Hi,

I bought, on the net here, a mini-tower 386dx25 system.  It works fine, but
I have no docs on the motherboard.

Does anyone know who a manufacturer named WPI is?  That is the only marking
on the board that is not related to a chip/connector name.  It says
(c)1991, WPI

Also, this board has a connector at the other end of the motherboard, it looks
like this:

  +---------------------------------+
  |  Batt                           |
  |                        387      |  Socket for 387 math coprocessor
  |                                 |
  |                     386         |  386 chip is about here
  |                                 |
  | ========= ====                J |  = signs are the ISA slots
  | ========= ====                M |
  | =========                     P |  Jumpers for turbo/kb etc are where
  | ========= ====         ------ E |  marked
  | ========= ====         ------ R |
  | ========= ====         ------ S |  - signs are 8 banks of SIMM sockets
  | ========= ====                  |
  | =========          ==== ======= |  <<<These connectors are the mystery
  +---------------------------------+     connectors!!!!
                       ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
                       What is this connector?

Is this a place to plug an extra memory board in?  I've seen thatr mentioned
in some motherboard docs.  Some allow an 8-meg card and 8 meg in simms.  Is
this what it is for?

Phil

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Hunt                          "Wherever you go, there you are!"
Howtek, Inc.


a
follow-on

Glenn,

Thanks for posting that.  I was surprised to notice, however, that one
question I might have expected to be asked was not:  "Are all forms of
strong encryption other than the Clipper to be made illegal?"  Speaking
of which, is anyone aware of whether that question *has* been asked of
any knowledgeable or official spokesperson for the government?  I have
not yet seen it mentioned in any of a dozen places it might have been
reported, but I could have easily missed it.


The imposed it knowing that Serbia has a stockpile of weapons, and that
Bosnia will have next to nothing to defend itself. Many experts predicted
a Massacre as early as March, 1992, but the Security Coucil knew what it
was doing.

.......
....
....
...
..


               ^^^^^^

	Sure they might. If an error is recorded on, for example, a
ground ball, ie the batter would otherwise be out, it is officially a
hitless at bat. If it's some other type of error (Greenwell lets a
single go by), it doesn't effect the OBP. But, most errors are
counted.


Hmm... For more recent lesson what about that little square in China?

Another lesson might be the one repeated every year in Tibet...

And of course there's always El Salvador...

And the beat goes on and on...     :^(

MESSAGES FROM GOD:  GET OFF YOUR ASS!  DON'T TRUST THE
GOVERNMENT!  AT ANY TIME!  FOR ANY REASON!  -THE SCREAMING MAN

CONNECT THE GOD-DAMNED DOTS!!!  Ministry, TV Song


Ok, I'm being driven batty.

Trying to create popup-menus (ie. button3 press, and a menu
appears).  I would really like to use the standard Athena
classes to achieve this goal, but for my best attempts
I cannot get the menus to come up without using a MenuButton
as the parent of the widget tree.  I know this should be
possible to to with an XtPopupSpringLoaded() and a
little twiddling, but something is escaping me.


There have been a few postings in the past on alleged pathological
(esp. neurological) conditions induced by playing video games
(e.g. Nintendo). Apparently, there have been reported several cases of
"photosensitive epilepsy", due to the flashing of some
patterns and the strong attention of the (young) players.
One poster to comp.risks reported some action from
the British Government.

A quick search in a database reported the following two published
references:

1. E.J. Hart, Nintendo epilepsy, in New England J. of Med., 322(20), 1473
2. TK Daneshmend et al., Dark Warrior epilepsy, BMJ 1982; 284:1751-2.

I would appreciate if someone could post (or e-mail)
any reference to (preferably published) further work on the subject.
Any pointer to other information and/or to possible technical tools
(if any) for reducing the risks are appreciated.

Many thanks,


This is, shall we say, an overly-broad statement.  In particular, are you
referring to the native American culture that existed in 1400, or the one
that existed in 1800?  (Simplify things by assuming we're talking about
the eastern US rather than the whole continent.)  Given that those were
*radically* different cultures, which one are you referring to?

Note that the pre-Columbian native Americans, east of the Mississippi,
did all of these things.  (Well, maybe not "on Sunday", but they did
have organized religions, not to mention cities and governments.)  If
you are judging the native Americans by the tribal culture that existed
in 1800, you might want to read an account of the De Soto expedition
to find out what pre-Columbian native American culture, at least in the
more civilized parts of the continent, was like.


It's pretty complex, and Cd isn't the whole story either.  Cd for cars is
usually calculated based on the frontal area of the car.  So a large car
with a good Cd could get the same drag force as a smaller car with a
poorer Cd.

To calculate drag use this formula:

D = 1/2 * rho * v^2 * Cd * S

Where D is the drag force (lbs), rho is the local air density (slugs/ft^3),
V is the velocity (ft/s), and S is the frontal area (ft^2).  Note that the
pieces called 1/2 * rho * v^2 are sometimes called qbar or dynamic pressure
(a fancy aero term for air pressure or force).

Note that power is:

P = F * v

Where P is power (lbf-ft/s), F is the force, drag in this case (lbf) and v
is velocity (ft/s).

Note that if you put the whole equation into one (by substituting D for
force) you get a velocity _cubed_ term.  That's why huge increases in power
result in little increases in speed.  Ditto for decreases in Cd.

So if you have a 100 mph car and reduce Cd from .34 to .33, your new top
speed is:  (sound of trumpet fanfare)

101 mph

Sorry to dissappoint.


Rick, I think we can safely say, 1) Robert is not the only person
who understands the Bible, and 2), the leadership of the LDS church
historicly never has.  Let's consider some "personal interpretations"
and see how much trust we should put in "Orthodox Mormonism", which
could never be confused with Orthodox Christianity.

        In one of his attacks on Christians, the Mormon Apostle Bruce R.
McConkie said they "thrash around in...darkness in trying to identify
Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the promised
Messiah." He also said Christians are wrong to believe "that Jehovah is
the Supreme Deity [God the Father]," and that Christ "came into
mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. McConkie then stated what Mormons
believe today to be the truth about the matter. He said that "Elohim is
the Father" and "Jehovah is the Son."

  "Being thus aware of how far astray the religious intellectualists
  have gone in defining their three-in-one God, it comes as no surprise
  to learn that they thrash around in the same darkness in trying to
  identify Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the
  promised Messiah. Some sectarians even believe that Jehovah is the
  Supreme Deity whose Son came into mortality as the Only Begotten. As
  with their concept that God is a Spirit, this misinformation about the
  Gods of Heaven is untrue. The fact is, and it too is attested by Holy
  Writ, that Elohim is the Father, and that Jehovah is the Son who was
  born into mortality as the Lord Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah.
  (Promised Messiah, p. 100)

        Notice that McConkie said the Christians are as wrong about
their "three-in-one God" and their belief that "God is a Spirit" as they
are in their understanding of who "Elohim" and "Jehovah" are. Before
examining McConkie's attack and its validity, we shall read a few more
statements by McConkie and other Mormon sources concerning the words
"Elohim" and "Jehovah." McConkie stated:

  "...the chief designation of Christ that has been preserved for us in
  the Old Testament, as that ancient work is now published, is the
  exalted name-title Jehovah. (Promised Messiah, p. 367)

  "_Elohim_, plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
  name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his
  supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (Mormon
  Doctrine, p. 224)

        Agreeing with McConkie on the question of who "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" are, the Apostle James E. Talmage stated:

  "_Elohim_, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus
  Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn
  Son in the spirit is _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh,
  Jesus Christ. (Jesus the Christ, p. 38)

        "A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and the Twelve"
apostles of the Mormon Church states that "God the Eternal Father...[is]
designate[d] by the exalted name-title 'Elohim'..." (Articles of Faith,
p. 466) "...Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied
state...was known as Jehovah..." (Articles of Faith, p. 471)

        Today Mormon leaders teach that "Elohim" in the OT refers to God
the Father and "Jehovah" refers to Christ. McConkie attacked Christians
for saying "Jehovah" can refer to the Father. He stressed that these two
"name-titles" should not be changed around so that Christ is called
"Elohim" and the Father is called "Jehovah." "...the Father...is Elohim,
not Jehovah.... Jehovah is Christ, and Christ is Jehovah; they are one
and the same person." (Promised Messiah, p. 111)

        In the OT of the KJV of the Bible, the Hebrew word "Elohim" is
used to refer to the true God, false gods and goddesses, and the judges
of Israel. When referring to the true God, "Elohim" is translated with a
capital "G." When referring to false gods and goddesses and the judges
of Israel, it is translated with a small "g." It is translated four
times as "judges" (Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9), once as "judge" (1 Sam. 2:25),
twice as "mighty" (Gen. 23:6; Exod. 9:28), once as "angels" (Ps. 8:5),
once as "godly" (Mal. 2:15), once as "great" (Gen. 30:8), and once as
"very great." (1 Sam. 14:15)

        The word "Jehovah" is the traditional pronunciation of the
tetragrammation YHWH or YHVH with the vowel points taken from the word
"Adonai."  Many people believe the true pronunciation of the
tetragrammation was Yahweh or Yahveh. However, since "Jehovah" rather
than Yahweh is the word used by Mormonism, this section will also use
"Jehovah" instead of Yahweh to examine the validity of the claims of
Mormon leaders regarding that name. "Jehovah," unlike "Elohim," is never
used of false gods. It is the personal name of the triune God of the
Bible. In the KJV, "Jehovah" is rendered primarily "LORD," sometimes
"GOD," and rarely "Lord."

