🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Zohrab wrote:
>
> Tomorrow, Wednesday 5 January 1997, at 0415 Hours (New Zealand Daylight
> Saving Time), or 1515 Greenwich Mean Time, BBC World Television is
> broadcasting a "Panorama" programme which reports research that
> concludes that children of working mothers do not do so well at school
> as do children of at-home mothers


Peter Zohrab carries on his one-man crusade to put women back in their
place.

Judging from his "copies to" line, at least he doesn't seem to have sent
this one to Bill Clinton. Or did Hilary object to the last missive Peter
sent to her husband? I doubt she would have been amused.

David McLoughlin
Auckland

In article <32F65501.1F2D@iprolink.co.nz>, David McLoughlin
<davemcl@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:

> Peter Zohrab wrote:
> >
> > Tomorrow, Wednesday 5 January 1997, at 0415 Hours (New Zealand Daylight
> > Saving Time), or 1515 Greenwich Mean Time, BBC World Television is
> > broadcasting a "Panorama" programme which reports research that
> > concludes that children of working mothers do not do so well at school
> > as do children of at-home mothers
>
>
> Peter Zohrab carries on his one-man crusade to put women back in their
> place.
>
> Judging from his "copies to" line, at least he doesn't seem to have sent
> this one to Bill Clinton. Or did Hilary object to the last missive Peter
> sent to her husband? I doubt she would have been amused.
>
> David McLoughlin
> Auckland

And David knee-jerks at a quite reasonable posting. I fail to see David
what you find wrong with what Peter wrote - shoot the messenger why don't
you.

Of course we know how off the wall the BBC is.....

John

--
John Holley                      Systems Engineer,CED Distributors Ltd.
j.holley@apple.co.nz             Private Bag 47-902, Ponsonby
+64 9 375 4820 (ph)              Auckland, New Zealand
+64 9 309 3572 (fax)             New Zealand distributor for Apple
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
   - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 12:54:04 +1300, j.holley@apple.co.nz (John Holley)
wrote:


>And David knee-jerks at a quite reasonable posting. I fail to see David
>what you find wrong with what Peter wrote - shoot the messenger why don't
>you.

not been around long, huh?

mj
****************************************************
Women who strive for equality with men lack ambition.

http://www.communications.uci.edu/~inform/mj/arachne.html
*********************************************************

Peter Zohrab wrote:
>
> Tomorrow, Wednesday 5 January 1997, at 0415 Hours (New Zealand Daylight
> Saving Time), or 1515 Greenwich Mean Time, BBC World Television is
> broadcasting a "Panorama" programme which reports research that
> concludes that children of working mothers do not do so well at school
> as do children of at-home mothers (I don't know if at-home fathers were
> investigated).
>
> Apparently, much of the programme is based on research done by Professor
> Margaret O'Brien of North London University.
>
> Peter Zohrab.
>

So whats your point????

Russell Turner

--What a load of rubbish!
I bet this study did not focus on the environmental situations that these
children were in, which would have more relevance than if it was a single
parent family or not.
My experience as a teacher gives me the impression that the environmental
care of children has more to do with there progress than the number of
parents!
Chris Duckworth
I'm solidily behind whichever side eventually wins

Russell Turner <turnerr@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in article
<32F7A1F2.3A95@actrix.gen.nz>...
> Peter Zohrab wrote:
> >
> > Tomorrow, Wednesday 5 January 1997, at 0415 Hours (New Zealand Daylight
> > Saving Time), or 1515 Greenwich Mean Time, BBC World Television is
> > broadcasting a "Panorama" programme which reports research that
> > concludes that children of working mothers do not do so well at school
> > as do children of at-home mothers (I don't know if at-home fathers were
> > investigated).
> >
> > Apparently, much of the programme is based on research done by
Professor
> > Margaret O'Brien of North London University.
> >
> > Peter Zohrab.
> >
>
> So whats your point????
>
> Russell Turner
>

Fairly obvious, I would have thought:

"If you are interested, watch it."

In article <32F65501.1F2D@iprolink.co.nz>, David McLoughlin
<davemcl@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:

> Peter Zohrab wrote:
> >
> > Tomorrow, Wednesday 5 January 1997, at 0415 Hours (New Zealand Daylight
> > Saving Time), or 1515 Greenwich Mean Time, BBC World Television is
> > broadcasting a "Panorama" programme which reports research that
> > concludes that children of working mothers do not do so well at school
> > as do children of at-home mothers
>
>
> Peter Zohrab carries on his one-man crusade to put women back in their
> place.
>
> Judging from his "copies to" line, at least he doesn't seem to have sent
> this one to Bill Clinton. Or did Hilary object to the last missive Peter
> sent to her husband? I doubt she would have been amused.
>
> David McLoughlin
> Auckland

Apparently David is saying that the monther's ego trips come before her
child's well being. The only exception one would think that may make things
different is where the mother is economically forced to work.

--
Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.

Blair Zajac
bzajac@isomedia.com

In article <32f7812a.7265842@news.service.uci.edu>, arachne@uci.edu
(arachne) wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 12:54:04 +1300, j.holley@apple.co.nz (John Holley)

> >And David knee-jerks at a quite reasonable posting. I fail to see David
> >what you find wrong with what Peter wrote - shoot the messenger why don't
> >you.
>
> not been around long, huh?
>
> mj

Nope, I know Peter is quite fanatical, but invalidating research or an
argument due to the personality/style of the person who presents it shows
a close minded approach to the world.

You become just what you accuse Peter of being.

John

--
John Holley                      Systems Engineer,CED Distributors Ltd.
j.holley@apple.co.nz             Private Bag 47-902, Ponsonby
+64 9 375 4820 (ph)              Auckland, New Zealand
+64 9 309 3572 (fax)             New Zealand distributor for Apple
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
   - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In article <look-ya02408000R0402971834320001@news.isomedia.com>,
Blair Zajac <look@my.signature> wrote:
>
>Apparently David is saying that the monther's ego trips come before her
>child's well being. The only exception one would think that may make things
>different is where the mother is economically forced to work.
>
Nope! What he is saying is that Peter Zohrab is a whinging, boring
mono-maniac who was potty trained too early and has developed an
unreasoning hatred for half the human race.

Cliff

In article John Holley <j.holley@apple.co.nz> wrote:
>Nope, I know Peter is quite fanatical, but invalidating research or an
>argument due to the personality/style of the person who presents it shows
>a close minded approach to the world.

The question to ask is: "is the person presenting the argument
reliable?". We recently had a post by Zorhab in which he claimed that men
had been sent off to die in WWI by women majority elected
governments. Thirty minutes of my time was spent discovering that:

1.	The 1911 Cenus showed 558,385 males and 499,927 females in NZ
2.	Women did not get the vote in the USA until 1920 and in Britain
  	until 1928.
3.	Women did not outnumber men in NZ until 1968.

Peter Zohrab time and time again has presented comments and arguments
which can only be considered to be at right angles to reality. He claimed
that a women who wore a bikini to a gang convention and then got raped
should be aressted and charged, this was despite the fact that the
incident that he referred to was purely imaginary, and the complete lack
of logic in his idea that *she* should be charged.

His latest comments are that the 'Feminazis' have censored the program he
was referring to, a conclusion that he has leapt to completely without
proof.

To this reader at least, anything that Zohrab embraces is immediately
suspect as it has to be virtually off the wall to appeal to him.

Do we really have to continually do Zohrab's research for him?

Alex.

In <j.holley-0702971511570001@user11.apple.co.nz> j.holley@apple.co.nz
(John Holley) wrote:

>In article <32f7812a.7265842@news.service.uci.edu>, arachne@uci.edu
>(arachne) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 12:54:04 +1300, j.holley@apple.co.nz (John Holley)
>
>> >And David knee-jerks at a quite reasonable posting. I fail to see David
>> >what you find wrong with what Peter wrote - shoot the messenger why
don't
>> >you.
>>
>> not been around long, huh?
>>
>> mj
>
>Nope, I know Peter is quite fanatical, but invalidating research or an
>argument due to the personality/style of the person who presents it shows
>a close minded approach to the world.
>
>You become just what you accuse Peter of being.
>
>John
Well said John. Its just that sort of narrow mindedness that Zohrab is often
accussed of.
I think it demonstrates that its easier to descend into he adhominen than sustain
an arguement.

Stephen
--
              Stephen Prendergast
email     :   stephen@onair.co.nz
in person :  (64) 9 634-1975 / (64) 25 743-784

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
 competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alex Heatley wrote:

> Do we really have to continually do Zohrab's research for him?
>

You surely don't expect him to do it himself, do you?

