[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gee, thanks....
Yep, mo' better fodder...
>I detect no sarcasm, try again, bub.
You ever notice no one ever calls you bub any more. I miss that. George
Carlin said that
Perhaps we need to define the
>term
>sarcasm for future reference?
>
>
Yeah, sounding like an inconsiderate piece of shit
But maybe that's just cause I'm listening to Zappa at the moment
>>These movies we're
>>talking about, made by human beings right?
>
>The classification of such animals are still uncertain. They look like
>homo
>sapiens but personally I think we are being conditioned by cyborgs from
>outterspace, trying to lull us into a false sense of security in
>preparation
>for a general invasion.
>
As Zappa'a You Are What You Is kicks in on the CD player
>>Something inside us understands that things aren't what they are
>>supposed to be and we make up stories that are often metaphors of >the
>>imprint
>
>
>Faulty Matrix programming.
>
Was it the same cat?
Yeah but the wrong girlfriend... (hi 10)
>
>>within us that either remembers prefall life or longs for heaven. Life can
>>be
>>shit when we compare it to our dreams, but yet we keep on dreaming.
>>Perhaps,
>
We keep on dreaming no matter if we have a choice or not.. and in that we
long for heaven
>We are not talking about some kind of genetic memory are we? Because if we
>are, I am going to have to snort in a very derisive manner. I do not
>remember any prefall life or long for heaven. One goes to heaven for the
>weather and hell for the company.
>
>
And The OTR listserve for what then?
>>just as one in the dark before morning knows the day is coming we >look
>>forward to it.
>
>I prefer eternal darkness, nuclear winter, the forever sleep. Sunlight is
>too depressing.
>
>
Doesn't the light from the computer bother you?
>>Although I haven't suffered
>>physically my life has been pretty much a series of broken dreams
>
>
>Don't worry, your time of physical suffering will come, i promise.
>
Some how that was more of a waste of typing than it is replying
>>but I know
>>it'll all work out cuz there is one who holds all the cards.
>
>If that's the case, I want to know who is holding the cards and if he has
>any previous criminal records for fraud and where his hands have been
>recently. I hope he washed his hands before coming back to duty.
>
Deity on Duty? any takers?
>
>>Others call it the hope that is in them. And,
>>since it resides in the race as a whole, I tend to think there must
>> >be>something to it.
>
>False assumption, the program will now shut down. If the problem persists,
>please contact your system administrator.
>
or the list monitor, in this case...
>>Even seems downright empirical to me. A few billion human
>>experiments and they all come out with the same *glitch*...NOT!
>
>
>First of all, how early 90's. It wasn't funny when people first start
>saying it. Why don't you go comb out your fake bleached blond hair some
>more, garth. Or better yet, say Chi-Ching a couple of times in front of
>your mirror, until you can feel your long lost youth and coolness coming
>back. Repeat as necessary.
My, what a vintage mid 90's attitude you have there...
>And obviously not EVERYONE came out with the "glitch", some are quite well
>grounded in reality.
Wouldn't bet you're one of them
So there goes your data set.
Double
>regression curve
>not valid.
>
Where'd you learn English, Carl Sagan?
>
>>Doesn't argue against love and communion.
>>Argues for it.
>
>I would, if they weren't a figment of your imagination.
>
>>
>>Yea, and love
>>is just a gastrointestinal pain right?
>
>intense gastrointestinal pain, ulcer even. massive hemorrage of the
>lining.
> Take Excedrin for headaches, Midol for cramps.
And eugenics for the elimination of the emotional incapable then? (careful
how you answer that, Adrian)
>
>
>>Now that's a fantasy world of highest order.
>>Historically people constantly put themselves INTO danger for that
>>mythical
>>thing called *love*
>
>When is the last time someone put themselves into danger for "love"? I
>applaud your romantic ideas, however misguided they might be. People go
>into danger for personal gains, mainly economic reasons.
I'm sorry I'm dating A firefighter, would you care to explain that again?
Her paycheck isn't able to.
Wars
>aren't fought
>for love, they are fought over politics and money.
>
No you are so incredibly absolutely fucking wrong. Wars are fought out of
duty, love of country, and honor. Wars are started over reasons of politics
and money by people who will never be in danger of dying in these inhumane
conflicts. People put themselves into danger for these reasons, and for
love. The defense of a loved one. Ask my uncle who's one parole for
hospitalizing the genetic failure who tried to rob my aunt. Ask my
exgirlfriend who the who was stalking her is only breathing due to the fact
she wouldn't give me permission to kill him.
Your argument that we, as true human being, do not endanger ourselves for
love, fails, utterly, due to the personal experience of those you clutter
the bandwith of, and I am sorry that you are so damage, so hurt as one of
this race, that you are incapable of accessing the positive points of being
one of us. Whatever damage you endured, from your mother didn't hug you
enough to whatever, I'm sorry you've lost an ability to be, apparently,
truly human, Human- one of the greatest experiments any higher power or
random accident of elements ever to make consequence. And of that We Have
Love!
It goes so far beyond this- but just as the appropriate Heinlein reference-
"Pessimists may be right more often, but optimists have more fun"
>
>>With the aforementioned scenario people would in general
>>run and hide when danger came near in order to survive, not get right into
>>the thick of it.
>
>most People do run and hide when danger comes near. Takes a select few
>stupid ones to rush into danger.
Calling the woman I'm dating stupid for running into a burning build while
every one else is running out is a silly way to endanger your own well
being. And she hits harder than I do.
>
>
>>If one looks at *evil* and *good* abstractly it has to be good that is
>>eternal if we admit either exist at all. All the ideas about what is evil
>>are
>>perversions and corruptions of what is thought of as good so good can
>>stand
>>on its own whereas evil must always be reliant on the good to even exist
>>at
>>all.
>
>Once again, Logic error.
Once again, human error. You're using logic in any relation to
differentiating between good and evil...
sillychild
Even by your definition, at best. how can
>good be
>defined without evil?
>
well, how about by yours?
>Dreamers, where do you find them. I am still looking for sarcasm by the
>way, and no sir, didn't find any.
>
>
No but (once again) you did find the Over The Rhine fan listserve. Hi. We're
generally good people, till Kyle has a stupid spell and yanks Nikki's chain.
but that's still all in good fun. You on the other hand have enough of a
problem with good I don't think you'd make it to fun.... but nonetheless
So, what do you think of the band? Ever heard of them? Ever read the lyrics?
No?
How about Robert Heinlein? Go read Time Enough for Love, Stranger in a
Strange Land, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset
and get back to me on the whole good/evil/love thing?
and before you go arguing about god (as opposed to at god, which looks a lot
sillier, but can be more invigorating) Try Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Oh, me? hi I'm D.M. (or that steive ray vaugh looking mother-f-er to you not
in earshot)
amusing meeting you, Miss Adrian
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/