        Now that we understand something about the words "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" and their use by Mormon leaders, we shall consider the Apostle
McConkie's attack on Christians for believing the Father is "Jehovah."
In trying to prove that "Jehovah" refers exclusively to Christ, McConkie
cited several verses from the Bible. Some of these verses and McConkie's
interpretation of them will be examined to see whether he was right.
Remember, McConkie said the Father is not "Jehovah;" He is only
"Elohim." The first example we shall consider involves McConkie's
interpretation of Ps. 110:1. Of this verse he stated:

  "Of whom spake David when his tongue was touched by the Holy Spirit
  and he testified, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
  hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Ps. 110:1.) Two
  Lords are here involved: one is speaking to the other; one is greater
  than the other; one is making provision for the triumph and glory of
  the other. Who are they and what message is contained in this
  Messianic prophecy?
  "What think ye of Christ?" our Lord asked certain of his detractors
  toward the end of his mortal ministry. "Whose son is he?" Is Christ
  the Son of God or of someone else? Is he to be born of a divine Parent
  or will he be as other men -- a mortal son of a mortal father? That he
  was to be a descendant of David was a matter of great pride to all the
  Jews. And so they answered, "The Son of David."
  David's son? Truly he was. But he was more, much more. And so our
  Lord, with irrefutable logic and to their complete discomfiture,
  asked, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord
  said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
  enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his
  son?" That is, if he is only the Son of David, how is it that the
  great King, acting under inspiration, calls him Lord and worships him
  as such? And we might add: _Who is the other Lord, the one who spake
  unto David's Lord?_ Can there be any question as to how Jesus is
  interpreting the words of the Psalm? He is saying that it means: '_The
  Father said unto the Son, Elohim said unto Jehovah_, sit thou on my
  right hand, until after your mortal ministry; then I will raise you up
  to eternal glory and exaltation with me, where you will continue to
  sit on my right hand forever.' (Promised Messiah, pp. 101-102)
  (emphasis added)

        Agreeing with the above statement by McConkie, the following
remark in the Mormon pamphlet _What the Mormons Think of Christ, p. 6
reads: "The Lord [Elohim, the Father] said unto my Lord [Jehovah, the
Son]..." (brackets in original)

        McConkie clearly stated that it is "Elohim" the Father who is
speaking to "Jehovah" the Son in this Psalm. However, when one looks at
the Hebrew word translated "LORD," it becomes apparent that either the
first "LORD" is not the Father or else the Father is "Jehovah." Either
way McConkie is wrong. The Psalm reads:

  "The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right
  hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1)

        The first "LORD" in this verse is "Jehovah" who Mormonism says
is Christ, not the Father. The second "Lord" is the Hebrew word "Adon"
(singular for "Adonai," meaning master or lord). If the first "LORD" is
the Father and the second "Lord" is the Son, then the Father is
"Jehovah" and the Son is "Adon." However, if the Father is not "Jehovah"
as McConkie claimed, then the first "LORD" is "Jehovah" the Son, but
who, then, is "Adon?" Obviously the Father is "Jehovah" in this Psalm,
and His Son is "Adon."

        Another example involves Isa. 42:6 about which McConkie stated
the following:

  "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness," _Isaiah quoted the
  Father as saying of Christ_, "and will hold thine hand, and will keep
  thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
  Gentiles." (Isa. 42:6.) (Promised Messiah, p. 81) (emphasis added)

        McConkie said the Father was speaking of Christ in this passage
which reads:

  "I the LORD [Jehovah] have called thee in righteousness, and will hold
  thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
  people, for a light of the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

        According to McConkie, "I the LORD" refers to the Father, and
"thine" and "thee" refer to Christ. However, the "LORD" who is speaking
is "Jehovah" which means either McConkie was wrong about who is speaking
or else the Father is "Jehovah."

        Another example involves Ps. 22:7-8. Of these verses McConkie
stated:

  shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord
  that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in
  him." (Ps. 22:7-8.) _The fulfillment, as Jesus hung on the cross_, is
  found in these words: "The chief priests mocking him, with the scribes
  and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be
  the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will
  believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will
  have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which
  were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." (Matt.
  27:41-44.) (Promised Messiah, pp. 530-531) (emphasis added)

        Ps. 22:7-8 reads as follows:

  "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they
  shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD [Jehovah] that he would
  deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

        McConkie said these verses had their fulfillment "as Jesus hung
on the cross." That means the person who was scorned in these verses was
Christ. Who, then, was the "LORD" in whom he trusted? It was "Jehovah"
the Father.

        Another example involves Ps. 31:13 and Ps. 41:9. Regarding them,
McConkie stated the following:

  "With reference to the conniving and conspiring plots incident to our
  Lord's arrest and judicial trials the prophecy was: "They took counsel
  together against me, they devised to take away my life." (Ps. 31:13.)
  "Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
  bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Ps. 41:9.) (Promised
  Messiah, p. 532)

        Apostle McConkie said these Psalms refer to Christ's "arrest and
judicial trials." We shall first consider Ps. 31 and then Ps. 41. While
McConkie only quoted verse 13 of Ps. 31, verse 14 will also be included
to give a complete understanding of the matter.

  "For I have heard the slander of many: fear was on every side: while
  they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my
  life. But I trusted in thee, O LORD [Jehovah]: I said, Thou art my God
  [Elohim]. (Ps. 31:13-14)

        McConkie said verse 13 referred to Jesus Christ. Verse 14 goes
on to tell that He (Christ) trusted in the "LORD" who is called His
"God" or "Elohim." Mormonism teaches that the God above Jesus is
"Elohim" the Father. Verse 14, however, reveals that the "Elohim" of the
man Jesus is "Jehovah" the Father.

        In Ps. 41, McConkie only quoted one verse; however, two verses
will be considered in this examination.

  "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
  bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.
  But thou, O LORD [Jehovah], be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that
  I may requite them. (Ps. 41:9-10)

        McConkie stated above that verse 9 referred to Judas' role in
Christ's death. Since it was Judas who was the "familiar friend" who
"lifted up his heel," the pronouns "mine," "I," "my," and "me" in verse
9 must refer to Christ. Notice that at the beginning of verse 10 there
is a change of pronoun to "thou," which refers to the "LORD" (Jehovah).
Then the pronouns "me" and "I" which refer to Christ are used again.
That means Christ was speaking to "Jehovah" the Father in these verses.

        Another example involves McConkie's following remark about Ps.
        110:4.

  "One of the great Messianic prophecies, spoken by the mouth of David,
  ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 110:4.) (Promised Messiah,
  p. 450)

        McConkie admitted this is a Messianic prophecy involving Christ.
The question is, What in this verse refers to Christ?

  "The LORD [Jehovah] hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest
  for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Ps. 110:4)

        Does the "LORD," which is "Jehovah," refer to Christ? If
McConkie is right and Jesus is "Jehovah," but the Father is not, then
the "LORD" would have to refer to Christ. But who, then, is the one
addressed as the "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?" The
Bible reveals that the one referred to is Jesus Christ (Heb. 5:8-10;
6:20; 7); therefore, the "LORD" (Jehovah) in Ps. 110:4 is the Father.

        Another example involves Isa. 53:4-12. Of these verses McConkie
stated:

  "Of the atoning sacrifice of the future Messiah, Isaiah said...
     The _Lord_ has laid on him the iniquities of us all....
     It pleased the _Lord_ to bruise him... (Promised Messiah, p. 234)
     (emphasis added)

        McConkie rightly said these verses refer to "the atoning
sacrifice of the future Messiah." However, what he failed to mention is
that they also prove that the Father is "Jehovah." Verse 6 reads: "All
we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us
all," and verse 10 reads: "Yet it pleased the LORD [Jehovah] to bruise
him [Christ]..."

        Obviously the "LORD" who laid on Christ "the iniquity of us all"
and who bruised Him is God the Father who is called "Jehovah" in these
verses.

        Remember, McConkie stated that "some sectarians even believe
that Jehovah is the Supreme Deity," and that Christ "came into
mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. He called this concept
"misinformation" that is "untrue." To prove that it is McConkie who is
misinformed and believing untruth, two Scriptural references (2 Sam.
7:14; Ps. 2:7) will be examined. McConkie stated the following regarding
these Scriptures:

  "In the midst of a passage that is clearly Messianic, the Lord says of
  the Seed of David: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son." (2
  Sam. 7:14.) In the second Psalm, the whole of which is also clearly
  Messianic, occurs this statement: "Thou art my Son; this day have I
  begotten thee." (Ps. 2:7.) Paul quotes both of these statements in
  Hebrews 1:5 and says they are prophecies that Christ would come as the
  Son of God. (Promised Messiah, p. 143)

        McConkie cited Heb. 1:5 to show that 2 Sam. 7:14 and Ps. 2:7
refer to Christ who "would come as the Son of God." Since McConkie first
referenced 2 Sam. 7:14, this examination will, too. However, along with
verse 14, verses 11-13 will also be included.

  "And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people
  Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the
  LORD [Jehovah] telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
  And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers,
  I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy
  bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
  He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of
  his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. (2
  Sam. 7:11-14)

        These verses teach that the "LORD" (Jehovah) would have a Son,
the Messiah.
        In the second example McConkie cited Ps. 2:7. This examination
will include verse 8. Notice that it is the "LORD" (Jehovah) who says,
"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

  "I will declare the decree: the LORD [Jehovah] hath said unto me, Thou
  art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
  and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

        McConkie said these verses of Scripture are "clearly Messianic,"
and he acknowledged they teach that "Christ would come as the Son of
God." What he is not willing to acknowledge, however, is that these
Scriptures also teach that the Father is "Jehovah" and that the
"sectarians" who believe "Jehovah is the Supreme Deity whose Son" is
Jesus Christ, "the Only Begotten," are right in their belief.

        Another example involves Mic. 5:4. Of this verse McConkie stated
the following:

  "And so, truly, did our Lord act _during his mortal ministry! Truly,
  this is he of whom it is written_: "He shall stand and feed in the
  strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his
  God... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth." (Mic.
  5:4.) (Promised Messiah, p. 182) (emphasis added)

        According to McConkie, the pronoun "He" at the beginning of Mic.
5:4 refers to Christ "during his mortal ministry." Who, then, is the
"LORD his God?" Mic. 5:4 reads:

  "And he [Christ] shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD
  [Jehovah], in the majesty of the name of the LORD [Jehovah] his God
  [Elohim]... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

        Obviously the "LORD" of Jesus Christ is "Jehovah" the Father who
is referred to as "Jehovah his Elohim."

        Another example involves Ps. 2:2 and Isa. 61:1. Of these verses
McConkie stated the following:

  "A number of Messianic passages speak of "the Lord, and...his
  anointed" (Ps. 2:2), signifying that the Chosen One was consecrated
  and set apart for the ministry and mission that was his. _Jesus
  applied these passages to himself_ by quoting Isaiah's prophecy. "The
  Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek" (Isa.
  61:1), and then saying: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your
  ears" (Luke 4:21). (Promised Messiah, pp. 182-183) (emphasis added)

        The first source McConkie quoted -- Ps. 2:2 -- reads as follows:

  "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
  together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed.

