From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Nov  1 02:45:39 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:45:39 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <190214.15277.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <geeoaq+563h@eGroups.com> <190214.15277.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <013c01c93bcb$ed356870$c7a03950$@com>

Obama is leading better than either election Bill Clinton won. Obama is
going to landslide on Tuesday.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kai Wen Lee
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 5:19 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans

Alla earlier:

I **hope** you are right, believe me I do. But personally I do not
think that few percents differents in the poll matters that much. I
mean, they are polling only sample audience, no? I know they are
supposed to represent whole population, but I just do not think it is.

CJ now:

In both 2000 and 2004, the average of the final major national polls was
well within their margins of error; in 2004, the average deviated from
actual election results by less than a percent.

Polls just aren't wrong.

--CJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov  1 07:55:48 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:55:48 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <190214.15277.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Alla earlier:
> 
> I **hope** you are right, believe me I do. But personally I do not
> think that few percents differents in the poll matters that much. I
> mean, they are polling only sample audience, no? I know they are
> supposed to represent whole population, but I just do not think it is.
> 
> CJ now:
> 
> In both 2000 and 2004, the average of the final major national polls was well within 
their margins of error; in 2004, the average deviated from actual election results by less 
than a percent.
> 
> Polls just aren't wrong.

Geoff:
That's a potentially dangerous statement. Here in the UK, we have 
certainly have had examples in the recent past when predictions for 
General Election outcomes were way off beam.

And wasn't there an (in)famous US occasion involving - was it Truman 
and Dewey about 1945-ish? - when the pollsters made a dog's 
breakfast of their predictions?






From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  1 08:33:32 2008
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzie_snape)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:33:32 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <956280.48146.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <geh48s+amk1@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> Personally, I would've voted for Obama, but his position on FOCA 
killed the deal for me.
> 
> --CJ
>  

What is FOCA?

Lizzie




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov  1 08:51:41 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:51:41 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <geh5at+egbh@eGroups.com>

CJ:
> > Polls just aren't wrong.
 
> Geoff:
> That's a potentially dangerous statement. Here in the UK, we have 
> certainly have had examples in the recent past when predictions for 
> General Election outcomes were way off beam.
> 
> And wasn't there an (in)famous US occasion involving - was it Truman 
> and Dewey about 1945-ish? - when the pollsters made a dog's 
> breakfast of their predictions?

Geoff (later):
Correcting myself... IIRC it was the 1948 election when Truman won
his term in his own right.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  1 15:40:13 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:40:13 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <geh5at+egbh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <geht8t+5mre@eGroups.com>

> CJ:
> > > Polls just aren't wrong.
>  
Alla:

And adding  to what Geoff said according to this article Reagan trailed 
in polls too and he won nevertheless:

http://cnn.tv/2008/POLITICS/10/16/mccain.comeback/index.html?iref=nextin

Now I know that this article compares Reagan to Obama as well, Reagan 
being fresh face and all that, however I am only bringing it up for 
proposition that Reagan won **despite** the polls.

I also do not have any other data to support this article, so if it is 
wrong, it is wrong, I was not even living in USA yet at that time and I 
was also very young lol.

BUT if this article is correct, polls are certainly wrong sometimes.

Again, I will be extremely happy if Obama wins, believe me, but I am a 
pessimist by nature and I always prepare myself for the worst and am 
happy if the best comes.

I was thinking that there could be absolutely, positively no way Bush 
will be elected second term. OOPS. Of course I am talking about what 
**I** wanted to happen, so please lovers of president Bush policies I 
have a deepest respect for your right to like him ( NOT for his 
policies though), but to me that was a horrible thing to happen, which 
i did not expect.

So, that is why even though I want badly Obama to win, I am very 
superstitutious to say it out loud and I am not 100% confident that he 
will.

JMO,

Alla




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  1 16:10:30 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:10:30 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <geh48s+amk1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gehv1m+8c09@eGroups.com>


> > CJ:
> > Personally, I would've voted for Obama, but his position on FOCA 
> killed the deal for me.

> Lizzie:
> What is FOCA?

Kemper now:
Freedom of Choice Act

Kemper




From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Nov  1 17:10:44 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:10:44 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gehv1m+8c09@eGroups.com>
References: <geh48s+amk1@eGroups.com> <gehv1m+8c09@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <022f01c93c44$c76c5c60$56451520$@com>

That's only because states where trying to prevent abortions at any stage
even if it meant risking the life of the mother. Obama (and I agree) is
against abortion but not for taking away a woman's right. Without FOCA
states could, force doctors to let mothers die rather than perform late
stage abortions.

This is what John McCain referred to as (in air quotes) "the mother's
health" during the last debate.

For me the "mother's health" remark literally mocked the lives of women at
danger due to a complication and might otherwise be saved. 

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kempermentor
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 12:11 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans


> > CJ:
> > Personally, I would've voted for Obama, but his position on FOCA 
> killed the deal for me.

> Lizzie:
> What is FOCA?

Kemper now:
Freedom of Choice Act

Kemper


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Nov  1 17:28:32 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:28:32 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com>
References: <190214.15277.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <023001c93c47$43ee3900$cbcaab00$@com>

Those where "exit polls." Those where polls taken as people left the voting
centers not polls taken by phone survey before the election. 

Most polls that are within 5 - 6 points are in the margin of error which is
why we have certain states that are "battleground" because they are in that
margin.

Polls are correct in political races most of the time, if they are conducted
in a broad manner. For example, the GOP will tell you their guy, McCain is
only 2-5 pts behind Obama nationally, but they are doing the polling and it
slants in their favor. The New York Times will give Obama a 10 -12 pt lead,
but, again, they are liberal and polling a liberal base so they are slanted.
CNN will take several polls and average them together. Tada! Obama has a 7 -
10 pt lead. Because they know that year after year, election after election,
the average of the polls and the election results are twins. In 2000 they
made the mistake of taking any poll above its margin for accurate, this lead
to media being sure that Gore was going to win, and when Florida was close,
they felt comfortable calling it. But, less than 400 ballots and the supreme
court decided that election, no one could have predicted that, except, the
polls where a statistical dead heat, so yeah, it could and did flip either
way. One got the popular vote, the other the electoral college. 

Polls are accurate, if you read them correctly.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 3:56 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans


And wasn't there an (in)famous US occasion involving - was it Truman 
and Dewey about 1945-ish? - when the pollsters made a dog's 
breakfast of their predictions?






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  1 21:04:40 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
References: <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <413612.36593.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

CJ earlier:
Polls just aren't wrong.

Geoff:
That's a potentially dangerous statement.

CJ now:
While I can't speak to UK pollsters, w.r.t. US polls, my statement above is historically accurate. Only four times in the history of presidential polls has the aggregate average of the major pollsters been off by more than 3 percent; since 1956 polling aggregates have missed the mark by an average of less than 1.5 percent -- well within the polls' margins of error.

[You can see the numbers here: http://www.ncpp.org/files/1936-2000.pdf]

Geoff:
And wasn't there an (in)famous US occasion involving - was it Truman and Dewey about 1945-ish? - when the pollsters made a dog's breakfast of their predictions?

CJ now:
It was 1948 and it wasn't "the pollsters". It was just Gallup, doing his third election. 

Gallup's error in '48 from the modern pollsters' perspective was that he stopped polling some two weeks before the election. There were two factors that made the '48 election anomalous: the first was that there were two strong third-party candidates in play whose support collapsed during the final weeks, with most of their supporters breaking for Truman. Gallup missed the last-minute swing. The second was that the race was close enough for the late break to turn the election on its head.

And yet even in the event, Gallup was only off by five points -- a pretty respectable outcome even by modern standards. (He was off by more in '36, which is the year that cemented his reputation as a pollster when he called the election for Roosevelt contrary to national expectations. And he was off by nearly as much in '52, but nobody remembers that.) Since 1956 pre-election polls have missed the marked by an average of
less than 1.5 percent -- a rather remarkable achievement. For those
interested, the historical numbers are available at
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/101.

But all of that notwithstanding, browbeating modern pollsters with a 64-year-old polling error is a bit like questioning Steven Hawking's scientific credentials because he failed his second-grade science test. The '48 election remains the only blown call in polling history, for reasons which aren't likely to repeat themselves, and polling results have only gotten more accurate over time, not less. (There's an interesting graph on that at http://www.newsu.org/angel/content/aapor_polling07/1a_why/accuracy.php. Scroll down to the bottom of the page.)

Alla:
... Reagan trailed in polls too and he won nevertheless

CJ now:
In 1980, polls taken a week before the election gave Carter the edge over Reagan. It is not true, however, that the polls missed Reagan's late surge. RR's dramatic turn-around played out in all the polls and on front pages across the nation. The big lesson learned from 1948 is that polling data more than a week out is an unreliable prognosticator, and no reputable pollster would dare call an election based on week-old data. That's why there's always such a flurry of polling activate in the last week before elections. Any numbers more than three or four days old are generally regarded as good snapshots, but lousy predictors.

Unfortunately for McCain, this is one surge that ain't happening.

CJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov  1 22:04:35 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:04:35 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <413612.36593.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <geijpj+hva5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

CJ:
> But all of that notwithstanding, browbeating modern pollsters with a 64-year-old polling 
error is a bit like questioning Steven Hawking's scientific credentials because he failed his 
second-grade science test. 

Geoff:
Yes,but if pollsters can't even calculate the number of years 
between 1948 and 2008 correctly, I have serious doubts about 
their psephological qualifications.
:-(




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 00:18:28 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 17:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
References: <geh48s+amk1@eGroups.com> <gehv1m+8c09@eGroups.com> <022f01c93c44$c76c5c60$56451520$@com>
Message-ID: <250605.76287.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Cabal:
This is what John McCain referred to as (in air quotes) "the mother's health" during the last debate. For me the "mother's health" remark literally mocked the lives of women at danger due to a complication and might otherwise be saved.

CJ now:
I'm no McCain fan, and I think the incident to which you refer was politcally unwise, however what he was mocking was the "health" half of the "life or health" equation. Most conservatives, McCain included, do not oppose abortion to save the life of the mother. However, there is widespread belief amongst conservatives that the "health" half of the equation is so nebulously defined as to constitute an effective blank-check endorsement of abortion for any reason.

Cabal:
Obama (and I agree) is against abortion but not for taking away a woman's right.

CJ:
I have two problems with FOCA. The first is that, contrary to the middle-ground rhetoric the Obama campaign has been promoting, FOCA is in fact scorched-earth legislation. It would by Congressional fiat overturn 35 years of carefully crafted judicial and legislative compromise, hand pro-choice forces a nearly 100 percent complete legislative victory and irrevocably shut pro-lifers out of any future debate. Under FOCA even such minor compromises as parental notification would become impossible.

The second problem is that it is poorly crafted legislation. It does not specify how it relates to current federal law. FOCA reclassifies abortion as a standard medical procedure which under federal law cannot be denied to patients by any medical institution or personnel. However, currently federal law prohibits discrimination against medical personnel and institutions who choose not to provide or participate in abortion services. Catholic hospitals cannot be denied federal funding because they don't provide abortion services. And pro-life OB/GYNs cannot be denied employment because they refuse to perform abortions.

As currently written, FOCA would set up a conflict between federal laws. Does FOCA intend to retain or supersede federal protections for pro-life medical personnel? By failing to specify, FOCA dumps the whole question squarely on the courts, and guarantees years, if not decades, of legal wrangling. That is, by definition, bad legislation.

And if the courts do eventually find that FOCA supersedes current federal protections, pro-life medical personnel and institutions could eventually be forced to perform abortions in violation of their consciences or face lawsuits, fines and loss of license for refusing.

Cabal:
Without FOCA states could, force doctors to let mothers die rather than perform latestage abortions.

CJ:
How so? Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to abortion. No state law can override that. Can you provide a specific example?

--CJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 00:29:57 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 17:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
References: <geijpj+hva5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <765296.71165.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

CJ earlier:
64-year-old polling

Geoff:
...if pollsters can't even calculate the number of years between 1948 and 2008 correctly...

CJ now:
Well, then, it's fortunate for the pollsters I ain't one of them. :-) And it's fortunate for me you missed my other mathematical munge: 1948 was Gallup's fourth election, not his third.

--CJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Nov  2 00:52:12 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:52:12 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <250605.76287.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <geh48s+amk1@eGroups.com> <gehv1m+8c09@eGroups.com> <022f01c93c44$c76c5c60$56451520$@com> <250605.76287.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000101c93c85$3ee08bf0$bca1a3d0$@com>

Please read Roe V Wade.

That ruling is about confidentiality between a doctor and patient and denies
the court access or interference. That Roe V Wade is an abortion case is not
true, it does not address abortion rights, it addresses patients rights.

Every, single, state has laws about abortion, every state. 

As for throwing it back to the court, that's what the courts are there for.
That's the entire point of the judiciary, to interpret the law and decide if
it's constitutional.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kai Wen Lee
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:18 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans

CJ:
How so? Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to abortion. No state law can
override that. Can you provide a specific example?

--CJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 01:36:59 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
References: <190214.15277.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com> <023001c93c47$43ee3900$cbcaab00$@com>
Message-ID: <330835.24072.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Cabal:
Most polls that are within 5 - 6 points are in the margin of error which is why we have certain states that are "battleground" because they are in that margin.

CJ:
There are three or four websites dedicate to poll numbers: RealClearPolitics.com, FiveThirtyEight.com and Pollsters.com are the three I frequent. All of those sites classify as "toss-ups" states where the polling numbers put candidates within five points of each other. Where the candidates are polling between 5 and 10 percent apart, the state is said to be "leaning". States where the polling difference exceeds 10 percent are "solid".

Cabal:
Polls are correct in political races most of the time, if they are conducted in a broad manner. For example, the GOP will tell you their guy, McCain is only 2-5 pts behind Obama nationally, but they are doing the polling and it slants in their favor.

CJ:
Both political parties have their own internal polling organizations, but most pollsters and the media pretty much ignore them.

Major news organizations -- Time, Fox, NYT, CNN, etc. -- conduct polls in conjunction with the major polling organizations. What this means is that the pollsters (e.g., the Zogby side of a Reuters/Zogby poll) generate the raw numbers, generally through phone surveys, then the media "cook" the numbers through manipulation of "weightings". Weightings are a mechanism that decides how much weight to assign a particular demographic in calculating a poll's results. For example, in a given poll ten percent of respondents might be women who self-identify as Republicans. Fox News (to pick a conservative media outlet) might decide that, since Republican women make up seventeen percent of the general population (and they might have pulled that 17 percent figure from, say, the 2004 election), they were therefore under-represented in the poll. To compensate, Fox might assign a greater weight to their answers. Conversely, they might decide blacks were
 over-represented, and drop that demographic's weighting. The end result is that their final numbers might be more favorable to Republicans than, say a NYT-Gallup poll.

But in the end, since any ethical poll publishes both its raw data and it methodologies, there's only so much manipulation one can get away with. Fox News might be able to get away with, say, bumping its Republican women's weighting a couple of points, but not much more without irreversibly damaging its reputation. This is why even liberal vs. conservative polls generally run within a few percentage points of each other. Of the current polls over at RealClearPolitics, for example, Fox News has Obama at +3 (within its MoE), while CBS/NYT has him at +13. The current RCP average is Obama +6.8.

Cabal:
Because they know that year after year, election after election, the average of the polls and the election results are twins.

CJ:
Exactly. Which is why polling averages and tracking polls carry so much more weight than individual polls. While the press loves to report outliers -- "New poll gives Obama 12-point lead!" -- they are in fact statistically insignificant; any reputable pollster realizes this.

--CJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Nov  2 02:20:54 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:20:54 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <000101c93c85$3ee08bf0$bca1a3d0$@com>
References: <geh48s+amk1@eGroups.com> <gehv1m+8c09@eGroups.com>
	 <022f01c93c44$c76c5c60$56451520$@com>
	 <250605.76287.qm@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <000101c93c85$3ee08bf0$bca1a3d0$@com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580811011920q20f7d736l6baf7b93059a6822@mail.gmail.com>

Cabal snipped:



Please read Roe V Wade.

That ruling is about confidentiality between a doctor and patient and denies
the court access or interference. That Roe V Wade is an abortion case is not
true, it does not address abortion rights, it addresses patients rights.



Snow:



These people have a right to an abortion if they wish, that is up to them
and only they have to answer to it in the end. My problem with this issue is
that I should have to take party to their decision by paying for it!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 04:42:26 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:42:26 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <AC3DD28D75864E78BF8EBD2D6A390E98@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gejb3i+ho5d@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The 
Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> [Cabal]:
> | Yeah, there goes the Evangelical vote.
> 
> [Lee]:
> Hmm--you mean the "Extreme" types.  I consider myself Evangelical,
> Undenominational Christian, and I love my Potter books.  I also 
love the
> Midnight Syndicate music which many Christians would balk at 
considering it
> the Devil's work. :-)
> 
> Smile,
> 
> Lee :-)
>


And I will state for the record. I just spoke to a woman who when I 
was the director of the organization which ran a shelter for 
survivors of domestic violence and she was the shelter director. She 
was an evangelical Christian, and I had total support for her and her 
religion and she had total support for mine. She is a smart, good, 
kind, compassionate person.
Character is not clustered along ideological grounds.

Susan McGee




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 04:43:56 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:43:56 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gee364+m4vi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejb6c+k74l@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > > Goddlefrood:
> > > Are you going to cast your vote for Obama then? ;;)
> 
> > Kemper now:
> > I did. In order from most to least I voted: No, Yes, Democratic,
> > Pacific Green, and Republican.
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> I hope it's not wasted. I have a sneaking suspicion McCain may 
> get in, but will gladly eat my hat (cunningly made from eclairs) 
> if incorrect.
>

I believe that Obama will be elected. If he is, we need to work on 
healing and reconciliation. I have a lot of election bets that 
are "win/win"..ice cream bets for example...

I have already voted.




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 04:49:57 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:49:57 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <956280.48146.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gejbhl+6f63@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Alla earlier:
> 
> Speaking as not outside supporter of Obama, I completely agree with
> you. I pray and hope that Obama wins, BUT I think that McCain wins.
> 
> CJ now:
> 
> A McCain win is a virtual impossibility. He's trailing in far too 
many states,  he's trailing at the national level by 6 to 8 points, 
and Obama's got a better than two-to-one lead in electoral votes. 
Over at FiveThirtyEight.com, they're giving McCain only a 4% chance 
of winning the popular vote, and less than a 1% chance of losing the 
popular vote but still winning the election. Meanwhile, McCain's 
Intrade stock has dropped to 16.5, his lowest since winning the Rep. 
nomination, and down from 53 following the RNC.
> 
> No candidate in US election history has turned around numbers like 
that this late in the game.
> 
> Personally, I would've voted for Obama, but his position on FOCA 
killed the deal for me.
> 
> --CJ
>  
 I agree with CJ.

The electoral college is not the best system, but it is our system.

Obama has the best organized, on the ground, get out the vote effort 
ever seen in this country married to state of the art technology.

Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 04:52:10 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:52:10 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <geh224+dvma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejblq+o8mo@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen@> 
wrote:
> >
> > Alla earlier:
> > 
> > I **hope** you are right, believe me I do. But personally I do not
> > think that few percents differents in the poll matters that much. 
I
> > mean, they are polling only sample audience, no? I know they are
> > supposed to represent whole population, but I just do not think 
it is.
> > 
> > CJ now:
> > 
> > In both 2000 and 2004, the average of the final major national 
polls was well within 
> their margins of error; in 2004, the average deviated from actual 
election results by less 
> than a percent.
> > 
> > Polls just aren't wrong.
> 
> Geoff:
> That's a potentially dangerous statement. Here in the UK, we have 
> certainly have had examples in the recent past when predictions for 
> General Election outcomes were way off beam.
> 
> And wasn't there an (in)famous US occasion involving - was it 
Truman 
> and Dewey about 1945-ish? - when the pollsters made a dog's 
> breakfast of their predictions?
>
Yes of course, although most people here wouldn't consider it 
infamous.

Polling is far more sophisticated, there's a margin of error, you 
have to look at the size of the sample, and the popular vote is not 
very important. It's which states have the most votes in the 
electoral college. Where I live in California, the state's a sure 
pick for Obama, and activists here have traveled to, and are calling 
in Colorado.

Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 04:53:44 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:53:44 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <9D640FE26F4D44D8811975DA2333C101@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gejboo+ef29@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The 
Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> [Susan]:
> | I saw the address that Obama made tonight, and his wife Michelle 
> | mentioned that Obama and his daughter had read every one of the 
books 
> | together.
> 
> [Lee]:
> Ah, so the Obama crew can't be all bad. :)  I don't see him as a 
Slytherin.
> 
> Lee :-)
>

One of the most delightful stories I heard was that his daughter was 
pleading with him NOT to buy time on the Disney channel...something 
about every time I turn on the tv, Dad, there you are, and I'm kind 
of sick of it. Please not on my channel, too.

Susan




From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Nov  2 05:00:50 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:00:50 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejboo+ef29@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejc62+5t6t@eGroups.com>


> > Ah, so the Obama crew can't be all bad. :)  I don't see him as a 
> Slytherin.
> > 
> > Lee :-)
> >
> 
> One of the most delightful stories I heard was that his daughter was 
> pleading with him NOT to buy time on the Disney channel...something 
> about every time I turn on the tv, Dad, there you are, and I'm kind 
> of sick of it. Please not on my channel, too.
> 
> Susan
>

Conversation snipped:

I know that you have read Harry Potter and realize that book five was
full of media propaganda against Harry and his cause ... we may be in
for the ending of book seven if you haven't learned from this!

Snow





From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Nov  2 05:01:59 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:01:59 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejbhl+6f63@eGroups.com>
References: <956280.48146.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <gejbhl+6f63@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001301c93ca8$2370d820$6a528860$@com>

The electoral college is wonderful for the political parties. They can look
at a handful of states, throw all their money in a few places and put the
whole thing on Ohio, Florida and the like

If we did majority of popular vote they'd have to campaign in all fifty
states -- um, like Obama is doing now.

md

-----Original Message-----


The electoral college is not the best system, but it is our system.

Obama has the best organized, on the ground, get out the vote effort 
ever seen in this country married to state of the art technology.

Susan




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 05:18:00 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:18:00 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejc62+5t6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejd68+as2k@eGroups.com>

 
> Snow:
> I know that you have read Harry Potter and realize that book five was
> full of media propaganda against Harry and his cause ... we may be in
> for the ending of book seven if you haven't learned from this!

Kemper now:
Are you saying Obama is about to Expelliarmus McCain?

Kemper Hussein Mentor




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 05:19:43 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:19:43 -0000
Subject: who said this quote
Message-ID: <gejd9f+ot7u@eGroups.com>

"I value good manners for example. Every time I meet a kid who speaks 
clearly adn looks me in the eye who says "yes sir" and thank you and 
please and excuse me, I feel hopeful about the country."

And "In the case of children, I think it's primar the duty of parents 
to monitor what they are watching on television, and in my speech, I 
even suggested that everyone would benefit if parents - heaven forbid --
 simply turned off the TV and trie dto striek up a conversation with 
their kids."




From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Nov  2 05:32:49 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:32:49 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejd68+as2k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <geje21+5m2m@eGroups.com>



Conversation snipped a bit:


> Snow:
> I know that you have read Harry Potter and realize that book five was
> full of media propaganda against Harry and his cause ... we may be in
> for the ending of book seven if you haven't learned from this!

Kemper now:
Are you saying Obama is about to Expelliarmus McCain?

Kemper Hussein Mentor

Snow again:


I'm fairly sure we're past Expelliarmus (sic)
 We are more into
Sectumsempra!

Who was the underdog in book five that the media targeted? Who
succeeded in spite of that media propaganda? 

Regards

Snow





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 05:45:24 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:45:24 -0000
Subject: I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580811011920q20f7d736l6baf7b93059a6822@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gejepk+sfaq@eGroups.com>


> Snow:
> These people have a right to an abortion if they wish, that is up to
them and only they have to answer to it in the end. My problem with
this issue is that I should have to take party to their decision by
paying for it!

Kemper now:
I am not a fan of abortion but will gladly fork over some tax money to
support this choice.  What is a few hundred dollars compared to the
thousands or hundreds of thousands of tax dollars that could be spent
on an unwanted child.

Since I'm not a fan of abortion, I'm fanatical about sex ed in the
schools as well as the home. 

Kemper





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 05:59:41 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:59:41 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <geje21+5m2m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejfkd+tk2u@eGroups.com>


> > Snow:
> > I know that you have read Harry Potter and realize that book five
was full of media propaganda against Harry and his cause ... we may be
in  for the ending of book seven if you haven't learned from this!
 
> Kemper now:
> Are you saying Obama is about to Expelliarmus McCain?
> Kemper Hussein Mentor
 
> Snow again:
> I'm fairly sure we're past Expelliarmus (sic)
 We are more into
> Sectumsempra!
> 
> Who was the underdog in book five that the media targeted? Who
> succeeded in spite of that media propaganda? 
> 
> Regards
> Snow

Kemper now:
Regards!
Did I spell 'Expelliarmus' wrong?  If so, plz feel free to spell it
correctly.

You're right.  McCain is Sectumsempra-ing all over the place along
with Bellatrix.  Not to worry... Obama will pull out his wand, tracing
the US's deep wounds with it while muttering an incantation that
sounds almost like a song.  

Kemper Hussein Mentor





From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Nov  2 06:10:04 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:10:04 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejfkd+tk2u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejg7s+7lud@eGroups.com>




> > Snow again:
> > I'm fairly sure we're past Expelliarmus (sic)
 We are more into
> > Sectumsempra!
> > 
> > Who was the underdog in book five that the media targeted? Who
> > succeeded in spite of that media propaganda? 
> > 
> > Regards
> > Snow
> 
> Kemper now:
> Regards!
> Did I spell 'Expelliarmus' wrong?  If so, plz feel free to spell it
> correctly.
> 
> You're right.  McCain is Sectumsempra-ing all over the place along
> with Bellatrix.  Not to worry... Obama will pull out his wand, tracing
> the US's deep wounds with it while muttering an incantation that
> sounds almost like a song.  
> 
> Kemper Hussein Mentor
>


Snow

So you didn't read all the books then!!!






From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 07:16:38 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:16:38 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejg7s+7lud@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejk4m+kgv4@eGroups.com>

> > Snow:
> > I'm fairly sure we're past Expelliarmus (sic)
 We are more into
> > Sectumsempra!
> >
> > Who was the underdog in book five that the media targeted? Who
> > succeeded in spite of that media propaganda?
> >
> > Regards
> > Snow

> Kemper:
> Regards!
> Did I spell 'Expelliarmus' wrong? If so, plz feel free to spell it
> correctly.
>
> You're right. McCain is Sectumsempra- ing all over the place along
> with Bellatrix. Not to worry... Obama will pull out his wand, tracing
> the US's deep wounds with it while muttering an incantation that
> sounds almost like a song.
>
> Kemper Hussein Mentor

Snow:
So you didn't read all the books then!!!

Kemper now:
Riddikulus!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov  2 08:03:25 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:03:25 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <765296.71165.qm@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gejmsd+qqpr@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> CJ earlier:
> 64-year-old polling
> 
> Geoff:
> ...if pollsters can't even calculate the number of years between 1948 and 2008 correctly...
> 
> CJ now:
> Well, then, it's fortunate for the pollsters I ain't one of them. :-) And it's fortunate for me 
you missed my other mathematical munge: 1948 was Gallup's fourth election, not his third.

Geoff:
Well, /I/ couldn't have told you that anyway even if you'd asked...
:-))




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov  2 08:07:24 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:07:24 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejblq+o8mo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gejn3s+2v1o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" <Schlobin at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
 > > And wasn't there an (in)famous US occasion involving - was it 
> Truman 
> > and Dewey about 1945-ish? - when the pollsters made a dog's 
> > breakfast of their predictions?

Susan:
> Yes of course, although most people here wouldn't consider it 
> infamous.

Geoff:
Maybe notorious is a better word - or even cock-up/
:-)




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 09:28:48 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:28:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
References: <gejepk+sfaq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <197463.67482.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Kemper now:
What is a few hundred dollars compared to the thousands or hundreds of thousands of tax dollars that could be spent on an unwanted child.

CJ now:
I was going to bow out of this as I'm not sure an abortion debate is good for OT-Chatter. But ye pushed me butt'n, Kemper.

I have two questions:

1. What the hell is an "unwanted child"? 

2. When and how did "unwanted" become code for "unloved"? 

3. Where's the evidence linking unplanned children to higher rates of child abuse or lower quality of life?

4. Not being omniscient beings, what the hell makes us think we're qualified either to predict any child's future or (assuming statistical evidence for #3 exists (it doesn't)) to judge what "quality of life" is sufficient to guarantee a child the right to live? And are we willing to apply those same standards to "wanted" children?

My apologies for my harsh tone but as the adoptive father of a girl who was abandoned at birth on an anonymous doorstep (likely by an unwed teenage mother), there's no quicker wage to engage my ire than to suggest my daughter was somehow prime fodder for an abortion mill.

--CJ (who already regrets not waited 24 hours to cool down before posting this)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov  2 10:51:40 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:51:40 -0000
Subject: I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <197463.67482.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gek0ns+bk6q@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

> CJ now:
> I was going to bow out of this as I'm not sure an abortion debate
> is good for OT-Chatter. But ye pushed me butt'n, Kemper.

I am sure that an abortion debate is very dangerous for any mailing
list, forum, or other discussion group. I admire that OT has been
non-violent about it so far but I hope it ends SOON. 



 





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov  2 12:27:50 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:27:50 -0000
Subject: About whether no war that the US has fought in my lifetime was worth fighting
Message-ID: <gek6c6+52u3@eGroups.com>

Doddiemoemoe wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184738>:

<< As a disabled veteran I have a few things to say... >>

Thank you for your service.

When I complain that the USA started an unnecessary war or used stupid
strategy in a war, that is NOT a complaint against the soldiers. The
soldiers courageously and skillfully with strength and great endurance
do their best to carry out the assignment that was given to them by
the civilian leadership (the President and Congress) using strategy
that was decided by generals appointed by the civilian leadership. So
all my complaints are about the Presidents and Congresses involved,
not about the soldiers.

<< Post U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, almost 3 million were killed.
(genocide?!?), we sat and watched 100's of thousands killed in Bosnia,
Ethiopia..not to mention the millions of Darfur(so many countries, so
many armed forces, all they could do was protect convoys of
aid...until it was delivered to a certain point). Tens of thousands of
troups from all countries who could never fire a gun who risked their
lives only to feed the oppressors..

After the FIRST persuian gulf conflict..when Colin Powel et. al.
were sitting signing the papers...Sadam Huesein insisted that his
Helocopters be allowed to fly so they could patrol/protect his
borders...as soon as the U.S. agreed...many, many, many innocent
Kuwaiti/Iraqui women and children were shot down by said
helocopters.. >>

Vietnam -- At least from the time that Lyndon Johnson became
President, he knew that the US could not possibly win the Vietnam War.
He can be heard saying so on his secret White House tape recordings.
And Robert McNamara said so in his belated memoir. (The Curtis LeMay
strategy of nuking the whole country until everyone on both sides is
dead does not count as 'winning' when the goal is 'protect' the
inhabitants from, in this case, Communism. Dead is not protected.) If
the US had not pursued and escalated a war that the civilian
leadership KNEW they couldn't win, far fewer people would have been
killed in total, and I believe far fewer people would have been killed
in the aftermath as punishment for supporting the US. Johnson's own
reason for continuing the war is that the American people would not
re-elect him if they thought he was a quitter (the phrase 'surrender
monkey' had not yet been invented). It is not worth fighting a war for
the purpose of making good PR for the President's re-election campaign.

