Conference back40::soapbox

Is so.

    
    actually it was Gotterdammerung that first came to my mind.
    
    that marvelous passage "Dawn" ..

    
    RE: .1
    
    Isn't.... 
    
    :)
    

    So this is the ring.  I've been here before, even won a couple of TKD
    tournaments.  Yep, I'm comfortable in the ring, but kicking tail gets 
    old after a while.
            
    
    3:[
    
    
    

    re -1
    
    Oh Puuulllllleeeeeeessssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

                      **                             ******************
                     *  *                            * Oh, STOP       *
                     *  *                            * Please!        *
                      **                             *                *
                   * *           *    *      **      ******************
                 *  *   * * * * *    * *    * **         /
                *  *  *             *   * * * * *       /
               *  * *                    *  * *  *     /
              *  **                    *  * * *  * *  /
             *   *                    *    ** * *O O*
            *     *                  *      * * * ^ *
          *        *                *        *    @   *
                    *              *         *            *
                     *            *          *              *
                     *             *         *               *
                     *                        *               *
                     ** *
                     
                  Kimball                           Grumpy
                                          
            I'm kicking your butt              Your butt being kicked
    
    
Ouch, that gotta hurt.
    

I have a si'kick vision....

A puppy, one of those "toy" fluffy ones, comes bounding into
a room.

It sees a world-wise bloodhound, a faithful huntin' and guard
dog, curled up in the room.

The puppy jumps on the hound.  It ignores him.

The puppy jumps again.  The hound gives a warning growl.

The puppy jumps a third time.  The hound sends him across the room with
a smack of the paw.

The puppy comes back once more.  The hound has the puppy for a snack,
curls back up, and dozes off.

Hmmm...  it's gone now.

j.

    Re.16
    
    It's amazing how  Grump is legend in box, and all who fear him say
    
    "You better watch your step or you going to feel his Awesome Wrath"
    
    (Oooooooh aaaaaaaaah)
    
    Please, save that kind of advice for other newbies.  I'm not to back
    down from any bully.  With one exception, for the sake of Peace.   
     
    Respect goes both ways, until it's given..... we'll just see how the game 
    is going to be played.
    
    Peace.
    

Geeziz - I never thought I'd miss Malerheum this much . . . 

    i hear you jack.
    
    and kimball, really, you should take some more time to read
    and 'get a handle' on how things function in the box.  you
    have so little clue, it would be laughable if it weren't so
    pathetic.

As long as names of the Seven Dwarfs are being handed
out, I've got a candidate for "Dopey."

joanne

    re .10
    
    Obviously you haven't been readin yourself.  The rules have changed,
    period.  Give respect and you get it.
    
    I suppose that your statement was for my edification, including the fight
    words of course.  Take the beam out of your eye.  Look in the mirror
    pinhead, before you call someone pathetic.
    
    
     

    and the empirical evidence mounts, 'tine lady...  ;>
    
    
     

    re. 12,
    
    It would appear that many don't have respect and it would appear that
    many want to continue aggressions.   
    

	Go ahead Kimball, you can do it.........They are begging for it %^)

    Kimball, I thought you were improving.... but I was wrong.
    
    Seriously, I'm not picking on you, I'm telling you this for your own
    good. This is not a joke. Go ask someone about the availability of
    counseling. Your agression is going to get you into trouble. In here
    it's just words separated by many miles. Out there in the real world,
    you're going to have someone look at you the wrong way and you're
    going to end up doing some catastrophic. You really need to work on
    self-control. Forget the bible man. Start with body chemistry and see
    if you can't straighten yourself out before you make a total fool of
    yourself again... or worse.
    
    -b

    Your looking for a fight, but I don't slap around women, so move on.

> I don't slap around women

Now *there's* an admirable quality.

	If you dig deep enough, everyone has good qualities.....%^)

	The deeper you have to search, the better those qualities are,

	IMHO....%^)

    Markey,
    
    Thanks, I'm not a very hostile type of guy.  I wish you really knew me. 
    It just seems like people are sticking thier ugly mugs out, begging me to 
    slapm them.  
    
    Let's talk about this privately, so that you can understand where I'm 
    really coming from.
    
    
    Peace.
    

    re: the rules have changed.
    
    kimball, the rules have not changed.  one has always had to
    earn the respect (at a maximum) or at least tolerance (at a minimum)
    of the regular boxers herein.  you have done neither.  stupidity
    is sometimes accepted here, especially when it tends to the 
    humorous. insults have always been traded back and forth, generally,
    however, it has been done amongst parties who have some knowledge of
    each other and does not typically result in one party being mortally
    offended.   
    
    hope this helps 

    Don't talk to Goodwin.  He's a tattle tale!!

    >Thanks, I'm not a very hostile type of guy.  I wish you really knew me. 
    >It just seems like people are sticking thier ugly mugs out, begging me to 
    >slapm them.  
    
    See, here's the thing. I perceive this as... "when someone challenges me
    on something I say, they're really challenging me to a fight... and
    well, I'm a macho well-built type of guy so I naturally will respond to
    the challenge..." The truth is, that no one I know of wants to "fight"
    you in the sense you mean it. Not because anyone is inherently afraid
    of you or any such thing... it's because adults simply don't act that
    way.
    
    So far, the Kimball Sean Scott we've seen has been kind of a loose
    cannon, who, when challenged on what he says, starts strutting like
    a peacock. Some people are amused by this, some are offended, others
    are concerned. I'm concerned, because as you point out, I don't
    know you. I can take your word for it that you're really not a
    nutcase... but, well, you still could be. We can't really tell in
    this particular medium, so it's better to just avoid you. Which,
    you might notice, more and more of the people here are doing.
    
    So think about this... right now, I don't look at you and say to
    myself "gee, now there's someone who's life I should emulate."
    And yet, if you are true to your Lord, then that is the way
    I should react.
    
    Let's put an end to this. As you say, move on. We keep waiting for
    you to move on. You keep going around in circles like someone nailed
    your foot to the floor...
    
    -b

    Don't forget the some of us who don't care !
    
    
    Rick

> MPGS::MARKEY "Senses Working Overtime"

*Very* nicely written.

joanne

    re. 23
    
    Where I come from respect is mutually given ounce for ounce, and pound for 
    pound.  I payed my dues, made my apologies, and moved on.  I'm easy to get
    along with, don't look for a fight and you will not get one.  
    Let be honest, some could hardly wait, to try to get thier meat hooks
    into me.  From my experiences and from reading between your lines, the
    following:  
    
                            Rules of the Soapbox Click
    
   1. Be a good dooby, "If one of us Oldbies decides to give you crap"
      Take it, and WE will except you.  Otherwise WE will attempt to 
      ride you like a pony.
    
   2. To get along with the majority, Play by OUR rules. 
    
    
   3. When WE give you condescending advice, listen.
      WE are really calling you stupid and WE are trying to enlighten you
      dummy.
    
   4. WE decide if your opinions are valid or not. 
    
    
   5. Read about two thousand notes and maybe then you will be worthy to input
      a few notes.
    
   6. You must earn OUR respect.
    
                             
                                    My Law
    
    1.  If a Old Soapbox fart wants to fight depending on my wonderful
        disposition, I'll do the following:
    
        a) Ignore you                         
    
        b) Commit reconstructive surgery on you.
    
    
    2.  I will give respect to those who give it.
    
    
    3.  I'm extremely merciful to those who smiley. :-)
    
    
    This is my law, period.  I'm not about to mold to your standards. 
    I have proven that I can converse without being antagonistic, and I
    will continue show my willingness to move on.  I suggest others do the 
    same.
    
    

     >>                       -< Yep, it's a click  >-


	clique



	yer welcome

    re. 30
    
    Be a good dooby, move on.
    
    

Note 16.29 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK 
    
    >Where I come from respect is mutually given ounce for ounce, and pound for 
    >pound. 
    
    where i come from respect is EARNED. it then can only be kept or lost.

    .29
    
    > Where I come from respect is mutually given ounce for ounce
    
    where the box comes from, espect must be earned.  every old box fart
    was once a newbie, and every bloody one of us had to earn the respect
    that we get from others.  just as everyone else has had that chance, so
    have you.  but except for your long note explaining how you figured
    you'd screwed things up, you have never shown that you deserve respect
    - you've been a loose cannon from the very start.  you came in here
    like a smartarse thinking you knew it all, and you got slapped down
    hard.  you bawled like a two-year-old with a finger slammed in the
    door, and you didn't get kissed all over to make it well, so then you
    went away to nurse your wounds.
    
    now you're back, still thinking you have it all figured out.  you have
    had a chance to show that you'd wised up - several of us expressed
    pleasure at your return - but you're still not with the program.  and
    you're still blaming everyone else.  well, how about this quotation, it
    should be up your born-again alley:
    
    	if god is farther away than he used to be, guess who moved.
    
    we're not god, but the problem is with you no matter how hard you want
    to believe otherwise.

    Where I come from Respect is always given, TRUST is earned.
    
    
    
    Rick

Could be a "click", as in the sound made when one is pulling
back the hammer.

Movin' on up...

      - .1     8*)

    Wow.  It's deja vu all over again...
    
    ...newbies?  oldbies?  ScottK?
    
    Is teekma here?
    
    Biff!  Pow!!  {sound of next unseen button}

	Hey, I am here and I have been behaving...........

	Leave me out of this or I'll................cry...%^(

     Hey, this is the ring right? If you step in you put 'em up or you keep
     your pansy-butt out... Simple.
    
     Chip

    ... of the Nibelungen?  Gawd I hated that opry.
    

    Markey, are your senses working overtime?
    
    >See, Here's the thing. I perceive this as..."when someone challenges me 
    >on something I say , they're really challenging me to a fight....
    
    If you read some of my notes from 20.65 - 20.98 you'll discover the
    following to be true:
    
    1. Many of my views were challanged.  I defended them based on what I
       believed and without provoking a fight (there is a difference
       between debating and tossing insults) 
    
    2. Some disagreed based on thier perception of my attitude, and I refuted 
       thier statements without insulting them.
    
    3. Some statements were not challenges to an debate of opinions, but
       clearly statments intented to elicite a response.
    
    4. Haag and decided to play in the sandbox.  I personally thought it was 
       harmless.  
    
    5. Someone asked me to take it to the ring and I complied with the
       request, without a word.  I figured "The Ring" was the appropriate
       place to play.
    
    
    > "Well, I'm a macho well-built type of guy so I naturally will respond
       to challenge..." 
    
       This one made me laugh allittle.  I naturally respond to a challenge, 
       because like a good challenge.  It has very little to do with my 
       perceived physical attributes.  
    
    > So far, the Kimball Sean Scott we've seen has been a loose cannon,
      whom when challenged on what he says, starts strutting like a
      peacock.
    
      What do you based this statement on?  
      
      Since my return, I have not played the loose cannon compared to my
      notes in the old soapbox.  Give me an example that can contradicts 
      what I just stated.  I only blasted one person who did not deserve
      it, and two if you include Haag, because I like him. :-)
    
     >Some people are amused.....
    
      These are hopefully the ones who don't take the box too serious.
    
     >Some are offended.....
    
      Some have pegged me, permanently.  I suspect that no matter what I do, 
      some opinions about me won't change.  That is thier loss and not
      my concern. 
    
     
     >others are concerned.........
    
      Your concern as well as others, is appreciated.  If you want to judge me, 
      base it on the respectful relationship that we have, since my return.
      
     >So it's better to avoid you.  Which, you might notice more and more,
      of the people have been doing.
       
      Some have chosen to avoid me.  Well, that's thier choice.  There 
      are still many who have found that I'm easy to get along with.
      
      If only the boneheads of the bunch would avoid me, what a wonderful
      place soapbox land would be. :-)
      Seriously, the same truth would also apply to me. If I wasn't so
      stubborn, I would simply ignore certain people. 
    
     > I don't look at you and say to myself "Gee, now there's someone
       who's life I should emulate."
    
       Since, you don't know the type life that I lead or my relationship
       with Christ, What you should have said is "Gee, he needs to work on 
       that attitude of his."  Being a christian doesn't mean that you
       instantly develop a perfect attitude.  However, it should mean that
       your willing to sumbit it your will to God as many as it take, to get 
       it right.  
       I would like to also add that this is something that we all have to 
       work on, unless you feel the your perfect.
    
     >Let's put an end to this.  As you say, move on.  We keeping waiting
     >for you to move on.  
     
      Wait no longer, just notice that my previous notes have indicated so.
      I have moved on, just don't expect me the role of a carpet, door mat, 
      or a punching bag.
    
     >You keep going around in circles like someone nailed your foot to the
      floor.
       
