Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[Brant Gaede]

I am sure brant will never use that particular RUMOR on me for a third time. That's the way to get rid of something. Excess leads to implosion.

You mean you prevented me with your "excess" from using it a third time? I think you are trying to bait me or pat yourself on the back or both. However, you are like the fireman who arrives after the fire and starts it up again. --Brant

Then stay out of my way completely, Always. Is there any part of that you don't understand? I want no comments on anything I write. No still hot matches to start any fires.

I won't do any such thing.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If someone posts on a public forum I'm active in I am free and I feel free to comment as I want and I will. Seymour doesn't have to worry about this on SOLO for I don't even read her crap there. As long as she publishes garbage here, I'll probably ignore that too. My choice.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I am sure brant will never use that particular RUMOR on me for a third time. That's the way to get rid of something. Excess leads to implosion.

You mean you prevented me with your "excess" from using it a third time? I think you are trying to bait me or pat yourself on the back or both. However, you are like the fireman who arrives after the fire and starts it up again. --Brant

Then stay out of my way completely, Always. Is there any part of that you don't understand? I want no comments on anything I write. No still hot matches to start any fires.

Brant, did you hear that? She wants NO COMMENTS ON ANYTHING SHE WRITES. Not just from you, I leap logically, but from anybody who has dared to misinterpret her playful, intellectually superior slumming expeditions. Her whole speech is on the blog which her enemies have destroyed, although those enemies will ultimately be vanquished.

Fortunately the BOW Committee staff, useless slugs that they are, did manage to get a transcript of the Speech before Fahrenheit 2012. erupted.:

Oh, what do I see before me? Is this a howling mob I see before me, as Babette said? Oooooh, I;m Soooo scared.

You, Ninth Doctor! Yes, you;; don't pretend I'm talking to somebody behind you. I know what doctors are, and doctors of philosophy too, I have sat at their feet and been raised up to belt level,,,anyway, you are no doctor, real doctors would laugh tee-hee at you

You call that sound coming out of your throat howling? A dead cat sounds better if you stomp on it right I have been kind and patient about your vocal abilities and in return I see you turned against me in the vilest most immoral way. Here it is: I have always known you will never make a tenor, not in a million years. Stick to making the mezzos, or trying to. Lotsa good stuff about you on the walls of the dressing room, Don Giovanni I don't think.

Ellen Stuttle, you were my groupie at Bryn Mawr and learned all your early philosophy from me and then borrowed my best cardigan and never gave it back, and told lies about me to my boyfriend just before we were going to get pinned. Yes, folks, it is all true, she has lied all these years but she can't hide any more. That cardigan was cashmere.

Ah, I see we're drawing apart from these two and their ringleader Brant Gaede, yes I name him and you know it is he who has filled your head with silly thoughts - look! He no longer exists. He won't talk or write again and we will all make sure of that.

Look, people, because I know everything, I know that you can't be happy about my regime all the time. I know that you have secret groups (yeah, you thought they were secret) where you vented by imagining me as the oldest, ugliest woman in the world, even uglier than Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Well, I don't mind that at all. I think Ruthie is kinda cute, actually.

But if I thought you pictured me as uglier than Donatella Versace, If I thought you pictured me as Donatella, I would round up the ringleaders and they would soon be ringless leaders because they would be fingerless leaders, and eventually headless. and everybody else would have to watch.

Just a reminder.

So we're all settled down now, right? Thaaat's better. I have to meet the bf for fantasy pool (the trade deadline is almost up) and you've made me late.

Now get out of my way.

[9thdoctor]

You, Ninth Doctor! Yes, you;; don't pretend I'm talking to somebody behind you. I know what doctors are, and doctors of philosophy too, I have sat at their feet and been raised up to belt level,,,anyway, you are no doctor, real doctors would laugh tee-hee at you

You call that sound coming out of your throat howling? A dead cat sounds better if you stomp on it right I have been kind and patient about your vocal abilities and in return I see you turned against me in the vilest most immoral way. Here it is: I have always known you will never make a tenor, not in a million years. Stick to making the mezzos, or trying to. Lotsa good stuff about you on the walls of the dressing room, Don Giovanni I don't think.

Che? You no like me sing? It Aida, no Don Giovanni.

