On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
> >> >
> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?
> >
> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.
> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
> ago.

From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps just updated post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.

On the other hand its tone did make it sound like something from the pre-WWII era.

William Hyde

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 2:43:45 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:335e0b58-99f8-4f04...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 2:02:52 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
> > wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde
> >> wrote:
> >> > No hopping over to nazisrus.com.
> >> What, couldn't Toys 'r' Us sue the bejabbers off them?
> >>
> >> Of course you just made the name up as an example...
> >> the quasi-Nazis on the web tend not to admit what they
> >> are.
> >
> > Recalling from the 70's, the 'R Us' tag was used by a number of
> > firms.
> >
> > A surviving example: https://www.facebook.com/drugsruspharmacy/
> >
> They are trying to own the use of the letter "r" in the middle of a
> company name.

Wall-Mart arrived in Canada armed with a lawsuit against a pre-existing company called "Wool-Mart", claiming that its name would cause confusion and loss of business.

Fortunately, they lost that one.

William Hyde

In article <36ddbe24-9239-4351-928b-2a3bc7d77ff4n@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David
>Johnston wrote:
>> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention
>of abortion on
>> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State
>suggests that
>> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
>> >> >
>> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
>> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
>> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
>> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
>> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet
>what was the
>> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their
>attempts to
>> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl
>Harbor?
>> >
>> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a
>"nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the
>surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American
>politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected
>in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic
>tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these
>bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.
>> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
>> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
>> ago.
>
>From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps
>just updated post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
>
>On the other hand its tone did make it sound like something from
>the pre-WWII era.

In the 1990s when I went to cons in the US, I'd occasionally
encounter some eyebrow-raising Catholic bashing from US fans,
generally delivered in a very offhanded way. Not over the obvious
child abuse stuff: the Canadian scandals don't seem to have got
into the US news.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Chick published virulent anti-RC
phamphlets, again not mentioning the legit complaints one might
have with the RCs but fairy tale godless protestant religious
doctrine nonsense. This was of enormous use during one of the
Satanic Panic scares up here, when a Catholic seperate school
board member got hold of Dark Dungeons. Cue an emergency meeting
to see if D&D should be banned. Panic ended when the teacher
supervising the gaming club shared the Chick pamphlets on Catholics.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde=20
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>>=20
>> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:=
>=20
>> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:=20
>> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:=20
>> >> >>=20
>> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortio=
>n on=20
>> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests t=
>hat=20
>> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.=20
>> >> >=20
>> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free=20
>> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which=20
>> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of=20
>> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.=20
>> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the=
>=20
>> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts t=
>o=20
>> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?=
>=20
>> >=20
>> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound"=
> if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one w=
>ritten for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched pictur=
>e of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an a=
>nti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bi=
>gots had apparently never heard of the internet.
>> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way=20
>> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years=20
>> ago.
>
>From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps just updat=
>ed post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
>

I do recall reading an SF story _Space for Hire_ written[*] in 1971 that
had a spaceship called the President Reagan. Prediction based on his
current governership no doubt. Bonzo notwithstanding.

[*] William F Nolan, RIP (last summer, at 93)

In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>
>I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>population of women so desperate even he can get a date.

(Hal Heydt)
That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of women,
but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning society...at
least for very long.

If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
might allow him to see where his problem lies.

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 10:06:19 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
> population of women so desperate even he can get a date.

No, as I have made quite clear, my point is to save Western
Civilization! It is restless young males, not people like me who
are past retirement age, who are going to tear down our society
if they feel that they aren't getting anything out of being law-abiding
workers.

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 10:01:21 AM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:
> In article <4ad5530c-1252-4217...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >I conclude that one alternative remains. Since *not all women* choose career
> >over family, all we need is to change the proportions of women to men, so
> >that the number of women wanting husbands equals the number of men
> >wanting wives,
> >and then feminism and social stability can co-exist.

> (Hal Heydt)
> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
> family, and two-income families will do quite well.

From the book "The Descent of Woman", by Elaine Morgan, herself
a woman, there is confirmation of a common stereotype of men and
women.

Men chase after women because they see women as pretty, and have
lustful desires after them.

What *women* desire, though, is not so much a handsome man in their
arms... but a _baby_ to take care of. A man... is a necessary means to
that end, as well as a help to keep the baby fed and so on.