I certainly acknowledge that there is evil in this world. The current
genocide in Darfur, and the previous war by the evil Sudanese
government against the people of south Sudan are prime examples. Of
Ethiopia, I suppose you mean the reign of evil military dictator
Mengistu Haile Mariam in the 1980s -- he was overthrown by an
Ethiopian revolution that as far as I know got no foreign assistance,
unless you count the revolutionary armies seeking independence of
Eritrea from Ethiopia as foreign. You didn't mention the genocide in
Rwanda. These are cases where the United States did not intervene
militarily, altho' I believed we should -- what's the point of having
the best army in the world if we can't use it to fight evil?

The civil war in Bosnia, with the extremely high level of atrocities
committed by the Serb nationalists, altho' other factions sometimes
committed atrocities, too, is another case where the United States did
not intervene to *fight* the bad guys. Bill Clinton only sent
peace-keepers after forcing all sides to sign a peace treaty which
treated arch war criminal Slobodan Milosevic as if he were an
honorable national leader, and gave the Serbs their own little
Republika Srpska where their war criminals could freely hang out at
sidewalk cafes. (Again, I had wanted the US to intervene militarily
earlier, but the US at least *did* intervene militarily against the
Serbs when they switched to attempting genocide in Kosovo, and that
had somewhat mixed results.)

Radio show THE WORLD (co-produced by WGBH and the BBC World Service)
did a series recently called 'How Wars End' which reported how the
American Civil War, World War I, the first Gulf War, and the Bosnian
civil war had ended. Here's the URL for the segment on Bosnia:
<http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/21646>. From a little more than
half-way down the scroll bar, the quotes are all about this being an
UNJUST solution. Forcing myself to select just one, "You could argue
that justice in Bosnia would have meant punishing the Serbs for their
ethnic cleansing. Instead they were rewarded for it with half the
territory in the country. But the Americans' immediate goal was not
justice, it was stopping the bloodshed; it was stability."

First Gulf War -- Saddam was in no position to INSIST on being allowed
to use helicopters, but Colin Powell granted it out of graciousness.
As soon as he noticed that Saddam was using the helicopters for murder
rather than transportation, he could have withdrawn the permission and
then shot down the helicopters, but he chose not to. The people being
shot down in Kurdistan and the south of Iraq were people whose areas
had risen up in revolution for their independence from Saddam's Iraq
BECAUSE President Bush 41 had encouraged them to do so as part of his
war strategy, but he did nothing to support their revolution, and only
did a little to save their lives after his poll numbers in the US
dropped because of it. IIRC that was the third time since 1975 that
the US had encouraged the Kurds to rebel military against Saddam and
then given them no support. 

In terms of getting rid of evil, the First Gulf War had only a tiny
success, the statelet of Iraqi Kurdistan able to grow up protected by
a no-fly zone. (It took them a while, with a couple of wars between
the two Kurdish political parties, including one in which one party
invited Saddam in to bomb the other party.) Outside of Kurdistan,
Saddam was left in power to oppress all the rest of Iraqi people, with
their suffering INCREASED by the US trade sanctions that the US had no
intention of ever stopping while Saddam was still alive.  

The First Gulf War got Kuwait free from Iraq so Iraq would not
dominate the world's oil supply (but my recollection is that the
Kuwaitis expressed their gratitude to us verbally, but not in discount
prices for their oil, and not in adding a touch of democracy to their
monarchy) and President Bush 41 thought that was a goal worth fighting
a war for; he called it 'Jobs, jobs, jobs'. I have a difference of
opinion with him: that war would have only been worth fighting if its
goal had been to depose Saddam entirely.

As for our current two hot wars, I had been demanding for years that
the US go into Afghanistan militarily to remove the warlords bombing
everybody everywhere and the even worse Taliban dictatorship. I
actually think it was good that the US armed Afghans to defeat the
evil Soviet conquerors, but I believe that our involvement gave us a
*moral duty* to clean up the mess left when that war was won, not just
forget all about Afghanistan. And once the Taliban refused to hand
over the author of the very violent attack upon our country, we even
had a legal right (under international law) to do so. But we should
have done it with *enough* troops and money and speakers of Pashto,
Dari, and Arabic to win the damn thing and do 'nation building'. Okay,
I'll admit that one is worth fighting, even if we screwed up how we
did it.

As for President Bush 43's optional war against Saddam's Iraq, I was
unlike most of my fellow liberals in that I believed that it didn't
matter if the motive was blood for oil, or revenge because Saddam
tried to assassinate his father, or some Freudian thing about wanting
to outdo his father, nonetheless 'regime change' in Iraq was a worthy
goal anyway. But not until we had sorted out Afghanistan, a
non-optional war, not unless we sent in enough troops and money and
Arabic speakers to win the damn thing, and a competent reconstruction
plan for 'nation building', and not unless we had a back-up plan in
case the first plan didn't work. The first plan was our soldiers march
in, the Iraqi soldiers throw down their guns and run away, and the
civilians welcome the American soldiers with flowers and kisses and
then immediately set up peaceable and orderly elections for an
American style democracy which is the natural instinct of all human
beings which only dictators' armed might prevents them from doing. I
hadn't expected any part of that plan to work, and the first two parts
did.





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 15:26:00 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:26:00 -0000
Subject: I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <197463.67482.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gekgq8+kcf5@eGroups.com>


> Kemper now:
> What is a few hundred dollars compared to the thousands or hundreds
of thousands of tax dollars that could be spent on an unwanted child.
> 
> CJ now:
> I was going to bow out of this as I'm not sure an abortion debate is
good for OT-Chatter. But ye pushed me butt'n, Kemper.
> 
> I have two questions:
> 
> 1. What the hell is an "unwanted child"? 
> 
> 2. When and how did "unwanted" become code for "unloved"? 
> 
> 3. Where's the evidence linking unplanned children to higher rates
of child abuse or lower quality of life?
> 
> 4. Not being omniscient beings, what the hell makes us think we're
qualified either to predict any child's future or (assuming
statistical evidence for #3 exists (it doesn't)) to judge what
"quality of life" is sufficient to guarantee a child the right to
live? And are we willing to apply those same standards to "wanted"
children?
> 
> My apologies for my harsh tone but as the adoptive father of a girl
who was abandoned at birth on an anonymous doorstep (likely by an
unwed teenage mother), there's no quicker wage to engage my ire than
to suggest my daughter was somehow prime fodder for an abortion mill.

Kemper now:
I doubt your sincerity about avoiding an abortion debate when it was
you who brought up FOCA.  

I would love to answer your questions, but you ask them without the
openness for an answer.  It's just dogma on what worked for you.  

God bless the mother who had an unwanted child and gave her to you.  

Kemper




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  2 15:26:03 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:26:03 -0000
Subject: I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gek0ns+bk6q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gekgqb+kko8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen@> 
wrote:
> 
> > CJ now:
> > I was going to bow out of this as I'm not sure an abortion debate
> > is good for OT-Chatter. But ye pushed me butt'n, Kemper.
> 
> I am sure that an abortion debate is very dangerous for any mailing
> list, forum, or other discussion group. I admire that OT has been
> non-violent about it so far but I hope it ends SOON.
>


I thoroughly agree. Not a good topic for debate.

Susan




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  2 16:42:33 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:42:33 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejboo+ef29@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gekl9p+hnlh@eGroups.com>

Susan:> 
> One of the most delightful stories I heard was that his daughter was 
> pleading with him NOT to buy time on the Disney channel...something 
> about every time I turn on the tv, Dad, there you are, and I'm kind 
> of sick of it. Please not on my channel, too.

Magpie:
I think it was just that when he said he'd bought time on all the 
channels to do his half-hour commercial she asked if he was going to be 
interrupting her programs. He said no, they didn't buy time on Nick or 
Disney and she said "Thank goodness!" 

-m




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov  2 18:41:37 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 2 Nov 2008 18:41:37 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/2/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1225651297.166.10396.m36@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 2, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20081102/158b1ba2/attachment.html>

From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Nov  2 23:19:50 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:19:50 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <197463.67482.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <gejepk+sfaq@eGroups.com> <197463.67482.qm@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00b801c93d41$81afcb00$850f6100$@com>

First, statistically most abortions are not to teenage mothers, so to
suggest your child was dumped by a teenage mother is just off base. Sorry,
but it's true. Most teenage mothers have parents that are involved either in
the abortion or adoption.

Second, "unwanted" refers to the pregnancy, not a child. Those of us on the
pro-choice side do not "unwant" any child, we simply want to make sure that
we don't have back-ally abortions anymore, we don't want children who have
been victims of incest to give birth to a product of that unnatural
intercourse, nor do we want women to be raped to have to give birth to a
lifelong reminded of that horrific act. 

Personally I don't like them and when a member of my family had one it
really hurt to know it, especially the day it happened, but I still support
her right to do it.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kai Wen Lee
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:29 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans

Kemper now:
What is a few hundred dollars compared to the thousands or hundreds of
thousands of tax dollars that could be spent on an unwanted child.

CJ now:
I was going to bow out of this as I'm not sure an abortion debate is good
for OT-Chatter. But ye pushed me butt'n, Kemper.

I have two questions:

1. What the hell is an "unwanted child"? 

2. When and how did "unwanted" become code for "unloved"? 

3. Where's the evidence linking unplanned children to higher rates of child
abuse or lower quality of life?

4. Not being omniscient beings, what the hell makes us think we're qualified
either to predict any child's future or (assuming statistical evidence for
#3 exists (it doesn't)) to judge what "quality of life" is sufficient to
guarantee a child the right to live? And are we willing to apply those same
standards to "wanted" children?

My apologies for my harsh tone but as the adoptive father of a girl who was
abandoned at birth on an anonymous doorstep (likely by an unwed teenage
mother), there's no quicker wage to engage my ire than to suggest my
daughter was somehow prime fodder for an abortion mill.

--CJ (who already regrets not waited 24 hours to cool down before posting
this)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Nov  2 23:21:16 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:21:16 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejepk+sfaq@eGroups.com>
References: <a1ee8d580811011920q20f7d736l6baf7b93059a6822@mail.gmail.com> <gejepk+sfaq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b901c93d41$b500b1e0$1f0215a0$@com>

Yes. The numbers prove that STD's and Pregnancy rates RISE when you only
teach Abstinence but fall when you teach comprehensive sex-ed.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kempermentor
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 1:45 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans


Since I'm not a fan of abortion, I'm fanatical about sex ed in the
schools as well as the home. 

Kemper
=




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 00:41:07 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:41:07 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejblq+o8mo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gelhb3+tmjo@eGroups.com>

> Alla earlier:
> ... personally I do not think that few percents differents (sic)
> in the poll matters that much.

> CJ now:
> Polls just aren't wrong.

> Geoff:
> That's a potentially dangerous statement.

> Susan:
> Polling is far more sophisticated, there's a margin of error ...

Goddlefrood:

Polls are certainly not infallible, particularly with the election 
system used in the US.

To get back to this point, does anyone feel the Bradley Effect 
will have a bearing here, or has the US moved on, notwithstanding 
the recent ouzi death at a fariground?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/obama.bradley.effect/

It makes little or no difference to me who gets in, the US 
doesn't do a great deal for Fiji except try to bully it to 
hold democratic (sic) elections.




From Schlobin at aol.com  Mon Nov  3 14:12:05 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:12:05 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gelhb3+tmjo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gen0rl+c0d2@eGroups.com>


> 
> To get back to this point, does anyone feel the Bradley Effect 
> will have a bearing here, or has the US moved on, notwithstanding 
> the recent ouzi death at a fariground?
> 
>>

There is some excellent analysis on the Bradley effect....think I saw 
it at alternet.org, that it was exaggerated to begin with, and it's not 
really a factor.

When the polling people call, you don't have to say you're voting for 
McCain for any reason at all...or you can just say "I don't like 
Obama"...I've heard overtly racist people say "It's not his race; I 
just don't like him." People here are more likely to erroneously state 
that he's a Muslim...

Susan




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 15:50:26 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:50:26 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gen0rl+c0d2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gen6k2+oto7@eGroups.com>

> Susan:
> There is some excellent analysis on the Bradley effect....think I saw 
> it at alternet.org, that it was exaggerated to begin with, and it's
not really a factor. ...

Kemper now:
I agree with you.  But racism of some sort still may play an issue.  I
recently received an email juxtaposing personal and educational
background of Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. Here's a cut and paste:


What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including at three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant, teenage
daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating
class?

What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who  left his first wife after a
severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his
standards?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair
while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to
pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her  charitable
organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been  a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating
Five  were five United States Senators accused of  corruption in 1989,
igniting a major political  scandal as part of the larger Savings and
Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had  military experience that included
Discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many
occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer
distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected
reality, do you really  believe the election numbers would be as close
as they  are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes
positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities
in another when there is a color difference.

[no longer juxtaposing, just comparing]Educational  Background:

Barack Obama:
Columbia  University - B.A. Political Science with a  Specialization
in International  Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware -  B.A. in History and B.A. in Political  Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris  Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
United  States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of  899

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University -  1 semester North Idaho College - 2
semesters -  general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters -  
journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1  semester University of Idaho
- 3 semesters - B.A.  in Journalism


Back to Kemper:
Personally, I hadn't even thought about it from this perspective.

Just something to ponder, ignore, deny or delete.

Kemper Hussein Mento






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 17:15:17 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:15:17 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gen6k2+oto7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <genbj5+8uk1@eGroups.com>

> > Susan:
> > There is some excellent analysis on the Bradley effect....think I 
saw 
> > it at alternet.org, that it was exaggerated to begin with, and 
it's
> not really a factor. ...
> 
> Kemper now:
> I agree with you.  But racism of some sort still may play an 
issue.  I
> recently received an email juxtaposing personal and educational
> background of Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. Here's a cut and paste:
> 
<snip>

Alla:

Excellent comparison Kemper. I agree with you and want just add a 
personal example, something which was told to me maybe month or two 
ago.

I went to get blood work done for upcoming appointment with my 
doctor. 
The lady in the lab was extremely talkative, extremely.

So she was asking me who I will be voting for and I told her - Obama.

Can you guess a response I got from her?

"Are you crazy? Do you want a black person and a muslim to be our 
president?"

Silence from me and desire to leave the lab asap.


P.S.

Lab lost half of the results of my blood work as I learned 
subsequently.




From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov  3 17:45:17 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 12:45:17 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <genbj5+8uk1@eGroups.com>
References: <gen6k2+oto7@eGroups.com> <genbj5+8uk1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c93ddb$efa83440$cef89cc0$@com>

Just tell people "I'm voting for his white, Christian half."

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dumbledore11214
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:15 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] I voted!!! was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans

> > Susan:
> > There is some excellent analysis on the Bradley effect....think I 
saw 
> > it at alternet.org, that it was exaggerated to begin with, and 
it's
> not really a factor. ...
> 
> Kemper now:
> I agree with you.  But racism of some sort still may play an 
issue.  I
> recently received an email juxtaposing personal and educational
> background of Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. Here's a cut and paste:
> 
<snip>

Alla:

Excellent comparison Kemper. I agree with you and want just add a 
personal example, something which was told to me maybe month or two 
ago.

I went to get blood work done for upcoming appointment with my 
doctor. 
The lady in the lab was extremely talkative, extremely.

So she was asking me who I will be voting for and I told her - Obama.

Can you guess a response I got from her?

"Are you crazy? Do you want a black person and a muslim to be our 
president?"

Silence from me and desire to leave the lab asap.


P.S.

Lab lost half of the results of my blood work as I learned 
subsequently.


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Nov  5 04:44:57 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:44:57 -0000
Subject: U.S A. Election
Message-ID: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>



Don't complain if you didn't vote McCain!


Book seven should arise in approximately three and one half years!


There is one absolute that is still free to choose and that is Jesus! 

God Bless

Snow




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  5 04:48:44 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:48:44 -0000
Subject: U.S A. Election
In-Reply-To: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ger8jc+7tqe@eGroups.com>

Snow:
 
> Don't complain if you didn't vote McCain!
> 
> 
> Book seven should arise in approximately three and one half years!
> 
> 
> There is one absolute that is still free to choose and that is Jesus! 
> 
> God Bless


Magpie:
Err....pardon?

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  5 04:48:49 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:48:49 -0000
Subject: U.S A. Election
In-Reply-To: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ger8jh+bfsg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Don't complain if you didn't vote McCain!
> 
> 
> Book seven should arise in approximately three and one half years!
> 
> 
> There is one absolute that is still free to choose and that is 
Jesus! 
> 
> God Bless
> 
> Snow
>


Personally I am not complaining, I am just very happy. Book seven 
should arise? 

Alla




From bhobbs36 at verizon.net  Wed Nov  5 05:22:15 2008
From: bhobbs36 at verizon.net (Belinda)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:22:15 -0000
Subject: U.S A. Election
In-Reply-To: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gerai7+ilvi@eGroups.com>

"We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided...
Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are
identical and our hearts are open."
- Albus Dumbledore




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  5 06:13:59 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:13:59 -0000
Subject: U.S A. Election
In-Reply-To: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gerdj7+mkth@eGroups.com>

> Snow:
> Don't complain if you didn't vote McCain!
> 
> Book seven should arise in approximately three and one half years!
> 
> There is one absolute that is still free to choose and that is Jesus! 
> 
> God Bless

Kemper now:
With Obama as president... God does bless!
Don't be embarrassed to elate for the new president!
Book Seven is now!
I choose Jesus! And Jesus chooses Barack!!!

Kemper




From md at exit-reality.com  Wed Nov  5 13:01:21 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 08:01:21 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] U.S A. Election
In-Reply-To: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>
References: <ger8c9+440r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01e801c93f46$9b2ce0c0$d186a240$@com>

Yes well, I represent Atheist for Obama!

I'm okay with the guy being Christian, though. Because I know as a black
Christian he had more chance of becoming president of the US than I as a
white Atheist.

In many other democracies they take the Jefferson approach, separate the
church from the state, no religion in politics. In the US we screwed that up
and yet it was one of our founding fathers who decreed it should be so.

Don't think McCain is all "god" faring. He's a hypocrite who called Farwell
"evil" then kissed his ring to win an election. He didn't pray to god as a
pow, he cursed him for leaving him in hell.

I might have wanted the McCain that stands up for what he believes in rather
than the one that sold out to try to win an election.

I think Obama has made the message that we don't need to kiss conservative,
Christian ass to win an election loud and clear. 

I anxiously await future political cycles when they have to think of new and
exciting ways of getting votes, like addressing real issues!!!

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of snow15145
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:45 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] U.S A. Election



Don't complain if you didn't vote McCain!


Book seven should arise in approximately three and one half years!


There is one absolute that is still free to choose and that is Jesus! 

God Bless

Snow


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  5 13:22:54 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:22:54 -0000
Subject: HP theme park
Message-ID: <ges6ne+2hp4@eGroups.com>

I just came back from sunny Florida. Has anyone else been to Universal 
Islands of Adventure? To my surprise it is a very nice park and 
the "islands" are nicely done. Jurasic Park looked real! That is, it 
looked just like "Jurasic Park" did in the first movie. Keep in mind, 
this is coming from a person who doesn't like theme parks.

So, we hit Island of Adventure in a rush late in the day. I had urged 
my son and husband to go ahead so that my son could get on the JP ride. 
I must have taken a wrong turn because suddenly I found myself at a 
wall plastered with Ministry of Magic degrees. I was at the HP site! Of 
course, I couldn't see it through the very tall wooden privacy 
fence...but I was there.

When I reluctantly continued on my way, I discovered that Hogwarts 
Castle could be seen very well from a bridge connecting two islands. I 
saw what might be a boat ride for first years. Or, more likely, remains 
of a former attraction site. I also saw what I thought might become the 
Shrieking Shack, but it's really too early to tell.

Is anyone here a frequent visitor to Islands of Adventure? What are 
your thoughts? Is the HP site a completely new attraction, or is an 
older "island" being replaced? It's between "The Lost Continent" 
and "Dueling Dragons."

Now that I've seen the main theme park, I feel better about the HP 
part. I think it will look very good--movie based of course, but very 
good. No one has to tell my theme-park-loving family why I'm suddenly 
excited about a future trip.

Potioncat










From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  5 13:33:46 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:33:46 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <genbj5+8uk1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ges7bq+j6qb@eGroups.com>

 
> Alla:
> 
> Excellent comparison Kemper. I agree with you and want just add a 
> personal example, something which was told to me maybe month or two 
> ago.
> 
> I went to get blood work done for upcoming appointment with my 
> doctor. 
> The lady in the lab was extremely talkative, extremely.
> 
> So she was asking me who I will be voting for and I told her - 
Obama.

Potioncat:
That a medical person even asked such a question is out of bounds. 
Her reaction was completely unethical. It's hard to tell if the lab 
results were lost because the lab is poorly run or because of the 
conversation---which is actually the same thing. 

Do you get to choose where to have lab work done? 




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  6 22:41:53 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:41:53 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
Message-ID: <gevrrh+ssmq@eGroups.com>

The nature of evil. Whatever one's religious believes or lack of,
most people try to live their lives as 'good' people. Whatever that
means. Most feel that there is good and evil in the world. They may
interpret it differently, but most would agree on what is truly evil.

I am reflecting on the Presidential election, now past. As I am
pondering I am sitting here wearing a t-shirt from a past HP
convention that says "in the darkest hour of the night, when fair is
foul and foul is fair, there is no good or evil"....
We HP fans here know who said that and that the rest of it goes "only
power and those too weak to use it".

I have learned more about politics this year than I ever wanted to
know. I know what my party has done, I know that the other side has
their own 'methods' as well. It is a long story. Cutting to the
chase, I talked to a good friend who is now retired, but once a
senior member of the party. He said there are two types of people in
the party. One group, usually the young, are the idealist, and the
other are those who know what must be done to win and are not afraid
to do it.

My basic response to the events of this election is that we need to
reform the process within the party. I was part of a rebel group that
tried to do that, but our goal and methods, while not as dirty, might
not have been pure either. Which leads me to wonder... can any of us
ever escape evil? Is it in fact, the ones who like LV are capable of
doing what is necessary, who are actually protecting the rest of us?
If my party did not do the things that it has done, there would be no
victory. I know that one of the 'rules' is that the ends justify the
means. Do they? And if this be true, who is the real hero? The one
who seeks to do only good and refuses to do evil? Or the one who does
evil, for the sake of good? Does good exist at all if evil does not
provide the place where it can be nurtured and supported?

I know I am rambling a bit here, as I am pondering these things. I
have been depressed, while those around me are rejoicing. I am
depressed because I understand the deeper meaning in the speech
about 'making the sacrifices that were necessary". I wonder if
selling ones soul is the same as splitting it. The people of this
country, every country, do not know or understand what is done
behinds the scenes, in the end for them. Or if not 'for them', at
least they benefit from it all the same. Can we ever rise above true
evil? Some of us have been taught that we are not to return evil for
evil. But as someone said to me not long ago, 'the reason that
Christianity continues to exist at all is that it has always been
separated from the government. If it were not it would have been
destroyed along with it's country." I had to admit that he was right.

Perhaps there can never be reform of our party and system. Perhaps LV
is right. Perhaps it is only those people who can split their souls
that can protect us. Perhaps we own them our gratitude rather than
our disdain. Just musing here... any thoughts??






From md at exit-reality.com  Thu Nov  6 22:45:12 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 17:45:12 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gevqs6+b3a5@eGroups.com>
References: <gevqs6+b3a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005601c94061$54c5bbe0$fe5133a0$@com>

I don't believe in evil, nothing is ever that simple.

Evil is a construct, it fits a narrative nicely, but it doesn't exist. 

There are only moral decisions, as far as politics is concerned, I felt
Obama mostly took the high ground, but faltered now and again because he is
human. I think McCain repeatedly took the low ground, "Terrorist"
"Socialist" "Radical" and even picked a polarizing figure to run with him so
she could say all the things he felt uncomfortable saying. 

When I saw McCain's speech on election day I thought, he doesn't look like a
man who feels like he deserved to win, he looks like a man who is relieved
it's over. I think it took a lot out of him to go the low route he took and
I think he regretted it deeply. 

I think if Obama taught the country anything, it was keep cool, keep calm,
keep smiling.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tonks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:25 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics

The nature of evil. Whatever one's religious believes or lack of, 
most people try to live their lives as 'good' people. Whatever that 
means. Most feel that there is good and evil in the world. They may 
interpret it differently, but most would agree on what is truly evil.

I am reflecting on the Presidential election, now past. As I am 
pondering I am sitting here wearing a t-shirt from a past HP 
convention that says "in the darkest hour of the night, when fair is 
foul and foul is fair, there is no good or evil".... 
We HP fans here know who said that and that the rest of it goes "only 
power and those too weak to use it".

I have learned more about politics this year than I ever wanted to 
know. I know what my party has done, I know that the other side has 
their own 'methods' as well. It is a long story. Cutting to the 
chase, I talked to a good friend who is now retired, but once a 
senior member of the party. He said there are two types of people in 
the party. One group, usually the young, are the idealist, and the 
other are those who know what must be done to win and are not afraid 
to do it. 

My basic response to the events of this election is that we need to 
reform the process within the party. I was part of a rebel group that 
tried to do that, but our goal and methods, while not as dirty, might 
not have been pure either. Which leads me to wonder...  can any of us 
ever escape evil?  Is it in fact, the ones who like LV are capable of 
doing what is necessary, who are actually protecting the rest of us?  
If my party did not do the things that it has done, there would be no 
victory. I know that one of the 'rules' is that the ends justify the 
means. Do they? And if this be true, who is the real hero?  The one 
who seeks to do only good and refuses to do evil? Or the one who does 
evil, for the sake of good? Does good exist at all if evil does not 
provide the place where it can be nurtured and supported? 

I know I am rambling a bit here, as I am pondering these things. I 
have been depressed, while those around me are rejoicing. I am 
depressed because I understand the deeper meaning in the speech 
about 'making the  sacrifices that were necessary". I wonder if 
selling ones soul is the same as splitting it.  The people of this 
country, every country, do not know or understand what is done 
behinds the scenes, in the end for them. Or if not 'for them', at 
least they benefit from it all the same. Can we ever rise above true 
evil? Some of us have been taught that we are not to return evil for 
evil. But as someone said to me not long ago, 'the reason that 
Christianity continues to exist at all is that it has always been 
separated from the government. If it were not it would have been 
destroyed along with it's country." I had to admit that he was right.

Perhaps there can never be reform of our party and system. Perhaps LV 
is right. Perhaps it is only those people who can split their souls 
that can protect us. Perhaps we own them our gratitude rather than 
our distain.  Just musing here...  any thoughts??


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  6 23:09:21 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:09:21 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <005601c94061$54c5bbe0$fe5133a0$@com>
Message-ID: <gevtf1+kcqb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> I don't believe in evil, nothing is ever that simple.
> Evil is a construct, it fits a narrative nicely, but it doesn't 
exist. 
> Obama mostly took the high ground, but faltered now and again because 
he is human. I think McCain repeatedly took the low 
ground, "Terrorist" "Socialist" "Radical" and even picked a polarizing 
figure to run with him so she could say all the things he felt 
uncomfortable saying. 

Tonks:
I must disagree. I don't think a game plan of 'himulating your oponent" 
is a good and honorable one. It is my party, but I do not approve of 
the methods. Most of American doesn't even know has happened. If they 
did know what Axilrod, what an approprate name, has done, most 
Americans would be outraged.  I will say no more. This is a pondering 
about the nature of evil, not about one party or the other. No one has 
clean hands. I admire McCain, he is IMO, a man of honor. 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Nov  7 01:39:58 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:39:58 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gevtf1+kcqb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf069e+eqe6@eGroups.com>

> Tonks:
> I must disagree. I don't think a game plan of 'himulating your 
oponent" 
> is a good and honorable one. It is my party, but I do not approve of 
> the methods. Most of American doesn't even know has happened. If they 
> did know what Axilrod, what an approprate name, has done, most 
> Americans would be outraged.  I will say no more. This is a pondering 
> about the nature of evil, not about one party or the other. No one 
has 
> clean hands. I admire McCain, he is IMO, a man of honor.

Magpie:
I don't understand what this thread is about. If you have some dark 
rumor about Axelrod or whoever, just say it instead of hinting darkly 
about information the rest of us don't know. (Not that saying it will 
necessarily make it true, of course. This election has certainly been 
full of dark hints of evil that nobody knows about.) 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 02:40:45 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:40:45 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf069e+eqe6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf09rd+r5bt@eGroups.com>

Magpie:
I don't understand what this thread is about. If you have some dark
rumor about Axelrod or whoever, just say it instead of hinting darkly
about information the rest of us don't know. (Not that saying it will
necessarily make it true, of course. This election has certainly been
full of dark hints of evil that nobody knows about.)

Alla:

Politicians call each other names during campaign, that's what they 
do unfortunately. I also really want to know what this person said 
that was worse than calling Obama a terrorist. And Obama responded in 
kind of course (bringing up corruption scandal with Mccain), etc. 
Although I really liked that he appeared to drop it fast enough.

However, I do not hold it against both of them, really. In any other 
time or place I would say that calling somebody a terrorist, when 
that person is clearly not is the most disgusting act ever, and 
playing on the nation's worst fears. Blech if you ask me.

But there was a great article on Yahoo couple days ago or maybe even 
yesterday, but darn I cannot find the link now.

It was talking about the history of the campaigns and that golden age 
of politics in a sense never existed, that even founding fathers 
called each other names during the campaigns, etc.

And that this campaign was really mild in comparison with many others 
and even in comparison with 2004 campaign.

I am very cynical about politicians, I would have voted for any 
democrat just to make sure that President Bush or somebody like him 
is in the White House no more. However, does it mean that I believe 
that Obama is a noble person? No, not at all. I **want** to believe 
that, however I had seen so many examples of how power corrupts 
people that all I can say ? we shall see. I do not believe that I am 
aware of any skeletons in his closet. Would I be surprised however if 
they appear? No, not really. I would love our politicians to be like 
my all time favorite politicians ever ? West wing politicians. I 
however do not believe that they exist in real life. My very modest 
hope is that RL politicians I am voting for at least have **some 
part** of noble motivation to help people, same as my ideal 
politicians do. I can live with the rest of it being a desire of 
power, really.

So do I admire John Mccain? Um, I have no problem with him, really. 
Other than being a veteran I am not sure what is so especially 
honorable about him, just usual politician to me. I definitely liked 
his concession speech, that being the **only** speech of his I liked. 
I certainly did not see him or his VP candidate telling people not to 
make death signs at the rallies 

Do I admire Obama? Um, I like his speeches, I like his promises and 
ideas, I certainly hope he delivers at least some of them, but I am 
not sure yet what is so especially honorable about him, just usual 
politician to me. 

But that's me, I am a cynic, Eliot Spitzer screamed about fighting 
corruption a lot too. Ooops. Those who screamed the loudest often the 
most corrupted themselves.

I would love to see a presidential campaign in real life as the one 
which was played out in West wing, lol. Do I think it will ever 
happen? Um, no, not really.

JMO,
Alla







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 06:04:02 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:04:02 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf069e+eqe6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf0loi+ccsn@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
> Magpie:
> I don't understand what this thread is about. If you have some dark 
> rumor about Axelrod or whoever, just say it instead of hinting darkly 
> about information the rest of us don't know. (Not that saying it will 
> necessarily make it true, of course. This election has certainly been 
> full of dark hints of evil that nobody knows about.) 

