Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

Someone Anyonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Those aren't relevant newsgroups. And crossposting is
annoying......especially for people who aren't interested. Clutters
it up. Not everyone in the world has access to fast connections.

The topic of abortion is FULLY relevant in ALL of those groups.

No, it's NOT!

Your selfish, arrogant and greedy motif is noted!

Don't bother responding with abusive language; I won't
read it anyway!

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:..

Someone Anyonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:..

Someone Anyonymous <someone462000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:..

Those aren't relevant newsgroups. And crossposting is
annoying......especially for people who aren't interested. Clutters
it up. Not everyone in the world has access to fast connections.

The topic of abortion is FULLY relevant in ALL of those groups.

No it isn't. That's why there is talk.abortion and alt.abortion.

So the crossposting AGAIN is restored. And will be EVERY
time I respond to a post that has changed it.

When you omit RELEVANT groups from a crosspost, you are
potentially DENYING your comments to people in those groups that
may have been following the thread.

All 0 of them.

Worse -- if the next person who responds to YOU dosn't
*catch* that, and *correct* it, that denial of the continuity of the
thread would be perpetuated. Very selfish of you!

People hate crossposting. When they want to discuss abortion, they
know where to come. You're the one who's rude and selfish.

FIRST, there was the post, in which I made the prediction...
right after Viagra come onto the market. To which I alluded
in the NEXT item in this posting, below. But just when one
thinks they can count on "Google's" newsgroup search
engine, it lets one down, or I'd have repeated it here. Has
anyone else discovered that, once in awhile, no matter how
hard they try to finad an article that ythey, themselves, had
posted, Google couldn't FIND it? Frustrating!!! I have never
cancelled any of my own posts (and obviously, no one else's)
from Google, so I'm mystified that these occasional gaps in their
archives -- which shouldn't be there -- manifest themselves!

Are you serious?

Very much so. I've always thought that the archives of Deja News,
and the Google ones that succeeded that, were complete, except for
when people included a "no archive" command in their posts, or later
deleted posts of their own. I've done NEITHER to ANY of my posts.

So the rare missing ones are surprising.

Are you serious?

Are you a broken record, loon?

I just can't believe that you would be surprised at such an ordinary
event. You must know less about computers than you do about the
Bible.

Some of you in these groups may remember that I predicted that
Viagra would lead to a NEW Sexual Revolution for many of the SAME
people who enjoyed the FIRST one so much. I'm happy to see that it
seems to be turning out that way.

Are you serious?

Of COURSE I'm serious!

You can't be.

Pretty darned STUPID then, aren't you? Try learning how to
comprehend clear English.

I can comprehend what you are saying. I just can't believe anyone
actually believes what you claim to believe.

Just ANOTHER thing that can ruin the whole day of the RRR Cult's
control-freaks. (Anything that accomplishes THAT is GOOD! I *LOVE*
it!!)

So much for the "prime directive" or whatever the heck you call that
which doesn't exist.

The only prime directive to which I've referred very MUCH exists, ...

No it doesn't.

MORE of your abject stupidity and ignorance? At least
you're consistent!

More of your "prime directive?"

...since it was Jesus' strongest command to His followers: to show
love and compassion to their neighbors. Which I *do* constantly, by
continually opposing the hateful bigots who seek to impose misery
upon them.

Who is your neighbor?

That refers to everyone.

Then you do not follow the "prime directive."

Name calling isn't opposition.

Applying accurate descriptors to exemplify their disregrard to
people's rights IS.

No it isn't. It's just juvenile name calling.

In my own case, NO such accurate descriptors are applied
until and unless the person, group, or agenda has provably and
publicly EARNED them.

So you've said. You still aren't opposing anyone.

Anyway, on to the next step ---

THEN there was THIS post...

From: Craig Chilton (xanadu222@home.com)
Subject: Partly OFF-Topic, but FUNNY! Edell comments on
Viagra & the Porn Industry
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, alt.bible, alt.christnet,
alt.abortion.inequity
Date: 2001-07-08 10:52:09 PST

Viagra Good For The Porn Industry?

by Dr. Dean Edell

July 06, 2001 --

This is a hysterical article; I don?t know if you?ll appreciate
this. This is the changing nature of an industry I?m sure most of us
don?t think about. It?s the making of X-rated films and how Viagra
has changed this industry.

