced. I can't imagine weeping over someone I had once had the good sense to walk away from.

Personal opinion: Sonny Bono was a jerk. A smart jerk, maybe. Smart enough to get himself elected to Congress, but a jerk nonetheless.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 10-Jan-98 >

Very thought-provoking Fran & Lynn. I must say Lynn you and I seem definitely to be astral-sisters! What I mean is we think alike.

Fran, your comments have gone into my ponderbank for further processing. You realise of course that this topic is almost as puzzling as the Nature/Nurture debate(women staying with abusive men, not Sonny & Cher)!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 10-Jan-98 >

How the hell can anyone abuse something a lovely and wonderful as a female? I just don't get it.

(Sorry. I just love 'em)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 10-Jan-98 >

Ex, you're a sweetie!

Why do women stay? I have pondered over that my whole life! They say that a battered woman has no self-esteem. Psychological abuse comes first, a gradual whittling away at the victim's sense of self. By the time the abuse becomes physical, she believes she deserves it. She stays because she really believes that she cannot survive without the abuser.

Well, that's what they say. (You know, They Inc. - We'll Say Anything! One of my favorite companies...I'm a major stockholder!)

I don't know. I think if anyone ever tried to lay a hand on me I'd whack 'em up-side the head with a heavy object, walk over their limp form and just keep on going.

(I hope you all realize that the velvet-lined box and the storage container under the bed are all figments of my imagination. I don't even have long nails! Sorry if I've spoiled the illusion, but it had to be said, under the circumstances!)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

They knew that, Nora!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Moll the Doll
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

Speaking about making mistakes. I have dood a doozie!

It wasn't the Sonny & Cher life story I was thinking about...it was Tina Turner& Ike...sorry Cher! But she must have divorced Sonny for some reason...I will have to go right out and buy her autobiography now and get the real facts.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

Here's a topic suggested by a friend:

The Cover Your @ss Syndrome, also known as the Blue Wall of Silence (law enforcement), the Great White Wall (medicine), i.e., when members of a particular profession close ranks, refuse to speak out, and tacitly support and encourage the wrong-doing of a colleague.

What think ye all?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Dee (Dorothy/Young Hag)
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

I know what you mean. A cop screws up and all the other cops close ranks behind him. It's an old story, and one of the reasons police corruption is so hard to irradicate.

I don't like cops. (Sorry Ex-Mayor...no offence meant). Never did. Probably never will. A little authority is too much for some of them and it goes to thier heads. I'll bet half of them wouldn't be granted a gun license if they weren't in law enforcement!

As for the same phenomena in the medical profession, that's why there are doctors who specialize in testifying against other doctors in malpractice suits. Because other doctors won't do it. And when something goes wrong in a hospital, nobody will admit it. They just cover it all up.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

Thanks Nora! Just ask my wife!

Dee: No offense taken. Post away.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie D
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

Oh Dee & Nora what a grand idea, start the threads whilst I rev up my engines. I'm busy now but I'll add something further tonite.

I thought of starting a consumer/medical thread, cos I found this interesting article on the www yesterday about ASPARTAME the horrible stuff in lots of soft drinks and other foods. Sorry, you've started me off what the heck I may as well put something on now:

ASPARTAME(ASP) has been known to cause the following symptoms: headaches, nausea, vertigo, hearing loss, tinnitus, insomnia, numbness of extremities, memory loss, blurred vision, blindness/eye problems, slurred speech, MILD TO SUICIDAL DEPRESSION, personality changes, mood attacks, anxiety attacks, HYPERACTIVITY(child or adult), gastrointestinal disorders, seizures, skin lesions, muscle cramps, joint pain, fatigue, pms, menstrual irregularities, chest pain, arythmia, edema, increased appetite.

So what do you think about that, more later...

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >mollie again
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

sorry, forgot the most important thing about the symptoms DEATH HAS BEEN NAMED AS A SYMPTOM OF ASP

Actually I am just in a state of shock. Received my new 20 hours of web time on 1.1.98 have only 35 minutes left. My god what am I to do?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 11-Jan-98 >

Aspartame???? You've got to be kidding. It's a major food group for me! I had heard about headaches, but didn't know about the other symptoms.

Now let's see... how many do I have? Tinnitis, headache, numbness of the extremities, blurred vision, g.i. disorders, anxiety attacks, joint pain, arythmia, and I think memory loss, but I don't remember.

I've been using the stuff for about a year and a half, during which time I have lost 90 pounds. I was addicted to Pepsi. Now I'm addicted to Diet 7Up.

I don't know about all this. It's making me very depressed. I think I'll go put my head in the oven...

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

You're funny Fran. And you say I crack you up!

That idiot Dr. Frankenstein was in the paper again today, a big article in the tech section. He really is a nutcase.

He's a physicist who turned to biology when physics began to bore him. Well, pardon me, Herr Doctor Seed! He says he has a whole group of people behind him who are ready to run with this cr@p as soon as they can find the money. Hey, I wonder if they've approached Donald Trump. His ego just may be big enough for this kind of thing. This could be another sequel to The Art of the Deal!

This guy pi$$e$ me off!

So does Dr. Kevorkian!

Who do these people think they are? God?

I mean, look, if a person wants to die, fine. You have the right to take your own life, as long as you succeed. But as far as I'm concerned, there is a BIG difference between writing that prescription that you think your patient might use to end it all, and actually physically helping them to take their life.

The first thing a physician swears in the hippocratic oath is to DO NO HARM. Killing someone, even if they want to die, is still killing - taking life, and it is WRONG!

Don't ____ with me today! I'm on the warpath!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

Who is Dr. Frankenstein?

On Kevorkian, I'm torn. I do believe that assisted suicide should be legal, as I would lump it in the same category as abortion, euthanasia, et al, as a choice that every individual can be free to make. I don't necessarily see death as "harm," at least not when compared to suffering. The price of extending one's life can sometimes be more harmful than death itself. At least, I believe that individuals should be free to determine whether or not the costs are worth the benefits. I think, also, that if a physician can help bring about that process painlessly, then it should be allowed.

However, I read Kevorkian's book and I think he is a lunatic. I wish very much that someone else were the figurehead for the movement. It's like having the Unabomber as spokesman for environmentalists. Kevorkian takes it another step, where death could be "prescribed" by a physician without the patient's conscious consent. He also advocates the use of his suicidal patients for live human experimentation. He's clearly demented and I think his continued visibility has done as much to hurt the cause as it has to help it.

Interesting side note:

In the past two years, the state of Oregon has passed an assisted suicide referendum but rejected a medical marijuana referendum. So, apparently, Oregon voters feel it's Ok to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs, but not a therapeutic one.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

Dr. Frankenstein = Dr. Seed

I really don't have a problem with suicide per se, it's with the physician's ACTIVE participation in it.

Suicide, by definition, is something one does to oneself.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie dowunder
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

I'm operating on limited time today so this will be brief. boy, this thread is getting very interesting(you always know when I say it's going to be brief that another 'longie' (Nora, another Aussieism) is coming up).

Here's a new one. Recently I bought Dr Elizabeth Kubler Ross' book about her life.

Very interesting lady popular in the 70's re 'death & dying issues' but from Aussie perspective had slipped into the darkness over the past 10-15 years. Well it seems she has not much longer to live. first part of her book is very interesting, but she seems to have lost the plot over the last decade at least joining up with a group of charlatan channelers. Get this, whilst the big boy channeler was contacting the spirits in a darkened room, seems he had some few little helpers to take over whilst he grappled with the newcomers' initiations(sexual) in a back room.

Poor old Liz took a long time to find out what was the go. Plus she wanted to start a farm for HIV babies somewhere in Virginia until the neighbours took the upper hand and suddenly the house was burned to ashes.

Makes for an interesting, if not depressing, read. I can't see the book quickly to give you the title but it should be in most book stores.

As for Dr Kevorkian, I don't know enough about him to comment. I should, but haven't had time to keep up. Do you realise that here in Australia we recently, briefly had a law in the Northern Territory(the first in the world) which allowed assisted killing by doctors. When I have more web time I will give you more details.

Anyway, in an unprecedented move, Federal Govt overrode the State/Territory Law and toppled it. In the meantime 3 people were assisted to die under this law. One lady's situation was very sad indeed and I personally feel happy that her suffering was put to an end. Here's the crunch though, we had, pushing this law through, our own version of Kevorkian won't name him here. It's my perception that people like this get pushed into the limelight so much that they get perverted by the attention, plus all the hangers on start their own little agendas then its open slather and all and sundry jump on the bandwagon( to use about six cliches).

You know what I mean? Cheers!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

I can understand what Lynn means about Dr. Death. I too have a problem with assisted suicide. I guess it's the profession we're in. You spend years learning to help people and trying to save lives, and it feels like a personal affront when people start talking about helping people die.

Being in geriatrics, I've spent alot of time with the dying. Frankly, we DO try too hard. That's changing. It can be confusing. Sometimes we just need to let go.

But I too would personally draw the line at active assisted suicide. I can see witholding treatment, if that's what the patient wants. I can even see providing the means (writing the 'scrip) but I just cannot see administering the drug to do the deed.

