.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 141
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 70
Date:         Mon, 10 Apr 89 22:10:08 EDT
From:         "Homer W. Smith" 
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Tue, 28 Mar 89 20:39:48 CDT from 

The people
>who deserve his and your DISrespect are the ruling fools in Washington, Hanoi,
>Saigon, Moscow and Peking who sent about 58,000 Americans and a couple million
>Asians to their deaths. Interestingly enough, all those ruling fools were male.
     Do you think for a moment that I am not sending all the disrespect
their way that I can?  Just because I am bringing up the female side
of the situation does not mean I am unaware of the male side.

     I went THROUGH it.  I know very well who or what was making the
decisions just like you do.

     However I cant help thinking that each and everyone of those
reigning fools had a mother who probably went to great
trouble to instill great patriotism in her fine young son, and
a sense of duty to lead them to do 'what a man's gotta do'.

     I know such women.  Duty and country and honor and glory come
first for their sons.

     I firmly believe that if women were not such war mongers themselves,
then men would not be as much as they are.  I know this sounds
ridiculous.  Tough.

     The men who say that women have NOTHING to do with it
are fucking liars.  And that is all there is to that.

>This gender correlation doesn't prove that men are necessarily destructive and
>wasteful, but it should make you wonder why Homer Smith would choose the unem-
>powered gender for derision.

     Because the 'unempowered' gender did not do enough to stop the war.
They marched and they protested, but they also kept their nail polish
well applied.  They could have done more and would have done more
if THEY were being drafted along with their sons and brothers and boy
friends.

It is better to describe one's
>experiences and indicate the path toward them, no more. In that way, the words
>remain only signposts, and cannot be confused with the experiences themselves.
>If it would help get the ball rolling and if anyone is interested, I volunteer
>to describe my "religious" experiences, such as they are. I've tried to keep
>the ideological framework around them to a minimum.
>                            Nick Geovanis - UWC6NTG at UICVMC

     The problem with relating 'experiences' is you leave your self
open to charges of insanity, delusion, misinterpretation of what
you experienced, and a whole mess of other mud slinging that skeptics
and new comers are prone to throw at you.

    Hey guys, I talked to an angel last night.  Yeah right.

    On the other hand if you describe to others HOW THEY can have
experiences, they will be better able to be certain there is
something there to experience once they have had one or two.

    THEN they will make a better audience for your own experiences.

    As Christ said, 'do not throw your pearls before swine.'

    However if YOU wish to share your religious experiences with us
go right ahead.  But don't be surprised if word starts to get around
that crazy Nick has been having hallucinations again and is probably
on some illegal drug.

 Homer W. Smith      Adore-l list         4/10/89 No subject