        McConkie said the "anointed" one was Christ. If that is true,
who was "Jehovah?" If "Jehovah" is always Christ, who was the "anointed"
one? Obviously "Jehovah" is referring to God the Father and the
"anointed" is indeed referring to Christ. The second source McConkie
cited is Isa. 61:1 which states:

  "The Spirit of the Lord [Adonai] GOD [Jehovah] is upon me; because the
  LORD [Jehovah] hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
  he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to
  the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

        The one who was anointed to preach, bind up, proclaim, and open
was Jesus Christ. Who, then, was the one who anointed Him? This verse
says the "LORD" (Jehovah) did the anointing. Again, we face the same
problem. If "Jehovah" does not refer to the Father, but only to Christ,
then Jesus anointed someone, but who? As McConkie pointed out, "Jesus
applied these passages to himself." Therefore, the "Jehovah" who
anointed Christ is God the Father.

        Other examples could be cited to show that McConkie and other
Mormon leaders are wrong when they say God the Father is not "Jehovah."
However, these should be enough to expose their error.

        Now, what about Mormonism's claim that Jesus is "Jehovah," but
He is not "Elohim?" It is true that Jesus is "Jehovah." The following
Scriptures prove this fact:

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer
  the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and
  beside me there is no God. (Isa. 44:6)
  [Jesus said] ...I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and
  was dead... (Rev. 1:17-18)

  "...saith the LORD [Jehovah]...they shall look upon me whom they have
  pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only
  son... (Zech. 12:1,10)
  Behold, he [Christ] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
  and they also which pierced him... (Rev. 1:7)

  "...I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel... (Isa.
  43:3)
  ...Ye denied the Holy One [Christ] and the Just... (Acts 3:14)

  "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of
  the LORD [Jehovah] shall be delivered... (Joel 2:32)
  "...the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...there is none other name
  under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10,12)

  "Behold, the Lord GOD [Jehovah] will come with strong hand...his
  reward is with him... (Isa. 40:10)
  ...Behold, I [Christ] come quickly; and my reward is with me... (Rev.
  22:12)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah] my God shall come, and all the saints with
  thee. (Zech. 14:5)
  "...at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. (1
  Thess. 3:13)

  "The LORD [Jehovah] is my shepherd... (Ps. 23:1)
  [Jesus said] I am the good shepherd... (John 10:14)

  "...saith the Lord GOD [Jehovah]. I will seek that which was lost...
  (Ezek. 34:15-16)
  ...the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
  (Luke 19:10)

  "For I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy
  Saviour... (Isa. 43:3)
  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
  God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Tit. 2:13. See also Jer. 42:5 and
  Rev. 1:5; Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8; 1 Kin. 8:28,39 and John 2:24-25;
  Isa. 25:8 and 2 Tim. 1:10; Ps. 107:24,29 and Matt. 8:26; Prov.3:12 and
  Rev. 3:19)

        While Mormons are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah," they
are wrong when they say He is not "Elohim." The Bible reveals that
"Jehovah" is the only true "Elohim" there is; all others are false.
Remember, "Jehovah" is the personal name of the triune God who has
revealed Himself in the Bible.

        Before we consider Biblical quotes which show that "Jehovah" and
"Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claims let us first note
that not only are both God the Father and Christ addressed as "Jehovah"
and "Elohim" but so is the Holy Spirit.

  "Whereof the _Holy Ghost_..._said_...This _is_ the covenant that I
  will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my
  laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And
  their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Heb. 10:15-17)
  (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" and "said" added)
  Behold, the days come, _saith the LORD_ [Jehovah], that I will make a
  new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...
  I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
  and will be their God [Elohim], and they shall be my people.... I will
  forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer.
  31:31,33-34) (emphasis added)

  "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
  men of God spake as they were moved by the _Holy Ghost_. (2 Pet. 1:21)
  (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" added)
  "The Spirit of the LORD [Jehovah] spake by me, and his word was in
  my tongue. (2 Sam. 23:2. See also Heb. 3:7-11 with Ps. 95:6-11)

        Let us now continue with the Biblical quotes which show that
"Jehovah" and "Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claim.

  "And when the LORD [Jehovah] saw that he [Moses] turned aside to see,
  God [Elohim] called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said,
  Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.... [Bruce R. McConkie
  acknowledged that "it was" Christ's "voice that spoke to Moses in the
  burning bush..." Promised Messiah, p. 394]
  And the LORD [Jehovah] said...
  And Moses said unto God [Elohim], Behold, when I come unto the
  children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God [Elohim] of your
  fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his
  name? what shall I say unto them?
  And God [Elohim] said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus
  shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
  you.
  And God [Elohim] said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto
  the children of Israel, the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of your
  fathers, the God [Elohim] of Abraham, the God [Elohim] of Isaac, and
  the God [Elohim] of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for
  ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exod.
  3:4,7,13-15)

  "And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD
  [Jehovah]. (Exod. 6:2)

  "I am the LORD [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God
  [Elohim] beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
  (Isa. 45:5)

  "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God
  [Elohim], and an everlasting king... (Jer. 10:10)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer
  the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and
  beside me there is no God [Elohim]. (Isa. 44:6)

  "Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus,
  saith the LORD [Jehovah], whose name is The God [Elohim] of hosts.
  (Amos 5:27)

  "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's
  [Jehovah's] thy God [Elohim], the earth also, with all that therein
  is. (Deut. 10:14)

  "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim]: for there is
  none like thee, neither is there any God [Elohim] beside thee,
  according to all that we have heard with our ears. (2 Sam. 7:22)

  "And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD [Jehovah],
  the God [Elohim] of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.
  (Jon. 1:9)

  "For who is God [Elohim] save the LORD [Jehovah]? or who is a rock
  save our God [Elohim]? (Ps. 18:31)

  "Blessed is the nation whose God [Elohim] is the LORD [Jehovah]...
  (Ps. 33:12. See also Ps. 144:15)

  "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God
  [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah], the Creator of the ends of the earth,
  fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his
  understanding. (Isa. 40:28)

  "The mighty God [Elohim], even the LORD [Jehovah], hath spoken, and
  called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down
  thereof. (Ps. 50:1)

  "Sing unto God [Elohim], sing praises to his name: estol him that
  rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. (Ps.
  68:4) [Regarding the word "Jah," Bruce R. McConkie stated: "Jah
  (Hebrew Yah) is a contracted form of Jehovah, Jahveh, or Yahweh -- all
  of which names have reference to Christ, the God of Israel." Mormon
  Doctrine, p. 391]

  "And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from
  Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God [Elohim], whose
  name is called by the name of the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts that
  dwelleth between the cherubims. (2 Sam. 6:2)

  "...the Great the Mighty God [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, is
  his name. (Jer. 32:18)

  "O my God [Elohim], make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the
  wind....
  Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD
  [Jehovah]....
  That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most
  high over all the earth. (Ps. 83:13,16,18)

        The Bible clearly teaches that "Jehovah" is "Elohim." In fact,
He is the only "Elohim" there is. He is the "true," the "living," the
"mighty," the "great," and the "everlasting Elohim." He is the "Elohim"
of Israel, of all the kingdoms of the earth, and of the heavens. He is
the Creator who made the heavens and all their host and the earth and
all that dwell thereon. "Jehovah's" name is "Elohim of hosts." (Amos
5:27)

        Not only is "Jehovah," "Elohim," but "Elohim" is "Jehovah." The
Bible reveals that "Elohim's" name is "Jah" (Ps. 68:4), "Jehovah" (Ps.
83:18), and "Jehovah of hosts." (2 Sam. 6:2; Jer. 32:18)   The nation
whose "Elohim" is "Jehovah" is blessed. (Ps. 33:12) Clearly, this is not
the "Jehovah" and "Elohim" of the Mormons.

        Another Mormon error regarding "Elohim" and "Jehovah" is the
belief that "Elohim," not "Jehovah," is the Father of all the spirits,
including Jesus. In the Articles of Faith by Apostle James E. Talmage,
"A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve" apostles
states that "God the Eternal Father...'Elohim,' is the literal Parent
of...the spirits of the human race." (p. 466) This "Doctrinal
Exposition" also states explicitly that "Jesus Christ is not the Father
of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth,
for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of
Elohim." (p. 473)

        The Apostle Talmage stated that "_Elohim_...is the name-title of
God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is
_Jehovah_--" (Jesus the Christ, p. 38)

        The Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated the following about this
matter: "...Jehovah-Christ...did in fact create the earth and all forms
of plant and animal life on the face thereof. _But when it came to
placing man on earth, there was a change in Creators_. That is, the
Father himself became personally involved. All things were created by
the Son, using the power delegated by the Father, except man. _In the
spirit and again in the flesh, man was created by the Father_. There was
no delegation of authority where the crowning creature of creation was
concerned." (Promised Messiah, p. 62) (emphasis added)

        Mormon leaders claim that "Jehovah-Christ" did not create either
man's spirit or his body. They maintain that the Mormon "Elohim," who is
the father, created man both in spirit and body. The Bible reveals the
truth about who created man.

  "And Moses spake unto the LORD [Jehovah], saying,
  Let the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] of the _spirits of all
  flesh_, set a man over the congregation. (Num. 27:15-16. See also
  16:20-23) (emphasis added)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah], which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth
  the foundation of the earth, and _formeth the spirit of man within
  him_. (Zech. 12:1) (emphasis added)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah]...made us this soul... (Jer. 38:16)

  "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for
  the spirit should fail before me, and the _souls which I have
  made_....
  ...saith the LORD [Jehovah]... (Isa. 57:16,19) (emphasis on "souls...I
  have made" added)

  "Behold, I am the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] _of all flesh_...
  (Jer. 32:27) (emphasis added)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that _formed thee
  from the womb_.
  I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things... (Isa. 44:24)
  (emphasis added)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah]...
  I have made the earth, and _created man_ upon it... (Isa. 45:11-12)
  (emphasis added)

  "...God [Elohim] created man upon the earth...
  Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD
  [Jehovah] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him. (Deut.
  4:32,35)

  "Thus saith God [El] the LORD [Jehovah]...he that spread forth the
  earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the
  people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. (Isa. 42:5)

  "...Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, the God [Elohim] of
  Israel... I have made the earth, _the man_ and the beast that are upon
  the ground... (Jer. 27:4-5) (most emphasis added)

        The Bible reveals that it is "Jehovah" who is the "Elohim of the
spirits of all flesh" and "of all flesh" itself, that it was He who
"formed the spirit of man within him," that He "made us this soul" and
"formed us from the womb." He did indeed "create man."