Allowing someone who wants to to die, or even making it easier for them is one thing. Actually physically doing it for them, no matter how much they want it, is quite another.

As for Kubler-Ross, she is a great lady, and a pioneer in her time. We all learned alot from her. It's a shame she was victimized like that.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

Re aspartame: it came to us from the chemical warfare people. No joke. It is a by-product or an accidental discovery, I don't know which; but it was discovered or developed in the quest for sophisticated methods to poison people...

Re assisted suicide: I do and always will stand staunchly for personal choice. That goes for abortion, too, by-the- way. Although I think suicide as a rule is the single most selfish act a human can commit and often sentences loved ones to lifetimes of deep anguish, assisted suicide in cases of desperate illness, unbearably bleak or painful degeneration, while selfish, is not as selfish an act as is prohibition of the act by healthy, hearty people or by a moralistic culture. Is it really moral or ethical to ensure suffering?

Re cloning: Great discussion. I come down on the side very much against. My father died when I was four; and naturally I took every opportunity I could to learn about him from family and friends. All I really got was confused because each person's interpretation was vastly different from the others. Perhaps I rationalized the sense of futility I felt, but I came to believe that each of us is a somewhat different person to everyone we know. Could cloning a human replicate the person? I can't see that it would. What, then, could possibly be the purpose? And at this point in my thoughts, I begin to feel fear.

Ciao, for now...

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

Nora: you posted while I was struggling to say something resembling what I think about these complicated issues.

Your distinction between actively helping someone to commit suicide and simply not standing in the way is very astute, I think. Splitting hairs, I wonder if supplying a prescription is or is not actively helping.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Dee
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

This is an interesting question. I don't really know how I feel about it.

You know my great-aunt D is 95. She has alot of medical problems: osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, scoliosis, spondylosis, hypertension, heart problems (she's got a pacemaker). Alot of people would say that with all her problems, her life isn't worth much. She lives with incredible pain, won't take painkillers because they dope her up, and she's so bent over her chin is almost in her belly button.

But even while her body is falling apart her mind and her spirit are vibrantly alive. And you already know what her life is worth to me.

She has a bottle of pills in her bedside table drawer. Strong painkillers that were given to her but she never took. She's saving them for when it gets to be more than she can bear.

If it ever comes to that, I'll accept it, but I hope it doesn't.

Could I help her? I don't know for sure, but I've never denied her anything she's asked of me. I think I probably would.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 12-Jan-98 >

I'm almost afraid to tackle this one. Lynn is not going to be happy.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with assisted suicide. Sometimes a person is beyond the point of being physically able to end their own life. Are they then to be condemned to suffer against their will because they cannot perform the act?

I also believe that assisted suicide is nothing new. It's been going on for as long as we've had shamans, witchdoctors, witches, old wives, doctors and nurses... we just didn't talk about it.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 13-Jan-98 >

Alot of things have been around for a long time, like incest, domestic violence, political corruption, man's disregard for nature, the subjugation of wimmin...

The fact that it's been around for a long time does not make it right.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 13-Jan-98 >

Dee's aunt, although in a state of physical deterioration, is in a vibrant mental state. It's her mental attitude that has probably kept her going with all her pain. But not everyone in her condition is that way mentally. Quality of life is an issue here. There are many who have no hope, exist with tubes in their bodies to keep them alive and see themselves as a burdon to their families and the medical profession. If people in this situation wish to end their pain, then I say let them die in peace. It's in such cases I condone assisted suicide (for lack of a better term).

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 13-Jan-98 >

Do I have the right to judge another's quality of life, though?

That's what scares me. We have medical ethics committees now that decide which patients have used up enough of the hospital's and staff's resources, and should be allowed to die. How can these people judge the quality of someone else's life?

I'm not saying that I believe that you have to go all out to preserve life no matter what. I know we go too far sometimes. But I want a very clear advance directive in place before I start pulling any plugs or denying treatment.

Oh hell! That's enough out of me on this. I'm even making myself sick, so I can imagine what I'm doing to youse guyz.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 13-Jan-98 >

Any thougts on the serviceman who was outed by AOL?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 13-Jan-98 >

Don't know the details, Fran. Can you tell us any more?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

It seems a young man in the service (I forget which branch) whose unfortunate name is Timothy McVeigh (no relation) was outed by America Online.

As I understand it, he sent someone some e-mail using his AOL handle, which alluded to his being gay. (It was something like BoyWatch or something). Anyway, the recipient of the e-mail looked him up and found Gay listed as his marital status.

Okay, up to this point, it's his own oversight that caused the problem. But it goes on.

The handle was registered only by first name, giving his location as Texas. So, the curious e-mail recipient calls up AOL and asks them if Tim in Texas is actually Mr. McVeigh... and they tell the person, who then reports it to military authorities.

This has resulted in Mr. McVeigh's discharge. So much for don't ask, don't tell! (A policy I never liked anyway, as it forces people to stay in the closet whether they want to or not!)

The upshot is, McVeigh is suing AOL for violating his confidence, and fighting his dismissal from the service on the grounds that they (I think it's the Navy??) violated the don't ask, don't tell policy.

What think ye?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

I was under the impression that AOL could not divulge any info that was not on your member profile, which anyone has access to. Where did this story come from?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Irish Girl
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Fran - I also saw this story on ABC world news last night. Just one little thing - the handle was registered with 3 items of info: NAME (given just as "Tim"), LOCATION: (given as Hawaii, not as Texas) and MARTITAL STATUS: (given as GAY)

According to ABC, the Marines (I believe that is the branch of the military involved here), were notified by an unnamed "source" about the above 3 items. Interjecting my own opinion here, the military and the media, in that order, would be 2 institutions I would not trust as far as unnamed sources go. Believe me, I have the utmost respect for my fellow countrymen/women who are currently & have in the past served in all branches of the military.

To continue, ABC did not say it directly, but it was implied that this source tracked this person to a military base in Honolulu (pls. excuse my spelling if it is wrong). The source then brought this info to the Marines, they contacted AOL.

At that point, the Marines claimed they just "asked" for the info, identified themselves & it was turned over directly to them. AOL denies doing that, saying that they would never have done that, that their confidentiality agreement with the users prevents them from doing that & would open them up to numerous lawsuite. ABC says that the Marines can get that info, but they would have to have a court order.

OK my first beef with AO(hel)L is why are they even asking for marital status? and what makes them think that people will be honest about it? I don't know much about AOsmell, but can you use a handle without putting your marital status in or is required?

As far as using a handle like boywatch, he has every right to use whatever handle he likes, but I for one would have my suspicions raised. Suspicions raised is one thing, tracking down the person is another.

Obviously it is either AOL or the Marines that are lying here. Unless phone calls were tape recorded or their are memos, I don't think we will ever know.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Anyone hear of the "Sydney" strain of the flu virus?? Apparently anyone who got their flu shot this year is defenseless against this strain of the virus as it has newly arrived to the states. Whaddya think...should we prevent Austrailians from visiting the US? We are helpless against their flu germs. (te, he, he)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Sorry about the mix-up with the state, etc. I do suffer from CRS. Big time!

Achoo! Cough! Sniffle!

Must be the Sydney Flu. I have it on good authority that it first came into this country as a computer virus. In fact, it entered through a chat site in New Jersey! Since it's arrival, it has mutated into influenza and our flu shots are useless against it!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie Downunder
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Are you saying that this nasty little virus 'flu' in on the web?

Personally, I am impressed that you guys are brave enough to have flu shots. Rumour is that you can pick up more than flu from the flu vaccines.

Excuse me whilst I go back to my laboratory...where's that damn recipe book gone?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Oh, Molly, Molly, Molly. You sound afraid of your own shadow. That is an old wives' tale about getting flu from the flu shot. The only negative thing that can happen to you after getting a flu shot is a bad reaction to the shot. Those who are alergic to eggs shouldn't take the shot. You Can't Get the Flu from the Flu Shot! HEY NURSES, Back me up on this one, eh?

Anyway...wasn't talking about a puter virus. Its the human kind. Youse Aussies brought yer germs to the US and we are helpless against them. Seems our flu shots weren't made for the Sydney Type A strain. I'm gonna wash my hands a lot, I guess. That should help.

This is a little late, but...going back to the right to die issue: I am an EMT and currently I don't ride with a squad anymore. I had to stop riding after this last incident - I'll set up the scenario for you: an 80 something year old man, with terrible cancer for the past 10 years, lying in his hospital bed that was set up in the living room of his house. Looked like he weighed about 80 pounds. Not breathing. Arrived on the scene within 5 minutes of the call...however we can't determine how long he had been lying there not breathing. Technically we should have recusitated him. No signs of levitity. (That meeans that the blood hadn't gathered in the parts of his body that were facing the floor. It is a clear sign of death when you see this). His pupils were fixed , but...technically we should resucitate on this patient. Do you think we did? There was no family. NONE. Just a housekeeper that looked over him. She hadn't seen him breathing in at least 1 hour. What would you do? I saw this scenario much too often. We all say we want to die in our sleep. But if a person if lucky enough to go that way, why is it that by law you still have to have tubes shoved down your throat and IV lines in your arm and someone pounding on your chest so much that you end up with broken ribs AFTER you have already passed peacefully in your sleep??? Is there something wrong with that, or what?!? I couldn't be an EMT anymore. I felt like I was doing more harm than good. The ppl that I did help were so ungratefull that it really made me feel like the fool for helping them. I think we should let the dying die. Is it "life-support" or is it "death-prevention"? How do you want to die?

