 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 12 Dec 02 - 07:47 PM DougR: I have always been a deeply optimistic individual. And even now, I can see the postive side to the "firm" control being exercised on our gummint. It is just that is greatly outweighed by the outrages that have been perpetrated to date by Bushwah's "terrorist democracy" vision. His ruthlessness is not informed by principle -- to the contrary it overwhelms principle so often that it deserves the label "unpriuncipled" or "amoral". In business circles, this is of course natural. But I just want you to understand very clearly that I am almost irrepressibly optimistic about things in general, as almost anyone who knows me well will testify. So it is just possible that there is some other reason for getting excited. To quote my favorite Bobertism, "Hmmmmm?????"! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Dec 02 - 07:46 PM Half full or half emptied of what, that is surely the really relevant question? I mean, is it good stuff or rotgut, or out and out poison. All this has nothing to do with politics in the sense of what governments and people should or shouldn't do, it's about power and privilege and paranoia. The actual political beliefs of the privileged and paranoid powerful involved has very litle to do with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 12 Dec 02 - 07:34 PM You may be right, Amos and Bobert, but look who is getting excited about it. "Those who always see a half empty glass instead of a half full one." Not everyone is suspicious of their shadow regardless of who is president or AG. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 02 - 03:53 PM Nicole; You ought to know by now that when it comes to slickiness, the T-Bird makes ol' Billy Bob Clinton look like a boy scout. He or she is very good with carefully crafted inferences. But I'm not really telling you anything you haven't all ready figured out. And Amos makes a good point here. Situations, be they real or hypothetical in their nature, where innocent people are harassed for doing quite innocent things by the *athorities* under this current administration, are, *unfortunately* believable. Autocratic John Ashcroft running the Justice Department makes everyone who doesn't agree with him or his boss suspicious. Well, taken a step further, just being thought of as a suspect is kind of like being assumed guilty until proven otherwise. Hmmmmmmmm? Look out, democracy! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: NicoleC Date: 12 Dec 02 - 03:22 PM P.S. Teribus - BTW, I apologize for the assumption if it's wrong. It did seem to me to be your point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 12 Dec 02 - 01:46 PM Doug: It is interesting that the current culture of suspicion and apprehension -- largely generated by the executive influence of G. "Bring the Government Closer to the People" W. Bush -- makes the Maginnis story so much more credible and likely than it would have seemed under Brass Balls Bill Clinton, or even Smart Al Gore, the guy who won the last Presidential vote. Not to be confused with the guy whose father bought the Supremes. Not the Supremes who recorded "My Guy" -- the ones who recorded "We Did It Our Way". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 12 Dec 02 - 01:02 PM McGrath: it's complicated because some of us are making it complicated. So far it's just a unsubstantiated story that has received far more attention than it deserves IMHO. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Songster Bob Date: 12 Dec 02 - 12:43 PM What I want to know is why Chaney has a house in Denver. The US Government provides a fine house on the grounds of the Naval Observatory in Washington, DC. If Chaney were travelling, you'd expect security where he was staying, yes, but what's with the jack-hammers and construction? Sounds like more than temporary to me, and a waste of the taxpayers' money. Remember the Republicans' motto: It's your money -- you should get to keep it. So they spend if like the Democrats never were able to! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 12 Dec 02 - 12:41 PM McGrath: Easy on those generalizations, sir!! There are a few of us Americans left who have two brain cells left to rub together, and as a result believe the Bushwah's antics AND the treatment of them by the media to be highly discountable, slanted,meretricious, manipulative, short on substance and long on premeditated bias. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Dec 02 - 12:32 PM So an unconvincing public statement is actually more plausible...This thing gets pretty complicated. Maybe this explains why Americans seem to think Bush sounds honest, when this side of the water pretty well everyone thinks he sounds like the kind of guy from whom you would never buy a used. It's just that you are one step further along down this road, and what we see as shiftiness comes across domestically as an indication that he hasn't been polished up for sale.(But then I imagine the spin-merchants are one stage further on, and that unpolished effect is intentional, because they reckon right now it sells best...