Anyway, my conflict with seymour came up right away, she made some way overstated claim about Rand and Nietzsche, I asked for a factual citation, and she proceeded to psychologize me. Said "I know you don't want to hear this", or something like that, doubled down on the claim while mocking the information request. Turned out she was wrong.

[caroljane]

You, Ninth Doctor! Yes, you;; don't pretend I'm talking to somebody behind you. I know what doctors are, and doctors of philosophy too, I have sat at their feet and been raised up to belt level,,,anyway, you are no doctor, real doctors would laugh tee-hee at you

You call that sound coming out of your throat howling? A dead cat sounds better if you stomp on it right I have been kind and patient about your vocal abilities and in return I see you turned against me in the vilest most immoral way. Here it is: I have always known you will never make a tenor, not in a million years. Stick to making the mezzos, or trying to. Lotsa good stuff about you on the walls of the dressing room, Don Giovanni I don't think.

Che? You no like me sing? It Aida, no Don Giovanni.

Anyway, my conflict with seymour came up right away, she made some way overstated claim about Rand and Nietzsche, I asked for a factual citation, and she proceeded to psychologize me. Said "I know you don't want to hear this", or something like that, doubled down on the claim while mocking the information request. Turned out she was wrong.

Tell me that tenor was not Mario Lanza, please. Deploying that video against Linz the Lovable, noted nonauthoritarian, would be too low a blow, even for us O-Liars.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

One of the things I have noticed in Seymourblogger's taunts is a trap. We can write our own stories or we can let others do it. Responding to a taunt can let the other do it big-time.

What this means is that we cannot control events nearly as much as we can control the meaning of them. Sure, we can control some events. But not nearly to the extent any of us would like to. We all have bills. We all get inconvenienced by irritating people intruding into our flow. We all get sick sometimes. And so on. We can't control a lot of that happening. We can only react to it when it comes out of nowhere.

However, there is the story. Do we get a payoff from terrible occurrences, or do we get beaten down? Only we can tell for sure. This is more than positive thinking. This is one place where every one of us can act--not react. It's our life, not the life of anyone else. Se we can author the meaning of the events in our story. (Authoring here means more than writing. It is creating the story and its significance from scratch.) And once we do that, we can project that significance to others.

We become causal agents through the stories we author and the events we create out of occurrences.

Yet for some reason we generally let other people create and tell our stories. When we speak, we are telling their tales of our lives. (I do it, too, so I am not talking as a preacher or guru. I have only recently started thinking like this on a conscious level--one of the results of my studies. I have been getting better at taking ownership of my story, but I'm still a beginner in my own evaluation.)

The taunting is a great illustration. Look at it as an occurrence. A taunt intrudes on your path. So what? Someone says something nasty or arrogant. Qua occurrence it means nothing. You're still breathing. You still look at your computer screen. You can still get up and walk around. And so on. The taunt literally has less significance than wind breaking in a fertilizer factory.

But how do you act against a taunt? And here it gets interesting. By the very nature of acting against it, you are reacting. And who sets the story in that case? The taunter.

The taunt becomes the seed for a story--the taunter's story.

In the present case, Seymourblogger knows most people have a chip on their shoulder where their own autonomy is concerned. (Incidentally, this has also been monitored in the limbic system of the brain, so it's a physically built-in bias.) She knows barking out orders gets a subliminal rise.

That makes the rise likely to happen. So she sets her values and projects how a typical rise from you would move her closer to them. (Whether her values come from la-la land, or she is manipulating folks to increase power, or she is just a lonely old lady seeking attention and meaning in a life she regrets, or anything else is irrelevant to this point.)

She calculates the story. Then she taunts to kick it off.

As people watch, if you respond as normal and she strings you along, they see you getting wound up and her setting the tone of what that means. She controls the perceived significance. She tells her story to the world and you are one of the minor characters in it.

But it doesn't have to be that way. If you step back and look at a bigger picture, then look at the important things in your life, then look at what this particular person truly means to you (presumably not one of those important things), then have her taunt intrude into your awareness, you have a much different story to fit it into. And if you do this in full awareness, your actions will convey that tale and meaning.

It's almost like a game--whoever has the biggest story, the most universal and enticing one, gets to be the one to tell it. The taunt qua taunt is merely a puff in the wind.

I realize by lavishing attention on this person, I, too, am joining her story. However, I believe I have a far bigger and better story to tell. So I'm going about this on my own terms even though there is a crossover. And hell, we have a well-earned audience here that can use the entertainment.

