Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Dave Sim's blogandmail #170 (February 28th, 2007)

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Tundis
    ... get ... whole ... -Jeff
    Message 1 of 118 , Mar 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > >
      > > As they say in the streets -- "It's on!" ;)
      > >
      > > -Jeff
      > -----Let me begin by saying that I haven't yet had a chance to read
      > your post in response to his Friends of Lulu blog, as I was behind
      > on the blogandmail when I printed out four days worth today, and
      > that I haven't read this post except for the intro and finish by
      > you. So take the following as you may:
      > Was it really a request for a *daily* posting of the 14 Impossible
      > Things to Believe Before Breakfast, or was it that they be posted
      > along about the 25th of each month? If the latter, then I think
      > it's a perfectly reasonable request. If the latter, I would agree
      > that it's a bit pedantic, if not "childish".

      ---------- Every. Damn. Day.

      ---------- Believe me, I asked for clarification.

      > He may well be looking for a way out of the blogandmail, since it
      > has seemed to heighten his mail recently, rather than reducing it
      > (as he had hoped). I know I sent him a couple of somewhat longish
      > letters in January alone.
      > For what it's worth, he seemed a bit ticked off in his voice mail
      > response to me a few days ago, so maybe Dave is just going through
      > another one of his periods where few (even guys like you and me)
      > the benefit of the doubt. Only time will tell.
      > But, honestly, why are you rattling his cage when you could be
      > taking swipes at me for rattling your cage over the last couple of
      > days? ;)

      -------- I did, my friend. Keep reading:)

      > Honestly, I find it harder and harder to invest energy in this
      > Friends of Lulu thing, as it just becomes more and more of a
      > quagmire.
      > Slambo

      --------- You said the secret word! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Maincbs13@aol.com
      In a message dated 3/2/2007 11:36:20 AM Central Standard Time, ... like ... Oh, alright then. ... 15. Children must be allowed to raise themselves and
      Message 118 of 118 , Mar 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 3/2/2007 11:36:20 AM Central Standard Time, jctundis@... writes:
        > "Sixteen Impossible Things" at least has the virtue of sounding
        > Alice in Wonderland's original "six impossible things".
        Oh, alright then.


        15. Children must be allowed to raise themselves and determine for
        themselves what does and does not constitute ethical, responsible
        Children are not allowed (by law) to raise themselves and/or determine for them selves which (laws) or ethics they follow (or obey). Children's parents are responsible for helping others guide their children along paths where they can enter into society as responsible law abiding members.
        Children's brains, emotions and physical readiness to enter society as contributing members all develop at different time periods for different children. When they are judged by established law as being "adults" they can raise themselves (even further) and can be held accountable for their actions and responsible for their choices.
        Until children reach an age of legal maturity there is a legal system in society to enforce laws and punishments (along with protections against abuse or being sold into slavery) for them.
        This goes for all children.

        16. When one is loved unreservedly, one is treated with wilful
        condescension and varying degrees of contempt.
        When one is loved unreservedly (by anyone) one has a more realistic definition of the words "love" and "unreservedly" than the penner of this statement shows any familiarity with. One is treated with willful condescension and varying degrees of contempt for their actions -- sometimes deservedly so (i.e. if proper forensic research leads one to the logical conclusion that they are deserved of such contempt and condescension) and sometimes, unfairly I think, based on predjudicial practice (which I like to call "contempt prior to investigation") but can such contempt and willful condescension be linked to the level of love one has been shown (or shown in return)?
        Falaciousness, mendacity (I can even picture Big Daddy talking about "the odor of mendacity") and -- once again, NOT his best work IMO.


        AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.