HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Feb 2006 to 6 Feb 2006 (#2006-33)

      HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
      Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:00:14 -0500

      • Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
      • Next message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Feb 2006 to 7 Feb 2006 (#2006-34)"
      • Previous message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Feb 2006 (#2006-32)"

      --------
      There are 20 messages totalling 735 lines in this issue.
      
      Topics of the day:
      
        1. Tolerance. (17)
        2. OT - Book of Daniel (3)
      
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:05:58 EST
      From:    Evelyn Duncan <BrandyKitt@aol.com>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      In a message dated 2/5/2006 6:43:12 PM Central Standard Time, 
      mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
      <<
      Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl today is a hilarious antidote to 
      the other one, w/  Kitten Play halftime
      >>
      
      Are they going to show that again?  I wish I had known it was
      on; I would have taped it.  Who won?
      
      Evelyn Duncan
      brandykitt@aol.com
      Oh, crumbs!
      -- Penfold
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:16:52 -0700
      From:    Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      Leah wrote:
      
      
      >Extremist clerics, what a whacky bunch.
      
      "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
           Robert A. Heinlein
      
      And while we're discussing the Book Of Daniel and quoted RAH, I should 
      include a couple more.
      
        "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to 
      its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you may not see, this you are 
      forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how 
      holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind 
      has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free 
      man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not 
      anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill 
      him."  - RAH
      
      "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its 
      creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow 
      it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the 
      minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all 
      heretics." --- Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100
      
        Pat L.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      -- 
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:18:00 EST
      From:    Dotiran@aol.com
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      In a message dated 2/5/2006 12:08:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,  
      Immortals_Incorporated@COX.NET writes:
      
      >>>>>But "serious Christians: *didn't* just avoid it  ::::bangs head on
      keyboard::::: They actively and successfully campaigned  to have it
      pulled off the schedule.  Instead of  allowing those  who liked BoD to
      watch it 
       
      Now, now, you are going to hurt your head banging around like that.
      You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It is all about  
      free speech and the power of a market economy. Whether it is gays or blacks  or 
      hispanics or christians or moslems or jews, if some group doesn't like  
      something/some portrayal/some presumed injustice/some whatever, then it is their  
      constitutional right to protest, picket, boycott, campaign, whatever. Sometimes 
       it works, sometimes it doesn't. But their right to do so is clear.
      What they canNOT do is bomb the clinic, burn the embassy, shoot the person  
      who crosses the picket line, cut off the heads of those who offend.  Those  who 
      do have crossed not only beyond fervor to fanaticism, but from protected  
      speech to criminal/terrorist activity and should be prosecuted.
      The plain truth is  that if BoD had been watchable, if the people who watched 
      it had really liked  it, it would still be on Christian protest or not. And 
      you know it is true.  Heavens, look at the abortion debate. The power, 
      organization, unity and  consistent YEARS of action against it in this country by 
      Christians has been  immense, making any lobbying against a silly tv show pale 
      into insignificance,  but it hasn't changed most minds or the law. The protest 
      will continue,  however.
      What I hear in this present argument  on the list is simply the intolerance 
      of those who want tolerance only for those  who agree with them.
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:19:28 -0000
      From:    Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
      Subject: OT - Book of Daniel
      
      My friend Shamenka wants me to pass on a message of thanks to Dotiran and
      her friends for getting this show cancelled.
      
      She says if it wasn't for that, causing such a fuss that it was heard over
      here in the UK, she'd probably never heard of the show, gotten curious,
      surfed over to NBC's website and downloaded the pilot out of curiosity,
      she'd never have found this "gem" of a show.  A show that had her in
      stiches, her husband found hilarious, and a show she feels happy to let
      her 14 year old son watch.  (she monitors his tv viewing carefully - I'd
      almost call him "sheltered" compared with other boys his age). A show that
      handles a lot of "hot button" issues with grace and humour and gives a
      very positive portrayal of Jesus - kind, patient, tolerant and forgiving,
      just like the Christ she remembers from Bible Class.
      
      She's sent a message of support to NBC, as has her husband, and intends to
      make sure as many people as possible download the bit-torrents and see the
      episodes of the show that are available.
      
      Jette
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:12:23 -0500
      From:    kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
      
      >
      >What I hear in this present argument  on the list is simply the intolerance 
      >of those who want tolerance only for those  who agree with them.
      >  
      >
      No, what you are hearing is the anger and bitterness directed towards 
      Christians who "want tolerance only for those who agree with them."  
      There was no tolerance, or humor, or perspective, or kindness or 
      forgiveness or anything else demonstrated in the hate-filled vituperous 
      outpouring from the so-called Christians who demanded that, since they 
      didn't like seeing Jesus portrayed as (heaven forfend) tolerant and 
      forgiving, then NO ONE should.
      
