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