I rambled a little, I know. But this area deserves more attention, I think.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >XXX Mayor
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Oh what the hell! My wife and Orangewoman both said that, as long as I'm a dirty old man, I ought to ID myself as XXX instead of just 'ex'. Whaddya think? I toyed with 'former' mayor for a while, but opted for 'ex'. Maybe it was just so the gals could encourage me to be triple-x.

Rhonda. I'm sorry you felt compelled to leave the service. I know how you feel. As a part-time cop (I'll be on duty Friday from 5pm til 11pm in case any of you would like to be pulled over) realize that, since we're on the road already, we're the first at the scene of any emergency. That includes FAS calls.

My dad was diagnosed with prostatic cancer when he was 59. Radiation therapy extended his life another three years. At least he was able to enjoy his first grandchild (a/k/a the Orangewoman). I recall stopping at my folk's house on the way home from evening law classes. I helped my mother and the LPN move my dad up a bit on the hospital bed. The cancer had metastisized to the skeletal system by that time and any movement caused excruciating pain. He was cachecsic, virtually emaciated. I left and drove home. A two minute trip, tops. Less than a minute after walking in the door, the LPN was on the phone telling me that my Dad had ceased breathing. She wanted to know if she should resuscitate. My Mom was a wreck and couldn't make a decision. Mine was easy. 'NO', I said. This poor guy had suffered long enough. Resuscitation, if successful, would have condemned him to prolonged suffering and agony. No way was I going to do that to my own father.

I've answered calls many times to homes with 'unresponsive' individuals only to find that lividity had already presented or that rigor mortis had already set in. I'd end up having hq slow everyone down and to let the paramedics know that this would simply be a 'pronouncement'. Only twice did I end up at a call where there had been a 'witnessed arrest'. One was and elderly man who had undergone surgery only a week before. We dragged him off the bed to perform CPR on the floor. He survived, then passed away two weeks later. The other was a classmate of my brother's. A guy who had grown up 8 houses away. My partner and I performed CPR on this guy for almost half an hour. He was pronounced at the hospital. Massive drug overdoes. No one knew that. Maybe Narcan might have saved his life. We couldn't.

Rhonda. You're probably a very caring, sensitive person. It's difficult to distance yourself from the people you were called upon to help. It became too much for you. We probably lost a damned good EMT. But if it's screwing up your own life, you really had no choice. I just wonder whether or not your squad offered you any critical incident stress debriefing services. Perhaps it might have helped and you might have stayed.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

The flu shot first:

When influenza vaccines were first being developed (30 yrs ago) there WERE alot of problems with people becomming ill because live viruses were used. Also, the amount of virus present was great.

Today, flu vaccine is made from killed viruses in minute ammounts. The recipe for each particular year is a cocktail of whatever strain was around the previous winter, combined with an educated guess as to how it might mutate, based on observation of influenza in the past. It's not an exact science, because no one can predict with certainty just how a virus will mutate, and the influenza virus is extremely mutable.

Some people will show a reaction to the vaccine. Most common is slight pain and swelling at the injection sight. Less common is a slightly elevated temperature and mild joint pain. These usually occur overnight and are gone by morning, and only 10% or less of people recieving the shot will react.

The potential complications from actually coming down with influenza are: bronchitis, pneumonia, secondary bacterial infection of the entire respiratory system, secondary bacterial infections leading to myeocarditis, endocarditis, heart valve infection, all of which are potentially lethal.

Since I work with older people who are ill to begin with, I get a flu shot every year. I would probably survive the flu. My patients might not, and I wouldn't want to be the one who brought it to them.

In twelve years, I have only reacted to the vaccine once, with a temp and some slight joint pain. It was all gone by morning.

********** Concerning the right to die: yes, we do very often go too far in trying to preserve life at all costs. I've had many dying patients, most of whom wanted not to be 'saved' by extraordinary means. Much as younger people cling to life, I find old people are just as often willing to let it go.

When people (even younger people) know they are ill unto death, they manage to come to terms with it. I think we, as a culture, have such a terrible fear and denial of death that we try to hard to beat it, when the bitter truth is, not one of us is getting out of this alive.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 14-Jan-98 >

Before my mother died two years ago, at age 56, she was hooked up to all the machinery for three weeks.It was horrible. She hated it, and although none of us was ready for her to die, we all grew to hate it too.

She had a perforated ulcer that burst. She was resuscitated twice in the OR, and never recovered from the surgery. Sepsis, kidney failure, and pulmonary edema resulted.

After three weeks in and out of coma, her heart stopped. My father and I were in her room when it happened. No one noticed that she had coded. We didn't tell anyone. By the time someone finally did notice it at the nurses' station and came running, it was way too late.

I have never thought that we might have done anything other than what we did. We hadn't discussed it beforehand, but we both knew that she wouldn't survive. It just made sense to let her go.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Alex
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

My mother died at 55 after a chronic illness that began when I was born. Her last month was also spent drifting in and out of coma hooked up to machines that she had always feared. Endocarditis, sepsis, kidney failure, pulmonary edema. Finally, death.

Because she had been ill all my life and had many serious health crises, I believed that she would always pull thru. Perhaps because she was hospitalized at a large teaching hospital in Manhattan, there was an unspoken agreement not to resuscitate. The day she died I was very angry that there were no heroic measures but when I returned home and read her journal I realized that her greatest fear was living in a vegetative state.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

Seems alot of us lost a parent at a relatively young age. I wonder what the psychological impact of that has been and if it has contributed to our collective warped sense of humor? Is that one of the ties that bind some of us to one another?

Interesting...

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

Fran - I like your last comment. The thing that scares me is I'm 54 and don't consider myself "old". It's amazing as you grow older how your perspective changes.

My mom died when I was 11. Cancer. She suffered for several years on & off. I decided later in life that I would never prolong the life of a close relative who is on their death bed. It appears we all feel the same. My father-in-law passed away just this past Sept. He was 87 and he was in good condition. Just sat in his chair one AM and sighed. My wife and her sister, although upset that their Dad had passed were so grateful that he went the way he did. They feared the bed ridden/tube syndrome.

To XXX Mayor: You have quite a backround. A dirty old man who went to law school who is a part-time cop. I love it. Were you really ever a mayor?

Rhonda - How can you tell levitity?

Fran - Thanks for the info on the flu shot. I knew that it was dead virus, but the mixture was news to me.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray to Mr. D
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

The "ex" isn't really a dirty old man. He's still in his forties! He's just a dirty man. ;)

On the other hand, he WAS definitely a mayor, and was one of the finest in Union County. When I was a reporter, I met elected officials from literally hundreds of municipalities throughout the state, and I have never met anyone who knows more about government than our own "ex."

(If you want to be further impressed -- his background before he went to law school was in engineering!)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

Thanks, Ray! You said it exactly as I wrote for ya!! LOL

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

I think you may be right, Fran. Alot of things go into making us what we are. When you told about how you and your sister went to the movies when your mother died, I could understand it.

I usually tend to act pretty reserved until I know someone really well, but the slightly askew sense of humor is there beneath the surface.

I guess it's a choice you make when life deals you a bad hand: you can either fold or try to bluff it out.

What I gather from this group is that NONE of us are about to fold anytime soon!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Warren
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

Being a gay man who's been around a while (I'm 38) and quite social, I've always had alot of friends. You can imagine then, how many funerals I've attended since the mid-eighties. Too many, I can tell you that.

About three years ago a man who had been my best friend since college died of AIDS. He had been sick for a long time and was in such a state of deterioration that his friends and loved ones hardly knew him. He was consumed with pain, and suffered terribly for months on end.

When it got to where he couldn't stand it anymore, he took a lethal dose of painkillers that had been prescribed by his doctor. We all knew that was his intention. We just didn't know when.

He went to sleep one night and didn't wake up.

We grieved at his death, but chose to celebrate his life and the bravery with which he had chosen to end it.

Now, I don't think I would have been able to actually help him if he had asked me to. Luckily, it didn't come to that. But who knows?

There are some who say that his lover sat up with him that night and helped him. I've never asked, and I don't want to know.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Dee
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

Sorry for the loss of your friend, Warren.

I've lost two friends to AIDS. It's so sad.

But you know what? It pisses me off, too. I mean, I think we know enough about it these days that you almost have to TRY to get it. It should be on the way to becomming a dead disease by now, yet statistically, it's on the rise again after a couple of year's dip.

GMHC might come looking for me, but I just do not get it. If you know that certain behavior will put you at risk, then you need to modify your behavior.

BTW, of the two friends of mine who sied, both were women. One was straight and contracted it from a man, and the other was an IV drug user. Both were in their thirties. They knew better.

I don't get it.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

I don't think you can blame people for catching a disease. That's not fair, Dee.