      If this were true, you would be offering the hammer to other's as
      well.  
    
      Since we are focusing on my actions alone, I imagine the
      following to be true:
    
      1. Many are oblivious to the nail in thier foot.
    
      2. Some will continue to blow my playful antics way out of
         proportion.
      
      3. Some will continue to throw objectivity out of the window.
    
      
    
      
    Peace.
      
    
    
     
     
     
     
    
    
    
    
    

    Jeesh Kimble...
    
    You expect me to remember what we were fighting about almost a week
    ago, before an overdose of turkey and pumpkin pie, a Friday spent
    working alone here in vain trying to get a program going, and a few
    too many shots of tequilla with a new lady friend saturday night?
    
    Even after I went back and read the rest of the chain, I still
    can't remeber what we were on about...
    
    :-) :-)
    
    -b
    

    "...but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
                                                Freud

  Wasn't "The Ring" the original source of the saying "It ain't over 'till the
fat lady sings"?

  George

    
    One ring to rule them all,
    One ring to find them.
    One ring to bring them all
    And in the darkness bind them.
    

	LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


	There, the fat lady has sung.................%^)

    markey,
    
    Your alright. :-) :-)
    

	OK boys, now ......Let's see some
witty repartee (sp) in some of the lighter subjects......%^)


	P.S. Thank god the mind is the first thing to go......%^)

    Ok, so now we know that Teekma isn't a fat lady.
    
    Could we get a REAL fat lady to sing in here and put this topic out of
    it's misery?

    This topic is _for_ misery.

    
    {mi mi mi mi mi}
    
    {ahem}
    
    O, mio babbino caro,
    mi piace, bello, bello...
    
    
    You're welcome 8^).

    <---- You're no fat lady, this doesn't count.

    
    I had a 20 pound turkey at Thanksgiving...does that help?

    Well, I had one too and it didn't help me. I've since given up my quest
    to be a fat lady.

    Glenn

    Re: .53
    
    I know that one!  That's the "wrap Daddy around my finger, teenage
    anguish" song, also known as "portamenti galore."
    
    Mi strugo e mi tormento
    O dio, vorei morir ...

    
    I'd be more than happy to give fat lady lessons in return for...say, a
    case or two of Brador.
    

    
    .57
    
    Babbo, pieta, piEEEEEEEEEta...
    Babbo, pieta, pietaaaaaaaaaa!
    
    Yes.

    Alright, you typed me into it! 8^)

Opera man where are you?

    
    
    
    RE: .61 :')

    gawd I'm glad I can't hear this...

    
    Give me your DTN, and you will 8^).

                                        
                                        
    
                         Fig..a..ro, figaro figaro,
    FIIIIIGAAAAAROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    
    
                                                /
                                               /
                                              /
                                             /
                                  @@@@@@  
                                 @o oo o@
                              @ @o @ @  o@ @              __/
                              @ @o  .   o@ @             O
                               @  o O  o  @            O
                                    oo               O
                                    oo             O
                                ..........       O
                               .           .   O
                          O  .               .
                        O   .                 . 
                      O   .                     .
                    O    .                       . 
                    O    .                       .
                     O   .                       .
                       O  .                      .
                         O .                    .
                          .                      .
                         .                        .
                        ............................
                                 |       |        
                                 |       |
                                 |       |
                                 |       |
                                 |       |
                               __|       |__
    
    
    
    
    
    

    sorry...either wrong sex, or wrong song.

    <- 20lb turkey? Congratulations, but that must've been painful :-)

    re. Lauer
    
    It's more than likely that it's the wrong song, since I'm not all that 
    familiar with German, french, or Italian opera. :-)
    
    
    By the way, Goodmorning.
    
    Peace.
    
    

    
    re Figaro by nemail::SCOTtk
                         ^^^^
    re mz_debra: wrong song / wrong sex
    
    
    neither :-)
    
    
    
    

    Wasn't Figaro a cat that starred in Pinocchio?
    
    What's that got to do with fat ladies?

  I think the fat lady from which the saying was derived was Brune Hilda, one
of the Valcery in The Ring. 

  Not sure of those spellen's.

  George

    
    Valkyrie.
    Brunhilde (I think?).
    
    
    True, the last time I saw Gotterdammerung, Brunhilde was...full-figured.

	I thought she was, what's the correct wording, 

	weight challenged.....

    This should probably go in the quip note, but I was standing in the
    microwave queue a few days back while a very *large* (remarkably large
    actually) lady was cooking something... she started humming while she
    was standing there. At which point the guy in front of me turned around
    and said to me under his breath:
    
    "Well, her lunch may not be ready yet, but apparently the opera is
    over..."
    
    -b

    
    <-- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
    
    

    
    
    heh heh heh!!!1
    
    

                                  Br�nnhilde
    
      (Can't believe I got to give this spelling before H�rr C�v�rt...)
    

    Hey, has .29 been slumming in some D.C. offices??
    
    Dick

    
    Brunhilde ! 

    Yikes!!
    
    I guess I remembered a different opera...
    
    (not)
    
    Tnx Heiko, soives me right...
    

    Does Bruhnhilde mean "brown hide" in whatever language?
    
    If so, this would make her a fat scandinavian with brown hide.  I'm not
    sure what to make of this...

    
================================================================================
Note 502.112          Benefits of Single Gendered Schools!            112 of 112
NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085"  2 lines   3-AUG-1995 15:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I definitely think the Citadel shouldn't accept dead obese professional
wrestlers.  Whoever disagrees with me can step into the ring.
    
    
    
    What a bigoted statement.
    
    jc
    

Oh yeah?!?! {pulling foreign object out of trunks}

    
    Yeah, you empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper! 
    
    {dons helmet}
    

>Oh yeah?!?! {pulling foreign object out of trunks}

One can only shudder at this allusion.

TTom

    It makes me studder.

    
    It makes you studlier?
    

    Gerry??
    

    Eh?

    
    Okay where is it?   I see it....incoming Beverly!

    eh?

    ��ߧ��Ѷ???
          

    <--- You're talking funnier that ever now.

    
    than Glenn, nnttm

    
    LAAAAADIES...ANNND...GENNULLLLLMEN!
    
    In this corner, wearing the Ric Ocasek haircut and the black denim
    shorts...Battling Brian Markeyyyyyyyy!
    
    And in this corner wearing a stunning opal-studded, black velvet
    catsuit...Dangerous Debra Hanggeliiiiiiii!
    

    A ten-spot on the one with the awesome teef.
                 

    
    Methinks Joan has been spending too much time at the Hempfest 8^).
    
    
    

    
    huh huh...huh huh...she said "hemp".
    
    yeah..heh heh heh..."hemp" is cool...
    

    
    if'n i gets to choose my wippin, i choose:
    
    
    
    			Body Shots
    
    -b

    
    I'll put $50 on the gorgeous woman in the cat suit......

    

    BODY SHOTS !   Hey I wannna fight her next!

    ;->
    Dan

    Too rich for my brain, this Gamester folds in a throbbing sort of way.

    
    > .... in a throbbing sort of way.
    
    {ahem}....{cough}
    

    >    {ahem}....{cough}
    
    Hope you turned your head first

    
    Prompted by the depths of depravity of today's pop culture, and by
    a snippet of the MTV Video Music Awards:
    
    I wonder who would win a fight between Madonna and Courtney Love.
    Madonna would definitely have the edge in physical conditioning,
    especially against a used-up twenty-something junkie like 
    Courtney.  However, I think Courtney has a lot more heart, 
    especially compared to a pathetic corporate shill like Madonna.
    This could turn into one of those wrasslin' style grudge matches,
    with managers and foreign objects being thrown into the ring, and all.
    Or maybe not.
    
    Yes, these are the topics that keep me awake nights.  Which is 
    actually a good thing, as I am supposed to be awake nights.
    
    
    
    Rob
     

Madonna would suck her in and nail her in the first round.

    
    Madonna's all mouth.  Courtney'd deck her.
    

    all Courtney would need to do is take the bag off her head...

Oh yeah, right.  The Material Girl would turn
little Courtney into mincemeat.  She'd run from
the ring with her tail between her legs.

    
    <--- sez you, and not very convincingly, either.   :^)
    
    Courtney's 2-0 so far.
    

Superior upper body strength for half and whole nelsons:  Madonna
Superior thigh power for a crushing scissor hold:  Madonna
Savvy:  Madonna
Moves:  Madonna

And last, but not least...staying power:  Madonna

    
    Fists like blunt instruments:  Courtney
    
    Madonna won't get within arm's length of Courtney.
    
    
    The REAL question is:  Who would win in a fight between The Terminator
    and RoboCop.
    
    ;^)
    

    It would be a draw. Madonna would pound the $^&( out of her, but she'd
    be too stupid to figure it out and would keep getting up like one of
    those inflatable punch dolls.

    
    my money's on Madonna.  That Courtney chick just doesn't have the build
    to be able to withstand 1 round with anyone except that bozo that
    Tyson beat the crap out of.  Madonna'd eat her for lunch.
    

    oo er missus.

    
    topaz is feeling mercurial today...
    

Courtney could deck Madonna merely by waving her armpits in her direction.

Chris.

    How does one wave an armpit?

    curling tongs?

    
    > Courtney could deck Madonna merely by waving her armpits in her direction.
    
    wouldn't that violate the no weapons rule?
    

    
    Considering the amount of smack Courtney has main-lined -- and
    the fact that she's still breathing -- I'd give the nod to Ms.
    Love.

    -b

Aw, c'mon.  that's like saying keith richards could
whup michael bolton.

        > Aw, c'mon.  that's like saying keith richards could
    > whup michael bolton.

    I'm not convinced he couldn't. You underestimate the tenacity
    of the Rock `n' Roll Rasputins.

    Who's your money on in a head-on collision? The car full
    of nice respectable people, or the person who's totally
    hammered?

    As a corollary to "no brain, no pain" I add "no pain, good
    drugs."

    Besides, Michael Bolton is a poncy hairdresser. :-)

    -b

	I think if Courtny was wasted, Madonna could land a few quick punches,
and she'd be down for the count. If she went into it drug/alcohol free, she
would be able to land some punches, and it would be a good match.

Bolton's on the poncy side, but it looks like he 
takes care of himself.  Richards looks like he's 
held together with spit and scotch tape.  He looks 
like Oz's scarecrow (on a good day).

Head-on collision, my money's on a deadhead.  When bouncing down a
flight of stairs, it's the deadhead that won't get hurt.

But we're talking about wrassling.  Killer Krawiecki, and all that.
Or was that Kiwalski?

    
    Wait a minute... weren't Courtney and Madonna supposedly
    having a lesbian relationship (according to one of the
    tabloids)? In fact, it was even hinted at in People
    (which is also a tabloid of sorts.)

    Which may or may not have any bearing on the outcome
    of this event... :-) :-)

    -b

    People?  Tabloid of sorts?  Puhhleeze.  People is slighlty higher in
    the journalistic food chain than the Enquirer et al.  IMO etc.  

	I guess if what Brian M said is true, this will be a clothing optional
fight..... :-)

    
    Oh, I agree. It's just that "tabloid" really means a paper
    with no half-fold, and so by definition (if not by content)
    People isn't a tabloid.

    For instance, the Boston Herald is, by definition, a tabloid.
    Whether it is by content is a matter of opinion.

    -b

courtney could make keith cry uncle,
that's fer sure.

    .127
    
    I think Courtney could lick Madonna anytime !
    
    Bad, bad hand....slap.

    It is my understanding that Madonna jogs daily and also works out
    with a personal trainer; my guess is Courtney would last as long
    as the poor dude who fought Tyson :-)
    
    

    
    Doesn't "experience in a fight" count for anything?  As I said,
    Courtney's 2-0; what's Madonna's record (and I don't mean in the
    boudoir, either  ;^).
     

    Wow MAAAAAAAN!

    experience in a fight only counts if you end up winning most the time. 
    it's possible to be the most experienced punching bag in the world,
    i.e. Tex Cobb...:-)

    
    Courtney's a dirtbag, but she's a tough dirtbag.  Plus, she's got the
    psychological edge over Madonna.  Ms. Ciccone clearly had fear in
    her eyes when Courtney approached her (actually, started throwing
    compacts at her) the other night.
    
    My money's on Courtney.  After all, how can you not like someone
    who named her band "Hole?"  Huh-huh, that's cool.
    
    
    
    Rob
    

>    It is my understanding that Madonna jogs daily and also works out
    with a personal trainer...

I also heard she's considering going back to school...at the Citadel.

    Thge guys at the Citadel would love that. They'd let her in straight
    away, the dolts that they are.

