Hello Bill,   
      
    TR>>> Hypocrisy at it's finest.   
      
    LL>>> An agenda.  Everybody has an agenda.  I have an agenda.  They   
    LL>>> have an agenda.  Everybody else has an agenda, too.  The difference   
    LL>>> between me and others is that my agenda is not a hidden agenda.   
    LL>>> The question is, what is it those with hidden agendas are hiding,   
    LL>>> or trying to hide?   
      
    BM>> I have no agenda.   
      
    LL>> Oh, come now.  You don't really believe that, do you?   
    LL>> Getting through the day is an agenda in and of itself.   
    LL>> How you do it is up to you.  For total invalids, it   
    LL>> is up to others.  But it is most definitely an agenda.   
      
    BM> Why do you take my words out of context.   
      
   Nothing has been taken out of context.  You made a   
   statement that I find patently false, as such a notion   
   is too absurd to be taken seriously.   
      
    BM> I stated I had no agenda towards Richardson, now you make it a lesson in   
    BM> life.   
      
   You stated you have no agenda.  Period.  I find the notion   
   to be silly and absurd.  And then you continue, stating a   
   well-known heresy as being your basic philosophy of life.   
      
    BM> Play the game with Richardson....   
      
   We are all heretics, of one kind or another.   
      
   You take issue with that, for whatever reason.   
      
    BM>> What Richarson failed to comprehend is I had no issue BM>with him being   
    BM> gay if he was.  I stated it was his BM>choice and his alone.   
      
    LL>> What does it matter what the sexual orientation of   
    LL>> an individual might or might not be?  How is that relevant   
    LL>> to the discussion at hand?   
      
    BM>> His agenda is to take other's words, twist them to meet his   
    BM>> narrow-mindedness so he feels superior.  I've coined it the BM>"Don   
    BM> Quixote Syndrome". He stated above I am good for that. BM>Good for what?   
      
    LL>> Perhaps Don Quixote should have been tilting at millers   
    LL>> rather than windmills?  And what about his assistant, Sancho   
    LL>> Panza?  Would he have been better off staying behind?   
      
    BM> A question we'll never know the answer to will we?   
      
   Some questions are never meant to be answered.   
   Other questions should never be asked at all.   
      
    BM>> In that I believe each person should live their BM>life as they see fit   
    BM> as long as it's not hurting BM>another?   
      
    LL>> It is our nature to judge others.  That is not a bad   
    LL>> thing, but rather a good thing.  By what standard should   
    LL>> we judge others, and wish others to judge us?  That is   
    LL>> what we should be asking ourselves, not deluding ourselves   
    LL>> with the false concept of pretending to be masters of our   
    LL>> own fate.   
      
    BM> I never said it was bad.  As you stated, we all judge but the key at what   
    BM> level do we take that judgement. Richardson has taken it to a level where   
    BM> he's judge, jury and executioner... and personally speaking, not a very   
    BM> good one but he has   
    BM> that right.   
      
   Having the legal/constitutional right to do something (such   
   as freedom of speech) is a kind of right that we both agree on.   
   But that is not the same as the philosophy you stated, which   
   is something far different, and regarded as sinister by many -   
      
   Cultural Relativism: A Misguided Movement Towards Pluralism   
   & Tolerance Cultural relativism, like moral relativism, pervades   
   today's world. As long as we don't "hurt" anyone, anything goes.   
   Absolute truth has been discarded along with God. We live in a   
   society of pluralism and tolerance. We reject the idea of universal   
   right and wrong. With a diminishing list of objective standards,   
   our legislative system is having a harder time defining the laws,   
   and our court system is having a harder time interpreting them.   
   In just a few decades, our entertainment industry has pushed   
   the "acceptance" of lewdness and indecency to levels we never   
   imagined. Our children are losing their moral compass and   
   lashing out in violence like never before. Our schools teach   
   that we are an accident of evolution. Our institutions teach   
   that we must accept all types of lifestyles or be deemed   
   "intolerant," or worse, "hate mongers." Relativism encourages   
   us to accept pornography in the media and fornication in our   
   colleges and universities. Many things that were deemed a   
   "sin" only a few years ago are now either accepted or promoted   
   in our culture. According to the relativists, all points of   
   view are true except for those that teach absolutes -- absolute   
   truth, absolute right or wrong, or an absolute God.   
      
   http://www.cultural-relativism.com/   
      
    BM> [snip]   
      
    LL>>                    -=begin excerpt=-   
      
    LL>> "And who succeeds in tilting at windmills," answered Murrel.   
      
    LL>>                    -=end excerpt=-   
      
    BM> [end snip}   
      
    LL>> [from "The Return of Don Quixote", by G.K. Chesterton]   
      
    BM> Why is it you always go off on a tangent with something you think is   
    BM> important in a discussion? You, as well as Richardson, know exactly why I   
    BM> used that reference.  Try working up a discussion when talking ab out   
    BM> Cervantes' version.   
      
   "Someday perhaps the story will be told of the adventures   
   of the new Don Quixote and the new Sancho Panza, as they   
   wandered about the winding roads of FidoNet [sic] ..."   
   [from "The Return of Don Quixote" by G.K. Chesterton]   
      
    BM>> Last I saw that was Constitutionally proected.   
      
    LL>> Since when?  Allowing others to do as they please as long   
    LL>> as they do not harm others?  People harm others all the time,   
    LL>> in various ways.  And it is all legal, fully protected by   
    LL>> the law.  We even sanction murder, in our name, calling it   
    LL>> "justice", and pay a doctor who has sworn to "do no harm"   
    LL>> to inject the victim with a deadly poison ...   
      
    BM> The right to be gay and the right to same sex marriage?  Why should you   
   ask   
    BM> such a  question?   
      
   Existing state laws against sodomy/homosexuality have been   
   deemed unconstitutional by the USSC.  The only thing that   
   remains off limits now is bestiality.  And apparently group   
   marriages.  But give the USSC time.  Even the most taboo   
   of taboos will no longer be taboo ...   
      
    BM> With regard to your statement, It takes a nominal effort on one's part to   
    BM> understand if it is indeed harmful to another. Laws have been structured   
   to   
    BM> help allieviate this burden on society.   
      
   There are "unjust" laws that should never be honored or   
   respected by anyone.  Let's say marijuana is a banned   
   substance.  If an individual depended on the use of MJ   
   in order to maintain a quality standard of life, would   
   you blame that individual for breaking the law?  Would   
   you provide MJ to that individual if requested, even if   
   it meant breaking the law?   
      
   Is it a criminal act for a homeless person to steal   
   a loaf of bread?  Should that individual be locked up,   
   his/her only real crime being the want to survive?   
      
    BM> With regard to your "injection", I agree, there should be no capitol   
    BM> punishment.  Why should anyone be put in that situation where they must   
    BM> live with the fact they MAY have killed another human being.   
      
   St. Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the RCC, said it was   
   okay to execute people, as some people deserved to die.   
   But that was before man had developed the technology   
   to keep those vicious creatures properly fed, clothed,   
   housed, and locked up.   
      
   Besides, I have a better idea as to what to do with   
   such people.  Rather than locking them up for the rest   
   of their natural lives, send them to the Moon, or to   
   Mars, and allow them to build a habitat for those who   
   want to relocate from a place that is getting much   
   too hot to handle?   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)