From: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org (eda-thoughts-digest) To: eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Subject: eda-thoughts-digest V1 #229 Reply-To: eda-thoughts@smoe.org Sender: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-eda-thoughts-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk eda-thoughts-digest Tuesday, September 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 229 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * eda-thoughts-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY * the word unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: eda-thoughts-digest V1 #xxx or the like gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [Re: ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions] [genben@usa.n] ET: poem [moonsong@ix.netcom.com (Charlie, Cobby & The GoA)] Re: [Re: ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions] [sesykes@juno] Re: [Re: ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions] ["Kevin Pease] ET: Come on guys...be nice :) [Seth Fulmer ] ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions [sesykes@juno.com (Craz] ET: retraction of Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions [sesykes@] ET: Re: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions ["Kevin Pease" >Say Jewel and the President of the United States (not necessarily Bill >>Clinton) were in a situation where you had to choose which one lived. >>Which would live and which would die? Why? >What kind of a question is that??? :-( >Mike I have to go with Mike here. This is just absolutely ridiculous, and I hope no one will even dignify it with a response. I know that Scott has the feeling that we should talk more about Jewel on this list, but I'm not here to talk about silly bullshit. This is just pollution to my mailbox. I'm not saying your thoughts aren't valid, I'm just saying I have better things to do. I think that we really should take Mike's advice from a while ago and think before we post. This is the kind of mail I'll complain about, as opposed to when Kevin and Seth are engaging in an intelligent exchange. Come on, guys, really. We can do better. Here's a poem. *arrogance* Recognition comes slowly from a sidelong glance. Can your novel hold your interest? Or do you see too much of me While you bury your nose? Attraction is something you cannot deny Follow your emotions Allow yourself to feel what is unavoidable Look at me Head on Don't play shy I know you see me As you clutch your boyfriend's hand Tighter. BA 9/28 That's my macho asshole poem. Any of you ever see someone looking at you and just know that's what they're thinking? Ben ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:51:17 -0700 From: moonsong@ix.netcom.com (Charlie, Cobby & The GoA) Subject: ET: poem I LOVED Arizona Arabian! It's FANTASTIC!!! Sam the ? angel moonsong@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 01:40:03 -0500 From: sesykes@juno.com (Crazysexycool Scott) Subject: Re: [Re: ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions] i guess thought can only posess a man who can think! ** Scott S.** -Big Sexy Angel "PEACE CAN BECOME US ALL IF WE STAND UP AND TAKE A FALL!" http://homepage.usr.com/b/breezemaker ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:27:28 -0400 From: "Kevin Pease" Subject: Re: [Re: ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions] >> Scott writes: >i guess thought can only possess a man who can think! Um? Scott, I've got to agree with Ben & Mike here... it's a question that's not even worth thinking about, much less asking. Why? First, it's morbid as hell. Second, it's completely irrelevant to anything - none of us will ever be in that situation, and I hope nobody will ever be placed in even a remotely similar situation. Third, it's an appalling question to ask in any form. Asking that question implies a belief that there's no intrinsic value to any human life, and that people can and should make an "either / or" decision, simply based on who they like more, and who *they* think would ultimately be more "valuable" as a person. You can't boil people down to a row of numbers, add them up, and end up with a rating as to who's "worth more". Personally, I find this question to be ugly, irrelevant, and patently offensive. And that's the end of what I've got to say on the subject. Kevin - ---------- Kevin Pease kbpease@boston.crosswinds.net (ICQ UIN: 3106063) (AOL Instant Messenger: kbpease) http://www.crosswinds.net/boston/~kbpease "'Cause it's a tinkertoy world, wouldn't buy a chance to leave it 'Cause sometimes... it rains fish from the sky, and the statues all start to cry, and someone writes another beautiful song..." ---(Tanya Donnelly, "Mysteries Of The Unexplained")--- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:29:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Seth Fulmer Subject: ET: Come on guys...be nice :) Hey everybody, with the advent of Scott's topic...people seem to react like it's not good. If it's not good, just don't respond :) I choose not to say anything on the issue personally, but as for the validity of the topic...who's to say it's any more or less valid than beauty discussion, or "Does Jewel wear too much make-up?" on the jewel@smoe.org list? So, before you criticize someone on their topic choice, please(and this is just a request) try to remember that this list is for ANY topic. Thank you's go to anyone who listened :) Have an Excellent Day! :) Seth D. Fulmer mailto:kaosking@voicenet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:13:48 -0500 From: sesykes@juno.com (Crazysexycool Scott) Subject: ET: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions To Mike, Ben, Kevin, and whoever can't stand questions that their scared of. Is it true? Are people really afraid to answer a simple question? In this great world of ours, you can only be scared of one thing, fear of the unknown. You're not supposed to be scared of what might happen or what could happen but what will or has happened! This question is not reality, and most likely wouldn't be reality! This is NOT a question of human value, this is NOT a question of reality! This is a question to make you think! This is a question of human morals and valid answers to invalid questions. You need to get over morals, values, and simple hates for this one! I told you it make you think! It's only a question! ** Scott S.