From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: We can always count on Suzanne for a laugh (Was: Re: kebbin and sex)
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Giant G Burger"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:46:58 GMT

<1992Dec11.191551.15092@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>>>> 
>>>> 	"None of them platonic"? That seems like a contradiction in
>>>> terms here. If there was no sexual activity involved, then the
>>>> relationships were, by definition, platonic.
>>>
>>>Your definition is far too limitted.  Open up.  Get rid of the narrowness
>>>hangup.  They certainly were not platonic relationships because there was
>>>lots of romantic interest in each of them.  Brother and sister relationships
>>>they were _not_.
>>
>> 	His definition comes, I suspect, from the common usage of the term
>> and from the dictionary.  Here's how The American Heritage Dictionary defines
>> the term:
>> "1. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Plato or his philosophy.
>> 2. Transcending physical desire and tending toward the purely spiritual or
>> ideal"
>> 	Assuming the phrase "none of them platonic" does not refer to the first
>> definition, we must assume it refers to the second.  Unless, Humpty-Dumpty
>> style, you have decided that a word means whatever you decide it means.  
>
>The second definition certainly fits nicely.  There was certainly physical
>desire.  Just none of us chose to answer those desires.  The desires themselves
>were delightful enough.

You found un-Christian thoughts "delightful"?  Tsk, tsk.  Jesus is going
to get you for that one.  And here you are *defending* those thoughts.
When _your_ daughter has carnal thoughts are you going to pat her on the
shoulder and encourage her?

>> In
>> which case, ham sandwich bucket and water wings kibbles micturate cups
>> empirically.
>
>Hey, I can prove to you that a ham sandwich is better than nothing!

Yeah, but how many sides does it have?

>Nothing's better than heaven, right?

World peace and $1 billion dollars come to mind.

>And a ham sandwich is better than nothing, ain't it!

Not if you're Jewish.

>> 	That didn't make any sense?  Obviously your definition of the words
>> in that last phrase is far too limitted (sic).
>
>Look who's limitted!   You, who can't understand that men and women can
>be attracted to each other and still CHOOSE NOT to consumate.

"attraction" is one thing, you are defending carnal thoughts of multiple
someones to whom you are not married.  What would your priest say?

...
>>>Isaac Asimov.  My hero!  Pssst - I've heard he's not an atheist any more.
>>>
>> 	REALLY?  Receiving messages from the spirit world, are we?  
>
>You certainly fell right into that one!   I knew somebody would!
>My dear fellow, I was just commenting that he's dead.   He's not Russian
>anymore either, now is he.

Yeah, but how many sides does he have?

...
>> 	But then, I suppose once one has decided that one speaks for the Unborn,
>> it's no great stretch to decide one speaks for the Dead as well.
>
>Hey, I've _BEEN_ an unborn child.   

Really?  I haven't.  What was it like to be a mythical being?

>                                    I haven't been dead yet.   But you must
>admit that what I said is true.  In fact, no unborn child is an atheist yet
>either.

Neither are pink dragons.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.