Tonks:
I posted a question about evil in general. I didn't really want to get 
into specifics about the election and who did what to whom or to disect 
the process of the 'making of a President". I am sick of all of it at 
this point. What I am referring to is the dirty nature of 'politics as 
usual'. And I will admit that Obama's campaign was the best organized 
ever. They did not miss a beat. Ever trick in the book and then some. 
Every trick in the political book and the community org. book and 
Psychology too. I could write a book on what they did and how. In fact 
Saul Alinksy wrote at least one of their play books, in "Rules for 
Radicals". These tactics is what I have objected too. When will we step 
forward and say "enough!" Or in HP terms, can a Death Eater ever "speak 
truth to power"? Sadly, I know the answer to that. LV does not forgive. 

As I said I really want to have a more philosophical discussion about 
evil and when, if ever, is it OK. Do the ends justify the means, as 
Saul Alinsky teaches?  His methods include humiliating the opposition 
which was done in this election mostly by Obama. McCain tired it once, 
but he didn't do it well, perhaps because he is not the sort of man who 
could do those kinds of things, and I admire him for that. (and I am a 
Democrat)

Alinsky says "Power is the very essence, the dynamo of life... It is a 
world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles 
but act on power principles." Sounds a bit Voldemortist to me.

I think I said what I wanted to discuss best in my first post. Are 
those of us, the majority of people able to live our day to day lives 
in relative peace BECAUSE the people like Lord Voldemort are at the 
head of our country? When 9-11 happened I remember thinking to myself, 
even when I hated Bush, that 'thank God there are people in charge of 
this country that can make the hard decisions to do real evil to 
others. We could not really have Gandhi or even Jesus as our 
President". At the same time I wondered, as I often do, why the human 
race can not do better. Can we not rise above all of this? We were made 
to be more than savages. And when it comes to politics, even savages 
are superior to us. 

What I am pondering is the sort of things that people ponder when they 
wonder if there is such a thing as a 'just war' or if those who plotted 
the murder of Hitler were evil or heroes. That is what I am wondering. 
If you want me to be more specific... let me put it this way..

If a group of people do things that are unethical, amoral, perhaps even 
illegal, but the end result is for the common good, is that evil or 
good? I tend to think that ethics is important, and that common human 
decency of one person to another is also the right thing to do. But if 
you degrade and destroy others to rise to the top, if you lie, cheat, 
etc.,  and your being at the top benefits the majority of people, is 
that right in the end? I really do not know the answer, because I do 
not think it is a simple answer for any truly moral person. I am 
looking forward to a serious discussion of the nature of evil and of  
power...  Of course, DD would say that the greatest power is Love... 
but perhaps, as my political friend said (see first post), DD is an 
idealist.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov  7 07:46:05 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:46:05 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gevtf1+kcqb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf0rnt+ares@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe in evil, nothing is ever that simple.
> > Evil is a construct, it fits a narrative nicely, but it doesn't 
> exist. 
> > Obama mostly took the high ground, but faltered now and again because 
> he is human. I think McCain repeatedly took the low 
> ground, "Terrorist" "Socialist" "Radical" and even picked a polarizing 
> figure to run with him so she could say all the things he felt 
> uncomfortable saying. 
> 
> Tonks:
> I must disagree. I don't think a game plan of 'himulating your oponent" 
> is a good and honorable one. It is my party, but I do not approve of 
> the methods. Most of American doesn't even know has happened. If they 
> did know what Axilrod, what an approprate name, has done, most 
> Americans would be outraged.  I will say no more. This is a pondering 
> about the nature of evil, not about one party or the other. No one has 
> clean hands. I admire McCain, he is IMO, a man of honor.

Geoff:
Your last comment raises the point of what to do with a politician whom 
you think is good but don't want to support his party.

I have not voted for the Conservatives for years since the underhand way 
in which Maggie Thatcher was voted in to replace Heath in '74. The present 
leader, David Cameron, irritates me because he is a smoothie. However, our 
local  MP here in Somerset is a Conservative. He is also a very good 
constituency man and does a lot to support the local community which 
depends on a rural economy plus tourism to keep going. I have had a few 
occasions when I have contacted him on local issues - for example an 
elderly friend who was being messed about over housing by our local 
council and had a great response from him. But.... I can't bring myself to 
vote for his party. Probably a quandary  with which others of you here 
would identify..






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov  7 13:14:14 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:14:14 -0000
Subject: minus the politics (was Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf0loi+ccsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf1ev6+1092r@eGroups.com>

 
> Tonks:
> I posted a question about evil in general. I didn't really want to 
get 
> into specifics about the election and who did what to whom or to 
disect 
> the process of the 'making of a President". I am sick of all of it at 
> this point. What I am referring to is the dirty nature of 'politics 
as 
> usual'. 

Potioncat:

Sorry, I'm a little confused. (I heard that!) 

I'm not sure if you want to discuss the nature of evil or the evil of 
politics. It would be difficult to discuss the latter without specific 
examples. It does seem to me that even our best presidents have had 
skeletons in their closets. But I'm not sure that's what you're talking 
about. I don't pay much attention to the campaigns anyway. Then on 
election day I'm scarmbling to find out what the platforms really are. 

Discussing evil, or defining evil is like defining Dark Arts. When is 
soeomething merely wrong and when is it evil? But hey, I'm game.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 13:37:50 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:37:50 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf0loi+ccsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf1gbe+ufk0@eGroups.com>

Tonks:
I posted a question about evil in general. I didn't really want to get
into specifics about the election and who did what to whom or to 
disect
the process of the 'making of a President". I am sick of all of it at
this point. What I am referring to is the dirty nature of 'politics as
usual'. And I will admit that Obama's campaign was the best organized
ever. They did not miss a beat. Ever trick in the book and then some.
Every trick in the political book and the community org. book and
Psychology too. I could write a book on what they did and how. In fact
Saul Alinksy wrote at least one of their play books, in "Rules for
Radicals". These tactics is what I have objected too.
<SNIP>

Alla:

No, you did not just post a question about evil in general. You keep 
using Obama's campaign as an example for it without really specifying 
what dirty tricks they committed. Which maybe they did, but how 
do I know that?

The debate does not seem very fair to me. You appear to know 
information I do not. 

Obama campaign brought Mccain's corruption scandal is that the "dirty 
trick" you are referring to? I was not happy that they brought it up, 
but boy I think they stopped really fast and continued to talk about 
the issues while Mccain and Palin kept milking Obama "terrorist 
connections" for what it was worth IMO.

But as I said before, I really do not think that this campaign was 
the dirtiest campaign and it was only the third campaign I observed 
closely and the second where I voted.

Alla







From md at exit-reality.com  Fri Nov  7 14:02:48 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:02:48 -0500
Subject: !RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf0rnt+ares@eGroups.com>
References: <gevtf1+kcqb@eGroups.com> <gf0rnt+ares@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e301c940e1$84d54b40$8e7fe1c0$@com>

When I first voted, in 1990 (man 18 years ago!) for Bill Clinton I only
voted for him and one democrat for the House of Reps. I voted for all
Republicans even though I registered Democrat. Some thing in 1994. In 2000 I
voted party, I could not believe the way they demonized Clinton. Sure, he
made some shit personal decisions, but I respected his and Hillary's
privacy. I felt that the way the Republicans hounded him since day one was
horrid, he's the president, have some respect, right? I mean, we all give
Bush a hard time, but he's really earned our ire, I've spoken to six graders
with a more advanced grasp of language and grammar, I've seen teenager's
just in shock at his ignorance. At least Clinton was an over-all decent
President, but how can you run a country when you are constantly battling
Congress for control of your personal life. I think, while the Democrats in
Congress have been weak on some issues, they've been mostly gracious and
patient with W., something the Republicans are already vowing not to be with
Obama.

What I found interesting in this election was the memory of 2000, when I
thought John McCain was going to be the Republican Nominee and I didn't know
if I would vote for him or Gore -- I want to know what happened to the
McCain of 8 years ago.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:46 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and
politics

Geoff:
Your last comment raises the point of what to do with a politician whom 
you think is good but don't want to support his party.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Nov  7 14:40:39 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:40:39 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf1gbe+ufk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf1k17+ig7s@eGroups.com>

> Tonks:
> I posted a question about evil in general. I didn't really want to 
get
> into specifics about the election and who did what to whom or to 
> disect
> the process of the 'making of a President". I am sick of all of it 
at
> this point. What I am referring to is the dirty nature of 'politics 
as
> usual'. And I will admit that Obama's campaign was the best 
organized
> ever. They did not miss a beat. Ever trick in the book and then 
some.
> Every trick in the political book and the community org. book and
> Psychology too. I could write a book on what they did and how. In 
fact
> Saul Alinksy wrote at least one of their play books, in "Rules for
> Radicals". These tactics is what I have objected too.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, you did not just post a question about evil in general. You 
keep 
> using Obama's campaign as an example for it without really 
specifying 
> what dirty tricks they committed. Which maybe they did, but how 
> do I know that?
> 
> The debate does not seem very fair to me. You appear to know 
> information I do not. 
> 
> Obama campaign brought Mccain's corruption scandal is that 
the "dirty 
> trick" you are referring to? I was not happy that they brought it 
up, 
> but boy I think they stopped really fast and continued to talk 
about 
> the issues while Mccain and Palin kept milking Obama "terrorist 
> connections" for what it was worth IMO.

Magpie:
Yes, that was my impression too. Of the campaigns I watched his was 
the one I had the least problem with. Humiliation did not seem at all 
the driving force of it as a campaign. Not that I'm putting it in a 
special bubble as if it was anything other than a political campaign, 
but "If only you knew what I knew you'd know you were being duped and 
would agree with me" is going to beg the question: what don't I know? 

Regarding relating this to the nature of evil...I don't know if I'd 
consider hard choices to always be about evil. A leader might, for 
instance, have to be the one to decide to go to war, which means 
taking responsibility for people being killed. But I wouldn't always 
read that as the person who's willing to be evil. Since I myself can 
see the problem of having a pacifist as the leader of a country I 
can't say it's evil to be anything but a pacifist. (For an Avatar 
example: the nation of pacifists was wiped out and the marauding Fire 
Nation did have to be fought back. The final victory required knowing 
when to fight and knowing when to refrain from fighting.)

In terms of politicians I guess there's always the question people 
have where they think you have to have a certain kind of ambition to 
rise to the top in politics, therefore if you succeed you've got to 
have some sort of moral problem. I don't know if that's always so 
true as to make the whole thing hopeless. Seeing things in the world 
that need improving and wanting to help people are fairly common 
human qualities so they can certainly be part of what drives someone 
to go into politics. 

-m






From miamibarb at comcast.net  Fri Nov  7 23:09:48 2008
From: miamibarb at comcast.net (Barbara)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:09:48 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf0loi+ccsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf2hrs+rq0t@eGroups.com>

>I have learned more about politics this year than I ever wanted to 
>know. I know what my party has done, I know that the other side has 
>their own 'methods' as well. It is a long story. Cutting to the 
>chase, I talked to a good friend who is now retired, but once a 
>senior member of the party. He said there are two types of people in 
>the party. One group, usually the young, are the idealist, and the 
>other are those who know what must be done to win and are not afraid 
>to do it. 

Lord Voldemort types would do whatever it takes to win even when young.

My brother was heavily involved in politics in college.  He still considers himself a 
moderate Republican, but he became much less involved after he ran into  Jack Abramoff 
(a Republican, now in prison for corruption.)  Abramoff must have been about twenty 
when he wanted my brother to spread nasty, despicable lies about (Pres.) Carter during an 
election.  Abernoff must have been about twenty at the time.

Personally, I have been both a Republican and a Democrat.  I change parties every few 
years, and I don't see the need to be loyal to either one.  I was told by a friend that the 
evangelicals in Britain during the nineteenth century would switch allegiances (parties.)  
Their numbers along with the tendency to switch sides made them a group to be listened 
to by both political parties. I don't know if this is true, but I like the sentiment.  I get angry 
whenever I think that some nasty politician believes that they own my vote because of the 
demographic group which I fall in. 

Ivogun (Barbara), an American evangelical (Presby.) who usually votes Democratic.




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Nov  8 09:15:28 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 09:15:28 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf09rd+r5bt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf3lbg+23rv@eGroups.com>

Yes we can....

I admire President-Elect Obama, and am reading his book the Audacity 
of Hope. I agree with some of what he says, particularly about 
children being courteous, disagree with others. I don't think he's a 
saint, nor a savior. He's a human being who will need all of our and 
your prayers and support and caring to pull the country out of the 
worst place it's been in generations.

I'm sorry to offend (once again) those who supported John McCain.
He sold his soul to the devil and has now neither his soul nor the 
office. I'm glad he was honorable at the end.

But where was his speech denouncing supporters who shouted "kill him" 
at an Obama rally?

I was happy to see him contradict his poor supporter who said that 
Obama was a Muslim? No, No, he's a good Christian.

But I support Colin Powell's comments (a republican). 

What is wrong with being a Muslim? could someone explain?

Mcain and Palin said that Obama was a terrorist, not a real American, 
the constant lies were spread that he was in fact a Muslim (how many 
here believed it?)...what did Obama say about McCain? That he was 
involved in a scandal? What did Obama say about Palin?

McCain wanted to name his friend Joe Lieberman as V-P...he was 
saddled with Palin with the Rovian right wing of his party who said 
he had to "energize the base" or he'd never win. They said he 
couldn't have a pro-choice VP. McCain had said that he would name a 
vice-president qualified to lead the country. Did he?

I can't grieve with you. We've endured endless war, a huge deficit, a 
totally inadequate response to hurricane katrina, people losing their 
homes, and their jobs, and the rich get richer...and the middle class 
gets poorer.

But I join with President Elect Obama to say that we ARE all 
Americans here in the United States, and we need to care for each 
other, be compassionate, and help each other. And it does mean 
something to me that the people of the world realize we're not all 
bigots here.

Susan





From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Nov  8 15:52:59 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:52:59 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf3lbg+23rv@eGroups.com>
References: <gf09rd+r5bt@eGroups.com> <gf3lbg+23rv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006001c941ba$13bee590$3b3cb0b0$@com>

No.

He said "no, no, he's a good man"

Translation: A Muslim is not a good man?

I never understood the audacity of that comment, that's not a gaff, that's a
serious f ing issue that needed a serious, thoughtful response. 

Not as bad as Palin, she giggled when some yelled "kill him." 

I think the single, most unforgivable thing McCain did, was choose her.
Well, sure it's an albatross, but it's a pretty albatross. I felt insulted
that day, I think millions of woman also felt insulted because it was a
blatant attempt to get Hillary supporters. 

Actually, watching McCain go down in flames was a lot like John Kerry --
they tried to be everything to everyone, never stayed their ground, never
stayed on message, both had "rogue" running mates and both were up against
campaigns far superior to their own.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of susanmcgee48176
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:15 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and
politics


I was happy to see him contradict his poor supporter who said that 
Obama was a Muslim? No, No, he's a good Christian.




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Nov  8 22:45:33 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:45:33 -0000
Subject: (second try) re: this election, and the nature of evil
Message-ID: <gf54qd+pdj6@eGroups.com>

Kemper wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/37954>:

<< Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization
in International Relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political
Science. Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2
semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters -
journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho
- 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism >>

Under ordinary circumstances, any sign that a candidate is educated,
knowledgeable, a nerd, a geek, a wonk, an egghead, a highbrow, a
grind, or even intelligent, will absolutely prevent him/her from
winning the Presidency. Americans are very anti-intellectual, and the
two places this shows most closely are the tradition of torturing
schoolchildren who get good grades or like to read, and Presidential
elections from Adlai Stevenson (for whom, I have heard, the word
'egghead' invented -- I wasn't born yet then) through John Kerry.

Tonks wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/37966>:

<< Does good exist at all if evil does not provide the place where it
can be nurtured and supported? >> 

IIRC Gandhi seemed to think that even if all the good people died
(because they were willing to be killed rather than do evil), more
good people would come along.

<< as someone said to me not long ago, 'the reason that Christianity
continues to exist at all is that it has always been separated from
the government. If it were not it would have been destroyed along with
it's country." >>

That is why Machiavelli wrote somewhere that "a man cannot be both a
prince [ruler] and a Christian."

However, it seems to me that the usual way in which government-backed
Christianity is destroyed is not because the nation virtuously refuses
to defend itself militarily or economically, but because
government-backed Christianity soon turns into a religion which
explains why wars of conquest, capital punishment, torture, and
obedience to dictatorship (whether by a hereditary monarchy or by the
successful leader of a military coup) are *demanded* by Christ.

Tonks wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/37971>:

<< Do the ends justify the means, as Saul Alinsky teaches? His methods
include humiliating the opposition >>

I don't believe that Saul Alinsky advised murdering the opposition's
most popular leaders, nor hiring young men with AK-47s to hang around
polling places shooting everyone who comes near, nor gathering a small
group of loyal colonels to, on signal, turn against their generals and
their civilian government, and march their loyal soldiers on the
capitol, the same way they learned to conquer enemy capitols, and then
install their coup leader as President for Life and send out teams to
kill a few thousand people on a list of people who might resist the
new regime.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/37970>:

<< So do I admire John Mccain? (snip) I definitely liked his
concession speech, that being the **only** speech of his I liked. >>

That was a great speech! Not exactly great oratory, but it was so
honorable and more than gracious, really a true example of 'putting
country first' before party loyalty or personal ambition. I choose to
believe that that speech restored his personal honor that he had laid
aside for the sake of political ambition. I like believing that McCain
is a good man who wants what he sincerely believes is best for our
country, even if he is 180 degrees dead wrong about what would be good
for our country.

<< Eliot Spitzer screamed about fighting corruption a lot >>

Be fair. Spitzer didn't take bribes to award state contracts, give
pardons, or any other official acts. There's no word he took free
gifts -- he *paid* for his prostitutes.






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  9 03:03:23 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:03:23 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf2hrs+rq0t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf5jtr+fc1b@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Barbara" <miamibarb at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> Lord Voldemort types would do whatever it takes to win even when 
young.
> 
> My brother was heavily involved in politics in college.  He still 
considers himself a moderate Republican, but he became much less 
involved after he ran into Jack Abramoff (a Republican, now in 
prison for corruption.)  Abramoff must have been about twenty 
> when he wanted my brother to spread nasty, despicable lies about 
(Pres.) Carter during an election.  Abernoff must have been about 
twenty at the time.
> 

Tonks:
Yes, this is one of the minor thing that political campaigns do on a 
regular basis. I am told that it is also the duty of the party that 
is out of power (this time the Republicans) to investigate anything 
that might be of question about those currently in power, and if you 
can't find anything of substance, make it up and start rumors. I am 
sure that this is what your brother was asked to do. Both sides do 
it.

There are experts on each side, in sociology, psychology, etc. that 
know how to influence public opinion. But the general public think 
that what they see is what it is. They don't realize all that goes 
on to package and sell what appears to be 'truth'. 

There are so many things that go into a successful campaign. Such as 
the 'street money' and the busing (people who don't really live 
there come to register and vote in the caucuses), for example. I 
know that this happens and is a regular occurrence. Those too are 
minor things. While I am still angry about the cheating that went on 
in the primary at the caucuses, what I object to the most is the 
planned, deliberate, premeditate, vicious methods used to destroy 
another human being, only for the sake of winning. Most of this is 
done behind the scenes, but this year it peaked it head out into the 
open just a little bit... in the things that happened to Joe the 
Plumber. The poor man was just standing in his front yard playing 
ball with his kid when Obama was walking around the neighborhood. So 
when Obama came by his house, Joe asked a question. Because those in 
charge of damage control had to protect the candidate from himself, 
they investigated, humiliated and attempted in a small way to 
destroy Joe the plumber. The poor man is not even a politician. When 
we take the tactics of 'politics as usual' and extend them outside 
of the political arena to an ordinary citizen.. that is going to 
far. Personally I think it is going too far to do it to each other 
within the political arena. It is no accident that some staffers and 
others in their first experience of Washington DC, either kill 
themselves or start drinking themselves to death. It is not a place 
for the faint of heart. I would never survive a day there. I am told 
that sometimes those at the top are insulated from it. 

You see it in private industry too. Maybe not as severe, but anyone 
who makes it to the top of a large corporation has blood on their 
hands one way or another. All I am saying is that as human being we 
need to evolve beyond this. I don't want LV to be right. Rowling 
through Harry and DD try to show us another way. I am just depressed 
about the methods used to seek and aquire power in this country and 
the world. And I realise that our corrupt political system is a 
Sunday school picnic compared to what happens elsewhere in the 
world. My lament is for humanity as a whole. 

I feel that I have a choice that I have to make at this point in my 
life. Do I resign myself to what is, or do I work to change it?  
Would it even be worth my time and enegry to try? Or should I just 
ignore what I see, leave the political areana for younger folks, 
enjoy each day as it comes and let all the rest go ... telling 
myself in my heart that Voldemont was right after all...... ;-(

Tonks_op
wondering if being a Auror is really worth it. Maybe I should just 
take up gardening instead.




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  9 03:38:05 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:38:05 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf3lbg+23rv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf5lut+2728@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" 
<Schlobin at ...> wrote:
I don't think he's a saint, nor a savior. He's a human being who 
will need all of our and your prayers and support and caring to pull 
the country out of the worst place it's been in generations.
> 
> I'm sorry to offend (once again) those who supported John McCain.
> He sold his soul to the devil and has now neither his soul nor the 
> office. I'm glad he was honorable at the end.
> 
> But where was his speech denouncing supporters who shouted "kill 
him" at an (snip-I think you mean McCain) rally?
> 
> I was happy to see him contradict his poor supporter who said that 
> Obama was a Muslim? No, No, he's a good Christian.
> 
> But I support Colin Powell's comments (a republican). 
> 
> What is wrong with being a Muslim? could someone explain?
> 
> Mcain and Palin said that Obama was a terrorist, not a real 
American, the constant lies were spread that he was in fact a Muslim 
(how many  here believed it?)...what did Obama say about McCain? 
That he was involved in a scandal? What did Obama say about Palin?
> 
> McCain wanted to name his friend Joe Lieberman as V-P...

Tonks:
I join with you each night in praying for our country and our soon 
to be President. As a lifelong Democrat who has worked long and hard 
for my party (except this year) I am happy that we have a Democrat 
as President. It is how Obama won that disheartens me. (I will 
confess that I was a PUMA member this year.) 

McCain never called Obama a terrorist, and AFAIK neither did Palin. 
What Palin and the McCain supportered did was to point out Obama 
connections with those who were terrorist and who still hold a 
Marxist viewpoint. If you read Obama other book "Dreams of my 
Father", you will see that he sought out teachers who were Marxist 
when in college. He is a part of the far left of my party, none of 
us deny that. I don't think it was too over the line for the 
Republicans to point that out. Some of the talk radio folks might 
have gone a bit overboard, but they always do. McCain himself tried 
to run an honorable campaign. He told them not to runs the ads about 
Rev. Wright, he did tell people who were shouting 'kill him' to stop 
and he reasured them that "Obama is a good man, a family man and you 
have nothing to fear if he becomes President". McCain has been one 
of the most honorable politicians I have ever seen, and I say that 
as a Democrat.

You ask what Obama ever did to Palin? Obama has a bad habit of 
joking in a very derogatory way, first with Hillary Clinton and 
later with Palin. I, as a woman, found that very offensive. Others 
might not agree, and that is OK. I am just saying how it affected me.

I think that Powell is a Democrat, but everyone thinks he is a 
Republican because he worked for Republican.

As to Lieberman, I think that McCain did Lieberman a favor by not 
having his as VP, which would have swayed many angry Hillary 
supporters to McCain. Lieberman, hopefully, will be able to make up 
with his party and be allowed back in the fold. I know that they do 
not forgive or forget, but I am hoping and praying for a 'kinder and 
gentler' party. Lieberman is a good man, I hope they don't destroy 
him. 

Tonks_op
who is a bit sorry that I started this thread which is going in a 
direction I did not really intend. 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  9 04:38:24 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:38:24 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf5jtr+fc1b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf5pg0+khhj@eGroups.com>

> Tonks:
The poor man was just standing in his front yard playing 
> ball with his kid when Obama was walking around the neighborhood. 
So 
> when Obama came by his house, Joe asked a question. Because those 
in 
> charge of damage control had to protect the candidate from himself, 
> they investigated, humiliated and attempted in a small way to 
> destroy Joe the plumber. The poor man is not even a politician. 

Magpie:
So who's Joe being destroyed by? Didn't he come into the public eye 
not when he asked a question (there must be hundreds who have asked 
politicians questions when a politician is there) but when McCain 
used that in the debate? Then the press checked him out and found out 
he hadn't paid taxes, wasn't a plumber, etc. Last I saw him he had an 
agent and a record deal and was on TV asking whether Obama was loyal 
to his country.

I certainly wouldn't want to be dragged into a campaign, but wasn't 
it the press who descended on this guy and not the candidates? 

-m




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  9 08:35:55 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:35:55 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf5lut+2728@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf67dc+7d46@eGroups.com>


> 
> Tonks:
> I join with you each night in praying for our country and our soon 
> to be President. As a lifelong Democrat who has worked long and 
hard 
> for my party (except this year) I am happy that we have a Democrat 
> as President. It is how Obama won that disheartens me. (I will 
> confess that I was a PUMA member this year.) 

Ah, I see...so I supported Sen. Clinton, too...why is it that you 
couldn't bring yourself to support Senator Obama?


> 
> McCain never called Obama a terrorist, and AFAIK neither did Palin.

Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists."

Now, I suggest you google the New York Times article on Jeff Ayers.

First, the Weather Underground blew up countless buildings, but after 
the townhouse bombing renounced actions against individuals.

Second, Obama knew Jeff Ayres LONG AFTER HE WAS IN THE WEATHER 
UNDEGROUND, when Jeff was an Education professor...it was a casual 
business relationship....Obama was incredibly clear that he did not 
support in any possible way Jeff's actions.....
 
> What Palin and the McCain supportered did was to point out Obama 
> connections with those who were terrorist and who still hold a 
> Marxist viewpoint. If you read Obama other book "Dreams of my 
> Father", you will see that he sought out teachers who were Marxist 
> when in college.

Like Hillary Clinton, whose mentor was Saul Alinsky...just as left as 
anyone...

 He is a part of the far left of my party, none of 
> us deny that.

I deny it. He's pro-Israel. No way is he a leftist. He's a 
pragmatist..



> 
> You ask what Obama ever did to Palin? Obama has a bad habit of 
> joking in a very derogatory way, first with Hillary Clinton and 
> later with Palin. I, as a woman, found that very offensive. Others 
> might not agree, and that is OK. I am just saying how it affected 
me.

Please be very specific here. There were people on Obama's side who 
were misogynist and hateful about Senator Clinton, but the worst 
thing that Senator Obama said was that "she's likable enough." In 
fact, even though I was a supporter of Senator Clinton, her and 
President Clinton's comments were far more racist than Senator 
Obama's comments were sexist.




 
> I think that Powell is a Democrat, but everyone thinks he is a 
> Republican because he worked for Republican.

No, he's a registered Republican, and has never been a Dem.

> 
> As to Lieberman, I think that McCain did Lieberman a favor by not 
> having his as VP, which would have swayed many angry Hillary 
> supporters to McCain. Lieberman, hopefully, will be able to make up 
> with his party and be allowed back in the fold. I know that they do 
> not forgive or forget, but I am hoping and praying for a 'kinder 
and 
> gentler' party. Lieberman is a good man, I hope they don't destroy 
> him. 
> 
Destroy him? After he campaigned for McCain? Nope, they're welcoming 
him back....

McCain caved into Karl Rove, etc. and chose an incredibly right wing 
Vice-President. Did you support Palin because she was a woman? That's 
an insult to me, since Palin was against every possible right for 
women and was obviously unqualified to be president of the United 
States.

I saw the Couric interviews..did you?

Tonks, I absolutely respect your opinions, but I respectfully 
disagree with them.

Best, Susan





From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  9 08:38:28 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:38:28 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf5pg0+khhj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf67i4+h36i@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Tonks:
> The poor man was just standing in his front yard playing 
> > ball with his kid when Obama was walking around the neighborhood. 
> So 
> > when Obama came by his house, Joe asked a question. Because those 
> in 
> > charge of damage control had to protect the candidate from 
himself, 
> > they investigated, humiliated and attempted in a small way to 
> > destroy Joe the plumber. The poor man is not even a politician. 
> 
> Magpie:
> So who's Joe being destroyed by? Didn't he come into the public eye 
> not when he asked a question (there must be hundreds who have asked 
> politicians questions when a politician is there) but when McCain 
> used that in the debate? Then the press checked him out and found 
out 
> he hadn't paid taxes, wasn't a plumber, etc. Last I saw him he had 
an 
> agent and a record deal and was on TV asking whether Obama was 
loyal 
> to his country.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't want to be dragged into a campaign, but wasn't 
> it the press who descended on this guy and not the candidates? 
> 
> -m
>


Uh, wasn't it John McCain who dragged Joe the Plumber into the public 
eye by bringing him up in the debate? And last time I heard he was 
trashing Obama and looking at a country music contract...how has he 
been destroyed?

Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov  9 08:43:16 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:43:16 -0000
Subject: (second try) re: this election, and the nature of evil
In-Reply-To: <gf54qd+pdj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf67r4+4g81@eGroups.com>

> Tonks wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/37971>:
> 
> << Do the ends justify the means, as Saul Alinsky teaches? His 
methods
> include humiliating the opposition >>
> 
> I don't believe that Saul Alinsky advised murdering the opposition's
> most popular leaders, nor hiring young men with AK-47s to hang 
around
> polling places shooting everyone who comes near, nor gathering a 
small
> group of loyal colonels to, on signal, turn against their generals 
and
> their civilian government, and march their loyal soldiers on the
> capitol, the same way they learned to conquer enemy capitols, and 
then
> install their coup leader as President for Life and send out teams 
to
> kill a few thousand people on a list of people who might resist the
> new regime.
> 
>

No, he didn't.

But as a community organizer, who teaches community organizing at the 
college level, Saul Alinsky DID believe in humiliating his 
opponents...

And, Tonks, you DO know that Sen. Clinton was a pupil of Mr. Alinsky? 

His model of community organizing was discredited by feminists who 
don't believe in humiliating people, but came back into vogue 
recently.

Personally, I don't like that model, I don't buy it, and I don't use 
it. I teach it in class, so that students can look at it critically.
If you'd like to look at my powerpoints on Alinsky, please email me 
off list.

It's part of the model that Senator Obama eschews...he believes in 
civility, kindness and compassion..and it's one of the reasons I'm 
very impressed with him.

Susan




From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Nov  9 15:45:02 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:45:02 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf67i4+h36i@eGroups.com>
References: <gf5pg0+khhj@eGroups.com> <gf67i4+h36i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008a01c94282$21813f70$6483be50$@com>

Wait.

Sen. Obama answered his question honestly and moved on.

John McCain brought "Joe the plumber" up in the debate. McCain repeatedly
talked about him, invited him to come out on the campaign trail, included
him in all his speeches for weeks.

The McCain people USED this guy as a metaphor, a symbol of working class
America. Except he wasn't qualified to own a plumbing business anymore than
Palin was to be VP.

As far as Joe is concerned, he's got his own PR people now, he's living in
"15" minutes and doing fine, thank you. 

It was the press, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and countless news papers, Routers and the
AP that investigated him and reported he wasn't a licensed plumber. 

All Obama did was shake his hand and answer his question. His "fame" resides
squarely on the shoulders of the McCain campaign. And don't forget, he
approached Obama, it's not like Obama broke from the line of people to go
talk to some guy who was trying to stay out of it.

