--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3A00021Date: 03/05/97 From: SONDRA BALL Time: 09:18pm \/To: KAY NEWMAN (Read 0 times) Subj: prayers still coming KN>No news yet of where we will be going to move to. After school >tomorrow will be going out apartment hunting again. We have to >move from here because social services don't pay back rent. Also >cause they will only pay $538. a month not $520. We have found >one that is $480 a month with heat we are going after school >tomorrow to talk with them. Will let you know what we find out. >Say a prayer for us. I am definitely still praying for you. KN>I have sent my application and resume into work parks again this >year. I have asked for four nights instread of three this year. >Will see what Ron gives me. Someone else can work week-ends. Plus >I will work special events too. I hope you get the job with parks; or another full time job somewhere. perhaps. Sondra -*- SLMR 2.1a Change a life. Make someone feel important. --- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1 * Origin: the fifth age - milford ct - 203-876-1473 (1:141/355.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3A00022Date: 03/05/97 From: SONDRA BALL Time: 09:18pm \/To: KAROLINA STUTZMAN (Read 0 times) Subj: capsules of plastic KS> SB> SLMR 2.1a May the wolves run at your side and not at your heels. KS> You're incorrigible!!! Thank you! I encourage incorrigibility in others, too! (g) Sondra -*- SLMR 2.1a Silence is golden. The squeeky wheel gets the grease. --- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1 * Origin: the fifth age - milford ct - 203-876-1473 (1:141/355.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3B00000Date: 03/06/97 From: SONDRA BALL Time: 10:43am \/To: CHARLES MURRAY (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: ? CM> SB> Charles, is there any possibility that you are not 100% correct in ll > SB> your beliefs? CM> Is this a attempt at sarcasm or a attack on my varsaty ? I give you > my opinion , if you don't like it or are unable to except it,this is > totally understandable. But to question the velleity by asking me > if I am intentionally being untruthful or incorrect, What dose this > mean ! I am not attacking your honesty. I believe you believe what you say you believe. I think I am being a little sarcastic, but not really all that much. I have a feeling that you have not looked at the possibility that some of your beliefs might be wrong. And that possiblity is true of all people, Charles, not just you. We all make many decisions based on insufficient knowledge, emotionally charged data, and sheer exhaustion. And some of those decisions we make for the wrong reasons may become our most cherished beliefs about the matter. I just wonder if you realize that some of the things you are absolutely sure of are probably wrong. Just as some of the things I'm absolutely sure of are probably also wrong. As an example, my son is currently at an "I want all the priviledges of adulthood, but I don't want the responsibilities; and I know more than you do anyway" stage. I know that there are times when it is wiser not to tell Robert what I think about something, because he will then automatically believe the opposite. *He* thinks he is reacting from his heart and mind, that his positions are well thought out and well reasoned. I know, because I've seen if happen so often, that he's just being an oppositional-defiant child. And that's OK. He *is* 14. But some of those decisions that he is making as an oppositional defiant child will probably carry over into adulthood with him, and be part of his cherished belief system. Some of the beliefs I arrived at in the same period of my life are probably also unexamined parts of my own belief structure. That's just how it is with people. And, by the way, my son really *is* an oppositional defiant kid. Adolescence makes it worse; but it has always been a part of him. Robert *hates* rules; and I have seen him actually harm his cause by his almost compulsive desire to disobey rules and laws, and to have *no* authority at all over him. I have learned over the years not to try to shield Rob, and not to try to give orders that will protect him from pain, unless it's a truly vital situation. I let him get hurt, because there really is no way of avoiding it. He only learns to obey the rules when he has been hurt enough to see the reasons behind the rules. However, I am not asking you to stop saying what you believe. Sondra -*- SLMR 2.1a I don't suffer from insanity. I love it. --- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1 * Origin: the fifth age - milford ct - 203-876-1473 (1:141/355.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3B00001Date: 03/06/97 From: SONDRA BALL Time: 10:43am \/To: DOUG CARTER (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Licenses DC> A wise man once said "YOUR Civil rights end where MY Civil rights begin"... > That is what your governments have inflicted on you... the majority have > decided to licence the operation of almost all things DANGEROUS to the > PUBLIC... at least physically dangerous. They do seem to be careless about > letting LAWYERS run at large . DC> Freedom's privileges must be balanced by Freedom's responsibilities. Well said, Doug! Sondra -*- SLMR 2.1a Always assume your guest is tired, cold and hungry. --- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1 * Origin: the fifth age - milford ct - 203-876-1473 (1:141/355.