In a message dated 97-08-10 19:45:00 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Lynton Blair)
writes:

<<
 Just to clarify some points:

Bob:
Hmmm ... are these points getting clarified or even more confused?  8-)

>Bob:
 >The north pole of a magnet (or a compass) is positive & seeks the north
pole of the earth, which is negative, yes?

 Actually its my understanding that when you use a compass, its the dial
 which indicates ( I know we're off the list topic here) which is calibrated
 North, etc, and the needle which points there.
 The needle is attracted to point that way (North) by the fact that its point
 is a (secretly) South pole.

Bob:
The needle is a magnet, yes?
Magnets have positive & negative poles, which physicists or some other
knot-heads scientists unfortunately named "north" & "south", confusing the
issue unnecessarily, yes?
The magnet which is he compass needle spins so that it aligns parallel with
the magnetic field of the earth, with its negative pose pointing toward the
north pole of the earth, which will be negative for at least the next 800
years.  The dial, should you choose to spin it around beneath the needle,
then also points to the earth's magnetic north pole. yes?
Simple, Yes?  ;-)

> I have never heard of magnetism being referred to as Positive or Negative.
 Electricity, sure.

 Bob:
Yes, was likewise new to me. Regarding the problem of magnetic polarity
definitions, I have an essay on the subject by William Philpott, MD & he's
patiently explained it to me as well, in 70+ year-old Oklahoman tolerance.
 Seems that the physicist, B. Bleaney, in the New Encyclopedia, 1986,
recognized the original incorrect naming of magnetic poles of the
navigational compass (mistakenly calling the north-seeking end of the compass
needle its "north pole" when it's really the south pole, etc.) & recommended
the use of electric pole definition (+ - rather than S N) to eliminate the
problem.

Most writers on biomagnetics (Philpott, Bonlie, Robert O. Becker, Albert Roy
Davis) have corrected their terminology & now we can, too!  :-)

I'll fax his article if any of y'all really want it; I've so far not been
inclined to transform it to electronic media for E-mailing.

>Incidently, we would all be in trouble if the earth's magnetic field
 reversed.  Then what would be North?  All the compasses would point the
 other way !!! Heeeellllllppppp.....

Bob:
Yes, big trouble, and confusion about compasses would be a non-issue.
 Apparently as the earth's magnetic field approaches zero (supposedly it's
been heading that way -- from a reported hi of about 300 gauss 250,,, years
ago) not only do life forms suffer due to lack of adequate magnetic field,
but there's also inadequate magnetic field to retain our atmosphere, our
ozone layer, etc. & the surface of the earth becomes very hot.  VERY hot.
No one would then care which end of the planet is north.  (I suppose,
technically, it would be a semantic decision.  If we define the earth's north
pole as the negative one, then Antarctica would then house the north pole; if
we define the north pole as the place where Santa Claus hangs out in the off
season, then the Arctic would still be north, even 'tho it would be the
positive pole of mama earth.

 >  >[Also: wouldn't humans living on the northern hemisphere of the globe
 > >experience the opposite polarity of magnetic field, than those, living on
 >the southern hemisphere??? So should one change the polarity of the pads
(by simply turning them to the other side) if changing the hemisphere you are
 > >living in?]--Yes, that's my understanding

 Well, that doesn't make sense either, unless you are saying that southern
 hemisphere people are used to a different magnetic field?

Bob:
Yes, apparently that is the case.  They are!

>Then we have a problem for those travelers that "cross the line".

Bob:
Yes, & apparently folks who do that travel ARE negatively affected & it takes
a period of weeks/months their cellular contents to re-orient to the opposing
magnetic field, but since the field is a mere 0.45 gauss, it's not noticed by
most folks.  I wonder what the effect would have been if humans could have
made that trip in a short time 10,000 years ago when the field was  around
9,000 gauss.

When I asked Dr. Bonlie your question re If S pole of earth is positive,
north pole negative, effect on health of folks in each hemisphere?  effects
of traveling from one to other?  Apparently the reversed field acts as
stimulation & the body reacts with measures (symptoms), then after few weeks,
turns to depression, neg energy 'til cells divide & re-align in new
hemisphere.

I asked Dr. Bonlie the next natural question last month:  If the northern
hemisphere is in a negative field & southern in positive, what's the magnetic
field at the equator?  Drops to zero?  If yes, does it do so at a specific
point where one can stand with one foot in a positive 0.45 gauss field & the
other foot in a negative field, or is there a gradual switch, so that only at
the earth's poles is the force 0.45 g & the force diminishes toward the
equator?  or is the 0.45 g an average of the varying force from pole to
equator?

He sez--lines of flexure blend into "magnetic equator", 0.45 gauss about
average--US Geographical Survey has maps of earth's magnetic field pretty
accurate for USA--Mag field varies a lot over surface of earth, especially in
S hemisphere (patches of neg field in S hemisphere -- over part of Africa,
etc -- caused by projections of land mass into oceans, etc.

I'm only beginning to recognize the extent of my ignorance in this area!

>The compass still points north in either hemisphere, so I guess we are safe
 after all (phew!!!_)

Bob:
Sure it does.  down south the negative pole of the compass needle, labeled
"S" is attracted to the positive pole of da' oith, the south pole.  No
problem!
bob:
n a message dated 97-08-10 19:59:40 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Mark Hovila)
writes:

<<  But let's not give my killers the honor of using words like "kind,
merciful and compassionate" in describing their actions.  How about "hungry"?

 Mark >>

Bob:
Was it the action or their feelings & intent about the action being
considered.  None of us have the means, nor the right to presume that Ellie
the Killer is not feeling mercy or compassion when she delegates to an agent
the death of some fellow creature.  & if your killers or mine were feeling
mercy or compassion while they were slitting my throat, why would they be
honored thereby?

Kirt:In a message dated 97-08-10 20:24:35 EDT, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< I know prejudice when I hear it:
 admit it, you think that non-vegans are simply not as good as vegans.
 Instead of skin color or religion or sex or age or occupation or whatever,
 you judge someone according to their _lunch_. (!)
  >>

Bob:
Kirt, I was wildly cheering your brilliant piece, 'til this minor (IMO) error
slipped in.  Food intake belief, religion, philosophy, occupation, etc. don't
equate with skin color, sex or age.  The former involve free choice & the
latter, the luck of the draw, with the possible modern idea of sex as a
medical preference.  I suspect that you're quite aware of that distinction &
its implication, yes?  :-)

In a message dated 97-08-10 19:53:06 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Karen D Haas)
writes:

<< Previously you mentioned a "spiritual" reference for  killing animals.
 Which
 scripture are you using?? >>

Bob:
Hey, we're all spiritual beings & most humans have never heard of scripture.
 Since when do we need rely on"scripture" to justify our spirituality?

Yours in spirit, Bob