      And they succeeded.  This wasn't some rational argument about the merits 
      of the program.  It was a hate-mongering, bigot-ridden diatribe of 
      intolerance.  So your argument is specious.
      
      MacGeorge
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:20:01 -0000
      From:    ElaineN <Elainen@inguz.co.uk>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      >>I'm sure God (of choice)  is perfect, it's the people who run their PR
      
      companies that often piss me off.<<
      
      It's the spin again.....
      
      Elaine
      
       
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:46:22 EST
      From:    Bizarro7@aol.com
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
       
      In a message dated 2/5/2006 6:10:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
      red57metoo@YAHOO.COM writes:
      
      If there  were no religion, there would be a lot less bloodshed, true. 
      But there  would be a lot less art and music, too.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      Actually, the reason why there's so much art with a religious theme over  the 
      past 2000 years is because the dominant religion was the chief patron of  
      most artistic works, and generally frowned on or forbid most secular artwork.  
      Frankly, I think it's a shame because there are only so many pictures of a man  
      dying on a wooden cross you can look at and admire, over a finite number of  
      centuries. Also, a very large amount of great artwork that was *non-Christian*  
      was deliberately defaced or annihilated as heretical, over the past 2000 
      years.  Many religions will not tolerate any reminders of the spiritual 
      competition, no  matter how beautiful, ancient or valuable the work. (Witness the 
      Taliban blowing  up those ancient Buddah statues). And those that clerics deem pagan 
      but too  beautiful to destroy? They make sure the worshipping public never 
      sees them. The  art treasures sitting in the vast storage cellars at The Vatican 
      are supposed to  be incredible, but you'll never get a look at them.
       
      Leah
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:48:02 EST
      From:    Bizarro7@aol.com
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
       
      In a message dated 2/5/2006 6:32:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
      kamilaa@gmail.com writes:
      
      On  2/5/06, John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>  wrote:
      
      > I'm sure God (of choice)  is perfect, it's the people  who run their PR
      > companies that often piss me off.
      
      And with  that you've made my sig file. <g>
      
      
      
      Bumper sticker seen around in the US: 
       
      "I love God. It's his fan club that I can't stand."
       
      Leah
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:49:16 EST
      From:    Dotiran@aol.com
      Subject: Re: OT - Book of Daniel
      
      In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:23:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time,  
      jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
      
      >>>My friend Shamenka wants me to pass on a message of thanks  to Dotiran and
      her friends for getting this show  cancelled.
       
      Gee thanks Jette *vbeg*, but I had nothing to do with it. I never  protested, 
      never campaigned, just watched it and didn't care for it.
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:30:25 -0000
      From:    Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
      Subject: Re: OT - Book of Daniel
      
      > In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:23:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
      > jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
      >
      >>>>My friend Shamenka wants me to pass on a message of thanks  to Dotiran
      >>>> and
      > her friends for getting this show  cancelled.
      >
      > Gee thanks Jette *vbeg*, but I had nothing to do with it. I never
      > protested,
      > never campaigned, just watched it and didn't care for it.
      >
      >
      
      
      No?  Maybe not - but you were fast enough to start *gloating* about how
      the show had been cancelled and align yourself with those who'd protested.
       Take the thanks, and pass them on to those who did campaign - I'm sure
      you know a few personally. Just make sure you pass on her *whole* message.
      
      Jette
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:40:42 -0500
      From:    Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      I said:
      >>But "serious Christians: *didn't* just avoid it  
      >> ::::bangs head on keyboard::::: 
      >>They actively and successfully campaigned  to 
      > have it pulled off the schedule.  Instead of  allowing those  
      > who liked BoD to watch it 
      
      Rottie says:  
      > Now, now, you are going to hurt your head banging around like that.
      
      I kinda like the pain.
      
      > You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It 
      > is all about free speech and the power of a market economy. 
      > Whether it is gays or blacks  or hispanics or christians or 
      > moslems or jews, if some group doesn't like something/some 
      > portrayal/some presumed injustice/some whatever, then it is 
      > their constitutional right to protest, picket, boycott, 
      > campaign, whatever. Sometimes  it works, sometimes it 
      > doesn't. But their right to do so is clear.
      
      Oh...I didn't say that what was done was illegal. Of course "serious
      Christians" had a *right* to protest. What I question is 1) their use of
      that right and 2) the network's response to the exercise of that right.
      