But I do think people should be more careful. I wonder if some of us disregard our own lives because we don't have good self esteem?

As Kermit said, it's not easy being green.

Society doesn't like us, doesn't want us and dousn't want to understand us. That makes life hard for us, especially those who are more open, like dykey women and flamey men. I think it's hard to have good self esteem under these conditions.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 15-Jan-98 >

Jim D. - You asked about "levitity" - I don't know how to spell it, btw. Anyway...the best way I can describe levitity is that after the heart stops pumping, circulation of blood stops. About an hour after the blood stops circulating gravity will draw the blood together. So, for example: the body is lying (laying, lying - whatever)supine on the bed with the right arm hanging off the bed. When you roll the body over you will find blood has collected on the back and you will also notice blood collected in the tips of the fingers on the right hand that is draped over the side of the bed. Get the picture (as morbid as it is)? This is a sure sign that the person has been dead long enough to call it. No CPR required. Another sign, of course, would be rigor mortis. Stiffening of the body. Fixed pupils are also a sign, but if you aren't sure and rigor mortis or levitity aren't present then dialing 911 and/or performing CPR would be the protocol. Unless, of course, you are an EMT, then of course, you would HAVE to perform CPR. CPR, btw, is ALWAY performed on dead ppl. If there's no breathing or circulation the patient IS technically dead but both need to be present to perform CPR. Just giving breaths (without pumping on the chest) is called "rescue - breathing". That is done on ppl that are alive. Why did I go off on this??

lividity (li-vid'i-te) Discoloration of dependent body parts by the gravitation of the blood.

I got tired of fumbling for words so I just got out my Emergency Care and Transportation book. Should've done that in the first place, could've saved everyone a lot of grief! :-0

I hope no one here ever sees lividity.

-Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 16-Jan-98 >

Crystal & Dee:

We know alot about protecting ourselves from catching a cold, too, and yet we still get them. Granted, HIV is ALOT more serious than a cold, but it's hard to be vigilant ALL THE TIME.

Also, the new treatments for HIV have had a rebound effect on some segments of the gay community, having led some to believe that AIDS is now completely treatable, which is not true. Protease inhibitors have proven to be effective for some, but the jury is still out re. the big picture. They have also proven to be miserably ineffective for some victims, most notably women, which isn't surprising since most of the research being done is with men.

Additionally, there are some in the gay community (see recent editions of the Advocate) who are advocating a return to the carefree sex-styles of the past. They seem to have a very self-destructive attitude, they're sick of all the talk about AIDS, the stigma, etc. They seem to be mostly younger people (not all, but most) who haven't been there and done that and feel they've missed something.

Self-esteem is indeed a big issue. Until we have a more accepting society, those of us who are "green" in any way will have to learn to love ourselves despite the negative attitudes of society at large.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 16-Jan-98 >

I refuse to say another word concerning assisted suicide. I promise. My ranting is over. So is my snit.

Concerning HIV, though, I go pretty much with what Fran said.

I think alot of people in the gay community are just plain tired. Tired of being stigmatized, tired of being blamed, tired of being hyper-vigilant. And who can blame them? This thing has dragged on for too long without a cure. It's killing people both physically and emotionally.

Here's another opinion that isn't going to make me Miss Popularity, but I mean it sincerely: if AIDS were affecting a different segment of the population, there would be no end of money for research, and there would proably be a cure for it by now.

Look at the demographics for HIV infection in this country. Although it has spread into the white hetero population, it is still most prevalent among gay men and people of color. The poor. Drug users. Prostitutes and their customers. People who are considered EXPENDABLE by the ruling class.

I remember reading an opinion given by Crystal a while back about the US government having the resources to stop the proliferation of drugs here, if it chose to. I think the same is true for HIV. Much more could be done on the research front... if those with the resources chose to do it.

Even the ridiculously expensive AIDS drugs aren't worth a hot damn for those who can't afford them! And when you've gotten to where you can't work anymore and the insurance runs out, and you've spent all your money and sold your life insurance, is medicaid going to foot the bill for thses drugs? Maybe on another world, but not this one!

The truth is, I M (not so) H O, AIDS is killing just the people the ruling class is more than glad to be rid of. If there are a few of the 'wrong' kind of casualties along the way, well, that's too bad, but not bad enough to make a differenc.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 16-Jan-98 >

What is a differenc?

Sorry, I couldn't resist! When you're pi$$ed off about something, you drop letters.

Actually, I've never given it much thought from that point of view, but I think you may be right.

If HIV were a disease of stuffy old white heterosexual good old boys, you might see more being done about it. (No offence to those of you who might fit the description!)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Alex
< Date: 17-Jan-98 >

Well, I'm not a stuffy old good old boy, but I think they suffer from diseases that haven't been cured yet. (I'm being serious here, although I could go another way with these comments.)

I think that many of us in the US believe that science can fix almost anything if we throw enough money at it. I agree with many of Lynn's and Fran's comments but I think it is unrealistic to expect a cure or a vaccine in the near or even not so near future. The human body and spirit is incredibly complex and resilient but so is the nature of retroviruses.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 17-Jan-98 >

You're right, Alex.

I don't really think money is the cure. I just get frustrated by some of the attitudes out there.

Heart disease, hypertension, various cancers...the list is very long. Money (ie research) has provided many answers, but unless those answers prompt changes in lifestyle, they aren't much good, are they?

(Lynn is confused from speaking out of both sides of her mouth...)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 17-Jan-98 >

I agree with Lynn's perspective and, basically, always have. It's not just HIV. Some diseases that are little known, have disastrous effects often are not attacked through research for lack of knowledge, effective lobbying, or for lack of care. HIV falls into the latter category, but I think it's moving UP.

Cases like Ryan White's, Arthur Ashe, and the other 'innocent' victims of HIV (infected via blood transfusion) and the infants infected by their mothers, have heightened awareness of the need to attack the disease, not the infected individuals. Further, as the 'lifestyle victims' advocacy groups apply pressure through lobbying, more attention has been paid to a cure or, at least, more effective treatment. The pharmceutical companies too are pouring tons of bucks into research, motivated solely by the need to be first to market.

There's another perspective too. Should research money and resources be allocated based upon cases per population, or based upon effectiveness of the lobbying? More Americans die from heart disease and cancer than HIV. There are many at NIH and within the private sector who believe that the 'big ones' should be allocated more resources and money because they affect more people.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >OldTimer Ann
< Date: 17-Jan-98 >

I get concerned about the money being poured into high profile diseases...My grandson was diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes at the age of 10. He will be 21 next month, and there has not been a lot of progress. He has a different type of insulin which gives him a little more flexibility about eating, but it's still 2 shots a day. He was in one diabetic coma 2 years ago, and it was a miracle that he has fully recovered. If the researchers could come up with a pancreas transplant, or at least the cells that produce the insulin, I would be first in line to give it to him. I have complete sympathy with anyone with a life-threatening disease, but I'm not sure that our research $ always have the the right priority.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 17-Jan-98 >

Hi Old Timer Ann. Nice to see you over here for a change. Welcome.

My youngest son (the one who ate frogs legs etc) had juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. I felt much the same way you do about your grandson. To see them in so much pain and discomfort is really hard.

I was told at the time (25+ years ago) that all we could do was wait and see what would happen: that he would either be crippled by it or he would go into remission. Fortunately, he went into remission, but not until he had suffered with it for six years.

Seems that in order to get the $$, sometimes you have to have the right poster boy.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran again
< Date: 18-Jan-98 >

I was just thinking about some of the progress that has come about in the last decade that has grown out of AIDS research.

Knowledge has been greatly increased in the fields of all kinds of autoimmune-linked disorders, including Chrone's Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Spondylosis, just to name a few off the top of my head.

These advances would have taken longer, or might not have been made at all, if it weren't for AIDS research leading the way.

So, while they may not appear to have gotten a handle on AIDS as yet, what they are learning is leading to more and more knowledge in other areas.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran - Hey People!
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Is the following statement true:

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

I would like to discuss political/social complacency, apathy, defeatism, resignation, the feeling of powerlessness and what people can do, individually and collectively, to help turn the tide of intolerance, both in their own small circle and in the larger community.

Any takers?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

In the words of Michael J Fox, "That's heavy."

I have always faught parental apathy. I have been involved in youth activites for over 20 years and it's always the same people involved. The people who care, not only about their kids, but about others as well. There are too many parents out there who should never have had kids and never realized the commitment it takes. So they do as little as possible in hopes that someone else will "bring up" their kids. I see it all the time and it's a shame.

Our kids are our future. They deserve all the guidance we can give them. Some folks are afraid to be parents. One of my favorite sayings - "Fathers are pals nowadays, because they don't have the guts to be fathers."

As a parent, you can never stop setting an example for your kids, no matter how old they are. Even now that my kids are in their 20's, I find myself still being careful about how I act. As adults they have a whole new set of experiences to encounter and look for leadership more than ever. I would say that they were most impressionable at age 8 and now.

