Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:31:25 -0500
Reply-To:     "(Ruth M. Hanschka)" <ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu>
From:         "(Ruth M. Hanschka)" <ap290@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: coda
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

In a previous article, ST402747@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (blomberg cepeda) says:

>I just want to share my agreement with Anne and Bayla on being tired of the
>brief flurry of vitriol, and that Ruth, Jim and Graham all overreacted (I leave
>myself out because it is too subjective a call), and in overreacting, all did

Probably true, for all of us.  People tend to lose it when sandpaper gets
rubbed over raw nerves.

>serious damage to the arguments I think they wanted to make.
This is likely to be true, too.  I hope not, but if wishes were horses, this
net would be neck-deep in horse manure.:-)  Come to think of it, Words-l has
been a bit whiffy lately.......

>At this point I only want to make a couple of clarifications. First, I don't
>think that anyone would want Ruth to condone that which she cannot. The depth
>of her faith is obvious, and deserves our respect. The question posed by the

Thanks.  I was beginning to wonder if rationality had gone out the window.

>referenda in question, however, was not to condone, but whether the damning
>should be rendered unto Caesar, or unto God. If it does not harm anyone else,

You know my answer on that one.:-)  But, for all of me, Caesar can nail the
idiots first, if he can get his hands on them.  It's a big if.

>should people be denied the choice of their own salvation however they may see
>it, the pursuit of their own happiness, so to speak. There are many things
>people do which disgust me, from the trivial to the monumental, but I cannot
>deny them their right to do so unless they try to impose it on me.
>
Same here, except that I'll go after someone else if that person attacks
another who cannot defend him or herself.  Mama Cat reflexes, I guess.

>Secondly, Ruth, to calm your fears: The very first words to the very first
>amendment to the, IMHO, greatest achievement of Western civilization (along
>with Beethoven's Ninth) read:
>          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>          or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress, yes, but individuals still do it, and in a lot of places in this
world the government condones it.  Heck, in Mexico, they recently passed
legislation giving all religious denominations equal status.  The Church
down there was trying to get first place, with a possible [just guessing here]
view to stomping out the rest.

>Lastly, was it only on Brown's reader that Bayla's mention of <vomiting> was
>immediately followed by two more UUCP notices? Coincidence? I think not.
>
Neither do I, Blomberg[?]  [what's you're preferred name?]  UUCP's demons
or daemons, strike again.  Maybe that's what the machine needs?  Bell, book
and candle?  Or is that something else?  Maybe holy water and a silver
crucifix?  Or maybe matzoh ball soup and the Golem's heart?:-)

>

--
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does