Also, men have this distressing tendency to beat their wives, or shoot
them in a jealous rage. Not every man, of course, only a few of them, but
this sort of thing has meant that women who _aren't_ abjectly economically
dependent on men sometimes have... trust issues... that keep them from
dating much.

I reject the notion that the proper cure for this is going back to the bad old
days, when women had no choices and no options.

While I agree that _justice_ demands we eliminate sex-based pay discrimination
(although you may be talking about something that goes beyond this: modifying
the pay for completely different types of jobs, so as to equalize the average pay
of men and women, in defiance of the workings of the free market) I don't
expect this in any way to help with the problem; rather, women having economic
independence is the *source* of the problem.

Not that the free market is sacred; workers have very little market power; this is
why laws have been made allowing trade unions to organize and even go on strike.
So justice could indeed demand higher pay for some traditionally female jobs. But
what is fair is not necessarily equal average pay for groups that choose jobs which
make very different demands; for example, surely jobs that come with the risk of
on-the-job injuries or death ought to command *far* higher pay than they do at
present. (And even with such pay, it should be virtually impossible to get people to
do them, in a healthy economy with adequate medical science. Police officers
shouldn't be the only working people allowed to put a high value on their own lives...
an issue about which much more could be said, given the consequences of their
doing that.)

John Savard

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 1:26:53 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:

> If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
> might allow him to see where his problem lies.

During my youth, I couldn't afford a car. So how could I take a girl
out on a date? I don't think that my single state is the fault of feminism.

But I oppose the misogynistic incel movement. I don't agree that
it's a good idea for our society to send women out of the workplace
and back to the kitchen.

I do also think it's kind of worrisome that because people with traditional
religious beliefs also have traditional sex roles, potential Trump voters,
for example, are out-breeding more secular Americans. This is dysgenic.

To me, it is obvious that a lot of men can't start a family because their
jobs don't pay enough - but that could be only partly due to the state of the
economy. If women have other options, and associating with men puts
women at a risk of violence, why wouldn't a big chunk of women start saying
"why bother"?

Part of the rationale is based on something else I read in Elaine Morgan's
book "The Descent of Woman". Cows and mares, and the females of many
other mammalian species we're familiar with, go into "heat" on a regular
basis. The human female doesn't have an estrus cycle of this nature. Why
not?

According to Morgan, whose reasoning I found quite plausible, it's because
humans walk upright on two legs. Suddenly, the vaginal orgasm ceased to
be an automatic concomitant of intercourse. And cavemen just weren't
sensitive and considerate lovers who could even _find_ the clitoris...

So, if human women had gone into heat, they would have been doomed to be
eternally unsatisfied - which would distract them from doing a good job of
caring for their babies. Hence evolution.

This is why there are 'way more hookers than gigolos, why porn for male
consumption is a billion-dollar industry (or is that a trillion-dollar industry?)
while porn for female consumption is little more than an oddity.

The stereotype of men, and only men, as lust-crazed animals, while a little
exaggerated, unfortunately has some basis in truth.

And, in my opinion, there is an urgent need for Western countries to be orderly
and peaceful, with very little in the way of crime, or labor strife, or radical
political movements taking power, so that they can be operating at maximum
effectiveness in ensuring the survival of freedom against bad regimes like those
of Russia and China!

Now, in practice, of course, if you suddenly double the population, say, by
producing large numbers of vat-girls artificially, that will complicate fixing the
economy to make everyone prosperous. So I can't *really* propose this
as a serious practical measure. (And, what with the cancer risk, I
can't really bewail the decision to ban polychlorinated biphenyls - the stuff
in transformers that was the topic of "Our Stolen Future", the book with a preface
by Al Gore.)

So in a way, the idea of vat-girls is a bit of a troll.

But just because the recommendations of George Gilder for dealing with
the issue are wrong, because they would take away freedom and choices from
women, doesn't mean the problem is not real.

Still, given the level of inaction on *global warming*, that there will be any
creative thinking on solutions for _this_ problem that threatens the survival
of our civilization... is low indeed.

So current Western Civilization is headed the way of Ancient Rome...

John Savard

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rHutGp.1C6F@kithrup.com:

> In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>>the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>>chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>>family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>
>>I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>>population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of women,
> but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning society...at
> least for very long.