But getting back to you, I think the story of your life is far more interesting and compelling than the story of Seymourblogger. So I want to change the channel when I see you playing her game. She is a player, though. She is good at proving one thing. She is very active at jabbing at people. This means she is good at proving the old saw that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Janet Abbey is the legend of the squeaky wheel.

(squeak... squeak... squeak...)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Tell me that tenor was not Mario Lanza, please. Deploying that video against Linz the Lovable, noted nonauthoritarian, would be too low a blow, even for us O-Liars.

No, not Lanza. I don't know who it is. The vocal timbre sounds quite a bit like Caruso, but the sound quality of the recording is much too good for it to be him. It sounds like it dates from the 1930's.

[9thdoctor]

I checked the comments on YouTube and someone's saying it's Martinelli. That's the right date range, but I'm still not 100% sure. I'm a very competent snob about this kind of thing from about 1950 on.

[william.scherk]

[in repair for gross formatting errors]

Edited February 17, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

I wonder why exactly entire that thread obliteration at SOLO.

#105336, thread "CPAC Speeches Worthy of Listening To"

Janet

[....]

As for the rest of your post—again, I've no idea what you're talking about. I'd been away for a couple of days, and came back to find some crappy new thread of yours, which appeared to consist of copy-and-pastes from O-Lying, had thrown the whole front page spastic. So I deleted it without even absorbing its content.

Janet, it's true that this is the most open Objectivist forum you'll find anywhere, but I'd urge you to read the posting guidelines nonetheless. If someone like Scherk, who thrives on viciousness, is accusing you of viciousness, then it's possible we have a problem.

Yikes.

So, nobody takes the Hong Kong dollars ($50) off me.

Such hooey from the red-button man. Scherk is vicious as Lindsay is kind. And Scherk did not use the word vicious, but sloppy ...

As for Seymour's missing blog, I wish someone would fess up, and for faux selene to put up a post or shut it down and release the address back to our Seymour.

I asked in my SOLO comment in that ugly italic 1200-pixel wide thread that Seymour remove a portion of her comment wherein it was not possible to determine which were my quotes (the whole ugly was a paste from an editing window of OL, rather than a worked-up comment. It was a splodge riddled with nested partial attribution).

I had suggested first that Seymour put back in the italic, warning him that Lindsay did NOT like gross formatting errors that fucked up his front page (like making the whole front page/landing page italic from Seymour on down). Seymour commented then that he would fix the italic, after this warning, but then decided against and sneered back at Lindsay.

And then the Emperor of the "most open Objectivist forum you'll find anywhere" turfed the whole thing, and here you are, Seymour. Are we going to have to reach for your hand at all road crossings now?

Edited February 17, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

As a technical explanation, Google deleted the blog. I'm about as sure of that as you can be about something you did not witness with your own eyes.

Google goes on a periodic pruning spree on Blogger to eliminate spam-blogs (splogs), hate blogs and other uses of their resource they find objectionable. I have read many examples of people with real blogs getting their blogs deleted. These are people who were actively posting and their blogs did not fall into these Google's no-no categories.

Also, Google has been known to do some monkeyshines in this respect. For example, during the Hillary primaries against Obama, Google started deleting anti-Obama Blogger blogs until there was a public outcry.

But sometimes something totally unknown can make this happen. Here's just one example I have studied. Suppose you have a page where people can post links, but it is relatively hidden from the public. And suppose you rarely look at it. And further suppose a spammer filled that page with ads for Viagra (without you knowing it) so he could get backlinks to his main site and improve his results in the search engines. Now suppose Google detonates all the search engine results of that spammer's main site. Obviously Google will go after the links pointing to it--ones their algorithm detects that have been effective in fooling them. Since a lot of this is automatic, the Google machine chops and squashes without mercy.

Among Internet marketers, it is well known that you only use Blogger for secondary work--and you always plan for it being deleted one day.

It's appealing and deliciously conspiratorial to think of hacking by people Seymourblogger has irritated, but it's hard as hell to hack Google on that level. You have to be Chinese or something, and even then...

Michael

[caroljane]

Brant,

One of the things I have noticed in Seymourblogger's taunts is a trap. We can write our own stories or we can let others do it. Responding to a taunt can let the other do it big-time.

