Debate : 24831


Off-Topic / Debate / 24831

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Allister McLaren

(...) Shameless diversion aside, I agree. Let's get back to biblical principles. How many wives and concubines did Soloman have again? Allister (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) Relevance? (as if polygamy was a "biblical principle"). JOHN (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) This is very OT (excuse the pun); for a NT ref see Matthew 25:1-12: "...the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom...." ;) (...) (I think you mean polygyny). It was (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) The term "polygamy" has the advantage of covering both polygyny and polyandry (and being a term that most people have actually heard of). Yes, the bible really only deals with polygyny, but it can be politically advantageous to lump them (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Thomas Stangl

(...) This begs the question - with over 6 BILLION humans on this earth, do we REALLY need to make it easier for Breeders to spit out more humans than they should be? The earth would be far better off if we'd figure a *humane* way to scale the world (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) How is allowing or not allowing same-sex marriages going to affect this? I mean, it's a valid concern and all, but forbidding two guys to get married with each other won't make them want to get married to women and have kids, and allowing two (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) But there IS a humane way. Help societies to move away from subsistence agriculture (and the modern sweatshop equivalent) by introducing the rule of law, property rights, and fostering the growth of free enterprise. This reduces the incentive (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Frank Filz

"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I14L96.1r36@lugnet.com... (...) to/seem (...) debunking (...) Hmm, is that debunking that democracies tend to/seem to go to war less, or debunking that certain nations are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) Why don't you leave the exogesis of the Bible to those who know what they are talking about (as you obviously don't). (...) The point is moot, to Christians at least. Jesus' teaching on the subject is clear, as He quotes from Genesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Koudys

(...) Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man separating the covenant that 'God joined'), get rid of adultery and coveting, and then we may (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) Don't forget anullment which is the Catholics' way of getting around that little religious entanglement. (...) Now, see, there you're just restricting the rights of the citizenry to break their solemn vows. That'll never fly (heck, in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) This discussion is about the definition of marriage, Dave. How would you define it? (...) The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages or not. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Koudys

(...) The state should recognize marraige as a contract between persons, no matter their sexual affiliation. If the Church wants to put quantifiers on that contract, i.e. one person must be female, and the other must be male, all the power to the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) How many persons? (...) So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those? (...) For what possible reason? That is downright strange. (...) Well, that "church" has some issues. (...) lol "evolution of society"? Are you so sure our (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Dave Schuler

(...) I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to pee in another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be so, other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions involving the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Frank Filz

"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:I15rpI.1v7n@lugnet.com... (...) pee in (...) so, (...) involving the (...) in the (...) I'm with you on this one. I visited a dorm at MIT that had a co-ed bathroom, that had multiple stalls (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) As far as the state is concerned, the church doesn't, but the church does require itself to abide by the laws of the land. If the US government says gays can get married, it doesn't mean that the church would have to perform or even recognize (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not sure this is how it should be in the US with our legal precident. If sexual preference is a fully protected non-discrimination item, then private churches won't be able to refuse to marry them. Maybe this is what folks like John are (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) Marital status is a non-discrimination item, but that doesn't prevent the Catholic church from refusing to marry a divorced person. They can't be required to perform the ceremony if they can't be required to recognize the union, and forcing (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Could they, hypothetically speaking deny marriage to blacks by not recognizing their legal status or somesuch? Chris (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) I'll admit that it's pretty thin, but there is a distinction nonetheless. By refusing to perform same-sex marriages, the Church is not refusing to perform weddings for gays at all. They're just refusing to perform weddings between them. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) So your point is that the state has a vested interest in NOT recognizing marriages? Why? I thought your point (in a past debate) was that somehow gay marriage negatively affected the American family, which was the foundation of society (though (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) And the scary bit is that, from what I've read, all Dave's seem to be on the same page regarding this issue, and these Dave's come from widely divergent backgrounds. Wow! Dave K -go Daves (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) (URL) fun) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) Why would there have been a (URL) problem>? She was obviously calling out to Dave factoral;-) (Sorry to steal your thunder, Dave!) JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Koudys