David McL.
Auckland

On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:11:57 +1300, j.holley@apple.co.nz (John Holley)
wrote:
>In article <32f7812a.7265842@news.service.uci.edu>, arachne@uci.edu
>(arachne) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 12:54:04 +1300, j.holley@apple.co.nz (John Holley)
>
>> >And David knee-jerks at a quite reasonable posting. I fail to see David
>> >what you find wrong with what Peter wrote - shoot the messenger why don't
>> >you.
>>
>> not been around long, huh?
>>
>> mj
>
>Nope, I know Peter is quite fanatical, but invalidating research or an
>argument due to the personality/style of the person who presents it shows
>a close minded approach to the world.
>
>You become just what you accuse Peter of being.

Beg your pudding John, but I was merely asking a question, which you
have kindly answered.  If however, I *was* to invalidate his argument
on any basis, rather than on the basis of his delightful personality,
it would probably be on the basis of his argument.

Next time you accuse someone of acting ad hominem, make sure you
select the correct hominem (anyone who wants to decline "hominem"
correctly so it makes sense is more than welcome.)

mj
****************************************************
Women who strive for equality with men lack ambition.

http://www.communications.uci.edu/~inform/mj/arachne.html
*********************************************************

Interesting discussion about working mothers.

Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
parent until they go to school.


--
Jonathan Mosen
Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
international phone bill at
http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen

Stephen Taylor wrote:
>
> Jonathan Mosen wrote:
> >
> > Interesting discussion about working mothers.
> >
> > Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
> > earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
> > our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
> > question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
> > formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
> > woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
> > parent until they go to school.
>
> Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
> Which gave suck? A baby's place is where the mother is; the mother's
> place is where she wants to be. Nature has ordained that a baby's
> first mind-forming relationship is with the mother, and that close
> relationship, to be in step with nature's intention, completes
> through stages at approximately 7 years of age.
>
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Mosen
> > Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
> > international phone bill at
> > http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen

You are such a moron, I feel bad for you.  Who says a baby's place is
with the mother?  You?  You are so trapped in society's lies.  I hope you
get out soon, before innocent people start believing such nonsense that
you spout.  Bye now, Kirsten

Jonathan Mosen wrote:
>
> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>
> Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
> earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
> our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
> question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
> formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
> woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
> parent until they go to school.


Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
Which gave suck? A baby's place is where the mother is; the mother's
place is where she wants to be. Nature has ordained that a baby's
first mind-forming relationship is with the mother, and that close
relationship, to be in step with nature's intention, completes
through stages at approximately 7 years of age.

>
> --
> Jonathan Mosen
> Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
> international phone bill at
> http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen

In <3305B3B5.7B91@linux.co.nx> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx>
wrote:

>Jonathan Mosen wrote:
>>
>> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>>
>> Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
>> earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
>> our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
>> question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
>> formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that
a
>> woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
>> parent until they go to school.
Jonathon that's a great way to start. Many families can't afford to lose an
ncome though. And in some its a question of neither partner being in a position
to stop work. People do what they can and what they think is best over the
course of a child's upbringing. Its good to see that you have a clear idea about
what that means to you.

>Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
>Which gave suck? A baby's place is where the mother is; the mother's
>place is where she wants to be. Nature has ordained that a baby's
>first mind-forming relationship is with the mother, and that close
>relationship, to be in step with nature's intention, completes
>through stages at approximately 7 years of age.

Oh dear. I guess you're talking off the top of your head on this one. There's
plenty of research on child-parent psychological relationships which shows that
children are quite mobile based on a variety of issues. All your assertions about
nature ordaining ... well it bears no resemblance to the real world.Let me quote
you from the Children's Commisioner. " The psychological parent/child
relationship is of vital importance but it is not a simple uncomplicated
relationship. There is no presumption in favour of natural parents' (Ludbrooks
in press 13-41). Children form attachments to significant figures who provide
them regular comfort. Fathers are pretty good at that sort of stuff as well.

Stephen
--
              Stephen Prendergast
email     :   stephen@onair.co.nz
in person :  (64) 9 634-1975 / (64) 25 743-784

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
 competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kirsten C. wrote:
>
> Stephen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Mosen wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting discussion about working mothers.
> > >
> > > Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
> > > earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
> > > our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
> > > question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
> > > formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
> > > woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
> > > parent until they go to school.
> >
> > Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
> > Which gave suck? A baby's place is where the mother is; the mother's
> > place is where she wants to be. Nature has ordained that a baby's
> > first mind-forming relationship is with the mother, and that close
> > relationship, to be in step with nature's intention, completes
> > through stages at approximately 7 years of age.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Mosen
> > > Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
> > > international phone bill at
> > > http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen
>
> You are such a moron, I feel bad for you.  Who says a baby's place is
> with the mother?  You?  You are so trapped in society's lies.

Ask any divorced father who has tried to achieve "equality" through the
Family Court and the Child Support Act.


  I hope you
> get out soon, before innocent people start believing such nonsense that
> you spout.  Bye now, Kirsten

ROB......................................

Rob THOMSON wrote:

[...snip...]

>
> Ask any divorced father who has tried to achieve "equality" through
> the Family Court and the Child Support Act.

OK, ask me what?

--
Dr Robert Burling-Claridge
Location: Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, Lincoln, New
Zealand
Email: claridge@wronz.org.nz
Surface-mail: PO Box 4749, Christchurch, New Zealand
"Thought is a dialogue of the soul with itself, and doubt is just a
refusal to deprive either side of a hearing" Plato.

Stephen Taylor (stephen@linux.co.nx) wrote:
: Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
Surely it then follows that the other person who did not have to do
the hard work help out by taking care of the baby after it has been
born?

Just follows so nicely from  your way of thinking doesn't it?


On a more seriously note...
at the end of the day it is up the parents to decide how a child is
brought up.  They decide who is to take care of the child up to the
time it grows up to be independent.

So it could be likely that parents could decide that one parent stays
home while the other goes to work.  It could also be likely that they
take turns doing this.  OR even do shift type work 5 days a week so
one parent is always with the child.

Lin

In article <look-ya02408000R1602972340380001@news.isomedia.com>,
Blair Zajac <look@my.signature> wrote:
>In article <01bc1b16$3580df80$0100007f@dialup.voyager.co.nz>, "Jonathan
>Mosen" <jmosen@rnzfb.org.nz> wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>>
>> Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
>> earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
>> our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
>> question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
>> formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
>> woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
>> parent until they go to school.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Mosen
>> Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
>> international phone bill at
>> http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen
>
>Short term such a decision would make sense, but not long term. The reason
>is straight forward: It is socially acceptable for a women to be out of the
>work force for a period of time while getting a child to the age where she
>could go back to work.

And sometimes physically a necessity as well.  However, that does
not mean that it has to be for every situation, nor that societies
attitudes cannot change.  Why would it be so terrible for a man to
take time off for child rearing?  It's done quite often in other
countries and the men lose NO societal respect for doing so.

>It is not the case for a male. While it is always possible to get a job,
>I'd say the odds are against a man getting any kind of decent job after his
>resume says that he was a househusband for 5 years.

Ah, now this is a different issue entirely.  And what makes you
think that it is any easier for a woman to get a "decent job" after
HER resume says that she was a housewife for 5 years?  And considering
the disadvantages, why should it *always* be the woman who takes
that very definite risk?

>Blair Zajac
>bzajac@isomedia.com

Marg

--
	Marg Petersen    Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
	    goddess@peak.org	http://www.peak.org/~petersm
     "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway

In article <01bc1b16$3580df80$0100007f@dialup.voyager.co.nz>, "Jonathan
Mosen" <jmosen@rnzfb.org.nz> wrote:

> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>
> Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
> earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
> our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
> question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
> formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
> woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
> parent until they go to school.
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Mosen
> Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
> international phone bill at
> http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen

Short term such a decision would make sense, but not long term. The reason
is straight forward: It is socially acceptable for a women to be out of the
work force for a period of time while getting a child to the age where she
could go back to work.

It is not the case for a male. While it is always possible to get a job,
I'd say the odds are against a man getting any kind of decent job after his
resume says that he was a househusband for 5 years.

--
Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.

Blair Zajac
bzajac@isomedia.com

Rob THOMSON wrote:
>
> Kirsten C. wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan Mosen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Interesting discussion about working mothers.
> > > ><snip>

> > You are such a moron, I feel bad for you.  Who says a baby's place is
> > with the mother?  You?  You are so trapped in society's lies.
>
> Ask any divorced father who has tried to achieve "equality" through the
> Family Court and the Child Support Act.

The baby is born of a mother. That is an undeniable fact and
law of nature.

Our entire life cycle -- especially in its early stages, from
conception to birth, and from birth to early childhood -- is
governed by a sequence of entrained stages. To reach its
full potential the human must pass through all of these in
a required order. Put these two statements together and they
say that, "a baby's place is with the mother."