What this means is that we cannot control events nearly as much as we can control the meaning of them. Sure, we can control some events. But not nearly to the extent any of us would like to. We all have bills. We all get inconvenienced by irritating people intruding into our flow. We all get sick sometimes. And so on. We can't control a lot of that happening. We can only react to it when it comes out of nowhere.

However, there is the story. Do we get a payoff from terrible occurrences, or do we get beaten down? Only we can tell for sure. This is more than positive thinking. This is one place where every one of us can act--not react. It's our life, not the life of anyone else. Se we can author the meaning of the events in our story. (Authoring here means more than writing. It is creating the story and its significance from scratch.) And once we do that, we can project that significance to others.

We become causal agents through the stories we author and the events we create out of occurrences.

Yet for some reason we generally let other people create and tell our stories. When we speak, we are telling their tales of our lives. (I do it, too, so I am not talking as a preacher or guru. I have only recently started thinking like this on a conscious level--one of the results of my studies. I have been getting better at taking ownership of my story, but I'm still a beginner in my own evaluation.)

The taunting is a great illustration. Look at it as an occurrence. A taunt intrudes on your path. So what? Someone says something nasty or arrogant. Qua occurrence it means nothing. You're still breathing. You still look at your computer screen. You can still get up and walk around. And so on. The taunt literally has less significance than wind breaking in a fertilizer factory.

But how do you act against a taunt? And here it gets interesting. By the very nature of acting against it, you are reacting. And who sets the story in that case? The taunter.

The taunt becomes the seed for a story--the taunter's story.

In the present case, Seymourblogger knows most people have a chip on their shoulder where their own autonomy is concerned. (Incidentally, this has also been monitored in the limbic system of the brain, so it's a physically built-in bias.) She knows barking out orders gets a subliminal rise.

That makes the rise likely to happen. So she sets her values and projects how a typical rise from you would move her closer to them. (Whether her values come from la-la land, or she is manipulating folks to increase power, or she is just a lonely old lady seeking attention and meaning in a life she regrets, or anything else is irrelevant to this point.)

She calculates the story. Then she taunts to kick it off.

As people watch, if you respond as normal and she strings you along, they see you getting wound up and her setting the tone of what that means. She controls the perceived significance. She tells her story to the world and you are one of the minor characters in it.

But it doesn't have to be that way. If you step back and look at a bigger picture, then look at the important things in your life, then look at what this particular person truly means to you (presumably not one of those important things), then have her taunt intrude into your awareness, you have a much different story to fit it into. And if you do this in full awareness, your actions will convey that tale and meaning.

It's almost like a game--whoever has the biggest story, the most universal and enticing one, gets to be the one to tell it. The taunt qua taunt is merely a puff in the wind.

I realize by lavishing attention on this person, I, too, am joining her story. However, I believe I have a far bigger and better story to tell. So I'm going about this on my own terms even though there is a crossover. And hell, we have a well-earned audience here that can use the entertainment.

But getting back to you, I think the story of your life is far more interesting and compelling than the story of Seymourblogger. So I want to change the channel when I see you playing her game. She is a player, though. She is good at proving one thing. She is very active at jabbing at people. This means she is good at proving the old saw that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Janet Abbey is the legend of the squeaky wheel.

(squeak... squeak... squeak...)

Michael

Michael, your post brings me one of the many byproducts of the experience of interacting on OL. When I joined I knew I would get value from the main product, reading and occasionally corresponding with the interesting thinkers I had been enjoying as a browser. I did not know then that I could get to see how those people think and work out their ideas, that they would let me watch that process -- or that I would invite others to watch me! Lord, Lord! What am I coming to in my old ages. )I have 3 of them as you know.

I have forgotten the original point about old Fish Eye but I think I am making a point about what happens on OL, which though many may not seem to, they notice, and do not forget.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I had suggested first that Seymour put back in the italic, warning him that Lindsay did NOT like gross formatting errors that fucked up his front page (like making the whole front page/landing page italic from Seymour on down). Seymour commented then that he would fix the italic, after this warning, but then decided against and sneered back at Lindsay.

William, I think this is about the fifth time (in posts I've seen) you've referred to Seymour using male pronouns.  Do you suspect that Seymour is male?