Joe the %@!!!*

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of susanmcgee48176
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:38 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and
politics

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Tonks:
> The poor man was just standing in his front yard playing 
> > ball with his kid when Obama was walking around the neighborhood. 
> So 
> > when Obama came by his house, Joe asked a question. Because those 
> in 
> > charge of damage control had to protect the candidate from 
himself, 
> > they investigated, humiliated and attempted in a small way to 
> > destroy Joe the plumber. The poor man is not even a politician. 
> 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Nov  9 15:59:35 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:59:35 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf67i4+h36i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf71d7+hkad@eGroups.com>

Susan: 
> Uh, wasn't it John McCain who dragged Joe the Plumber into the public 
> eye by bringing him up in the debate? And last time I heard he was 
> trashing Obama and looking at a country music contract...how has he 
> been destroyed?

Magpie:
That was definitely my memory of it. He was just another person who 
spoke to Obama, who answered his question directly, and then McCain 
made him a centerpiece of the debate. The press then dug into his 
background. He became part of the McCain campaign.

I also have the same impression as you described on the other incidents 
mentioned. I especially really don't remember Obama saying anything 
particularly bad or sexist about Sarah Palin, even when given the 
obvious opening in the debate. I did think Hillary had to deal with 
sexism when she was campaigning, but most of the remarks that bothered 
me the most didn't seem to come from Obama. I'm generally not worried 
about him on that score--certainly not the way I would be under Palin 
who just really stands against things I think are important to me as a 
woman. Of course, I also find Obama's wife really cool.:-)

-m 




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov  9 18:41:55 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 9 Nov 2008 18:41:55 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/9/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1226256115.15.93738.m54@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 9, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20081109/cd36d632/attachment.html>

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov  9 21:28:09 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:28:09 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf5lut+2728@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf7kl9+1f27@eGroups.com>

 
> Tonks:
> I join with you each night in praying for our country and our soon 
> to be President. As a lifelong Democrat who has worked long and hard
 for my party (except this year) I am happy that we have a Democrat 
as President. It is how Obama won that disheartens me. (I will 
confess that I was a PUMA member this year.) 
> 

Pippin:
I will confess I had to google to find out what a PUMA is. (Party
Unity My A**)

Since the essence of politics is compromise and the essence of
principled behavior is not compromising, there's an inherent conflict
in what we ask of politicians, and it's not surprising that we're
often disappointed in them. 

Pippin 





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 01:07:30 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:07:30 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf5lut+2728@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf81gi+le1b@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

> ... the things that happened to Joe the Plumber


zanooda:

The media were very obnoxious in this case, but aren't they always
:-)? Just look how they dissected Sarah Palin ;-(. I'm not sure it has
something to do with the Obama campaign, though. Besides, we don't
have to worry about this Joe guy - he is one tough cookie and seems
utterly unperturbed by all the ado around him. Also, far from being
destroyed, he is taking advantage of the situation. Good for him :-)! 

But I understand what you are saying - if something like this had
happened not to Joe, but, let's say, to me :-), I would have felt
totally intimidated and harassed by the press. That's why it seems a
little strange to me that the McCain people didn't contact the guy and
didn't ask for his consent to use his name like this. I understand
that it's not against the law, but they should have been a little more
sensitive about this, IMO. He probably would have agreed anyway :-).


> Tonks wrote:

> It is how Obama won that disheartens me.


zanooda:

Of course you know more about it, and I'm sure it can get really ugly
there, behind the scenes :-). I just want to say that Obama himself
leaves a rather favorable impression. I'm someone who would have never
voted for him, but, his views aside, he seems like a nice and decent
guy. I may be totally wrong here, because we don't really know much
about him, but this is just the impression that he gives me, so I'm
more than willing to give him a chance. 

I liked it how he answered the question about Sarah Palin daughter's
pregnancy - something along the lines that the families of the
candidates shouldn't be brought into this, and that his mother also
gave birth to him at the age of 18 etc. I understand that he may not
be as sincere as he seems, but we'll just have to wait and see, right :-)?


zanooda, who understands that she didn't really answer any of Tonks's
questions ...








From Mhochberg at aol.com  Mon Nov 10 02:43:24 2008
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:43:24 EST
Subject: Jim Carrey in HP outfit in "Yes Man" movie
Message-ID: <d63.219596b5.3648f9cc@aol.com>

Hi!
 
Does anyone know more about the Jim Carrey movie "Yes Man"? The current  
issue of Entertainment Weekly has a very clear photo of Jim in a Harry Potter  
costume. The only photo on IMDB
_http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/_ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/) 
 is  very dark. 
 
I am curious about how the HP fandom is portrayed.
 
---Mary
"We are not what we know but what we are willing  to learn. " Mary Catherine 
Bateson
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other 
Holiday needs. Search Now. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 07:24:41 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:24:41 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf67dc+7d46@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf8njp+emui@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" 
<Schlobin at ...> wrote:
> 
> Ah, I see...so I supported Sen. Clinton, too...why is it that you 
> couldn't bring yourself to support Senator Obama?

Tonks:
Because, among other things, in the primary season, his people 
cheated in the caucuses by busing people in from Chicago to register 
and vote in at least 2 states. This would be fraud if the state ran 
a Primary election, but the *party* runs the caucuses... it is like 
cheating your sister. Even thieves have a code of honor, but there 
does not appear to be any within his campaign. Frankly I don't care 
what we do to the other party, but we need to have some ethics 
within our own!

I wasn't too keen on the way that Obama jokes about the woman 
running against him. He gave Hillary the finger. See video. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM&feature=related
And he called Sarah a pig with lipstick, and don't tell me that was 
something else. I know what it was and so did the people at his 
rally, they enjoyed the joke. And if that isn't a soft form 
of "humiliating you opponent" then I don't know what is. (I thought 
the 'fish' comment was aimed at both Palin and McCain, but I know 
others don't take the interpretation that far.)  Also it was a slap 
in the face to Hillary when he chose the woman that she fired to be 
the VP's secretary before we knew who that would be. Little things 
add up after awhile. Just you wait and see...  He has a pattern of 
joking about women... the Republicans are all up in arms about his 
saying he didn't do a Nancy Reagan thing and try to channel Ronald. 
I think he hadn't slept in a few days when he said that, but 
still... just watch what he does and says and tell me again in 6 
months that you don't think he is a sexist.

Susan said: 
> 
> Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists."

Tonk:
"Palling around with" is not the same as being one. So again, I say 
that she and the McCain campaign never called Obama a terrorist. It 
only meant to show that Obama is open to the idea of the far left 
wing folks in Chicago. 


Susan said: 
> Now, I suggest you google the New York Times article on Jeff Ayers.
> 
> First, the Weather Underground blew up countless buildings, but 
after the townhouse bombing renounced actions against individuals.
> 
> Second, Obama knew Jeff Ayres LONG AFTER HE WAS IN THE WEATHER 
> UNDEGROUND, when Jeff was an Education professor...it was a casual 
> business relationship....Obama was incredibly clear that he did 
not support in any possible way Jeff's actions.....
>
 
Tonks:
I lived during that time and remember it. Who is Jeff? All I know is 
William. They were here in Michigan. Ann Arbor. Bernadette Dhorn, 
who later became his wife, was far worse than him. Some say that 
Michelle is good friends with her since they once worked together, 
but I don't know about that, could just be more of those ugly 
election lies. I do know the connection between Obama and Ayers was 
not as casual as Obama wants us to believe. The concern about the 
connection is not about bombs, it is about political philosophy. All 
Obama really had to say was "yes when I was younger I was smitten by 
Marxist ideas, but I have grown since then and will govern from the 
center." But for some reason he didn't say that, and it gave fuel to 
the other side to point out that he seems to be hiding something 
there. 


Susan said:
 Did you support Palin because she was a woman? That's 
> an insult to me, since Palin was against every possible right for 
> women and was obviously unqualified to be president of the United 
> States.

Tonks:
She came with the package. I liked that she was a member of the NRA. 
I didn't like the rest, but I don't think she is as stupid as my 
party made her out to be, that is just politics again. And you have 
to understand that my support of the 'Democrats for McCain' was not 
a vote for McCain or the Republican party, it was a vote to stop  
Obama and thereby force change within the party. 

---
But still no one is discussing the nature of evil. I am just going 
to conclude that Voldemort rules in Politics and half the people in 
DC are Death Eaters of one form or another. Reminds me of a time 
when I told someone "do whatever it takes" and to my horror they 
did. That is when I learned the hard way that some people have no 
boundaries they will not cross. Maybe I will just read the book 'how 
to swim with the sharks' and eat chocolate. Can't drink.. gives me a 
migraine.

Tonks_op




From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 09:08:52 2008
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzie_snape)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:08:52 -0000
Subject: Jim Carrey in HP outfit in "Yes Man" movie
In-Reply-To: <d63.219596b5.3648f9cc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <gf8tn4+9rpr@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Mhochberg at ... wrote:
>
> Hi!
>  
> Does anyone know more about the Jim Carrey movie "Yes Man"? The 
current  
> issue of Entertainment Weekly has a very clear photo of Jim in a 
Harry Potter  
> costume. The only photo on IMDB
> _http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/_ 
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068680/) 
>  is  very dark. 
>  

If you enlarge the photo, you'll see they're wearing Gryffindor ties.

Lizzie




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 10 16:58:55 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:58:55 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf8njp+emui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf9p8f+rskh@eGroups.com>


> Tonks:

> I wasn't too keen on the way that Obama jokes about the woman 
> running against him. He gave Hillary the finger. See video. 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM&feature=related

Magpie:
I'm not convinced that his scratching the side of his face with his 
middle finger is giving Hillary Clinton the finger. But if he was I 
don't know if I'd immediately read it as sexist as opposed to just 
childish. She made fun of him in her speeches too.

Tonks:
> And he called Sarah a pig with lipstick, and don't tell me that was 
> something else. 

Magpie:
Why can't I tell you it was something else? He used a common 
expression to describe McCain's economic plan. It had nothing to do 
with her. As he himself even pointed out, if he had even been 
referring to SP at all in that comment she would have been the 
lipstick, not the pig. He and SP both happened to use expressions 
with the word lipstick in them. That does not add up to Obama calling 
Sarah Palin a pig. To use that statement as an example of Obama 
insulting a woman in a sexist way makes me doubt your claims about 
the alleged problem of his sexism. And from my own perspectives about 
sexism it's hard to imagine getting stuck on these remarks while 
brushing aside Sarah Palin's actual stands on things like a woman's 
control over her own body as just coming with the package. It seems 
more anti-Obama than concern over a threat to feminism.  

Tonks:
 Also it was a slap 
> in the face to Hillary when he chose the woman that she fired to be 
> the VP's secretary before we knew who that would be. Little things 
> add up after awhile. Just you wait and see...  He has a pattern of 
> joking about women... the Republicans are all up in arms about his 
> saying he didn't do a Nancy Reagan thing and try to channel Ronald. 
> I think he hadn't slept in a few days when he said that, but 
> still... just watch what he does and says and tell me again in 6 
> months that you don't think he is a sexist.

Magpie:
So far the only things you've come up with for his "pattern" is him 
scratching his face and him making a comment that had nothing to do 
with any woman whatsoever--while having platforms that imo are far 
better for women than McCain's. Nor is his Nancy Reagan comment 
sexist. He referred to the well-known story of Nancy Reagan using 
astrologists. I don't see how that's sexist just because she's a 
woman. It was inappropriate and he apologized (Hillary's made 
inappropriate comments too, as has Bill and McCain and Palin), but I 
don't see how it's sexist to make a joke about seances by referencing 
a famous woman known for using psychics in the White House. (Frankly, 
my feminist radar was more confused by McCain's saying he was "proud 
of" Palin as if he were her father in a debate.)


> Susan said: 
> > 
> > Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists."
> 
> Tonk:
> "Palling around with" is not the same as being one. So again, I say 
> that she and the McCain campaign never called Obama a terrorist. It 
> only meant to show that Obama is open to the idea of the far left 
> wing folks in Chicago. 

Magpie:
"Palling around with" means "endorsing what they do." Being open to 
terrorist ideas, iow. If you want to say somebody is open to far left-
wing ideas (which they also certainly said in calling him a Marxist 
and a Socialist) you say that, you don't say they're palling around 
with terrorists. Terrorist isn't a synonym for far left wing folks in 
Chicago. It's a buzz word for people who are coming to kill you.

  
> Tonks:
> I lived during that time and remember it. Who is Jeff? All I know 
is 
> William. They were here in Michigan. Ann Arbor. Bernadette Dhorn, 
> who later became his wife, was far worse than him. Some say that 
> Michelle is good friends with her since they once worked together, 
> but I don't know about that, could just be more of those ugly 
> election lies. I do know the connection between Obama and Ayers was 
> not as casual as Obama wants us to believe. The concern about the 
> connection is not about bombs, it is about political philosophy. 
All 
> Obama really had to say was "yes when I was younger I was smitten 
by 
> Marxist ideas, but I have grown since then and will govern from the 
> center." But for some reason he didn't say that, and it gave fuel 
to 
> the other side to point out that he seems to be hiding something 
> there. 

Magpie:
Maybe he's not saying that because it isn't true that he was ever 
particularly smitten with Marxist ideas and doesn't pal around with 
terrorists. I didn't live during that time. I lived during the time 
where ex-60s radicals were not uncommon teaching in academia. 

-m
 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 17:23:47 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:23:47 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf9p8f+rskh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gf9qn3+nuj8@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
<SNIP>
> "Palling around with" means "endorsing what they do." Being open to 
> terrorist ideas, iow. If you want to say somebody is open to far left-
> wing ideas (which they also certainly said in calling him a Marxist 
> and a Socialist) you say that, you don't say they're palling around 
> with terrorists. Terrorist isn't a synonym for far left wing folks in 
> Chicago. It's a buzz word for people who are coming to kill you.<SNIP>


Alla:

And the scary part is that I certainly know people who believed it - 
no, not that Obama is open to marxist ideas, that if he was palling 
around with terrorists, then something must be there, he just must 
share their ideas and must be secretly plotting with them. Otherwise, 
why would he be friends with them, you know?

And by the way, what IF Obama shared more than casual connection with 
Ayers (who absolutely disgusts me, big time by the way) What if they 
were friends? Last time I checked it is possible to be friends even 
good friends with the people and do not share their political views. I 
was friends with somebody ( she moved away, we did not got mad at each 
other or anything) who has the political view of very conservative 
republican, the views which if discussed, would press my buttons very 
much, but we just did not discuss politics after one conversation. She 
is the nicest person and we got along pretty well, without talking 
about politics. And I certainly have other friends, acquintances, whose 
political views differ from mine, this woman is just the example that 
jumps at me big time, since there was absolutely nothing in common in 
our political views, not even a small thing.

JMO,

Alla






From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 10 18:37:00 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:37:00 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf8njp+emui@eGroups.com>
References: <gf67dc+7d46@eGroups.com> <gf8njp+emui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01ae01c94363$51f65050$f5e2f0f0$@com>

Wow three complete mistruths in one post. With all that you should be
supporting Republicans!

First, you have to be registered to vote in your state to participate in a
caucus or primary, so if you live out of state you can't register and you
cannot participate. So even if they did bus people in from out of state, it
wouldn't have mattered, and since it's just a rumor and not true, it doesn't
matter.

Second, he never gave Hillary the finger, he scratched his check, clearly
with two fingers extended. Watch for real next time you see the clip, and
see not what you want to see, but the truth.

Third, the "pig with lipstick" analogy is a common one in many areas of the
country, it was one that McCain used to describe Clinton's policies. It had
nothing to do with Sarah Palin (a pig in lipstick she may be IMO) and like
you said, you then have to find a way to equate the "fish in newspaper"
comment as well, and you can't. It's just people grasping at straws,
desperate and pathetic to try to link the opposition to anything they can.
You forgot the Obama's a Terrorist and a "Socialist."

For your own sake, see reality or at least get over the delusion.

I really wish these topics hadn't come up here.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tonks
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 2:25 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and
politics

Tonks:
Because, among other things, in the primary season, his people 
cheated in the caucuses by busing people in from Chicago to register 
and vote in at least 2 states. This would be fraud if the state ran 
a Primary election, but the *party* runs the caucuses... it is like 
cheating your sister. Even thieves have a code of honor, but there 
does not appear to be any within his campaign. Frankly I don't care 
what we do to the other party, but we need to have some ethics 
within our own!

I wasn't too keen on the way that Obama jokes about the woman 
running against him. He gave Hillary the finger. See video. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOFp-RDpvM&feature=related
And he called Sarah a pig with lipstick, and don't tell me that was 
something else. I know what it was and so did the people at his 
rally, they enjoyed the joke. And if that isn't a soft form 
of "humiliating you opponent" then I don't know what is. (I thought 
the 'fish' comment was aimed at both Palin and McCain, but I know 
others don't take the interpretation that far.)  Also it was a slap 
in the face to Hillary when he chose the woman that she fired to be 
the VP's secretary before we knew who that would be. Little things 
add up after awhile. Just you wait and see...  He has a pattern of 
joking about women... the Republicans are all up in arms about his 
saying he didn't do a Nancy Reagan thing and try to channel Ronald. 
I think he hadn't slept in a few days when he said that, but 
still... just watch what he does and says and tell me again in 6 
months that you don't think he is a sexist.

Susan said: 
> 
> Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists."

Tonk:
"Palling around with" is not the same as being one. So again, I say 
that she and the McCain campaign never called Obama a terrorist. It 
only meant to show that Obama is open to the idea of the far left 
wing folks in Chicago. 


Susan said: 
> Now, I suggest you google the New York Times article on Jeff Ayers.
> 
> First, the Weather Underground blew up countless buildings, but 
after the townhouse bombing renounced actions against individuals.
> 
> Second, Obama knew Jeff Ayres LONG AFTER HE WAS IN THE WEATHER 
> UNDEGROUND, when Jeff was an Education professor...it was a casual 
> business relationship....Obama was incredibly clear that he did 
not support in any possible way Jeff's actions.....
>
 
Tonks:
I lived during that time and remember it. Who is Jeff? All I know is 
William. They were here in Michigan. Ann Arbor. Bernadette Dhorn, 
who later became his wife, was far worse than him. Some say that 
Michelle is good friends with her since they once worked together, 
but I don't know about that, could just be more of those ugly 
election lies. I do know the connection between Obama and Ayers was 
not as casual as Obama wants us to believe. The concern about the 
connection is not about bombs, it is about political philosophy. All 
Obama really had to say was "yes when I was younger I was smitten by 
Marxist ideas, but I have grown since then and will govern from the 
center." But for some reason he didn't say that, and it gave fuel to 
the other side to point out that he seems to be hiding something 
there. 


Susan said:
 Did you support Palin because she was a woman? That's 
> an insult to me, since Palin was against every possible right for 
> women and was obviously unqualified to be president of the United 
> States.

Tonks:
She came with the package. I liked that she was a member of the NRA. 
I didn't like the rest, but I don't think she is as stupid as my 
party made her out to be, that is just politics again. And you have 
to understand that my support of the 'Democrats for McCain' was not 
a vote for McCain or the Republican party, it was a vote to stop  
Obama and thereby force change within the party. 

---
But still no one is discussing the nature of evil. I am just going 
to conclude that Voldemort rules in Politics and half the people in 
DC are Death Eaters of one form or another. Reminds me of a time 
when I told someone "do whatever it takes" and to my horror they 
did. That is when I learned the hard way that some people have no 
boundaries they will not cross. Maybe I will just read the book 'how 
to swim with the sharks' and eat chocolate. Can't drink.. gives me a 
migraine.

Tonks_op


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 10 18:44:07 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:44:07 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gf9qn3+nuj8@eGroups.com>
References: <gf9p8f+rskh@eGroups.com> <gf9qn3+nuj8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01af01c94364$506e3440$f14a9cc0$@com>

Governator Arnold and Maria 

James Carville (dem) and Mary Matalin (rep)

Yeah, it happens. I guess the Governor of California shares the views of
William Ayres because his wife pals around with Obama and Obama pals around
with Ayres.

Viva McCarthyism!!!!

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dumbledore11214
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 12:24 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and
politics


Alla:


And by the way, what IF Obama shared more than casual connection with 
Ayers (who absolutely disgusts me, big time by the way) What if they 
were friends? Last time I checked it is possible to be friends even 
good friends with the people and do not share their political views. 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 10 19:40:02 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:40:02 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <01af01c94364$506e3440$f14a9cc0$@com>
Message-ID: <gfa2mi+iln3@eGroups.com>


Geoff:
Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys....

This thread is turning into a table-tennis match. Might I 
suggest that no one is persuading those on the other side 
of the argument to change their views, Perhaps we've reached 
an "agree to disagree" situation?

Anyone for hot chocolate?




From labyrinths_of_coral_caves at yahoo.de  Mon Nov 10 19:39:38 2008
From: labyrinths_of_coral_caves at yahoo.de (Gwenhwyfar)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:39:38 -0000
Subject: Intro
Message-ID: <gfa2lq+a92o@eGroups.com>

Good day all,
Today I joined this group. I am already a member of the main group, but 
I have not posted much in it. I think only 3 posts if not less. I like 
it a lot, but it moves so quick, it is difficult to keep up with the 
speed because most of you are from the US. When I wake up there are 
sooo many messages.
Anyway I am Gwen, from Holland and I am a HP freak. My favourite book 
is The Order of The Phoenix and if I were sorted I think I'd be in 
Slytherin.
Greetings,
Gwen




From labyrinths_of_coral_caves at yahoo.de  Mon Nov 10 19:41:05 2008
From: labyrinths_of_coral_caves at yahoo.de (Gwenhwyfar)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:41:05 -0000
Subject: RP Group in search of active members
Message-ID: <gfa2oh+igs5@eGroups.com>

Hi people,

My friend Laura has a nice and very active roleplay group, HP in
1991.
We are searching for more members that like to send in posts at least
once a week.

The group is more than 1 year old and we now have 5 active players, a
nice storyline going on at the moment. You can read about it in the
group if you like.

So please join us at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hp_Enchanted_Reverie

Many greetings,
Gwen




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 22:45:43 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:45:43 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <gfa2mi+iln3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfadin+l18b@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Geoff:
> Ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys....
> 
> This thread is turning into a table-tennis match. Might I 
> suggest that no one is persuading those on the other side 
> of the argument to change their views, Perhaps we've reached 
> an "agree to disagree" situation?
> 
> Anyone for hot chocolate?
>

Tonks:
Yes. I agree. Ya... hot chocolate, with marshmellows please. Peace.
Anyone want to JUST discuss evil... or just let it go...

Tonks_op




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 10 23:30:04 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:30:04 -0000
Subject: Intro
In-Reply-To: <gfa2lq+a92o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfag5s+us7p@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Gwenhwyfar" 
<labyrinths_of_coral_caves at ...> wrote:
>
> Good day all,
> Today I joined this group. I am already a member of the main group, but 
> I have not posted much in it. I think only 3 posts if not less. I like 
> it a lot, but it moves so quick, it is difficult to keep up with the 
> speed because most of you are from the US. When I wake up there are 
> sooo many messages.
> Anyway I am Gwen, from Holland and I am a HP freak. My favourite book 
> is The Order of The Phoenix and if I were sorted I think I'd be in 
> Slytherin.
> Greetings,
> Gwen

Geoff:
Welcome. It's nice to have another member from the civilised side 
of the pond.
:-))

As a UK-based member, I think that those guys in the US just go 
to bed at the wrong time of day, hence the build-up of messages 
when all sensible folk should be in bed.
:-(






From md at exit-reality.com  Tue Nov 11 02:13:57 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:13:57 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Intro
In-Reply-To: <gfag5s+us7p@eGroups.com>
References: <gfa2lq+a92o@eGroups.com> <gfag5s+us7p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a301c943a3$2809c930$781d5b90$@com>

We're just really political right now, something minor has occurred in our
process, something about electing a high official... don't know why that'
have our attention?

Heh, heh...

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:30 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Intro

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Gwenhwyfar" 
<labyrinths_of_coral_caves at ...> wrote:
>
> Good day all,
> Today I joined this group. I am already a member of the main group, but 
> I have not posted much in it. I think only 3 posts if not less. I like 
> it a lot, but it moves so quick, it is difficult to keep up with the 
> speed because most of you are from the US. When I wake up there are 
> sooo many messages.
> Anyway I am Gwen, from Holland and I am a HP freak. My favourite book 
> is The Order of The Phoenix and if I were sorted I think I'd be in 
> Slytherin.
> Greetings,
> Gwen

Geoff:
Welcome. It's nice to have another member from the civilised side 
of the pond.
:-))

As a UK-based member, I think that those guys in the US just go 
to bed at the wrong time of day, hence the build-up of messages 
when all sensible folk should be in bed.
:-(




------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From miamibarb at comcast.net  Tue Nov 11 03:47:48 2008
From: miamibarb at comcast.net (Barbara Roberts)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:47:48 -0500
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
Message-ID: <E43DF7A7-8CA3-4A79-A08D-D7C465F71F94@comcast.net>

Tonks:
But still no one is discussing the nature of evil. I am just going
to conclude that Voldemort rules in Politics and half the people in
DC are Death Eaters of one form or another. Reminds me of a time
when I told someone "do whatever it takes" and to my horror they
did. That is when I learned the hard way that some people have no
boundaries they will not cross. Maybe I will just read the book 'how
to swim with the sharks' and eat chocolate. Can't drink.. gives me a
migraine.


Ivogun:

No no. I hope that half of the people in DC aren't Death Eaters types.  
(Might be true in Miami.) I think that many politicians are like   
Prof. Slughorn (old boy politics and cowardly), or like  Fudge (weak,  
ineffectual, prejudiced, and easily duped), or like   Scrimgeour or  
Crouch (tough, but not necessarily fair or nice)  are all too common.  
None of these were not Death Eaters.  All had at least some honorable  
intentions, and not one wished to be a slave to Lord Voldemort.  Some  
of the Death Eaters too (Snape, Black and the Malfoys) matured and had  
second thoughts about being a Death Eater.  Even Dumbledore admits  
that he has avoided the position of "Minister of Magic" because he was  
afraid that power of the position would go to his head--not that he  
would be a Death Eater though. Doesn't make politics pretty, nor many  
of the people completely honorable, but doesn't mean that the capital  
is full of Death Eater types either. (At least...I hope not.)

I volunteered to campaign (had no choice really) for a good cause on  
Election Day at a polling location.  I spent my whole day among the  
campaign workers. One of our sister polling sites witnessed an  
argument that involved both political parties, two different sets of  
police, a poll worker a homeowner, a van and one sign.  One has just  
has to laugh at the absurdness. You can be sure that our group did.

Barbara (Miami, FL) Can you believe it? Florida didn't mess up the  
presidential election this year.  I think our new governor has cleaned  
up the system.









































  have
a good effect on most people.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Mhochberg at aol.com  Tue Nov 11 18:04:05 2008
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:04:05 EST
Subject: Jim Carrey in HP outfit in "Yes Man" movie
Message-ID: <cfa.47c142ea.364b2315@aol.com>

The photo in the magazine is different and very clear. They look like Harry  
and Hermione, complete with lightning scar, glasses, and wands.
 
---Mary
"The only person who is educated is the one who  has learned how to learn and 
change."    ~ Carl Rogers  ~
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other 
Holiday needs. Search Now. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 11 18:30:13 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:30:13 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
Message-ID: <gfcivl+iso7@eGroups.com>

Over at the Main list we touched on a new book coming out soon by 
Melissa Anelli and JKR, "Harry: A History". If anyone gets it, give us 
a review!




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 11 19:54:33 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:54:33 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
Message-ID: <gfcntp+tn6e@eGroups.com>

I have a question to the English-speaking posters: what do you make of 
the word "gillywater"? Any idea what it may mean? I've always assumed 
that "gillyweed" had something to do with "gills", but this wouldn't 
work with a beverage(gillywater), would it :-)? Is there some 
connection here to gillyflowers, maybe? Or to the other "gill" - liquid 
measure? Does anyone know anything at all about this? I need it for a 
translation, and I would appreciate any idea :-).

zanooda 




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 11 21:45:48 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:45:48 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfcntp+tn6e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfcuec+ltpc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> I have a question to the English-speaking posters: what do you make 
of 
> the word "gillywater"? Any idea what it may mean? I've always assumed 
> that "gillyweed" had something to do with "gills", but this wouldn't 
> work with a beverage(gillywater), would it :-)? Is there some 
> connection here to gillyflowers, maybe? Or to the other "gill" - 
liquid 
> measure? Does anyone know anything at all about this? I need it for a 
> translation, and I would appreciate any idea :-).

Tonks:

I would guess it to be like a club soda with a pinch of gillyweed in 
it. Not recommended to go swimming after consuming. lol.

Tonks_op




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 11 22:22:23 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:22:23 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfcivl+iso7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfd0iv+j3u7@eGroups.com>

Potioncat:
> Over at the Main list we touched on a new book coming out soon by 
> Melissa Anelli and JKR, "Harry: A History". If anyone gets it, give
us  a review!

Pippin:

I enjoyed it, though I'm sure it won't be everyone's cup of pumpkin
juice. 

Overall, it's a  personal history of the fandom, combined with the
story of how a recently graduated English major who didn't know what
to do with her life went from a Devil Wears Prada day job  to
landing a coveted interview with JKR. I found most of it engrossing,
though I skimmed over the section about wizard rock.

HPFGU is mentioned, mostly as to how a less than welcoming attitude to
HH'ers (who, us?) led to the foundation of The Sugar Quill. There's a
lot to do with the shipping wars. Still some hard feelings there,
unfortunately, and they're unlikely to be soothed by the thinly
disguised portrait of a once prominent H/H 'er indulging in some
cyber-backstabbing. 

There's a few wisps of interviews I don't recall running across
before. 


On whether Helga Hufflepuff enslaved the House Elves:
"I would say she gave them refuge, but that's like saying she's a kind
plantation owner, isn't it?" Harry, A History, p 325


On the possibility of H/H:

"Now, the fact is that Hermione shares moments with Harry that Ron
will never be able to participate in. He walked out. She shared
something very intense with Harry.

So I think it could have gone that way." --  p 266

On Dumbledore:
He turned inward and remained isolated and academic after his
relationship with Grindelwald, and JKR doesn't know whether he was a
150 year old virgin -- p 327

On Albus Severus:

 "Imagine having to walk to the headmaster's office and seeing those
two portraits."  -- p  328


Pippin
Two portraits! Yay!







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 11 23:39:41 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:39:41 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfcuec+ltpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfd53t+hcr6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2@> wrote:
> >
> > I have a question to the English-speaking posters: what do you make 
> of 
> > the word "gillywater"? Any idea what it may mean? I've always assumed 
> > that "gillyweed" had something to do with "gills", but this wouldn't 
> > work with a beverage(gillywater), would it :-)? Is there some 
> > connection here to gillyflowers, maybe? Or to the other "gill" - 
> liquid 
> > measure? Does anyone know anything at all about this? I need it for a 
> > translation, and I would appreciate any idea :-).
> 
> Tonks:
> 
> I would guess it to be like a club soda with a pinch of gillyweed in 
> it. Not recommended to go swimming after consuming. lol.

Geoff:
Why not? 

Probably lift you to Olympic standard - for an hour or so....
>






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 00:09:51 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:09:51 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfcuec+ltpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfd6sf+rh2h@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
 
> I would guess it to be like a club soda with a pinch of gillyweed 
> in it. 


zanooda:

Yuck :-)! Wasn't gillyweed something disgusting-looking, like rat 
tails :-)?