There's a great commercial on TV about stealing cable. It talks about setting an example for your kids. Anyone seen it?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

As someone who works in the cable tv industry, I'd like to say "Thank you, Jim D, for finally acknowledging that stealling cable TV is WRONG!" PPl thing it doesn't matter becuase it is an 'intangible'. Why can't ppl just admit that stealing is stealing. Why do you have to ponder the consequences? IT IS STEALING. As for the consequences, for every consumer who steals cable, the company assumes lost revenue. The lost revenue is made up by jacking the rates to the PAYING consumer. Each Cable Network charges the cable company (aka: MSO; multiple system operator) a fee for each subscriber. Usually it would be x amount per every 1,000 subs. If the cable co falls short of delivering x amount of subs then the cost if passed on to the paying subs. Ex: Your neighbor steals cable. You pay extra! If you are a paying customer then you shoud GET MAD! You should be as mad at cable thieves as you get at the ppl who steal groceries from the supermarket or the ppl who steal clothes from the dept store! If you ARE one of these ppl that is stealing then enjoy it while you can! Odds are that you WILL get caught someday. In the meantime you can save $$ but pay the cost in anxiety that someday you WILL get caught. And when you DO pay for something you will feel the pinch like the rest of us.

Thanks for giving me this platform, Jim. I'll step down, now.

As for your statement, Fran. I wholeheartedly agree. In terms of my above tirade: If you ignore your cable-stealing neighbor's actions, you are part of the problem. You are enabling theft to occur. You deserve the high cable rates you are paying.

Can anyone name ANY other product or service in which it is so WIDELY acceptable to steal??

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Irish Girl
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Rhonda - re: your question on any product or service in which it is so widely acceptable to steal:

The pens from my desk! My office mates continuously "borrow" and then never return some really cool pens that I personally order for myself. They tell me I am anal about it, so now the pens are locked up.

Just an attempt at humor.

Onto to the cable issue - Where I live the cable service is lousy. Thanks to Ted Turner & whatever republicans voted for it, our ONLY choice in cable is Time Warner.

Any sign of rain & we are guaranteed to lose cable for a minimum 1/2 hour. We live in the burbs & all of our neighbors have the same problem. Right after christmas our cable was at its absolute worst - at times we had no cable, wretched reception. After repeated phone calls, our cable co. told us about this great new box they had that would improve said problem. Just $25 up front & an extra $3 to your bill every month! What a bargain! Oh yeah, and someone had to be home during the day so they could come & install it! Estimated time of installation - 2 hours?!?! (Ok I will stop using the exclamation point now).

Anyway Rhonda, while I can understand how you feel about this issue, I think alot of people steal their cable out of frustration. To pay for a second line seems outrageous if your service is really poor in the first place. I dont know how your employers service has been rated by customers, but I would be interested to know.

Our cable co. somehow has its programming set so that we cant steal an actual channel (hbo, sho, etc.). We could splice into another room, but like I said, our cable is bad enough. We would not want to chance screwing things up anymore.

However, we are moving at the end of February. We can get cable if we want, but the house isnt wired for it. My husband is insisting we get Direct TV. I personally don't care, just as long as the VCR works so I can tape my General Hospital!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

It is wrong to steal - no matter what is stolen. It doesn't matter. It is wrong. Period. It just shouldn't be done.

I think it is true that young people are the future, as Jim said. But alot of older people make the mistake of waiting for US to change the world instead of doing what is in thier power to do.

Everybody, young or old, or in between, has thier own little spot in the world that they have some kind of effect on. You have to be ready not to go with the crowd. You have to speak up when something is wrong. That's not east for young people. Alot of older people could help make it easier if they tried to, by setting a good example and by encouraging young people to be more individual.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Good subject. I loved that line in Back to the Future, where Doc was worried that there was a problem with the earth's gravity. Heavy!

But I digress.

You know what I think? I think people get tired. I know I do. I get tired of always being the only one to object to a racial joke. I get tired of being the only one to correct an ethnic stereotype. I get tired of being the one who is so PC that people won't talk freely in front of me because they're afraid of how I'll react. That's a paradox for you! I don't want to hear the BS, but I don't want people talking behind my back, either. I don't really like the job of righter of moral wrongs.

But I don't have a choice. None of us really has a choice, because if you let it slip by when they're talking about the other guy, what do you really have to say when they're talking about you?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

IG- you're funny :-)

Also, Tell your hubby that DirectTV or any other satelite dish, for that matter, won't provide the broadcast channels. If you need cable for the reception, then you will need to buy basic cable service EVEN if you have a satelite dish. Sorry. BTW - I work for COMCAST - the nations' 4th leading cable provider. Bill Gates blessed us with 1 BILLION $ last July. Thank you, Bill - if you're reading this, that is. :-)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Not Blessed
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

He didn't bless you, he bought you. And he really doesn't care what happens to you.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Gee Whilikers!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Umm...actually he INVESTED 1 billion $.

Gee willikers is right. I'm feeling lots'o hostility here in Local Source land. I don't have to come on line to get abused. I can get that in the Real World.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Nora
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

We are WIMMIN! Never forget!

ILLIGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Has complacency won out? Come on people!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Irish Girl: You wanna hear horror stories about cable service? Just ask. I can even relate one from today that would indicate our wonderful COMCAST (Rhonda's employer) doesn't deserve to exist.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

XXXX: Ok, let's hear it. I always love to hear cable stories.

-Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Car clobbers a utility pole this a.m. GPU primary and secondary are blocking traffice. So are telco and cable. GPU sets a new pole and tops the old one; then transfers its construction and is out of there. Telco does the same. Where's Comcast?

Sarge reports he can't get hold of them; number's busy. And busy. And busy.

Why are municipal resources babysitting Comcast's outside plant? Should we take a hacksaw to the cable and open up the road? Or do we wait?

Homeowners in the area stop by and say this. "Oh! We called Comcast and told them their cable was broken and laying in the street. That's why our cable was out."

Know what the brilliant ones at Comcast said?

"You must be at home so that our service technician can get into your house."

Now isn't that special! They're told that their cable is broken because it's laying in the street because a car hit a pole. And they need to get into the poor woman's HOUSE? For what?

23 years of history with Suburban Cablevision, (now Comcast), could entertain audiences for years!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

4 XXXX: Sounds ridiculous, I know. Keep in mind, I sell Cable Network airtime to local businesses so they can advertise on Comcast systems. So, I don't have all the answers. However, this sounds like a fumble on the part of the customer service representative at Comcast. Also, the phones at the Comcast Customer Service Call Center in Union seem to have been messed up since the area code change. Nonetheless, I feel your pain. If there is anything I can do, 4 XXXX, let me know. I know a few ppl down there in Union. I work in the Meadowlands system, btw. Its in N. Arlington.

Oh, here is ONE reason (there are many) why cable rates are so high: Basic Cable Networks Will Continue to Invest Heavily in Quality Programming

In 1997, basic cable networks expect to spend more than $4 billion on programming. That's a 187% increase from 1990.

Source: Paul Kagan Associates

In other words, you want good shows? Someones' got to pay for it. The Networks charge the MSOs. The MSOs pass the cost down to the subscriber. Just like in any other business.

-Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

Rhonda, you must be fairly new. 8 years ago, my neighbor's cable service drop was pulled down by a tree that fell into the street. They called Comcast (then Suburban) and told them their cable was out because the cable was cut in two by the fallen tree.

A service appointment wouldn't be scheduled to restore service unless my neighbors were home. Thus, what happened today and what happened 8 years ago are part of the scripted litany of sheer stupidity uttered by brainless customer service reps.

It took a personal call from me to then VP and GM Frank DeJoy to get a crew dispatched to fix the problem that was reported by my neighbors -- damage to Comcast's outside plant.

Looks like the underlying problem has never been solved.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 20-Jan-98 >

I'm only new if you consider 3 years employment with Comcast makes me a 'newbie.' I still maintain that you can't hold a minimum wage customer service representative wholly representative of the nations' 4th largest Cable company. I agree, that sounds like stupidity. I get customer service reps from many different kinds of companies (phone co's, internet service provider co's, credit card co's and my all time favorite: insurance co's) that give me the run-around. I simply ask to speak with the manager on duty. I don't like wasting my time with underpaid/overworked script readers. I hear ya!

Ahhhhh, the pain and the EXtitty.

Now I make my grand EXtit for the night...

:-)-Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Ok now we got 4XXXX. Isn't that 16?

I have to agree about brainless cust svc reps. Comcast has some of the worst. I can't stand someone who won't divert from "Page 3, paragraph 4" to solve your problem. Even if it doesn't fit! In all fairness , however, overall they have improved from when they were Suburban.

I have what I think is a pretty good picture on my TV's, but when my son Bill comes over he thinks it's bad. He works for MSNBC as a technical director, so he sits and stares at high resolution monitors all day. Like anything else, it's a matter of perspective.

He kept telling me to have them come out and test the signal strength. He says it should be so many db's at the line coming in. I did this and low and behold, they wound up replacing the line from my house to the pole. It had been chewed up by squirrels over the years. Then, they replaced all the connectors at all my splitters and checked the signal strength there too. All at no charge! So I must say I was impressed. The picture is better, by the way.