S'Okay, once he nukes all the brown people, everything will be OK.
Vat girls are among the least of his insanity.
>
> If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
> might allow him to see where his problem lies.
>
Heh. Y'all are new around here.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:18:02 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde=20
> >> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
> >>=20
> >> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:=
> >=20
> >> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:=20
> >> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:=20
> >> >> >>=20
> >> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortio=
> >n on=20
> >> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests t=
> >hat=20
> >> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.=20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free=20
> >> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which=20
> >> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of=20
> >> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.=20
> >> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the=
> >=20
> >> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts t=
> >o=20
> >> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?=
> >=20
> >> >=20
> >> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound"=
> > if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one w=
> >ritten for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched pictur=
> >e of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an a=
> >nti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bi> >gots had apparently never heard of the internet.
> >> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way=20
> >> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years=20
> >> ago.
> >
> >From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps just updat> >ed post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
> >
> I do recall reading an SF story _Space for Hire_ written[*] in 1971 that
> had a spaceship called the President Reagan. Prediction based on his
> current governership no doubt. Bonzo notwithstanding.

I have that book buy do not recall that detail. OTOH, Spinrad also had a reference to a president Reagan in "Bug Jack Barron". But the reference in the aforementioned piece of propaganda was in a real context.

Reagan was being touted as a VP candidate in the run-up to the 68 election. A poll showed a Rockefeller/Reagan ticket handily beating any Democratic opposition. I wonder if any other SF writers posited a president Reagan (or Rockefeller) in the near future.

William Hyde

On 9/7/2022 12:14 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>
>> I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>> population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of women,
> but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning society...at
> least for very long.
>
> If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
> might allow him to see where his problem lies.

We've been trying to hold mirrors up to his face for, probably, decades.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <XnsAF0B8B63AE658taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:rHutGp.1C6F@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>>>the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>>>chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>>>family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>>
>>>I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>>>population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of women,
>> but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning society...at
>> least for very long.
>
>S'Okay, once he nukes all the brown people, everything will be OK.
>Vat girls are among the least of his insanity.
>>
>> If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
>> might allow him to see where his problem lies.
>>
>Heh. Y'all are new around here.

(Hal Heydt)
Just a long abeyance.

On 2022-09-07 13:42, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rHutGp.1C6F@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by bringing
>>>> the pay of women up to that of men. That will increase the
>>>> chances that a woman can afford to be the sole support of a
>>>> family, and two-income families will do quite well.
>>>
>>> I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>>> population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of women,
>> but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning society...at
>> least for very long.
>
> S'Okay, once he nukes all the brown people, everything will be OK.
> Vat girls are among the least of his insanity.

If he's insane that excuses him a lot.

What's your excuse for wanting to kill Democrats?

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:18:02 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> I do recall reading an SF story _Space for Hire_ written[*] in 1971 that
>> had a spaceship called the President Reagan. Prediction based on his
>> current governership no doubt. Bonzo notwithstanding.
>
> I have that book buy do not recall that detail. OTOH, Spinrad also
> had a reference to a president Reagan in "Bug Jack Barron". But the
> reference in the aforementioned piece of propaganda was in a real context.
>
> Reagan was being touted as a VP candidate in the run-up to the 68
> election. A poll showed a Rockefeller/Reagan ticket handily beating
> any Democratic opposition. I wonder if any other SF writers posited a
> president Reagan (or Rockefeller) in the near future.

John Sladek's Muller-Fokker Effect (1971).

Creedence Clearwater Revival sang "Actor's in the White House" in Ramble Tamble.

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:11:27 PM UTC-4, David Duffy wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 3:18:02 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> I do recall reading an SF story _Space for Hire_ written[*] in 1971 that
> >> had a spaceship called the President Reagan. Prediction based on his
> >> current governership no doubt. Bonzo notwithstanding.
> >
> > I have that book buy do not recall that detail. OTOH, Spinrad also
> > had a reference to a president Reagan in "Bug Jack Barron". But the
> > reference in the aforementioned piece of propaganda was in a real context.
> >
> > Reagan was being touted as a VP candidate in the run-up to the 68
> > election. A poll showed a Rockefeller/Reagan ticket handily beating
> > any Democratic opposition. I wonder if any other SF writers posited a
> > president Reagan (or Rockefeller) in the near future.
> John Sladek's Muller-Fokker Effect (1971).