The question of fathers achieving "equality" through Family
Courts and Child Support Acts is an entirely different concern.


> >  I hope you
> > get out soon, before innocent people start believing such nonsense that
> > you spout.  Bye now, Kirsten
>
> ROB......................................


Well, thanks.  I am sure 'innocent' people can think for themselves.
People don't really believe anything they don't think is inherently
true.

Stephen Prendergast wrote:
>
> In <3305B3B5.7B91@linux.co.nx> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx>
> wrote:
>
> >Jonathan Mosen wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
> >><snip>

> >Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
> >Which gave suck? A baby's place is where the mother is; the mother's
> >place is where she wants to be. Nature has ordained that a baby's
> >first mind-forming relationship is with the mother, and that close
> >relationship, to be in step with nature's intention, completes
> >through stages at approximately 7 years of age.
>
> Oh dear. I guess you're talking off the top of your head on this one. There's
> plenty of research on child-parent psychological relationships which shows that
> children are quite mobile based on a variety of issues. All your assertions about
> nature ordaining ... well it bears no resemblance to the real world. Let me quote
> you from the Children's Commisioner. " The psychological parent/child
> relationship is of vital importance but it is not a simple uncomplicated
> relationship. There is no presumption in favour of natural parents' (Ludbrooks
> in press 13-41). Children form attachments to significant figures who provide
> them regular comfort. Fathers are pretty good at that sort of stuff as well.

There are two worlds here so far apart that one doesn't make
sense to the other. "plenty of research ... that children are
quite mobile?"  The fact that the human organism is tough,
resiliant; can survive an upbringing in foster homes and
institutions, does not mean that it is not better with the
real thing, the (for a baby), undivided attention of its
own loving mother.

That link is the human spirit's bridge between generation and
generation. Across it the whole of our language and culture
flows. This is nature's world. The other world of which I
spoke is 'man's' world, a world of -- well need I describe
it?  I'll make this one statement, that 'that world' strikes
against the mother-baby bond in birth itself, turns it into
a cultural ordeal, breaks the human spirit from that moment
forward. This, the world of "Chidlren's Commissioners", may
well fail to understand.












> Stephen Prendergast
> email     :   stephen@onair.co.nz
> in person :  (64) 9 634-1975 / (64) 25 743-784
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
>  competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh really? Since when do babies need custodians? The world
continues to continue from age to age, through its mothers,
not through its 'Children's Commissioners'. :-)

Stephen Taylor wrote:
>
> Rob THOMSON wrote:
> >
> > Kirsten C. wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Taylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Mosen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting discussion about working mothers.
> > > > ><snip>
>
> > > You are such a moron, I feel bad for you.  Who says a baby's place is
> > > with the mother?  You?  You are so trapped in society's lies.
> >
> > Ask any divorced father who has tried to achieve "equality" through the
> > Family Court and the Child Support Act.
>
> The baby is born of a mother. That is an undeniable fact and
> law of nature.

Which is true, but has little to do with this debate.

> Our entire life cycle -- especially in its early stages, from
> conception to birth, and from birth to early childhood -- is
> governed by a sequence of entrained stages. To reach its
> full potential the human must pass through all of these in
> a required order. Put these two statements together and they
> say that, "a baby's place is with the mother."

Oh bollocks. "required order" my left armpit! One day you must enlighten
us on where this order was ordained and who is the keeper of the list of
things to be done when.

> The question of fathers achieving "equality" through Family
> Courts and Child Support Acts is an entirely different concern.

And ought to be the subject of the debate? is this what you are saying,
or are you saying you want to ignore this?

> Well, thanks.  I am sure 'innocent' people can think for themselves.
> People don't really believe anything they don't think is inherently
> true.

I read this three times, and I'm still not sure what you're saying...

--

Dr Robert Burling-Claridge
Location: Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, Lincoln, New
Zealand
Email: claridge@wronz.org.nz
Surface-mail: PO Box 4749, Christchurch, New Zealand
"Thought is a dialogue of the soul with itself, and doubt is just a
refusal to deprive either side of a hearing" Plato.

Stephen Taylor wrote:
>
> Stephen Prendergast wrote:
[...snip...]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
> >  competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh really? Since when do babies need custodians? The world
> continues to continue from age to age, through its mothers,
> not through its 'Children's Commissioners'. :-)

A very simplistic view. Although I generally hate political correct, I
think the current "care giver" label is a good concept. What difference
if the CG is male or female? There are good/bad examples of people in CG
roles for both sexes. Yes, there is the physical requirement of father
to imporegnate and mother to grow, but once the child is born, there is
no physical requirement for either parent particularly.

Would it be better to breastfeed but unwanted than bottlefeed (adopted,
say) but really wanted? All sorts of situations. To sweeping say mother
is best (or father is best) ignores reality.

As an aside (or not...) you might like to note that beyond suckling
time, maori young were largely in the care of their koro. Normally
direct grandparent(s) but often an elder fe/male. I have no idea how
often grnadmother rather than grandfather, but my own experience
suggested roughly equal CG roles for both. Not _EVERY_ time, of course,
and all sorts of reasons, but still, it blows the mother is best, "age
to age" stories a little wonky.

--

Dr Robert Burling-Claridge
Location: Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, Lincoln, New
Zealand
Email: claridge@wronz.org.nz
Surface-mail: PO Box 4749, Christchurch, New Zealand
"Thought is a dialogue of the soul with itself, and doubt is just a
refusal to deprive either side of a hearing" Plato.

Rob THOMSON <rob.thomson@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:

>Kirsten C. wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Taylor wrote:
>> >
>> > Jonathan Mosen wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>> > >
>> > > Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
>> > > earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
>> > > our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
>> > > question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
>> > > formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that a
>> > > woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
>> > > parent until they go to school.
>> >
>> > Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
>> > Which gave suck? A baby's place is where the mother is; the mother's
>> > place is where she wants to be. Nature has ordained that a baby's
>> > first mind-forming relationship is with the mother, and that close
>> > relationship, to be in step with nature's intention, completes
>> > through stages at approximately 7 years of age.

I think the person who said this is confusing gestation and lactation with
parenting, a common (and convenient) crossing of these biological functions
with parenting skills, unless one believes that the privilege of being the
primary parent is some sort of compensation for being born with body parts
specific to birthing.

>> You are such a moron, I feel bad for you.  Who says a baby's place is
>> with the mother?  You?  You are so trapped in society's lies.

I see the nurturing feminists have no problem with petty name-calling.  They
must get the habit from the children they allegedly "nurture."

>Ask any divorced father who has tried to achieve "equality" through the
>Family Court and the Child Support Act.
>
>
>  I hope you
>> get out soon, before innocent people start believing such nonsense that
>> you spout.  Bye now, Kirsten

This kind of rhetoric is one reason children should be exposed to more than
merely the teachings of mothers.

Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:

>> Family Court and the Child Support Act.
>
>The baby is born of a mother. That is an undeniable fact and
>law of nature.
>
>Our entire life cycle -- especially in its early stages, from
>conception to birth, and from birth to early childhood -- is
>governed by a sequence of entrained stages. To reach its
>full potential the human must pass through all of these in
>a required order. Put these two statements together and they
>say that, "a baby's place is with the mother."
>

I'm unclear where you're getting your conclusion from the premises you've
presented.  Could you be more specific?

In <330868E8.11C@linux.co.nx> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx>
wrote:

>Stephen Prendergast wrote:
>>
>> In <3305B3B5.7B91@linux.co.nx> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Jonathan Mosen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>> >><snip>
>
 snip

>> Oh dear. I guess you're talking off the top of your head on this one. There's
>> plenty of research on child-parent psychological relationships which shows
that
>> children are quite mobile based on a variety of issues. All your assertions
about
>> nature ordaining ... well it bears no resemblance to the real world. Let me
quote
>> you from the Children's Commisioner. " The psychological parent/child
>> relationship is of vital importance but it is not a simple uncomplicated
>> relationship. There is no presumption in favour of natural parents'
(Ludbrooks
>> in press 13-41). Children form attachments to significant figures who
provide
>> them regular comfort. Fathers are pretty good at that sort of stuff as well.
>
>There are two worlds here so far apart that one doesn't make
>sense to the other. "plenty of research ... that children are
>quite mobile?"  The fact that the human organism is tough,
>resiliant; can survive an upbringing in foster homes and
>institutions, does not mean that it is not better with the
>real thing, the (for a baby), undivided attention of its
>own loving mother.