        If Mormon leaders are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah,"
then they are wrong when they say he did not create man. If they are
right when they say the father is the one who created man, then they are
wrong when they say he is not "Jehovah."

        Although Mormon leaders teach that Jesus did not create man,
Mormon scriptures teach that he did. The BoM states the following:

  "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son....
  And never have I showed myself unto _man whom I have created_, for
  never has man believed in me as thou hast....
  Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and
  _man have I created_ after the body of my spirit... (Eth. 3:14-16)
  (emphasis added)

  "For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is _I
  that hath created them_... (Mos. 26:23) (emphasis added)

  "...the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
  Jacob...is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and
  all things that in them are.
  Behold _he created Adam_... (Mor. 9:11-12) (emphasis added)

        D&C, 93:10 states that "the worlds were made by him [Christ];
_men were made by him_; all things were made by him, and through him,
and of him." (emphasis added)

        Another error by Bruce R. McConkie involving "Jehovah" and his
creation is the belief that "Jehovah" had "many" pre-mortal spirits
helping him create. Included in this alleged group was Joseph Smith, Jr.

  "That he [Christ] was aided in the creation of this earth by "many of
  the noble and great" spirit children of the Father is evident from
  go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these
  materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell." (Abra.
  3:22-24.) Michael or Adam was one of these. Enoch, Noah, Abraham,
  Moses, Peter, James, and John, Joseph Smith, and many other "noble and
  great" ones played a part in the great creative enterprise. (Doctrines
  of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 74-75.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 169)

        The Bible reveals the truth about this matter:

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that formed thee
  from the womb, I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things; that
  stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by
  myself. (Isa. 44:24)

  "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of
  the sea. (Job 9:8)

        "Jehovah," by Himself, created all things. He had no alleged
preexistent spirit helpers assisting Him.

        Regarding the Mormon 'Elohim," the Apostle McConkie stated:
"Elohim. plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his
supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods." (Mormon
Doctrine, p. 224) He also stated that "Jesus...is above all save the
Father only." (Promised Messiah, p. 363)

        The Bible states that the One who is God above all so-called
gods is the triune God "Jehovah."

  "For the LORD [Jehovah] is a great God [El], and a great King above
  all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 95:3)

  "For thou, LORD [Jehovah], art high above all the earth: thou art
  exalted far above all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 97:9)

  "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods
  [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11. See also Ps. 135:5; Deut. 10:17)

        If Mormon leaders are right when they say "Jehovah" is god the
son and "Elohim" is god the father, these verses from the Bible would be
teaching that the Mormon son is above his father. However, as McConkie
clearly stated, Mormons believe "Elohim" the father, not "Jehovah" the
son, is the "God above all Gods" -- that Jesus is above all except the
father; yet the Bible teaches that "Jehovah" is above all "Elohim."

        At a BYU Dev. on March 2, 1982, Bruce R. McConkie made the
following remark about praying to Jesus:

  "Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly
  to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been
  developed....
  This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the
  Father, and to him only....
  ...Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son;
  it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost... (Our Relationship With
  the Lord, pp. 19-20)

        McConkie states on p. 335 of his book Promised Messiah that the
Mormons "pray to the Father, not the Son..." On p. 306 of the same book
McConkie states that "Christ [the Son] is Jehovah." This is important to
remember, because although McConkie said prayer is not to be offered to
the Mormon Christ who is "Jehovah," the Bible states repeatedly in the
OT that people prayed to "Jehovah," and He not only heard those prayers,
but He accepted them as valid requests. The following is but a small
sample of the vast number of times people prayed to "Jehovah."

  "In my distress I called upon the LORD [Jehovah], and cried unto my
  God [Elohim]: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came
  before him, even into his ears. (Ps. 18:6)

  "And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy
  supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this
  house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine
  eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. (1 Kin. 9:3)

  "And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our
  supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD
  [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim], even for all this remnant... (Jer. 42:2)

  "O LORD [Jehovah], I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to
  the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who
  desire to fear thy name... (Neh. 1:11)

  "And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this
  prayer and supplication unto the LORD [Jehovah], he arose from before
  the altar of the LORD [Jehovah], from kneeling on his knees with his
  hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kin. 8:54)

  "He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed
  unto the LORD [Jehovah]. (2 Kin. 4:33)

  "Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], the God
  [Elohim] of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy
  tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years. (Isa. 38:5)

  "I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I
  said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD [Jehovah]; and
  thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.
  For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when
  thou mayest be found... (Ps. 32:5-6)

        Notice above in Ps. 32:6 that the "godly" pray to "Jehovah."
According to McConkie and other Mormon leaders, that is Christ the very
one to whom McConkie said people should not pray.

        The Bible reveals there is only one true "Elohim," and His name
is "Jehovah." All other "Elohim" are false. They are idols that cause
their followers to commit adultery against the true "Elohim" and
idolatry.

  "For the LORD [Jehovah] is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to
  be feared above all gods [Elohim].
  For all the gods [Elohim] of the nations are idols: but the LORD
  [Jehovah] made the heavens. (Ps. 96:4-5)

  "Thou shalt have no other gods [Elohim] before me. (Exod. 20:3)

  "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods
  [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11)

  "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God
  [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and
  worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
  perish. (Deut. 8:19)

  "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods [Elohim].
  They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me:
  for if thou serve their gods [Elohim], it will surely be a snare unto
  thee. (Exod. 23:32- 33)

  "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn
  aside, and serve other gods [Elohim], and worship them. (Deut. 11:16)

  "That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you;
  neither make mention of the name of their gods [Elohim], nor cause to
  swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them.
  (Josh. 23:7)

  "...neither walk after other gods [Elohim] to your hurt. (Jer. 7:6)

  "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God
  [Elohim]... (Jer. 10:10)

  "And they forsook the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of their fathers,
  which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods
  [Elohim], of the gods [Elohim] of the people that were round about
  them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD [Jehovah]
  to anger. (Jud. 2:12)

  "Shall a man make gods [Elohim] unto himself, and they are no gods
  [Elohim]? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I
  will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know
  that my name is the LORD [Jehovah]. ( Jer. 16:20-21)

  "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD [Jehovah], choose you
  this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods [Elohim] which your
  fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods
  [Elohim] of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my
  house, we will serve the LORD [Jehovah].
  And the people answered and said, God [Elohim] forbid that we should
  forsake the LORD [Jehovah], to serve other gods [Elohim]. (Josh.
  24:15-16)

        These verses teach that the only true, living "Elohim" in heaven
and on earth is "Jehovah" -- the triune God who made heaven and earth
and all therein.

        "Jehovah" is greater than any "Elohim," because all other
"Elohim" are idols. The reality behind them is demonic. (Deut. 32:17)
"Jehovah Elohim" has given explicit warnings and guidelines regarding
these false "Elohim." He told His people not to have any "Elohim" but
Him. He told the people that if they left Him for the false "Elohim,"
those "Elohim" would be a snare to them, and they would be hurt and
would perish. He warned the people to "take heed" that their "heart be
not deceived" into worshiping, serving, swearing by, and making
covenants with false "Elohim." "Jehovah Elohim" told His people He would
eventually judge all false "Elohim" and their followers.

        Despite these warnings and guidelines, "Elohim's" covenant
people forsook Him and believed in and worshiped the false "Elohim's" of
the people they came in contact with. Ju. 10:6 states that "the children
of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah] and served
Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods [Elohim] of Syria, and the gods
[Elohim] of Zidon, and the gods [Elohim] of Moab, and the gods [Elohim]
of the children of Ammon, and the gods [Elohim] of the Philistines, and
forsook the LORD [Jehovah], and served not him."

        This examination has shown that the "Elohim" of Mormonism, like
the "Elohim" in Ju. 10:6 is not the true "Jehovah Elohim." Therefore,
the people who leave the true "Elohim" for the Mormon "Elohim" will do
"evil...in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah]."

        Although McConkie attacked Christians for their belief in a
triune God who is Spirit and for their belief that God the Father
[Jehovah] sent His Son into the world, these beliefs are true. God is
triune; He is Spirit; He is "Jehovah;" and He did send His Son into the
world to redeem mankind.

        It is obvious from this examination that it is not the
Christians who "thrash around in...darkness" about who "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" are. One wonders what "Holy Writ" McConkie had in mind when he
stated that it attests to the fact that "Elohim is the Father, and that
Jehovah is the Son." He certainly did not mean the Bible which teaches
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the one "Jehovah Elohim."
He apparently did not mean the D&C either, because chapter 109, verses
1,4,9-10, 14,19,22,24,29,34,42,47,56,68,77 refer to the Father as
"Jehovah."

Summary

        Obviously Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that the Mormons
"have a clear and perfect understanding of the nature of God" (Doctrines
of Salvation, 1:279) is not accurate. The Mormon gods are not the true
God as Mormonism claims, but are idols which cause their followers to
commit adultery against God and idolatry.

        In answer to Jesus' question, "But whom say ye that I am,"
Mormons say Jesus is someone different from the Jesus who is revealed in
the Bible and whom the apostles preached. Therefore, anyone trusting in
the Mormon Jesus is believing in "another Jesus" whom Paul warned about.

        Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy,
admitted in the May 1977 issue of The Ensign, a Mormon publication, that
the Mormon Jesus is different from the Christian Jesus. He stated that
"it is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different
Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 26)

        The people who believe in the Mormon Jesus are committing
adultery against God and idolatry. They do not have the Son; therefore,
they do not have the Father, and they do not have eternal life. As the
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie rightly stated: "Salvation comes only by
worshiping the true God." (Promised Messiah, p. 163) McConkie also
rightly stated that "the mere worship of a god who has the proper
scriptural names does not assure one that he is worshiping the true and
living God," because the "true names of Deity" can be applied to "false
concepts of God." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 270) Remember that the Apostle
Stephen L. Richards admitted that Joseph Smith, Jr., gave "a new
conception of God and the Godhead." (Contributions of Joseph Smith, p.
1)

        It is important for the people who have left the true triune God
revealed in the Bible to repent and return to Him. They must forsake the
sins of idolatry and adultery which they are committing in Mormonism.