Ellen

Note: "masculine" not "male" pronouns.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Ellen Stuttle

[william.scherk]

William, I think this is about the fifth time (in posts I've seen) you've referred to Seymour using male pronouns. Do you suspect that Seymour is male?

Not at all. I just like calling Janet Seymour, and helping her get a bit tougher. I also referred to you and Daunce/Carol as one of the boys. If annoying, another apology goes to Janet, to help her get used to a tough crowd at a basically neutral -- if cynical -- game. Only if you go full on zany kookiepants do you get the crowd to turn on you. But if Janet understands that it is a tough crowd, but yet still more homely than SOLO, she might stick around and relax with 'the boys.' We do try to play rationally/conversationally, not always adversarially. I know it is hard for some niceties from such a muckmouth as me, but hey.

William, the bitchy and annoying self-appointed border patrol/peacekeeper. Wild dog after irrational notions. Lonely, thwarted leader of the "Janet Play Nice" Party.

Edited February 17, 2012 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

Fortunately the BOW Committee staff, useless slugs that they are, did manage to get a transcript  of [seymour/Janet's] Speech before Fahrenheit 2012. erupted.:

[....]

Ellen Stuttle, you were my groupie at Bryn Mawr and learned all your early philosophy from me and then borrowed my best cardigan and never gave it back, and told lies about me to my boyfriend just before we were going to get pinned. Yes, folks, it is all true, she has lied all these years but she can't hide any more. That cardigan was cashmere.

I would never have borrowed a cashmere sweater. I get itchy skin and sneezes from contact with cashmere.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

One of the things I have noticed in Seymourblogger's taunts is a trap. We can write our own stories or we can let others do it. Responding to a taunt can let the other do it big-time.

What this means is that we cannot control events nearly as much as we can control the meaning of them. Sure, we can control some events. But not nearly to the extent any of us would like to. We all have bills. We all get inconvenienced by irritating people intruding into our flow. We all get sick sometimes. And so on. We can't control a lot of that happening. We can only react to it when it comes out of nowhere.

However, there is the story. Do we get a payoff from terrible occurrences, or do we get beaten down? Only we can tell for sure. This is more than positive thinking. This is one place where every one of us can act--not react. It's our life, not the life of anyone else. Se we can author the meaning of the events in our story. (Authoring here means more than writing. It is creating the story and its significance from scratch.) And once we do that, we can project that significance to others.

We become causal agents through the stories we author and the events we create out of occurrences.

Yet for some reason we generally let other people create and tell our stories. When we speak, we are telling their tales of our lives. (I do it, too, so I am not talking as a preacher or guru. I have only recently started thinking like this on a conscious level--one of the results of my studies. I have been getting better at taking ownership of my story, but I'm still a beginner in my own evaluation.)

The taunting is a great illustration. Look at it as an occurrence. A taunt intrudes on your path. So what? Someone says something nasty or arrogant. Qua occurrence it means nothing. You're still breathing. You still look at your computer screen. You can still get up and walk around. And so on. The taunt literally has less significance than wind breaking in a fertilizer factory.

But how do you act against a taunt? And here it gets interesting. By the very nature of acting against it, you are reacting. And who sets the story in that case? The taunter.

The taunt becomes the seed for a story--the taunter's story.

In the present case, Seymourblogger knows most people have a chip on their shoulder where their own autonomy is concerned. (Incidentally, this has also been monitored in the limbic system of the brain, so it's a physically built-in bias.) She knows barking out orders gets a subliminal rise.

That makes the rise likely to happen. So she sets her values and projects how a typical rise from you would move her closer to them. (Whether her values come from la-la land, or she is manipulating folks to increase power, or she is just a lonely old lady seeking attention and meaning in a life she regrets, or anything else is irrelevant to this point.)

She calculates the story. Then she taunts to kick it off.

As people watch, if you respond as normal and she strings you along, they see you getting wound up and her setting the tone of what that means. She controls the perceived significance. She tells her story to the world and you are one of the minor characters in it.

But it doesn't have to be that way. If you step back and look at a bigger picture, then look at the important things in your life, then look at what this particular person truly means to you (presumably not one of those important things), then have her taunt intrude into your awareness, you have a much different story to fit it into. And if you do this in full awareness, your actions will convey that tale and meaning.

It's almost like a game--whoever has the biggest story, the most universal and enticing one, gets to be the one to tell it. The taunt qua taunt is merely a puff in the wind.