> Tonks wrote:

> Not recommended to go swimming after consuming. lol.


zanooda:

On the contrary - drink it and go swimming :-)! Maybe Michael Phelps 
drank it in Beijing, disguised as club-soda, LOL.





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed Nov 12 02:13:51 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:13:51 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfcuec+ltpc@eGroups.com>
References: <gfcntp+tn6e@eGroups.com> <gfcuec+ltpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <A4B38C7C0BA644FEB8AA24429DE284F5@FRODO>

| Tonks:
| 
| I would guess it to be like a club soda with a pinch of gillyweed in 
| it. Not recommended to go swimming after consuming. lol.

[Lee]:
It could be like that.  It could be the juice of the weed with seltzer
water, which may not have the same effect as the whole weed; the enchanted
part could be in the fibers of the weed rather than the juice extracted.

Just my knut's worth.

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 03:59:48 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:59:48 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <A4B38C7C0BA644FEB8AA24429DE284F5@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfdkbk+f7nm@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The
Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:

> It could be the juice of the weed with seltzer
> water, which may not have the same effect as the whole weed; the 
> enchanted part could be in the fibers of the weed rather than the 
> juice extracted.


zanooda:

Well, this recipe makes for a nicer-looking drink, without a rat tail
on the bottom :-). Thanks, everyone :-).






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 12 07:58:47 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:58:47 -0000
Subject: Intro
In-Reply-To: <gfe286+fe5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfe2bn+rb7n@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:

> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Gwenhwyfar"
> <labyrinths_of_coral_caves@> wrote:
> >
> > Good day all,
> > Today I joined this group. I am already a member of the main group, but
> > I have not posted much in it. I think only 3 posts if not less. I like
> > it a lot, but it moves so quick, it is difficult to keep up with the
> > speed because most of you are from the US. When I wake up there are
> > sooo many messages.
> > Anyway I am Gwen, from Holland and I am a HP freak. My favourite book
> > is The Order of The Phoenix and if I were sorted I think I'd be in
> > Slytherin.
> > Greetings,
> > Gwen
>
> Geoff:
> Welcome. It's nice to have another member from the civilised side
> of the pond.
> :-))
>
> As a UK-based member, I think that those guys in the US just go
> to bed at the wrong time of day, hence the build-up of messages
> when all sensible folk should be in bed.
> :-(

md:
> We're just really political right now, something minor has occurred in our
> process, something about electing a high official... don't know why that'
> have our attention?
>
> Heh, heh...

Geoff:
I took the liberty of shifting your reply to the bottom of the post - which
in fact is where we are asked as members to place it because that makes 
it much easier to follow a message which gets multiple replies.

I don't think that Gwen and I were suggesting that the "election of a
high official" was unworthy of attention; I certainly followed the campaign
with great interest. We were both light-heartedly pointing out that the
time difference is very noticeable when an event occurs in your evening,
it lands with us in the wee small hours and hence we often find that we
have to catch up with a raft of messages when we first log on.

BTW, I think one of your pet apostrophes got loose and was wandering
round your last message.
:-)




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 12 13:30:57 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:30:57 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfdkbk+f7nm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfelqh+k47k@eGroups.com>

 
> zanooda:
> 
> Well, this recipe makes for a nicer-looking drink, without a rat tail
> on the bottom :-). Thanks, everyone :-).


Potioncat:
The name has always reminded me of a real world drink with a healthy 
connotation. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed to 
play on the familiar. Finally got it--mineral water.

Don't know if that helps or not. 






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 20:53:36 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:53:36 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfelqh+k47k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfffog+93gl@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:

> The name has always reminded me of a real world drink with a 
> healthy connotation. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but 
> it seemed to play on the familiar. Finally got it--mineral water.


zanooda:

Yeah, this could be some carbonated mineral water, I guess, but I was 
more interested in the "gilly" part, than in the "water" part :-). 
Luna drank it with a cocktail onion, would this go with mineral 
water? I don't know much about drinks :-).


> potioncat wrote:

> Don't know if that helps or not.


zanooda:

Everything helps :-).






From swartell at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 23:45:01 2008
From: swartell at yahoo.com (Sue Wartell)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gillywater
References: <gfffog+93gl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <568758.23037.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

gilliflower (or gillyflower) is another name for several sweet-scented flowers -including clove pinks, carnations, wallflowers, etc.

that's what came to my mind when Prof. McGonagal ordered it for a drink.  There's a recipe for a wine with gilliflowers on wikipedia - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillyflower - 

An archaic recipe for gilliflower wine is mentioned in the Cornish Recipes Ancient & Modern dated to 1753:

 To 3 gallons water put 6lbs
of the best powder sugar; boil together for the space of 1/2 an hour;
keep skimming; let it stand to cool. Beet up 3 ounces of syrup of
betony, with a large spoonful of ale yeast, put into liquor & brew
it well; put a peck of gilliflowers free of stalks; let work fore 3
days covered with a cloth; strain & cask for 3-4 weeks, then bottle. 

Sue


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu Nov 13 01:08:57 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:08:57 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfffog+93gl@eGroups.com>
References: <gfelqh+k47k@eGroups.com> <gfffog+93gl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7E8A622F3BB543FBAC815077AB9CE064@FRODO>

| zanooda:
| 
| Yeah, this could be some carbonated mineral water, I guess, but I was 
| more interested in the "gilly" part, than in the "water" part :-). 
| Luna drank it with a cocktail onion, would this go with mineral 
| water? I don't know much about drinks :-).

[Lee]:
Well, who knows whether the cocktail onion would be most people's choice,
but don't forget that Luna is a bit--uh--eccentric????? <LOL>

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 03:57:13 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:57:13 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <568758.23037.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gfg8ip+j1po@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sue Wartell <swartell at ...> 
wrote:

> gilliflower (or gillyflower) is another name for several sweet-
> scented flowers -including clove pinks, carnations, wallflowers, etc.
> that's what came to my mind when Prof. McGonagal ordered it for a 
> drink.


zanooda:

Yeah, I've read all this when I did my research before posting. That's 
why I asked - I wasn't sure what JKR meant. I suppose the best way to 
find out would be to listen to the audiobooks - if she 
meant "gills", "gillywater" would me pronounced with "g", and if she 
meant the flower or something else, then the first letter would be 
pronounced like "j", right? But I only have the DH audiobook, and 
gillywater is not mentioned there ;-(.  




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu Nov 13 05:16:44 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:16:44 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfg8ip+j1po@eGroups.com>
References: <568758.23037.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <gfg8ip+j1po@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4C0ED94511574E5DB49BD1140FBB5156@FRODO>

The Audio books pronounce it "Gilly" with the G like Gill.

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 05:54:46 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:54:46 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <7E8A622F3BB543FBAC815077AB9CE064@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfgff6+prm2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The 
Healing Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> | zanooda:
> | 
> | Yeah, this could be some carbonated mineral water, I guess, but 
I was  | more interested in the "gilly" part, than in the "water" 
part :-). 
> | Luna drank it with a cocktail onion, would this go with mineral 
> | water? I don't know much about drinks :-).
> 
> [Lee]:
> Well, who knows whether the cocktail onion would be most people's 
choice, but don't forget that Luna is a bit--uh--eccentric????? <LOL>

Tonks:
I can see something like a nice bottle of Perrier with a cocktail 
onion. Sure...  


Tonks_op





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 06:50:53 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:50:53 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <4C0ED94511574E5DB49BD1140FBB5156@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfgiod+81tl@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing 
Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:

> The Audio books pronounce it "Gilly" with the G like Gill.


Thanks! You mean like "ginger", right? If yes, she didn't mean "gills", 
although the actor/reader may not know for sure :-). What book is it - 
PoA, OotP or HBP? Or all of them?

zanooda




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 07:51:06 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:51:06 -0000
Subject: Gillywater - Spiced Mulled Sparkling Water
In-Reply-To: <568758.23037.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gfgm9a+snt2@eGroups.com>

---  Sue Wartell <swartell at ...> wrote:
>
> gilliflower (or gillyflower) is another name for several 
> sweet-scented flowers -including clove pinks, carnations, 
> wallflowers, etc.
> 
> that's what came to my mind when Prof. McGonagal ordered it
> for a drink.  ...

bboyminn:

I noticed on the Wikipedia page for Gillyflower, that it is also
related to cloves or a clove substitute. So maybe Gillywater is 
like mulled carbonated water, or a spiced club soda. A bit of 
Gilly substitute for cloves, a tiny dash of cinnamon, and 
perhaps some sweeter flavor to soften the strong spices, say
lemon or orange.

Of course, we won't know until JKR tells us.

For what it's worth, I have a story yet unwritten in which 
Harry and Ron go on vacation around the world. In Asia, they
find that the equivalent of 'gillyweed' there is 'gillyfruit',
though that is a western translation of the native term for
it. Gillyfruit are small white cherry appearing fruit that
taste vaguely like pears, and allow you to breath underwater.

When they reach Austrailia, they discover that down under,
they use 'gillyflower' to accomplish the same thing. Though
the flowers are always dried and drank as a hot tea. Though
you can simple eat the dried petals, but it's not an easy 
chew. Now that I know there really is such a thing as 
'gillyflower', I might have to rethink that.  

It just tickled me to think that other cultures would have
their own equivalent plant to accomplish the same thing.

Still, since there is a connection between gillyflower and
a clove substitute, it is a reasonably guess that 'gillywater'
is spiced or mulled sparkling water. It seems like something
an older person would drink. Younger people tend to go for
more pure sugar drinks.

It's as good a guess as any.

Steve/bluewizard




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 19:21:46 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:21:46 -0000
Subject: Gillywater - Spiced Mulled Sparkling Water
In-Reply-To: <gfgm9a+snt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfhuoa+8ob4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

> It seems like something an older person would drink. Younger people 
> tend to go for more pure sugar drinks.


zanooda:

Is this a hint to McGonagall's age :-)? What about Luna then? She seems 
to like it too. Is it because Luna is an old soul :-)?




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 00:05:01 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:05:01 -0000
Subject: I voted!!!  was Re: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <023001c93c47$43ee3900$cbcaab00$@com>
Message-ID: <gfifbd+6rbv@eGroups.com>

Cabal wrote:
<snip> In 2000 they made the mistake of taking any poll above its
margin for accurate, this lead to media being sure that Gore was going
to win, and when Florida was close, they felt comfortable calling it.
But, less than 400 ballots and the supreme court decided that
election, no one could have predicted that, except, the polls where a
statistical dead heat, so yeah, it could and did flip either way. One
got the popular vote, the other the electoral college. <snip>

Carol responds:

Which is why, IMO, we should get rid of the electoral college
altogether so that one state's votes don't decide the election and we
don't have a president who wasn't elected by the majority of the people.

Carol, whose vote was wasted because the candidate she didn't vote for
won her state





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 00:21:52 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:21:52 -0000
Subject: Obama and daughter HP fans
In-Reply-To: <gejfkd+tk2u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfigb0+cdn5@eGroups.com>

Kemper now:
> Regards!
> Did I spell 'Expelliarmus' wrong?  If so, plz feel free to spell it
correctly.
> 
> You're right.  McCain is Sectumsempra-ing all over the place along
with Bellatrix.  Not to worry... Obama will pull out his wand, tracing
the US's deep wounds with it while muttering an incantation that
sounds almost like a song.  

Carol responds:

You spelled Expelliarmus correctly. Possibly Snow meant to type "sp?"
instead of "(sic)."

Your comment reminds me of a headline I saw recently but didn't have
time to read because of my ogre of an editng project calling Obama
"America's Half-Blood Prince."

Carol, who feels odd about this election because it's the first time
we've elected a president who's younger than she is!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 01:30:48 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:30:48 -0000
Subject: Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics
In-Reply-To: <005601c94061$54c5bbe0$fe5133a0$@com>
Message-ID: <gfikc8+rig8@eGroups.com>

Cabal wrote:
>
> I don't believe in evil, nothing is ever that simple.
> 
> Evil is a construct, it fits a narrative nicely, but it doesn't exist. 
<snip>

Carol responds:

both candidates, or rather, the President-elect and his former
opponent, would disagree with you.

Is it not evil to plant a suicide bomb on a retarded woman, killing
her and many innocent people around her? Is it not evil deliberately
to fly planes into buildings, using murder in a (failed) attempt to
create panic and terror? Is it not evil to use rape as a weapon (or to
commit rape under any circumstances)? Were the Nazi extermination
camps not evil?

I can think of many other instances, but these will do.

I don't think that evil is a construct, nor is it the absence of good.
It's real and powerful and it must, somehow, be curtailed though it
can never be destroyed. That's why we have laws, and why we sometimes
fight wars (World War II).

Evil in some instances may be relative and it's sometimes unavoidable,
as in the lesser of two evils.

I can't comfort Tonks because I don't know what happened behind the
scenes during the campaign, but I'm quite sure that compared with,
say, Osama bin Laden, it's pretty small stuff.

The poet Shelley believed that there are evil acts but no evil people,
only mistaken ones. I wish I could agree with him.

Carol, who *would* use the term "mistaken" for quite a few political
candidates, many of whom you've never heard of if you don't live in
Arizona 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 01:40:24 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:40:24 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfd0iv+j3u7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfiku8+nqg5@eGroups.com>

Pippin wrote:
> On Albus Severus:
> 
>  "Imagine having to walk to the headmaster's office and seeing those
two portraits."  -- p  328

> Pippin
> Two portraits! Yay!
>
Carol responds:
I think JKR meant the portrait of Albus and the portrait of Severus,
his two namesakes.

Carol, who had that same initial reaction (two portraits of Snape)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 01:33:57 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:33:57 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfcivl+iso7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfiki5+54uf@eGroups.com>

potioncat wrote:
>
> Over at the Main list we touched on a new book coming out soon by
Melissa Anelli and JKR, "Harry: A History". If anyone gets it, give us
a review!
>
Carol:

If the excerpts I saw are any indication, it badly needs a copyeditor.
I stopped reading after the first few snippets.

Carol, who didn't like the stuff JKR said about Hedwig and doesn't
want to know what didn't make it into the books if that's the sort of
stuff she planned to write!




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 14 14:24:21 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:24:21 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfiki5+54uf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfk1ml+t1kv@eGroups.com>


> Carol:
> 
> If the excerpts I saw are any indication, it badly needs a copyeditor.
> I stopped reading after the first few snippets.


Potioncat:
LOL, I had the same reaction. The excerpt I saw read more like a 
livejournal page than a book. But I am interested in the process JKR 
went through.

OK, Geoff, has your copy arrived? What do you think about the book?




From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 14:36:37 2008
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:36:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfk1ml+t1kv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <815878.2210.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Anyone remember me?? I used to post constantly, but I had a baby in April, and I've turned into a lurker. I'm also not up on the HP stuff like I used to be. What book is this? I am fascinated.
?
Thanks! Katie

--- On Fri, 11/14/08, potioncat <willsonkmom at msn.com> wrote:

From: potioncat <willsonkmom at msn.com>
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry: A History
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 9:24 AM







> Carol:
> 
> If the excerpts I saw are any indication, it badly needs a copyeditor.
> I stopped reading after the first few snippets.

Potioncat:
LOL, I had the same reaction. The excerpt I saw read more like a 
livejournal page than a book. But I am interested in the process JKR 
went through.

OK, Geoff, has your copy arrived? What do you think about the book?

 














      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 14 14:55:44 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:55:44 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfd0iv+j3u7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfk3hg+10bjm@eGroups.com>

 
> Pippin: 
> HPFGU is mentioned, mostly as to how a less than welcoming attitude to
> HH'ers (who, us?) led to the foundation of The Sugar Quill.

Potioncat:
Really? I didn't know that!

Personally, my hat is off to anyone who managed to take the time I've 
merely wasted on HP and turn it into a money making situation. I wish 
I'd been half as clever.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 14 15:02:48 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:02:48 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <815878.2210.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gfk3uo+bufq@eGroups.com>

 Kathryn Lambert <anigrrrl2 at ...> wrote:
>
> Anyone remember me?? I used to post constantly, but I had a baby in 
April, and I've turned into a lurker. I'm also not up on the HP stuff 
like I used to be. What book is this? I am fascinated.
> ?
> Thanks! Katie

Potioncat:
Hi back, Yes I remember you! How's the baby?

Here's a link to Amazon's page for Harry: A History. (I don't know 
how to make tinyurls, so I don't know if this will work for you. 
Leaky Cauldron has a piece about the book too. (I wonder why?)

The is written by Melissa Anelli(sp?) and JKR. 

http://www.amazon.com/Harry-History-Wizard-Inside-
Phenomenon/dp/1416554955/ref=sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226674716&sr=1-1

If you go back a few posts, you'll see Pippin's review of the book. 
I've only seen bits and pieces on the web.








From n2fgc at arrl.net  Fri Nov 14 15:11:00 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:11:00 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfgiod+81tl@eGroups.com>
References: <4C0ED94511574E5DB49BD1140FBB5156@FRODO> <gfgiod+81tl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <A7C94E38EAF54731A15736C38CD13DF4@FRODO>

[Zanada]:
| Thanks! You mean like "ginger", right? If yes, she didn't 
| mean "gills", 
| although the actor/reader may not know for sure :-). What 
| book is it - 
| PoA, OotP or HBP? Or all of them?

[Lee]:
I mean the G is hard like Gill, Girl, Garlic.  The word is pronounced with
this hard G in all the references to Gillywater in the Jim Dale versions
and, if I recall coorectly, in the Stephen Fry versions, too.

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From aletamosquito at gmail.com  Fri Nov 14 15:04:48 2008
From: aletamosquito at gmail.com (Aleta Turner)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:04:48 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfiku8+nqg5@eGroups.com>
References: <gfd0iv+j3u7@eGroups.com> <gfiku8+nqg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3591e0870811140704qf8a543arb3c94faf437b5453@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Carol <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>   > Pippin
> > Two portraits! Yay!
> >
> Carol responds:
> I think JKR meant the portrait of Albus and the portrait of Severus,
> his two namesakes.
>
> Carol, who had that same initial reaction (two portraits of Snape)
> .
>
> 
>

Why would there be two portraits of Snape?

Aleta


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov 14 16:19:02 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:19:02 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <3591e0870811140704qf8a543arb3c94faf437b5453@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gfk8dm+qhs0@eGroups.com>

> >   > Pippin
> > > Two portraits! Yay!
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> > I think JKR meant the portrait of Albus and the portrait of
Severus,his two namesakes.
> >
> > Carol, who had that same initial reaction (two portraits of Snape)

Aleta:
> Why would there be two portraits of Snape?
> 

Pippin:
Erm, I didn't think there would be two portraits of Snape. Last I'd
heard, Snape's portrait wasn't there in DH because he'd deserted his
post, but in latter days Harry would push to have it installed. I was
cheering because it seems he's succeeded.

Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 23:38:47 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:38:47 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <A7C94E38EAF54731A15736C38CD13DF4@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfl267+atr5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing 
Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:

> I mean the G is hard like Gill, Girl, Garlic.  The word is 
> pronounced with this hard G in all the references to Gillywater 
> in the Jim Dale versions and, if I recall coorectly, in the 
> Stephen Fry versions, too.


zanooda:

Well, it's not the flower then :-). Thanks!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov 14 23:58:57 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:58:57 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfl267+atr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfl3c1+7t04@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing 
> Force\)" <n2fgc@> wrote:
> 
> > I mean the G is hard like Gill, Girl, Garlic.  The word is 
> > pronounced with this hard G in all the references to Gillywater 
> > in the Jim Dale versions and, if I recall coorectly, in the 
> > Stephen Fry versions, too.
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Well, it's not the flower then :-). Thanks!

Geoff:
The syllable "GIll" is an interesting one in terms of hard or soft 
pronunciation. The girl's name Gillian has a soft "g" - which gives 
rise to the variant spelling "Jill" and there is an old volume 
measurement "gill" = half a pint which is soft.

The oddest one is that there are two towns of Gillingham, one in Kent 
and the other in Dorset. The former has a soft "g", the latter hard.






From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 00:59:34 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:59:34 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
Message-ID: <gfl6tm+v85i@eGroups.com>

Hi all,
Tomorrow there will be a national protest held at the same time (1030a
Pacific, 1130 Mountain, etc.) 
Here's the link:
http://jointheimpact.com/

Don't worry international members, depending on where you live there
are opportunities, though not ample, for you as well.  There are no
protests in Africa (...), nor S. America.  

My mom in Idaho is going, so's my s'poo in SLC.  We're taking the kids
to the one here.

Remember: picket signs thicker than 1/4 inch could be considered a weapon!

Kemper




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sat Nov 15 04:09:58 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:09:58 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfl6tm+v85i@eGroups.com>
References: <gfl6tm+v85i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ADBE0ACD9E7F4063B59E7E9369BEB551@FRODO>

[Kemper]:
| Hi all,
| Tomorrow there will be a national protest held at the same time (1030a
| Pacific, 1130 Mountain, etc.) 
| Here's the link:
| http://jointheimpact.com/
| 

Okay, either I'm from another planet or lost, but to what are you referring?
I don't remember hearing anything about what this proposition is.

Cheers,

Lee




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 04:29:34 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:29:34 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <ADBE0ACD9E7F4063B59E7E9369BEB551@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gflj7e+97b2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm \(God Is The Healing 
Force\)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
 
> Okay, either I'm from another planet or lost, but to what are you 
> referring?
> I don't remember hearing anything about what this proposition is.



Wasn't it something about banning gay marriage in California? I saw 
some protesters on TV yesterday.


zanooda, who doesn't know much about it either ...




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 04:34:48 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:34:48 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfl3c1+7t04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfljh8+n4ql@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
 
> The syllable "GIll" is an interesting one in terms of hard or soft 
> pronunciation. The girl's name Gillian has a soft "g" - which gives 
> rise to the variant spelling "Jill" and there is an old volume 
> measurement "gill" = half a pint which is soft.
> 
> The oddest one is that there are two towns of Gillingham, one in Kent 
> and the other in Dorset. The former has a soft "g", the latter hard.


zanooda:

Oh yeah, this "g" thing is very confusing indeed :-). Why is it "gift", 
but "giant"? Why is it "give", but "ginger"? There is no logic in this 
at all :-).





From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 04:48:28 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:48:28 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <ADBE0ACD9E7F4063B59E7E9369BEB551@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gflkas+ia1k@eGroups.com>


> [Kemper]:
> | Hi all,
> | Tomorrow there will be a national protest held at the same time 
(1030a
> | Pacific, 1130 Mountain, etc.) 
> | Here's the link:
> | http://jointheimpact.com/

> Lee:
> Okay, either I'm from another planet or lost, but to what are you 
referring?
> I don't remember hearing anything about what this proposition is.

Kemper now:
Proposition 8 was on the ballot in California.  A 'yes' on 8, which 
passed, stripped away the civil rights of gays & lesbians to get 
married.  What's notable is that it amended California's state 
constitution to define (restrict) marriage as being between a man and a 
woman overriding the state's supreme court decision to recognize same-
sex marriage as a fundamental right.  

Why is that notable, one might ask.  Well, as time passes, 
constitutions open up rights for the oppressed rather than later taking 
away a right or more accurately oppressing its citizens.  Additionally, 
tt made national news due to the irony involved.  Though arguements can 
be made that the 'no' campaign did not canvass communities which had an 
usually high ratio of voters supporting the oppression. 

Hope that helps!
May your (and everyone's) weekend be joyous and blessed!!!

Kemper






From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Nov 15 05:10:54 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:10:54 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gflkas+ia1k@eGroups.com>
References: <ADBE0ACD9E7F4063B59E7E9369BEB551@FRODO> <gflkas+ia1k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005601c946e0$89e7ac90$9db705b0$@com>

Prop 8 is a move by the Death Eaters to gain even more control over muggles
by stripping way the rights of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by
amending CA's state constitution to say "all men" are not "created equal"
and therefore are not "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights."

The irony in all this is that the courts decide what is constitutional and
what is not. The state and Federal Supreme courts have the authority to
overturn any amendment to the state and federal constitution if the court
rules it is not constitutional.

Any amendment restricting one person's rights is unconstitutional, so the
court would have to find Prop 8 unconstitutional and order it stricken.

The irony I was referring to is that prop 8 in effect ran the system
backwards, it overturned the court's ruling when in fact it's up to the
court to decide if it's legal in the first place.

What prop 8's passing may have done is send the case to the US Supreme
Court, whom, may very well rule it unconstitutional -- assuring that no
state can ban gay marriage. 

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kempermentor
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:48 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8


> [Kemper]:
> | Hi all,
> | Tomorrow there will be a national protest held at the same time 
(1030a
> | Pacific, 1130 Mountain, etc.) 
> | Here's the link:
> | http://jointheimpact.com/

> Lee:
> Okay, either I'm from another planet or lost, but to what are you 
referring?
> I don't remember hearing anything about what this proposition is.

Kemper now:
Proposition 8 was on the ballot in California.  A 'yes' on 8, which 
passed, stripped away the civil rights of gays & lesbians to get 
married.  What's notable is that it amended California's state 
constitution to define (restrict) marriage as being between a man and a 
woman overriding the state's supreme court decision to recognize same-
sex marriage as a fundamental right.  

Why is that notable, one might ask.  Well, as time passes, 
constitutions open up rights for the oppressed rather than later taking 
away a right or more accurately oppressing its citizens.  Additionally, 
tt made national news due to the irony involved.  Though arguements can 
be made that the 'no' campaign did not canvass communities which had an 
usually high ratio of voters supporting the oppression. 

Hope that helps!
May your (and everyone's) weekend be joyous and blessed!!!

Kemper




------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 07:12:47 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:12:47 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfl6tm+v85i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gflspf+mpv7@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" 
<kempermentor at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Tomorrow there will be a national protest held at the same time 
(1030a Pacific, 1130 Mountain, etc.) 
> Here's the link:
> http://jointheimpact.com/
> 
> Don't worry international members, depending on where you live 
there are opportunities, though not ample, for you as well.  There 
are no protests in Africa (...), nor S. America.  
> 

Tonks_op
There are no protest in Africa because they are mostly Anglican who 
almost got my church thrown out of the Anglican communion for 
electing a gay Bishop. 

If people want to protest, at the capital of their states, I don't 
have a problem with that as long as it is peaceful. But you will be 
seeing on the news about an event that happened in a city near me in 
Michigan. And what they did there was WRONG. They marched into a 
church during a church service and scared the hell out of old people 
and little children by trying to take over the service. This is just 
out of place and WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!

Tonks_op




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 15 14:49:57 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:49:57 -0000
Subject: Other books about HP (was Re: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfk8dm+qhs0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfmnil+bl6p@eGroups.com>

 
> Pippin:
> Erm, I didn't think there would be two portraits of Snape. Last I'd
> heard, Snape's portrait wasn't there in DH because he'd deserted his
> post, but in latter days Harry would push to have it installed. I 
was
> cheering because it seems he's succeeded.
> 
> Pippin
>

Potioncat:
I like reading that sort of JKR comment, even if does mean sometimes 
I don't like the direction the information takes the story.

I actually entered the HPfGU community after reading a book about the 
HP books. Can't remember the name or it or author---Mysteries of HP 
or something like that. It was pretty good, but no better than our 
own theories and ideas.  

It seems there are other books about HP coming out now. Steve Vander 
Ark has a travel book in the wings, due to come out soon. Here's a 
link:

http://www.methuen.co.uk/titles.php/itemcode/1300

Just wondered if anyone had seen anything about this book? Or about 
any other books and articles about the HP experience?




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 15:06:10 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:06:10 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gflspf+mpv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfmoh2+ie3e@eGroups.com>


> > Kemper
> > Hi all,
> > Tomorrow there will be a national protest held at the same time 
> (1030a Pacific, 1130 Mountain, etc.) 
> > Here's the link:
> > http://jointheimpact.com/
 
> Tonks_op
> ... 
> If people want to protest, at the capital of their states, I don't 
> have a problem with that as long as it is peaceful. But you will be 
> seeing on the news about an event that happened in a city near me 
in 
> Michigan. And what they did there was WRONG. They marched into a 
> church during a church service and scared the hell out of old 
people and little children by trying to take over the service. This 
is just out of place and WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!

Kemper now:
I don't know how wrong it is.  The church in question has a history 
of anti-gay stances and sermons and even depicted images of gays 
burning in hell.  I'm sure that group would have stayed out of the 
church, if the church would have stayed out of their lives.

It's not like the group protested any church.  The Unitarians weren't 
protested.  My sister works with gay youth in SLC and they went to 
protest and picket the LDS Temple as the church funded a good portion 
of the campaign.  If they didn't, there wouldn't have been protests 
there... or at least less likely.

I've seen some protest signs which say: no more Mr/s Nice Gay.  The 
sentiment and behavior is understandable.  

So the actions of the group in Michigan seemed RIGHT, RIGHT, 
RIGHT!!!!!  Or at least not WRONG^3.

Kemper






From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sat Nov 15 18:35:39 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:35:39 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfmoh2+ie3e@eGroups.com>
References: <gflspf+mpv7@eGroups.com> <gfmoh2+ie3e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <16283D238EB642AB9402C94062F244E7@FRODO>

| Kemper now:
| I don't know how wrong it is.  The church in question has a history 
| of anti-gay stances and sermons and even depicted images of gays 
| burning in hell.  I'm sure that group would have stayed out of the 
| church, if the church would have stayed out of their lives.

[Lee]:
Okay, I will not be popular I'm sure after this post, but I have to speak in
defense of churches who do not condone same-sex marriages.  My own personal
convictions do not lean toward them.  I have no problem with civil union,
but I must adhere to the Biblical standard when it comes to the bonds of
marriage.  I don't believe the government has a right to dictate in this
regard, but I do believe the churches have the right to refuse to perform
ceremonies and they do have the right to proclaim their beliefs as
vigorously and rigorously as those in favor of same-sex marriage.
Intimidation tactics are wrong on either side as they serve no purpose but
to offend.  Respect needs to be shown even if both sides must agree to
disagree.

I have homosexual friends who would like to be married; as much as I like
the guys, they know that I would not come to a "marriage" celebration but I
would accept a civil union or pledge of constancy.  They know how I feel, I
know how they feel, we completely disagree on the subject but still have a
very strong and deep friendship.  Unfortunately, human nature being what it
is, both sides must shout to be heard which makes listening impossible. ;)

That's as much as I'll say on the whole subject.  Now, I'll go away and
chomp on my Boston Cream cake.

Peace,

Lee




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 15 20:27:48 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:27:48 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <16283D238EB642AB9402C94062F244E7@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfnbc4+usfq@eGroups.com>

> [Lee]:
> Okay, I will not be popular I'm sure after this post, but I have to 
speak in
> defense of churches who do not condone same-sex marriages.  My own 
personal
> convictions do not lean toward them.  I have no problem with civil 
union,
> but I must adhere to the Biblical standard when it comes to the 
bonds of
> marriage.  I don't believe the government has a right to dictate in 
this
> regard, but I do believe the churches have the right to refuse to 
perform
> ceremonies and they do have the right to proclaim their beliefs as
> vigorously and rigorously as those in favor of same-sex marriage.
> Intimidation tactics are wrong on either side as they serve no 
purpose but
> to offend.  Respect needs to be shown even if both sides must agree 
to
> disagree.

Magpie:
I agree. But then, Prop 8 doesn't force churches to do anything and 
some people claimed that it did to make religious people vote for it. 
Churches all get to decide their own conditions for marriage, and 
they also are allowed to have their own beliefs of right and wrong. 
They can believe homosxuality is wrong--they can also believe inter-
racial relationships are wrong, that certain races are inferior, etc. 