One of his that I have not read. Thanks.
>
> Creedence Clearwater Revival sang "Actor's in the White House" in Ramble Tamble.

I never could understand sung lyrics.

William Hyde

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rHv28B.11w6@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsAF0B8B63AE658taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:rHutGp.1C6F@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>>> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>>>Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by
>>>>>bringing the pay of women up to that of men. That will
>>>>>increase the chances that a woman can afford to be the sole
>>>>>support of a family, and two-income families will do quite
>>>>>well.
>>>>
>>>>I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>>>>population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
>>>
>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>> That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of
>>> women, but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning
>>> society...at least for very long.
>>
>>S'Okay, once he nukes all the brown people, everything will be
>>OK. Vat girls are among the least of his insanity.
>>>
>>> If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
>>> might allow him to see where his problem lies.
>>>
>>Heh. Y'all are new around here.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Just a long abeyance.
>
Longer, apparently, than Quaddie has spewed his racist,
misogynistic bile here.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 8/09/22 11:36, William Hyde wrote:
snip
>
> I never could understand sung lyrics.
>
Nor me. So I research them if I have a reason. I loved Neil Young's Down
By The River but was a little disturbed by the lyrics until I read
online that shooting his baby was injecting drugs. I am sure you would
appreciate Tales of Brave Ulysses a short track by 60's super group
Cream. The "There and back again", or staring into the abyss" themes
are summarised

Slightly on topic:
Once upon a time I was mesmerised by _Where Is My Mind_ by The Pixies
and some time ago discovered the ensuing albums from their 'Frank
Black'. I have become obsessed with about twenty of his 'Indie Rock'
creations, a few of which deal with his interest in Mars, (eg The
Marsist). Because my interest has been in the music, it has taken months
for the lyrics to penetrate my ear wax. This Gulliver "Foyle" is
stranded halfway to Mars.

Big Red. Frank Black.

Have you heard about big red?
They even bought a beebread rig
To help the flowers in mean space
They're trying to make that place green
Hope the trees will take away the storm

Don't know how this whole thing started
There was a crowd and then we parted
Don't know if I'll ever go back
It's a long way across all of this black

Here I am in my bucket today
In the middle
Here I am in my bucket today
In the middle

They got a mule they call Sal
Bulldozing up canal walls
They're gonna tap that icecap too
When they do they're gonna make that green map blue
The weather is finally getting warm
And the weather is really getting warm.

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:31:20 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt wrote:

> (Hal Heydt)
> Just a long abeyance.

If I'm the one who wants to "nuke all the brown people",
how is it that _he_ is the one that thinks that BLM is
a more serious problem than the January 6 rioters?

I _do_ think that in the post 9/11 world, countries like
Egypt and Pakistan should be put on notice that no
discrimination whatsoever against non-Muslims will
be tolerated henceforth. (And that _is_ where he gets
his notion that I want to "nuke all brown people" from.)

It is the notion that non-Muslims, if permitted to live,
must have "dhimmi" status that has *led* to the blind
hostility to Israel, where the Jews successfully resisted
by force the imposition of such rule, that is the source
of the terrorist menace. Which is why this mentality is
a direct threat to the West.

Being _against_ discrimination - by *anyone*, including
non-whites - is somehow being for discrimination in
his book.

John Savard

On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
>> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
>> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
>> >> >
>> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
>> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
>> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
>> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
>> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
>> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
>> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?
>> >
>> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.
>> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
>> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
>> ago.
>
>From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps just updated post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
>
>On the other hand its tone did make it sound like something from the pre-WWII era.

There is a long tradition of Pope-bashing in Protestant circles, with
certain well-known tropes.

By the 50s some of the Protestant denominations were beginning to pull
in their horns, so to speak.

My grandfather collected a lovingly-printed and laminated card in the
early or mid 50s which claimed that free speech rights were being
infringed on because the higher organizational level was insisting
that the author preach the Gospel to his congregation instead of
attacking the Pope.

These would, I suspect, mostly have the mainstream denominations;
anti-RC rhetoric probably continued on in the others for a while. And,
clearly, some groups are keeping the flame alive.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:44:44 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:

> Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not
> exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for
> Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol
> reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was
> struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of
> the internet.