  "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from
  me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD
  [Jehovah], the fountain of living waters. (Jer. 17:13)

  "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God
  [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and
  worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
  perish. (Deut. 8:19)

  "Thou shalt make no covenant with...their gods [Elohim]. (Exod. 23:32)

  "...Put away the strange gods [Elohim] that are among you, and be
  clean, and change your garments. (Gen. 35:2)

  "...flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14)

        It is necessary that Christians heed the warnings of the Bible.
If they do, they will not fall into the sins of adultery against God and
idolatry. Remember, to know the "only true God" is eternal life. (John
17:3)


Providing safety and security for one's own people is the most
fundamental responsibility of any political entity. For the Palestinian
leadership to refuse to accept this responsibility, i.e. take the
responsibility to protect their people from radical Palestinian elements
who are opposed to the peace process, is reprehensible. To argue that a
Palestinian police force would be established in order to control peaceful
political groups only reinforces the reality that the Palestinian
leadership, so far, can not exercise control over radical Palestinian
elements nor effectively deal with the killing of Palestinians by
Palestinians. This is a problem that can only be solved by the
Palestinian people.


Yup. Do it whenever I am in the cage (which is not often if its riding weather
... ie no snow). I find arm out and down and kinda finger wave works best for
sport bikes and arm out/up works best for Harleys. Similar to how I wave when
I am on the bike.

Yah mean like..

Done what? Why Jody we would never, ever even dream of assuming that a young
lady of such refined breeding and taste would even consider such things. I mean
some matters do not even have to be discussed, by civilized beings...

But, in confidence, just between the "two of us", not even once. Or perhaps
got excited thinking about it. I know that I do... ;->


I recently installed dos 5.0 on a few machines, and the users
claim that when they use the mouse often, the screen will blank, and
the machine will lock up.

There are no viruses, they are not running any TSR's.
(the mouse is a logitec 2 button)

Anybody got any ideas?

thanks


    Would you believe that there is a letter in MacWEEK this week from
one of the hardware types at Digital Eclipse. He says that they run
tests on all of the components to see if they will perform at the
upgraded speed. If they do not then DESI replaces them with ones that
do.


--

Are the any Opel GT's out there? I'm wondering if there are enough to
starting a mail list...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Singer                                    MIT Lincoln Laboratory
(617) 981-3771                                       244 Wood Street
singer@ll.mit.edu                                    Lexington, MA 02173


I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced
many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology.
I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself,
a good thing.

If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in
and of itself.


Anyone know if there is an updated driver for Sony DAT drives?  I can't
get mine to work with our 950 (see "Sony DAT / Retrospect Problems"
posted in this group) but I'm also having problems with other new macs...

Cheers, Matt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


*** Unecessary ...
might do it, too much trouble :)

*** Agreed Mixali...

*** Not entirely true..>

TRUE ***

Unecessary ...

	Path of least resistance (TM) :) :
Get WinGIF 1.4 from cica (ftp.cica.indiana.edu pub/pc/win3/(desktop?) )
It will save to native .rle format unlike PSP (an otherwise fine, fine prog)
Make a file using anything that has to be less than 30k, as Michael said,
and less than 16 colors... Import it to WinGIF as gif, pcx or bmp and
save it in you windows/system subdir as vgalogo.rle (NOT .lgo). Exit Win,
and run setup in the windows subdir. Reselect your _current_ config. Run
Win. Voila'
(minor correction: the .rle file has to be <30k. that means ~15k gif ?)
Hope it helps... (and please, please someone put this in the group's FAQ)


[...]

The events I saw were:
1)  Called strike by Hirschbeck
2)  Shocked-looking Gant asks for appeal to first
3)  No appeal to first
4)  Gant steps out of batters box.
5)  Hirschbeck *immediately* orders Gant back in.  [bad move]
6)  Gant ignores Hirschbeck and walks off. [bad move]
7)  Hirschbeck yells at Gant.  Gant is silent.
8)  Hirschbeck calls for the pitch.
9)  Pitch is called a strike.
10)  Cox argues (couldn't see when he came on the field)
11)  Cox is ejected, players everywhere
12)  Play finally resumes.

Gant shouldn't have ignored Hirschbeck.  Not returning made the strike
call fairly likely.  Although I suspect an argument might have gotten
Gant tossed altogether.  But if Hirschbeck had let Gant step out, the
whole incident probably would have been avoided.
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic


Teemu Selanne had 3 goals, Keith Tkachuk had one, and Luciano Borsato
scored a rare Jets shorthanded goal as the Jets held on to beat the
Canucks 5-4, and close the series to 2-1.  Trevor Linden and Pavel
Bure had two goals each for the Canucks in a losing cause.

Selanne came out of a two game goal scoring slump, scoring two powerplay
goals, and one on a nice breakaway pass from Darrin Shannon.

Hard work paid off tonight for the Jets, and if the Jets continue to
exhibit this strong work effort, they can make a series of it. (I woofed
last year when we were up 3-1...I ain't going to do THAT again.  I'll
have to be quietly happy with a solid performance.  ;)


Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos: 24-Apr-93 Honda Mailing list? by James
B. Atkins@prism.ga


I'm looking for the best source for SIMMs in the USA. I'm not looking for
   the lowest prices, but rather for the best quality SIMMs and the one with
   the lowest rate of defective SIMMs. I know the chip Merchant has good
   prices but they seems to have a high rate of returned SIMMs.
   Does anyone know how many SIMMs you have to purchase to obtain quantity
   discount ?.
   Thank you.


Yeah!  That's it! :)  You've really outdone yourself this time Nick...
Don't forget the "Davidian Muslims"... :)

Islam is not a race.  It's a religion.  You can be white, black,
Fijian or Alaskan.  I guess you didn't absorb too much of the Malcolm
X interest circulating.  You see, the whole point of Islam is that it
stresses equality amongst all peoples.  Now, I do realize this is
difficult for you to comprehend given your staunch beliefs in Serbian
ethnic cleansing, but give it a try, it's really not that difficult.

That's right, it's a Disneyland war -- all a setup for the TV cameras.
There are also people who believe man never landed on the moon, that
the whole Apollo story was done in TV studios...

Terms of secession?  You are, of course, joking, right Nick?  Nobody
*chose* to fight.  Bosnia and Croatia were *internationally*
recognized nations when the Serbs attacked and started on their
well-documented genocide.  That makes them an outside aggressor.  It's
a simple genocide, a classical example of ethnic cleansing.  There is
no question of civil war...


I've found a problem in the use of Xlib functions regarding re-entrancy. I
decided to implement an animated cursor (using 6 created cursors) by calling
XDefineCursor from a SIG_ALRM signal handler. This is used to indicate we are
waiting for a operator request to complete. (on a production control system).
I was redrawing the screen underneath the animated cursor and then restoring
the standard cursor when complete. I found dumped core , and upon analysis
it was when the SIG_ALRM handler was called during a XDrawString call. XDrawString
was doing a bcopy (presumably an internal structure) when the XDefineCursor
was called. Presumably the (internal) structure that XDrawString was manipulating
was not in a stable state and sent XDefineCursor to where it shouldn't have been.

Has anyone else experienced this? Is there any official documentation that
says you should ensure this doesn't happen? Or should bcopy() be atomic.
We are running on SGI Irix 4.0.1 with X11R4.

--
Regards, Martin


Give him the $2, leave the house and call the police.  That's what I would
do.  I will not kill to protect mere possessions.

Peace be with you,


Hi,

I'm looking for RGB (cube) --> HLS (double hexcone) --> HSV (cylinder)
conversion routines. I have RGB <--> HSV, but miss the HLS <--> RGB/HSV.

PLEASE E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY, AS I DO NOT GET THIS NEWSGROUP AT MY SITE
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any and all help wil be greatly appreciated.
Gert.

--


I would be veru interested also, if there is one.
Could someone please send me some info?


There are two things at work here ... the public insurance is very
wide in what it will cover, as the amortization is also universal.
No private plan can boast of a plan that fits a Gaussian curve ...
and as our private sector has discovered, they're better off not
offering insurance coverage that their customers are going to use.
(-;

The alternative to the system is no system at all (patients opted out,
doctors opted out, or both).  But that only for insurance ... and you
can't force a private insurance company to sell you a plan that they
will not offer.  And remember that the actual health care is delivered
by private entities who collect from the public insurance voluntarily.
Again, they can't force a private entity to spring to life to pay them.

Plus, there is the matter of culture and values ... I'm basically
anti-tax and anti-government, by Canadian standards ... yet I can't
bring myself to make the same arguments as you do, despite that I
understand where you're coming from.  Up north, you're so much more
likely to find someone protesting taxes going to defence than health
insurance premiums to only one fund for basic coverage ...

Yes, primarily in Quebec and in Alberta.  Sorry, I musta lost you in
that verbose blurb ...

In Canada and Germany, it's not mandatory.  However, it is negative
option in that you must request the exemption.  That the private
sector will not provide private basic coverage if offered the option
(as in the Quebec case) tells me something about what they know ...

Yes, but part of the reason is that our most of our markets are
too small to sustain many specialists, sometimes not even one, so
you pretty well have to be a GP to get paid.  And if you do get
the training, the doctors monopoly might block your getting of a
licence because there is already someone in the business and who
cannot fill his/her appointment book.  That we have a CMA doctors
monopoly is something that the American AMA-oriented medical lobby
NEVER tells you down here ...

No, I respect people who do specialties (okay, all of my MD friends
are (-;) but there's the question of our small market dynamics up
north ... if anything, that our private doctors and hospitals sell
their services to Americans to generate more business will inflate
their effective population served, and thus make some specialties
finally viable (i.e., there will be enough customers).  We just do
not have enough sick Canadians in absolute numbers otherwise.

Uh ... Germany basically uses our method, with their many sickness
funds.  The competition is fake if it exists at all, because they're
all interlinked.  Look in Der Spiegel or Stern (my girlfriend is in
our German department  and her uncle is a private practicioner in
Saarbrucken) ... no ads for health insurance.  While Canada organizes
by province, Germany organizes the paperwork around big corporations
and regional offices.   But remember that we have provinces that have
the same population as some major German corporations.  Germans have
public health insurance, just that it is brokered by smaller entities
(actually, brokerage of basic by private firms who'll sell extra
insurance to fill out their policies, sort of a voucher system,
was one of the first ideas floated in Canada, too).

Remember, the Germans don't have HMO's ... a telling sign, 'cos
Rochester does and they're also a company town.