Of course when the Mormon church as an institution made a big, 
financial effort to get civil rights taken away from people of course 
they got a response. I don't think it's inappropriate to respond back 
to the church as an institution. I don't think it's right to 
interrupt church services (individual Mormons may or may not have 
given money or supported the proposition), but picketing the church 
outside peacefully makes sense to me. People have the right to vote 
whichever way they want on the Proposition.

-m





From md at exit-reality.com  Sat Nov 15 23:32:45 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:32:45 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfnbc4+usfq@eGroups.com>
References: <16283D238EB642AB9402C94062F244E7@FRODO> <gfnbc4+usfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c9477a$771a14f0$654e3ed0$@com>

That's the best point of all, Churches are to stay out of government and
government out of churches.

NO ONE EVER stated that churches should have to perform same-sex-marriage's.

I am a Married Atheist, we were married by a mayor in a town meeting room. 

99.9% of Homosexual's, would be more than happy to have that right.

Why is it, that so many religious people act like same-sex-marriage is going
infringe their rights?

Why is it, they think it will affect them in any way?

It won't.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:28 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8

> [Lee]:
> Okay, I will not be popular I'm sure after this post, but I have to 
speak in
> defense of churches who do not condone same-sex marriages.  My own 
personal
> convictions do not lean toward them.  I have no problem with civil 
union,
> but I must adhere to the Biblical standard when it comes to the 
bonds of
> marriage.  I don't believe the government has a right to dictate in 
this
> regard, but I do believe the churches have the right to refuse to 
perform
> ceremonies and they do have the right to proclaim their beliefs as
> vigorously and rigorously 

Magpie:
I agree. But then, Prop 8 doesn't force churches to do anything and 
some people claimed that it did to make religious people vote for it. 
Churches all get to decide their own conditions for marriage, and 
they also are allowed to have their own beliefs of right and wrong. 
They can believe homosxuality is wrong--they can also believe inter-
racial relationships are wrong, that certain races are inferior, etc. 




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 16 08:05:46 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:05:46 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfl6tm+v85i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfok8q+gbi0@eGroups.com>

  I suppose prop. 8 will cause massive havoc in the end...


Yea or neigh...there are just so many states to protest in...

Realistically thinking...it'd be better to ban all civil 
unions...why on earth does the state need to be involved with 
marriage anyhow(beyond revenues?)?  Harkens back to the days of 
monarchy!

  Is there any reason why the goverment needs to sanction marriage? 
Government needs to remove itself from the marriage dept entirely...

If truth be told, in the U.S. any marriage ceremony falls under 
the "right to privacy act" hence, government has little, if any 
right to interfere.

It just stinks to me..seems like the goverment has its hands full 
already withougt bothering with marriages.

My brother and I were raised outside of the U.S. because so many 
states deemed my parents marriage "unlawful"...Why legislate 
marriage at all?  Marriage began as a religious ceremony...let it 
remain so..

When one thinks of all the money wasted to change a law the 
goverment has no right to involve itsself in to begin with..it makes 
me wonder where on earth were all the attorney's hiding before the 
election.

If the government has no rights to interfere with a patient/doctor 
relationship...then the goverment has no right to interfere with a 
husband/wife/domestic partner relationship unless the/an individual 
asks, or breaks criminal law.(hence the u.s.'s illustrious judicial 
system).

Sorry but I don't think the government has the right to decide who 
should marry whom...(Isn't that one of the many reasons why so many 
countries adopted  republic/democtratic regimes?--Kinds/Queens 
arranging marriages with noble/powerful families?!?).

DD
(Who thinks it is beyond ridiculous that those who were married 
before said proposition passed can remain so legally-in all states 
where same sex marriage was lawful..but no new marriages can occur. 
Ludicrous)




From md at exit-reality.com  Sun Nov 16 14:44:31 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:44:31 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfok8q+gbi0@eGroups.com>
References: <gfl6tm+v85i@eGroups.com> <gfok8q+gbi0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00c101c947f9$d79f9b40$86ded1c0$@com>

I don't see the "Monarchy" thing.

As for the state being involved, well that's about legal rights. After all,
family has rights to access when a member is sick, to monies when a member
is incapacitated, to inheritance when someone dies. You need marriage to
become a legal family member, to be recognized as a spouse for health
insurance, to file joint tax returns, to take a mortgage out, to adopt a
child (where legal) to be allowed in a trauma room or ICU in an emergency,
to have custody of children birthed or fathered by the other partner. 

It's about the legal rights of family.

As for same-sex marriage being legal in other states where it's already
legal, that's not it. 

If you are legally married in one state, then all states are required to
recognize that marriage. That's another issue in the courts.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of doddiemoemoe
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:06 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8

  I suppose prop. 8 will cause massive havoc in the end...


Yea or neigh...there are just so many states to protest in...

Realistically thinking...it'd be better to ban all civil 
unions...why on earth does the state need to be involved with 
marriage anyhow(beyond revenues?)?  Harkens back to the days of 
monarchy!

DD
(Who thinks it is beyond ridiculous that those who were married 
before said proposition passed can remain so legally-in all states 
where same sex marriage was lawful..but no new marriages can occur. 
Ludicrous)





From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov 16 15:01:46 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:01:46 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <16283D238EB642AB9402C94062F244E7@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfpckq+2d93@eGroups.com>

> [Lee]:
> Okay, I will not be popular I'm sure after this post, but I have to 
speak in
> defense of churches who do not condone same-sex marriages.  My own 
personal
> convictions do not lean toward them.  I have no problem with civil 
union,
> but I must adhere to the Biblical standard when it comes to the 
bonds of
> marriage.  I don't believe the government has a right to dictate in 
this
> regard, but I do believe the churches have the right to refuse to 
perform
> ceremonies and they do have the right to proclaim their beliefs as
> vigorously and rigorously as those in favor of same-sex marriage.


Lee, one of the problems with those who endorsed Prop 8 and are 
trying to eliminate same gender marriage is that they spread mis-
information.

The California Supreme Court decision EXPLICITLY (and I will post the 
quote if anyone wishes to me) stated that NO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION 
would be forced to perform gay marriages.

Churches DO have tax exempt status and are not (under the law) 
supposed to be orchestrating any kind of political campaign.

It was a little difficult to be in California where about half of 
millions of dollars came from sources outside of California, 
specifically the Mormon church.

Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov 16 15:18:07 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:18:07 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfok8q+gbi0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfpdjf+bi49@eGroups.com>

> DD
> (Who thinks it is beyond ridiculous that those who were married 
> before said proposition passed can remain so legally-in all states 
> where same sex marriage was lawful..but no new marriages can occur. 
> Ludicrous)
>


But in fact, we don't know that yet. There were 18,000 couples 
married in California before election day, and we don't know that our 
marriages will be valid. That's for the court to decide. The 
Governor, the Attorney General and 40 California State Senators have 
asked the court to ensure that our marriages remain valid, but who 
knows....

I say "ours", because my beloved partner and I were married on 
October 25th in the Women's Federation Grove on the Redwoods on the 
Eel River. Besides the officiator, only our two children were in 
attendance. It was a very moving and sacred ceremony.

Most of the protests about Proposition 8 were very peaceful. Here in 
Humboldt County, citizens voted 60% against (i.e. against eliminating 
our right to marry). 

We've had two protests...one was 300 people last week who came out in 
driving wind, pouring rain and 45 degree temperaturs....this week, 
Mother Nature smiled, and provided 60 degrees, and sunny, and we saw 
500 people (only a handful of overlaps)... For two little cities with 
a population of 45,000 total, that's extraordinary turnout. Of 
course, there were many, many straight allies there.

We have a tradition of tolerance and live and let live here...one of 
the conservative radio announcers (Old Glory Radio) has become a 
supporter, and he was struck by the smiles and embraces and happiness 
of the crowd....we are dedicated to respectful discourse in our 
campaigns here...when the yard signs were being destroyed, our 
Coalition called for EVERYONE to stop destroying yard signs, while 
the other side just condemned THEIR signs being torn down...

We ARE angry at the lies that were told...

Another one of the lies funded by Mormon Money was that gay marriage 
would be taught in Kindergarten. In fact, California law provides for 
local control of school content, determined by parents, teachers, and 
administrators, and an opt-out alternative for ANY parent who objects 
to ANY content. Some kids opt out of Halloween and/or Harry Potter 
celebrations, for example. Our opponents used photos of school 
children who attended a lesbian teacher's marriage (organized by the 
parents, and two children did not attend) as evidence of what would 
happen...and they used the photos on their web site WITHOUT THE 
PARENT'S PERMISSION. The parents were horrified and sent registered 
letters to the website, to no avail. There is now a bill pending in 
the Senate that would make use of children's photos without parental 
permission illegal. I wish to state that *I* am not repeating 
anecdotal information; I have data to back up every single statement 
in this post.

So, anyway, sooner or later, we will win our full civil rights. These 
reverses are the last vestiges of the 19th century politics we've 
endured in the U.S. Most striking were the age demographics, with the 
18 - 24 year olds voting to keep marriage rights 65 - 35, and those 
over 65 voting to get rid of them 56%...

My parents were married to each other, and loved one another for 45 
years..and I now believe are together after their death. That is what 
I have always wanted. My spouse and I have been together 15 years, 
and will be together until death do us part.

I am a very happy person, despite our political reverses. I have a 
wonderful, beautiful, incredible SPOUSE, and two happy, healthy, 
bright, polite and lovable children. 

Love to all, Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Nov 16 15:22:12 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:22:12 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfiki5+54uf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfpdr4+ls1t@eGroups.com>


> 
> Carol, who didn't like the stuff JKR said about Hedwig and doesn't
> want to know what didn't make it into the books if that's the sort of
> stuff she planned to write!
>

What did she say about Hedwig? I missed it...and Bravo! Snape's 
portrait DID make it into the Headmaster's office....

And, yes, there is nothing like an editor...MY writing needs one badly..

Susan




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 16 16:00:09 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:00:09 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfok8q+gbi0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfpg29+io32@eGroups.com>

Doddiemouse:

> My brother and I were raised outside of the U.S. because so many 
> states deemed my parents marriage "unlawful"...Why legislate 
> marriage at all?  Marriage began as a religious ceremony...let it 
> remain so..
> 
> When one thinks of all the money wasted to change a law the 
> goverment has no right to involve itsself in to begin with..it 
makes 
> me wonder where on earth were all the attorney's hiding before the 
> election.

Magpie:
I think that's backwards. Marriage began as a *civil* ceremony. Every 
religion is different, but at least that's the way it is in 
Christianity. The church got involved after people were already being 
married. 

Which makes total sense since what everybody was worried about was 
the property exchange. Not the idea that there was some holy bond 
going on. The sacredness that most people associate with marriage 
today certainly didn't apply since people didn't have to get married 
for love. Dad handing over his property (his daughter) to somebody 
else for their property (a wife). That legal set up then set in 
motion other legal set ups like inheritance etc.

-m




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 16 18:42:01 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 16 Nov 2008 18:42:01 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/16/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1226860921.10.69931.m35@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 16, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20081116/1a95e5cc/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 16 19:24:11 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:24:11 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfl267+atr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfps0r+hopo@eGroups.com>

Lee wrote:
> 
> > I mean the G is hard like Gill, Girl, Garlic.  The word is 
pronounced with this hard G in all the references to Gillywater in the
Jim Dale versions and, if I recall coorectly, in the Stephen Fry
versions, too.
> 
zanooda replied:
> 
> Well, it's not the flower then :-). Thanks!
>
Carol responds:

I think it *is* the flower and that Dale and Fry are simply
pronouncing "gillywater" wrong, no doubt thinking of "gillyweed." But
"gillyflower" (pronounced jillyflower") makes more sense to me than
gillyweed as the basis of a drink served by Madam Rosmerta that both
Luna and Professor Mcgonagall would enjoy--not to mention that
gillywater doesn't produce gills.

Carol, remembering that Romilda Vane also tried to give Harry some
love-potion-laced gillywater




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 16 19:38:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:38:37 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <16283D238EB642AB9402C94062F244E7@FRODO>
Message-ID: <gfpsrt+107n7@eGroups.com>

Lee bravely wrote:
> Okay, I will not be popular I'm sure after this post, but I have to
speak in defense of churches who do not condone same-sex marriages. 
My own personal convictions do not lean toward them.  I have no
problem with civil union, but I must adhere to the Biblical standard
when it comes to the bonds of marriage.  I don't believe the
government has a right to dictate in this regard, but I do believe the
churches have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies and they do
have the right to proclaim their beliefs as vigorously and rigorously
as those in favor of same-sex marriage. Intimidation tactics are wrong
on either side as they serve no purpose but to offend.  Respect needs
to be shown even if both sides must agree to disagree. <snip>

Carol responds:

Thanks for having the courage to express an unpopular view. I don't
know anything about Proposition 8 in California, but Proposition 101
(I may have the number wrong) in Arizona defined marriage as the union
of one man and one woman. It didn't deny homosexual couples the right
to tax benefits or to civil unions or anything else; it just defined
marraiage in traditional terms. (Polygamy, a concern in parts of
Northern Arizona, also falls outside that definititon of marriage.)
People who voted for that proposition weren't thinking in terms of
oppression. They were thinking in terms of what they consider to be
the sanctity of marriage. Whether they're right or wrong, or whether
there is no right or wrong on this question, they have a right to
express their convictions and vote accordingly.

Carol, who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of opinion
in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
disagree with as bigotry or oppression




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 16 19:54:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:54:46 -0000
Subject: Harry: A History
In-Reply-To: <gfpdr4+ls1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfptq6+fcrn@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> > Carol, who didn't like the stuff JKR said about Hedwig and doesn't
want to know what didn't make it into the books if that's the sort of
> stuff she planned to write!
> >
Susan responded: 
> What did she say about Hedwig? I missed it...and Bravo! Snape's
portrait DID make it into the Headmaster's office....
> 
> And, yes, there is nothing like an editor...MY writing needs one badly..

Carol responds:

Originally, JKR planned to have *Hedwig* catch the Snitch that Harry
catches in his mouth in SS/PS (some fair way to win a Quidditch game,
right? Your owl catches the Snitch?). I suppose that DH!Harry would
have put the Snitch in Hedwig's mouth after Scrimgeour left to see the
words "I open at the end" appear, but according to JKR, Hedwig would
probably have been killed off in any case. 

I just thought it was a stupid and unfair way to win a game, and I'm
glad that the project editor (not the same person as the copyeditor)
made JKR rethink that moment. It worked out much better to have Harry
catch it in his own mouth (not *exactly* fair, but certainly better
than having it caught by a pet who is obviously not a member of the
team, IMO.)

Carol, embarrassed to talk about copyediting after the post she just
sent off to HPfgu spelling "form" as "wort" among several dozen typos
and a mid-post sig line that should have been deleted!




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 16 21:17:01 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:17:01 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfpsrt+107n7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfq2kd+f416@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
> 
> Thanks for having the courage to express an unpopular view. I don't
> know anything about Proposition 8 in California, but Proposition 101
> (I may have the number wrong) in Arizona defined marriage as the 
union
> of one man and one woman. It didn't deny homosexual couples the 
right
> to tax benefits or to civil unions or anything else; it just defined
> marraiage in traditional terms. (Polygamy, a concern in parts of
> Northern Arizona, also falls outside that definititon of marriage.)
> People who voted for that proposition weren't thinking in terms of
> oppression. They were thinking in terms of what they consider to be
> the sanctity of marriage. Whether they're right or wrong, or whether
> there is no right or wrong on this question, they have a right to
> express their convictions and vote accordingly.
> 
> Carol, who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of 
opinion
> in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
> disagree with as bigotry or oppression
>


Alla:

Well, but see, when voting means that homosexual couples would be 
denied certain rights yes, I consider it oppression. I agree with 
Cabal - nobody would force churches to perform same sex marriages and 
if anybody would, they have a right to refuse to. Heck, my colleague 
is going to be married ( to a guy) and she wants to get married on 
Thursday instead of Saturday or Sunday and her church initially said 
that they do not marry people on Thursdays. WTF. And she really 
wanted to get married in her church, where she went all her life, 
where her parents went and still go, etc, etc.

However, when same sex couples are being denied the legal right to 
get married by the **state**, yes I call it oppression. That is my 
opinion and I have a right to express it too.

I mean, even in terms of concrete legal rights, as far as I 
understand, sadly couple who enters into civil union - **still** can 
be denied certain rights, even if in theory they should not be. I 
seem to remember reading on somebody's lj how employer would refuse 
to put another partner on for the medical benefits, since they only 
have civil union, and not marriage.

What I am trying to say that it seems to me that couples who are not 
officially **married** are still vulnerable to homophobes, who would 
use the fact that they only have civil union to refuse them rights of 
inheritance, adoption, making decisions for the partner who is in 
intensive care, etc.

Even from that view only I think that same sex couples should have a 
right to have their marriage as legal.

But say in the perfect world couples who enter into civil union will 
have same benefits as couples who are married. It is still IMO 
denying them equal rights. I am pretty sure that as Cabal said 99.99% 
same sex couples will be delighted to have a right to be married by 
the non religious officials. That is why I do not see the problem 
here.

Feel as strong as you want that religion precludes you from 
recognising same sex couple marriage as marriage ( not you, generic 
you), but the thing is on side of the scale are your feelings, no 
matter how strong they are and on the other side of the scale are 
people who are being denied certain right because of your feelings.

I know which side of the scale takes precedent for me. Especially 
since again nobody is forcing churches to do anything, as far as I 
understand. So, how about they will just stay out of gay and lesbian 
couples lifes and would not work against them getting married by non-
religious ceremony.

JMO,

Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 16 21:49:11 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:49:11 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfq2kd+f416@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfq4gn+10355@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> Well, but see, when voting means that homosexual couples would be 
> denied certain rights yes, I consider it oppression. I agree with 
> Cabal - nobody would force churches to perform same sex marriages and 
> if anybody would, they have a right to refuse to. Heck, my colleague 
> is going to be married ( to a guy) and she wants to get married on 
> Thursday instead of Saturday or Sunday and her church initially said 
> that they do not marry people on Thursdays. WTF. And she really 
> wanted to get married in her church, where she went all her life, 
> where her parents went and still go, etc, etc.

Magpie:
That's my impression too. (And there could be more differences created 
down the line if the one kind of union is different than the other.) We 
don't vote to legally decide on definitions of words, so there must be 
a legal component. I doubt most people are really aware of just how the 
different words can mean different things. Ironically, the actual 
defintion, meaning what the word means, seems to have easily expanded 
to include same-sex unions the same way most words change their 
meanings over time. I mean, it's not like anybody is confused by 
what "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage" means. Obviously it means 
the same thing as straight marriage only with two people of the same 
sex. Comprehension isn't the problem so much as wanting to make some 
other distinction for straight couples (usually, in my experience, a 
distinction of superiority). Which an individual or a church can 
certainly do no matter what the law says. It's not the law's business 
how people view same-sex couples, just whether legally they are the 
same.

-m




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 16 23:46:19 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:46:19 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfmoh2+ie3e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" 
<kempermentor at ...> wrote:
> So the actions of the group in Michigan seemed RIGHT, RIGHT, 
> RIGHT!!!!!  Or at least not WRONG^3.

Tonks:
(I too am not going to be popular here. I will put on my fire proof 
robes.)

A church is not a public place. The public is welcome, but the building 
belongs to the parish/church, not the public. Therefor it is WRONG to 
walk into a church and stage a demonstration during the service! If you 
want to demonstrate outside, fine, not inside. That is trespassing and 
I hope those people are arrested for this. It would be no different 
than if you had your views in your own home and someone who didn't like 
what you said or some item hanging from your fireplace, barged into 
your home and demostrated in your living room!  (I don't know if that 
church did what you said or not, I have never heard that they did, and 
it doesn't matter, it is their space to do what they want.)


Cabal said:

NO ONE EVER stated that churches should have to perform same-sex-
marriage's.

I am a Married Atheist, we were married by a mayor in a town meeting 
room.

99.9% of Homosexual's, would be more than happy to have that right.

Why is it, that so many religious people act like same-sex-marriage is 
going infringe their rights?

Why is it, they think it will affect them in any way?

It won't.

Tonks:
Are you saying that 99.9% of Homosexuals are Atheist? I don't think so. 
Many are members of a religion and would want to be married in that 
religion. I do not have a problem with a church wedding for 
homesexuals. I do have a problem with a civil marriage.

Why would you, if you are not religion and therefor not concerned with, 
as they say, 'living in sin', even feel that it was necessary to 
be 'married' by the state? (this might be a trick question)

As to if same sex civil unions were going to affect religious people, 
it will have a major impact on everyone because it will have a major 
impact on our culture and the way that our government functions.

The purpose of 'marriage' in the eyes of the government is to santify a 
union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and 
raising children (more citizens for the state). And the civil law that 
provides for this marriage is in place to protect those children and by 
extention the mother. It is not there to provide for health care and 
Social Security benifits for same sex couples, it is there to provide 
and protect the children of a hetrosexual union. 

Also same sex marriage has the effect of 'normalizing' a union that 
will cause children to become confused. This is what concerns me the 
most. Young child go though a phase, which most of you know, where they 
form thier idenity as male or female and their sexual orientation. When 
it becomes 'normal' in society to marry either the opposite or the same 
sex, I think that children will become confused and it is possible for 
this to result in more homosexuality than we currently have, which in 
turn means a lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. 

Also making same sex marriage legal as a civil union make for more 
potential abuse of the system that was orginally put in place to 
protect children. I am not gay, I am not married. I do not have heath 
care or a good retirement program. I could marry my best friend to get 
those things. The fact that we do not have sex with each other is no 
ones business. I would be using the system for other than what the 
system was set up for, and at a time when the system is already 
strained beyond its limits.

I don't think that we need to label homosexuals as bad, or sick or 
immoral or as having a 'choice' of behaviors. People should be accepted 
as they are in society, in the workplace, in the churches. But this 
doesn't mean that the definition of 'marriage' in the eyes of the state 
has to be changed. This is more than just the 'right' of one group of 
people. It has far rangeing consquences that many people who only see 
a 'rights' issue are not considering.

Carol said:
Carol, who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of opinion
in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
disagree with as bigotry or oppression

Tonks:
I agree. I feel that I can not express how I really feel about this 
issue because it is not PC to do so.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 00:12:24 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:12:24 -0000
Subject: "The Boy in Striped Pajamas/Pyjamas"
Message-ID: <gfqct8+rome@eGroups.com>

Just wondering whether anyone has seen the new film "The Boy in
Stirped Pajamas" ("Pyjamas" in the UK) and, if so, what you think. One
of the stars is David Thewlis (Lupin) as a Nazi commandant and the
father of the main character (not the title character).

I brought up the topic on the Movie list, but only Potioncat seemed
interested.

Here's a link to a streaming video trailer if you're not familiar with
the film or the (children's) book it's based on:

http://www.thefilmfactory.co.uk/boy/

Carol, who thinks that it looks beautiful but tragic




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 17 00:12:44 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:12:44 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfqcts+ukr3@eGroups.com>


> Tonks:
> Are you saying that 99.9% of Homosexuals are Atheist? I don't think 
so. 
> Many are members of a religion and would want to be married in that 
> religion. I do not have a problem with a church wedding for 
> homesexuals. I do have a problem with a civil marriage.
> 
> Why would you, if you are not religion and therefor not concerned 
with, 
> as they say, 'living in sin', even feel that it was necessary to 
> be 'married' by the state? (this might be a trick question)

Magpie:
Are you asking that seriously? I assume you don't think that the 
reason a non-religious person wants to get married is that they 
fear "living in sin"?

Tonks:
> 
> As to if same sex civil unions were going to affect religious 
people, 
> it will have a major impact on everyone because it will have a 
major 
> impact on our culture and the way that our government functions.
> 
> The purpose of 'marriage' in the eyes of the government is to 
santify a 
> union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and 
> raising children (more citizens for the state). And the civil law 
that 
> provides for this marriage is in place to protect those children 
and by 
> extention the mother. It is not there to provide for health care 
and 
> Social Security benifits for same sex couples, it is there to 
provide 
> and protect the children of a hetrosexual union.

Magpie:
It does provide these things for the heterosexual couple so I don't 
see why you think you can see that its purpose is something else. You 
don't have to have children, be able to biologically have children or 
even plan to have children to get married, and anyway gay couples 
often have children. 

Tonks:> 
> Also same sex marriage has the effect of 'normalizing' a union that 
> will cause children to become confused. This is what concerns me 
the 
> most. Young child go though a phase, which most of you know, where 
they 
> form thier idenity as male or female and their sexual orientation. 
When 
> it becomes 'normal' in society to marry either the opposite or the 
same 
> sex, I think that children will become confused and it is possible 
for 
> this to result in more homosexuality than we currently have, which 
in 
> turn means a lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. 

Magpie:
Why do you think there being accepted gay couples in the world (as 
there already are) would cause a child to become 'confused?' Children 
figure out they are gay despite having straight parents (sometimes 
even with lots of people telling them they are straight or better be 
so), and children of gay parents are not any more likely to be gay 
than the children of straight parents. The idea that gay marriage is 
a danger because it will cause a rash of faux gay people (who are not 
really gay but just think they are) and therefore birth rates will 
drop is a huge stretch imo, especially in a society that is still 
predominantly heterosexual and reflects that in its media. I see no 
evidence for this idea whatsoever, and that's even leaving aside the 
fact that gay couples quite often want to raise families just as 
straight couples do, so gay does not equal childless.

Tonks:
> 
> Also making same sex marriage legal as a civil union make for more 
> potential abuse of the system that was orginally put in place to 
> protect children. I am not gay, I am not married. I do not have 
heath 
> care or a good retirement program. I could marry my best friend to 
get 
> those things. The fact that we do not have sex with each other is 
no 
> ones business. I would be using the system for other than what the 
> system was set up for, and at a time when the system is already 
> strained beyond its limits.

Magpie:
You can do the same thing now, obviously. There are heterosexual 
marriages of convenience, or friendship, for money, for show, for 
cover. Even celibate marriages. You can have a best friend who's not 
the same sex as you are. This particular abuse of the system is not 
created by allowing same-sex marriage.

Tonks: 
> I don't think that we need to label homosexuals as bad, or sick or 
> immoral or as having a 'choice' of behaviors. People should be 
accepted 
> as they are in society, in the workplace, in the churches. But this 
> doesn't mean that the definition of 'marriage' in the eyes of the 
state 
> has to be changed. This is more than just the 'right' of one group 
of 
> people. It has far rangeing consquences that many people who only 
see 
> a 'rights' issue are not considering.

Magpie:
Yes, it does have far reaching consequences. I think the rights 
they're considering are just more real than the speculation here. Gay 
families are dealing already with having fewer protections than 
straight families. The problems you're suggesting here seem to be 
more what one person might imagine could happen than a real 
consequence of gay marriage since there have been many children 
already raised by gay couples or who know gay couples and don't show 
any of the behaviors you're talking about here. 

-m




From d2dmiles at yahoo.de  Mon Nov 17 00:16:34 2008
From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:16:34 +0100
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
References: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <796774D6100147AA97AB59D35CA25E48@miles>

Tonks wrote:
> Also same sex marriage has the effect of 'normalizing' a union that
> will cause children to become confused. This is what concerns me the
> most. Young child go though a phase, which most of you know, where
> they form thier idenity as male or female and their sexual
> orientation. When it becomes 'normal' in society to marry either the
> opposite or the same sex, I think that children will become confused
> and it is possible for this to result in more homosexuality than we
> currently have, which in turn means a lower birth rate and less
> citizens for the state.

Miles (surfacing from lurkdom)
I'm a bit surprised by this argument presented by you. Because, well, this 
argument contradicts what science tells us about homosexuality.

Obviously there are many theories about how homosexuality is developed. Some 
are genetic, some concern pre-birth influences or early childhood 
experiences. But there are no reliable scientific sources that support your 
idea - whether a person is homo-, hetero, or bisexual is decided much 
earlier in life or even beforehand.

In one way you are right, but I hope you don't mean to be so: An intolerant 
society supresses homosexuality and pushes homosexual persons in 
heterosexual relationships and marriages. They marry someone because 
"everyone does it" or because they don't want anyone to think that they are 
what they are.
What we *do* know is that those persons have multiple problems in their 
later lifes with their real sexuality hidden. I doubt that this should be 
approved only because it helps the birth rate...

Another point is, that a society which presents being gay or lesbian as "not 
normal" is a society which has much more teenager suicides among homosexual 
kids than among those who are "normal". Just have a look at the statistics 
and you will find this effect both in the US and in Europe.

Finally, take the children who are brought up by homosexual couples - there 
are many thousands of them, and they were and are the object of scientific 
research. Nothing indicates that there are more homosexuals among those 
children than among their peers in "normal" households. There are less 
teenagers who have a major problem with their own sexuality if it turns out 
not to be hetero - but that's a good thing, isn't it?

Miles 





From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Nov 17 01:23:51 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:23:51 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <002d01c9477a$771a14f0$654e3ed0$@com>
Message-ID: <gfqh37+pdsj@eGroups.com>




Md stated:

That's the best point of all, Churches are to stay out of government and
government out of churches.

NO ONE EVER stated that churches should have to perform
same-sex-marriage's.

I am a Married Atheist, we were married by a mayor in a town meeting room.

99.9% of Homosexual's, would be more than happy to have that right.

Why is it, that so many religious people act like same-sex-marriage is
going
infringe their rights?

Why is it, they think it will affect them in any way?


Snow:

You may now be infringing on sacred ground
ground that was procured by
and endowed with; In God We Trust. This land was founded on One Nation
under God. 

You speak of your freedoms and entitlements that were secured by this
very establishment (founded in God We Trust) that has long endured.

This Nation has given you too much opportunity, through amendments, to
denounce Him for your favor. Dare you declare war upon the very
sovereignty that gave you that right to do so! 

Separation between Church and State was sought after to protect the
Church from the State, but like most amendments to our Constitution;
it backfired to the States' protection from the Church. 

We founded it! We protect it! And you abuse it!

Snow





From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 17 01:25:26 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:25:26 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com>
References: <gfmoh2+ie3e@eGroups.com> <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002901c94853$5f43bcd0$1dcb3670$@com>

First of all, you ignored my entire post, thanks for responding without
reading.

My point was not to say Homosexual's where atheist, but to state that many
of us, regardless of religion, do not get married by or in a church.

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO MARRY IS NOT A LEGAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED IN A CHURCH I
STATED THIS CLEARLY PLS READ NEXT TIME. Thank you.

I also state why one would get married other than religion:

BECAUSE BEING MARRIED MAKES YOU A FAMILY MEMBER TO YOUR SPOUSE.

As I stated prior:" As for the state being involved, well that's about legal
rights. After all, family has rights to access when a member is sick, to
monies when a member is incapacitated, to inheritance when someone dies. You
need marriage to become a legal family member, to be recognized as a spouse
for health insurance, to file joint tax returns, to take a mortgage out, to
adopt a child (where legal) to be allowed in a trauma room or ICU in an
emergency, to have custody of children birthed or fathered by the other
partner. 

It's about the legal rights of family."

Tonks:
Also same sex marriage has the effect of 'normalizing' a union that will
cause children to become confused. This is what concerns me the most. Young
child go though a phase, which most of you know, where they form thier
idenity as male or female and their sexual orientation. When it becomes
'normal' in society to marry either the opposite or the same sex, I think
that children will become confused and it is possible for this to result in
more homosexuality than we currently have, which in turn means a lower birth
rate and less citizens for the state.


Marc:
That is a load, sorry, of s**t.

Children of homosexuals have been interviewed, inspected, studied and put
under a microscope. 

THEY DO JUST AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER CHILD AND ARE NEVER CONFUSED.