I realize by lavishing attention on this person, I, too, am joining her story. However, I believe I have a far bigger and better story to tell. So I'm going about this on my own terms even though there is a crossover. And hell, we have a well-earned audience here that can use the entertainment.

But getting back to you, I think the story of your life is far more interesting and compelling than the story of Seymourblogger. So I want to change the channel when I see you playing her game. She is a player, though. She is good at proving one thing. She is very active at jabbing at people. This means she is good at proving the old saw that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Janet Abbey is the legend of the squeaky wheel.

(squeak... squeak... squeak...)

Michael

You mean she wasn't pissed off? I think she was and is. In any case there's not much chance of me reacting to most of the continual drivel she's been posting lately. She'd have to ramp up to better than she's been doing since she came here. For the original stuff she's just repeating herself and the copies are fading in quality.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You mean she wasn't pissed off? I think she was and is.

Brant.

In reality? Who knows?

I, myself, seriously doubt it. But it doesn't matter in this game.

She's pissed in the story she tells. She has to be for her imagined payoff.

That's the important part...

Michael

[PDS]

In this, a moment of weakness, I shall join the "Janet Play Nice" Party.

As a word of warning, however, when the whistle blows, I may refuse to come out of the trenches. So don't count on me to cover any flanks.

[Selene]

In this, a moment of weakness, I shall join the "Janet Play Nice" Party.

As a word of warning, however, when the whistle blows, I may refuse to come out of the trenches. So don't count on me to cover any flanks.

Very nice WWI metaphor!

[anthony]

In this, a moment of weakness, I shall join the "Janet Play Nice" Party. As a word of warning, however, when the whistle blows, I may refuse to come out of the trenches. So don't count on me to cover any flanks.

Very nice WWI metaphor!

Hmmph - a bit over the top, I thought!

[caroljane]

Fortunately the BOW Committee staff, useless slugs that they are, did manage to get a transcript of [seymour/Janet's] Speech before Fahrenheit 2012. erupted.:

[....]

Ellen Stuttle, you were my groupie at Bryn Mawr and learned all your early philosophy from me and then borrowed my best cardigan and never gave it back, and told lies about me to my boyfriend just before we were going to get pinned. Yes, folks, it is all true, she has lied all these years but she can't hide any more. That cardigan was cashmere.

I would never have borrowed a cashmere sweater. I get itchy skin and sneezes from contact with cashmere.

Ellen

Ms Stuttle, although you have retained Mr Valliant in this matter, I will not retract. I stand by my sources who include the ex-boyfriend in question and several severely intoxicated Delta Deltas.

[caroljane]

In this, a moment of weakness, I shall join the "Janet Play Nice" Party. As a word of warning, however, when the whistle blows, I may refuse to come out of the trenches. So don't count on me to cover any flanks.

Very nice WWI metaphor!

Hmmph - a bit over the top, I thought!

Everyone's a critic all of a sudden. I too want to play nice and am icing the cupcakes, so say sorry to PDS and wash your hands Tony, you know you will have a good time at the party.

[Selene]

In this, a moment of weakness, I shall join the "Janet Play Nice" Party. As a word of warning, however, when the whistle blows, I may refuse to come out of the trenches. So don't count on me to cover any flanks.

Very nice WWI metaphor!

Hmmph - a bit over the top, I thought!

Very nice extension on the metaphor Tony! lol

[caroljane]

In this, a moment of weakness, I shall join the "Janet Play Nice" Party. As a word of warning, however, when the whistle blows, I may refuse to come out of the trenches. So don't count on me to cover any flanks.

Very nice WWI metaphor!

Hmmph - a bit over the top, I thought!

Very nice extension on the metaphor Tony! lol

Nice? it's genius. It was the Commonwealth troops who covered the bony aristocratic flanks of the British, and the beefy American rumps who finished off the Hun in that war.

Take a bow, Tony. BOW, hint, wink.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ms Stuttle, although you have retained Mr Valliant in this matter, I will not retract. I stand by my sources who include the ex-boyfriend in question and several severely intoxicated Delta Deltas.

Carol,

I have heard the cashmere sweater was actually for straining paints for purity before mixing them in liquor bottles.

It's a special technique done only by artists in the know.

Do we have the same sources?

Michael