    .133
    
    Courtney don't need no steenkin trainer.
    
    The 2 packs a day, the booze, and the pure heroin make her more ready
    for abuse than Madonna.
    
    Love in 32 rounds.

    Oh yeah! has Love ever slept with Rodman??? Huh, huh?  Come on,
    answer the question +     /
                         --O-( 
                        #     \

    
    <--- I'm really afraid to ask exactly what you were illustrating there.
    

    
    
    Mee too, Deb.  I just left it clean alone.

    Genitals Of The Universe, Exemplar #9,445,280
    

    
      It's the glyph formerly known as GIROUARD ?
    
      bb

    .146
    
    G�tterd�mmerung.
    
    NNTTM.

    yeah, Brian's got it! Nice work!

  >  >in the end, the walmart people did the "right thing".
  >  >but it's still damage control, imo.

>     Of course, being a "big, bad corporation" doing the right thing
>    couldn't possibly be anything more than damage control.

Try holding two seemingly opposite ideas in your head at the same time.
Rectify...damage control...rectify...damage control...rectify...damage control.
It can be done!!

>     It's not like
>    they could have made a mistake and decided to rectify it. That would
>    imply they might be doing the right thing because it was the right
>    thing, and not because they feared it would adversely impact
>    sales/profits/the bottom line (which we all know is impossible because
>    everybody knows they are only interested in one thing.)

Now try the same thing again!!

>     Now if Bill Clinton made a mistake and actually found the wherewithal
>    to admit it and take the necessary steps to rectify the situation, well
>    that would be a case of doing the right thing because it was the right
>    thing.
          
What does Bill Clinton have to do with a WalMart t-shirt?

    So you deny making any negative implications about Wal Mart?

My only "negative implication" about WalMart at this
time, your Honor, is that they made one heck of an idiotic
move when they removed the t-shirts from the shelf.

And I wonder about that 'family values' excuse they
used at first.  I find _that_ very interesting.

    
    
    Bonnie,
    
     The problem today is not with WalMart, but the world in general and
    its being offended by the slightest thing. 
    
      WalMart received more than one complaint... unlike what was stated in
    your initial news brief...
    
      Tell me... had it been two individuals who complained, say, about a
    T-shirt that had a picture of Aunt Jemima on it (let's just say for
    arguments sake that WalMart was doing an "Old Advertisement Theme"),
    and they pulled the shirts... would that have been "idiotic"?
    

>My only "negative implication" about WalMart at this
>time, your Honor, is that they made one heck of an idiotic
>move when they removed the t-shirts from the shelf.
    
     And there's no disagreement here.
    
     So you didn't relay the information regarding the decision to return
    the shirts to the racks because you didn't know about it? Then I must
    apologize for accusing you of selective reporting. Sorry.
    
     The story I heard was that this event occurred at a single store, that
    the shirts were back on the racks within a relatively short time, that
    the decision to pull the shirts was made locally, and that no one from
    Wal Mart attempted to justify it. The "family values" stuff that I
    heard was purportedly from the people who had complained about the
    shirt, not from Wal Mart. If you heard differently, that's a different
    matter altogether.

andy

Over the weekend I read a short article about this in either
the Telegram and Gazette or the Globe.  I noted the "one 
complaint", it stuck in my mind.  I remember thinking they
removed the t-shirts merely because of one complaint?  New
developments in the story or no, I remember the one complaint
thing.

>T-shirt that had a picture of Aunt Jemima on it (let's just say for
>    arguments sake that WalMart

Not entirely as innocuous as the woman prez t-shirt, andy.

    Still, Senorita Krawiecki made a good point.

>>    Still, Senorita Krawiecki made a good point.

	which point was that?

    
    re: .156
    
    Bonnie,
    
     I watched the report on CNN on Saturday, and they mentioned more than
    one person. Perhaps we're seeing another example of the media's
    selective reporting??
    
    >Not entirely as innocuous as the woman prez t-shirt, andy.
    
     That's not the point Bonnie... The point was and is, somebody being
    "offended" by this or anything else on a T-shirt...
    

>     So you didn't relay the information regarding the decision to return
>    the shirts to the racks because you didn't know about it?

I did not know it until I read it in Soapbox.  And I'm surprised because
Charles L. (WBCN) was talking about it on my way in but there was no 
mention of returning the shirts to the shelves...

    
    	Don't forget ... Charles is a moron.  The truth probably got in
    	the way of the point he was trying to make.
    

    Senorita Krawiecki stated:
    
    "The problem today is not with WalMart, but the world in general and
    its being offended by the slightest thing."
    
    My only complaint about that statement is, it should be it's.
    
    nnttm, hth, kfc, ipa, bluuuurgh etc.

    
    What, Charles Laquidara blowing the story out of proportion,
    not telling the "whole truth", and using it to attack anyone
    to the right of Chomsky, surprises you? Oh dear.
    
    -b

 I heard about the shirts being returned to the shelves while watching
 CNN Headline News on Saturday.  The played back part of an interview with
 the store manager (or some official of Walmart).




 Jim

    
      Sic'm, apostrophe police !
    
      bb

    >And I'm surprised because
    >Charles L. (WBCN) was talking about it on my way in but there was no
    >mention of returning the shirts to the shelves...
     
     Laquidera's political commentary is even goofier than his attempts to
    appear relevant during Tank's delivery of the sports. This is a man who
    needs to learn that there are times (most) when his mouth is best left
    closed.

    
>>     That's not the point Bonnie... The point was and is, somebody being
>>    "offended" by this or anything else on a T-shirt...

    imo, if there were a t-shirt that said something clearly offensive
    to a segment of the population, like a racial slur for instance, and
    customers complained about it, it would not be idiotic for the
    store to pull them from the shelves.  it would be a sound decision.
    

    
    >"The problem today is not with WalMart, but the world in general and
    >its being offended by the slightest thing."
    >
    >My only complaint about that statement is, it should be it's.
    
    	Actually, there shouldn't be an apostrophe there, so the sentence
    	is correct as stated.
    

>    	Actually, there shouldn't be an apostrophe there, so the sentence
    	is correct as stated.

This is true, to the best of my knowledge.

    >imo, if there were a t-shirt that said something clearly offensive
    >to a segment of the population, like a racial slur for instance, and
    >customers complained about it, it would not be idiotic for the
    >store to pull them from the shelves.  
    
     It would be idiotic to stock such a shirt in the first place, IMO,
    YYMV, etc.

    
>>     It would be idiotic to stock such a shirt in the first place, IMO,
>>    YYMV, etc.

	That is of course true, though I can imagine a scenario where the
	shirts might slip by unnoticed.  Unlikely, but it could happen.
	The point is that if someone's offended by a t-shirt, they're not
	necessarily OTL.  And the store should be able to exercise some
	good judgment.  The problem isn't just with the easily-offended
	public.

    Er, um, is everybody humour impaired today? Its hard to tell.
    
    

 Whattya mean by that?

    
    I don't think I like the tone of your voice, Richardson.
    

    All right I won't sing then.

    >The point is that if someone's offended by a t-shirt, they're not
    >necessarily OTL.
    
     I guess the question is to what extent do retailers have to cater to
    customers' tender sensibilities.

    Seems to me that joke shops should be going out of business.

    
>>     I guess the question is to what extent do retailers have to cater to
>>    customers' tender sensibilities.

	yeah, well that's a tough one, certainly, especially in this
	day and age when using your own judgment and applying your own
	standards of decency seems to be such a foreign concept.

    
    "I'd like to buy a joke, please."
    

    all funny bones will be left at the security desk on Mondays prior to
    entering the facility. they will be returned to you upon your departure

    >	yeah, well that's a tough one, certainly, especially in this
    >	day and age when using your own judgment and applying your own
    >	standards of decency seems to be such a foreign concept.
    
     There's the rub, of course. It's not enough to eschew purchasing
    something that offends you, some people have to ensure that no one else
    can purchase such a thing either. It's a result of this absurd belief
    of a right not to be offended, in which anything that bothers anyone is
    a civil rights violation for which a suit must be filed...

  > eschew 
   

  gesundheit! 

    
    	Sounds like the CARBUFFS reader who was offended by "Ben Wah"
    	in someone's personal_name.
    
    	Just ignore it and you'll save yourself alot of worrying.
    

Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Saturday, September 23

WAL-MART STRIPS FEMINIST T-SHIRT

MIAMI-  A Wal-Mart store pulled a popular T-shirt proclaiming
"Someday a woman will be president" off its shelves, saying it
was offensive to some shoppers.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the company stopped selling the 
shirts at the only store that had them after one customer 
complained.  The store sold about two-thirds of its 204 shirts.

The shirt is emblazoned with the child character Margaret from
the cartoon strip "Dennis the Menace," smiling with her arms
spread wide, making the proclamation.

So it looks like I was right-on with the material I
summarized in the news brief note, except for the 
Wal-Mart "family values" statement that I heard from
Chuck.  So there.  Stuff it.

    
    	Yeah, you tell 'em!!
    
    	Does ayone know why this customer was offended?  I really don't
    	understand what the big deal is, unless Margaret was giving Den-
    	nis the finger or something.
    

    Maybe that person thought the caption was "Someday I will be on the
    president" which should be shortly I would guess.

 Doesn't matter why the customer was offended.  Sounds like they (customer)
 needs to go to re-education camp or something.




 Jim

>unless Margaret was giving Den-
>   	nis the finger or something.

Margaret is portrayed with her arms spread wide on the
aforementioned t-shirt.  It is difficult to give the finger
when your arms are spread wide.  Giving the finger properly
requires frontal action and a crooked elbow.

    
    Yes, we wouldn't want some dumb broad to be president.  How offensive. 
    Makes MY skin crawl, I can tell you.
    
    

    
    	Looks like Deb and I finally agree on something.
    
    	And you CAN give someone the finger even with your arms spread
    	wide.  It just isn't as effective.
    

    Guess that flies in the face of the Wal-Mart Family Values.�

 I have no problem with a woman being president at all.  I think it would
 be great.  I just wonder whether or not the difference of the person who
 was offended by the T shirt is valued.  I caught a glimpse of one of the
 morning news shows on TV this morning, and the woman who designed the
 shirt was being interviewed and they all seemed to be amused by the fact
 that someone was offended by the shirt, chuckling as they discussed it.




 Jim

    
    A *woman* president?  Eeeesh!  What if she starts to *cry*, or throw
    a hissy fit?  What if she gets cranky every month?
    

>And you CAN give someone the finger even with your arms spread
>    	wide.  It just isn't as effective.

Yes, I suppose you could.  But if you were stupid enough to do
it that way, you might be stupid enough to get your finger 
caught in your ear on the way down.

    >I caught a glimpse of one of the morning news shows on TV this morning, 
    >and the woman who designed the shirt was being interviewed and they all 
    >seemed to be amused by the fact that someone was offended by the shirt, 
    >chuckling as they discussed it.
     
     Well, you've gotta admit that getting worked up over that particular
    shirt is pretty ridiculous. And taking the things off the shelf in
    response to a complaint only lends credence to an absurd position. The
    manager in question should have said "Thank you for your opinion and
    have a nice day," and left it at that.

    
    .194
    
    Hey, everyone is entitled to his opinion, no matter how dumb it may
    be 8^).
    
    Of course the person who complained is entitled to feel the way he
    does.  No argument.  No re-education camp.
    
    I personally feel that basing someone's worth solely on whether they have
    ovaries or testicles is pretty ignorant, but that's just me.
                                           

 Speaking of testicles, I heard on the radio yesterday that the alleged
 perpetrator of a crime (not sure if it was in New England) lost his apparantly
 in the process of scaling an iron picket fence.  Officers returned to the
 scene where the man and his jewels were separated and discovered them resting
 on the pointed end of one of the pickets..



 Jim

    Sacr� Bleu!

Newport, Rhode Island:

Police said around 2:20AM, a resident reported a man
wearing dark clothes had broken into her home. The
woman said the man ran out when she screamed.

About 2:30AM, Sgt. Gary Silva said he spotted Johnson,
who answered a description provided by the woman,
walking near the Newport Public Library. Silva said he
stopped Johnson to ask him some questions, but Johnson
took a swing at him and ran off.

Silva said he chased Johnson toward St. Mary's Church,
where Johnson scaled an iron picket fence and got
caught atop the fence. After a brief struggle to free
himself, Johnson fell to the other side of the fence
and ran off. Patrolman Neil Dwyer stopped the man a
short time later on Memorial Boulevard just east of
Spring Street.

While processing Johnson at the police station, an
officer noticed Johnson's pants were torn and that he
was bleeding. Newport firefighters took Johnson to the
hospital where he was admitted, police said.