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3C00000Date: 03/07/97 From: CHARLES TESTERMAN Time: 07:56am \/To: DOUG CARTER (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Licenses DC> A wise man once said "YOUR Civil rights end where MY Civil rights begin"... DC> That is what your governments have inflicted on you... the majority have DC> decided to licence the operation of almost all things DANGEROUS to the DC> PUBLIC... at least physically dangerous. They do seem to be careless about DC> letting LAWYERS run at large . DC> Freedom's privileges must be balanced by Freedom's responsibilities. An interesting concept...... If someone, somewhere decides that an activity is dangerous, we may igore our constitution....the SUPREME law of the land. I am surprised that we haven't licensed "walking down the street".... If you see where I am comming from.... Even without a licensing proceedure your rights in this country would be protected... If some destroys your property or takes your life... Is the licensing proceedure a "due process"?. If it is, I would like to know the offense that I am guilty of. From the material that I have read, the concept of licensing came from British law, and we should have become independent from England in 1776. You wouldn't know it if you look at our legal system today. Lawyers take titles of nobility (squire or esquire). Many Judges (but not all of them) wear black robes and require the court room to worship them when they enter. It is odd that the government licenses marriage.... a concept that was started by God and is between a man and a woman for life....yet it is licensed as a cause of "compelling public interest", and these words are not in the constitution... they are words added by judges...and our constitution has not been ammended to reflect this change. The constitution here is meant to limit government. In closing I would like to point out that this country is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC not a democracy. The laws that are passed are supposed to not violate the constitution and I can not find any provision to limit freedom because of what might happen. There is provision to punish by due process for the cause of the taking of life, liberty, or property that has already happened. If we license or regualte an activity, we are dening people their private property rights. Here again don't believe me, read the U.S. Constitution word for word... and then look at the way things are done, and compare the two. Do our actions match the supreme law of the land? The government has oppressed its citizenry many times in the past and violated the constitution... Just ask the citizens of Japanese ancestry what happened during World War II, or the people in Oklahoma about their past. Maybe I will have the effect of Socrates's gad fly. Take Care, Charles Testerman --- DeLuxe* 1.21 #8184 Arrogance and ignorance are brothers * Origin: Project Enable BBS - (304) 766-2690 (1:279/144) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3C00001Date: 03/06/97 From: KAROLINA STUTZMAN Time: 12:21pm \/To: CHARLES MURRAY (Read 0 times) Subj: ? -=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Charles Murray <=- SB> Charles, is there any possibility that you are not 100% correct in all SB> your beliefs? CM> CM> Is this a attempt at sarcasm or a attack on my varsaty ? I give you CM> my opinion , if you don't like it or are unable to except it,this is CM> totally understandable. But to question the velleity by asking me CM> if I am intentionally being untruthful or incorrect, What dose this CM> mean ! Nah. No sarcasm in that question, nor any implication that you are not "truthful". She just wants to know if there is maybe, perhaps, the slightest possibility, mind you, that all the information on which you base your statements is *not* 100% correct. That's all. No biggie. I also saw no implication by her, one way or the other, as to your *intent*. Don't know how you inferred that, but that's beside the point. You project yourself as being an open-minded person. By speaking to you as if you are, she is paying you a compliment, 'Course, me and whatisname Miller, might be wrong. I'm also reading your statement above as just a simple question and not a personal attack intended to change the subject. I'm also assuming that you are a thinking person and your question was made from an inquiring and curious standpoint, and that you didn't ask it in anger or from a defensive standpoint, like a closed-minded person would, because of your earlier references to wanting to keep this on a debate level. I hope this helps. So, the question was: SB> Charles, is there any possibility that you are not 100% SB> correct in all SB> your beliefs? ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0462 * Origin: << Don's BBS >> Stratford, NJ. USA 609-435-1663 (1:266/507) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3C00002Date: 03/07/97 From: PATTI JONES Time: 05:22am \/To: SONDRA BALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Hello Sondra, Ah yes the wonders of a teenager...... Once a child is born and the toys come out of the toy box, you never see the floor of their room again until they go to college. Sprig is truely on it's way. We will have 60 and 70 degree days coming very soon. It will be nice for a change not to be paying high heationg bills.....at least for a few months windows can be opened and fresh air can again blow through the house. Guess that's the one thing I miss the most about not being in Calif anymore. I rarely get to open the windows during the winter