Possibly they _have_ heard of the Internet, and even used it to _buy_ the
copies of the book they distributed... they're just not familiar with how to
use the Internet for "push" rather than "pull" advertising.

If so, we can be grateful they're not sending spam E-mails to people.

But to meaningfully comment on whether the reference to President Reagan
implies that the bulk of the text wasn't photocopied from something written in
the 19th century, I'd need something more substantial to work on, like a
quotation from the work, or the name of its author. (Even the title _might_
help, although given your description of the cover, it's entirely possible the work
was given a new title less descriptive of its contents if it was an older work.)

Of course, if after glancing at it, you then put it where it belonged, that would
no longer be an option.

My biggest takeaway from this anecdote, though, is concern... that a group
like that has so much money to throw away. That could make them dangerous,
particularly if they spend some of that money more wisely.

John Savard

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
>>> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
>>> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
>>> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
>>> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
>>> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
>>> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
>>> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
>>> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?
>>> >
>>> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.
>>> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
>>> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
>>> ago.
>>
>>From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps just updated post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
>>
>>On the other hand its tone did make it sound like something from the pre-WWII era.
>
>There is a long tradition of Pope-bashing in Protestant circles, with
>certain well-known tropes.
>
>By the 50s some of the Protestant denominations were beginning to pull
>in their horns, so to speak.
>
>My grandfather collected a lovingly-printed and laminated card in the
>early or mid 50s which claimed that free speech rights were being
>infringed on because the higher organizational level was insisting
>that the author preach the Gospel to his congregation instead of
>attacking the Pope.
>
>These would, I suspect, mostly have the mainstream denominations;
>anti-RC rhetoric probably continued on in the others for a while. And,
>clearly, some groups are keeping the flame alive.

I know of a Lutheran, who married a RC in 1956 - his parents wouldn't go
to the wedding.

On 2022-09-07 19:26, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:rHv28B.11w6@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <XnsAF0B8B63AE658taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>> news:rHutGp.1C6F@kithrup.com:
>>>
>>>> In article <tfafhm$4h4$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>>>> James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>>>> Alternatively.... Eliminate sex-based pay disparity by
>>>>>> bringing the pay of women up to that of men. That will
>>>>>> increase the chances that a woman can afford to be the sole
>>>>>> support of a family, and two-income families will do quite
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am afraid you miss the point for John, which is to create a
>>>>> population of women so desperate even he can get a date.
>>>>
>>>> (Hal Heydt)
>>>> That may be what he wants, but desperation on the part of
>>>> women, but it's hardly what I think would be a functioning
>>>> society...at least for very long.
>>>
>>> S'Okay, once he nukes all the brown people, everything will be
>>> OK. Vat girls are among the least of his insanity.
>>>>
>>>> If that is his actual problem, a good long look in the mirror
>>>> might allow him to see where his problem lies.
>>>>
>>> Heh. Y'all are new around here.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Just a long abeyance.
>>
> Longer, apparently, than Quaddie has spewed his racist,
> misogynistic bile here.
>

As opposed to your bile about... ...everything.

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> >> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> >> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
> >> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention of abortion on
> >> >> >> the Internet by at least one Republican-controlled State suggests that
> >> >> >> their Ministry of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at free
> >> >> > speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in which
> >> >> > our so-called free press itself is complicit: the acceptance of
> >> >> > social media as arbiters of public speech.
> >> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet what was the
> >> >> means by which someone could get a large audience for their attempts to
> >> >> convince people that the Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?
> >> >
> >> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a "nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality, an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the internet.
> >> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common way
> >> back when and this could be a reprint of something written 100 years
> >> ago.
> >
> >From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps just updated post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
> >
> >On the other hand its tone did make it sound like something from the pre-WWII era.
> There is a long tradition of Pope-bashing in Protestant circles, with
> certain well-known tropes.

To be fair, in history many of them deserved worse.

>
> By the 50s some of the Protestant denominations were beginning to pull
> in their horns, so to speak.

Oh, well before then. But the attitude lingered, and apparently still does.. There are a few
fundamentalist churches around here where the pope is not loved (where you can also
learn that evolution is a lie and global warming an Atheist/Chinese conspiracy). Though one is
a mosque.

It's interesting that non-Christians have their own opinions on this. Muslims inevitably tell me
they prefer Protestantism, while non-Christian east Asians seem to prefer Catholicism.