Police said Johnson never mentioned he was injured and
did not complain of pain.

About 6:00AM, police retrieved Johnson's testicles,
which were still impaled on the fence. The hospital
spokeswoman told police the testicles could not be re-
attached.
==========

    Let me rummage through this other pile of T-shirts here...
    hey, here's one with Dennis the Menace and his pal Tommy,
    with Dennis saying:
    
    		I don't care if there's a woman prezdent, Tommy,
    		as long as it isn't that dum' ol' Margaret!
    
    Chris

    So much for the glamourous life of a jewel thief.

make mine with whipped cream, no nuts.

    re: .201
    
    Ouch!  <squirm>

    
    Notice that the PO who apprehended the miscreant's jewels
    was named Silva. Coincidence? You decide.

    -b

    
    well, him and Mr Bobitt have something in common, or don't, depending
    on your viewpoint.

>make mine with whipped cream, no nuts.
    
     I always knew you were a whipped cream kinda gal.

>caught atop the fence. After a brief struggle to free
>himself, Johnson fell to the other side of the fence
>and ran off.

I'd like a clear definition of that last verb in the above.

    Well, if he was able to run I'd say he had had some pills.

    
    >caught atop the fence. After a brief struggle to free
    >himself, Johnson fell to the other side of the fence
    >and ran off.

    
    I thought it was his testicles that fell off, not his Johnson.
    

    >I thought it was his testicles that fell off, not his Johnson.
    
     Actually, it sounds more like he fell off his testicles.

    -1 cleaning my screen right now...

Does anyone remember an article in Vanity Fair (I think it
was that mag) about castratos?  They would remove a young man's
testicles so that he would keep his high, sweet singing voice.
Castratos were highly sought after in the 17th or 16th century.

They'd drug him all up, put him in a tub of warm water, and then
proceed with the removal.  Sharp knife.  

They had several photos of modern day castratos in the article.
But I don't know if they were _real_ castratos...the author 
missed that detail. 

    <--- <squirm>  ENOUGH ABOUT CASTRATION ALREADY!!

    
    Oh, I'd love to hear a castrato sing.  I've heard a male alto, and
    counter tenors, but I'd bet castrati have an even more beautiful sound.
    
    Can you imagine, the sweet, high pureness of a little boy's voice with 
    the power and control of an adult's?
    
    I wonder why that went out of fashion.
    
    

    
    why Steve, no balls?????

A castrato was welcomed by the upper echelons of society;  he
was treated as very special person.  The castrato's voice was
high and haunting; a voice like no other voice.  You could say
he really suffered for his art. 

    
    RE: .215

    > They'd drug him all up, put him in a tub of warm water, and then
    > proceed with the removal.  Sharp knife.  
    
    Perhaps not your intent, but I read this as it being an
    involuntary donation. In fact, the Castratae were generally
    monks (or "Brothers") who were already sworn to celibacy.
    However, since the Church favored the family of Castratae
    with a an "endowment", boys were often sold off into
    the monastic life, especially if they were not first born.
    So, in that sense you are right.
    
    -b

    
    re: .217
    
    Sick puppy!!
    

    OhOhOh/OwOwOw

.220

    >> They'd drug him all up, put him in a tub of warm water, and then
    >> proceed with the removal.  Sharp knife.  
    
    >Perhaps not your intent, but I read this as it being an
    >involuntary donation.

Brian, I'm not sure I'm following you, but I was just reporting how
the deed was done.  They obviously had to medicate beforehand with
the most effective drug known to them at the time.

The Church connection is interesting...I didn't know that _they_
were so heavily involved.  But it does make sense.

    .220
    
    Castrati, not castratae.
    
    The last known castrato died in 1911, I believe.  He made an Edison
    cylinder record in 1908, and it's clear even through the awful sound
    quality of the recording that the impact of his voice was awesome. 
    There is an otherworldly quality about it - it's obviously not a woman,
    not a boy, and not an unaltered man.

Then those guys in the Vanity Fair mag must have been
pseudo-castrati.  I knew it, I knew it all the time.

They were guys.  Coupla white guys, a black guy, and an 
asian guy.

    
    No doubt members of the vocal group "Men to Boyz."
    
    -b

    If the last castrato was back in 1911, then who did that 1970
    song "Hey There, Lonely Girl"?
    
    Chris

    
    So why can't these Vanity Fair guys not be the same thing? Can't they
    alter/castrate with chemicals nowadays?
    

    The process of castration, by whatever method, must be accomplished
    before puberty.  Once the voice has begun to change, it's too late.

>    If the last castrato was back in 1911, then who did that 1970
>    song "Hey There, Lonely Girl"?
    
        A guy with *extremely* tight underwear?
        

    
    How do you explain Michael Jackson, Dick?  

    .234
    
    You want to talk about males (of which Michael Jackson is a putative
    specimen) who can sing in the stratosphere, you need to hear Paul
    Esswood and Drew Minter.  Jackson is a pipsqueak compared to such as
    they are.

    
    	Jim Gillette from the band Nitro has amazing range, but like Mariah
    	Carey, is annoying to listen to for long periods of time.
    

I wonder if that Chinese opera singer in "Farewell, My
Concubine" was supposed to be a castrato?  The one who 
played the female role.  That was one strange flick.

    i always pegged Frankie Vallee...

    
    re: waaaay back, about a woman president...
    
    
    
    I thought that's what we had right now...?!?!
    
    
    
    ;-)
    

    No, you have a womanizing president now.

    
    No Glenn, I meant Billary...
    

    please, please, please would scottk write some more 'cos I loved the 
    way people ripped into him just because he didn't make any sense and
    came across as a total first national banker.
    

Perhaps you hadn't heard. Young Scott is no longer with us.

    well, there's always dk2.

    
    Oh, you missed all the fun when we had the twin peaks of
    cluelessness: ScottK and Teekema.
    
    -b

    yes.  i very vaguely remember the name Teekema.  but as
    to the content of his notes...nuttin'.

>    yes.  i very vaguely remember the name Teekema.  but as
>    to the content of his notes...nuttin'.


  Yep, that's him.




 Jim

    
    <-----  muppet man, I *was* going to say that. "Is Barney Satan?" a
    true classic topic in the history of Soapbox, yes it was.

    
    LAAAADIEEEEES ANNNND GENNNNNNNULLLMENNNNN...
    
    In this corner, wearing sensible shoes and a Gaultier cone bra...
    
    		...SAVAGE SUZANNE CONLONNNNNNNN...
    
    And in this corner, wearing ONLY his manhood...
    
    		...MARVELLOUS MARQUE LEVESQQQQQQQQQQUE...
    
    
    
    Folks, lets have a fair fight.
    

	
	WAIT!!!! We can't have a fight until wagering is done! My money is on
Sue! The cone bra will slice Mark's manhood!

    We should also agree on some ground rules for this match.

    It would probably be appropriate to set a start date (such as
    Monday, November 20th) so that we each have time to do any
    research we might care to do on the subject at hand.

    If the Thanksgiving Holiday makes next week difficult, we could
    start on the Monday after Thanksgiving - November 27th.

    	You want to hold a grudge until then?  Sheesh.
    
    	And what needs to be 'researched'?

    It would be either 5 days or 12 days away.  It gives both sides
    a chance to work on their arguments.
    
    We do still have an actual disagreement.  Research on the matter
    wouldn't hurt.

    If Mark agrees to this match, I propose:

    	1. Argument phase

    	     We do the one-on-one with one note from each of us
    		at a time.  No new notes from either of us until
    		the other has responded.  We have 24 hours to
    		respond (with more time given over a weekend
    		or holiday, or if more time is needed in general.)

    	     We flip a coin (electronically) to decide who goes
    		first.  When the argument phase ends, each person
    		has the same number of notes.

    	2. Conclusion phase

    	     The one who lost the coin toss for the argument phase
    		 goes first for this phase.

    	     We set a limit on the number of notes (such as 5 notes)
    		 and we end up with the same number of notes again.


    	General rules:

    	  1.  No insults.  
    	  2.  No personal comments about the combatants at all.
    	  3.  The opponents stick to the subject at all times
    		in this topic.
    	  4.  No acknowledgments or conversations with members of
    		the audience in this topic allowed during the match.
    	  5.  Each note must include the note number of the opponent's
    		most recent note in the title (to make it easier to
    	        follow.)
    
    We'll need to negotiate about determining the outcome.  A vote
    wouldn't be appropriate since the two opponents do not have the
    same status in this notesfile.

	Sue, you could start a new note, set it nowrite, and the two of you
(Mark is a mod) could talk with each other. We would have to stay out. 

	And in the end, does there need to be a winner/loser? Wouldn't you both
have won if you pull this off?



Glen

This is a real kick.

    RE: .255  Glen
    
    / Sue, you could start a new note, set it nowrite, and the two of you
    / (Mark is a mod) could talk with each other. We would have to stay out. 

    Great idea, Glen.
    
    / And in the end, does there need to be a winner/loser? Wouldn't you both
    / have won if you pull this off?
    
    You're right - there doesn't need to be a winner/loser to all this.
    
    We'd both win for having our says about the actual topic and Soapbox
    would win by us ending the current brawl in favor of an actual debate
    which is confined to one small area.
    
    We should start the whole thing from the very beginning, too (so that
    the debate is about the one word we have been discussing.)  This way,
    we'd avoid the 'you said' vs. 'no YOU said' stuff about the brawl.
    
    No insults, no personal comments - just a stand about this one topic
    in a one-on-one setting.
    
    Now that would be one example of a fair fight.

    It should be a no holds barred type of event.

    
    Can we be setup with automatic "Next Unseen" for this proposed topic ?
    
    ;^P

    I'd rather engage in a formal debate.
    
    We've both proven we can launch insults.  Let's put our actual
    arguments to the test.
    
    I'm certainly willing to do that.

    RE: .259  Moore
    
    / Can we be setup with automatic "Next Unseen" for this proposed topic ?
    
    Considering that we may end up with 24 hours to respond, you wouldn't
    need to use your 'next unseen' key all that often.  :)
    
    We don't know yet that this will even happen.  Let's wait and see.

    
    > We don't know yet that this will even happen.  Let's wait and see.
    
    Always pays to plan ahead.
    
    ;^)

    RE: .263  Jim
    
    /  -< Yawn >-
    
    <pat, pat, pat>
    
    
    [I used to love patting my little son's mouth during yawns when he was 
    a baby.] :)

    
    > This is a real kick.
    
    I don't know Jack....seems rather pathetic to me.
    I'd also be surprised if Doc lowers himself to the level
    required to engage in this debacle.
    
    He's shown amazing patience thus far but I tend to think that
    he has far more important and rewarding things to devote his time to.
    
    							regards
    
    								Hank

    This is bogus. I'm put in the position of engaging in a pointless
    debate with someone who has earned a huge amount of disrespect from me,
    or refusing to do so and thus leaving the door open for Suzanne to
    claim that I won't fight a fair fight, I'm a coward, etc. Well guess
    what. I don't really GAS. Go ahead a smear me, Suzanne. I know the
    truth, and I gather that most of the people who (including all of
    'those who count') know the score, too. Find some other way to save
    face.

	i'm bettin' ::conlon_s can't do the one-on-one note thing.

	it's always takes her two notes to respond.

| <<< Note 16.266 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "squeal like the pig you are" >>>


| I don't really GAS. 

	That's cool. The air must smell better around you for it. :-)

    Beat me to it Hank.  Damn, I wanted to be the first to use the pathetic
    word wrt said topic.  

    
    rules??? No rules in a knife fight.

I propose a steel cage match.

    
    
    Mark has done the right thing....
    
    It'd be a waste of time to do otherwise...
    

    
      I disagree.  Doc is a wimp.
    
      Show some testesterone, man !
    
      bb

    
    	If it was Friday, this'd almost be funny.
    
    	Karen
    

Testosterone.  NNTTM.

    >  I disagree.  Doc is a wimp.
    
    >  Show some testesterone, man !
    
     How 'bout I come over and kick yo' ass. Would that do? ;^)
    Or mebbe we should just go to lunch at Hooters.

    
    
    Maybe you need to talk to Jim Sadin, Mark...
    
    That or get a bigger gun....
    
    ;)
    

    testing...testing...123

Andy, size isn't everything. It's how you use your gun. 

    oh, i disagree.  for guys, size _is_ everything.

| <<< Note 16.281 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "hysterical elitist" >>>

| oh, i disagree.  for guys, size _is_ everything.



	HEY! I'm not a size queen! I just hate men with little..... ;-)

    
    ...minds.
    