      If one truly believes in free speech, then one doesn't campaign to have
      some other person's free speech limited.  If I find "Laguna Beach" to be
      awful, I "protest" by  not watching. I "boycott" the show. However, I
      don't lobby to have it taken off, because I understand that others do
      like it and they have a right to like it - just as I have a right to
      dislike it.  By changing the channel, I am saved from watching something
      I find "offensive" but anyone else is free to watch. Why wasn't it
      enough that those who disliked BoD simply change the channel? Why was it
      necessary to campaign to "deprive" everyone?   
      
      > The plain truth is  that if BoD had been watchable, if the 
      > people who watched it had really liked  it, it would still be 
      > on Christian protest or not. And you know it is true. 
      
      That's pure BS and *you* know it.  In this day and age of shrinking
      market share and skittish sponsors and realistic fear of government
      "interference", network's can't afford any controversy - especially any
      controversy that involves religion (and in this country that means
      Christianity). BoD wasn't allowed to be on the air long enough to build
      any kind of loyal following which might have fought to save it. It
      wasn't on long enough to come close to hitting it's stride. Think what
      Highlander looked like after 4 episodes and what it looked like after 2
      years. If there had been a protest by some group who thought the idea of
      weekly beheadings was sinful and anti-Mom&apple pie, would it have
      lasted 6 years? No. Would there have been anyone to mount a "Save
      Highlander" campaign after seeing only "Bad Day in Building A" and
      "Freefall"?? No. We'll never know if BoD could have become great because
      a few very vocal opponents decided that *no one* should see it if *they*
      didn't like it. And the networks bowed to the pressure because that's
      how business is done now. 
      
      >  Heavens, look at the abortion debate. The power, 
      > organization, unity and  consistent YEARS of action against 
      > it in this country by Christians has been  immense, making 
      > any lobbying against a silly tv show pale into 
      > insignificance,  but it hasn't changed most minds or the law. 
      
      It hasn't changed the law? Obviously you haven't tried to get an
      abortion recently. Do you know how many doctors have stopped doing
      abortions out of fear for their lives and livelihoods? Do you know how
      many women now have to travel  hundreds of miles to find a doctor
      willing to perform an abortion - that there are entire states without
      *one*  place to get a legal abortion?  Do you know how many states have
      imposed  layers of regulation to make running an abortion clinic almost
      impossible? How many laws have been passed to require longer and longer
      waiting periods, more and more "counseling" aimed at terrorizing women,
      more and more notification rules that make it harder and harder to have
      an abortion "in private"? 
      
      The abortion debate may be ongoing, but the *law* has indeed changed.
      Death by a thousand tiny cuts (or making abortion impossible by thousand
      tiny regulations)  is still death.
      
      > What I hear in this present argument on the list is simply 
      > the intolerance of those who want tolerance only for those  
      > who agree with them.
      
      Case one: BoD stays on the air. I get to watch. You don't have to watch.
      We both have our freedom. Both sides are tolerant.
      
      Case two: BoD is forced off the air. I can't watch. You don't have to
      watch. *My* freedom has been sacrificed for yours. Your intolerance robs
      me of my freedom ...my *choice* in the matter.
      
      I would defend to the death your right to hate BoD. I would never force
      you to watch a show that you found morally repugnant.  But don't *I*
      have a right to watch BoD if I want - so long as you *don't* have to
      watch? No one was going to force you or anyone else to watch BoD. But
      that wasn't enough, was it? You and yours had to make sure that it
      didn't exist for anybody. Your so-called "serious Christians" couldn't
      stand the  thought of it being out there in the world for *others* to
      see.  It's mere existence was abhorrent ... so it had to be stamped out.
      That's *not* tolerance. 
      
      Freedom ... freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom in general
      ... means putting up with things (ideas, religions, customs, etc)  that
      you absolutely hate in return for being allowed to have your own ideas,
      religion, customs etc tolerated. If the other person's idea, religion,
      custom is not actively harming you, you *have* to just let it go. Don't
      eat the "funny" food....don't read the "bad" books...don't listen to the
      weird music...don't bow down to the "foreign" idol...don't watch the
      late night porn...don't have an abortion...don't drink the
      alcohol...don't wear the headdress...don't smoke the magic
      mushrooms...whatever.  But *don't* tell the other guy that *he* can't do
      it either. 
      