No what you maintain as a matter of resilience is in fact mobillity.
What children require is love and comfort that combines to
fulfill their physical and emotional needs. That's not based
on the sex of the caregiver, rather the quality of care. Sex has little to
do with it. It is akin to saying that IVF children are less loved than those
conceived in more 'natural' manners. You choose one factor and make it
paramount. As I have said previously it is far more complex.
As for describing anything otherthan  maternal care as some sort of survival
mode then I think that you ignore the many good experiences that children
raised in this manner have experienced, as well as ignoring the many bad
experiences that children raised by some women undergo.
On the whole though it is difficult to generalise on a subject such as this.
You must look at each situation individually.

>That link is the human spirit's bridge between generation and
>generation. Across it the whole of our language and culture
>flows. This is nature's world.

You ignore evolution. Culture and language don't remain static as you
suggest. Neither does nature.

>The other world of which I
>spoke is 'man's' world, a world of -- well need I describe
>it?  I'll make this one statement, that 'that world' strikes
>against the mother-baby bond in birth itself, turns it into
>a cultural ordeal, breaks the human spirit from that moment
>forward. This, the world of "Chidlren's Commissioners", may
>well fail to understand.

No I think you have an issue with children having interests independantly
of, and paramount to, those of their parents.

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
>>  competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Oh really? Since when do babies need custodians? The world
>continues to continue from age to age, through its mothers,
>not through its 'Children's Commissioners'. :-)
You are argue as if the ability to conceive bestows parenting skills and insights.
I presume these are part of the 'natural' understanding mothers have ? Well
there
is a clear distinction between giving birth and raising a child. One does not
qualify you for
the other. So children need custodians from the day they're born. Ussually that
role is filled
by parents but sometimes that's not in the child's best interest.
In fact we live on in our children, not our mothers.

Stephen
--
              Stephen Prendergast
email     :   stephen@onair.co.nz
in person :  (64) 9 634-1975 / (64) 25 743-784

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
 competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In <look-ya02408000R1602972340380001@news.isomedia.com>
look@my.signature (Blair Zajac) wrote:

>In article <01bc1b16$3580df80$0100007f@dialup.voyager.co.nz>, "Jonathan
>Mosen" <jmosen@rnzfb.org.nz> wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion about working mothers.
>>
>> Before my wife and I got married, we agreed that whichever of us was
>> earning the least would give up working when our first child was born until
>> our children were 5.  To me, it's not so much a gender issue, but a
>> question of whether you're willing to have many of your children's values
>> formed by people who you may hardly know.  I certainly don't believe that
a
>> woman's place is in the home, but I believe a child needs a full-time
>> parent until they go to school.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Mosen
>> Visit Arena Communications, where you can save up to 70% on your
>> international phone bill at
>> http://www.rnzfb.org.nz/jmosen
>
>Short term such a decision would make sense, but not long term. The reason
>is straight forward: It is socially acceptable for a women to be out of the
>work force for a period of time while getting a child to the age where she
>could go back to work.
In fact long term this sort of decision is eminently sensible if that is what the
parents
want. Existing social mores are changing to move away from this sort of
discrimination
against mothes returning to full time work and fathers engaging in full time
parenting.
Perhaps your view needs some examination ?

>It is not the case for a male. While it is always possible to get a job,
>I'd say the odds are against a man getting any kind of decent job after his
>resume says that he was a househusband for 5 years.
That's your view. What happens if the employer is a woman or a man who
themselve did exactly the same thing ?  How much value would he or she
assign to such an activity ? I also question your assumption that some sort of
intellectual/occupational deterioration occurs as a result of full time parenting.
In fact it is a matter of significant skill increase, and many of these skills are
of some benefit particularly when dealing with childish attitudes.

>Blair Zajac
>bzajac@isomedia.com

Stephen
--
              Stephen Prendergast
email     :   stephen@onair.co.nz
in person :  (64) 9 634-1975 / (64) 25 743-784

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"..Social science research does not support any view that fathers are less
 competent than mothers as custodians." O'Reilly, Children�s Commissioner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:
>Lin Nah wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Taylor (stephen@linux.co.nx) wrote:
>> : Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?
>
>> Surely it then follows that the other person who did not have to do
>> the hard work help out by taking care of the baby after it has been
>> born?
>>
>> Just follows so nicely from  your way of thinking doesn't it?
>
>
>It doesn't follow at all.  The mother gives birth,

> and this mutual relationship
>is, and I repeat, IS the stem of the new human mind to be.

Is that the reason that it has become almost a fashion that the man's function
has been simplified to the basics only. just being a provider.
and little allowance is given  in the spriritual bonding between the foetus or new
born and their blood father?

To share the following may help you out of the dreanm that I am cynical.

After number of years after the break up of my  1st marriage I returned to my home
country and  met a secretary of the company I started to work for.
Fairly soon she became pregnant ( during her previous marriage she never succeeded)
Me being already father of 3 beautiful daughters, all born at home, had learned that
the bonding between the foetus and father can be just as strong as between  the
mother and foetus.
It is through exclusion of the male energy during the breast feeding time in the
beginning that  the mother may claim  the above marked statement.
I may proof this  through the following cases.

After  my second daughter was born I had to travel abroad  returned 6 weeks later
and the baby was 3months.
when returned home and I wanted to hug the baby and take her in my arms.  as soon
I put my hands out she turned her back to me.
That gave me a shock and was to me very painful.
I promised my self that this would never happen again.
My bonding with my youngest daughter went totally different.
First of all having studied for  naturopath,  for 9 months I made sure that
Margaret had every day her homoepathic constitutional remedy.  (she could not be
bothered with it herself)  The birth went excellent, water broke at 4.30 am and 5.30
Claire was born, a few hours later  Margaret  had a bath and walked around. Two days
later she was back working in our business. The District nurse was furious to me and
told me to be a un-caring bastard. (BTW it was Margaret's choice to do so)
The bonding with the foetus and me by talking, singing, touching etc. and even
through the mind communication alone created  a bonding that  Margaret never could
brake even through the most unpleasant period of a marriage break-up.

The second case My lady friend was 6 months pregnant and  we started to talk what
name  the boy would have. (we knew without a scan that it would be a son)
The moment Johanna  asked me that question  my mind had already thrown up a name I
never would come up my self.
Maybe I am lucky that I have recognised and exersised  communicate without being
verbal with my loved ones and able to feel the peace, hurt etc. without seeing them.
Robert John was born and  from day one there was a bonding, a recognition beyond any
doubt.  Being an experienced father and putting the old fashioned non polluting
nappies on from day one kept the bonding alive.  Robert-John  and I had a bonding
that  made the mother very angry and jealous. After 18 months it was for the best of
the baby that the mother got her way and  I left her to search for her twin soul as
she said.
The child is now 6 yrs and I have haven't seen him since. (Although  Income support
tried so hard me paying maintenance for a child I do not know it still exist)

The fact that during the late 80ties it became popular in my homecountry to look for
spermdonor and give birth as a single mother is for me a frightening move  for the
new generation of kids.

>rtunity for the mother to nurse
>and to do her nature-appointed thing.  Not to infringe
>upon her territory, her prerogative, her spiritual role.

 You may understand that my previous comments doubt this statement and that this so
called security role etc. of the masculine energy is far too simplistic and one
sided.

> The father, who sees this spiritual process, sees
>it as sacred.  These are the relations which have to be
>understood and respected.

 What right has the mother to pull these responsibilities totally to her self.It
create only  attachment, power and the false security within the mother, Also the
differentiation of the sexes.

Another aspect I may describe out of experience.
Not long ago a young mother was feeding her baby.  and afterwards I saw how the
young child responded while leaning at the breast of the mother. and I said as a
joke. you know what you are actually doing?
She looked at me  and I laughed. You tell your husband that he always wants your
breasts, do you realise what you are doing? You are actually training a young men
who will respond in later life in the same manner as your husband.  A big grin on
Husband's face, herself and others laughed with agreement.

It is not any longer in the interest of the human race to stick with the old tribal
beliefs that  the man is purely  the masculine factor. The  growing integration
processes of  mind, body and spirit within  man as well as by women create within
each of us  a balanced blending of the masculine and femenine aspects. So that in
the future the nonsens of hurting  the other sex is removed out of our society.

Please no offence  for those who have a different opinion

Martin

Lin Nah wrote:
>
> Stephen Taylor (stephen@linux.co.nx) wrote:
> : Gee, did you get it wrong! Which one of you gave birth to the baby?

> Surely it then follows that the other person who did not have to do
> the hard work help out by taking care of the baby after it has been
> born?
>
> Just follows so nicely from  your way of thinking doesn't it?


It doesn't follow at all.  The mother gives birth, the mother
gives suck.  In nature the mother bonds spiritually to the
baby; the baby to the mother, and this mutual relationship
is, and I repeat, IS the stem of the new human mind to be.