They profile an old-timer here -- an actor in the industry. He?s 43
years old. I don?t want to tell you his name -- it?s printed in the
newspaper, but I feel kind of weird about saying it on the show.
One director teases him and calls him "blue tongue" because has
popped so many Viagra. The actor says, "I?m not ashamed of it.
I rely on Viagra for many shoots. People know I use it. It doesn?t
make me any less of a man or a person."

Of course, we know what the drug is supposed to be used for, but
I'm afraid it has become a recreational drug. This actor says here has
taken as much as 100 mg a day and he knows of peers of his who
use even more and with the current pace of hectic film production.
Actors are taking the pill for every shoot, turning the industry into
an unwitting mass experiment.

Some actresses and directors are getting fed-up with it, rolling
their eyes whenever they see the tell-tale signs of a Viagra actor,
which includes a glazed look. Is that one of the side effects? Can
any of you listeners out there let me know if this glazed look is a
side effect?

A veteran actress says they?re using drugs designed for men
with particular problems, and these guys don?t have that particular
problem, yet the pill has created dozens of male stars and eliminated
so many annoying production snafus that industry players say
they are willing to put up with the occasional lapses and potential
health problems.

"I put Viagra right up there with the polio vaccine as far as
making my job easier," says a director. There is another hilarious
quote that Viagra "has brought an industrial level of quality control
to a business that is notoriously vulnerable to the whims of biology."
That?s a great line.

It says here, even the best porn actor can have an off day. One
actor says he uses Viagra whenever a scene lasts for more than an
hour or if he has to use a condom because he just can?t work with
them. Yet another actor, a 34-year-old, uses the drug if he has to
perform intimate acts when he?s not in the mood or tired or sick that
day.

The top porn film studios turn out more than 30 films a month --
that?s one a day. So you can see how Viagra could push up
production and make it possible to keep up a film a day schedule.
Wow!

Source: Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2001

Copyright© 1994-2000 HealthCentral.com.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

To which I responded ---

Note the line, above, that said:

"Of course, we know what the drug is supposed to
be used for, but I'm afraid it has become a recreational
drug."

Some of you in these groups may remember that I predicted that
Viagra would lead to a NEW Sexual Revolution for many of the SAME
people who enjoyed the FIRST one so much. I'm happy to see that it
seems to be turning out that way.

Just ANOTHER thing that can ruin the whole day of the RRR Cult's
control-freaks. (Anything that accomplishes THAT is GOOD! I *LOVE*
it!!)
-- Craig Chilton

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

And THEN, **THIS** verification that the new Sex Revolution is
INDEED underway ---

And this thrills you? Have you ever watched someone die from AIDS?

The new Sex Revoution thrills me. The AIDS does not. But Safe
Sex can prevent the spread of AIDS.

There isn't any such thing as safe sex except within a completely
monogamous relationship between two people who are disease free.

THAT boring and disinformational TRIPE again!

Are you not aware that there are married couples that have been
documented to be having sex regularly, wherein one member has HIV
and the other does not, with NO pread of HIV to the uninfected person?
That PROVES that Safe Sex works VERY well... when PRACTICED well.

No it doesn't. It proves they are currently beating the odds. There
is a difference between safer and safe.

There is safer sex which can reduce the number of AIDS cases,
but "safe sex" is a myth.

Bullcrap!! See above.

Why should I see above? You proved nothing except that you
don't know the difference between the terms "safe" and "safer."

It's all about education, and many seniors, having regained their
lost libidos, need to be re-educated about that. (See my comments
about that, farther down.)

Education hasn't worked....AIDS continues to be an epidemic. I can't
believe you're thrilled with anything which causes people to suffer
with AIDS.

I'm thrilled that more and more people again are having the chance
to enjoy the world's greatest form of recreation.

Why? Is your life so sorry that you need to live vicariously?

BTW, viagra doesn't restore libido. It restores sexual function.

