Re: Apple II Reference Manual ("Red Book")

[regnirps@aol.com (Regnirps)]

pausch@saafNOSPAM.se  (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
Regnirps <regnirps@aol.com> wrote:

>> What you will find as well is the fairly new phenomena of what you might
call
>> anti-religion fundamentalists or religion haters. They are getting rather
>> diminant in the media and entertainment fields.
 
>That too is a kind of religion really.  Religion is about believing
>things wihtout solid evidence.  And since solid evidence is lacking,
>both pro and anti religion, anyone with a strong opinion about
>religion is really a religious person, in one way or another.

And the funny part is that these new atheists (I'm an old school atheist : )
are becoming puritans and redefining everything from prnography to "hate
speach".
 
>Not excluding hard drugs, child pornography, classified information
>and powerful weapons to terroriists?  :-)

I think the child porn comes mostly from Asia and the old Soviet block
countries.
 
>Dod no state ever want to become independent from the United States?
>There was a movement in Quebec to break out from Canada some decades
>ago, wasn't it?

I think you could find a fair number of Texans who still call themselves
Texicans and Alaskan's would like to be on their own. There is also a movement
to split California into three states that makes a lot of sense. I think thre
are signs in the northern part that say "Entering Franklin".
 
>Face it -- you can't protect your kids from that "foul language".
>It's there, and they'll hear it and hear about it, no matter what you
>think about it and no matter how much you try to censor it away.

I'm sure of that, but spending millions to put it on the screen seems to
sanction it from a source higher in status than parents.
 
>> Most of the Torries were driven out of the states after the
>> revolution and went to Canada and Bermuda. We really need to
>> do it again. Today's federalsts have the same basic ideology
>> as the imperialists of the 1700's.
 
>They aren't federalists -- they're imperialists, aren't they?

Yes, I should say they are imperialists but Americans in general refuse to
think their leadership could be thinking such things. Look at the support the
Clintons still have and they still show complete disregard for the law.

But there are a number of thinkers who believe the Federalists were on the
wrong track and that the original Articles of Confederation would have built a
nation with more regard for individual rights including those of natives and
less power in the hands of a central government.

Charlie Springer