This or That?
Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 13:00:17 -0800

--------
The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a higher form of THIS as it
was created by the THIS. When the THIS disintegrates the THAT will
stay in tact as it is a more evolved form of the THIS. The THAT will
exist solely for an instant, only for the THIS to re-manifest itself
it in the THAT, thus becoming the THIS. When the original THIS is
destroyed, the THIS that was in the THAT is all that is left of the
THIS therefore becoming the THIS that creates another THAT. The
process repeated infinitely creates a three dimensional chain of loops
and a distinct pattern of motion. When the THIS creates the THAT it
follows an arc of a semi circle until it is directly above the THIS.
When the THIS disintegrates it follows the opposite arc as the
creation of the THAT but ends up at the THAT. This is the time that
the THIS blooms into the THAT making the THAT a THIS.


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:06:23 GMT

--------


Psychoguerrilla wrote:

> The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a higher form of THIS as it
> was created by the THIS. When the THIS disintegrates the THAT will
> stay in tact as it is a more evolved form of the THIS. The THAT will
> exist solely for an instant, only for the THIS to re-manifest itself
> it in the THAT, thus becoming the THIS. When the original THIS is
> destroyed, the THIS that was in the THAT is all that is left of the
> THIS therefore becoming the THIS that creates another THAT. The
> process repeated infinitely creates a three dimensional chain of loops
> and a distinct pattern of motion. When the THIS creates the THAT it
> follows an arc of a semi circle until it is directly above the THIS.
> When the THIS disintegrates it follows the opposite arc as the
> creation of the THAT but ends up at the THAT. This is the time that
> the THIS blooms into the THAT making the THAT a THIS.

Which begs the queation, if not outrightly buggers it, what about the
other?
And the significant other? Also, here and there; and that which is neither
here
no there? Are those THIS's or THAT's?



Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 22:45:59 GMT

--------
>Which begs the queation, if not outrightly buggers it, what about the
>other?
>And the significant other? Also, here and there; and that which is neither
>here
>no there? Are those THIS's or THAT's?

Witches don't beg, IT doesn't like to be buggered, usually doing the buggering
ITself, I've heard, and there already IS here, didn't you know, just with an
additional T.

That which is neither here nor there must be somewhere near the elusive other.

But you've entirely forgotten about the game. If this is in left field and that
is in right field, who's on first?

--
" 'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds." -RAW



Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 24 Nov 2004 01:37:17 GMT

--------
>Which begs the queation, if not outrightly buggers it, what about the
>>other?

Forgot to mention, I think its more apt for witches to beg equations rather
than questions too.
--
" 'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds." -RAW



Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 19:32:24 -0800

--------
>
> Witches don't beg, IT doesn't like to be buggered, usually doing the buggering
> ITself, I've heard, and there already IS here, didn't you know, just with an
> additional T.
>
> That which is neither here nor there must be somewhere near the elusive other.
>
> But you've entirely forgotten about the game. If this is in left field and that
> is in right field, who's on first?


exactly


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:14:16 -0800

--------
On 23 Nov 2004 13:00:17 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
(Psychoguerrilla) wrote:

>The THIS creates the THAT

The DIPSHIT posts to the USENET

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
The Outlook Today

People today are feeling more positive than ever. If you’re
a person today, chances are you could just shit yourself
with happiness. More than ever before, people are waking up
in the morning, fixing themselves cups of fresh-ground coffee,
taking a full, hearty swig, and thinking with a smile, “I’ve
got options!"

- http://www.exile.ru/135/feature.php



Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 24 Nov 2004 11:28:34 -0800

--------
Zapanaz wrote in message news:...
> On 23 Nov 2004 13:00:17 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
> (Psychoguerrilla) wrote:
>
>
> The DIPSHIT posts to the USENET
>

oh joey boy. You seem to be the one who has been posting dumb ass
shit onto alt.slack for years, all the while people are begging you to
stop and get a life. I guess that you are the DIPSHIT who posts to
USENET. Your website says it all.


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:05:07 -0800

--------
On 24 Nov 2004 11:28:34 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
(Psychoguerrilla) wrote:

>Zapanaz wrote in message news:...
>> On 23 Nov 2004 13:00:17 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
>> (Psychoguerrilla) wrote:
>>
>>
>> The DIPSHIT posts to the USENET
>>
>
>oh joey boy. You seem to be the one who has been posting dumb ass
>shit onto alt.slack for years, all the while people are begging you to
>stop and get a life. I guess that you are the DIPSHIT who posts to
>USENET. Your website says it all.

Another killfile refugee.

When you are changing your posting name in order to escape from
people's killfiles, doesn't it ever cross your mind that maybe there
is no POINT trying to get the attention of people who have killfiled
you?


