Rush and Pete with Mike and Mark

[Peacemonger <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Look again.

Jon:

Well, it LOOKED like you wrote it. I apologize and direct my comment to Scott instead. Although such a comment from him I'm not surprised by.

>it was a joke................chill..........

Jo:

As was my response, obviously! (sigh) Where did the sense of humor go on this list? It just suddenly seemed all of a sudden it was tits as far as the eye could see...imagine how it would be if the guys here started talking about their...uh, manhood (menhood?) and flopping it over their shoulders or around their waists or something along those lines.

>conservatives who sometimes have valid points of view and that makes us the 
same person? Is that really such a far-fetched idea?

Mike:

No, it was an attempt at lightheartedness (no, I'm not using the "Rush defense"). It's easy to notice that most of my posts are (at least meant to be) humorous to some degree.

>If "Neil Bort" and "Neal Boortz" are two different people, I apologize.

I don't KNOW that it's the same person, but if the guy I'm talking about is a Libertarian then he's not MUCH of one...a Libertarian would be quite upset at Bush's destruction of civil rights and his "interpretation" of the constitution...well, just about EVERYTHING he's done, really!

>Agreed, but it does seem that you are usually the one to bring it up first. 

Not true. What's true is I occasionally make a reference in a note...or sometimes it's just part of my sig. Then someone jumps my ass about it. Oddly enough, they never jump me when I make my multiple references to books, TV shows, movies, current events, lyrics, religion...but if you look at the actual notes you will see that even in the case of the conservatives attacking Pete the NOTE was about what happened to PETE. And I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that a self-proclaimed liberal (I think Rush qualifies as a self-proclaimed conservative) bashed Pete Townshend. I have found that the self-proclaimed conservative mindset (as articulated) is opposed to any sort of sexual freedom and when someone is involved in anything within their definition of such, liberalism gets bashed and blamed. And this is clearly the case with both comments regarding Townshend. So I pointed that out, which IMHO is legitimate a topic as Keets talking about the historic and inevitable failure of supply side economics, her example regarding porn.

>You even go so far as to incorporate it into your e-mail address and 
signature line. I assume you do this to invite debate (?)

I think my sig...which EVERYONE who gets EMail from me receives, public or private...is not "fair game." Nor is anyone's...what happened to freedom in this country, oh yeah I remember now, the Supreme Court. And no one else is called on THEIR sig. As for my address, my original one was giving me trouble. So in my lighthearted way, I made reference to the pretel incident...is that bashing him? It is an event that actually happened. I guess you'd be happier if I'd used Goresighed?

>By the way, were you backstage at The Who show in Houston in 2000?

No, I only went to the Atlanta show. And wasn't backstage...actually I have passed on two opportunities to go backstage at a Who show, because I'd rather not. But that's another topic...


NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!

                              Cheers             ML
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now