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: NicoleC Date: 12 Dec 02 - 12:23 PM Teribus, Comments like this: "Handling of the situation could well have been better, but one point clearly illustrated is that the people responsible for the Vice-President's safety were alert and were on the ball." and this: "One side of it that I can see, that you obviously can't, or won't, is that of a beat patrolman turning up on shift and being told that today you are part of a force responsible for the safety of the Vice-President of the United States of America. A weighty responsibility under any circumstances, but more than slightly heightened in the present climate. " Let's assume for the moment the event happen as Maginnis tells it. Is the police officer justified in questioning his activties? Definately. Under the circumstances, they would even be justified in temporarily holding his film until the VP left town. Under what circumstances, if any, would they be justified in siezing his personal property (the camera) and questioning him for 6 hours without legal counsel present when he hasn't committed a crime? You know, if you are taking a picture of a microwave tower on top of a public building, you are very likely to get the snipers on top of the building too. Both accounts of the picture's contents may be correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 12 Dec 02 - 12:10 PM Apologies for confusing the two papers. Talk about self-referential loops -- if the story WERE false, what kind of denial would you expect? Good coverups are always plausible -- therefore any plausible statement must be a good coverup? Hmmmmmm.... Lessons from modern media! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: katlaughing Date: 12 Dec 02 - 12:05 PM Teribus, I've only seen the one original article and the one Amos linked. Where did you see or read more of this, including exactly what hsi pictures consisted of? Just a note, people, it is NOT the Denver Post. Amos linked to the Rocky Mountain News, which is not known for its veracity, at times.:-) Mark got it right; that kind of law enforcement denial is exactly what one would expect, based on the original report. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: ard mhacha Date: 12 Dec 02 - 09:37 AM And for another version of twisting the news go over to the Ard Mhacha Abu thread. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Teribus Date: 12 Dec 02 - 04:59 AM NicoleC, where in anything I have posted to this thread do you get grounds for your stated opinion that: "Teribus seems to feel that law enforcement is justified in doing anything they want if they are suspicious of, well, anything." ? When confronted with the physical presence of the "Law" in the normal course of events, i.e. law abiding citizen going about their daily routine and stopped by a Police Officer and asked about what they are doing. There are a number of ways that the citizen can respond: - Be polite and co-operative on the assumption that the police officer is only doing his job and does have a reason for asking his questions. - Be unco-operative, evasive and question his right to stop and question you. - Refuse to answer any questions and remain silent. - Be totally outraged and belligerent. Depending upon which of the above, or which various shades of the above, are adopted, will clearly govern the Police Officer's reaction. Example: A friend of mine travels a great deal by car, so does his wife. When pulled over for speeding, he is apologetic and polite - he normally gets off with a warning and some advice about observing speed limits. His wife on the other hand, berates them for holding her up and complains about the waste in tax-payers money of the police harassing innocent members of the public when they should be out there catching real criminals - she gets done every time. Interesting follow ups from both Wolfgang and Amos - one thing that does strike me as odd - In the initial story Mr. Maginnis, worker in the IT industry, had an interest in photographing corporate buildings and communications equipment, hence his interest in the Hotel, and his assertion that he was going about upon his own lawful occasions. The composition of his thirty odd photographs were, we hear from the media articles, of Denver Police, Army Rangers and roof-top snipers. Now the camera according to Mr. Maginnis was confiscated on the spot, the police deny that the incident ever took place (according to the article posted by Amos), therefore the only source of information with regard to what the photographs were of must be from Mr. Maginnis himself, which is slightly at odds with where his photographic interests lie. IMO, given the circumstances, I believe that the Police Officer (if there ever was one) was perfectly correct in asking Mr. Maginnis what he was doing - what the reaction was to that approach we only have Mr. Maginnis's version - the police are denying that the incident ever took place. What would be the reaction, and where would popular vote go, had Mr. Maginnis claim to have been abducted by aliens for the stated period - at present we have only heard one side of an incident that may, or may not have happened - haven't we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Mark Clark Date: 11 Dec 02 - 09:42 PM I have nothing to support the veracity of Maginnis' story but, after reading the story Amos linked, if Maginnis' story were true, the official denial is exactly what one would expect. If the story really originated with a call-in radio show then I'd need a lot of hard evidence in order to lend it any credence. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 11 Dec 02 - 09:34 PM Thanks for posting that Denver Post story, Amos. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 11 Dec 02 - 07:46 PM According to this story in the Denver Post the whole story posed by Maginnis is false. In addition the same denial was made by:
Lt. Steven W. Carter #80041
Regards, Regards, Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 11 Dec 02 - 02:14 PM Well, DougR, I was differentiating between alt.2600 online and the massive praise-for-hire that curdles most public intelligence in the media. I assumed from the context that the guy had reported what happened to him -- he was speaking plainly enough, and I have no reason to suppose he would make the story up. Because a little perimeter site like alt.2600 has no large influence, it is harder to imagine them degrading into influence peddling the way Murdoch's cronies did during the fiasco of the last Residential election. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 11 Dec 02 - 02:03 PM I don't get it, Amos. You agree with Mike's excellent post, yet you were the one who began this thread! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: katlaughing Date: 11 Dec 02 - 01:53 PM While I would prefer an unconnected collaboration of this story, its very absence in the local papers seems to speak volumes, on one hand. On the other, it could mean nothing happened. Doesn't mean it didn't, though and that we should be vigilant when as the Shrub and cronies try to put our rights through the woodchipper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Dec 02 - 01:41 PM Precisely - there is no reason to believe that stories in newspapers represent what actually happened; equally, just because a story isn't reported that doesn't mean it didn't happen. To judge the truth of stories you have to dig a bit deeper, take into account the things that could distort reporting and so forth. Reporters start off anyway wanting to get it right. The distortion is imposed from higher up - the people in charge want to give stories the right kind of spin that will appeal to the people who need to be ingratiated, and won't offend the people who musn't be offended. That can even mean the readers, though they are pretty low in the pecking order, below the owners and the advertisers. This story seems intrinsically plausible. Anybody whose ever been on the wrong side of the police in that kind of situation knows that. Whether it happened exactly that way, who can tell? Worse things happen every day, that's true enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 11 Dec 02 - 11:23 AM Couldn't agree more, Mike. There's an interesting study on the impact of media orientation and culture on the Bush administration in the recent book "The Bush Dyslexicon", and it makes it terribly clear that the Fourth Estate is a shareholder support activity, first and foremost, and reports news only secondarily. I didn't used to be that cynical about the media but it has gotten patently clear that their business is running slants, and molding opinions for hire. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: MikeofNorthumbria Date: 11 Dec 02 - 11:06 AM Perhaps a word of caution about the reliability of news reports in the media might be relevant. I've only once been an eye (and ear)-witness to an event which was written up in a national newspaper the following day. What the paper reported bore no relation to what I saw and heard. This might have been due to a difference in perception, but I don't think so - the event took place in a fairly enclosed space, and I was there throughout it. However, the (erroneous) account of said event happened to chime perfectly with the political orientation of that particular newspaper. Ho hum! And I've only once been stopped on the street by a TV crew doing random vox-pop interviews. On that occasion, the man in charge of the show told me exactly what he wanted me to say before the camera rolled. He was not pleased when I refused to say it, because it happened to be untrue. Presumably he went on stopping people until he found somebody willing to say what he wanted. Double ho hum! These experiences (and similar ones reported by friends whom I trust) make me wary of news stories like the one which sparked off this thread. I believe that vigilance in the defence of our civil liberties is a good thing. But I also believe the protection of public figures from assassination is a good thing (even if the public figures in question are not particularly nice, there are better ways of making the point). When all the evidence is presented, the jury can decide - till then, let us not rush to judgement. Wassail! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:35 PM Dumped? Who?? I'll MOIDER da bum!!! Pyuutttttemuppp!! PyuttttemUPPP!!! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: NicoleC Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:26 PM Doug, your strange fixation on reality is interfering with my post-getting-dumped indulgences, okay? ;D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:04 PM No contest, Nicole. Amos, admittedly is 55. I admit that I am 72. Even if I were younger, and in the race, we would just keep each other up all night arguing about who is right, and who is wrong. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: NicoleC Date: 10 Dec 02 - 06:23 PM You bet I do! :p |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:54 PM G'wan, sweetie, ya gotta love it!! LOL!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: NicoleC Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:34 PM Now, boys, there's no need to fight over lil' ol' me! ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:21 PM DougR -- You got it bassackwards pal -- she's making points with me! And doing a first-rate job! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:11 PM Amos: will you stop trying to make points with Nicole? Geeze! *G* Haru: that's funny. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Haruo Date: 10 Dec 02 - 01:07 PM But officer, I didn't run over those pedestrians. My car did it. I demand you arrest my car. Haruo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 02 - 12:57 PM Nicole: THe voice of reason and clarity, as usual. Thanks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: NicoleC Date: 10 Dec 02 - 12:44 PM Doug has a good point -- someone who wants to go to the news usually does. Of course, Mr. Macginnis might have decided that he was afraid, or he may even have been threatened. Since neither the purported victim nor the law enforcement agencies are talking, there's no way to tell if it's true or not. It does have value as an allegory, though. Teribus seems to feel that law enforcement is justified in doing anything they want if they are suspicious of, well, anything. I personally think that's why we have the 6th Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And the 7th, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But folks, property siezures aren't new. Under civil law, the police or the DEA can sieze your property and charge *IT* with a crime -- meaning they can impound it even if you aren't guilty of any crime. Under the law, the burden of proof is on the citizen to prove the property isn't guilty, including associated legal costs. Good luck -- the courts get 20% of the seized property, and constitutional protections don't apply to property. Originally designed to seize drug assets, the law is so poorly written it's ripe for rampant misuse. 80% of property seized is taken from people who are never formally charged with a crime. The property is not returned. Think it doesn't happen? A quick search on Google will turn up hundreds of examples. But a better place to start might be the law library at Forfeiture Endangers American Rights |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Haruo Date: 10 Dec 02 - 12:13 PM That's weird. When my last post but one hadn't appeared fifteen minutes after I sent it, I rewrote it from scratch and reposted, and now they're both there. I'd actually prefer that the second one be kept and the first removed, if Joe Clones don't mind... Haruo
no problem, thanks for making it clear -joeclone- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: DougR Date: 10 Dec 02 - 12:03 PM It's a bit difficult to know which to reply to: "Sky is falling" or "Tempest." I guess I'll stick to the subject of the thread though. Wolfgang: Thanks for posting the update. No new evidence that the story is true, is the most interesting point in the update to me. The balance is intended, I believe, to justify them printing a story they had not completely researched. They probably know that there is an audience for such alarming tales whether or not they are true anyway. This time they just got caught at it. Otherwise they would not have gone to such lengths to try to explain why they went with the story. If the offended "Party" wanted to preserve his privacy, and not be interviewed by the mainstream press, why did he submit the story to 2600 in the first place? DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:56 AM Athenaeus did write in Greek actually, but the argument remains valid. In (transl.) German: 'storm in a glass of water' Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:52 AM "Storm in a teacup" is how I've normally heard it. Of cpourse since Athennaeus was writing in Latin I assume, the dustinction between storm and tempest doesn't really apply. (And they didn't have tecups or teapots in his day, henc retye saucepan. Incidentally, witches were supposed to be able to brew up storms in their kitchens, using saucapmns or teacups or whatever. There's a reference to this in Macbeth, I seem to remember. As for the business with the camera, I think people should avoid getting hung up on the actual incident itself - it's emblematic of a wider process, a creeping regimentation of how we live. (And if it had happened in Soviet Russia, outside Stalin's time anyway, the chances are that it would have been much the same as the incident described by Maginnis - the idea that people automatically got disappeared for trivial reasons doesn't actually reflect the way things were most of the time. Oppressive, but in a drab way.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Haruo Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:37 AM Thanks for the update and snippets, Wolfgang. As for Teribus and Áine, you're both a bit right, though Áine'd be righter had Teribus written teapot instead of teacup. Google reports 2,210 pages containing "tempest in a teacup" (Áine's idiom) versus 7,600 containing "storm in a teacup" (Teribus's). However, in one of those on-the-other-hands that make linguistics such a charmingly inexact science, especially when applied to one's mother tongue, it also indexes 9,150 instances of "tempest in a teapot", my own default phrase, versus a mere 84 cases of "storm in a teapot", at least half of them apparently from non-native writers of English. Haruo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 02 - 10:45 AM And for those with a serious interest in the issues surrounding civil rights in the post-9/11 era, here is a link to Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff's article briefly examining the Orwellian nature of the Bush administration's new Total Information Awareness System, being run by convicted (but later overturned) Reagan Iran Contra criminal John Poindexter: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0250/hentoff.php At the bottom of the page are links to other stories in this vein. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: GUEST Date: 10 Dec 02 - 10:41 AM Re: Dick's suggestion about "It Can't Happen Here" I started a thread about the book recently, which I just refreshed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Dec 02 - 10:02 AM As a service for those who do not read long articles, here are a few snippets to use: (1) For those inclined to disbelieve the story: no one has come forward as a witness to Maginnis's arrest across from the Adams Mark Hotel...Maginnis has intentionally not spoken to other news media. .... There are a number of news organizations attempting to contact Maginnis through us but he has requested that his privacy not be invaded any further. For those inclined to believe the story: We were unable to find any holes or inconsistencies in the story as Maginnis told it when interviewed on our radio program....We contacted both the Denver Police and the Secret Service to find out if the story was true. They both took our information and neither of them ever got back to us. Their silence has been deafening and it's perhaps the most significant statement they could have made. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:57 AM Amos - In the days you are referring to in the USSR Mr. Maginnis would just have disappeared along with his camera. Same would have happenned in other places and at other times - or in Baghdad today. The point I was trying to make was to view the incident with some sort of perspective - and that means looking at it from both sides. One side of it that I can see, that you obviously can't, or won't, is that of a beat patrolman turning up on shift and being told that today you are part of a force responsible for the safety of the Vice-President of the United States of America. A weighty responsibility under any circumstances, but more than slightly heightened in the present climate. I do not know what the exact exchange was between the Policeman and Mr. Maginnis, or what sort of attitudes were struck by the parties involved - so far only one side has gone public on it. You may be perfectly content to judge the incident on such a balance, as it happens to suit your particular point of view - Thankfully it certainly would not lay well with others. Thanks TIA: "I believe it originates with the author Athenaeus (c. 200 AD) who said (in reference to an actual storm) something like "I have seen a more formidable storm in a boiling saucepan." It's been shortened up and alliterated (and much improved) since." The one we used in the navy in reference to actual storms was, "Storm? Rough? I've seen more ripples on my tot!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Wolfgang Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:54 AM Update (in the same magazine) Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: TIA Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:43 AM In the Arab world, many (if not most) believe that Israel orchestrated 9/11 because they had the most to gain. If you follow that logic (not saying I do), GWB orchestrated it. He has played it for immense political advantage, used it to drive real economic problems out of the public eye, used it to restructure government jobs and contracting so that it can be his personal payback machine (not saying he's used it yet...just set it up), and used it as an umbrella to keep sunshine off the activities of his government. No, the sky isn't falling, but GWB has knocked away the constitutional supports, and is telling us to just trust him to hold it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Amos Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:28 AM As for the description being ludicrous, Teribus, I will simply disagree with you. One incident does not make a brave new world, for certain. But the use of terrorism as an excuse for effectively terrorizing citizens with police tactics usually associated with the USSR is certainly symptomatic. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: TIA Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:21 AM I believe it has been traditionally stated as "A tempest in a teapot", but the original may have actually involved "storm" and "saucepan". I believe it originates with the author Athenaeus (c. 200 AD) who said (in reference to an actual storm) something like "I have seen a more formidable storm in a boiling saucepan." It's been shortened up and alliterated (and much improved) since. I would cite an actual reference for this information, but I'm afraid it has been classified in the interest of national security (don't you remember 9/11 ?!?!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Peg Date: 10 Dec 02 - 08:55 AM I have always heard it said "tempest in a teapot." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Brave New World You Ordered's Here. From: Bobert Date: 10 Dec 02 - 08:45 AM Oh, geeze, Amos. Yir thread has just *gone left*, and I ain't talkin' politically, pal. But, hey, I like a *grammatical food fight* as *good* as the next hillbilly. I'm jus funnin', ya'll. No need to tear the barrelhouse down... Still curious about what they heck is going on over at D.C.'s house though with the 24/7 jack-hammers and pounding? Bobert |