Subject: Re: no noose is good noose

Date: 04 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT

From: heyboyo@Whatschmells?com (canned bandicoot)

Reply-To: "Hey! You got a Pahty Ring, too."....."Evebuddy got a pahty ring." ...."An wid a diff'rent stone....Supah Bad."

Organization: "Hey, weah you git dat ring?".... "Dassa Pahty ring." ....."Sho is bad."

Newsgroups:alt.foot.fat-free

References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

Blanche Woodlawn <revjack@radix.net> wrote:

>Larch Van De Croot explains it all:

>

>:where did I mention the U.S.?

>

>I figured the "we" covered it.

>

>:so? When did I indicate I put any stock in what the panel had to say?

>

>Not talking about you, I'm talking about the panel.

>

anyway. Last word on this. Sorry if my previous response seemed pissy

and I seemed to take some things the wrong way. Sometimes I think I'm

a bit touchy about this stuff because I'm AM aware that my overall

take on things DOES tend to be a bit alarmist. Even absurd.

While some of the crap I toss off is deliberately comic and

hyperbolic, there is some real underlying paranoia, and while I wish I

could honestly say I'm ABSOLUTELY sure it comes from an objective

evaluation of available evidence, I have to allow for the possibility

that it might be more honestly attributed to the collection and

selective consideration of evidence required to justify the preformed

conclusions that, perversely, I enjoy coming to. Ten years ago I was

SURE our collective hive would have imploded like a rotten pumpkin by

now.

Ah well. Can't win 'em all. If and when it does, I won't be surprised.

Guess that's the upside.

And how else do I explain all this shit I got to the wife? HONK. Don't

need but one gun to shoot rats.