    
      Well, Doc, how else're we sposed to call it ?
    
      The flamin' fiminist says &y seeks penultimate (sic) slur.
     Sure, she didn't mean next-to-last, but we catched her meenin,
     in a sitcheeashun where Inglish gots no good word.  Happens lots.
    
      And you go off half-cocked pedantic.  OK fur Blinder, but you put
     yourself into a false light, ignoring the argument, concentrating
     on the usage, for almost 400 replies, the mother-of-all-ratholes.
    
      She wuz denying the charge the wimmins get more worked-up, ie
     hysterical, particularly in da BOX.  She's right.  They don't.
     Mebbe they should, but the flame ratio is higher in the males,
     see fer yourself.
    
      bb  

    
    <------
    
    I don't recall &y getting involved in this discussion!! (Well, perhaps
    he may fart as well as I do... those Scots have been known to eat weird
    foods every once in awhile...)
    

    RE: .284  bb

    /  -< Bet on the irish girl : substance wins over form... >-

    ...but only if both parties are willing to engage in a fair fight.
    I'm more than willing to do this.  Mark isn't, unfortunately.
        
    / The flamin' fiminist says &y seeks penultimate (sic) slur.
    / Sure, she didn't mean next-to-last, but we catched her meenin,
    / in a sitcheeashun where Inglish gots no good word.  Happens lots.
    
    Quite true.  When I heard the word used this way before myself,
    the context made the intended meaning very clear.

    / And you go off half-cocked pedantic.  OK fur Blinder, but you put
    / yourself into a false light, ignoring the argument, concentrating
    / on the usage, for almost 400 replies, the mother-of-all-ratholes.
    
    The heart of the argument is that languages exist in a state of
    change, so the meanings of words can not be regarded as absolute.
    Mark knows this, of course, so he concentrated on slamming the usage 
    as though language _could_ be described as absolute.

    / She wuz denying the charge the wimmins get more worked-up, ie
    / hysterical, particularly in da BOX.  She's right.  They don't.
    / Mebbe they should, but the flame ratio is higher in the males,
    / see fer yourself.

    This has been true for the ten years I've been in Digital notes,
    and it's still true today.

    
    New entries for the "Suzanne Conlon Dictionary of Malapropisms:"
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    penultimate adj: what I think someone else who said it meant.

    fair fight n: when no more than one person who has a clue
                  disagrees with me.

    andy, i read it.  the dispute has now taken on a life
    of its own.  one will have to bow out to end it.

	Wow...this is too much. While I don't think it is realistic, I do think
it would be great to have a topic discussed where no name calling went on. Very
few discussions are this way.

	I know.....shuddup already! :-)

    
    Bugger off you tart! :-)
    
    -b

>    andy, i read it.  the dispute has now taken on a life
>    of its own.  one will have to bow out to end it.



  Its the beast and its controlling our very lives!!

	Just remember, Brian.... tarts are ok. :-)

    .286
    
    Maybe 20 years from now, penultimate will mean what you want us to
    believe it means.  In 1995, it doesn't.  And no amount of whining about
    fair fights or changing language or Mark's manhood, which appears to
    need no bolstering whatsoever, will change the simple fact that you are
    flat wrong.
    
    Mark has wisely decided to stop responding to your interminable
    childish diatribes, digressions, and deflections.  I'm joining him.

    
    
    Great!!!!
    
    Now the cronies will be accused of taking their "bats" and "balls" and
    going home!!!!
    

    allow me, a mere crony (excuse me, I need to readjust my bra--that's
    pretty equivalent to holding my penis, no? {that's for you -b :->})
    to high-five Mark on his ability to be man enough to know he's made 
    his point to those who chose to listen.

    
    Hey, I'll meet (wink wink) you guys in the bar (wink wink) so we
    can all high five each other (wink wink), compare penis size (wink
    wink) and talk about the chicks we'd like to "do"? Oh, and we
    absolutely MUST join in a good gas passing...
    
    -b

    
    Oh, I would have joined you, but (a) I'm too short to high-five (b) I
    have no penis (c) I don't know of any chicks I'd like to do and (d)
    ladies don't pass gas.
    
    Could I show up later after the festivities have somewhat calmed down
    8^)?
    
    

    
    > that's for you -b
    
    No doubt, just your way of saying "thinking of you..." :-) :-)
    
    -b

    
    
    >Could I show up later after the festivities have somewhat calmed down
    >8^)?
    
    Sure!!! Just be sure to wear a gas mask!!!!!!
    
    :)
    

	Guess I can't go...... I don't want to do girls..... 

    
    .295
    
    BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
    
    {ahem}
    
    :-)

    
    re: .297
    
    >(d)ladies don't pass gas.
    
    At least not in public, or where someone can hear them...
    
    ;)
    

    
    >Guess I can't go...... I don't want to do girls.....
    

    .295
    
    Need any help?

    Women have just perfected the art of the two cheek sneak, that's all.

    RE: .293  Dick Binder

    / Maybe 20 years from now, penultimate will mean what you want us to
    / believe it means.  In 1995, it doesn't.  

    It does to some people.

    / And no amount of whining about fair fights or changing language or 
    / Mark's manhood, which appears to need no bolstering whatsoever, will 
    / change the simple fact that you are flat wrong.
    
    A living language is not absolute.  The meanings of words change
    as people start to use the words differently.  Such new or unusual
    meanings are not 'flat wrong', especially when the words' derivations
    support them.

    / Mark has wisely decided to stop responding to your interminable
    / childish diatribes, digressions, and deflections.  I'm joining him.

    Mark has decided to take his responses to me to 4 or 5 different
    topics now.

    He can run, but he can't hide.  :)

    
    Well... I have to say that women have men beat in more ways than one!!
    
    I'd like to see a guy try and get his boxer shorts off, under his pants
    the way a woman can get her bra off under her outer garment!!

    
    
    I know a guy who was an amputee who used to do that.  He was a lot of
    fun at parties.......

    .307
    
    Why bother with watching the guys, the women are vastly more
    interesting.

    brian-
    
    drat.  caught again!  i'm hanging my head in shame!
    
    :-)))
    
    How does one make a high 5 electronically?

    
    
    re: .309
    
    >Why bother with watching the guys, the women are vastly more interesting.
    
    
     Well... it would be slightly interesting... in a Houdini sort of
    way...
    

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 11.10295                 Things to Like Today                10295 of 10297
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "squeal like the pig you are"         2 lines  16-NOV-1995 15:06
                       -< maybe we can finally end this >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    one note each. You go first. You quit pestering me afterwards. 25 line
    max.

    
    	I wonder why I wasn't included in Mark's crony mailing...
    
    	{sniff} {sniff}
    

    
    
    Hey!!!! neither was I!!!!
    
    Gasp!!!! Does that mean... I'M NOT HIS CRONY??????
    
    
    :( :(
    

    
    	If it's going to take place here, can the rest of us just stay
    	out and let these 2 go at it?
    
    	It'll help the flow, IMO.
    

    >      <<< Note 16.312 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
    >                            -< Let's talk. >-
    
     Ball's in your court.

    
    OK, argument is over.  The requirement was "one note each".  Mark and
    Suzanne have each entered one note.
    
    Thank goodness!
    
    

    
    
    >It'll help the flow, IMO.
    
    
    IN SOAPBOX????????
    
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
    

    RE: .312  Mark Levesque

    1. one note each. 

    	One note at a time, each.  We can set a limit, though, on the
    	  length or duration of the fight.
    
    	For the two phases I suggested, how about:
    
    		Argument phase:   10 notes each (unless we agree to end
    							sooner.)
    		Conclusion phase:  2 notes each.

    2. You go first. 

    	Again, my suggestion was for two phases (Argument and Conclusion)
    	   and that we flip an electronic coin to see who goes first in
    	   the Argument phase.  The other person would later go first in
    	   the Conclusion phase.  Each person would be guaranteed to get
    	   one 'first' note and one 'last' note EACH in the total match,
    	   and the order of the 'first' and 'last' notes would be decided
    	   by a flip of the coin.

    3. You quit pestering me afterwards. 

    	YOU would agree to quit going all over this bleeping notesfile
    	   (in places where I'm not participating) to bitch about whatever
    	   the hell we've been discussing.

    4. 25 line max.

    	100 line limit.  This makes room for quotes from outside resources.
    	

    Also, we have 24 hours to respond during the week (with more time
    allowed if needed, and more time automatically given if the fight
    falls over a holiday or weekend.)  

    NO INSULTS - NO PERSONAL REMARKS ALONG THE LINES OF 'You are just
    saying this because....'

    We stick to the subject ONLY and we start from the beginning of the
    disagreement about the word "penultimate".  No bringing in things
    we've already said about this elsewhere.  We clean the slate.

    Just you and me - no comments to outside spectators in the topic 
    (and no running around the file with insults in various other topics.)

    We stick to the subject and we stick to addressing each other about
    this topic INSIDE THE TOPIC ONLY.  We don't carry this argument to
    10 different other topics with snide remarks.

    We settle things once and for all in one topic, in ONE FAIR FIGHT.

    What do you say?

>    What do you say?

<raises_eyebrows><flicks_ashes_from_cigar>

I'd say this is ridiculous.

    No I do not agree to those terms. I am not interested in such a
    protracted battle. I'm not really interested in doing it at all, in
    fact, I am really going against my grain to do it at all because of the
    things you've said about me, but because I am now convinced that you
    will not stop littering this file with vindictive replies unless I go
    through with this I am willing to do it to spare the file the
    aggravation.
    
    >1. one note each. 

    >	One note at a time, each.  We can set a limit, though, on the
    >	  length or duration of the fight.
    
     Compromise: one note each for the formal argument. One note each on
    rebuttal.
    
    Who goes first? I really don't GAS, but I want this done by lunch
    tomorrow and I'm about to leave for the day.
    
    >	YOU would agree to quit going all over this bleeping notesfile
    >	   (in places where I'm not participating) to bitch about whatever
    >	   the hell we've been discussing.
    
     Fine.
    
    >	100 line limit.  This makes room for quotes from outside resources.
    
     Compromise: 50 
    
    How much spare time do you have, anyway?
    
    >NO INSULTS - NO PERSONAL REMARKS 
    
     Piece of cake.
    
    >We stick to the subject ONLY and we start from the beginning of the
    >disagreement about the word "penultimate".  
    
     That's the only subject to be debated. My response to this, your
    response to that, all the rest of the steaming pile of dung that
    comprised this woeful interaction is to be off limits.
    
    >We stick to the subject and we stick to addressing each other about
    >this topic INSIDE THE TOPIC ONLY.  We don't carry this argument to
    >10 different other topics with snide remarks.
    
     Fine.
    
     But I want this to be over with pronto. I've done all the compromising
    I intend to do. This is your idea. Take it or leave it.

    translation: Jack thinks its dumb too.

    What's taking so long about typing yes or no? In any case, I'm outta
    here. If you're interested, type away. Because under no circumstances
    will I agree to extending this silliness past when I leave tomorrow,
    and I don't want you complaining about not having had enough time.
    You've got all night. I'm not going to do anything until tomorrow.

    RE: .321  Mark Levesque
    
    / because I am now convinced that you
    / will not stop littering this file with vindictive replies unless I go
    / through with this I am willing to do it to spare the file the
    / aggravation.                     
    
    I never had any intention of taking the fight to all the various
    topics you and I went through today.  That was your doing.
    
    / Compromise: one note each for the formal argument. One note each on
    / rebuttal.
    
    Not enough.  We need at least two notes in the formal argument,
    preferably 5 notes each.  Otherwise, all we have is 'Person 1' going
    once, then 'Person 2' going twice, then 'Person 1' going once again.
    
    / Who goes first? I really don't GAS, but I want this done by lunch
    / tomorrow and I'm about to leave for the day.
    
    'Done by lunch tomorrow' does not leave enough time.
    
    If you want to go quickly, that's ok with me - but if so, we need to
    start next week (or the week after that.)  Tomorrow at noon eastern
    time does not leave me enough time to do the research I would like
    to do.
    
    / Compromise: 50 
    
    Compromise:  75 lines.
    
    / How much spare time do you have, anyway?
    
    I only usually participate in one or two topics at a time (with one
    or two individuals at a time, unless I'm being mobbed) and I type
    fast.
    
    Even so, I don't have enough time to do my research by noon eastern
    time tomorrow.  How about next week?
    
    / But I want this to be over with pronto. I've done all the compromising
    / I intend to do. This is your idea. Take it or leave it.
    
    If you can only make demands without accepting any further compromise,
    then you're just running away again.
    