** -Big Sexy Angel "PEACE CAN BECOME US ALL IF WE STAND UP AND TAKE A FALL!" http://homepage.usr.com/b/breezemaker ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:15:07 -0500 From: sesykes@juno.com (Scott S.) Subject: ET: retraction of Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions I'd like to retract Q.2: 2. I thought that you guys could handle a question at this degree but i guess you guys aren't ready for it. I was also hoping to get a little realness out of several EDA's. After talking with Mike, i decided to retract this one because i could see that Mike had great morals and didn't want to test those morals with a question. I guess if you've seen the world through my eyes then you know what the world has to offer and you know when to cry and when to smile! z ** Scott S.** -Big Sexy Angel "PEACE CAN BECOME US ALL IF WE STAND UP AND TAKE A FALL!" http://homepage.usr.com/b/breezemaker ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:23:48 -0400 From: "Kevin Pease" Subject: ET: Re: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions >> Scott writes: >To Mike, Ben, Kevin, and whoever can't stand questions that their scared >of. "Scared" doesn't quite fit the feeling I got when I read the question. "Disgusted", "appalled", "saddened", "shocked", "outraged"... all of those words come closer to my feelings about your "thought-provoking" question than the word "scared." I'm not scared by words... I'm sorry if that disappoints you, but it's the truth. >Is it true? Are people really afraid to answer a simple question? In >this great world of ours, you can only be scared of one thing, fear of >the unknown. You're not supposed to be scared of what might happen or >what could happen but what will or has happened! This question is not >reality, and most likely wouldn't be reality! So then why ask it? If the only thing we should be concerned about is what "will happen", or "has happened", why bother thinking about eventualities that aren't going to happen? I explained (quite clearly, I believe) why I refuse to answer the question. "Being scared" didn't make it into my three items, as far as I remember. If we're going to say it's not reality, then my answer is this: "I'll miraculously kick the asses of whoever is threatening *either* life, and save them both." I mean, if we're not going to base the discussion in reality, then any answer is perfectly valid, and it's not an either/or question, right? >This is NOT a question of human value, this is NOT a question of reality! > This is a question to make you think! This is a question of human morals >and valid answers to invalid questions. This *IS* a question of human value, if any question ever was about human value. You're asking us, "Which human life do you value more, and why?" That question implies that one person's life is intrinsically worth more than another's. If that's not a question of "human value", then what is? This question isn't designed to make us think, but rather, I'd say it's designed to shock us, to make us giggle with nervousness at how "bad" you are, and then make us say, "Wow, what a great question." Personally, I've never put much stock in shock value - I'd rather listen to John Denver than Marilyn Manson, pretty much any day. Your first question was pretty good, I'll give you that much - if you have other *thoughtful* questions, feel free to ask them... but asking whether we'd choose to let Jewel or the President die given the choice to save only one, however, isn't designed to get a conversation going, it's designed to provoke outrage & shock... in a newsgroup, your email would be considered classic trolling or flamebait... don't think we're stupid enough to believe that YOU are stupid enough to not realize this. >You need to get over morals, values, and simple hates for this one! >I told you it make you think! Uh... thank you, but I'd rather not "get over" my morals & values. I'd humbly submit, as well, that posing ANY question which assumes people must "get over" their morals to answer it, isn't much of a question, or a discussion. I like my morals & values right where they are, I'm not going to say, "You're right, I should just throw away the fact that I think all human life has some intrinsic value, I'm being silly." Sorry if that disappoints you, but to imply that we can, or should, just "get over" our morals, well... that's a pretty steep order, that I hope most people wouldn't want to fulfill for you. >It's only a question! Lots of things are "only questions", but you wouldn't ask them of people. I don't fear words, as you seem to think, but I *do* fear the attitudes and values (or lack thereof) that allows people to post questions such as this, and then say it's "just" a question. It's a loaded conversational bomb, designed to shock and outrage, not provoke "thought". Looks like it