On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> ULC does have a "doctrine" but it's only there because the states
> require one. Their doctrine is contentless. :)
talk to brother Daniel, I think he'd disagree ;->
> Well, I think the state should get out of the marriage business
> altogether.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jenny Brown (was Gable) wrote:
> sometimes gender-balanced, sometimes tending more toward women. It's also
> not constrictive. In general it encouarges learning about other things,
generally speaking this is one reason that I decided that I wasn't wiccan,
rather my/our own b
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> I was ordained over the Internet, actually. I am aware that by doing
> so I joined a church. The church I joined has no doctrine and exists
if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines, that
all basically can be summarized
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i would be really pissed off, because I should check if there are patents
> on each single piece of my software.
yes, a patent search...
you'd be suprized what hasn't been done ;->
the advice that I've recieved tho is that since patent law favor
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> copyright to patents (as is in the US). Well, patents are not a good
> thing, you can tell from the amazon story (and the unisys/gif one, you
not a good thing?
tell me, if you were a struggling college student who is developing an
original data st
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Steve Kudlak wrote:
> This seems like silly humour to me. I would to see the original articles, if
> someone is going to present a critique. I don't knowI mean some things seem
more of a composite of Anthro/Women's Studies 316 discussion related to a
few books, in partic
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Kristina wrote:
> butt. Boobs and butt don't really last all that long. A friendly smile,
> sense of humor, intelligence, loyalty, and respect do, but when we hear
> people judged on a purely physical basis, it's like nothing else matters.
> "No boobs, no butt, no service
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> too. With my female friends, my feelings are "cerebral", nothing is a
> shared experience, just shared feelings about things. I have to find out
> everything about a woman before I know if she and I connect on all
> levels. Because I have to anal
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> Christ, if one more person didn't pick up on my attempts at riling up a few
> people, I was going to die...I'm trying to stir SOMETHING upBut All
maybe you could be the person to reveal some of your issues instead of
brow beating others into yo
unrelated to the topic... even how stuff like that is *never* off topic on
this list... and your response is? "i'm not getting in a pissing contest
with you"... perhaps you're in it with other here and I'm ruining your
fun... so sorry for ruining your flame fest...
&
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> >or do you think that forcing porn down people's throats is a good
> >thing? yes... let's desencitize that 74 year old lady trying to pick out a
> >nice desktop for the computer a young friend is setting up for her (a
> >scenario I know is happening).
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Dakota Surmonde wrote:
> not to mention, why do you want to put all 'adult' content in one place?
so that if you want to avoid it you *can*
otherwise you just happen to come across it... when it's too late
like a football game, we put walls and grand stands and big march
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> Appreciating the female body is sexist, didn't you know?
> None of us have genitals, and if we did, we wouldn't be able to use them.
or we'd have to respect others who might have ideas about sex that aren't
quite the same as us...
or do you think t
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Brendan/Coolian wrote:
> >Perhaps. But after you hear "women can't do xx" (where xx is usually
>
>
> This is called "transference". Who the hell has said anything about women
> not being able to do things? We're talking about themes, and scantily-clad
> people in such,
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> I don't think it is valid to say that just because s.th. is "culture",
> that it's right.
likewise it's not valid to refute any cultural mechanism... I see this
often in religious arguments... and well, the refutation of all
social/psychological devi
15 matches
Mail list logo