    I doubt you were ever serious about doing this in the first place
    (with your suggestion of 'one note, 25 lines, you go first.')
    
    Put up or shut up.  Be willing to compromise on the few matters
    left to settle, or walk away again.  Your choice.

    Apparently you aren't interested in ending this. So the hell with you.
    You made the offer, I issued a counter. You countered that and I
    compromised. That's it. Take it or leave means take it or leave it. And
    if you decide to leave it, then you'd better quit pestering me.

    RE: .325  Mark Levesque

    / Apparently you aren't interested in ending this. So the hell with you.

    I'm only interested in a fair fight.  Obviously, you can't handle one.

    / You made the offer, I issued a counter. You countered that and I
    / compromised. That's it. Take it or leave means take it or leave it. 

    'Drawing a line in the sand' is not the same thing as compromising, 
    Levesque.  When you gave me your 'take it or leave it' ultimatum,
    you stopped negotiating.  You stuck your dick out one last time.

    / And if you decide to leave it, then you'd better quit pestering me.

    We can continue negotiating.  I'm willing.

    If you refuse to negotiate, then you'd better stop going all over
    this bleeping notesfile to bitch at me about it.

    
    re: .326
    
    >I'm only interested in a fair fight.
    
    For the edification of the boxrabble, no doubt...
    

    
    Suzanne, why do you need so many notes to conduct the fight?  This
    particular argument has been going on for SO LONG that everything that
    could possibly be said about it has been said.  Any more notes are just
    rehash!
    
    

    She hasn't outdone topic 20 yet!

    RE: .328

    / Suzanne, why do you need so many notes to conduct the fight?  This
    / particular argument has been going on for SO LONG that everything that
    / could possibly be said about it has been said.  

    So much of the argument has been personal that we've barely scratched
    the surface of the real issue.

    / Any more notes are just rehash!

    In this fight, the idea was to start from the beginning with NO insults
    or personal remarks.  There wouldn't have been much we could rehash
    since most of the argument up to now has been so personal.

    fight n.
    2. A quarrel or conflict.
    
    fair adv.
    1. In a proper or legal manner: playing fair.
    
    What the BLOODY HELL is unfair about Mark's proposal?  Each combatant
    would have to abide by the same rules; that's the essence of fairness. 
    But NOOOOOO, Suzanne has to drag it out, casting further aspersions on
    Mark, until he offers a compromise that would be considered by anyone
    with any REAL debating skills to be more than fair.  Suzanne rejected
    that and cast even more aspersions at Mark.
    
    It is clear that the only one who is afraid of a fair fight is Suzanne,
    probably because she knows she'll lose.  She therefore continues to
    drag it out, picking and poking and puling and puking her endless
    tirades.  Apparently, she hopes to declare herself the victor because
    Mark won't argue with her 'til death do them part.  How utterly
    childish.

    I have found from personal experience that name calling perpetuates
    nothing of substance.  I see both sides doing this! (if of course this
    is serious otherwise have fun and knock yourselves out!!!!)

    RE: .331  Dick Binder

    / What the BLOODY HELL is unfair about Mark's proposal?  Each combatant
    / would have to abide by the same rules; that's the essence of fairness. 

    His first proposal was a joke, Dick.  'One note each, 25 lines, you go
    first.'  I knew it was just a joke, but I tried negotiating with him 
    about the 'Fair Fight' anyway.

    / But NOOOOOO, Suzanne has to drag it out, casting further aspersions on
    / Mark, until he offers a compromise that would be considered by anyone
    / with any REAL debating skills to be more than fair.  Suzanne rejected
    / that and cast even more aspersions at Mark.

    It isn't 'more than fair' to demand to set the rules on a 'take it or
    leave it' basis.  The rules had all been negotiable up to then.

    / It is clear that the only one who is afraid of a fair fight is Suzanne,
    / probably because she knows she'll lose. 

    Try to keep up, Dick - we already agreed that there would be NO winner
    or loser.  We would just make our arguments in a fair manner.

    / She therefore continues to drag it out, picking and poking and puling 
    / and puking her endless tirades.  

    You're dragging this out yourself by going through another round of
    Now_I'm_Speaking_to_Suzanne_but_in_Another_Minute_I'll_Have_My_19th_
    Nervous_Breakdown_and_Will_Tell_Her_That_I'm_Not_Speaking_to_Her_
    Anymore spasms.

    / Apparently, she hopes to declare herself the victor because Mark won't 
    / argue with her 'til death do them part.  How utterly childish.

    He didn't leave enough time.  'By noon tomorrow or go to hell' was
    not reasonable.  It wasn't enough time for me to do the research
    I would like to do.

    The 'Fair Fight' would have had no winner, so obviously, the lack of
    'Fair Fight' can't have one either.

    If he ever reconsiders his stand and decides to go into a one-on-one
    with me, I'll be waiting.

    
    What the heck do you have to research?
    
    I thought Mark's proposal was perfectly reasonable, being that this
    argument has been going on so long and so pointlessly!
    
    

    
    BTW, I'd appreciate it if both of you would forward your towels to me
    so that I can send the loser's towel to the winner in true Meowski
    fashion.  OK?
    
    

    RE: .334

    / What the heck do you have to research?
    
    The argument is about the meaning of a word in our language and
    how such meanings change over time.  There's plenty to research
    about that.
    
    / I thought Mark's proposal was perfectly reasonable, being that this
    / argument has been going on so long and so pointlessly!

    It's been pointless for the very reason that we haven't yet scratched
    the surface of the real issues here.  We had the chance to do this now.

    Such a venture takes more than a 'noon tomorrow or go to hell'
    ultimatum, though.

    It was not reasonable to make such an ultimatum in the first place.

    
    re: .335
    
    >Meowski
    
    
    AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!
    
    Deb!!!
    
    I'm gonna get a cross, stake, and a bunch of garlic!! Come to your
    house and throw them all at you for uttering that name!!!!!!
    
     Great!!! Here I thought Iwas gonna get a good night's sleep!!!
    
    
    Bluuuuuuuuuurrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!
    

What's a Meowski?


\C

    .333
    
    > His first proposal was a joke, Dick.
    
    What is a joke is your response to this whole situation, Suzanne.  It
    is so utterly typical of you.
    
    So you didn't regard his first proposal as a serious proposal?  Tough.
    Whoever said that the topic has been beaten to death was right.  You
    have no need to do research; we all, even Mark, will quite happily
    acknowledge the truth of your assertion that language changes.  What we
    won't acknowledge is the putative correctness of your attempts to use
    your own jawbone � la Samson and bludgeon us all into believing that
    you, and some small circle of people you know up there in the Colorado
    valleys, are the harbingers in the new wave of English-as-derived-
    directly-from-Latin.  The best linguistic minds of the 19th century
    failed at that effort, and I can assure you that you are not possessed
    of one of the best linguistic minds of the 20th, or any other, century.
    
    You can splatter your quotes and screeds all over this and every other
    notesfile in the company until you are forcibly stopped, but none of
    what you write will demonstrate anything beyond your incredible
    inability to do anything other than throw a tantrum when you are told,
    even with documentation, that you're wrong.
    
    I only wish the corporation had hired me to do nothing except sit in
    front of a Notes window and regurgitate the same self-serving drivel
    all day every day.  It must be a hell of a nice job.  On the other
    hand, I'm probably not qualified for that position.

    RE: .339  Dick Binder

    // His first proposal was a joke, Dick.
    
    / What is a joke is your response to this whole situation, Suzanne.

    The whole situation has been a barrel of laughs.  :)

    / So you didn't regard his first proposal as a serious proposal?  Tough.

    Well, up yers. :)

    The 'one note each, 25 lines, you go first' proposal was treated as
    a starting place for negotiations.  The negotiations broke down when
    Levesque made a 'noon tomorrow - take it or leave it' ultimatum.

    / You have no need to do research; we all, even Mark, will quite happily
    / acknowledge the truth of your assertion that language changes.  

    As well you should, because I was right about that all along.

    / What we won't acknowledge is the putative correctness of your attempts 
    / to use your own jawbone � la Samson and bludgeon us all into believing 
    / that you, and some small circle of people you know up there in the 
    / Colorado valleys, are the harbingers in the new wave of 
    / English-as-derived-directly-from-Latin.

    You are hallucinating.  I haven't heard anyone use the word in question
    in the disputed way in Colorado - as I mentioned, I hadn't used the
    word myself in at least 7 years (and I've only been here for 10 years.)
     
    I said it was probably a regional usage, but I don't remember what
    region that might be (since I've lived in several regions of the U.S.)

    It wasn't a deliberate movement to change the word, in any case - it
    was just a simple usage that I'd heard from multiple people. That's all.

    / You can splatter your quotes and screeds all over this and every other

    You can have that 19th Nervous Breakdown now and tell me (once more
    with feeling) that you're finished speaking to me until you can't stop
    yourself from doing it again a little while later.

ZZ    What's a Meowski?
    
    A reptile I believe!

 I'm glad this all got cleared up while I was in meetings/busy, etc.



 Jim

    Why are ANY of you replying to her?  Just STOP.  Even when she
    says mean, hateful, hurtful things; when she pops up in a string;
    when she pokes and pokes and pokes.  Just STOP.  Don't do it.

    Another great use for THINKING before you reply.

    \john

    
    Easy John...
    
    We're talking about Mmmm.... Mmmmm... 
    
    I can't bring myself to saying it....
    

    I'm not going to engage in any protracted argument with you
    Suzanne. I don't need multiple 100 line replies to get my point across.
    A single under 50 line response is plenty for an argument of this
    magnitude. Your inability to clearly communicate in a concise manner is
    your problem, not mine; I feel no obligation to cater to your
    handicaps.
    
    My next reply will be my single note argument. I may or may not choose
    to answer your counterargument with a rebuttal. In either case, I will
    be done with this. Then you can do anything you want. You can write 12
    million 5000 line notes, annotated, with a long bibliography, etc. I
    won't read past the first one.

    
    
    Hey, George is/was good for this file.  He's entitled to his opinion as
    are anyone else in the file no matter how much we may disagree with
    him.  He did like to chase his tail quite a bit, but we still see that
    today from other folks here in this forum.  I miss Meowski, at least he
    presented the other side and gave me things to consider which either
    made me readjust my beliefs or reinforced what I already thought.
    
    
    Mike

     The usage of the word penultimate when the context implied the target
    meaning was "almost ultimate" is incorrect. Penultimate means "next to
    last." Using penultimate to mean almost ultimate is a perfectly
    understandable mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless. 
    
     Other words cause similar problems for people. Obviate is another 
    example. I have seen many examples of the following form: "such and such 
    obviates the President's true agenda, contrary to his rhetoric." The 
    implied meaning of obviate as it is used here is "to make obvious, to 
    reveal." But that's not what obviate means. Obviate means "to prevent by 
    making unnecessary." It doesn't matter how many people misuse the word, its
    meaning is clear, if not well known.
    
     Another frequently misused word is effect. It is typically used when
    affect is the intended meaning. The fact that many people confuse these
    two words coupled with the fact that this is a living language may make
    these two words seem interchangeable to some people. They are not.
    There are distinct and different meanings for each word.
    
     Thus there is no validity to the argument that frequent misuse of a
    well defined word justifies continued misuse even in a living language.
    While some words do evolve in meaning, rarely is this a result of
    misuse. Typically it's a result of appropriation into the vernacular,
    ie slang. Faggot is an example of this. The connotation of faggot has 
    changed as a result of its use as slang for homosexual. The annotation, of
    course, remains unchanged. 
    
     The use of word derivation to support misuse is a similarly flawed
    argument. Someone may wish to use a word to describe a trait of servile
    compliance. One could consider that the applicable adjective of such a
    condition is obsequious. This person might be tempted to use the word
    obsequy to describe this trait (as a noun, of course.) This usage is
    wrong; an obsequy is a funeral rite. The fact that obsequy comes from
    the latin word obsequium, meaning "compliance", does not in any way
    alter the meaning of the word. So despite the fact that the word is
    derived from a latin word that has essentially the meaning the speaker
    wishes to convey, usage of the word in a manner not supported by the
    definition of the word is incorrect. 
    
    This is a mistake. It's a minor mistake. It is not the end of the
    world. It is, however, a mistake.
    
     The Doctah

    
                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| I hope Mark's note was the penultimate note  
                    ~~    ~~ of this silly "debate". 

    

If I read -.2 correctly, yours was.

Just here to help.
Pete

    The usage of the word 'penultimate' in note 507.329 was unusual,
    but not incorrect:

    	"Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the penultimate sexist slur or
        imagery."