      It seems to me that "serious Christians" are no more able to tolerate
      differing religious/moral views than fundamentalist Moslems...both
      aren't satisfied with living their lives according to their rules, they
      want everyone to live by those rules. Following one's faith should not
      require stamping out everything that is different from that faith. If
      eating lobster if forbidden to you by your holy book ... don't eat the
      lobster but don't demand that all lobster be taken off every menu
      everywhere. If your religion forbids looking at women not of your
      family, keep your eyes to yourself ..don't demand that all women
      everywhere wear a burka. If your religious sensibilities are offended by
      network TV,  pop in a DVD of your choice..don't demand that all TV shows
      be screened for orthodoxy. 
      
      If I can tolerate knowing that Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell have TV
      shows on the air, "serious Christians" ought to have been able to
      tolerate knowing that BoD was on the air.
      
      Wendy(I managed to mention Highlander.)(Yeah, me.)(Debbie?)
      
      Immortals Inc.
      immortals_incorporated@cox.net
      "Weasels for Eternity" 
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:21:40 EST
      From:    Billie Lee Williams <McCelt2003@aol.com>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      In response to Wendy's post from an extreme lurker from way back:
      
      :::::::::::::stands and applauds:::::::::::::
      
      I am a Christian, yes; a choice that I do not force on anyone else, nor do I 
      require that they share to be my friend or otherwise.  However, I do believe 
      in freedom of expression, speech, hate the idea of going back to "back alley 
      abortions" with the way things are going in the current US Administration, etc., 
      and so on, ad nauseum.  The very backbone of true Christianity, IMHO, IS 
      tolerance, acceptance of ALL, regardless of Belief System, or lack thereof, 
      culture, practices...; that is what it is all about, from my POV.
      
      I did not see the Book of Daniel, so I cannot proffer an opinion, I am sorry 
      to say.  I do agree that Highlander would have been yanked after the first few 
      episodes, not having had the chance to build a loyal fan base just yet!  Look 
      what happened to "Roar!" Fortunately for Heath Ledger, his (IMHO) talent was 
      recognized and look where he is now :-)
      
      Well said, Wendy, and I shall go back to lurking now; and await whatever 
      shall come from my couple of dimes worth.
      
      Forever Yours,
      Billie-Lee
      
      Billie-Lee Williams, RN, Ph.D.
      "Oh, Divine Master grant that I may never seek, not so much to be consoled as 
      to console, not so much to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to 
      love with all my heart.  Amen."  Saint Francis
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:35:07 -0500
      From:    Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      :::: applause for Wendy and Billie Lee ::::
      
      -- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?)
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:43:50 -0500
      From:    Lisa Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      >-- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?)
      
      
      2000.  When we let Florida pick the president.
      
      Liser
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:48:13 -0500
      From:    kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      Lisa Cameron-Norfleet wrote:
      
      >> -- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?)
      >
      >
      >
      > 2000.  When we let Florida pick the president.
      >
      > Liser
      >
      Actually, it ended up being the Supreme Court who picked the president - 
      an even smaller minority.
      
      MacG
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:52:31 -0500
      From:    Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      Me:
      >(since when did this country become one of minority rule?)
      
      Liser:
      >2000.  When we let Florida pick the president.
      
      Oh yeah.. how could I forget.  The day democracy died.
      
      -- Sandy
      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a 
      cross."
               Sinclair Lewis (1935)
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:48:06 -1000
      From:    MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      Rottie cites the party line--
      > You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It is all about
      > free speech and the power of a market economy.
      
      How hypocritical of _you_ to tout freedom of speech.  You & yours aren't 
      protesting anything; you are simply demanding that those who don't precisely 
      agree w/ your religious tenets should be _silenced_.  That's NOT the 
      American way of life.  At least, it hasn't been.
      
      Your free speech reply to BoD would be to air TV shows depicting your own 
      version of Jesus & all the rest, which your side already does--countless 
      conservative Christian TV shows air in the US.  And, despite the 
      stomach-churningly obvious money-making aspect of many of these shows (& the 
      WWF-level of verisimilitude) (& the comical wigs),  no one terrorizes the 
      networks & sponsors of those shows.  And if anyone DID--you'd be screaming 
      religious prosecution.
      
      
      
      > The plain truth is  that if BoD had been watchable, if the people who 
      > watched
      > it had really liked  it, it would still be on Christian protest or not.
      
      Again, the party line you spout is absurd.  Your pals killed the show before 
      it even aired--3 weeks in a Friday night death slot w/ ZERO paid ad time. 
      BoD wasn't a masterpiece, but from the start it was better than a heck of a 
      lot of TV shows, & it had potential to be quite good.  Thanks to you & 
      yours, we'll never know.
      
      Congratulations, but don't shout down the opposition & then call it free 
      speech.
      