Lynn - I don't have a problem with most ethnic jokes. While, true, some are in bad taste, most are just a way to poke fun at ourselves and our hereditary steroetypes. I think it helps us to get along better and understand each other. Most are done in good taste and in fun and shouldn't be taken seriously. Of course I know there are many people who do the opposite and I have a problem with that too.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

My picture is HORRIBLE!!! Particularly on channels 2, 4, 5, and 7, there are enough ghosts to fill a Stephen King novel. When I've called Comcast to complain about this, I'm told that there is extensive wiring in the town that is exposed due to frequent storms, etc., and that the broadcast stations are interfering with their cable sister channels. I was told TWO YEARS AGO that this problem would be fixed immediately. We're still waiting.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Maybe some day I'll give a tutorial on cable systems. For now, suffice it to say that Ray's experience is typical.

Back when Suburban came in for franchise renewal, we held them to short-term renewal because of inadequate service. One piece of evidence presented at the public hearing was the output from a subscriber's 'War Games' dialer. He'd programmed it to dial Suburban's Customer Service number repeatedely until it answered. He did this over a period of two weeks. His program logged the time, number of rings, busies, and answers.

The number answered only twice. It was busy 91% of the time. Open ringing accounted for the other 9%. The evidence was presented after Suburban executives made their presentation and announced that they had installed a new Rolm CBX with voice messaging and automated attendant functions that solved the old complaints about never being able to get through. The customer presentation kinda knocked their socks off. So we plugged in a speakerphone in the council chambers and dialed the Suburban Customer Service number. BUSY! (It was about 9:00 p.m.).

One of Comcast's latest fiascos was offering pay per view by telephone. Problem was, as constituents complained, they'd phone in, use their touch tone pad to order, then not see the movie. Even those who had to order by voice because they had a rotary phone ran into this problem. I had to go to a resident's house to see what was happening. This was a no brainer. Comcast NEVER reconciled its customer records with its ordering system. Thus, the affected people were ordering ppv movies for channels their converters didn't get. They all had the original SIGMA converters for premium channels and Comcast knew that. The convertery type and serial number were in Comcast's records. So Comcast knew that the ppv channel seleted could not be watched on those converters and let the transaction proceed anyway -- even the ones handled by a live person.

When I called in from the resident's home and spoke to the Comcast rep, she realized immediately what the problem was. Naturally, she credited the resident's account, BUT she also said, "I'll have our service department stop by and replace your converter with the newer TV-COM unit." That's nice! Only problem is NO ONE who was promised this ever got a new converter. They all had to go to Union to exchange them!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

thought you might be interested to know that cable tellie here is in its infancy and not faring to well at all. At least one company has gone broke and the others are feeling the pinch.

One of my daughters has cable. I picked up the program one day and found of about 300 offerings I could only see one show I would be vaguely interested in(don't now about Discovery that might be good). I do fancy the Channel 'World Movies' however. Seems to have all the good European Movies.

Can somebody please help me out with info about this lady with a hyphenated name who has just won a big case against her corporate hubby who did not want to share the marital loot? Saw the end bit on tele yesterday but promptly forgot the lady's name. Very interesting case.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

I'm sure someone will recall the name. It's funny, though. That case was decided a month ago and it's just becoming news there?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Don't hate me because I work for Comcast. I'm sure we could all tell a story or two about lawyers, mayors, newspaper editors, etc...

As IG would say, "Love y'all"

-Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Nothing directed at you, Rhon. I'm just getting a little tired of watching Kramer and his twin ghost staggering through Jerry's two doors every Thursday. (Then again, now that the show's goin off the air, guess I won't have to worry about that much longer.)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Hey, I have TCI and I have the SAME complaints/issues as the rest of you.

Now, if you want to ADVERTISE on Cable TV, e-mail me - There lies my expertise. ishmael@instantlink.com. Otherwise it looks like 4XXXX is more adept at answering your cable questions than I am.

Let's all agree that we love our cable/we hate our cable companies.

I'm sure someone will say they never watch TV...there's always one in every crowd. I never believe 'em.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Mollie
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Kramer skids in on our tele every weeknight, same episodes over and over again.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Dee
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

I'm the one who doesn't watch TV kiddies. How'd you know Rhonda?

I don't have cable. I watch the news and an occasional show on channel 13. Yes, I am a funny duck!

I am a throwback to another time. I listen to the radio. But even there I'm a funny duck. I listen to 101 and ocasionally to 97. When I'm in the mood I even listen to gospel. Why does a pagan listen to gospel? Because it's music that makes sense and it speaks from the heart. I love it. You'd think I'd go for country, but I can't stand it. As has been said before, go figure!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Alex
< Date: 21-Jan-98 >

Well, there's two in this bunch. My husband has possession of the remote and I own the keyboard. Our biggest argument is when 11:00 p.m. rolls around and I demand to watch the news. (I never say never about anything.) I sometimes wonder if he would choose cable (can't possibly watch TV with COMMERCIALS) over me. Just kidding.

I love radio, too, Dee. The best present my husband bought me was a new system for my car.

Complacency, indifference, intolerance - God, it's so hard to communicate. This may sound corny but I think it's important to get to know your neighbors and really listen to people. Try to see what they fear, what makes them excited and happy. Have a block party. Talk about the good things in the neighborhood, what would make your own little area better.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 22-Jan-98 >

Good ideas, Alex. In our lives of 'quiet desperation' we are much too isolated from our neighbors. There is a need for community that too often goes unfulfilled. How little we realize that in the midst of all our diversity we all have common problems, common goals, common needs.

There is, afterall, only one human race, and we are all much more alike than we are different.

Am I sounding pompous today? Sorry. In honor of the Pope's visit, I have decided to be, er... pontifical!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 22-Jan-98 >

God gave us 2 ears & 1 mouth. Therefore we should listen 2x as much as we talk. That's hard for me to do sometimes!

Ray - Ghosts on the cable are due 90% of the time to corrosion on the connectors. Go to where your signal enters your house, and loosen the connectors, spray a little WD-40 or similar on them and retighten, twisting back & forth as you do so. Do this to all your coax connectors, right up to the back of each TV. You will see a marked difference.

On the BOA we sat on the Costco (Price Club) hearing last night. Anyone see it? They did a marvelous job of presentation and planning. They had pre-meetings with all the neighbors to satisfy their aprehensions, planned the sight extremely well, taking into account just about every problem you could imagine. Even though they have designed the best possible traffic flow, I still have reservations, but it seems they have proven that a great portion of their traffic will be that which is already there. In any event, the hearing continues on Feb 11.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 26-Jan-98 >

Hi everyone... I haven't been around much lately and I've missed a lot I see.

No cable here. Unplugged the TV completely for ten months. It's back on. No. It's plugged in and very seldom on. BORING.

Dee, I, too, listen to the radio almost constantly. Favorites are WBAI, QXR, NPR (2), WFDU, WFMU. Grew up in the Southwest but only enjoy old country music that really could be called folk. Like you, I like listening to gospel, but I'm picky -- nothing is worse to me than elevator gospel. If it doesn't get the juices flowing off it goes.

Fran, I liked your pontification! I miss greatly the sense of neighborhood and community of yore. HOW yore you will have to guess. I haven't had much luck reaching out to people and I now tend to stick closer and closer to my trieds and trues. But I like meeting new people...

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Hi Kathryn. Stick around, will 'ya?

Here's something I'd like to discuss:

PC or not PC?

I'm not talking about computers!

In the last several years, I've been disturbed by those who have held political correctness in dirision. I think people are becomming more and more afraid of seeming too PC, as if it were a bad thing to be respectful of others, open-minded, or, heaven forbid, to be considered a 'liberal'.

What do we think about this?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Some PC is OK I guess, but I think we carry it too far. For instance, there is no disrespect intended when we say 'chairman' or 'mailman' or such. To me it's just the common name for same. To me the suffix 'man' when atteched to many prefixes does not indicate gender.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Tough topic, Fran. I should expect that from you.

PC, when boiled down to it, should be about politeness. It should be about individuals disapproving when they see OTHER individuals behaving rudely. That is how the movement began, and I generally have no problem with that. But there are avenues down which PC has led us that tend toward the Orwellian.

One of these, and I experienced as a college newspaper editor on a VERY PC campus, is in "speech codes" and other clearly oppressive tactics that have emerged at most of the nation's universities. As an absolute believer in freedom of expression, it upsets me immensely when I see universities, particularly public universities (which ARE subject to the First Ammendment) instituting rules to punish and even expel students based on things they SAY. You know the phrase "sticks and stones..." I still tend to hold that as a central focus of my life. Free expression should always be protected above all. And while I respect the right of private institutions to create whatever rules they see fit to govern themselves, I still retain the right to disagree with these rules. And with "speech codes" of any kind, I stand firm in my opposition.

Also, I think it is important that we recognize intent. I've commented recently on another thread on my reaction recently to someone I met's unfortunate use of the "n" word. I choose not to use that word. I expect my friends not to use that word. But ultimately, I also recognize that a word is just a sound made to communicate an idea. We invest in it whatever meaning we'd like. Words like "gyp" or "indian giver," for instance, are part of the common vernacular now. Those who use them, by and large, mean no offense directed at either gypsies or Native Americans, respectively. Can we encourage the removal of such phrases from our language? Welll, on the one hand, I see why perhaps we should, but then again....