If this stem is damaged, taken out of its nature-intended
course, all sorts of problems arise, all sorts of strains,
mental disorders etc., in later life.  Breast feeding
follows automatically in the course of nature and
continues for two or three years.  This does NOT occur as
routine in today's culture, and the reason why is that the
natural mother/baby bonding process is damaged in the course
of a medically supervised and managed delivery.

There is no other reason why the majority of mothers in
today's society cannot achieve the ideal of full breast
feeding -- until recent centuries the norm -- than this
disruption inflicted upon the mother infant bonding process,
and so upon the mind in its very formative development.

The role of the father, other person, or society in
general -- given a natural birth in the first place, so
a happily bonded mother and baby -- is to provide that
sanctuary, peace and opportunity for the mother to nurse
and to do her nature-appointed thing.  Not to infringe
upon her territory, her prerogative, her spiritual role.

The role of the 'other person' is very important. It is
to see that the mother has the conditions she needs, and
to see that no one, nobody, infringes upon her peace,
privacy and sanctuary.

For, you see, a baby is not born with a social mind. It
has to be formed, and it is so normally in nature. The
mother/infant bonding relation is therefore spiritual in
nature. The father, who sees this spiritual process, sees
it as sacred.  These are the relations which have to be
understood and respected.

Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:
>
> >The baby is born of a mother. That is an undeniable fact and
> >law of nature.
> >
> >Our entire life cycle -- especially in its early stages, from
> >conception to birth, and from birth to early childhood -- is
> >governed by a sequence of entrained stages. To reach its
> >full potential the human must pass through all of these in
> >a required order. Put these two statements together and they
> >say that, "a baby's place is with the mother."
> >
>
> I'm unclear where you're getting your conclusion from the premises you've
> presented.  Could you be more specific?


I've just mentioned in another post but maybe I can just address
that point. I am saying that gestation, from conception to birth,
builds the baby as a physical being.  In nine months the genetic
pattern creates the born baby, packing untold millions of years
of evolutionary engineering into a short space of time.

But there's no mind in that. The mind forms, first before birth,
but then greatly in and with birth itself; and the baby literally
bonds and imprints to its mother (or to its mother-surrogate), in
stages.  The first 6 to 8 months forms the baby's unconscious. In
infancy, so up to 3 years, its subconscious is set in place; and
after that the conscious mind begins to form and exercise its
powers.  And all this takes place in terms of the mother/baby
relation.

There, I've told you. Nine months in the womb for the birth of
the baby; nine months in the mother's arms for the birth of the
mind; happy that person in life whose birth, babyhood and
infancy (at least) were in accord with nature's intent.
Unhappy, in fact cursed, the rest.

Stephen Taylor wrote:
>
> It doesn't follow at all.  The mother gives birth, the mother
> gives suck.  In nature the mother bonds spiritually to the
> baby; the baby to the mother, and this mutual relationship
> is, and I repeat, IS the stem of the new human mind to be.
>

As a father of four sons I am "convinced of my own importance".
I say that seriously.    I am also sure that fathers are
possessed of the "same" (loosely, because they are also subtly
different) caring, nurturing instincts as mothers.
In fact that all adult human beings have a natural
tendency to care for and protect the young of the species.

But it seems undeniable to me that the mother has a special
role in which she is "indispensable" in the sense that any
substitute will be less satisfactory to the child's development.

And I am quite sure that, while Dr Taylor's view might receive
criticism from some quarters, very few mothers would say that
he is wrong.

Geoff Fischer wrote:
>
> Stephen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't follow at all.  The mother gives birth, the mother
> > gives suck.  In nature the mother bonds spiritually to the
> > baby; the baby to the mother, and this mutual relationship
> > is, and I repeat, IS the stem of the new human mind to be.
> >
>
> As a father of four sons I am "convinced of my own importance".
> I say that seriously.    I am also sure that fathers are
> possessed of the "same" (loosely, because they are also subtly
> different) caring, nurturing instincts as mothers.
> In fact that all adult human beings have a natural
> tendency to care for and protect the young of the species.

As they differ in the manner of conceiving so they differ in
the manner of protecting and taking care. The man's 'importance'
no more clashes with the mother's preeminance and role than God,
for instance, clashes with the Creation.

The mind, and with the mind everything sensible and conceivable,
is dual in its nature before it is anything else. God and world,
time and space, body and mind -- duality in conception has been
with us since Socrates, since 'Adam and Eve', since the foundation
of every religion on earth, and is no less a part of our culture,
knowledge and science today than in those glimpses afforded us of
our earlier beginnings.

The mother's role is as indispensable to the mind's formation as
subatomic is to atomic structure.  Neither realms, subatomic or
atomic, interferes with the being and 'importance' of the other.
Each is a side of one creation. Can you see what I am saying? The
mind has a mother-related, mother-created side as significant as
'subatomic to atomic physics'.

We can no more conceive a thought mentally (through the
subconscious), without its having an unconscious and a conscious
side, than physical conception is possible without its having an
input from different sides. On top of this there is a duality in
the duality, or duality is at odds with itself, for it nurses a
unity, which in turn is dual in its very unity; the result is
that cradle of relations which underpins human thought, and in
analysis give rise to the conception of a fundamental trinity.

The sense of male dominance, which ashamed of itself steps in
to 'help' the mother, and in the process robs her of her very
gender role, is the final error in the subjugation of woman to
man the long history of paternalism.


_______________________________________________________________
(c) copyright Dr. Stephen W.Taylor MbChB. Redistribution rights
granted on text of my own creation for non-commercial  purposes.
Other included text if any may have its own copyright conditions.

Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> Short term such a decision would make sense, but not long term. The reason
> is straight forward: It is socially acceptable for a women to be out of the
> work force for a period of time while getting a child to the age where she
> could go back to work.
>
"socially acceptable"

What does this mean? There are different societies which change
over time, hence different ways of being socially acceptable.
So if "what is socially acceptable" means whatever is
ok, then there are a lot of different acceptable ways of doing
things. This is nonsense as human beings are human beings and
they always will be, and with their needs unchanged no matter
what the society tells them they need or how society tells
them they should do things. If you are relying on what society
tells you is ok then you'd better hope you're not living in
a particularly screwed-up period of history! I prefer to think
for myself and not listen to the fashions in what society tells
people to think, which come and go... What stays the same is the
absolute truth of what people need. Make sure you make up your
own mind what that means otherwise you'll be letting other
people decide what's true!

Graham

In article <330E2EBC.295A@massey.ac.nz>,
Stuart Birks  <K.S.Birks@massey.ac.nz> wrote:
>Marg Petersen wrote:
>> attitudes cannot change.  Why would it be so terrible for a man to
>> take time off for child rearing?  It's done quite often in other
>> countries and the men lose NO societal respect for doing so.
>
>It is not clear which "other countries" you mean. You are in the US, but this thread is
>going to several specifically New Zealand newsgroups. Could you please clarify?

I believe that in most of the Scandinavian countries, men frequently
take the family leave that they are allowed to take.  They are also
quite generous as I understand it.

>Thanks,
>Stuart

Marg

>--
>************************************
>Stuart Birks, K.S.Birks@massey.ac.nz
>http://www.massey.ac.nz/~KBirks/
>************************************


--
	Marg Petersen    Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
	    goddess@peak.org	http://www.peak.org/~petersm
     "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway

Stephen Taylor wrote:

> There, I've told you. Nine months in the womb for the birth of
> the baby; nine months in the mother's arms for the birth of the
> mind; happy that person in life whose birth, babyhood and
> infancy (at least) were in accord with nature's intent.
> Unhappy, in fact cursed, the rest.

Certainly different. But unhappy? and cursed???

Your worldview apparently doesn't allow for any variation from your
"standard".

What happened to children whose mothers died in childbirth (as often
happened last century)? Were they eternally cursed? And what about their
children? Surely someone whose subconscious has been damaged by lack of
maternal care can't be a good parent? In which case there have been
generations of cursed, psychologically-impaired people living unhappy
lives. And *that* means that being cursed and psychologically-impaired
(and unhappy) is actually pretty normal.

Conversely, I can tell you that "birth, babyhood and infancy in accord
with nature's intent" is no guarantee of happiness.

In short, I suggest, sir, that your whole thesis is a crock of crap.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
frankv@pec.co.nzZ (without the anti-email-spam Z, of course)
http://www.pec.co.nz/~frankv/
Frank van der Hulst, Software Engineer, Cardax, PEC(NZ) Ltd, Marton
"Knowledge=Power=Energy=Matter=Mass; A good bookshop is just a genteel
Black Hole that knows how to read". Terry Pratchett, "Guards! Guards!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Marg Petersen wrote:
> attitudes cannot change.  Why would it be so terrible for a man to
> take time off for child rearing?  It's done quite often in other
> countries and the men lose NO societal respect for doing so.