(...) I like some of those names. Since this is a PG or less show, I won't mention that I choked on my tea whilst reading 'Soggy Muff'... Oops, did I say that out loud? Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFatee -formerly known as Dave K (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) Actually, I don't believe I've stated my opinion on whether gays should be allowed to marry, just on who should be able to say whether they can or can't (not the church, and not the federal government, because the US Constitution relegates (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, that is kind of the defining belief of "conservative," right? (...) But I think John believes that if the Bible says something, it is right. That's the measure of rightness. So he doesn't need to look farther. Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) Let's hope not :) If stated so, I have a hunch lots of people would start migrating over to the liberal side :) (...) Well, I doubt that's John's point since I don't think he's interested in making other laws to: - attend church on Sunday - (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage with another willing partner, although I'd grant that it does rule out the partmer being the same gender. I'm also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) The operative word I'd say would be "two". (...) Not really. Marriage is a religious institution-- that governments decide to recognize marriages as civil unions is where the rub lies. All I am arguing is for the preservation of the definition (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) If you'd read the header & not snipped quite so much text, you'd see I was talking about polygyny in NT "biblical times"; what are you talking about? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) The "ten virgins" are bridesmaids for the bride, not whatever you seemed to be implying (polygyny). Or were you just making some throw-away joke? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) What makes you think the "ten virgins" are "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal

(...) It's not what I think-- it is what biblical scholars think. So again-- leave the exegesis to the ones who know what they are talking about. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) So you don't know? Do you accept the work of these "scholars" without question? Your reply reminded me that you once said this: "I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without the need of (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Do we have any of those here? (biblical scholars who know what they're talking about, I mean, I wasn't casting aspersions on everyone as far as knowing what they're talking about, mind you...) If we don't do we have to take your word for it on (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) Made me curious, but yeah, I think John's spot-on on this one. Looks like it's just yet another quickie parable: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) Nope, just five of them. ;P (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Dave Schuler

(...) Whoa! Girl-on-girl-on-girl...rl-on-girl action, straight from the pages. I'll have to reread this book after all. Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) **Blush** I'll have another go at that: I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bridegroom"? Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) Ahh, Scott, always to be counted on for persnicking the details. You were right the first time, in quoting "bridesmaids for the bride" rather than 'bridegroom' since that's what John posted initially: (...) And you're right insofar as it's not (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) As the header & my initial post suggests, my point was only that polygyny did exist in “biblical times” in historic Israel. I am not saying that the bible encourages it... only that it was not uncommon. If you read around ((URL)) you will see (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) Well... uh... since the quote you used really doesn't seem to imply a polygynal relationship between the bridegroom and the virgins unless taken out of context, shouldn't you have found a better quote, unless you were making a joke? I mean, as (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Dave Schuler

(...) I was in a polygonal relationship one time: a love triangle. The other guy was a real square, and it finally ended when she found out that he had a rectangular dysfunction. Dave! FUT: off-topic.what-have-I-done? (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) Not to go off on a tangent, but that's plane nuts. I've had a few-- they seem to come and go, but mine are come n-gon. I guess it's a bad sine. DaveE (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Pete White

(...) With these types of relationships it's important to approach from the right angle, and if it smells a bit fishy, try angling. But don't get snagged on a wreck......tangle ! It's often hard to enter Royal circles, just ask Di...amateur ! They (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) What does it imply to you? (...) Do you think that negates my point? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) That you were making a joke? Great! A joke it was. (...) Negates your joke? By no means! Does it negate your "point" that polygyny was still common in NT times? No, but it unless it was solely a joke, your use of the quote had about as much (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

Somehow, I get the feeling you are being deliberately obtuse. Scott A (20 years ago, 25-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton

(...) Really? I kinda get the same impression... DaveE (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell

(...) Probably some sort of historical precedence. By modern standards, they probably wouldn't be, since they're characterized as waiting at the reception hall rather than being part of the wedding party itself. On the other hand, they're (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) None of which is clear (to me at least) in the text Dave quoted. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Mark Bellis