I am a communicator by trade. I am fascinated by words, by the infinite variety of ways we have available to speak to one another. It generally concerns me when I see people encouraging removing certain words or phrases from our language. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen ever, but I tend to think that, like the free market, those words deemed to best to express a particular thought will remain in use. Those that are deemed inefficient or inappropriate will fall by the wayside, much like businesses failing and succeeding.

Because I think we also run the risk of stigmatizing words which are not now stigmatized. We run the risk of investing them with a new malicious power that they do not presently hold. There's a big part of me that respects what Lenny Bruce had to say on the subject, that by using the words over and over and over again, we rob them of their power. I've seen the gay community do this exceptional well. The word "queer," for instance, was once considered a horribly offensive slur. Now, it is a badge of pride, shouted from rooftops, placed on placards. Its meaning has been successfully subverted by those it was designed to offend.

As another example, I've heard the word "Jew," which is not a slur, used with hate and derision. And yet, among friends where there is an established trust and respect, I've heard the word "hebe," which I suppose IS a slur, used as a good-natured term of endearment, much like inner-city youths greeting each other with "You my nigga." If the intent to harm is not there, then are we not creating more animosity by struggling over the words.

In the end, I think the key is that we, as a society, must stress that we will not tolerate hate or bigotry in any form. But I think we sometimes get too caught up in the words. And even if you eliminated every slur, every offensive piece of language from the public discourse, the hate -- the thing that matters -- would still be there. Only it would be forced underground, where I think it is much more dangerous.

That's my two cents. I'll now step down off the soap box.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Jim D
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Well said, Ray.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

That was a lot to take in, Ray - well said as it was, I agree with 99%. That leaves 10%: Well, as a "Jew" I have to say I have never heard the term "hebe" used as a term of endearment. There are yiddish words that are more appropriate for terms of endearment. Still, there are Jews of all kinds and there may be a handful that use that term - but by and large it is not widely used as a term of endearment. Just clue-ing you in so as to avoid a potentially awkward situation. And speaking of awkward situations...

I walked into the office the other day, apparantly unexpectedly, where I caught the tail end of a conversation in which my Boss had said "...she should be JAP-SLAPPED..." - Now, I do not know what this expression means and to tell the truth it would've meant nothing and it wouldn't have bothered me becuase 1)I wasn't paying attention 2)The conversation didn't involve me and 3)I didn't hear the whole conversation in its proper context. However, as my Boss spoke those words the others in the office stopped what they were doing and stared directly at me. My Boss immediately changed the conversation and included me and he looked like he was sweaty. Now, as a Jewish Female, I have been called a "Jap" on occasion. I don't think it is fair that if I do an everyday act like shopping that ANY American Consumer would do I am referred to as a "Jap" but that is life and I learned to deal. Now here's my question: If I were to pursue this (because I feel uncomfortable in my work environment and I understand that is grounds for a lawsuit) would it be considered by these readers as "Political Correctness gone awry?" Or would it be appropriate to take action if it is found that my Boss had used this derisive term agains Jewish females to my co-workers in my absense?

Let me just say that I am not basing any action on the opionions expressed here. I am quite comfortable in my work environment, actually, becuase my Boss is a fool and everyone else knows it. However I am really curious to get some feedback.

I really like this topic, Fran. Because I believe that there is no black and white answer. I tend to take things on a case by case basis. I am, if anything, a very highly principled person. Its one of my faults, sometimes. It tends to pi$$ my friends off becuase I don't always take their side just becuase they're my friend. Know what I mean?

-Rhonda

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

BTW - I know how to spell "because". It bothers me that I don't know how to type the word, as well. Crazy fingers.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Er-uh...my math: now that's a horse of another color. Ray, I apologize. I only disagreed with 1% of what you said. The other 99% was sheer poetry.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ex Mayor
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Rhonda -- let's assume that Comcast has done the legally correct thing and published a set of guidelines and policies related to harrassment in the workplace. Your boss' little joke may have violated the policy and subjects him to disciplinary action. The policy should identify the specific person to whom complaints are to be made. Most tribunals apply a subjective standard: did the course of conduct offend the viewer/listener/subject? Even hearing from your coworkers about your boss telling offensive jokes can be enough to create a hostile work environment.

The fact that a person in authority utters ethnically intolerant remarks is an indicator prejudice or bias which, if permitted to continue, CAN and usually does affect employees.

Now to reality. Does you workplace environment generally encourage or accept humor of this sort? If so, it's not going to be curtailed unless and until someone actually complains that it is offensive. I would hope that we've outgrown the days when we're afraid to tell a really good one just because it MIGHT offend someone's sensibilities. But there is a difference in sharing humor between and among coworkers and using humor to foment deriseveness, ill will, or to evidence true bias.

The usual course of action is for the offended party to first make his or her feelings known to offender. If the course of action continues, then to complain formally to the appropriate corporate entity. Documentation is important: times, dates, places, parties present, what was said, etc. Also, the fact that a larger group might not be offended by what was said, is of no import.

Retaliation against the complainant by the offender or the employer is another no-no.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Just speaking from personal experience, Rhon, from a group of friends I knew at school that called each other "hebe"s. Not saying it's a cultural phenomenon or anything. As someone who went to Syracuse, covered Springfield and Lakewood as a reporter (as well as stringing for the Metrowest Jewish News,) and just recently ended a serious relationship with a Jewish girl, I've known enough Jewish people in my life to know I wouldn't PERSONALLY feel comfortable using the word, even in jest. But I've seen it happen.

Funny you mention your story. People often assume I'm assume Jewish, largely due to my last name and perhaps some of the other factors I just mentioned (well, you already know about my circumcision. LOL) And I've experienced more than once similar occassions, where someone's telling a joke or using inappropriate language and then they "hush up" when I approach. You ever see the movie "Soul Man," where the character that's pretending to be black keeps overhearing those two guys telling racist jokes? At first, it didn't bother him, but as the movie wears on, he gets more and more upset, until at last, he punches the guys out. Well, I guess my experience is similar. Whereas, when I was younger, I might be like "It's OK, I'm not Jewish," today I find it just really pisses me off. Because the bottom line is that it makes you realize that other people see you as "different." And even though, in my case, their assumption is wrong, it still gets you angry just knowing that they separate you from them in their minds.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

I might have a different slant on this subject because I'm still in school. Among certain groups, there is alot of name calling and ethnic putdowns. I think sometimes it comes from being confronted with differences that you don't understand and not knowing how to take it. Kids especially all want to be alike. Even when we are rebellious, we are alike. Nobody wants to be too different, and the easiest way to make somebody feel uncomfortable is to make them feel different.

Sometimes people are rotten to others just to be mean. It's not that they don't understand something so much as they don't want to understand. I think young people learn that at home. They learn to feel threatened by certain ethnic groups, or to feel that they're losing out because someone else (who is different) might be getting something that they feel they have more of a right to. That's just ignorance, but it's like some people need to put someone down in order to feel good about themselves.

I only have one problem with what you said Ray. If all speech is allowed, or not disaproved of, then it also becomes acceptable. What I mean is, if you use ethnic slurs and nobody says anything, you'll use them more and more and soon its not just the words that are okay, but the feelings behind them. Then the actions that come from those words and feelings are okay too, and that's where you have trouble.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Crystal, you never cease to amaze me! Is our little sister a prodigy or what?

Somewhere in here, quite a while back, said that some things are just wrong. It might have been in one of the political threads. I don't remember. Anyway, whoever said it and for whatever reason... they were right.

It's important to protect free speech. In fact, I believe it's crucial to preserving our way of life. But while I will mightily defend your right to say any damn assinine thing you have the gall to say, I will also reserve the right to tell you that I think you're full of $#/+!

The PC debate, as I see it, is merely the overly polite being afraid to tell the ignorant boors where to get off! If we'd stand up and have a little backbone when it comes to condemning bigotry, hate, ignorance, et al, there wouldn't be a debate. The jerks would slink back intotheir holes where they belong!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Let me make myself more clear, so you understand what I'm trying to say. First, I make a major distinction between what should be allowed (legally or, in the case of the speech codes, administratively) and what should be approved of. I don't think the law should censor ANY speech. But I think we MUST, as a society, deem things appropriate or inappropriate. For instance, completely unrelated, I don't believe in laws that restrict depictions of sex and violence in the movies, but at the same time, I think people should take a stand and not support trash that is just there to titilate.

And with what I was trying to say earlier is that you can make incredibly racist comments without using ethnic slurs. On the other hand, it is possible, depending on context, to USE ethnic and other slurs without harm, as in the case of the "We're here, we're queer" chanters. It is, first and foremost, those feelings that we must combat. And often, those feelings are expressed using slurs, but I think PC sometimes fails to note the distinction and someone like Fran would probably argue (since this ain't exactly a NEW argument) that there IS no distinction. I happen to disagree.

