🚀 go-pugleaf

Karl,

First off I will tell you up front ... don't you ever call me a bigot ever
again.  That is something I am not.  You sit there on your ass and tell
people who to live their lives when yours is a far cry from being prefect.
I have been involved in these issues.  But I get involved for the children
not for myself, not for women, and not for men.  But for the children.  Or
what did you forget your child?!

On 7 Oct 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971007164657.22268A-100000@flop.engr.orst.edu>,
> Tracy Hornschuch  <browntr@engr.orst.edu> wrote:
> >
> >On 7 Oct 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >earlier post on this subject I mentioned my reation to what one of the men
> >had to say...
> 
> And both Newsweek and TIME ran stories on the rally, and actually (gasp)
> interviewed a few *wives*, all of whom are very happy (surprise!) that their
> husbands are involved in PK.

Oh yes these women are happy... sure.  You're the only one here who's
arguing this.  I'm not!  I'm basing my statements from what I've heard
from society and trying to answer the question why?

Just because you have a personal thing against me..  dont' confuse the
issues here.

And if you must... sorry dear but I heard it from one of the horses mouths
stating that "he drives the *bus* in the house; afterall, someone must."
In other words, he wears the pants in the house, he is the one who makes
the choices.  That isn't a two-way road... it is simply a one-way road.

[crap snipped, most isn't worth reprinting]

> >Both men and women break those *covenants*... no joke.  I'm not arguing
> >that.
> 
> So why not make such a violation something which becomes something more than
> a guilty conscience?  It *is* within all other areas of our life.  Its not 
> here.
> 
> Why not?

Once again your statement here is strickly personal and has no bearing in
this arguement.

[even more snipped]

> >Because if they want to be on the good side of people who are not NOW like
> >me and others... they should stop preaching from the Christian Bible.  
> 
> Why?
> 

Just take a good hard look at history.  It speaks for itself.


> And you're right about that.  It doesn't depend on it.  But these men have
> chosen that framework.  If you TRULY believe in the First Amendment, then
> you have to divorce yourself from religious intolerance.  

I dont' care what religion a person pratices.  You brought up religion and
Christ... like you *really* know what this is right?

You made statements that the PKers don't close out other religions, and
your statement is false!

You turned from responding to the above fact to bring up the freedom of
religion.  And sorry DEAR but you are just arguing with the wrong perosn
about freedom of religion, 'cause I've always have supported that.

Something the PKers don't.  If so prove it!  Otherwise... shut the fuck up!

> >
> >You will only see what you want to see.  I see from the heart.... 
> 
> In other words, you have no evidence.  That's nice.  Its pretty close to
> what people in this country felt about people of color 100 years ago.  
> You know, that people with dark skin were stupid, lazy, criminals.... 
> all with no evidence of course, but they "saw from the heart" and so
> it had to be right.

No Karl, read your history books... it was a bunch of *good* Christians
who believed that.  It was Christians who caused and supported slavery.
It was Christians who labeled people as savages.  Isn't it funny that many
of those people that they called savages ended up teaching those *good*
Christians descent medical pratices, good environmental skills, etc. etc.
etc.  Let's not get on this argument... history speaks for itself.  How
many people died in the hands of a so-called *good* Germany Christian
named Hitler?  And why?  Because they were not Christian...

> >Show me proof where the PKers include Jewish men, and what they believe in
> >and support.
> 
> Again, why? 
> 
> Why is it that for a group to be "good" it has to include an acceptance
> policy that is on *your* terms?  Isn't this an extreme position that is
> guaranteed to lead to divisiveness and conflict?

No it would bring more people together.  Heck I wouldn't mind seeing in
this country before I die a Jewish or Islamic President.  Why not?  But
no, we live in a country that still damns people based on their religion.

And once again YOU stated that the PKers don't descriminate... but they
do, now don't they?

> There isn't much point in discussing things like this when the basis for
> someone's beliefs is "I just know in my heart", and that's the end of the
> debate.

Oh yes, it wasn that feeling in my heart that told me where my children
were when they were kidnapped... It was that feeling in my heart that
said.. hey something is really fishy with a person I used to talk to
through email, and I was right!

You show me proof that they do not descriminate.  You can't!

When they start making quotes like:

	"Fame or inegrity: which is more important?
	Money or happiness: which is more valuable?
	Success or failure: which is more desctructive?

	If you look to others for fulfillment,
	you will never truly be fulfilled.
	If your happiness depends on money,
	you will never be happy with yourself.

	Be content with what you have;
	rejoice in the way things are.
	When you realize there is nothing lacking,
	the whole world belongs to you."
				Chapter 44, Tao Te Ching

OR

		"Arjuna said:
	(1)	Krishna, if it is your belief that the way of intelligence
		is superior to action, then why do you enjoin me,
		Keshava, to this terrible undertaking?
	(2)	With such equivocal words you seem to confuse my
		intellifence.  Describe clearly an unambiguous way
		through which I may attain what is best.
		The Lord said:
	(3)	Blameless one, I have taught of old that in this world two
		ways are open:  the discipline of knowledge for Sankhya
		theorists, and the discipline of actin for yogins.
	(4)	A man does not attain freedom for the results of action by
		abstaining from actins, and he does not approach
		perfection simply by renunciation.
	(5)	For no one ever, even for a moment, exists without acting;
		everyone, regardless of their will, is made to perform
		actions by the constituents which originate from amterial
		nature.
	96)	The man who, having restrained his action organs, then
		sits with his mind preoccupied with sense objects, is
		called a self-deluding hypocrite.
	(7)	But the man who, controlling his senses with his mind,
		undertakes through his action organs the discipline of
		action without attachment, distinguishes himself, Arjuna.
					Part of Chapter 3, The Bhagavad
					Gita, Translation by W.J. Johnson


Until you can prove that they do not promote descrimination I really have
nothing more to say to you.  But you continue to slam me and put words
into my mouth I'll continue.  I suggest that you stop.

Tracy


browntr@engr.orst.edu                   | tracyh@teleport.COM
http://www.engr.orst.edu/~browntr/      | http://www.teleport.com/~tracyh/
I would like to find a man who wants    | Have you told your children
to be married and a father for life.    | you love them today?

"The only safe computer is a dead computer"