It is not clear which "other countries" you mean. You are in the US, but this thread is
going to several specifically New Zealand newsgroups. Could you please clarify?

Thanks,

Stuart

--
************************************
Stuart Birks, K.S.Birks@massey.ac.nz
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~KBirks/
************************************

In article <330C085B.21BC@actrix.gen.nz>, gshawk@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

> Blair Zajac wrote:
> >
> > Short term such a decision would make sense, but not long term. The reason
> > is straight forward: It is socially acceptable for a women to be out of the
> > work force for a period of time while getting a child to the age where she
> > could go back to work.
> >
> "socially acceptable"
>
> What does this mean? There are different societies which change
> over time, hence different ways of being socially acceptable.
> So if "what is socially acceptable" means whatever is
> ok, then there are a lot of different acceptable ways of doing
> things. This is nonsense as human beings are human beings and
> they always will be, and with their needs unchanged no matter
> what the society tells them they need or how society tells
> them they should do things. If you are relying on what society
> tells you is ok then you'd better hope you're not living in
> a particularly screwed-up period of history! I prefer to think
> for myself and not listen to the fashions in what society tells
> people to think, which come and go... What stays the same is the
> absolute truth of what people need. Make sure you make up your
> own mind what that means otherwise you'll be letting other
> people decide what's true!
>
> Graham

Well, Graham certainly has the right to wish for an ideal world, but when
it comes down to economic survial, our world is certainly not ideal. From
one that can remember the depression, where I saw grown men fist fighting
over milk to give to their children, the memory still haunts me.

For example, the lastest dealings that Clinton has had with foreign
countries trying to get special rights and/or military support from the US
through political contributions. Does Clinton's actions meet Graham's
requirements?

Also, what is and who defines what is the "absolute truth of what people
need." Graham's perspective is not necessarily the same as mine, or my
wife's or my children's or my friends.

I admire Graham's goal. However, my comment, based on too many years of
experience, is that one should choose their battle carefully.

To close on the positive side, however, we do need the idealist Grahams to
improve our society.

--
Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.

Blair Zajac
bzajac@isomedia.com

Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:

>Tim Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:
>>
>> >The baby is born of a mother. That is an undeniable fact and
>> >law of nature.
>> >
>> >Our entire life cycle -- especially in its early stages, from
>> >conception to birth, and from birth to early childhood -- is
>> >governed by a sequence of entrained stages. To reach its
>> >full potential the human must pass through all of these in
>> >a required order. Put these two statements together and they
>> >say that, "a baby's place is with the mother."
>> >
>>
>> I'm unclear where you're getting your conclusion from the premises you've
>> presented.  Could you be more specific?
>
>
>I've just mentioned in another post but maybe I can just address
>that point. I am saying that gestation, from conception to birth,
>builds the baby as a physical being.  In nine months the genetic
>pattern creates the born baby, packing untold millions of years
>of evolutionary engineering into a short space of time.
>
>But there's no mind in that. The mind forms, first before birth,
>but then greatly in and with birth itself; and the baby literally
>bonds and imprints to its mother (or to its mother-surrogate), in
>stages.  The first 6 to 8 months forms the baby's unconscious. In
>infancy, so up to 3 years, its subconscious is set in place; and
>after that the conscious mind begins to form and exercise its
>powers.  And all this takes place in terms of the mother/baby
>relation.

This is great story-telling, I suppose, and a good argument against gestation
for men, but what does it have to do with parenting?  I would think that after
nine months nonstop with one person, the little cherub could use a little
variety! <g>

>
>There, I've told you. Nine months in the womb for the birth of
>the baby; nine months in the mother's arms for the birth of the
>mind; happy that person in life whose birth, babyhood and
>infancy (at least) were in accord with nature's intent.

So you know more than the rest of us about nature's alleged intent, do you?  I
suppose it came to you written on two stone tablets, right?  If not, what is
your postition to be telling others who know no less about "nature's intent,"
if not arrogance and elitism?  Do you fancy yourself on some sort of divine
mission?

>Unhappy, in fact cursed, the rest.

In the above frankly poetic style which I frankly admire, you've shown a true
talent for gift wrapping baloney.

Now that you're done waxing poetic, how about some hard facts about why any of
the above has more truth to it than any other unresearched tale, with more
substance than your own dreadful chauvinistic verse to back it up.

Frank van der Hulst wrote:
>
> Stephen Taylor wrote:
>
> > There, I've told you. Nine months in the womb for the birth of
> > the baby; nine months in the mother's arms for the birth of the
> > mind; happy that person in life whose birth, babyhood and
> > infancy (at least) were in accord with nature's intent.
> > Unhappy, in fact cursed, the rest.
>
> Certainly different. But unhappy? and cursed???
>
> Your worldview apparently doesn't allow for any variation from your
> "standard".
>
> What happened to children whose mothers died in childbirth (as often
> happened last century)? Were they eternally cursed? And what about their
> children? Surely someone whose subconscious has been damaged by lack of
> maternal care can't be a good parent? In which case there have been
> generations of cursed, psychologically-impaired people living unhappy
> lives. And *that* means that being cursed and psychologically-impaired
> (and unhappy) is actually pretty normal.
>
> Conversely, I can tell you that "birth, babyhood and infancy in accord
> with nature's intent" is no guarantee of happiness.
>
> In short, I suggest, sir, that your whole thesis is a crock of crap.
>

Careful, Frank, you have taken the one word "cursed" and built it up to
"eternally cursed".    If there is crap in the crock, maybe you had a
hand in putting it there.

Steve's "thesis" is the common sense of millenia, supported by more recent
scientific evidence of the importance of early nurturing to psychological
development, and a theory of the development of mind.   It states general
rules, but does not exclude qualification or provide any absolute
"guarantees" of happiness.

People can survive on a diet of potatoes.   That doesn't make a pure
potato diet healthy.   Nor does a balanced diet provide a guarantee of
good physical health.    Never-the-less you can make quite valid
observations on the relative merits of the two diets.

> >I've just mentioned in another post but maybe I can just address
> >that point. I am saying that gestation, from conception to birth,
> >builds the baby as a physical being.  In nine months the genetic
> >pattern creates the born baby, packing untold millions of years
> >of evolutionary engineering into a short space of time.
> >
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This isn't true assuming you base this statement on the work of a German
scientist about a hundred years ago who published comparisions between
the human embryo and the embryos of animals. He supposedly showed that
the human foetus goes through a fish stage then another stage and so on
and so reproducing the evolutionary cycle during gestation. His results
were later shown to be fraudulent as he doctored his diagrams.

Graham

Tim Hanson wrote:
> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:
> >Tim Hanson wrote:
> >> Stephen Taylor <stephen@linux.co.nx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The baby is born of a mother. That is an undeniable fact and
> >> >law of nature.
> >> >
> >> >Our entire life cycle -- especially in its early stages, from
> >> >conception to birth, and from birth to early childhood -- is
> >> >governed by a sequence of entrained stages. To reach its
> >> >full potential the human must pass through all of these in
> >> >a required order.
> >>
> >> I'm unclear where you're getting your conclusion from the premises you've
> >> presented.  Could you be more specific?
> >
> > <snipped>
> > [precis of snippage: 9 months gestation to form a body;
> > 9 months nursing to form a mind. This latter event is as
> > great a miracle as the creation of the body in the womb.]
> >
> > [again snip & precis: Labour and birth are designed to lead to
> > mother/baby bonding.  We can UNDERSTAND the adult mind (with its
> > unconscious, subconscious and conscious levels if we attribute or
> > relate these to three time stages: babyhood, infancy and early
> > childhood. The mind GROWS FROM THAT MOTHER/INFANT BOND
> > no less than the body from the fertilized egg.]

> This is great story-telling, I suppose, and a good argument against gestation
> for men, but what does it have to do with parenting?  I would think that after
> nine months nonstop with one person, the little cherub could use a little
> variety! <g>

The baby imprints from the moment of birth like the photographic
plate in a camera. Where the camera points determines WHAT constitutes
the foundations of that mind. Nature intended it to be the mother, but
will accept a surrogate, such as a wolf, a fowl, a man -- anything. And
will grow up as a wolf-child, a fowl child, or otherwise have its
identifications mixed up. Damage the zygote or early embryo and you
will produce a physical monster. Damage the mother/infant bonding
relation and you will produce a mental monster (or deranged person).
The human do-good fathers, men, doctors, whatever... wanting to 'help'
or dominate (animals do not interfere in this way), usurping the labour
and then stepping into the mother/baby relationship, don't know what
terrible mental suffering they are incubating in a future life.