or summer months for some good old fashioned fresh air !! Patti --- * Origin: The Wolf's Den in Kansas City (816) 361-7670 (1:280/76) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3C00003Date: 03/07/97 From: PATTI JONES Time: 05:27am \/To: SONDRA BALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Hello Sondra, Yup where I work now, they are very nice......take consideration for the employees, and aren't treated like a bunch of dawgs. This week I'm more tired than usual....think it has to do with the breathing of paint, and carpet fumes at both my F/T and P/T job since both moved last week. There's still drywall dust lingering along with the rest. I have been diligent in taking antioxidants hopefully to counteract some of the stuff that I'm breathing. Everyone else that I have been around has had the flu, so I'm trying to keep my immunity up so I don't get it. Gotta' run for now and get ready for work.....TTYL Patti --- * Origin: The Wolf's Den in Kansas City (816) 361-7670 (1:280/76) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3C00004Date: 03/07/97 From: SONDRA BALL Time: 10:56pm \/To: CHARLES TESTERMAN (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: what are we? part 1 CT>SB>Seat belts are also required because they protect more than just *you*. >SB>A driver who is being thrown about a car during an accident has less >SB>chance of gaining control of the car than one who is not. He or she >SB>also has a greater chance of being thrown into another passenger, and >SB>killing or injuring them. Small children in car seats are almost never >SB>injured during accidents, unless they are seated in a front seat that >SB>has an air bag; or unless an unbelted person is thrown against them. CT>Please let me jump in here then I will go in peace.... >The mandatory seatbelt laws or MULs as Elizabeth Dole called them >were brought about by vehicle safety standard 207. This standard It is true that the seat belt laws in many states were passed only after federal manipulation of moneys going to those states. I am aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that seat belts *do* save lives. I *never* allow anyone to ride in my car who is not fastened in; and that is true even though New Jersey does allow adults riding in the back seat to choose not to buckle in. Not only do I not want a passenger's death on my hands if it can be avoided; I don't want that passenger getting thrown into me, and causing *my* death. I also suspect that most people do favor seat belts, if they don't always comply with their own common sense. Certainly most people I know do. If the majority really do oppose it, they can begin a campaign against it, which could include threats to vote out the officials who voted the laws into place. I want to point out that the majority of people in many western and central states opposed the mandatory speed limit of 55 miles an hour; and, after a few years, that speed limit *was* revoked. It was never revoked here in Jersey, but I suspect most people here in Jersey actually support that speed limit, except for certain sections of certain limited access highways. In any case, we are not a democracy. We don't vote by public ballet on each and every law. We elect the officials who pass our laws; and those officials *are* elected by the majority of the voters (or, in a few cases, a plurality). So some laws probably are passed that do not reflect majority opinion. But if the officials pass too many laws that are opposed by the majority, they will eventually get voted out of office. And I've seen majority opinion work very well. A couple of years ago, the US Congress was sneaking an educational bill through their hallowed halls. The newspapers were ignoring it; no-one was talking about it in their letters to their constituents. The NEA had helped write it, and was backing it 100%; and *they* weren't talking about it either. Some suspicious lady got a hold of the bill and read the couple of hundred pages less than a week before the bill was coming up for a vote. She also checked where the count on the votes were. It was an absolute certainty the bill would pass. But the lady saw a problem. The bill, as it was worded, would effectively eliminate all home schools, many private schools, most rez run schools, etc. She saw it as a threat to several groups of people. (It was definitely a threat to Native Americans.) She got on the phone and called several key people to inform them of what the bill said, including the Home School Legal Defense Association, which is an international group. Info was flashed out across the entire nation by telephone chains, by e mail, by internet newsgroups, by BBSes. With only about four days to go, the bill was considered a "crisis situation". During those next four days, the folks in congress received more phone calls, telegraphs, and e mail on this particular bill than had been received on any bill before in history. There were senators and representatives who disconnected their phones because they didn't want to deal with the public response any longer. The bill, which had almost 100% support in Congress one week earlier, did NOT pass. Sondra -*- SLMR 2.1a 12345679 x 8 = 98765432 --- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1 * Origin: the fifth age - milford ct - 203-876-1473 (1:141/355.