    The O.E.D., 1989, includes the following definition for the word:
    "Adj, Last but one; next before the last of a series of things."
    One of the examples offered was:  "One more revise - positively
    the last... - at any rate, the penultimate." [Byron]

    The Random House Dictionary of the English Language includes the
    definition:  "Almost the last."

    All the dictionaries consulted for the word 'penultimate' included
    the instruction to 'see ULTIMATE'.

    The various definitions found for this word include: "To result
    finally; to end (in something.)"  "Coming at the end of a process,
    course of action, etc., or as the last in a succession or series;
    arrived at as a final result or in the last resort."  "Beyond which
    no advance can be made."

    When the word 'penultimate' was used in 507.329, it was used in
    response to another of Andy's words (in a SERIES of Andy's words and 
    phrases) which were being described as 'sexist slurs'.

    Byron used the word 'penultimate' when he wrote "One more revise 
    - positively the last... - at any rate, the penultimate".  The 
    words to Andy could have been written as follows:

    	"Andy, I see that you have submitted yet another sexist slur in 
    	your latest note, and this one is worse than the last slur you 
    	offered.  It appears that you are in search of finding the worst 
    	possible sexist slur - or if not the worst possible slur (as in, 
    	the last in a series of increasingly offensive slurs, i.e., 'the 
    	ultimate slur'), then at any rate, you seek the penultimate sexist 
    	slur (as in, the next best thing to the ultimate slur)."

    Andy may not have been seeking the worst possible sexist slur to
    post in a notesfile at his place of employment, but it was suggested
    that he was seeking something close to it.  It was suggested that he
    was in search of submitting a sexist slur which would be "almost the
    last" in a series (or list) of increasingly offensive sexist slurs.

    Andy may or may not have been seeking to do this, but the word
    'penultimate' could be used correctly to describe such a effort.

    The word was chosen deliberately in 507.329 to have this meaning
    (which is consistent with one dictionary definition for penultimate:
    "almost the last".)  Andy's submission was characterized as seeking
    a slur which would be considered so offensive that it could be called
    "almost the last" of a series or list of increasingly offensive sexist
    slurs.

    The word was unusual to find in the context given in 507.329, but it
    was not incorrect.

    .351 is disqualified for being 7 lines too long.  Game, set, and match
    to the Doctah.

    
    Does the spacing of paragraphs count?
    

    The specifiation was a reply of not more than 50 lines.  Formatting was
    left to the option of the writer.  Both writers inserted blank lines
    between their paragraphs; thus, no cry of foul is admissible.

    >When the word 'penultimate' was used in 507.329, it was used in
    >response to another of Andy's words (in a SERIES of Andy's words and 
    >phrases) which were being described as 'sexist slurs'.
    
     If this defense is to be accepted at face value, and this certainly is
    questionable given the fact that this defense (which is the sole
    defense that could actually result in the word being deemed correctly
    used) one must wonder it has taken over 400 replies to be revealed.
    Indeed, had this defense been employed right away, I'd have said,
    "Really? That's not what the context led me to believe, but you're
    right, that is an acceptable way to use it."
    
     Instead, we were treated to a defense that said that she intended the
    word to mean "almost ultimate". There was no mention whatsoever of this
    being the next to last of a series. Indeed, she gave all appearances of
    expecting Andy to continue his use of sexist slurs unabated.
    
     Let's take a look at what she said when I originally questioned her
    usage:
    
    / Andy, Andy.  Still in search of the *almost ultimate* sexist slur 
    / or imagery.
    
    >You have a point, Mark.  He's really looking for the *ultimate*
    >sexist slur or imagery, no 'almost' about it.  :)
    
     This context does not appear to consider Andy's sexist slurs to be a
    series; it appears to be considering that Andy is looking to find the
    definitive sexist slur, the sexist slur which cannot be exceeded by any
    other.
    
     In short, I think this latest defense is cooked up. However, if indeed
    that is what she really meant (and only Suzanne can know what she was
    really thinking) then she indeed used the word properly. 
    
     That's the last I have to say on the subject.

>    The specifiation was a reply of not more than 50 lines. 

	where was that agreed to?  in .346, the doctah announced that
	50 lines was enough (for him), and gave suzanne permission (hoho)
	to do anything she wanted after that.  he indirectly agreed
	to read her first 5000-line response, in fact.

    
    All I've gotten from this is that Andy is obviously a sexist slut!!!
    

    
      well, mebbe a "pensexist"...
    
      bb

    
    > well, mebbe a "pensexist"...

    Now we're back to the "squeal like a pig" thing....

    -b

    Dick, Mark agreed with the rule 'no insults or personal comments'
    (and appeared to agree with the rules against making comments to
    others and discussing previous exchanges) - he violated ALL of these
    rules in his rebuttal, which disqualifies him.
    
    Even so, I agreed that there would be no winners in this, so I will
    proceed with my last argument.
    
    [I never agreed to hold my reply to 50 lines, as Di did such a
    good job of pointing out to you.  Mark appeared to accept this 
    and go ahead with his first statement anyway, so my 57 lines
    are permitted.]

    
    
    I am reminded of a person, who couldn't swim, venturing into the deep
    end of the pool.
    
    They realize their predicament, and, start thrashing about wildly to
    stay afloat.
    
     They thrash so madly and violently that they generate enough water
    movement and bubbles to keep them afloat...
    
     Yet they know not how to swim....
    
    Interesting...
    

    
    You'll need to be specific about what of Mark's rebuttal is insulting,
    personal comments, or commenting to others.  I found none of those.  I
    did find him referencing a previous note, but you did that as well, so
    that's a moot point.
    

    / If this defense is to be accepted at face value, 
    
    We agreed to start the debate from the beginning, so it must
    be accepted without bringing up past exchanges.
    
    / Indeed, had this defense been employed right away, I'd have said,
    / "Really? That's not what the context led me to believe, but you're
    / right, that is an acceptable way to use it."
    
    You have my permission to say this now.
    
    / Instead, we were treated to a defense that said that she intended the
    
    Obviously, you are not speaking to me here, so this exists outside
    our 'one-on-one' Fair Fight.
    
    / However, if indeed that is what she really meant (and only Suzanne can 
    / know what she was really thinking) then she indeed used the word 
    / properly.
    
    Although you aren't speaking to me here, either, I will answer this.
    This *is* what I really meant when I used the word.
    
    Thank you for agreeing that the word was used properly.

    
    
    
    RE: .361  Woooowwww, freaking deeep mannnnn, and heavy stuff.........

    
    Add FoS to stubborn and arrogant.
    
    -b

    RE: .362  
    
    / You'll need to be specific about what of Mark's rebuttal is insulting,
    / personal comments, or commenting to others.  I found none of those.  
    
    The whole rebuttal referred to me in the third person.  As such, it
    was not addressed to me, but was written as 'comments to others'
    about me.  Nothing in the entire note was addressed directly to me.
    (Does that sound like a 'one-one-one' Fair Fight?  Hardly.)
    
    He also made personal comments about my argument being 'cooked up'.
    This was both personal and insulting.
    
    / I did find him referencing a previous note, but you did that as well, 
    / so that's a moot point.                                               
    
    I only referenced the original use of the word (and not the arguments
    which followed.)  A quote of this usage was appropriate to show the
    very thing which has been under dispute all this time.  I quoted 
    neither of our subsequent arguments about the original usage (because
    this was agreed to be against the rules, as far as I knew.)

    RE: .361  Krawiecki
    
    / I am reminded of a person, who couldn't swim, venturing into the deep
    / end of the pool.
    
    In that case, don't expect an invitation to my next pool party.

    re: .360
    
    Where in Marks last two notes did he insult you?  I failed to see this.
    
    -steve

    Well, this matter appears to be finished now.
    
    As long as Mark can agree (and he has) that the word in question could
    be considered as having been used properly in the statement issued in
    507.329, then it wasn't simply 'wrong' to use the word that way.
    
    Mark was not disqualified for speaking to others in his rebuttal
    (instead of speaking directly to me).  
    
    I appreciate that Mark took the time to enter his arguments.
    
    Thank you, Mark.

    
    Oh, thank God, thank God.  Please, nobody EVER mention this subject
    again, please please please.
    
    

    
    >Well, this matter appears to be finished now.
    
    ...and node BACK40:: breathes a withering sigh of relief...
    
    ;^)
    

 Well, I've been quite busy this afternoon, but it appears we've progressed
 from the definition/intended definition of word to the definition of an 
 insult, eh?



 Jim

    No.  I retracted my statement about the insults.  Everything is done.

    
    
    This is hysterical!!!!!!!!!!!
    

       
       Notice that Krawiecki has not yet summoned up the courage to
       suggest to Suzanne that she needs to get laid.

    He's probably saving that one for a rainy day. :)

    
    re: .375, .376
    
    >Notice that Krawiecki has not yet summoned up the courage to
    >suggest to Suzanne that she needs to get laid.
    
    Hmmm... no courage involved here, just didn't think of it in the same
    vein...
    
    And... since it's a rainy day today... Perhaps Conlon DOES need to get
    laid.
    
     Since it is now a common thread between the two, perhaps Topes and
    Suzanne can discuss a possible...er... meeting of the minds?
    

    Don, you and your dummy make quite the ventriloquist act.  :)

    Better wash that arm before dinner, though.

    >Although you aren't speaking to me here, either, I will answer this.
    >This *is* what I really meant when I used the word.
    
     Why, then, did you eshew this argument for 400+ notes? Why, then, did
    you treat us to 50 other arguments? These are rhetorical questions, by
    the way.

    
    re: .378
    
    Good Note!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    

    
    LET IT GO!
    
    Cripes.
    
    

This isn't debate, it's character assasination and oneupmanship.  Neither
becoming or interesting, please let it drop.

Chris.

>"if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf"

I can, and I'm still arsing about with notes at almost 11PM.  Says it
all, really.  Shame DateLine wasn't much use...

Chris.

    must be a hard up guy to wanna lay a feminazi...
    
    Not Roger

    Looks like Don has another arm that needs washing. :)

    
    Well thank god that's over!  One of the most childish displays I've
    seen in a long time... 
    
    :-P
    

    I think I know what the BIGQ:: stands for.

    Is everyone on node BSS named Sammy?

    Call me what you want-just don't call me late to your funeral, pal.

| <<< Note 16.389 by BSS::SMITH_S "the rude dude" >>>

| I think I know what the BIGQ:: stands for.

	Give it a try......tell us what it stands for. 

    Oh, Sammy�! How will I know if you make it? Will you try to pick on me
    through yet another medium?

    Okay, guys. Let's shake & just be friends. I'm willing to look through
    the stream of bullets and apparently low I.Q's if you guys can forgive
    my brash hostility. You continue to bring the worst out in me. I
    appreciate this that you've brought.      Friends?
    

    Okay, you're forgiven.

    :)
    

<---don't let it go to your head. she's just cool....doesn't mean we are! :-)

    -1 ditto 8)

    yeah,yeah

    uh-oh.  The daily routine has begun.

    I guess.....

    It was a joke.  You know, "ha ha" ??

    All smiles over here
    :)_

         This is not good.. I mean, it looks like no one else has been here
    since my last tiff.

    well, shux, I'll keep ya company..
    
    {sound of Kevlar & helmet being put on}

         Thanks, I might need the backup.
    

         I don't know what's going on, but I feel like a fight myself.
    Who's out there?

    > Who's out there?
    
    nobody here but us chickens...

    > nobody here but us chickens
    
    
    That explains the fowl smell...

| <<< Note 16.406 by BSS::SMITH_S "lycanthrope" >>>

| Thanks, I might need the backup.

	I'll help out there..... :-)

       What, ain't been getting it 'nuff, Glen?
    :)_ss

| <<< Note 16.411 by BSS::SMITH_S "lycanthrope" >>>

| What, ain't been getting it 'nuff, Glen?

	Always up for a rumble..... :-)

    Alrighty, ed, I found the ring. Before we start, do you really want to
    do this? I have no problem with you, so what's your problem with me?

         I have a big problem with self-righteous types trying to give me
    speaches on morality. You criticize prostitution and give your
    lifestyle with your girlfriend as an example of values? People like you
    make me sick. I hope there's a special spot in hell set up just for
    you.

    So is prostitution your idea of a cool lifestyle? I don't think you
    should judge me, Walker, that's not your place. Anyway, I've never had
    any problems with you before, as a matter of fact, I'm one of the few
    that has supported you. You can't afford to be losing friends, I think.