The newspaper used to have a "100 years ago today" feature. In 2011 it noted that in 1911 Protestant churches were allowed in Spain. When I was born this was more current affairs than history. But now it is safely in the past. We progress.

William Hyde

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:dbd57986-1037-4b60-b261-205d8fe1e5a4n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 4:31:20 PM UTC-6, Hal Heydt
> wrote:
>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Just a long abeyance.
>
> If I'm the one who wants to "nuke all the brown people",
> how is it that _he_ is the one that thinks that BLM is
> a more serious problem than the January 6 rioters?

Because BLM and Antifa (who have a *lot* of crossover) attacked
various federal and local offices _and burned many to the ground_,
and did so with an explicit goal of overturning a valid election.
Mind you, they didn't question the *validity* of the election, in
fact they implicitly accepted it while trying to *volently* negate
it.

Jan 6 was some hillbillies who had a party that got out of hand,
and did very minimal damage to anybody.

You *know* all that, it's been explained to you before. But you're
not allowed to admit it by your fascist masters.
>
> I _do_ think that in the post 9/11 world, countries like
> Egypt and Pakistan should be put on notice that no
> discrimination whatsoever against non-Muslims will
> be tolerated henceforth.

Racist.

> (And that _is_ where he gets
> his notion that I want to "nuke all brown people" from.)

You've made it very clear, yes.
>
> It is the notion that non-Muslims, if permitted to live,
> must have "dhimmi" status that has *led* to the blind
> hostility to Israel, where the Jews successfully resisted
> by force the imposition of such rule, that is the source
> of the terrorist menace. Which is why this mentality is
> a direct threat to the West.
>
> Being _against_ discrimination - by *anyone*, including
> non-whites - is somehow being for discrimination in
> his book.
>
You only believe you're not a woman hating racist with violent
fantasies becase you've been told to by your fascist masters.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:2p4khh1b0q3qqnghofldcf6i8plislsgri@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
> <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 12:51:35 PM UTC-4, Paul S
>>Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
>>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:59:22 PM UTC-4, David
>>> >Johnston wrote:
>>> >> On 2022-08-02 1:45 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>> >> > On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:19:48 -0700, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Actually, recent efforts to criminalize even the mention
>>> >> >> of abortion on the Internet by at least one
>>> >> >> Republican-controlled State suggests that their Ministry
>>> >> >> of Truth is, at least for now, up and running.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The noise generated by politicians firing potshots at
>>> >> > free speech masks a more insidious undermining of it in
>>> >> > which our so-called free press itself is complicit: the
>>> >> > acceptance of social media as arbiters of public speech.
>>> >> Let me ask you something. In the days before the internet
>>> >> what was the means by which someone could get a large
>>> >> audience for their attempts to convince people that the
>>> >> Earth was flat or FDR planned Pearl Harbor?
>>> >
>>> >Just a few weeks ago, every house on my street received a
>>> >"nicely bound" if not exactly nicely printed, book that on
>>> >the surface seemed to be one written for Americans, about
>>> >American politics (had a nice if cliched picture of the
>>> >Capitol reflected in water on the cover). It was, in reality,
>>> >an anti-Catholic tract and I was struck with a sense of
>>> >nostalgia that these bigots had apparently never heard of the
>>> >internet.
>>> Any indication when it was written? This was a lot more common
>>> way back when and this could be a reprint of something written
>>> 100 years ago.
>>
>>From the little I read it seems clear it was written, or perhaps
>>just updated post 1981, as president Reagan was mentioned.
>>
>>On the other hand its tone did make it sound like something from
>>the pre-WWII era.
>
> There is a long tradition of Pope-bashing in Protestant circles,
> with certain well-known tropes.

"It's better to be wrong with God than right with the Pope."
>
> By the 50s some of the Protestant denominations were beginning
> to pull in their horns, so to speak.
>
> My grandfather collected a lovingly-printed and laminated card
> in the early or mid 50s which claimed that free speech rights
> were being infringed on because the higher organizational level
> was insisting that the author preach the Gospel to his
> congregation instead of attacking the Pope.
>
> These would, I suspect, mostly have the mainstream
> denominations; anti-RC rhetoric probably continued on in the
> others for a while. And, clearly, some groups are keeping the
> flame alive.

People like Jack Chick were reluctant to even admit Catholics were
*human*.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.