(...) Heh! I see your wishful thinking! However, 1 Timothy 3:2 says: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,..." and 1 Timothy 3:12 says: "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife..." (both NIV). This probably (...) (20 years ago, 14-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree 100%; that was the point I was trying to make. (...) I have heard that too. Perhaps we were pack animals in our (alleged) evolutionary past? (...) So what is the relevance of the them being “virgins”? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 14-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Allister McLaren

(...) Well, you seem to have a problem with the term 'marraige' being redefined. The point is that marraige has been redefined many times in the past and has many different definitions today. The point is that marraige is defined by whatever the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) EUREKA! Really, is it that obscure what I'm arguing? (...) I don't know what you mean. Provide examples, if you please. (...) I don't think marriage, until rather recently, has ever been defined as anything other than the union of 1 man and 1 (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Allister McLaren

(...) No. The obscurity is why you are so fixated on wishing for the permanence of that definition. (...) I understand they use a slightly different definition in Utah. (...) Whether or not you or I like the definition is irrelevant. Things change, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) Used. They changed it a while back, but they really only enforce it if you make a big stink about it (in other words, you have to make your crime seem that much more important to enforce than someone else's murder before they're going to come (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry, why should he shut up about it? If it's against the law and the law is worth enforceing, enforce it. If it's not worth enforcing, get rid of the law. The law against polygamy is such a law. Not worth enforcing. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) Not getting arrested seems like a good start. Also, breaking the law as a means of trying to have it repealed tends to turn people against you on the grounds that you're one of "those" criminals instead of "us" law-abiding citizens). Protest (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek

(...) So, "don't ask, don't tell"? "Ya I smoked pot but I didn't inhale"? That sort of thing? Is that the moral creed you espouse? Further, was Rosa Parks right or wrong? How do you feel about civil disobedience as an instrument of change? How about (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) No, I just think it's brainlessly stupid to walk around crowing about how you're committing some crime. There's a difference between being willing to be arrested and actively campaigning for it. (...) From what she's said, she was just tired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Thomas Stangl

Ah, see, but John wants to lock the entire world into {his} version of morality for eternity, and the rest of us can just go to hell if we don't like it. Attitudes like John's truly sicken me. (...) -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) Uh, I never said that. (...) Uh, I never said that. (...) A straw man if I ever saw one. If my attitudes sicken you, at least be sickened by the ones to which I actually adhere. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Thomas Stangl

You've never said it in those exact words, and you have several times tried to profess that you're an open-minded person, but just about every post you make in this group is tight-a@@ed Moral Majority pap where everything is fine as long as it goes (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) Thank you. (...) I believe I am. (...) No, no, Tom. The MM would have a hard time with my beliefs-- I am hardly a schill for them! Merely because I am a Christian does not mean for a NY minute that I agree, especially politically with other (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) Shame on you for following Dubya's lead. It is a mistake to pretend, because you have not made a statement using a specific phrase, that you therefore have not made an equivalent statement using other words. Dubya does this all the time: "If (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) And in California and Massachusetts, but it's still illegal. (...) Change comes when the majority decide it should change, not a tiny minority. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's see--by this logic, 5 therefore people count as the majority in a pool of some 100+ million voters. Hmm... Dave! (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) That's only true because the state law supercedes the local law. California also ruled that it's legal to prescribe medicinal marijuana, but it's still a federal offense to do so. (...) Change rarely requires a true majority in the US legal (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Allister McLaren

(...) I thought we were considering the definition of marraige, not the legality or otherwise of that definition. Even so, there is a world outside the USA. Muslim countries all over the world permit polygamy. One woman + one man = marraige isn't a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) John, we all understand what you're arguing. We just disagree with you. Chris (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

????? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Write Frank, Tim, Todd or myself if you need a cancel. Else, what are you talking about? (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) Good. I guess I didn't catch the irony in his statement (with no winky to guide me:-) JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You know what, in my crazier moments I'd be happy to leave the definition of "marriage" to whatever non governmental sanctioning bodies wanted to sanction it, and they can define it however they like. As part of that leaving I'd then go (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) I agree with everything Larry stated. Oh if wished made it so... I think Larry should change his name to Dave and become part of the Davish 5 Though there is a Larry David in teh world--mayhaps Larry's middle name is Dave... Dave (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)