By the way, if you've never seen it, I'd highly recommend the movie "Lenny" starring Dustin Hoffman as Lenny Bruce. Besides the fact that it demonstrates his very UN-PC act, it also just happens to be a great flick about one of the most influential entertainers of this half-century. People like Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, and countless others owe much of their act to him.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

Sigh! Ray, I'm not THAT pigheaded!

Of course there's a distinction! I understand completely what you're saying and, believe it or not, I actually agree with you!

And you thought you knew me!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

I just wanted to add that I am thoroughly enjoying reading these enlightened and well articulated thoughts. This is why I keep coming back. Thank you.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

I do not believe that one single person on the face of the earth could be produced who has not been hurt by words. So much for sticks and stones nonsense.

Ray, I am a journalist who is an adamant supporter and defender of the first amendment. All the other amendments aren't worth doodley without the right to protected public discourse. Your position on this issue, a pure Libertarian position I might add, overlooks the fact that the Constitution was written to forge a new kind of society in which individuals would be free of oppression and repression BY government. Governmental action taken to protect individuals with no benefit accruing to itself is very much in the letter and spirit of the Constitution. We cloud the issue with self-serving rationalizations when we cry First Amendment Right!!! in situations where language causes material or psychological harm.

I'm part Native American, part Irish, female and come from a part of the country where most provincial easterners think our brains are where the sun never shines. I'm almost 60 years old, and I can tell you that I AM OFFENDED by the terms Indian-giver, little woman, and Q-tip and by the perpetuated stereotypes of ethnic and/or geographical origin. Crystal was right on target that language defines the parameters of behavior and belief.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

*Rhonda wipes away a tear and stands up...

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 27-Jan-98 >

I respect your opinion Kathryn, but I still disagree. You are correct that my opinion is libertarian, as am I. I will concede that the First Ammendment, in and of itself, does not protect all manner of speech. It is my opinion, however, that the freedom of expression should go beyond even the parameters set by the first ammendment.

As to what speech should be restricted, I'll agree that material harm is significant. When a false statement causes material harm to another, it is, in essence, robbing them of property -- their very reputation. Psychological harm? I am extremely leary of legislation or case law that find psychological harm to be injurious. Political satire usually causes psychological harm, as does virtually any criticism of anyone in any way. This is life, and I would really take issue with the assertion it is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens from being offended. If that were the case, the government's job would be to police every single form of expression, and that, to me, is the very definition of a police state.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Because of the first amendment, all of us can post to these threads without fear of a dreaded knock on the door. As we know, some of the threads have postings that are truly dreadful in every sense of the word. No doubt, some of the outrageous things said have hurt people, caused psychological harm. Should we close down the net? Of course not. If those things are said in the workplace, in one's neighborhood or immediate environs, then it is reasonable to assume that person's ability to function safely and freely is jeopardized. Now, whose rights take precedence? The one advocating free speech or the recipient of verbal abuse?

Ray, I too am appalled about folks thrown out of schools, businesses, organizations, country clubs, whatever for violating a policy of acceptable speech. However, my response is mostly based on the offender's stupidity, insensitivity and obtuseness. If they don't agree with the policy, the first amendment gives them the guarantee of safety to CHALLENGE the policy, not to violate it. If one chooses to violate a policy or law (as in the civil rights movement), one should (and cheerfully did) accept consequences.

A footnote: in an effort to be brief (almost impossible for me) my last posting obviously left the impression that I would advocate legislation against terms and attitudes I find personally offensive. Not so. That was a pro-PC statement. And really, Ray, considering what I said, I think you were a tad off the mark throwing out the police state buzzword.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Kathryn: could you enlighten me on 'Q-tip'? Sorry if my ignorance is showing, but I can't figure that one out.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Kathryn, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. This was the part of your post to which I was responding:

"Governmental action taken to protect individuals with no benefit accruing to itself is very much in the letter and spirit of the Constitution. We cloud the issue with self-serving rationalizations when we cry First Amendment Right!!! in situations where language causes material or psychological harm."

I took that to mean you WOULD "advocate legislation against terms and attitudes I find personally offensive."

As a strict observer of property rights, I would seek the government not to interfere with in-house codes of speech. I think these should be neither required by law, nor should they be outlawed. Each institution -- whether it be school, workplace, social club, etc. -- should be free to determine what manner of conduct is acceptable by its membership, so long as that code is spelled out and does not capriciously violate established contracts (i.e. a workplace terminating someone's employment without due cause because of rules that were never set forth in writing.)

And so, we are probably not as far away from each other on the topic as either of us might have initially thought. I regret if my "police state" comment is taken as flippant, but I am sincere in my belief that government restrictions on expression DO constitute a police state. Overall, I am relatively neutral on the issue of PC, determining, like Rhonda, on a case-by-case and experience-by-experience basis when it is or is not appropriate. However, when it invades the LAW, I must stand up and protest. As James Madison wrote, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Good talking to you. I rather enjoy this debate.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Once again, I forgot to post my name. That was my contribution.

And p.s., I also didn't quite know what you meant by "Q-tip." Are you referring to the ear-cleaning product or the hip-hop artist from A Tribe Called Quest?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Irish Girl
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

I was not sure what Q-tip meant either. I presumed it meant that Kathryn was skinny with a mop of white hair. Was it some sort of derogatory term for Senior Citizens?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Great, great discussion!! Do not have time to post a response now -- just have time to clear up the Q-tip mystery. Irish Girl is correct. It is a derogatory term usually flung at older, white haired people. In other words, ageism.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

my sister-in-law's cat is named Q-tip cause he is white.

levity.

:-)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

That's funny, 'cause the real Q-Tip is black. He's also the mack and his rhymes are never wack.

So if knowledge is the key/then just show him lock/He's got the scrawny legs/but he move just like Lou Brock/with speed and agile/plus he's worth your while/100 percent intelligent black child.

Industry Rule Number 4,080: Record company people are shaaaaaady!/So kids, watch your back 'cuz I think they smoke crack/(I don't doubt it/look at how they act.)

Sorry to get off on a rant, I just love quoting the Tribe.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Coincidentally, A Tribe Called Quest has a song called "Sucka Nigga" written by Q-Tip that deal with the issue I raised earlier -- that it is possible to subvert a slur. Here are some of the lyrics.

"See, nigga first was used down in the Deep South/ Fallin out between the dome of the white man's mouth/It means that we will never grow, you know the word dummy/Other niggas in the community think it's crummy/But I don't, neither does the youth cause we/em-brace adversity, it goes right with the race/Yo, I start to flinch, as I try not to say it/But my lips is like the oowop as I start to spray it/My lips is like a oowop as I start to spray it/My lips is like a oowop, yo you know the rest."

Sounds much better with the Lionel Hampton sample behind it, mind you.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Rhonda
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Is Johnson & Johnson aware of this copyright infringement?

We do share the same humor, Ray :-)

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

J&J would never be able to silence the might Tip! Q-Tip is G-d! (Figured since people think I'm Jewish, I might as well write like I am. :)

In all seriousness, he gets his name from the phrase "on the Q-T" or "on the quiet tip," meaning to keep a secret, not the cotton swab.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Lynn
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Yo, Ray, you down with Arrested Development? Now, you want to hear somebody sayin' somethin', it's AD!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

They were cool while they lasted. It's been a while. Dion Farriss is on the solo tip now and the rest just kind of faded into the woodwork. But they are not A Tribe Called Quest. Tribe takes it to another level above mere mortals. They are like the Miles Davis quintet circa 1962 (w/John Coltrane, Wayne Shorter, etc.) of hip-hop.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 28-Jan-98 >

Since we're into rap here, believe it or not this old Wimmin has something to say.

Have you ever heard of a group called My-T & Da Sinmen? They're an underground group from Miami. Their self-titled album has a cut called The Hard Way that blows me away. There's another called 7yrs Bad Luck which has the most haunting lyrics I've ever heard. The whole thing is very real, but in a way that even I can relate to, old as I am.

My-T & Da Sinmen are DOWN! (They're also my kids!) E-mail me an addy and I'll send you a tape!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Crystal
< Date: 29-Jan-98 >

Is rap controversial?

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Ray
< Date: 29-Jan-98 >

Sometimes it is. I was just getting off on a tangent -- and Tribe is defintely NOT your stereotypical "gangsta" group -- but I think it still fits in with what we have been discussing. A lot of the topics broached and attitudes presented in hip-hop don't jibe with what is considered PC, and are QUITE controversial. And, of course, in the last few years we've seen firsthand evidence that truth and fiction can be blurred somewhat in the record industry -- with the deaths of Tupac, Biggie, etc.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 29-Jan-98 >

I screwed up my facts on this one before, and besides, most of you have already heard, but here goes anyway:

Timothy McVeigh (no relation to the Ok City bomber) who was booted out of the armed services (because I still can't remember which branch!) after being outed by AOL has been fully reinstated.

Good for him.

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Kathryn
< Date: 30-Jan-98 >

Fran, I had not heard about the reinstatement. Good news is always welcome!!!

< Subject: RE: controversial topics >
< From: >Fran
< Date: 31-Jan-98 >

I just finished reading last week's NY Times magazine. The cover article was titled Whatever Happened to Politics, and described the shift in American politics over the last generation. Does anybody else read the Times? Want to talk about it?