> So you know more than the rest of us about nature's alleged intent, do you?  I
> suppose it came to you written on two stone tablets, right?  If not, what is
> your postition to be telling others who know no less about "nature's intent,"
> if not arrogance and elitism?  Do you fancy yourself on some sort of divine
> mission?

I have observed.  I trust you will make allowance in the above for my
endeavour to say in the fewest words what really requires much longer
statement.

> In the above frankly poetic style which I frankly admire, you've shown a true
> talent for gift wrapping baloney.
>
> Now that you're done waxing poetic, how about some hard facts about why any of
> the above has more truth to it than any other unresearched tale, with more
> substance than your own dreadful chauvinistic verse to back it up.

I am chuffed.  I never knew I could write poetry :-)


_______________________________________________________________
(c) copyright Dr. Stephen W.Taylor MbChB. Redistribution rights
granted on text of my own creation for non-commercial  purposes.
Other included text if any may have its own copyright conditions.

Gee
I
snipped
and
re-wrote
everything
and
it
wont
let
me
send.
"More
quote
than
new
text!

Graham Hawkins wrote:
>
> > >I've just mentioned in another post but maybe I can just address
> > >that point. I am saying that gestation, from conception to birth,
> > >builds the baby as a physical being.  In nine months the genetic
> > >pattern creates the born baby, packing untold millions of years
> > >of evolutionary engineering into a short space of time.
> > >
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This isn't true assuming you base this statement on the work of a German
> scientist about a hundred years ago...

Can you name this scientist?
That's a line for sense, this is for the 'not enough text' daemon.

> who published comparisions between the human embryo and the embryos
> of animals. He supposedly showed that the human foetus goes through
> a fish stage ...

Its worst than that. I even believe that we -- I mean, you and me --
actually begin life as a single cell in a fluid medium. The fish stage
is far in advance of that.

I even believe that egg and sperm, you know -- what people go on so
about (I'll press on, you might as well have a good laugh) -- point
beyond to two original species, one in the habit of eating the other.

Which shouldn't have been allowed, but there was no law against it then.
So not only does our ancestory go back to a fish stage, but in male and
female we are two different species. That, of course, is way before
Adam and Eve.  This is not to detract from the Glory of God. 'He' was
there all the time presiding over it all. On whose side? Don't ask.

> and so reproducing the evolutionary cycle during gestation. His results
> were later shown to be fraudulent as he doctored his diagrams.

Now, *that* shouldn't have been allowed, but who was he :-?


> Graham

_______________________________________________________________
(c) copyright Dr. Stephen W.Taylor MbChB. Redistribution rights
granted on text of my own creation for non-commercial  purposes.
Other included text if any may have its own copyright conditions.

Frank van der Hulst wrote:

> Stephen Taylor wrote:

> > There, I've told you. Nine months in the womb for the birth of
> > the baby; nine months in the mother's arms for the birth of the
> > mind; happy that person in life whose birth, babyhood and
> > infancy (at least) were in accord with nature's intent.
> > Unhappy, in fact cursed, the rest.
>
> Certainly different. But unhappy? and cursed???

'Happy that person' is just a way of saying.  'Cursed' is literal.
"And Jehovah Elohim said to the woman, What is this thou hast done?
And the woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate. And Jehovah
Elohim said to the serpent, Because thou hast done this, be thou
cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field...."

Take this to represent the evolutionary origin of the human mind,
or self-consciousness rising within, through and above the hitherto
existing purely animal consciousness.

"To the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy travail and thy
pregnancy; with pain shalt bear children; and to thy husband shall
be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee."

This is the Curse of Eve, at the beginning of the Bible (Ge.3;13,17).
About it the whole of Christian theology rotates, and on this basis
did our bomb-making rocket-waving civilization arise.

> Your worldview apparently doesn't allow for any variation from your
> "standard".

"My worldview"?  What 'standard'?

> What happened to children whose mothers died in childbirth (as often
> happened last century)? Were they eternally cursed?

They were adopted by surrogates or they too died. It is the race which
is 'eternally cursed', so long as men and women do not recognise the
cooperative *identity in difference* of their respective roles. Now,
at the end of history we must solve this (enigma of a) problem, the
curse seen and described right at the beginning.

>                                               And what about their
> children? Surely someone whose subconscious has been damaged by lack of
> maternal care can't be a good parent?

As a tree has roots, branch and foliage, so the human mind has
unconscious, subconscious and conscious stations. They work
inseparably together.  It is impossible to 'damage the subconscious'
without deranging the whole mind in that respect.  And, yes, such
a one cannot be a good parent.  I say this in the sense that the
damage inflicted upon the mother/baby, mother/infant and
mother/child bonding relation, so upon the newly forming
mind, IS passed on from generation to generation.

Just as you take a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.
The *pattern* is replicated.

>                                  In which case there have been
> generations of cursed, psychologically-impaired people living unhappy
> lives. And *that* means that being cursed and psychologically-impaired
> (and unhappy) is actually pretty normal.

Exactly. You've got it.

> Conversely, I can tell you that "birth, babyhood and infancy in accord
> with nature's intent" is no guarantee of happiness.

It may not be, but it is certainly consonant with sanity.

> In short, I suggest, sir, that your whole thesis is a crock of crap.

Yeah, a crock of crap. Unfortunately, if you look around the world it
is also the truth of our generation and civilization, the 'genius' of
humanity being used to endanger our very species, waste reserves and
resources we should be preserving for generations ten, a thousand, and
a million generations ahead.  More than a cursed species, we may well
earn the epitaph, 'the last of the cursed generations'.


_______________________________________________________________
(c) copyright Dr. Stephen W.Taylor MbChB. Redistribution rights
granted on text of my own creation for non-commercial  purposes.
Other included text if any may have its own copyright conditions.

On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 16:38:20 +1200, Rachel Priebee
<priebee_r@wcc.govt.nz> scribbled:

>Stephen Taylor wrote:
>>
>Personally, I think mothers who are able to spend their children's early
>years at home are just lucky enough not to *have* to work.
>

Why would you claim that there is any luck involved?



				Horvath

	I was surfing the net when Yahoo was only a hillbilly cheer.

Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> Well, Graham certainly has the right to wish for an ideal world, but when
> it comes down to economic survial, our world is certainly not ideal. From
> one that can remember the depression, where I saw grown men fist fighting
> over milk to give to their children, the memory still haunts me.
>
> Also, what is and who defines what is the "absolute truth of what people
> need." Graham's perspective is not necessarily the same as mine, or my
> wife's or my children's or my friends.
>
Perspectives can be different but I don't believe what's right/wrong is
determined by one's circumstances. For 'perspectives being different
therefore it's ok...' to be a meaningful point you are assuming that
they do determine what's right. Actually yeah ok, come to think of it
maybe they do...perhaps some wrong action can be justified with
understanding - even the justice, er, I mean legal system does
surprisingly show mercy sometimes.

> I admire Graham's goal. However, my comment, based on too many years of
> experience, is that one should choose their battle carefully.
>
Well it's simple: don't battle in newsgroups! (You're right, I really
must stop doing this...) There's too much informaion converyed in speech
that isn't transmitted via words in a newsgroup discussion and so people
are misunderstood and become argumentative about individual words in
people's sentences. I mean if you think about what they're saying you
would have to admit that you know what they mean but, unfortunately,
this forum lends itself to much pig-headedness and over-analysis of
literal meanings in what someone is saying. "efine this, define that...)
And if the people don't want to understand each other it's very easy not
too, if you really want. I bet most of the discussion isn't really
explicitly one person countering another's arguments at all: it's just
people getting off on via their bloody-mindedness.
One CAN say what one means and leave ABSOLUTELY no room for
misinterpretation, however that would involve arguments of
philosophical  proportion: for example two-page long sentences (for
example Immanuel Kant). And then of course the post is too long and no
one wants to read it cause they might have to try and understand it, and
they mightn't be able to counter it, which isn't what they want - they
just want an argument.
If an argument was constructed thus and was perfectly logical and
irrefutable it therefore wouldn't - couldn't! - be argued, and that
would be the end of it's existence as it gets lost in the sea of
pigheaded waste-of-time discussion that is your usual thread. (Depends
HUGELY on the newsgroup though...)

Sorry MAJOR side-track! but that comes from quite some experience (not
quite years) reading newsgroups. <g>

> To close on the positive side, however, we do need the idealist Grahams to
> improve our society.
>
Nah, I don't really know anything - I didn't give anything specific. One
can only hope there is such a thing otherwise what's the point? But
don't ask me what it is. (And it may well be case-by-case to some extent
;)

Graham

"Logical is invincible, as it requires logic to defeat it." (something
like that)
  - Someone (er, can't remember)

See the complete posting below.