worked, huh? Kevin - ---------- Kevin Pease kbpease@boston.crosswinds.net (ICQ UIN: 3106063) (AOL Instant Messenger: kbpease) http://www.crosswinds.net/boston/~kbpease "'Cause it's a tinkertoy world, wouldn't buy a chance to leave it 'Cause sometimes... it rains fish from the sky, and the statues all start to cry, and someone writes another beautiful song..." ---(Tanya Donnelly, "Mysteries Of The Unexplained")--- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:33:14 -0400 From: Mike Connell Subject: Re: ET: retraction of Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions Scott S. wrote: >After talking with Mike, i decided to retract this one because i could >see that Mike had great morals and didn't want to test those morals with >a question. That's not it at all. I just simply said I felt there's a much better way to get thought provoking questions on this list, that's basically it. Yeah, I did tell him the question was absurd, but that was Mike the fellow list member talking. I was not and am not saying *any* of this as a list owner. (the post did not and does not violate anything at all as far as list content goes) I know he didn't say or allude this, but to just let others know I never told the question didn't belong, never said don't do it again etc. I was just speaking as a basic human/fellow ET member that thought it was in poor taste. It didn't challenge my morals. Mike :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:26:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Seth Fulmer Subject: Re: ET: Re: Q.2: 2 of several thought provoking questions On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Kevin Pease wrote: > "Scared" doesn't quite fit the feeling I got when I read the question. > "Disgusted", "appalled", "saddened", "shocked", "outraged"... all of those > words come closer to my feelings about your "thought-provoking" question > than the word "scared." I'm not scared by words... I'm sorry if that > disappoints you, but it's the truth. I beg to differ with that final part of your sentence. People who are shocked by words are scared by the ideas imposed by those words. > So then why ask it? If the only thing we should be concerned about is > what "will happen", or "has happened", why bother thinking about > eventualities that aren't going to happen? I explained (quite clearly, I > believe) why I refuse to answer the question. "Being scared" didn't make it > into my three items, as far as I remember. It's called a "hypothetical" question? Such as that might never happen but is still being considered like "if you had 1 day to live, what would you do and why?" I have heard that question more than the days that I have lived since birth(which is a mightily large number). That question is not based on Reality, or morals, but it gets you to think. I have decided to answer the question. Not that I really decided ever NOT to answer it, but rather it was too much thinking for me to do at that moment with my job as well. > If we're going to say it's not reality, then my answer is this: "I'll > miraculously kick the asses of whoever is threatening *either* life, and > save them both." I mean, if we're not going to base the discussion in > reality, then any answer is perfectly valid, and it's not an either/or > question, right? Well, then in that case, what you appear to be proposing is a question in which there is a 100% right answer and if someone answers wrongly, there will be some consequence to answering that way. As the scene in "Titanic" put quite elegantly(I'll paraphrase it below), no question is unaskable. The scene goes as such: Jack(Leonardo DiCaprio) asks Rose(Kate W.) if she loves her fiance. Rose responds somewhat like "Well, isn't that quite rude?"(haven't seen it in 2 days so I don't know it word for word). Jack says "It's just a question" which is quite true IMHO. She still refuses to answer the question, however it's quite obvious that the question makes her think about the issue. If an issue is not confrontable to someone, that person can just as well be afraid of the issue. If there's an issue posed to me, at most, I'll be afraid of the questioning person's reaction to my answer and will "reluctantly" answer the question. I would probably question the person to request that they don't base a judgement on my respons. Now, my response to the original question is that I would save Jewel. Not because she's a human, or a female, or a popular singer, or out of fear of her thousands of fans. I don't give a &@#$ about those. I would save her because of her good works and that she doesn't strive for power. From the little that I know of her, I can trust her. No matter what president we get, whether that president is the Lord all mighty...He/She/It is supposed to be responsible for the actions and lives of everyone in [the citizenship of] the country. Whether they do or not, that is expected, so if they do, good...if they don't it's bad. Jewel is only supposed to be responsible for her life, her family's lives, and her friend's lives as well. She doesn't have to do anything to protect or care for a homeless person in Ohio, but her non-profit organization in collaboration with the EveryDay Angels Foundation, and other non-profit service organizations do it anyway. Judge me for my answer, I care not what you(or anyone/thing thinks). If there are any comments, please send them to me(if they're good), or to devNull@Nothing.com(if they're flames). Take care and May your days be quite Grand! :) Seth D. Fulmer mailto:kaosking@voicenet.com ------------------------------ End of eda-thoughts-digest V1 #229 **********************************