      Nina (Smite me) (Debbie!!!!!!!!)
      mac.westie@verizon.net
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:21:06 -0000
      From:    John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      I still stand by Rottie's right to have whatever opinion she wants on a TV 
      programme and if she feels strongly enough to act accordingly (within legal 
      parameters).
      I only point out the less than great feeling she might get if a show she 
      wholeheartedly endorsed and felt was great and worthy, was taken off the 
      schedules because *I* felt it insulted my view of the world/that religion 
      and then I openly celebrated that fact in front of her. Yes, it might be a 
      little less comfortable to experience it from the other side and I could be 
      construed as gloating and that's never a pretty sight.
      
      But I know Rottie and though we disagree on some fundemental stuff, 
      *deliberately* making other people feel bad has never been her intention. 
      On this occasion I think the tone was ill-advised and I do share some of the 
      concerns about the way certain pressure groups (particularly the evangelical 
      right) are expecting programming to reflect their values at the expense of 
      others. I've never been comfortable with that degree of censorship.
      
      However I think we all can learn from the fact that the way we approach 
      putting our view of a subject across can be as impotant as the message. I 
      mean, I for one can tell the difference between a person posting their 
      heart-felt opinons here and perhaps causing some consternation by the way 
      they go about it and... say....someone who coming here *just* to be 
      provocative and rude and bait other posters.
      
      I'm sure Nina would agree there's a difference, wouldn't you?
      
      :)
      
      
      
      
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@VERIZON.NET>
      To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
      Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:48 PM
      Subject: Re: [HL] Tolerance.
      
      
      > Rottie cites the party line--
      >> You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It is all 
      >> about
      >> free speech and the power of a market economy.
      >
      > How hypocritical of _you_ to tout freedom of speech.  You & yours aren't 
      > protesting anything; you are simply demanding that those who don't 
      > precisely agree w/ your religious tenets should be _silenced_.  That's NOT 
      > the American way of life.  At least, it hasn't been.
      >
      > Your free speech reply to BoD would be to air TV shows depicting your own 
      > version of Jesus & all the rest, which your side already does--countless 
      > conservative Christian TV shows air in the US.  And, despite the 
      > stomach-churningly obvious money-making aspect of many of these shows (& 
      > the WWF-level of verisimilitude) (& the comical wigs),  no one terrorizes 
      > the networks & sponsors of those shows.  And if anyone DID--you'd be 
      > screaming religious prosecution.
      >
      >
      >
      >> The plain truth is  that if BoD had been watchable, if the people who 
      >> watched
      >> it had really liked  it, it would still be on Christian protest or not.
      >
      > Again, the party line you spout is absurd.  Your pals killed the show 
      > before it even aired--3 weeks in a Friday night death slot w/ ZERO paid ad 
      > time. BoD wasn't a masterpiece, but from the start it was better than a 
      > heck of a lot of TV shows, & it had potential to be quite good.  Thanks to 
      > you & yours, we'll never know.
      >
      > Congratulations, but don't shout down the opposition & then call it free 
      > speech.
      >
      > Nina (Smite me) (Debbie!!!!!!!!)
      > mac.westie@verizon.net
      > 
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:59:49 -0500
      From:    bizarro7@aol.com
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
       
       
      
      
      
      >>-- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?) 
       
      2000. When we let Florida pick the president. 
       
      Liser <<
       
       
       
      Don't look at us. His brother did it all by himself.
       
      Leah
      
      ------------------------------
      
      Date:    Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:38:13 -1000
      From:    MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
      Subject: Re: Tolerance.
      
      Laptop John pontificates--
      > However I think we all can learn from the fact that the way we approach 
      > putting our view of a subject across can be as impotant as the message. I 
      > mean, I for one can tell the difference between a person posting their 
      > heart-felt opinons here and perhaps causing some consternation by the way 
      > they go about it and... say....someone who coming here *just* to be 
      > provocative and rude and bait other posters.
      >
      > I'm sure Nina would agree there's a difference, wouldn't you?
      
      
      No, I don't agree.  Intolerant, small-minded, bigoted & hypocritical are 
      exactly that, regardless of how sincere & chummy someone is about it all. 
      And I assure you that being rude, provocative & baiting can be _utterly_ 
      heartfelt.
      
      Nina (who actually comes here for the fried cheese) (no, wait, that's TGI 
      Fridays) (Laptop John seems different...smaller, I guess) (& still no 
      spell-check)
      mac.westie@verizon.net
      
      ------------------------------
      
      End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Feb 2006 to 6 Feb 2006 (#2006-33)
      ************************************************************
      
      --------

      • Next message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Feb 2006 to 7 Feb 2006 (#2006-34)"
      • Previous message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Feb 2006 (#2006-32)"