I'll have to let a Canadian MD jump in to verify that claim, but
I've come to learn to suspect anything in the American press about
our "system".  If much or some of it were true, you'd have to take
us for idiots for tolerating it.  And given that our insurance was
installed during a period when there were only Liberal and Tory
governments federally and provincially, and the socialists are still
chafing, they would've pressed for real socialized medicine to fix
things ... think about it.  After all, we are using the U.S. as a
metric to make comparison ... both for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses
as for confirming that we did something right.

gld


I'm looking for a copy of Friedman's Riverbank Publication No. 16 "Methods
for the Solution of Running-Key Ciphers."  Agean Park Press tells me that their
publication C-23 "The Riverbank Publications, Volume 1" is out of print.  Can
anyone snail-mail me a photocopy of No. 16?  If someone could it would be much
appreciated.

Regards,


        Interesting, as I think computer technology is now
becomming widespread enough now that it is no longer a position
which must require a degree.  I know of several people I work
with that make just as much as I do and they don't even have
a BS degree in comp sci. yet they make 28+ a year.  They also
didn't have to pay 30 grand to thier local University either. :(
       I think computer programming is being reduced to a trade
practice, than a truly specialty field.  It will be even more
so in the future.
       If your interested in cutting edge type of stuff and you
choose CS as I did, I suggest checking out the emerging field
of Software Engineering.  The difficulties for example of designing
scaleable design environments for individuals so that a single person
can handle 100,000 to 1,000,000 million lines of code all by himself
in a reasonable manner and then incorporate that into a teamwork enviroment
is truly a gigantic problem...not going to be solved any time soon
unfortunately...but hey you could be the person that provides
the missing key for some good groundwork!

Well, if your like the poor slobs in the world..like me, you are
in no financial position to continue Graduate work right out
of a Top 10 comp sci school.

The trick is, to find some generous INC you work for to PAY for the
rest of your education...TRUST ME its the best way to go..even
if you don't get a TOP salary.  Which I have always been a poor
slob throughout school but if you follow this rule: BOOK=SALARY=FOOD&SHELTER
you should always have a computer and you won't go hungry.

What else could a man want?!


One of my brothers had spent a lot of time practicing bizzare tricks on
his megabuck/micromass bike. He said he once repelled a dog attack by
picking up the rear of the bike and smacking the dog in the side of the
head with the rear wheel. The dog had _no_ idea what hit him, and he
fled quite rapidly. Then again, he could jump garbage cans without a
ramp, so I don't think I'd care to try this one on a motorcycle.

That's almost unfair, I've never seen a dog that could use a phone. :-)


Once upon a time, long long ago in this news group, someone
posted a schematic for a 1-bit A/D converter.  Well I just found a use
for the little monster.  Anyone out there still got this text file?
It had a flip-flop, a resistor and a cap, and a comparator/op-amp I
think.  I would be extremely thankful to anyone who could mail me the
schematic or post it to the news-group.


Oh boy, get a small baby and figure out how much brain power they
have the first 6 months....

Cheers,
Kent


Vell, this is perfectly normal behaviour Vor a Vogon, you know?


The overhead replay pretty clearly showed that it was the Quebec
defender who deflected the puck.  The re-play officials did not
take nearly as much time to make this call as they did for the first
non-goal, so it seemed pretty non-controversial.

I agree that it was a great game; good to see Roy and Damphousse back
into form.  Hopefully the sign of good things to come...


Here you give positive, accurate "facts" about what happened to the beduins
and the land:

   After the creation of the State of Israel, 80 percent of the Negev
   Bedouin were expelled to the Sinai or to Southern Jordan. The
   10,000 who were allowed to remain were confined to a territory of
   40,000 hectares in a region were annual mean precipiation was 150
   mm - a quantity low enough to ensure a crop failure two years out
   of three. The rare water wells in the south and central Negev,
   spring of life in the desert, were cemented to prevent Bedouin
   shepherds from roaming.

   A few Bedouin shepherds were allowed to stay in the central Negev.
   But after 1982, when the Sinai was returned to Egypt, these
   Bedouin were also eliminated. At the same time, strong pressure
   was applied on the Bedouin to abandon cultivation of their fields
   in order that the land could be transferred to the army.

And now you say noone knows anything about what happened there:

   No reliable statistics exist concerning the amount of land held
   today by Negev Bedouin. It is a known fact that a large part of
   the 40,000 hectares they cultivated in the 1950s has been seized
   by the Israeli authorities. Indeed, most of the Bedouin are now
   confined to seven "development towns", or *sowetos*, established
   for them.

   (the rest of the article is available from Elias Davidsson, email:
   elias@ismennt.is)

So what you basically say is that "we know for sure that nothing good happens
there now,  we know for sure that the beduins prospered before the Jews arrived
and that they were driven away by the Jews,  noone on earth knows about
what the Jews did there."

Is that what you said?  Could you proove any of the nonsense you wrote?

BTW,  try asking beduins in Sinai how they mis the Israelis.  Not to mention
that there are enough valotaring beduins in the IDF to have at least one full
brigade of them.


Following is a short note commenting on den Boer and Bosselaers'
recent work on the MD5 message-digest algorithm. Feel free to email
questions or further comments.

-- Burt Kaliski
RSA Laboratories
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\begin{document}

\title{On ``Pseudocollisions'' in the MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm}
\author{Burton S. Kaliski Jr. \\
{\tt burt@rsa.com} \and
Matthew J.B. Robshaw \\
{\tt matt@rsa.com} \and
RSA Laboratories \\
100 Marine Parkway \\
Redwood City, CA  94065}
\date{April 23, 1993}

\maketitle

A message-digest algorithm maps a message of arbitrary length to a
``digest'' of fixed length, and has three properties: Computing the
digest is easy, finding a message with a given
digest---``inversion''---is hard, and finding two messages with the
same digest---``collision''---is also hard. Message-digest algorithms
have many applications, including digital signatures and message
authentication.

RSA Data Security's MD5 message-digest algorithm, developed by Ron
Rivest \cite{rfc-md5}, maps a message to a 128-bit message digest.
Computing the digest of a one-megabyte message takes as little as a
second.  While no message-digest algorithm can yet be {\em proved}
secure, MD5 is believed to be at least as good as any other that maps
to a 128-bit digest.  Inversion should take about $2^{128}$
operations, and collision should take about $2^{64}$ operations.  No
one has found a faster approach to inversion or collision.

Recent work by den Boer and Bosselaers \cite{den-boer-md5} presents
a special kind of ``pseudocollision'' in MD5's
internal compression function, which maps
a 512-bit message block $x$ and a
128-bit input state $s$ to a 128-bit output
state. They show how to find a message block $x$
and two related input states $s_1$ and $s_2$ that yield the same
output state: $f(x,s_1)$ = $f(x,s_2)$. Their well-thought approach
exploits structural properties of the collision function to find
a pseudocollision in about $2^{16}$ operations, much less than one
would expect.

Practical implications of this pseudocollision work to the security of
MD5 are not evident. While a real collision in MD5 implies a
pseudocollision (or a ``pseudo-inversion''), a
pseudocollision need not imply a real collision. Indeed, a real
collision, since it involves two different messages, would almost
always involve {\em different} message blocks $x_1$ and $x_2$ such that
$f(x_1,s_1) = f(x_2,s_2)$, but the pseudocollisions have the same
message blocks. Moreover, the input states $s_1$ and $s_2$ would
generally be unrelated, but the pseudocollisions' input states are
the same except for four bits.  There does not seem to be any way to
extend den Boer and Bosselaers' approach to anything beyond the
special pseudocollisions, a limitation they readily admit.

It is reasonable, therefore, to believe that MD5 remains secure. While den
Boer and Bosselaers have found interesting structural properties in
MD5, the properties seem only to lead to special pseudocollisions
and not anything approaching real collisions. Further research, of
course, will give a better understanding of the strengths of MD5 and
other message-digest algorithms, with the eventual hope that
such algorithms can, in some sense, be proved secure.

\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{1}

\bibitem{den-boer-md5}
Bert den~Boer and Antoon Bosselaers.
\newblock Collisions for the compression function of {MD5}.
\newblock In {\it Advances in Cryptology --- Eurocrypt '93}, 1993.
\newblock Preprint.

\bibitem{rfc-md5}
R.L. Rivest.
\newblock {\it {RFC} 1321: The {MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm}}.
\newblock Internet Activities Board, April 1992.

\end{thebibliography}


foot in mouth again, drew.  the first generation mr 2's were 1.6's which
were very smooth.  i'd be real surprised if the original poster was talking
about a 1st generation car.  the second generation cars were 2.2 for the
non turbo and 2.0 for the turbo.  i drove the non turbo 2.2 and calling it
unpleasant is to be kind to it..

wrong and wrong.  mitsubishi owns the patent, which has since expired
which is why everybody with a shred of integrity is putting balance
shafts into their big 4's.. the notable exception is nissan.. and only
for the us market suckers.  i guess we need to write to C&D and start
telling them to publish graphs for engine vibration over rpm.  then
you'll see usenet discussions of the form: engine A has peak
vibrations 3 dB less than engine B, therefore engine A is better than
engine B.

1/2 :-)


******* LOWERED PRICES *******

	I have the following IBM hardware forsale

	ATI VgaWonderXl24 -  This is a great card, it supports 1024x768 256
 colors, 800x600 32k colors, and 640x480 16 million colors.  I found that it
 also speed up windows considerably.  I'm asking $90 o.b.o. for this card.

	I also have 2 2400 internal baud modems.  I have Docs for both but I
 don't have the original boxes.  Both work fine and I'd like to get $20 each or
 $35 for both .

	BackUPS 400 - Backup power supply that allows CPU and Monitor to
continue to operate up to 30 minutes in event of power failure. Asking $50.


Hockey-tipset, V}ren 1993:
	         ==========================

 *#*#*#*#* Vinnare av Hockey-tipset 1993... Per Bengtson!!! Grattis! *#*#*#*#*

 Slutst{llning:		1. Per Bengtson		15
			2. Lars Andersson	13
			3. Anders Engwall	11
			4. Staffan Axelsson	10
			   Patrik ]sander	10
			6. Hannu L A Hietanen	 9
			   Ingvar Khan		 9
			8. noran@cs.tut.fi	 8
			   Jan Stein		 8
			   Roger Wennstr|m	 8
			11.Lars Thore Aarhus	 7
			   Fredrik Nissen	 7
			   Marek Repinski	 7
			   Lars Wiklund		 7
			15.Lennart Hedenstr|m	 6

 Vinnare och lycklig {gare av en FBK-mugg {r allts} Per Bengtson,
 kometen som ledde hockeytipset 92 vid halvtid men som sedan fick
 ge vika f|r Anders Engwall i slutspurten.