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 212 INDIAN AFFAIRS Ref: E3C00005Date: 03/07/97 From: SONDRA BALL Time: 10:56pm \/To: CHARLES MURRAY (Read 0 times) Subj: what are we? part 1 CM> **************************************************************** > Hay I get medicare and medicaid and pay for it too 70 dollars > a month I draw about 540 we can talk about that let's talk about > tennessees socialized medical setup , gate keepers and care givers > while you dying in the er and they ar fighting over your blue card > this is tuchy and I'd rather not get rilled-up but you can bet you > last dollar I know and I lost my doctor because of all this crap > too . I don't get any theropy anymore ... they cut that and I'm > not alone but my taxes did not drop one penny . > ***************************************************************** I have a sister who is on SSI right now because of being disabled. She is disabled because of a series of medical blunders, but that's a story unto itself, and not one I will go into here. So I know a little about how frustrating it can be to work within the system. But she does get her medical bills paid for, except for some minimal deduction. I don't think she's charged for the SSI, so I'm not sure what you mean by paying $70 a month for it. The current system of medical care, with health maintence groups, is frustrating for everyone involved, except the insurance groups themselves, who are making a profit. I know someone who was in an auto accident about a year ago. He was delivered unconscious to the emergency room. The auto insurance paid their part of the hospital bill, minus the $500 deductible. The health insurance company (US healthcare) should have covered the rest, minus the $5 co-pay. They have, to date, refused to pay their share of the bill because the patient did not call his primary physician first, and get permission to go to the emergency room. The case is currently in appeals. > not. Show me why I a 43 year old male should be forced to ware a > setbelt , show me what moral law I have broken or why it makes me > a criminal to society . do you now how many times a loaf of bread I don't know what you mean by "criminal to society" as opposed to just "criminal". By definition, a criminal is a person who has broken a law. If you don't wear a seat belt, you have broken a law. That makes you a criminal. Now, you may not have broken a moral law by not wearing a seat belt; that is subject to personal opinion. My personal opinion is that you have broken a moral law, because not wearing a seat belt endangers others as well as yourself. But that's my own opinion, and you obviously disagree with me. > is taxed hefore you eat it ? add them up starting with the seeds > the land used to grow the wheat and farmer who bought the seed > and sold the wheat, the grainery, the baker,the deliveryman, come > on please tax tax tax and you pay a buck 25 for a dollars worth > of taxes . I'm being realistc are you ?(*food for the hungry etc.) Yes, I do know how many times a loaf of bread is taxed before I eat it. I also know how often I avoid paying most of those taxes by baking my own bread. I have a friend who strongly disapproves of war (he's a pascifist) and does not want to pay any taxes that might be used to support any war cause. He knows that a certain percentage of all taxes he pays goes to support the military (I think it's 36%). His solution: he deliberately earns below the poverty level so as to pay very little taxes. He decided that making that material sacrifice was, for him, a morally necessary thing to do. He also is working in political circles to try and change the tax system. But he is not disobeying the law while he works to change it; and he is not simply complaining. He is actively living his belief system. I have never heard him blame his poverty on the system. He takes a sort of quiet pride in his poverty. It is the outward sign of an inward commitment. On the other hand, I know another person who refuses to pay her taxes at all, because she, too, is opposed to war. (Both these people are Quakers, by the way; and both Quakers and Mennonites have a religious belief system that forbids any participation in war). She is fully prepared to lose her house, her car, and her freedom to support this cause. She thought through her position, and decided to take a stand against a law she sees as immoral, and she sees no way of paying part of the tax since any part she pays may be used for war. She also is working actively to try and make changes in the tax law. But she does not spend a lot of time complaining about the unfairness of the system. She knows the tax laws reflect what the majority of the elected representatives, and probably what the majority of Americans, want, so far as war expenses go. If she does go to jail, or lose her property, and one or the other is almost certain to happen, I expect she will accept the loss without blaming it on the system. She knows the choices she has made. I sense that she will accept the consequences with the same sort of quiet pride I see in the man. It will be the outward sign of an inward conviction. CM> start talking about taxation with out representation and your > speaking a foreign language . Hello is anyone awake here !!! You have representatives, Charles -- the ones the majority of the people elected, even if they aren't the ones you wanted. Heck, we don't even have the governor I wanted here in New Jersey, but we *do* have the governor that the majority of the people wanted. Sondra -*- SLMR 2.1a I was born on a storm-swept rock. -- Liam O'Flaherty --- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1 * Origin: the fifth age - milford ct - 203-876-1473 (1:141/355.0)