You live in a world of hearsay and rumor, misinformation and lies -- sorry,
but that's what you have shown here.

How dare you say any person is less than you. How dare you.

It is a scientific fact that homosexuals are born that way, they cannot be
created, they are not made, they do not learn it and they never "choose" it.

Please take your rampant homophobia somewhere else.

I've heard enough hate from you, I'll not respond to your hate and
intolerance anymore.

md


-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tonks
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:46 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8

Tonks:
Are you saying that 99.9% of Homosexuals are Atheist? I don't think so. 
Many are members of a religion and would want to be married in that 
religion. I do not have a problem with a church wedding for 
homesexuals. I do have a problem with a civil marriage.

Why would you, if you are not religion and therefor not concerned with, 
as they say, 'living in sin', even feel that it was necessary to 
be 'married' by the state? (this might be a trick question)





From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 17 01:28:47 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:28:47 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqcts+ukr3@eGroups.com>
References: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com> <gfqcts+ukr3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c94853$d6d3f3f0$847bdbd0$@com>

If "Brittany Spears" can get married...

The right belongs to anyone.

I see so many heterosexual's making a mockery of marriage. Raising their
kids by abuse and neglect, ignorance and intolerance.

Kids that are ignored, abused and treated like crap by their married,
heterosexual parents.

We need to protect children from this crap, not loving, caring, homosexuals
who had to work and fight to have children, rather than ended up children
because they where careless with birth control.

md




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 17 02:33:29 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:33:29 -0000
Subject: replies to Carol
Message-ID: <gfql5p+lgeh@eGroups.com>

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38030>:

<< Is it not evil to plant a suicide bomb on a retarded woman, killing
her and many innocent people around her? Is it not evil deliberately
to fly planes into buildings, using murder in a (failed) attempt to
create panic and terror? >>

In general, yes. 

I used some examples of about the same level of evil in my reply to
Tonks_op because I was trying (unsuccessfully, I think) to show that
if humiliating the opponent in a political campaign is evil, it's much
less evil than some things, and just because a person would humiliate
an opponent in order to win doesn't mean they would assassinate that
opponent in order to win. Meaning, that just because a person doesn't
draw the line of what they won't do at the same place she draws it
doesn't mean they have no line at all.

I don't even know whether humiliating the opponent in a political
campaign IS evil. Maybe it's evil in a low level campaign where the
candidates are amateurs and can be terribly hurt, but not in a
campaign for a high level position (such as President of the United
States) where the candidates are professionals, and used these
negative techniques themselves in previous campaigns, because
'politics ain't beanbag', and are tough enough to take it, or they
wouldn't have lasted long enough to become professional.

Maybe Tonks_op and Susan should explain what they mean by humiliating
an opponent.

<< I don't think that evil is a construct, nor is it the absence of
good. It's real and powerful and it must, somehow, be curtailed though
it can never be destroyed. >>

That's why I was quite uncomfortable with Senator McCain's response to
the question at Saddleback Church; it sounded to me like he said we
should get together and *destroy* evil, and to me 'destroying' evil
is, y,know, maybe God can do it, but humans can't.

<< That's why we have laws, >>

In general, yes.

Some of the laws are simply to keep order when people live crowded
together and/or drive at high speeds, like which side of the road to
drive on. Driving on the other side is not inherently evil (or US and
Britain would try to destroy each other) but everyone driving on the
same side reduces head-on collisions.

And, of course, some laws sometimes enforce evil rather than
forbidding it.

<< and why we sometimes fight wars (World War II). >>

That's why I specified 'in general' about flying planes into buildings
to mass murder people being evil.

And if it is a recognized war between countries or big fractions of
one country, not some kind of sneak attack, then everyone but
pacifists thinks it's not evil for one side to drop bombs from
airplanes on the enemy's cities and railroads and telephone exchanges,
no matter how many civilians are killed as 'collateral damage', If the
planes drop bombs on enemy warships at sea, there aren't even many
civilians killed. So why do Americans thinkn it is so shockingly worse
that WWII Japan reached the point of using piloted planes AS bombs
instead of dropping bombs? 

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38062>:

<< who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of opinion
in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
disagree with as bigotry or oppression >>

Oh, does that apply to someone expressing the political opinion that
Hitler was right and all Jews should be killed? I belong to the ACLU
and believe that people have a right to say that opinion, even tho' it
is both evil and bigoted. But I dislike right-wing etiquette accusing
me of 'political correctness' for saying so.





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 17 02:35:40 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:35:40 -0000
Subject: reply to susan
Message-ID: <gfql9s+kas0@eGroups.com>

Susan wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38057>:

<< Another one of the lies funded by Mormon Money was that gay
marriage would be taught in Kindergarten.  >>

I have little respect for people who think it is harmful for their
children to hear someone say: "In Massachusetts a man can marry a
man'. I also can't imagine how parents expect schools to prevent their
children from ever hearing someone say that, even a fellow student
saying 'My mommy says that ...". And what are the poor teachers
supposed to say if a student asks 'Is it true that a woman can marry a
woman in Connecticut?' 'I can't answer that question because it isn't
in the curriculum'?





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 17 02:37:18 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:37:18 -0000
Subject: reply to Tonks_op
Message-ID: <gfqlcu+pqdl@eGroups.com>

TOnks_op wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38048>:

<< There are no protest in Africa because they are mostly Anglican who
almost got my church thrown out of the Anglican communion for
electing a gay Bishop. >>

Aren't there more Muslims than Anglicans in Africa? Even if only
counting sub-Saharan Africa?

Tonks_op wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38066>;

<< more homosexuality than we currently have, which in turn means a
lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. >>

Really? I believe I know more lesbians who have children than
heterosexual married women who have children. (Of course, that may be
because having children quickly turns them into heterosexual divorced
women.)






From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 17 02:52:05 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:52:05 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqh37+pdsj@eGroups.com>
References: <002d01c9477a$771a14f0$654e3ed0$@com> <gfqh37+pdsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001e01c9485f$7a233330$6e699990$@com>

Wow, that's not true.

The founding Father's saw one of England's largest flaws to be the church
and state in bed together.

Jefferson, as you may recall was rather instrumental in the constitution,
believed in separation of church and state from day one.

This is NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. 

Or are you saying those of us who don't believe in YOUR GOD have no home on
Earth and do you denounce us all to death like the radical Islamic?

Or do you think that you are the absolute right, so perfect and flawless in
your creation that only you know the truth and the rest of us are all
ignorant and should wonder at your blessed perfection? Should we all bow
down to you Christians and denounce our evil, heretic ways? 

"Protect the church" you listen to too much Limbaugh.

This nation is not a Theocracy, it is not founded under the church or under
Christianity. It may have been founded by Christians who understood that not
everyone felt the same way about god and gave them "freedom of religion." 

If I do not have the right not to believe in god in the U.S. then where do
I? Again, do you seek to infringe my rights as well? Do you seek to have me
and people like me driven from what you perceive to be a Christian state or
would you simply prefer the mass genocide of atheist?

Which is it?

I can't believe you are part of a HP forum, because your kind of hate and
intolerance is exactly what JK Rowling shows in the death eaters.

md




-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of snow15145
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 8:24 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8


Snow:

You may now be infringing on sacred ground.ground that was procured by
and endowed with; In God We Trust. This land was founded on One Nation
under God. 

You speak of your freedoms and entitlements that were secured by this
very establishment (founded in God We Trust) that has long endured.

This Nation has given you too much opportunity, through amendments, to
denounce Him for your favor. Dare you declare war upon the very
sovereignty that gave you that right to do so! 

Separation between Church and State was sought after to protect the
Church from the State, but like most amendments to our Constitution;
it backfired to the States' protection from the Church. 

We founded it! We protect it! And you abuse it!

Snow



------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 03:08:20 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:08:20 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <001e01c9485f$7a233330$6e699990$@com>
Message-ID: <gfqn74+a6rj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> Wow, that's not true.
> 
> The founding Father's saw one of England's largest flaws to be the 
church
> and state in bed together.
> 
> Jefferson, as you may recall was rather instrumental in the 
constitution,
> believed in separation of church and state from day one.
> 
><SNIP>

Alla:

I remember in the preelection days having a conversation with a 
colleague who before he became a lawyer was a history teacher in 
school for I believe fifteen years.

So, this guy who is such a wonderful, helpful, knowledgeable man was 
tearing his hair apart saying I cannot believe that candidate for 
such high office can claim that pledge was there in the founding 
fathers' time and get away with it.

No, it was not. It really really was not. And he was telling me that 
suprisingly founding fathers besides believing in separation of 
church and state also (some of them believed) in a very hands - off 
God (I think he used the words ticking clock God, or something like 
that).

He was also telling me if one thinks about it, how progressive their 
beliefs were for the eighteenth century and how much we should value 
what our country was really founded on.

I am a first generation immigrant and american citizen now. I know I 
definitely value it.

Alla.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 17 03:56:25 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:56:25 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqn74+a6rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfqq19+d1li@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> I remember in the preelection days having a conversation with a 
> colleague who before he became a lawyer was a history teacher in 
> school for I believe fifteen years.
> 
> So, this guy who is such a wonderful, helpful, knowledgeable man 
was 
> tearing his hair apart saying I cannot believe that candidate for 
> such high office can claim that pledge was there in the founding 
> fathers' time and get away with it.
> 
> No, it was not. It really really was not. And he was telling me 
that 
> suprisingly founding fathers besides believing in separation of 
> church and state also (some of them believed) in a very hands - off 
> God (I think he used the words ticking clock God, or something like 
> that).

Magpie:
I think it's the "watchmaker" God--meaning that he made the world and 
then went off and left it to run by itself. He's not involved. I 
think Deists, which some of the founders were, would probably not be 
considered Christian at all by most standards.

And not only was the Pledge not there back then, but "under God" 
wasn't even in the original pledge. It was added in the 50s because 
people felt that distinguished them from Communists.

-m




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 04:12:54 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:12:54 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Let's play nice, please
Message-ID: <gfqr06+jf8a@eGroups.com>

Greetings from Hexquarters!

We at Elf Central have noticed that the recent discussion here has 
gotten a trifle
erm
heated. We would like to remind listmembers that 
HPfGU-OTC is intended as a *friendly* place where our members may 
discuss any topics not directly related to HP canon.

We would like to remind all members to discuss the topic, not other
members. Disagreement with the other's points should be based on
one's opinions, not based on one's interpretations of the other 
member.

Disagreements should also be courteously phrased. It is possible to 
express one's views without resorting to foul language or CAPSLOCK 
statements (shouting). Opinion language should be used when 
expressing an opinion. We elves have noticed that things seem to heat 
up rapidly on the list when members state strongly-held opinions as 
if they were fact. This can understandably cause consternation in 
others and is why our posting rules require the use of opinion 
language: '...when expressing an opinion (as opposed to citing canon) 
or other beliefs (e.g., religious) be sure to make this clear ("I 
believe..." or "In my opinion...").'

For further information about these and our other posting rules,
check out our posting guidelines at

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/PostingRules25Mar07.html

Thanks!

The list elves





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 04:59:55 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:59:55 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfps0r+hopo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfqtob+son6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
 
> I think it *is* the flower and that Dale and Fry are simply
> pronouncing "gillywater" wrong, no doubt thinking of "gillyweed".


zanooda:

But weren't PoA audiobooks recorded *before* GoF (the book) was out?
It's only in GoF that gillyweed was introduced. If they were recorded
*after* GoF, then of course it's possible that Dale and Fry were
influenced by "gillyweed" :-).





From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 17 05:17:40 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:17:40 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqq19+d1li@eGroups.com>
References: <gfqn74+a6rj@eGroups.com> <gfqq19+d1li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c94873$d054b120$70fe1360$@com>

I'm sorry if I get very heated about these things, because, as you point
out, it's a great misconception that the U.S. was set to be a Christian
state, in fact, Washington had a habit of attending every different church
he came upon to experience the differences -- certainly not an act of a man
set on a single religion state. 

Also, I don't appreciate when people speak as if my opinions towards god
make me a second-class-citizen who should not be allowed to criticize his
country. Never mind that I registered to vote when I was still 17 because
the election was only 4 weeks after my birthday and I wanted to be sure I
was registered, or that I started subscribing to all sorts of periodicals
because I felt I should know everything I could before making a choice. Or
that I hold three college degrees -- so I am obviously uneducated and
unqualified to make a decision. I care so much about my country and its
direction that I make sure that I never miss a vote and never accept
anything the candidates say as fact until I check them. I am cynical,
logical, I question anything I want my decision to be as well informed as
possible. 

When someone acts like I abuse the rights I have having an opinion that
doesn't jive with some Christian belief, I tend to want to throw fire at
people.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sistermagpie
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:56 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8

Magpie:
I think it's the "watchmaker" God--meaning that he made the world and 
then went off and left it to run by itself. He's not involved. I 
think Deists, which some of the founders were, would probably not be 
considered Christian at all by most standards.

And not only was the Pledge not there back then, but "under God" 
wasn't even in the original pledge. It was added in the 50s because 
people felt that distinguished them from Communists.

-m






From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 09:16:05 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:16:05 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <00c101c947f9$d79f9b40$86ded1c0$@com>
Message-ID: <gfrcol+nv2n@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> I don't see the "Monarchy" thing.
> 
Doddie here:

The "MOnarchy" thing is in regards to back in the day....mid and 
higer nobles, and even the rising merchant classes had to have the 
approval of their sovereign for marriage...

It just stinks that so many years later..here we Americans 
are...looking towards government to approve marriages...yet again

I'm married...but think it stinks that I had to apply for a license 
to marry...I just don't think the goverment should have that right 
period...

sheesh licence me to drive if you will...but if the government 
refuses to license parents....then who the heehoo are they to 
license marriages...

I just don't think Government belongs in the institution of 
marriage.  I think marriage is more a spiritual and emotional matter 
than a legal one...and that all legal aspects of marriage can be 
remedied by a power of attorney..
(wills/trusts/custody/guardianships/etc.)  In all honesty; it is way 
easier to change a power of attorney than getting a divorce...it is 
way easier to adjust one's affairs after marriage(whether recognized 
by state or not)..just look at the history of common law marriages 
in each of our 50 states..

If the U.S. Government suddenly stopped recognizing marriages due 
the constitution's mention of separation of church and state..then 
the entire prop. 8 ballot is null and void because gay marriage 
could take place in any church of their choice...  If married in a 
church/religious ceremony, gay/lesbian/black/white..etc..etc...etc.. 
then the marriages are valid and it's not for the state/government 
to say otherwise..because who is the government to interfere in 
matter of the church?...nor can churches refuse to marry based on 
ANY law that is passed.

Am I the only person thinking this?!?!?  Sheesh, I'm not even an 
attorney, and I realize that this proposition is illegal on a 
constitutional basis...Separation of church and state...right to 
privacy..etc...(ALL Americans would pay fewer taxes if we had a flat 
tax(whether single/married/divorced/divorced with kids/divorced and 
remarried etc..etc..)... the government would also garner larger tax 
revenues with a flat tax...) I only bring up taxes because so many  
believe the economy depends on taxpayers, especially married ones...
(long story there).




From Schlobin at aol.com  Mon Nov 17 12:30:43 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:30:43 -0000
Subject: churches required to perform same sex marriage?
Message-ID: <gfro5j+7uve@eGroups.com>

Here is the exact quote from the California Supreme Court decision on 
same gender marriage.

"no religion will be required to change its religious policies or 
practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant 
will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her 
religious beliefs."


Susan McGee
who appreciates everyone listening to, considering and reflecting on 
her viewpoints despite the fact that you don't consider her marriage 
sacred under God's law.




From Schlobin at aol.com  Mon Nov 17 12:37:48 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:37:48 -0000
Subject: separation of church and state Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqn74+a6rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfrois+bahl@eGroups.com>

Some of the founding "fathers" were very radical about the separation 
of church and state. John Adams was a Unitarian. The other founding 
fathers attended church sometimes but many think they would be better 
characterized by their Deist views.

The phrase "under God" was actually inserted into the Pledge of 
Allegiance during the McCarthy period in the early 50s...

Susan




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 12:50:55 2008
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:50:55 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfrcol+nv2n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfrpbf+5v8g@eGroups.com>


> Doddie here:
<snip>
 
> I just don't think Government belongs in the institution of 
> marriage.  I think marriage is more a spiritual and emotional 
matter 
> than a legal one...and that all legal aspects of marriage can be 
> remedied by a power of attorney..
> (wills/trusts/custody/guardianships/etc.)<snip>


Annemehr:
That's impossible.

Government is inolved in marriage because they need a way to 
recognize a family unit.  This is necessary for all sorts of things --
 rights of inheritance and survivorship, child custody issues, etc.  
Also, government sanction of marriages has wider implications, such 
as recognition of next-of-kin in hospitals, spousal insurance 
coverage, etc.

Power of attorney doesn't come close to supplying these needs.

Also, bear in mind that marriage is far older than any of the 
religions people belong to these days.  It is not only spiritual and 
emotional, it is societal as well, and there's no getting around that.

Annemehr






From Schlobin at aol.com  Mon Nov 17 12:54:02 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:54:02 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfrpha+tod7@eGroups.com>


Tonks said: 
> The purpose of 'marriage' in the eyes of the government is to 
santify a 
> union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing and 
> raising children (more citizens for the state). And the civil law 
that 
> provides for this marriage is in place to protect those children 
and by 
> extention the mother. It is not there to provide for health care 
and 
> Social Security benifits for same sex couples, it is there to 
provide 
> and protect the children of a hetrosexual union. 


Okay, so you're saying here that people who can't have children, or 
won't have children should not be allowed to get married? Please 
clarify.





> 
or 
> this to result in more homosexuality than we currently have, which 
in 
> turn means a lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. 

Are you truly worried about a lower birth rate? With the rate of 
population growth in the world?

As a parent who has adopted children, I think there are plenty of 
children in the world who are hungry, abandoned and lost. I support 
people's decision to bear children, but I also support people's 
decision to adopt.




> Carol said:
> Carol, who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of 
opinion
> in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
> disagree with as bigotry or oppression
> 
> Tonks:
> I agree. I feel that I can not express how I really feel about this 
> issue because it is not PC to do so.
>


So, Tonks, it seems to me that you are expressing how you really 
feel.....? 

The term "political correctness" was spawned by the right wing in 
order to silence those who asked that people be courteous and polite 
in their characterization of others...i.e. not to use the N word 
about African Americans, etc.

Your views, in fact, are shared, still by the majority of Americans, 
although that's changing.

In California, the vote for gay marriage was 65 to 35 among people 
age 18 - 24, and 65 to 35 against amongst people 65 years of age and 
older.

So, here is MY unpopular viewpoint. 

We lost in California because people still believe that being lesbian 
or gay is a choice, immoral and against God's law. There are deep 
wells of prejudice and homophobia in the world. This statement is 
different from saying that anyone on this listserve is a bigot or a 
homophobe.

Would anyone really deny that there are people who still think that 
lesbians and gays are a danger to children? Would anyone here deny 
that there is widespread prejudice, fear, and yes hatred towards 
lesbians and gays? If you disagree, please google "Matthew Shepherd", 
or google "hate crimes against gays in the United States"...or please 
take a look at the pflag.org website, or any website that lists the 
1100 benefits that lesbians and gays in committed relationships are 
denied by the federal government.

Are folks familiar with the Mildred Loving versus Virginia story? She 
was an African American woman who married a European American man, 
and the police came into their home in 1953? 1959? (sorry still doing 
this from memory) and arrested them. Interracial marriage was against 
the law. The judge said that interractial marriage was immoral, and 
sentenced them to a year in prison. They were able to avoid prison by 
moving out of Virginia. It was not until 1967 that this case was 
overturned and interracial marriage was declared legal. 1967.

Before she died, Mildred Loving came out in favor of marriage for ALL 
people, explicitly including same gender couples.

Susan McGee, Eureka, CA




From specialcritters at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 17 14:14:15 2008
From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:14:15 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re:  Prop 8/Mildred Loving
In-Reply-To: <gfrpha+tod7@eGroups.com>
References: <gfqbcb+m167@eGroups.com> <gfrpha+tod7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY138-W31B6854E82AC972C32866DB2130@phx.gbl>


The story of the Lovings: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/062007/06102007/289608/index_htmlShe died earlier this year: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/052008/05052008/376825
 



To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.comFrom: Schlobin at aol.comDate: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:54:02 +0000Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8



Are folks familiar with the Mildred Loving versus Virginia story? She was an African American woman who married a European American man, and the police came into their home in 1953? 1959? (sorry still doing this from memory) and arrested them. Interracial marriage was against the law. The judge said that interractial marriage was immoral, and sentenced them to a year in prison. They were able to avoid prison by moving out of Virginia. It was not until 1967 that this case was overturned and interracial marriage was declared legal. 1967.Before she died, Mildred Loving came out in favor of marriage for ALL people, explicitly including same gender couples.Susan McGee, Eureka, CA 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From swartell at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 16:46:06 2008
From: swartell at yahoo.com (Sue Wartell)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:46:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Gillywater
References: <gfqtob+son6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <41750.31930.qm@web53209.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


________________________________
 --- In HPFGU-OTChatter@ yahoogroups. com, "Carol" <justcarol67@ ...> wrote:


> I think it *is* the flower and that Dale and Fry are simply
> pronouncing "gillywater" wrong, no doubt thinking of "gillyweed".

zanooda:

But weren't PoA audiobooks recorded *before* GoF (the book) was out?
It's only in GoF that gillyweed was introduced. If they were recorded
*after* GoF, then of course it's possible that Dale and Fry were
influenced by "gillyweed" :-).

Now Sue:
And I've always pronounced it like gillyweed, even though the picture in my mind (re: the source of the name) was of the flower.  That's what comes of  reading words that you've never heard pronounced.  And it's still the picture I carry around in my internal version of the stories - not to say anyone else's  version is wrong - simply that in _my_ HP world, it's a drink flavored with gillyflowers, or something resembling the scent of gillyflowers. :-)
 Sue (from a slightly snowy Columbus)    


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 18:18:35 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:18:35 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <002a01c94853$d6d3f3f0$847bdbd0$@com>
Message-ID: <gfschr+dvut@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> If "Brittany Spears" can get married...
> 
> The right belongs to anyone.
> 

Tonks:
lol.  You can rest you case now. The judge finds in your favor.

Tonks_op
a bit tired of playing the devils advocate.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 17 20:31:46 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:31:46 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <41750.31930.qm@web53209.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gfskbi+ohjh@eGroups.com>

 
> Now Sue:
> And I've always pronounced it like gillyweed, even though the picture 
in my mind (re: the source of the name) was of the flower.  That's what 
comes of  reading words that you've never heard pronounced.  And it's 
still the picture I carry around in my internal version of the stories -
 not to say anyone else's  version is wrong - simply that in _my_ HP 
world, it's a drink flavored with gillyflowers, or something resembling 
the scent of gillyflowers. :-)
>  Sue (from a slightly snowy Columbus)    


Potioncat:
Me too.

Didn't you say, Zanooda, that this was for a translation? I wouldn't 
worry too much about how Engish-speakers pronouce it. Can you come up 
with a flowery sounding drink that might also reflect gillyweed?

What will gillyweed be called?




From Schlobin at aol.com  Mon Nov 17 21:41:25 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:41:25 -0000
Subject: reply to Tonks_op
In-Reply-To: <gfqlcu+pqdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfsoe5+km9o@eGroups.com>

> Tonks_op wrote in 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38066>;
> 
> << more homosexuality than we currently have, which in turn means a
> lower birth rate and less citizens for the state. >>
> 

Cat lady replied

> Really? I believe I know more lesbians who have children than
> heterosexual married women who have children. (Of course, that may 
be
> because having children quickly turns them into heterosexual 
divorced
> women.)
>

Yes, it's pretty easy for lesbians to have kids, using artificial 
insemination...where I used to live, the organization Lesbian Mothers 
had about 250 families. We got together for wild revolutionary events 
like pot luck dinners, fourth of july celebrations, ballgames, lake 
swimming, trick or treating, picnics, arts and crafts for the kids, g 
rated movie nights, christmas caroling etc.

Susam




From Schlobin at aol.com  Mon Nov 17 21:44:14 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:44:14 -0000
Subject: reply to susan
In-Reply-To: <gfql9s+kas0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfsoje+o30m@eGroups.com>

And what happens to the poor teacher when a precocious 10 year old 
(guess whose) raises his hand during a discussion of marriage and 
says "Is it okay to have two mothers who are lesbians?"

The poor teacher of course said "yes, families are about love."

And the next day a 10 year old girl said "My daddy says it's 
inappropriate to talk about gay issues in the classroom."

Luckily, that was the end of it.......

Susan




From md at exit-reality.com  Mon Nov 17 22:11:29 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:11:29 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: reply to susan
In-Reply-To: <gfsoje+o30m@eGroups.com>
References: <gfql9s+kas0@eGroups.com> <gfsoje+o30m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004601c94901$718ada50$54a08ef0$@com>

And what happens when a 10 year old interjects social reality into the
classroom?

The teacher deals with it honestly by pointing out that people are different
but equal.

md
teacher

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of susanmcgee48176
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 4:44 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: reply to susan

And what happens to the poor teacher when a precocious 10 year old 
(guess whose) raises his hand during a discussion of marriage and 
says "Is it okay to have two mothers who are lesbians?"

The poor teacher of course said "yes, families are about love."

And the next day a 10 year old girl said "My daddy says it's 
inappropriate to talk about gay issues in the classroom."

Luckily, that was the end of it.......

Susan


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 23:31:56 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:31:56 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <002901c94853$5f43bcd0$1dcb3670$@com>
Message-ID: <gfsutc+edo1@eGroups.com>

Cabal wrote:
> It is a scientific fact that homosexuals are born that way, they
cannot be created, they are not made, they do not learn it and they
never "choose" it.
> 
> Please take your rampant homophobia somewhere else.
> 
> I've heard enough hate from you, I'll not respond to your hate and
intolerance anymore.

Carol responds:
Forgive me, but I'm hearing some hatred and intolerance from you, too,
Tonks has evry right to present her ideas, and you have every right to
disagree with them, but labels like "homophobe" won't persuade anyone.

You speak of homosexuals being born that way as "scientific fact," but
it's my understanding that research hasn't yet determined the cause(s)
of differences in sexual preferences.

Can you cite some research studies that support your point of view?
And maybe Tonks could do the same for hers?

Carol, who understands what it's like to feel angry with those you
disagree with but also knows that it's not an effective persuasive tactic




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 23:34:40 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:34:40 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfskbi+ohjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfsv2g+99a3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
 
> Didn't you say, Zanooda, that this was for a translation? I wouldn't 
> worry too much about how Engish-speakers pronouce it. Can you come up 
> with a flowery sounding drink that might also reflect gillyweed?
> What will gillyweed be called?


zanooda:

To translate correctly, they need to know what "gilly" means :-). 
That's why I asked here - to find out if it has something to do 
with "gills", like in "gillyweed", or with a flower, or something else. 
Pronunciation itself doesn't matter, but it can be a hint as to 
what "gilly" means - if it means "gills", then it would be pronounced 
with a hard "g", but if it means flower - with a soft "g". 

And no, I don't think they can come up with a word that would 
mean "gills" and a flower at the same time, LOL. It has to be either 
fish gills, or a flower :-)! But once again there are different 
opinions here on the list, and I feel like only JKR can answer my 
question :-). But maybe it's for the best, you know - whatever they 
will call the drink in this translation, no one can say it's a 
mistake :-)!








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 23:50:18 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:50:18 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfqq19+d1li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfsvvq+osn4@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> I think it's the "watchmaker" God--meaning that he made the world and 
> then went off and left it to run by itself. He's not involved. I 
> think Deists, which some of the founders were, would probably not be 
> considered Christian at all by most standards.
> 
> And not only was the Pledge not there back then, but "under God" 
> wasn't even in the original pledge. It was added in the 50s because 
> people felt that distinguished them from Communists.
> 
> -m
>

Alla:

Oh oh YES. You are right as you so often are :). And he was also 
telling me how history text books often deemphasized it or plain 
excluded these facts. And here I thought that only text books during 
soviet times played fast and loose with history lol.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 23:53:57 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:53:57 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gfsv2g+99a3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gft06l+jdk9@eGroups.com>

zanooda wrote:
> 
> To translate correctly, they need to know what "gilly" means :-). 
> That's why I asked here - to find out if it has something to do 
> with "gills", like in "gillyweed", or with a flower, or something else. 
> Pronunciation itself doesn't matter, but it can be a hint as to 
> what "gilly" means - if it means "gills", then it would be pronounced 
> with a hard "g", but if it means flower - with a soft "g". 
> 
> And no, I don't think they can come up with a word that would 
> mean "gills" and a flower at the same time, LOL. It has to be either 
> fish gills, or a flower :-)! But once again there are different 
> opinions here on the list, and I feel like only JKR can answer my 
> question :-). But maybe it's for the best, you know - whatever they 
> will call the drink in this translation, no one can say it's a 
> mistake :-)!
>
Carol responds:
Well, that's easy, then! Here's the definition and etymology of
gillyflower from Merriam-webster online:

    gil?ly?flow?er 
Pronunciation:
    \ji-l-G6;flau(-)r\ 
Function:
    noun 
Etymology:
    by folk etymology from Middle English gilofre clove, from
Anglo-French, alteration of Old French girofle, from Latin
caryophyllum, from Greek karyophyllon, from karyon nut + phyllon leaf

    from karyon nut + phyllon leaf ? more at careen, blade
Date:    1551

: carnation 2 

You can either use the translation for "clove" (the spice) and add
"flower" or you can look up the Russian name for the genus(?)
caryophyllum. Or use the Russian word for "carnation" since carnations
are sometimes called gillyflowers. (definition 2).

Carol, who pronounced "gillyflower" with a hard "g" for unknown
reasons till she learned that the "g" was soft




From md at exit-reality.com  Tue Nov 18 01:28:23 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:28:23 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfsutc+edo1@eGroups.com>
References: <002901c94853$5f43bcd0$1dcb3670$@com> <gfsutc+edo1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004901c9491c$f32db260$d9891720$@com>

I never called anyone a homophobe. I said she had "rampant homophobia" I
didn't call her anything.

There's a difference between describing the way someone is acting and
calling someone a name.

Actually, teachers and parents should always know that you describe the
behavior, you do not insult the person.

If I tell my children "stop your mean behavior" I am not saying they are
mean children, I'm saying they are acting meanly.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:32 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8

Cabal wrote:
> It is a scientific fact that homosexuals are born that way, they
cannot be created, they are not made, they do not learn it and they
never "choose" it.
> 
> Please take your rampant homophobia somewhere else.
> 
> I've heard enough hate from you, I'll not respond to your hate and
intolerance anymore.

Carol responds:
Forgive me, but I'm hearing some hatred and intolerance from you, too,
Tonks has evry right to present her ideas, and you have every right to
disagree with them, but labels like "homophobe" won't persuade anyone.

You speak of homosexuals being born that way as "scientific fact," but
it's my understanding that research hasn't yet determined the cause(s)
of differences in sexual preferences.

Can you cite some research studies that support your point of view?
And maybe Tonks could do the same for hers?

Carol, who understands what it's like to feel angry with those you
disagree with but also knows that it's not an effective persuasive tactic


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 06:09:27 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:09:27 -0000
Subject: Gillywater
In-Reply-To: <gft06l+jdk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gftm6n+82sj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> You can either use the translation for "clove" (the spice) and add
> "flower" or you can look up the Russian name for the genus(?)
> caryophyllum. Or use the Russian word for "carnation" since 
> carnations are sometimes called gillyflowers. 


zanooda:

Interestingly enough, both "clove" and "carnation" are translated into
Russian with the same word :-).