It is incumbent upon *them* TO educate themselves, and to
practice Safe Sex. So I applaud the educational efforts toward
that end, and encourage everyone to benefit from them. AND
from their new-found capabilities!

From NBC Nightly News -- Thanksgiving Day, 2003 ---

Doctors Blame Fewer Sexual Taboos on
a Little Blue Pill: Viagra.

Reported by NBC's Fred Francis

NOTE: To see this report, for as long as it's on their website,
go to: http://www.msnbc.com/news/998849.asp?0sl=-10
and click on "Play Video." The transcript of the report is
NOT yet posted there, as this is written, so I transcribed the
report below from a tape I made of last night's broadcast.

November 27, 2003 --

The Center for Disease Control says that people over 50
represent 12% of all new AIDS cases in this country, and yet,
many don't think they're at risk.

The reason -- fewer sexual taboos. And, say many
doctors, that little blue pill. Viagra has led to more sexual
freedom.

"It makes you feel alive! And it *stimulates* you! And if
you knew what was goin' on behind doors with us senior
citizens... WOW!" [ -- Unidentified but very enthusiastic
man who appeared to be around 60.]

74-year-old Sue Saunders knows. She has the virus.
And calls many older Viagra users, "Condominium Casanovas."

[She said:] "Going from Marge one night to Carolyn the
next night, Suzie the next night... take Betty on a cruise...
go over and eat pie with Joanie -- man!! THESE guys are
ACTIVE!

Sue *and* Cheryl say their parteners *refuse* to wear
condoms. [Cheryl repeats what her partner said to her
about that:] "What do I need a condom for? [You] can't
get pregnant."

[ ... ]

[A female doctor was identified by name, but it was a
name she probably was given when she lived in India, and
I was unable to guess at its spelling. The reporter said:]
"Infectious disease practice is full of new virus cases... many
were by Viagra users." [Doctor said:] "We have seen the
surge of HIV among the older population -- more so since
these enhancing dugs have come out."

Florida is trying to end the surge with education... 74-year-
old Marilyn Brand is known around Palm Beach as "the
condom granny." [She's shown holding up a condom in
front of a classroom of seniors, saying, "These now come
in colors..." One of her students asks, "Do you have any
*samples?*" The class laughs.] Marilyn has a basketful of
samples, and much frank advice, but it will be another year
before new statistics are out, before doctors will know if
these educational programs are working.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

People increasingly are learning that their BEST shot at
enjoying recreational/casual sex WITHOUT consequences
is by practicing Safe Sex well. So NBC just did seniors a
great service by reminding them that this is JUST as important
for *them*!

UNTIL seniors have learned that sufficiently, the RRR cult's
"consequences-freaks" can hatefully drool over that AIDS rate.
But as seniors learn, that will probably taper off dramatically.

And hopefully, to the vanishing point.

THEN the RRR cult's loons will probably start wailing and
moaning again about the supposed decline of "morality."

To which I say to them: TOUGH!!! The Dark Ages of
sexual repression are EXTINCT.

Are you saying that God doesn't insist on monogamy?

Show me ANYTHING in the Bible where He does.

Are you serious?

Are you that STUPID? I don't see you *refuting* that statement.
NOR *could* you. NOWHERE does the Bible command monogamy.
That's even a reason that many of the Mormons feel justified in
practicing it!

#1 The Mormon religion and the Christian religion are two different
things.

#2 The obvious:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
1Tim3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to
teach;
Matt19: 3The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to
Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who
made[1] them at the beginning "made them male and female,'[2] 5and
said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[3] 6So then,
they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined
together, let not man separate."
Exodus 20:17"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not
covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female
servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your
neighbor's."

King David had a PLETHORA of wives, and the Bible
describes him as "a man after God's own heart."

He was a man after God's own heart. He was not a perfect man.
There is a difference. You've never really read the Bible, have you.

I certainly have.

Not thoroughly.

God roundly condemned and chastized David for an adultrous
act, and for sending the woman's husband on a suicide mission
in battle. But He NEVER criticized David for monogamy.

Why would he chastise David for monogamy? David wasn't
monogamous. God favors monogamy.

Get a CLUE, RRR cultist!

From you? I don't think so.