    Ed, it's been more than an hour since you have had anything to say.
    This whole thing is boring. I hope you find marital bliss with your
    1970 Bronco, as her frame should be rotting anytime now, so you should
    enjoy her while you can. I'm getting out of the ring, maybe there is
    something more exciting around here, like some paint drying. You
    started out strong, ed, but you didn't get off of your stool for the
    second round.
    
    					lunchbox

    You expect folks to hang around after 5PM to 
    have it out with a sinner in the ring?
    
    (You see, judgement is all about where you draw the
    line)
    
    Doug.

         I've been out to lunch, lunchbox. Have you been sitting there for
    an hour waiting for a reply?  Sounds like your the one who needs some
    friends. I can't watch this terminal all night, unlike you rent-a-cops.
    Why don't you go do something truly useful, like your job? Did you ever
    consider an alternative lifestyle, like suicide?

    I'm not going to bother, Walker. You'd be boring to argue with. I think
    you would be fun to hang out with, but I'm not going to get into a big
    insult-bonanza with you because I got past that stage when I was 12. If
    you want to debate an issue with me I'm here. If you're going to pick
    like a pigeon at crumbs; easy targets such as my job here at DEC, my
    career choice, or my girlfriend then it isn't worth my time. I'm not
    going to gain any respect jousting with you, so why should I rack my
    brain to think of a cheezy adolescent insult like "You're so stupid you
    tripped over a cordless phone". So if you want to play the cheezy
    insult game, you'll be playing alone unless you find somebody else,
    because I'm not going to sit around here trading 2-cent barbs with
    somebody.
    
    						lunchbox

    c'mon guys, just a little more.....:)_
    -ss

         I didn't have time for a real debate, so I went for the cheap
    shot. Don't get so offended, lunchbox. I was only trying to make you
    laugh. Besides, you never get too old for insults. You should know
    that, since you still watch cartoons. 

Are you people going to swing or dance? The crowd is starting to boo.

    Best these two can do is clear their lungs out while they look for
    something to hit with.  It's a coughing fight, fans.  Phlegm at 11.

    Two men enter!  One man leaves!  

    >Two men enter!  
    
     For small values of men.

| <<< Note 16.424 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Idleness, the holiday of fools" >>>

| Two men enter!  One man leaves!

	Waddling no doubt....

Maybe this topic should be called the crib.

    
    Nah, the "teat" would be better, because most of the responses suck.
    
    

         Aw, c'mon. That was a refreshing change from the usual long-winded
    tirades and you all know it. I see some engineer became offended. That
    figures. 

> ... some engineer became offended.

Offended? Hardly.
To many, "fighting" is a spectator sport. If one deems it worthwhile to watch,
it's at least nice to see artists at work.

> ... the usual long-winded tirades ...

Besides a place where one can learn a great deal about various subjects, the
box has often been a place where one can enjoy repartee which is usually
intelligent, creative, insightful, with (IMO) cleverly crafted barbs. To
some, maybe this comes natually. To others, I suppose it just looks like
verbose bulk. To each his/her own I guess ...

    .429
    
    I was joking, pooter-head.
    
    

    
    	Ed's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
    

	Ed is a pad of butter that has been left in a drawer. :-)

    
    	Oh, he's gotta be at least twice as smart as that.
    

    
>    	Ed's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
    


       not the brightest bulb on the circuit.

         Hey, I saw that! I'll use my 15 minutes a day on here to get even,
    you vultures. 

  41.1260
    
>    1.  The word "vagrant" does not convey the fundamental character of a
>    hobo; it omits the fact that he or she is willing to work.  Similarly,
>    it does not convey the fundamental character of a bum; it omits the
>    fact that he or she is unwilling to work.

    Says you.  That's apparently not what the dicitionaries think, or
    they should have included more than just "vagrant" in their definitions.
    One could easily say that the "fundamental character" of either a
    hobo or a bum is that he or she is homeless and impoverished.

    .437
    
    Find me one dictionary in which "vagrant" is the entire definition for
    either "hobo" or "bum."  Just one.
    
    One could easily say that the "fundamental character" of a man or a
    woman is that he or she is of species Homo sapiens sapiens.  Or that he
    or she is a relatively hairless, highly intelligent, biped, omnivorous
    primate.
    
    The specific and identifying distinction between hoboes and bums is
    their willingness, or lack of willingness, to work.  The specific and
    identifying distinction between humans and other primates lies in the
    qualities I listed above.  The fact that there are two genders is not a
    fundamental quality only of humans - it is a fundamental quality of all
    animal species that do not reproduce their kind either asexually or by
    parthenogenesis.  Gender is a recognizable charactgeristic by which men
    (one type of human) can be distinguished from women (another type);
    this is an exact analogue for the willingness to work's being a
    recognizable characteristic by which a hobo (one type of human) can be
    distinguished from a bum (another).

    
    	[tone = that of a golf commentator]
    
    	Now Lady Di will attempt to refute Herr Binder's recent reply.
    	He's lagging a bit behind the favorite here, but a few good
    	points could put him well within reach.
    

I don't think those people who used to go around singing "Valleree, Vallerah"
with their knapsacks on their backs considered themselves impoverished.

>         <<< Note 16.438 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>

>    Find me one dictionary in which "vagrant" is the entire definition for
>    either "hobo" or "bum."  Just one.

    It is a discrete definition, standing on its own, in the AH College 
    dictionary.  Find me one dictionary in which "human" is a discrete
    definition for "woman".  Just one.   

    Trailers for sale or rent
    Rooms to let, fifty cents
    I'm a man of means,
    By no means,
    King of the Road.

    
    I know every engineer
    on every train

    advantage - person b

    
    I'd prefer a little more serve and volley myself.

    
    All of the children, 
    and all of their names
    

    brother, can you spare a dime?

    
    destination
    Bangor, Maine

    
    	Did I happen upon the lyrics to an as-yet-unidentified song
    	that I very probably wouldn't like?
    

    
    8^o  You're showing your age, Shawn 8^).
    

    I want all the lyrics.  I love that song.  I'm probably not normal,
    either, for those who are wondering.

    
    	Normal is NOT a good thing, Christine.
    
    	Keep up the good work.
    

    
    	We know every frat boy
    	in every house
    	How to play hooky
    	and how to yell, "mouse"
    
    	I'm a Chi O of means
    	by no means
    	Queen of Frat Row !
    
    	

    
    Shawn, Roger Miller is well before your time. He wrote classics like,
    "You can't Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd"  "King of the Road"
    "Do Wack a doo Wack a doo"  hth

You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd,
You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd,
You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd,
But you can be happy if you've a mind to.

    
    "You can't drive around
    with a tiger in your car
    You can't go swimming
    in a baseball pool"

    
    Karen...you were a Chi O?
    
    Oh dear.
    

    
    	RE: Roger Miller
    
    	Hmmm, judging by some of the lyrics posted here, I have a feel-
    	ing I'm not missing much.
    

    
    your treading on thin ice pardner

You cain't change fim wif a kid on yer back,
You cain't change fim wif a kid on yer back,
You cain't change fim wif a kid on yer back,
But you can be happy if you've a mind to...

    
    "you can't go fishing
     in a watermelon patch"

    
    	I notice much useless repetition in that "You can be happy" song.
    
    	Kind of like "Land of a Thousand Dances".
    

    
    	I was, mz_debra.
    
    	Does it help to tell you've I've repented of every single thing
    	I did at college ?
    
    

What? You don't like -

	I said a nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,
	 nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah,
	 nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!

???

    
    I'm sorry, Karen, but I'm sworn, as an ADPi, to terminate the unhappy 
    existence of every Chi O that I encounter.
    
    It's nothing personal, really.  I'd do the same for, say, Shawn.
    

Jack, I think you have an extra "nah" in the last line.

    
    >to terminate the unhappy existence
    
    
    	Who can turn the world on with her smile?
    	Who can take a nothing day,
    	and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile?
    
    
    	[This is 1 way to parse that sentence, but maybe not the way
    	 that was intended.]
    

    
    	Oh, I'm quite happy, most of the time. 
    
    	We don't know any ADPis.  We only had Alpha Fleas to compete with.
    

    
    	RE: .466
    
    	I was going to say that, but I wasn't sure if there was some
    	sort of a trailing "nah" that I didn't specifically remember
    	as being separate in the song.  Maybe a "ghost vocal" or an
    	echo or something that could be interpreted as a separate
    	word.
    
    	Nah.
    

    
    Only 2 sororities!  Small school?
    

> Jack, I think you have an extra "nah" in the last line.

Different verse?

    
    	Maybe Karen went to a school where they did actual schoolwork,
    	instead of concentrating on keg parties and food fights and
    	stupor-inducing all-night parties and bobbing for freshmen and
    	Marshmallow Fluff wrestling.
    

    
    	RE: .471
    
    	Waaahahaha!!
    
    	[At least, I hope you were kidding.  8^)]
    

    Ring People!  Ring!

  ding.

    
    Shawn, we went to college together?  Wow.  Totally bizarre.
    

    .441
    
    discrete .NE. complete
    
    The cheapest, least complete AHD I can find says, for "hobo," "a tramp;
    vagrant."  It doesn't use "vagrant" at all in its definition of "bum." 
    
    It does, however, use "hobo" in its definition of "bum"; I shall
    tactfully remind you, in accordance with your own reference to my CD
    entry, dictionaries are not necessarily valid arbiters of how words
    *should* be used.  If 20,000,000 people shoot themselves, does that
    make shooting oneself the correct as opposed to a popular) thing to do?

    The OAD defines "hobo" as "a migratory worker; a tramp."  It defines
    "bum" as "a tramp; loafer."  I note, once again, that hoboes are not
    loafers; they are perfectly willing to work as hard and as long as you
    or i - just not at a long-term job in one place.

>         <<< Note 16.478 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>
    
>    discrete .NE. complete

     No kidding.  However, each discrete definition in a dictionary
     is complete, or else it wouldn't be listed separately under the
     word.  Are you saying that "to change or make different" is an 
     incomplete definition of "alter" unless you include "to castrate
     or spay"?

>   dictionaries are not necessarily valid arbiters of how words
>   *should* be used. 

     Yes, I know that.  You told OPPER that he was incorrect.  He was not.

    
    I find all this talk of bums and hobos troubling. am i perhaps
    one or the other?

    
      maybe your a wanna bee bum?

    or a bumblebee bum?

    .480
    
    It matters not how many dictionaries you or anyone else brings to bear. 
    It matters not how many poeple you marshal who use the word "hobo" when
    they mean "bum."  It matters not how many times you say that Opper was
    correct.  He was not.  A hobo is not a bum.
    
    I withdraw.  If it'll make you feel better, I hereby declare you the
    winner by default of this little sparring match.

>         <<< Note 16.484 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>
    
>    I withdraw.  If it'll make you feel better, I hereby declare you the
>    winner by default of this little sparring match.

	It won't make me feel better, my dear, but thank you for the
	offer.  I'd prefer that we simply declare a stalemate.

    
    rats, i was enjoying this little tete.

    If your mate is stale, find a fresh one.

    a stalemate is a bumb's best friend.

    
    	No, Shawn, I went to Tufts.  Unfortunately, we had all of
    	that stuff there.  I was a party to most of it.  Thank God,
    	I've changed.
    
    

    April, Ed, I think you need to bring it here.

    Nope, I've got better things to do.
    
    But thanks anyway.

    Like who?

certainly not you, Ed. I mean, compared to you, vomit looks good.

-1 i dunno what Ed looks like, but he's either pulling off
the biggest leg pulling i've ever seen in here or he's
not the shiniest coin in the register.

    I dunno that the leg is big, but the one he's pulling appears to be the
    middle one...

-1 ya got that right Doc!

    
    	I don't think they'll show up here.  I heard Ed went to
    	Psychotic.
    
    

    -1 agagagaga

what, Ed's off his medicine again?

psychotic Ed snarf!

    
    Well just for your information, Ed is the biggest prankster here at
    cxo.
    
    Mike
    

         I saw that! Too bad you guys only come in here to take potshots
    when I'm not around. 

    Go home, Ed.

         Oh yeah? Why don't you come over to this terminal and make me?
     Damn hippie punk. 

    Hey lay off hippie punks.
    -BG

         Anyone want some? Anyone?!?

    .506
    
    Take a hike, Meat.  You're trying too hard to be witty, and it's frying
    what's left of your medulla.

Why not fry his medulla?  There's clearly nothing left of his frontal
lobes.  One can only hope that his substantia nigra will soon follow, as it
would (fortunately) leave him unable to type.

    .508
    
    He's a dope u mean?

    a dope & a dupe.  a dopey dupe.

Dope would work.  Of course, all sorts of environmental toxins could kill
off the substantia nigra.  In the real world, we call it Parkinson's
disease.

    
    << medulla
    
    Here I thought it was a form of steak.