 De tre f|rsta lyckades pricka in den viktiga fr}ga 1.4 SM-guld till Bryn{s.
 Kanske var det v{l sv}rt att tippa slutspelet ocks} men man ser att
 om den j{mna finalen mellan Lule} och Bryn{s ist{llet hade slutat till
 Lule}s f|rdel, s} hade det varit samma vinnare i alla fall.

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

 H{r f|ljer de korrekta svaren. Siffran inom parentes anger hur m}nga
 som hade tippat detta. * anger Per Bengtsons vinnande rad.

	1. Elitserien

	1.1 Tippa den slutgiltiga tabellen.

	 1. V{ster}s            (7)
	 2. Bryn{s              (2)	*
	 3. Malm|               (4)
	 4. F{rjestad           (5)
	 5. MoDo                (6)
	 6. Lule}               (6)	*
	 7. Leksand             (2)	*
	 8. Djurg}rden          (2)	*

        - - - - - - - - - -
	 9. HV 71              (11)	*
	10. R|gle              (12)	*

	1.2 Vilka 4 av de 8 kvartsfinalisterna g}r vidare till semifinal?

	    Djurg}rden          (4)
	    Lule}               (9)
	    Bryn{s              (6)	*
	    Malm|              (13)	*

	1.3 Vilka 2 lag m|ts i final?

	    Lule}               (5)
	    Bryn{s              (4)	*

	1.4 Vilka blir Svenska M{stare 92/93?   (3p)

	    Bryn{s              (4)	*

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

	2. Allsvenskan

	   1. V{stra Fr|lunda  (11)	*
	   2. Huddinge          (3)	*

	  - - - - - - - - - - -

	   3. Bj|rkl|ven        (5)
	   4. AIK               (5)	*

	  - - - - - - - - - - -

	   9. Team G{vle        (1)
	  10. Boden             (0)

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


        This one is easy, they 'tape' the conversation, call the FBI or
Secret Service.  You see "activities against the Satan Clinton" could be
construed as a threat against the President of the United States.  I am
sure they(NSA,FBI,SS,...,...) have enough judges in their collective
pockets to have a warrent before the call is over.....


   Yes, Mary is fully human.  However, that does not imply that she was
just as subject to sin as we are.  Catholic doctrine says that man's
nature is good (Gen 1:31), but is damaged by Original Sin (Rom 5:12-16).
In that case, being undamaged by Original Sin, Mary is more fully human
than any of the rest of us.

   You ask why God cannot "repeat the miracle" of Mary's preservation
from Original Sin.  A better way to phrase it would be "why _did_ He
not" do it that way, but you misunderstand how Mary's salvation was
obtained.  Like ours, the Blessed Virgin Mary's salvation was obtained
through the merits of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.  However, as
God is not bound by time, which is His creation, God is free to apply
His Sacrifice to anyone at any time, even if that person lived before
Christ came to Earth, from our time-bound perspective.  Therefore,
Christ's Death and Resurrection still served a necessary purpose, and
were necessary even for Mary's salvation.


In <faUk03m6d0Kq00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>,
	dated 29 Apr 93 15:43:10 GMT,

I'll agree with your wife.  While I was a student, I had doctors remove
rather surprising amounts of wax from my ears by flushing them out a couple
times, usually because they were examining my ears for some other reason, and
said something like "Gee, you've got a lot of wax in there".  In my case,
removal of these large wax buildups did noticeably improve my hearing, and
I've since gotten in the same habit as your wife of flushing them out with
warm water from a little rubber bulb every few months.  You can buy little
bulbs together with ear drops for this express purpose from the drug store -
I don't notice that the drops accomplish much of anything.


Attention please!

According to the rules of usenet flame wars, once a discussion degenerates
to the point where Hitler is mentioned, that flame war may be declared
ended.  I would like to take this opportunity to do that now.  Clearly
further discussion is not useful with the current set of facts, and the
current name calling and invocation of Hitler's name is not productive even
by the standards of usenet talk groups.

If you must continue, please don't discuss this in misc.legal.  It's not
about the law.  If you would like to discuss the law as it applies to the
Waco incident, please ask questions of the form: "if the FBI started the
fire accidentally, who would be legally responsible for the deaths".

Note that followups are set not to include misc.legal.


Is your stomach all right? Unable to digest your lunch?
Cool down... In the context of Bosnia muslims are a nation.
And nobody talked about them being a race.

And Yugoslavia was a recognized nation. If you apply the principle
of self determination to Yugoslavia then you should apply it to
Croatia and Bosnia. Of course, you might want to apply again to
Kossovo.


I have a mac plus with 2.5MB RAM. I have just bought an extra 2MB so that
I can have the max 4MB RAM that a plus supports. However, I can't get it
to boot after I install the 2 extra SIMMs. Instead I get a sad mac (Sorry,
but I can't remember the code). Looking at the motherboard, I can see
that 2 resistors have been snipped off where it says "256Kb path -
1 row". I assume that was done when the first 1MB SIMMs were added.

So, my question is: Are there any other resistors that need snipping?
				or, Do I have bum SIMMs which need to be exchanged?

Any and all advice will be appreciated.


Hi,
	Could some please tell me the errors of my ways.
	I am trying to update a drawable. This drawable
	happens to be a Pixmap on a button.

	The problem is that after I do the :
XClearArea(XtDisplay(m_usr[0]),XtWindow(m_usr[0]), 80, 8, 40, 40, True);

	This appears to work. I then do

sprintf(tmp_str,"R=%d",++fun);
XDrawString(XtDisplay(m_usr[0]), bmaps[0] ,my_gc, 78, 10, tmp_str, (strlen(tmp_str)) );

	The problem is that the new info is drawn but the old info is
	still there. Even if I pass XClearArea a False and see it clear
	when it redraws the new info, the old info is still there.

Help Please!!!
        Thanks
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Paries           rtparies@turq.b8.ingr.com
x6191  cr041           Intergraph, Huntsville Alabama


So if Potvin can pound on Dino, what happens when Dino pounds
on him?  If Dino gets his legs slashed, can he slash Potvin
in return?  This year at a UM-LSSU hockey game, a UM player
was called for a slash when he hit the goalie's glove with
his stick.  Is that slashing, while hitting someone's ankles
isn't?  How do the refs know what to call?  Do the goalies
get more liberties than other players?


#
# Q: When an Israeli pilot is bombing school children in Lebanon gets
#    shot down, and crashes head-first, what's the last thing that
#    goes into his mind (head)?
#
# A: His butt hole.

  Now this HAS to count as one of the most original and constructive
  contributions yet on tpm.  All in all, well worth the $$$$ it took
  to send it to thousands of computers all over the world.


Josip,

please, don't be offended at this question: Who are the "Muslims" in the
Bosnian context? i know that a moslem/muslim is a believer in Islam. Islam
is a religion and it is practised in many parts of the world. But it is not
, yes definitely not, an ethinic group. ok! so, these Bosnian Muslims, who
are they? to which ethnic group do they belong? what language(s) do they
speak? do they have a different language from that of the Serbs or Croats?
the way the western press use the word 'muslim' in this Bosnian debacle has
kept me wondering when the meaning of muslim/moslem i knew from childhood was
changed in the dictionary. this is just a question. no flames intended!


OFM Comments:

No disagreement at all that there is a VERY serious struggle going on.
But Jesus more typically uses consequences as a threat.  That's quite
different from Hell Classic (TM). :-) Jesus doesn't sound like the
usual hell-fire type of preacher.  He attracts people through what he
does. And the stongest example in Jesus preaching is in the parable of
Lazarus and Dives, which is a parable!  In any case, my point is that
a fear-based response to Christ is not a freeing, life-affirming choice
and isn't Good News in a meaningful sense.  There are plenty of good
reasons to follow Jesus that have nothing to do with fear or a literal
hell, that still pertain to overcoming in the present struggle between
God and the Disloyal Opposition.  A faith based in fear is not built
on Rock, as we should found our faith, but on ice.  If the fear were
removed, there would BE no foundation.

That's basically why it matters to me.  I think we have many Christians
that DON'T have a solid basis for relating to the living Incarnate God.
I cannot be fully open to the working of God in and through my life if
my response to God is motivated on fear.

Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)

--


I'm trying to get in touch with Mitsumi - anyone have their number?

--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---  ---    Frank Pikelner                                          /~\
 \    \  \   Technical Assistant, Department of Computer Science    <v.v>
  \-   \--   York University (Toronto, Canada)                      ,\^/;
   \    \    Internet: frank@cs.yorku.ca                            _{!}_


                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
Exquise me!? Since when does mankind consider twice to be equal??


good point.  the "list" actually started out as an extension of my GS
v. FJ shootout list, which is why it got that name.  since inception,
however, other boxer-interested folks have joined and the conversation
has not always been "geared" to gs/pd/st-specific topics.

when i raised the "to expand or not to expand/that is the question"
question on the list itself, there were mixed feelings.  the list has
always been open to anyone with a non-bouncing "from:" line and there
has been general agreement that only boxer-related stuff is
appropriate.  almost all of the subscribers own R80/R100 GS/ST/PD
bikes, although some R, RT and RS owners are also on it.

at this point, my main interest for the list is to preserve the peace
and comraderie while at the same time providing as wide access as
possible.  the list is fairly technical, with "how do i do this?",
"what kind of that should i get?" kinds of questions.  there has yet
to be any non-BMW bashing, K bike bashing, or "any bmw mfg'd after
1962 is a piece of shit" bashing.  such posts are, by consent of the
governed, proscribed.

if the simple name change would make a significant difference to the
net.boxer.owners, then i am not going to stand in the way of progress.

so, hesh, let me turn the question around: have you (or has anyone
else) not joined the list because you felt your boxer was excluded?
--
-- bob pasker
-- rbp@netcom.com


  First, I don't expect them to love me if they don't even know I
  exist.  Secondly, I wouldn't expect them to love me simply because
  they were my creator.  I would expect to have to earn that love.

  Are you daft?  How do I love something I don't believe exists?
  Come back when you've learned to love your third testicle.

  At which point you have stepped over the line and become a
  complete asshole.  Even though it's your first offense, I won't
  let it slip becuase I've heard it too goddamned many times.

  You love Jesus because deep in your heart you're a cannibalistic
  necrophiliac.  Because I say so, and I'm much more qualified to
  assess your motivations than you are.

  Fortunately, there are some things I get to accept on evidence
  rather than faith.  One of them being that until christians like
  yourself quit being so fucking arrogant, there will never be
  peace.  You've all made sure of that.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM

They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea.