 
> Carol, who pronounced "gillyflower" with a hard "g" for unknown
> reasons till she learned that the "g" was soft.


zanooda, who didn't even know the word "gillyflower" until a few days
ago :-).






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 07:04:18 2008
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:04:18 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <004901c9491c$f32db260$d9891720$@com>
Message-ID: <gftpdi+u07v@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cabal" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> I never called anyone a homophobe. I said she had "rampant 
homophobia" I didn't call her anything.
> 
> There's a difference between describing the way someone is acting 
and calling someone a name.
> 
> Actually, teachers and parents should always know that you 
describe the behavior, you do not insult the person.
> 
> If I tell my children "stop your mean behavior" I am not saying 
they are mean children, I'm saying they are acting meanly.

Earlier:
> Cabal wrote:
> > It is a scientific fact that homosexuals are born that way, they
> cannot be created, they are not made, they do not learn it and they
> never "choose" it.
> > 
> > Please take your rampant homophobia somewhere else.
> > 
> > I've heard enough hate from you, I'll not respond to your hate 
and intolerance anymore.
> 
>and Carol responded:
> Forgive me, but I'm hearing some hatred and intolerance from you, 
too, Tonks has evry right to present her ideas, and you have every 
right to disagree with them, but labels like "homophobe" won't 
persuade anyone.
SNIP> 
> Can you cite some research studies that support your point of view?
> And maybe Tonks could do the same for hers?


Tonks responds to both:

First if you read what I said, I said that homosexual behavior was 
NOT a choice. I think it is both biological and environmental. I 
have read theories of differences in sex hormones in the fetus which 
has an influence upon later development, especially in males. I also 
think that there is an environmental component related to the 
interpersonal relationship of the mother/female and the father/or 
male figure during the child's early years. Both (biology and 
environment) working together has, IMO a part in the later sexual 
orientation of the child. The homosexual does NOT have a choice. It 
is NOT as some religious persons think a matter of behavior that is 
chosen. 

As to As to Cabal's rant. I take it just as that, a rant. I do feel 
that I was being called names. I do not think that anything that I 
said could be taken as "rampant homophobia", "hate" or "intolerance".
I am merely presenting ideas.

I fail to see how we can have an intelligent discussion of this 
topic, or any topic for that matter, if we assume that any idea 
other than our own is from an enemy, and an enemy that should be 
beaten and destroyed on the spot. People who can discuss a variety 
of ideas openly can be persuaded to rethink their view points, if 
discussed in an academic manner in an open minded and tolerant 
setting. I often take a POV that I may or may not hold strongly. 
Sometimes I even take the opposite side. I do this for the sake of 
debate. (I knew that I might get some heat, that is why I wore my 
fire-proof robes when typing my orginial post. Thank god!) 

As to telling a child "stop your mean behavior" in an angry tone... 
as opposed to saying calmly "you are acting very mean right now"... 
would, IMO, have the effect of an emotionally abusive comment. If 
you ask that child later, I am willing to bet the kid would say that 
being 'mean' was in fact a comment about him as a person and not 
directed at his behavior. It is also difficult for a child to make a 
distinction between "self" and "behavior". 

Tonks_op
Where is Geoff with that hot chocolate?? I think it is time for some 
again. ;-)




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 09:53:29 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:53:29 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfrpbf+5v8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfu3ap+t9v0@eGroups.com>

  It is entirely possible, and I have lived it.medical 
care/wills/guardianships/living trusts etc. etc..

Even for taxes one can file, "head of household"...

I know it's possible because I have lived it!!!!  To be honest if one 
knows their way around the law benefits suit the individual more than 
the "family unit"..and definitely more than the "single parent" and 
even more than the "married couple with no children"..

I'm not saying I disagree with the protests...I just don't think 
Government has the right to tell anyone to not marry...anymore than 
they do to tell anyone TO marry...I simply don't think the government 
has the right to tell anyone to marry or not...

Why on earth does the government need to recognize a family unit??? 
I'm a custodial stepmom...for more than 12 years now...the government 
never treats me as part of a family unit...but the government has the 
right to declare the children's biomother as a NON-part(non-parent) of 
the family unit quite legally with the laws on the books....and to be 
honest over the years, I have more rights under a power of attorney 
than my husband and the kids biomom do as a parents.

 The only arguement I can think of at this time is for social security 
benefits, and to be honest...I don't think they can last much longer, 
given the state of our economy and the bailouts and the incessant use 
of social security monies for something other than that which they 
were designated.. 

  What with wills, living trusts, durable power of attorneys, and any 
adaptive power of attorney... I know folks are able to protect 
themselves legally..However, I still believe that government needs to 
remove itself from the institution of marriage..

(and come on...the government has removed itself from these polygamy 
marriages a great deal over the years...why is it okay for the 
government to ignore marriages of teen girls to senior citizens; yet 
get all up into gay marriage all of a sudden?!?!?  It just makes no 
sense to me...if folks want to marry, then marry..if not, then they 
shouldn't...one thing I firmly believe....the government shouldn't 
have a part in deciding who should and should not marry...beyond 
protection of minors and disabled folks).


D
 (Who simply thinks that removing government from marriage would be 
easier and most definitely faster than fighting for "gay rights" and 
would urge all gays to consider how long the battle for interracial 
marriage to be legal took..and consider that my stance might be a way 
to attain  equal status in a more efficient manner. What happens when 
one doesn't have to file for a marriage license to be married?!?!  
Common law marriage returns...and the common law states do not dictate 
male/female...only common residence and length of relationship and I 
have yet to find a common law statute on the books that involves 
multiple spouses...)




 



Annemehr:
> That's impossible.
> 
> Government is inolved in marriage because they need a way to 
> recognize a family unit.  This is necessary for all sorts of things -
-
>  rights of inheritance and survivorship, child custody issues, etc.  
> Also, government sanction of marriages has wider implications, such 
> as recognition of next-of-kin in hospitals, spousal insurance 
> coverage, etc.
> 





From macboysmom at comcast.net  Tue Nov 18 12:55:14 2008
From: macboysmom at comcast.net (Leeann McCullough)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:55:14 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfrcol+nv2n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfudvi+a7jq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" 
<doddiemoemoe at ...> wrote:
SNIP....
> 
> If the U.S. Government suddenly stopped recognizing marriages due 
> the constitution's mention of separation of church and state..then 
> the entire prop. 8 ballot is null and void because gay marriage 
> could take place in any church of their choice...  

Leeann now:
The US Constitution never mentions "separation of church and state". 
That is a term coined by those who wanted God taken out of the pledge 
of allegence and "moments of silence" removed from schools back in the 
late 60's early 70's.
The constitution is however very specific about the governement not 
having the power to "set up" a church, such as it was long ago in 
England. The citizens of the US have the right to worship in any 
church, etc they wish without fear of punishment from thier government.

Can you tell that's one of my "issues"? Thanks for listening.




From md at exit-reality.com  Tue Nov 18 14:13:16 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:13:16 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfu3ap+t9v0@eGroups.com>
References: <gfrpbf+5v8g@eGroups.com> <gfu3ap+t9v0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014b01c94987$cd89c2e0$689d48a0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of doddiemoemoe
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 4:53 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8

  It is entirely possible, and I have lived it.medical 
care/wills/guardianships/living trusts etc. etc..

Even for taxes one can file, "head of household"...

I know it's possible because I have lived it!!!!  To be honest if one 
knows their way around the law benefits suit the individual more than 
the "family unit"..and definitely more than the "single parent" and 
even more than the "married couple with no children"..

Cabal:

Or, people could just be married :-)

md




From md at exit-reality.com  Tue Nov 18 14:16:38 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:16:38 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfudvi+a7jq@eGroups.com>
References: <gfrcol+nv2n@eGroups.com> <gfudvi+a7jq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014c01c94988$45908990$d0b19cb0$@com>



-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leeann McCullough
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:55 AM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Protest the passage of Prop 8


Leeann now:
The US Constitution never mentions "separation of church and state". 
That is a term coined by those who wanted God taken out of the pledge 
of allegence and "moments of silence" removed from schools back in the 
late 60's early 70's.

Cabal:

Please Fact Check.

Try 1801:

"Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee
of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as
to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me
the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of
the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of
my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more
pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man &
his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not
opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive
authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even
occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an
Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as
religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each
respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man
all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to
his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the
common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your
religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802."




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 14:37:13 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:37:13 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfudvi+a7jq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gfujup+v0dc@eGroups.com>

> Leeann now:
> The US Constitution never mentions "separation of church and state". 
> That is a term coined by those who wanted God taken out of the pledge 
> of allegence and "moments of silence" removed from schools back in 
the 
> late 60's early 70's.
<SNIP>

Um, the words "under God" were added to Pledge in 1952.

http://www.kofc.org/rc/en/about/activities/community/pledgeAllegiance.pd
f

Alla




From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov 20 13:36:24 2008
From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:36:24 -0000
Subject: Off to see Aunt Petunia's opera next week
Message-ID: <gg3p4o+dmko@eGroups.com>

Hi All,

So this is realy movie contamination, but I've just realised that the 
short opera my son Will and I are off to see next week is directed by 
Fiona Shaw, who plays Aunt Petunia. It's an opera that's not performed 
that often http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riders_to_the_Sea_(opera) 
http://www.eno.org/whats-on/whats-on.php?id=1280 Cool eh?

Cheers,

Dumbledad. 

PS Just in case the URLs get mangled by line feeds, here they are 
tinyfied: http://tinyurl.com/5vj3sl http://tinyurl.com/6c9cgk




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Fri Nov 21 01:23:55 2008
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:23:55 -0700
Subject: What Next?
Message-ID: <13B4EFACA0AB44809D453DB6A047DC80@Marianne>

I have a question.

Please forgive the silly question.  I haven't been on this list and the HPFGU list for very long, and I've enjoyed sitting  back and reading all the posts.  If I have read right, this group will answer questions that aren't necesarily meant for the HPFGU list.

On the other list, the discussion has been on the end of the DH book. Once DH has been discussed what will be  discussed next?

I haven't been on either group very long, and I'm curious what will happen now?

Marianne
The Fall Won't Kill You.
The Landing Will 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Schlobin at aol.com  Fri Nov 21 03:22:14 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:22:14 -0000
Subject: Protest the passage of Prop 8
In-Reply-To: <gfu3ap+t9v0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gg59h6+kdhl@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" 
<doddiemoemoe at ...> wrote:
>
>   It is entirely possible, and I have lived it.medical 
> care/wills/guardianships/living trusts etc. etc..
> 
> Even for taxes one can file, "head of household"...
> 
But if you file as a married couple, regardless of whether one files as 
head of household, there is an additional $2k to $3K deduction 
depending on the year.

Susan




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov 21 07:47:10 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:47:10 -0000
Subject: What Next?
In-Reply-To: <13B4EFACA0AB44809D453DB6A047DC80@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gg5p1u+28bf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> I have a question.
> 
> Please forgive the silly question.  I haven't been on this list and the HPFGU list for very 
long, and I've enjoyed sitting  back and reading all the posts.  If I have read right, this 
group will answer questions that aren't necesarily meant for the HPFGU list.
> 
> On the other list, the discussion has been on the end of the DH book. Once DH has 
been discussed what will be  discussed next?
> 
> I haven't been on either group very long, and I'm curious what will happen now?
> 
> Marianne
> The Fall Won't Kill You.
> The Landing Will 

Geoff:
I'm sure we shall find more things about which we can pontificate.
:-)

It wold be nice to have a few slightly lighter topics rather than the 
ponderous ones which we've tended to have lately. I find that I 
rarely post on Main now compared to a couple of years ago; 
because of increased family concerns, I haven't the time to read 
all the lengthy comments and then put my own response together. 
Sadly -in some ways - OT has become of greater interest.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 22 12:31:03 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:31:03 -0000
Subject: What Next?
In-Reply-To: <gg5p1u+28bf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gg8u27+6abn@eGroups.com>

 
> Geoff:
> I'm sure we shall find more things about which we can pontificate.
> :-)
> 
> It wold be nice to have a few slightly lighter topics rather than the 
> ponderous ones which we've tended to have lately. I find that I 
> rarely post on Main now compared to a couple of years ago; 
> because of increased family concerns, I haven't the time to read 
> all the lengthy comments and then put my own response together. 
> Sadly -in some ways - OT has become of greater interest.
>

Potioncat:
Your favorite chapter is coming up soon. I hope you'll be able to join 
in. 

It would be good if we could keep something going over here. And I 
agree, a little lightness would be welcomed.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov 22 14:46:48 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:46:48 -0000
Subject: What Next?
In-Reply-To: <gg8u27+6abn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gg960o+112c8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Geoff:
> > I'm sure we shall find more things about which we can pontificate.
> > :-)
> > 
> > It wold be nice to have a few slightly lighter topics rather than the 
> > ponderous ones which we've tended to have lately. I find that I 
> > rarely post on Main now compared to a couple of years ago; 
> > because of increased family concerns, I haven't the time to read 
> > all the lengthy comments and then put my own response together. 
> > Sadly -in some ways - OT has become of greater interest.
> >
> 
> Potioncat:
> Your favorite chapter is coming up soon. I hope you'll be able to join 
> in. 
> 
> It would be good if we could keep something going over here. And I 
> agree, a little lightness would be welcomed.

Geoff:
You've certainly been paying attention - ten points to your house 
(whichever it is); certainly the last three chapters are among my 
favourites in the whole series.






From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 23 18:41:44 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 23 Nov 2008 18:41:44 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/23/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1227465704.13.10508.m50@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 23, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20081123/846311be/attachment.html>

From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 25 00:39:19 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:39:19 -0000
Subject: Why is the BNP such a bad thing????
Message-ID: <ggfhfn+hgdk@eGroups.com>

Recently in the UK news there have been several references to the BNP
(British National Party). A police officer was accused of being a
member as well as a rock star, and I think a political figure. But it
is never made clear what is wrong with that. I mean, the tone of the
article seems close to being accused of being a member of the KKK. But
nothing I've read so far indicates what principles of the BNP make it
such an unsavory thing.

I was just hoping someone here had some insight into the matter.

Steve/bluewizard




From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 25 08:34:49 2008
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzie_snape)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:34:49 -0000
Subject: Why is the BNP such a bad thing????
In-Reply-To: <ggfhfn+hgdk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gggdb9+705c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> Recently in the UK news there have been several references to the BNP
> (British National Party). A police officer was accused of being a
> member as well as a rock star, and I think a political figure. But it
> is never made clear what is wrong with that. I mean, the tone of the
> article seems close to being accused of being a member of the KKK. But
> nothing I've read so far indicates what principles of the BNP make it
> such an unsavory thing.
> 
> I was just hoping someone here had some insight into the matter.
> 
> Steve/bluewizard
>

Perhaps this will help you out.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3481473/The-British-National-
Party-a-brief-history.html>

They don't sound like folks I'd like to associate with.

Lizzie




From lizzy1933 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 25 08:37:47 2008
From: lizzy1933 at yahoo.com (lizzie_snape)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:37:47 -0000
Subject: Why is the BNP such a bad thing????
In-Reply-To: <gggdb9+705c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gggdgr+8q47@eGroups.com>

Let's see if I can get it right this time!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3481473/The-British-National-
Party-a-brief-history.html





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 25 10:25:13 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:25:13 -0000
Subject: Why is the BNP such a bad thing????
In-Reply-To: <ggfhfn+hgdk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gggjq9+68co@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

Steve:
> Recently in the UK news there have been several references to the BNP
> (British National Party). A police officer was accused of being a
> member as well as a rock star, and I think a political figure. But it
> is never made clear what is wrong with that. I mean, the tone of the
> article seems close to being accused of being a member of the KKK. But
> nothing I've read so far indicates what principles of the BNP make it
> such an unsavory thing.
> 
> I was just hoping someone here had some insight into the matter.

Geoff:
The BNP is still seen by most UK residents, despite what the Telegraph 
article may say, as a nasty far right - almost neo-Nazi organisation.

It thrives mainly in urban areas, especially where there is a lot of 
deprivation or a large ethnic population - or both and retains an image 
of being for pro-white Anglo-Saxon supporters.

Until I was nine, I lived in Burnley in Lancashire in the north-west of 
England. In recent years, it has become one of the most deprived areas 
in the country and also one of the strongest centres of BNP support. A 
few years ago, there were race riots in the area and I was appalled to 
turn on my TV one evening to be faced with pictures of a pub going up 
in flames, just 200 yards from where I lived as a child and 300 yards 
from where a cousin and her husband live.

It is because of its questionable history that the BNP became a proscribed 
organisation for members of the police (and I think the armed services) to 
belong to; this is the background to the present furore because documents 
have been leaked revealing that there are still police officers and others 
listed as being linked to the party.

When I see shots of Nick Griffin with a cohort of Crabbe/Goyle types in 
attendance swaggering around, I am afriad that I have too many mental 
images of archive footage of the 1930s for my peace of mind. They are 
typical of the sort of extremists who maintain power by feeding on the 
fears and dissatisfaction which exists between different groups of people.




From specialcritters at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 25 19:57:12 2008
From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:57:12 -0500
Subject: critter on "Hamish Macbeth" show
In-Reply-To: <gggdb9+705c@eGroups.com>
References: <ggfhfn+hgdk@eGroups.com> <gggdb9+705c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY138-W61FC39B822AAD3F061038B20B0@phx.gbl>


I really enjoy this BBC Scotland creation, but I wonder what the critter is that they picture in the opening song, etc? It has vertical horns on its head, a rather cow-like nose, and long "bangs" that cover its eyes. I don't know more than that since they only show a headshot. It was filmed in Scotland, so I guess it's a Scottish critter? Thanks!!!  






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 25 20:35:34 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:35:34 -0000
Subject: critter on "Hamish Macbeth" show
In-Reply-To: <BAY138-W61FC39B822AAD3F061038B20B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <gghnim+i59c@eGroups.com>

> Lee Truslow
 
> It has vertical horns on its head, a rather cow-like nose, and 
> long "bangs" that cover its eyes. I don't know more than that 
> since they only show a headshot. It was filmed in Scotland, so 
> I guess it's a Scottish critter? Thanks!!!

Goddlefrood:

It's the local breed of cow. Either a Highland something or a 
Cheviot something. I can't remember what the something is, but 
it's a cow.

As far as I know it's not a member of the BNP, or even the SNP.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 25 20:48:51 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:48:51 -0000
Subject: critter on "Hamish Macbeth" show
In-Reply-To: <gghnim+i59c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gghobj+fnit@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> wrote:
>
> > Lee Truslow
>  
> > It has vertical horns on its head, a rather cow-like nose, and 
> > long "bangs" that cover its eyes. I don't know more than that 
> > since they only show a headshot. It was filmed in Scotland, so 
> > I guess it's a Scottish critter? Thanks!!!
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> It's the local breed of cow. Either a Highland something or a 
> Cheviot something. I can't remember what the something is, but 
> it's a cow.

Geoff:
If it's got a fringe over its eyes and it's brown, it's a Highland cow (or 
bull). The Loch Ness monster, to my knowledge, hasn't got horns.
:-)

Goddlefrood:
> As far as I know it's not a member of the BNP, or even the SNP.

Geoff
Thank heavens for that!!!








From specialcritters at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 25 21:06:20 2008
From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:06:20 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: critter on "Hamish Macbeth" show
In-Reply-To: <gghobj+fnit@eGroups.com>
References: <gghnim+i59c@eGroups.com> <gghobj+fnit@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY138-W555904C8B87E9A240C3E12B20B0@phx.gbl>




From: gbanniste


Geoff:If it's got a fringe over its eyes and it's brown, it's a Highland cow (or bull). The Loch Ness monster, to my knowledge, hasn't got horns.:-)
me: ROFL! No, I don't think it's Nessie, but it sure is a funny looking, mutant cow-thing!!! Thanks, guys!
Goddlefrood:> As far as I know it's not a member of the BNP, or even the SNP.GeoffThank heavens for that!!! 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 26 19:20:16 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:20:16 -0000
Subject: Register your cell phone?
Message-ID: <ggk7hg+f8a5@eGroups.com>

I just received the following message from my sister (a lawyer):

REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this week. 

REMINDER.... all cell phone numbers are being released to
telemarketing companies tomorrow and you will start to receive sale
calls. 

BAD NEWS.... YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS 

To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone:
888-382-1222. 

It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of
your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call
from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call
from a different phone number. 

HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.. It takes about 20
seconds. 

Carol again:

The message applies only to U.S. residents as far as I know.

I registered my cell phone number about two minutes ago. My home phone
number was already registered.

Carol, wishing all the Americans on this list a happy Thanksgiving
tomorrow despite this bit of bad news!






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 26 19:24:25 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:24:25 -0000
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving!
Message-ID: <ggk7p9+sjna@eGroups.com>

Happy Holiday guys to american list members and happy upcoming weekend 
for everybody else!

Alla




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 26 20:14:09 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:14:09 -0000
Subject: Register your cell phone?
In-Reply-To: <ggk7hg+f8a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ggkamh+tbfs@eGroups.com>


> Carol:
> I just received the following message from my sister (a lawyer):
> 
> REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this week. 
> ...snip...
> 
> Carol again:
> 
> The message applies only to U.S. residents as far as I know.
> 
> I registered my cell phone number about two minutes ago. My home phone
> number was already registered.


Kemper now:
I checked on snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp

It said that the email was false.  

May your Thanksgiving be yummy!  When do you start your fruit cake
baking? 

Kemper





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed Nov 26 20:39:07 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:39:07 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Register your cell phone?
In-Reply-To: <ggk7hg+f8a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <492db3f3.c5c2f10a.1880.3ec5@mx.google.com>

Carol, That message has been around for a few years.  It always starts the
same way:
| REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this week. 
| 
| REMINDER.... all cell phone numbers are being released to
| telemarketing companies tomorrow and you will start to receive sale
| calls. 
<SNIP>

Please check out snopes.com about this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp
You'll find the status to be "False."

Cheers, and don't eat the *Whole* turkey! :-)

Happy Thanksgiving!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 26 20:39:59 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:39:59 -0000
Subject: Register your cell phone?
In-Reply-To: <ggk7hg+f8a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ggkc6v+7gaa@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> I just received the following message from my sister (a lawyer):
> 
> REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this week. 
> 
> REMINDER.... all cell phone numbers are being released to
> telemarketing companies tomorrow and you will start to receive sale
> calls. 
> 
> BAD NEWS.... YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS 
> 
> To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone:
> 888-382-1222. 
> 
> It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of
> your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call
> from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call
> from a different phone number. 
> 
> HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.. It takes about 20
> seconds. 
> 
> Carol again:
> 
> The message applies only to U.S. residents as far as I know.
> 
> I registered my cell phone number about two minutes ago. My home phone
> number was already registered.
> 
> Carol, wishing all the Americans on this list a happy Thanksgiving
> tomorrow despite this bit of bad news!

Geoff:
Does this mean that there will be a listing of your mobile numbers 
available? No such thing exists publicly in the UK. Getting someone's 
mobile number - or email address for that matter - can be a nightmare.






From md at exit-reality.com  Wed Nov 26 21:34:12 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:34:12 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy Thanksgiving!
In-Reply-To: <ggk7p9+sjna@eGroups.com>
References: <ggk7p9+sjna@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b601c9500e$b9978910$2cc69b30$@com>

The day we celebrate not starving, by gorging.

Heh heh.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dumbledore11214
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:24 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Holiday guys to american list members and happy upcoming weekend 
for everybody else!

Alla


------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From md at exit-reality.com  Wed Nov 26 21:37:18 2008
From: md at exit-reality.com (Cabal)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:37:18 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Register your cell phone?
In-Reply-To: <ggkc6v+7gaa@eGroups.com>
References: <ggk7hg+f8a5@eGroups.com> <ggkc6v+7gaa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b701c9500f$28799d00$796cd700$@com>

Where did this info come from. 

It's still illegal to send marketing faxes because it cost people money. 

What will happen if telemarketers start calling cell phones is that people
will stop using them. Plain and simple, I'll terminate my service I start
getting that crap everywhere I go.

But where's the official link that has the story that backs up the claim
these numbers are going public and it is now lawful to do this? I ask,
because there was a "rumor" a few years ago about the same thing that turned
out to be false.

Plus, it seems weird that I watch the news (too often) and never heard a
word about this.

md

-----Original Message-----
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Bannister
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 3:40 PM
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Register your cell phone?

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> I just received the following message from my sister (a lawyer):
> 
> REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this week. 
> 
> REMINDER.... all cell phone numbers are being released to
> telemarketing companies tomorrow and you will start to receive sale
> calls. 
> 
> BAD NEWS.... YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS 
> 
> To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone:
> 888-382-1222. 
> 
> It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of
> your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call
> from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call
> from a different phone number. 
> 
> HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.. It takes about 20
> seconds. 
> 
> Carol again:
> 
> The message applies only to U.S. residents as far as I know.
> 
> I registered my cell phone number about two minutes ago. My home phone
> number was already registered.
> 
> Carol, wishing all the Americans on this list a happy Thanksgiving
> tomorrow despite this bit of bad news!

Geoff:
Does this mean that there will be a listing of your mobile numbers 
available? No such thing exists publicly in the UK. Getting someone's 
mobile number - or email address for that matter - can be a nightmare.




------------------------------------

________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from
posts to which you're replying!
Yahoo! Groups Links







From larriepam2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 26 19:27:45 2008
From: larriepam2000 at yahoo.com (larriepam2000)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:27:45 -0000
Subject: Register your cell phone?
In-Reply-To: <ggk7hg+f8a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ggk7vh+m893@eGroups.com>

Cell Phone Numbers Are Being Handed Over to Telemarketers And You've
Got a Short Time to Keep Your Cell Phone Number Out of Their Hands -
Fiction!


 Summary of the eRumor
The eRumor warns that cell phone numbers will soon be published in
the same way as the numbers for wired phones and that you should
sign up with a new government cell phone "do not call" registry to
prevent solicitor calls from coming to your mobile phone.
Some versions say the cell phone numbers are being handed over to
telemarketers by a certain date, such as January 1, 2005.
Some versions say there is a deadline for listing your cell phone on
a "do not call list" such as December, 2004.
A recent version claims that the cell phone companies are required
by law to release the names by June 1, 2006.


 The Truth
The U.S. government has established a "do not call" registry where
you can list phone numbers you want blocked from unsolicited calls
such as from telemarketers.
That registry is for both wired and mobile phones and there is no
deadline by which a phone number needs to be listed in order to be
protected from telemarketing calls.
There is not a separate cell phone registry.
The registry is at:  www.donotcall.gov.

At this writing there is discussion among mobile providers about
setting up a mobile phone directory listing mobile phone numbers.
According to the Cellular Telephone and Internet Association (CTIA),
a cell phone directory is proposed that would be available through
calling directory assistance only, not published in writing or on
the Internet.
So far, there is not a set date when that will be done and the CTIA
says the numbers are not going to be "handed over" to telemarketers.
Users would have the option of not having their numbers listed in
the directory.

Some telemarketers call some phone numbers regardless of whether
they are listed in directories because they use devices that dial
numbers in sequence looking for working numbers although at present,
they are prohibited by law from including cell numbers.

The version that claims that the cell companies are being required
by law to release the names by June 1, 2006, is also a hoax.



--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol"
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> I just received the following message from my sister (a
> lawyer):
>
> REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this week.
>
> REMINDER.... all cell phone numbers are being released
> to telemarketing companies tomorrow and you will start
> to receive sale calls.
>
> BAD NEWS.... YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS



From heidi8 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 28 12:48:15 2008
From: heidi8 at gmail.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:48:15 -0500
Subject: Lock in your AZKATRAZ experience at a discount this weekend!
Message-ID: <5913e6f80811280448x3db9a714lc2b9b627fc0dcec4@mail.gmail.com>

HPEF is celebrating Black Friday and CyberMonday for the first time!

You can save ten dollars on your new AZKATRAZ registration (full
registration, MPA or Merlin's Circle only), *or* on an upgrade from any
lower-level registration (single-day or full registration) to a higher-level
registration. This discount will last from a minute after midnight on
Friday, November 28, 2008 (Eastern Standard Time) until 11:59 PM on Monday,
December 1, 2008 (Eastern Standard Time).

To qualify for the savings, register or modify your registration this
weekend and use the coupon code CYBRWKND when you check out. This offer can
only be used for registrations paid by a credit card or PayPal. Payment must
be recieved by 11:59 PM on Monday, December 1, 2008 (Eastern Standard Time).

Purchase a new registration for yourself or a friend, add the Masters of
Potter Administration (MPA) session, or upgrade to a Merlin's Circle
registration, and save.

Also, anyone who registers during the CYBRWKND sale period will receive a
shiny AZKATRAZ keychain, which can also be used as an inventive Christmas
tree ornament. (Check it out here:
http://pics.livejournal.com/nqdonne/pic/000bphse )

Click here to learn more about AZKATRAZ, set to take place in San Francisco
from July 17 - 21, 2009 - http://www.hp2009.org

Click here to register:
https://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Register/IdentityConfirmation.aspx?e=f819871c-99ce-45a7-9c71-28234ff6a033


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Schlobin at aol.com  Fri Nov 28 16:23:42 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:23:42 -0000
Subject: any star trek original series movie fans?
Message-ID: <ggp5ue+doh8@eGroups.com>

I don't know who remembers the description of the original series Star 
Trek Movies, but the odd numbered movies (particularly 5) tend to be 
AWFUL...or at least not so good....

I have a very mild analogy to HP...I LIKE the odd numbered books better 
than the even numbered books.

Susan




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Fri Nov 28 22:04:29 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:04:29 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] any star trek original series movie fans?
In-Reply-To: <ggp5ue+doh8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <49306aef.0906c00a.7539.ffffa2fb@mx.google.com>

[susanmcgee]:
| I don't know who remembers the description of the original 
| series Star 
| Trek Movies, but the odd numbered movies (particularly 5) tend to be 
| AWFUL...or at least not so good....
| 
| I have a very mild analogy to HP...I LIKE the odd numbered 
| books better 

[Lee]:
Well, I can agree I thought Movies 2 & 4 were fantastic, but I can't say
much that I'd put Movie 6 in that realm. :-)

Out of all, ST2 Wrath Of Khan was my fave and ST4 Voyage Home was Art's. :-)

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Fri Nov 28 23:48:17 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (jerrichase)
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:48:17 -0000
Subject: any star trek original series movie fans?
In-Reply-To: <49306aef.0906c00a.7539.ffffa2fb@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <ggq001+s9us@eGroups.com>


> [Lee]:
> Well, I can agree I thought Movies 2 & 4 were fantastic, but I 
can't say
> much that I'd put Movie 6 in that realm. :-)
> 
> Out of all, ST2 Wrath Of Khan was my fave and ST4 Voyage Home was 
Art's. :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lee :-)

I don't remember numbers (accept that the first one was pretty poor.  
A plot that would make a fair 1 hour minus commercial time TV show 
expanced to movie lenght.  (And then they put "extra footage" in the 
VHS tapes!!!)  The one I liked best is the one I call the "save the 
whales" movie.  I suppose it might well be ST4, the Voyage Home.  I 
thought it was lots of fun.  But, I thought all the movies past the 
first were at least OK.

As for Harry Potter books, I like them all in some ways.  PoA is my 
fave and DH at the bottom of the list, but they all have strengths 
and weaknesses.

Jerri




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 30 18:41:51 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 30 Nov 2008 18:41:51 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/30/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1228070511.13.31009.m45@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 30, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20081130/3257de72/attachment.html>