Thanks for the thoughtful posting. However,

I beg to differ, right/wrong *is* determined by ones circumstances.
Consider the girls in a far east country earning what is considered slave
wages. The people here object to the low wages being paid, so the American
company, forced by the economics goes to another place. (From a practical
consideration, the low productivity cannot justify higher pay.)

So what does that leave with the mothers of the girls? Essentially sell the
girls to prostitution or have them starve. Which is the right and which is
the wrong?

How are those well off liberals justified in causing such a decision on the
parents of the girls? (Think about it and you can understand my contempt
for American liberals.)

Aren't you happy* that you are not a parent required to make such a decision?


* happy is not the best word, but I don't know a better one. I hope that
you understand its use.









In article <331551D9.439A@actrix.gen.nz>, gshawk@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

> Blair Zajac wrote:
> >
> > Well, Graham certainly has the right to wish for an ideal world, but when
> > it comes down to economic survial, our world is certainly not ideal. From
> > one that can remember the depression, where I saw grown men fist fighting
> > over milk to give to their children, the memory still haunts me.
> >
> > Also, what is and who defines what is the "absolute truth of what people
> > need." Graham's perspective is not necessarily the same as mine, or my
> > wife's or my children's or my friends.
> >
> Perspectives can be different but I don't believe what's right/wrong is
> determined by one's circumstances. For 'perspectives being different
> therefore it's ok...' to be a meaningful point you are assuming that
> they do determine what's right. Actually yeah ok, come to think of it
> maybe they do...perhaps some wrong action can be justified with
> understanding - even the justice, er, I mean legal system does
> surprisingly show mercy sometimes.
>
> > I admire Graham's goal. However, my comment, based on too many years of
> > experience, is that one should choose their battle carefully.
> >
> Well it's simple: don't battle in newsgroups! (You're right, I really
> must stop doing this...) There's too much informaion converyed in speech
> that isn't transmitted via words in a newsgroup discussion and so people
> are misunderstood and become argumentative about individual words in
> people's sentences. I mean if you think about what they're saying you
> would have to admit that you know what they mean but, unfortunately,
> this forum lends itself to much pig-headedness and over-analysis of
> literal meanings in what someone is saying. "efine this, define that...)
> And if the people don't want to understand each other it's very easy not
> too, if you really want. I bet most of the discussion isn't really
> explicitly one person countering another's arguments at all: it's just
> people getting off on via their bloody-mindedness.
> One CAN say what one means and leave ABSOLUTELY no room for
> misinterpretation, however that would involve arguments of
> philosophical  proportion: for example two-page long sentences (for
> example Immanuel Kant). And then of course the post is too long and no
> one wants to read it cause they might have to try and understand it, and
> they mightn't be able to counter it, which isn't what they want - they
> just want an argument.
> If an argument was constructed thus and was perfectly logical and
> irrefutable it therefore wouldn't - couldn't! - be argued, and that
> would be the end of it's existence as it gets lost in the sea of
> pigheaded waste-of-time discussion that is your usual thread. (Depends
> HUGELY on the newsgroup though...)
>
> Sorry MAJOR side-track! but that comes from quite some experience (not
> quite years) reading newsgroups. <g>
>
> > To close on the positive side, however, we do need the idealist Grahams to
> > improve our society.
> >
> Nah, I don't really know anything - I didn't give anything specific. One
> can only hope there is such a thing otherwise what's the point? But
> don't ask me what it is. (And it may well be case-by-case to some extent
> ;)
>
> Graham
>
> "Logical is invincible, as it requires logic to defeat it." (something
> like that)
>   - Someone (er, can't remember)

--
Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.

Blair Zajac
bzajac@isomedia.com

Blair Zajac (look@my.signature) wrote:
: See the complete posting below.

: Thanks for the thoughtful posting. However,

: I beg to differ, right/wrong *is* determined by ones circumstances.
: Consider the girls in a far east country earning what is considered slave
: wages. The people here object to the low wages being paid, so the American
: company, forced by the economics goes to another place. (From a practical
: consideration, the low productivity cannot justify higher pay.)

: So what does that leave with the mothers of the girls? Essentially sell the
: girls to prostitution or have them starve. Which is the right and which is
: the wrong?
: How are those well off liberals justified in causing such a decision on the
: parents of the girls? (Think about it and you can understand my contempt
: for American liberals.)

No, their contempt for you.

Large corporations work with their national governments to subvert the
governments of weaker nations. Once they have done that, they change the
economy of the weaker nation, by force, from one of subsistence
agriculture and self-reliance to single-crop/product export-oriented,
market-reliant colonialism. At that point, having destroyed economies
that were often more productive per capita than their own (for example,
Britain was economically inferior to India but navally superior), the
people are in dire straits, and can be used as slave labor, not just to
cut costs, but to put pressure on the domestic working class. the irony
is, their taxes help support their own destruction.

wise up.

marion d.

: Aren't you happy* that you are not a parent required to make such a decision?


: * happy is not the best word, but I don't know a better one. I hope that
: you understand its use.









: In article <331551D9.439A@actrix.gen.nz>, gshawk@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

: > Blair Zajac wrote:
: > >
: > > Well, Graham certainly has the right to wish for an ideal world, but when
: > > it comes down to economic survial, our world is certainly not ideal. From
: > > one that can remember the depression, where I saw grown men fist fighting
: > > over milk to give to their children, the memory still haunts me.
: > >
: > > Also, what is and who defines what is the "absolute truth of what people
: > > need." Graham's perspective is not necessarily the same as mine, or my
: > > wife's or my children's or my friends.
: > >
: > Perspectives can be different but I don't believe what's right/wrong is
: > determined by one's circumstances. For 'perspectives being different
: > therefore it's ok...' to be a meaningful point you are assuming that
: > they do determine what's right. Actually yeah ok, come to think of it
: > maybe they do...perhaps some wrong action can be justified with
: > understanding - even the justice, er, I mean legal system does
: > surprisingly show mercy sometimes.
: >
: > > I admire Graham's goal. However, my comment, based on too many years of
: > > experience, is that one should choose their battle carefully.
: > >
: > Well it's simple: don't battle in newsgroups! (You're right, I really
: > must stop doing this...) There's too much informaion converyed in speech
: > that isn't transmitted via words in a newsgroup discussion and so people
: > are misunderstood and become argumentative about individual words in
: > people's sentences. I mean if you think about what they're saying you
: > would have to admit that you know what they mean but, unfortunately,
: > this forum lends itself to much pig-headedness and over-analysis of
: > literal meanings in what someone is saying. "efine this, define that...)
: > And if the people don't want to understand each other it's very easy not
: > too, if you really want. I bet most of the discussion isn't really
: > explicitly one person countering another's arguments at all: it's just
: > people getting off on via their bloody-mindedness.
: > One CAN say what one means and leave ABSOLUTELY no room for
: > misinterpretation, however that would involve arguments of
: > philosophical  proportion: for example two-page long sentences (for
: > example Immanuel Kant). And then of course the post is too long and no
: > one wants to read it cause they might have to try and understand it, and
: > they mightn't be able to counter it, which isn't what they want - they
: > just want an argument.
: > If an argument was constructed thus and was perfectly logical and
: > irrefutable it therefore wouldn't - couldn't! - be argued, and that
: > would be the end of it's existence as it gets lost in the sea of
: > pigheaded waste-of-time discussion that is your usual thread. (Depends
: > HUGELY on the newsgroup though...)
: >
: > Sorry MAJOR side-track! but that comes from quite some experience (not
: > quite years) reading newsgroups. <g>
: >
: > > To close on the positive side, however, we do need the idealist Grahams to
: > > improve our society.
: > >
: > Nah, I don't really know anything - I didn't give anything specific. One
: > can only hope there is such a thing otherwise what's the point? But
: > don't ask me what it is. (And it may well be case-by-case to some extent
: > ;)
: >
: > Graham
: >
: > "Logical is invincible, as it requires logic to defeat it." (something
: > like that)
: >   - Someone (er, can't remember)

: --
: Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.

: Blair Zajac
: bzajac@isomedia.com

--
  "The spectacle is a permanent opium war which aims to make people
   identify goods with commodities and satisfaction with survival that
   increases according to its own laws."
   -- Guy Debord --

 "There was a swirling mass of water that lived in a quiet pond which asked
  permission of its master to visit all the lands beyond and its master
  allowed it to fly so the wind swept the whirlpool across the sky."
  -- The Meat Puppets --

 "Diane, it struck me again earlier this morning:  there are two things
  that continue to trouble me, and I am speaking now not only as an agent of
  the Bureau but also as a human being.  What really went on between Marilyn
  Monroe and the Kennedys, and who really pulled the trigger on JFK?"
  - Special Agent Dale B. Cooper -