Speaking of educational systems, I recently had a colleague
tell me that the reason one of our fifth grade students is so
physically developed is because she was sexually abused as a younger
child. This, she went on to say, kicks the pituitary gland into
action and causes puberty.


Wow!  It's sad to see that the University of Virginia has begun
to produce such a virulent breed of Jew-haters and self-hating
Jews!


Wow, what did you use it for?  Single-tasked word processing?
I have 8 files loaded right now and a 29-MB virtual machine (12MB of
RAM). My friend down the street gripes that he can't even format a
floppy in the background.  Many unix people love OS/2 because they are
used to multi-tasking systems.

Too bad they hold a gun to the mouse piper while they
throw mice at their "new" trap, trying to get it to work. :)

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


Here's an interesting table showing how much resources an application
uses and how much it gives back on shut down.  This is take from
Windows User May 1993 issue:

Application		Min. Resource Use	Resource Not Returned
			GDI	USER		GDI	USER

WinSleuth Gold v3.03	10	6		2	14
Word For Windows v2.0b	10	0		5	0
Lotus 123 v1.1		13	3		3	2
Arts and Leters v3.12	7	7		3	1
PowerPoint v3.0		9	1		3	0
Corel Draw v3.0		10	6		3	0
Micro. Designer v3.1	10	2		2	0
CrossTalk v2.0		0	0		0	0
Excel v4.0a		11	8		0	0
HiJacck v1.0		2	2		0	0
Image-In Color Pro	3	2		0	0
PIcture Publisher v3.1	21	8		0	0
PowerLeads!-
  Executive Ed. v1.03	0	5		0	0
Adobe Type Manager v2.5	1	0		NA	NA
Skylight v2.0		1	0		0	0

*The numbers are in percentage and are in a decreasing order.

What does this table tells you, if you frequently start and exit a
program that doesn't give back all of it's resources, then you
continually lose these resouces.  Therefore, only open these programs
up once and leave them open.

BTW:  Maybe people can add to this list so we know what application to
watch out for.


That more or less says it.  I flicked the Penguins game on briefly and saw
Ulf cross-check Valeri in the face.  I am wondering if Don Cherry is going to
go off on this at all in coach's corner.

billc


Just to throw it out there:  The mass of the telescope is 11,600 kg
(25,500 lb).  I do not know what Space lab weighs, but I believe it is
less.  Can anyone verify??

Also, remember that weight was not the only concern, as many others have
noted, just one possible concern.  I was responding to a statement that
if you can boost it, why can't you land it.  Those are too different
problems.

ROB
--
===========================================================================
===========================================================================

Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course
	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines.
	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful
	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?


Need info on Circumcision, medical cons and pros

I'm very surprised that medical schools still push routine circumcision
of newborn males on the population. Since your friend is not a man, she
can't imagine what it's like to have a penis, much less a foreskin. I
guess if American medicine did an artistic job of circumcising every
male, then the visual result would be somewhat more natural in
appearance...


I was wondering what the country extension are.
Sometimes I just don't have a clue from where
some people are writing.

These are the extensions I know of

ch   Switzerland
se   Sweden
fi   Finland
uk   UK
Com  US?
Edu  US?     (are both com and edu US?)
fr   France

Please feel free to add to this list.

/ Markus

__________________________________________________________________________
   _    _     _     ____              _________
  / |  / |   / |   /   / /  /  /   / /
 /  | /  |  /__|  /___/ /--|  /   / /___     '75 Chevy Camaro 350/TH350
/   |/   | /   | /   | /   | /___/ ____/     '87 Peugout 205 1.4/4-speed


}
} >I watched the final inning of Bosio's no-hitter with several people at
} >work. After Vizquel made that barehanded grab of the chopper up the
} >middle, someone remarked that if he had fielded it with his glove, he
} >wouldn't have had time to throw Riles out. Yet, the throw beat Riles
} >by about two steps. I wonder how many others who watched the final out
} >think Vizquel had no choice but to make the play with his bare hand.
}
} In this morning's paper (or was it on the radio?), Vizquel was quoted as
} saying that he could have fielded the ball with his glove and still
} easily thrown out Riles, that he barehanded it instead so as to make the
} final play more memorable.  Seems a litle cocky to me, but he made it
} work so he's entitled.

i guess so.
still, that's kind of a stupid move, IMO. he'd be singing a different
tune if he had booted it, and the next guy up had hit a bloop single.
stranger things have happened (hey, i used to be a big Dave Stieb fan...)
and unfortunately, there's no such thing as an "unearned hit". :^)

cheers,


For Sale (still) -

AUDIO SOURCE Model EQ Eleven

10-band Stereo Octave Equalizer With Specturm Analyzer Display

Digital Readout, 10Left/10Right controls over the spectrum.

Great to boost all kinds of music signals.  FM Broadcasts, Tapes, CDs...
Makes even the weakest recording sound great.

Purchased 1 year ago $189.  Asking $75.00.

Includes original packaging, manuals, cables and warranty card.


The following comics are for auction.  The highest bid takes them!

New stuff added!! (Cyberrad, Marvel Presents, Spiderman Special, etc..)

TITLE                                                   Minimum/Current
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Flight 51 (Jim Lee's first work at Marvel)	$ 5.00

Aliens 1 (1st app Aliens in comics, 1st prnt, May 1988)	$20.00/KrisM./SOLD

Amazing Spider-Man 136 (Intro new Green Goblin)         $20.00

Amazing Spider-Man 238 (1st appearance Hobgoblin)	$50.00

Archer and Armstrong 1 (Frank Miller/Smith/Layton)	$ 7.50

Avengers 263 (1st appearance X-factor)                  $ 3.50

Bloodshot 1 (Chromium cover, BWSmith Cover/Poster)	$ 5.00/SamE/TWICE

CyberRad 1 (Reintro CyberRad, Prestige silver edition)	$15.00

Daredevil 158 (Frank Miller art begins)                 $35.00

Dark Horse Presents 1 (1st app Concrete, 1st printing)	$ 7.50

Detective 657 (Azrael appears, Intro Cypher)		$ 5.00

Detective 658 (Azrael appears)				$ 4.00

Harbinger 10 (1st appearance H.A.R.D. Corps)		$ 7.00/B.Matthey/SOLD

H.A.R.D. Corps 1 					$ 5.00

Incredible Hulk 324 (1st app Grey Hulk since #1 1962)	$ 7.00

Incredible Hulk 330 (1st McFarlane issue)		$15.00

Incredible Hulk 331 (Grey Hulk series begins)		$11.00

Incredible Hulk 367 (1st Dale Keown art in Hulk)        $15.00

Incredible Hulk 377 (1st all new hulk, 1st prnt, Keown) $15.00

Marvel Comics Presents 1 (Wolverine, Silver Surfer)     $ 7.50

Marvel Presents (Charleston Chew giveaway, Sam Keith)	$ 5.00

Maxx Limited Ashcan (4000 copies exist, blue cover)	$33.50/BrentB/SOLD

Mr T. #1 (Signed Advance copy, 10,000 exist)		$10.00

New Mutants 86 (McFarlane cover, 1st app Cable - cameo)	$10.00

New Mutants 100 (1st app X-Force)                       $ 5.00

New Mutants Annual 5 (1st Liefeld art on New Mutants)	$10.00

Omega Men 3 (1st appearance Lobo)                       $ 7.50

Omega Men 10 (1st full Lobo story)                      $ 7.50

Power Man & Iron Fist 78 (3rd appearance Sabretooth)    $20.00

Power Man & Iron Fist 84 (4th appearance Sabretooth)    $15.00

Simpsons Comics and Stories 1 (Polybagged special ed.)	$ 7.50

Spectacular Spider-Man 147 (1st app New Hobgoblin)      $12.50

Spider-Man Special (UNICEF giveaway, vs Venom)		$10.00

Star Trek the Next Generation 1 (Feb 1988, DC mini)     $ 7.50

Star Trek the Next Generation 1 (Oct 1989, DC comics)   $ 7.50

Trianglehead #1 (Special limited edition, autographed)	$ 5.00

Web of Spider-Man 29 (Hobgoblin, Wolverine appear)      $10.00

Web of Spider-Man 30 (Origin Rose, Hobgoblin appears)   $ 7.50

Wolverine 10 (Before claws, 1st battle with Sabretooth)	$15.00

Wolverine 41 (Sabretooth claims to be Wolverine's dad)	$ 5.00

Wolverine 42 (Sabretooth proven not to be his dad)	$ 3.50

Wolverine 43 (Sabretooth/Wolverine saga concludes)	$ 3.00

Wolverine 1 (1982 mini-series, Miller art)		$20.00

Wonder Woman 267 (Return of Animal Man)                 $12.50

X-Force 1 (Signed by Liefeld, Bagged, X-Force card)     $20.00

X-Force 1 (Signed by Liefeld, Bagged, Shatterstar card) $10.00

X-Force 1 (Signed by Liefeld, Bagged, Deadpool card)    $10.00

X-Force 1 (Signed by Liefeld, Bagged, Sunspot/Gideon)   $10.00

All comics are in near mint to mint condition, are bagged in shiny
polypropylene bags, and backed with white acid free boards.  Shipping is
$1.50 for one book, $3.00 for more than one book, or free if you order
a large enough amount of stuff.  I am willing to haggle.

I have thousands and thousands of other comics, so please let me know what
you've been looking for, and maybe I can help.  Some titles I have posted
here don't list every issue I have of that title, I tried to save space.


Open up one of the airbag control boxes.  They have inexpensive piezoelectric
accelerometers in them.  I know that the GM cars use the Setra units.  The
cheapest way to get such an accelerometer is to cannibalize an existing
automotive unit.


I think you are, small, feeble minded, bunghole.

Yeah, it was one stupid little act.

When are people like you gonna get it through they're thick
excuses for a skull to their pea-sized piece of shit they
call a brain that it _was_ _once_?

why don't you go back under the rock that the navy has provided
for you and your homophobic racist sexist asshole "friends" that
who give you daily rim jobs and place your opinion where it belongs,
UP YOUR ASS!?

Or, alternatively, blow me, you closeted wannabe.


I found the personal attacks on Prof. Denning pretty disgusting.
I don't agree with all her positions; but I think scholars can
disagree without the argument getting into the gutter.

If these personal attacks are what stopped Prof. Denning from
replying on issues of substance, they have cause real harm
to the serious debate here.