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"DO NOT ALLOW AIR CONDITIONER TO FALL OUT OF WINDOW."
- warning on a window air conditioner



Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 24 Nov 2004 18:13:43 -0800

--------
Zapanaz wrote in message news:...
> On 24 Nov 2004 11:28:34 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
>
> Another killfile refugee.
>
> When you are changing your posting name in order to escape from
> people's killfiles, doesn't it ever cross your mind that maybe there
> is no POINT trying to get the attention of people who have killfiled
> you?


Oh little Joey boy. You think that you are Sherlock Holmes and that
you are getting to the bottom of a situation. Just who do you think I
am? Just because I am new here doesn't mean that you can pull the
wool over my eyes. I know about dim whit behavior from going through
archived posts. I think you are the one who has changed YOUR name a
bunch of times because the consensus here is that your a sluggish old
man with no life and hence were killed filed by anyone with half a
brain. But of course you have that GREAT website of yours that you
can flash in peoples faces and then OH YEAH they will think that your
ALLLLL RIGHT.


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:41:08 -0800

--------
On 24 Nov 2004 18:13:43 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
(Psychoguerrilla) wrote:

>Oh little Joey boy. You think that you are Sherlock Holmes and that
>you are getting to the bottom of a situation. Just who do you think I
>am? Just because I am new here

What would the diametric opposite to a Sherlock Holmes be? Oh yes, a
FUCKING DUMBASS.

One post ago, you said:

>You seem to be the one who has been posting dumb ass
>shit onto alt.slack for years,

So you know what kind of dumbass shit has been getting posted to
alt.slack for years, but you are new here at the same time?

HMMM

Sounds like FUCKING DUMBASS logic to me, Watson.

I went through this exact same conversation with somebody else who
turned out to be the same tedious half-baked loony dipshit I said he
was after denying it stridently. It was almost satisfying.

But it wasn't worth the dose of FUCKING DUMBASS necessary to get to
that scooby-doo unmasking.

PLONK

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Look in a mirror all your life and you will see death at work; like bees in a hive of glass
- Cocteau



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:26:57 -0700

--------
Psychoguerrilla wrote:
>
> The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a
> higher form of THIS as it was created by
> the THIS...

"I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.
I'm the Angel of Death, one hundred percent!"

-- from 'Horton 2: Horton Hurts a Whore'



--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 22:40:24 GMT

--------
>The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a higher form of THIS as it
>was created by the THIS. When the THIS disintegrates the THAT will
>stay in tact as it is a more evolved form of the THIS. The THAT will
>exist solely for an instant, only for the THIS to re-manifest itself
>it in the THAT, thus becoming the THIS. When the original THIS is
>destroyed, the THIS that was in the THAT is all that is left of the
>THIS therefore becoming the THIS that creates another THAT. The
>process repeated infinitely creates a three dimensional chain of loops
>and a distinct pattern of motion. When the THIS creates the THAT it
>follows an arc of a semi circle until it is directly above the THIS.
>When the THIS disintegrates it follows the opposite arc as the
>creation of the THAT but ends up at the THAT. This is the time that
>the THIS blooms into the THAT making the THAT a THIS.

WHAT!

--
" 'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds." -RAW



Correspondent:: asscoassc@aol.comsucks (AssCo Assc)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 23:19:25 GMT

--------
Dig THIS a zippity zip zap creates the THAT a tat-tat and de rap is a hip-daddy
gasser of THIS as it aint THAT rat a-pat pat cause it's a big fact fact that
THIS and THAT roopety poopety SHUT UP.

_________________________________________________

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease,
Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
_________________________________________________



Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:57:12 -0500

--------
It's THEM you gotta worry about.

This and That are OK as long as they are ones of US!

[*]
-----




Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 19:40:23 -0800

--------
asscoassc@aol.comsucks (AssCo Assc) wrote in message news:<20041123181925.15947.00001121@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> Dig THIS a zippity zip zap creates the THAT a tat-tat and de rap is a hip-daddy
> gasser of THIS as it aint THAT rat a-pat pat cause it's a big fact fact that
> THIS and THAT roopety poopety SHUT UP.

I guess that your slow pathetic mind couldn't follow the puzzle. All
that you are left with is petty sarcasm and a VERY SCARY "shut up".


Correspondent:: asscoassc@aol.comsucks (AssCo Assc)
Date: 24 Nov 2004 15:26:10 GMT

--------
<<<< I guess that your slow pathetic mind couldn't follow the puzzle. All that
you are left with is petty sarcasm and a VERY SCARY "shut up". >>

Actually I now believe I was for some time yesterday posessed by the shut up
demon, a phantasmogorical information squelching hierophany concurrently fueled
by 750ml of Shatner juice, a tryptophane defficiency, the misidentification of
the person who posted this that as Den Mu, a bad internet connection and an
empty wallet: the "that" of my own personal "this" that produced this "that".
Yes, it was scary, thank you.
_________________________________________________

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease,
Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
_________________________________________________



Correspondent:: rhymeswith@starmail.com (C. Woolard)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 18:54:33 -0800

--------
psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla) wrote in message news:...
> The THIS creates the THAT.

Or Something.


Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:06:26 GMT

--------
Psychoguerrilla wrote:
> The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a higher form of THIS as it
> was created by the THIS. When the THIS disintegrates the THAT will
> stay in tact as it is a more evolved form of the THIS. The THAT will
> exist solely for an instant, only for the THIS to re-manifest itself
> it in the THAT, thus becoming the THIS. When the original THIS is
> destroyed, the THIS that was in the THAT is all that is left of the
> THIS therefore becoming the THIS that creates another THAT. The
> process repeated infinitely creates a three dimensional chain of loops
> and a distinct pattern of motion. When the THIS creates the THAT it
> follows an arc of a semi circle until it is directly above the THIS.
> When the THIS disintegrates it follows the opposite arc as the
> creation of the THAT but ends up at the THAT. This is the time that
> the THIS blooms into the THAT making the THAT a THIS.

Looks like you've got THIS and THAT all figured out... but what about
THE OTHER?


Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:41:26 -0800

--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
> Psychoguerrilla wrote:
> > The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a higher form of THIS as it
> > was created by the THIS. When the THIS disintegrates the THAT will
> > stay in tact as it is a more evolved form of the THIS. The THAT will
> > exist solely for an instant, only for the THIS to re-manifest itself
> > it in the THAT, thus becoming the THIS. When the original THIS is
> > destroyed, the THIS that was in the THAT is all that is left of the
> > THIS therefore becoming the THIS that creates another THAT. The
> > process repeated infinitely creates a three dimensional chain of loops
> > and a distinct pattern of motion. When the THIS creates the THAT it
> > follows an arc of a semi circle until it is directly above the THIS.
> > When the THIS disintegrates it follows the opposite arc as the
> > creation of the THAT but ends up at the THAT. This is the time that
> > the THIS blooms into the THAT making the THAT a THIS.
>
> Looks like you've got THIS and THAT all figured out... but what about
> THE OTHER?

HOME BASE!


Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 23 Nov 2004 21:51:34 -0800

--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message news:...

> Looks like you've got THIS and THAT all figured out... but what about
> THE OTHER?

There is no other everything is a duality expressing the same thing.


Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:13:45 -0800

--------
Psychoguerrilla wrote:
>
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message news:...
>
> > Looks like you've got THIS and THAT all figured out... but what about
> > THE OTHER?
>
> There is no other everything is a duality expressing the same thing.

Dichotomies are nonexistent. They are an artifact of the observer's
means of perception, just like the three so-called dimensions of space.


Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 24 Nov 2004 18:27:17 -0800

--------
nenslo wrote in message news:<41A42697.7E3C087B@yahoox.com>...
>
> Dichotomies are nonexistent.

yeah. opposites really express the same thing.

They are an artifact of the observer's
> means of perception,

yeah. the structure of our mind works on these artifical assumptions.
But... if you are going to eat a hamburger you may as well eat the
hell out of it!


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 25 Nov 2004 02:48:46 GMT

--------
Nenslo wrote:

>Dichotomies are nonexistent. They are an artifact of the observer's
>means of perception, just like the three so-called dimensions of space.
>

Dichotomies are everpresent. They are an extension of perception itself.
Un-differentiated awareness is not cognizant regardless of means of perception.
However, because the perceiver and the perceived could be said to emerge
simultaneously, the phenomena could also be viewed as one.

The three+ dimensions of space are an artifact of the observer's means of
perception, but the distinction between space and anything else (Not-Space) is
a requirement for the existance of perception itself.
--
" 'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds." -RAW



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:06:18 GMT

--------


kdetal wrote:

> Nenslo wrote:
>
> >Dichotomies are nonexistent. They are an artifact of the observer's
> >means of perception, just like the three so-called dimensions of space.
> >
>
> Dichotomies are everpresent. They are an extension of perception itself.
> Un-differentiated awareness is not cognizant regardless of means of perception.
> However, because the perceiver and the perceived could be said to emerge
> simultaneously, the phenomena could also be viewed as one.
>
> The three+ dimensions of space are an artifact of the observer's means of
> perception, but the distinction between space and anything else (Not-Space) is
> a requirement for the existance of perception itself.
> --
> " 'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds." -RAW
>

When you come to a fork in the road, take it.






Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:51 -0800

--------
kdetal wrote:
>
> Nenslo wrote:
>

(Not "arguing" per se but rather expanding upon your thought-seeds.)


> >Dichotomies are nonexistent. They are an artifact of the observer's
> >means of perception, just like the three so-called dimensions of space.
> >
>
> Dichotomies are everpresent. They are an extension of perception itself.

Thus they have no existence independent of the perceiver and would be
present only when perception occurs.

> Un-differentiated awareness is not cognizant regardless of means of perception.

True, undifferentiated awareness does not discriminate between self and
not self or any other categories.

> However, because the perceiver and the perceived could be said to emerge
> simultaneously, the phenomena could also be viewed as one.

To elaborate, objects of perception can be SAID to do just about
anything since the nature of the object is not dependent upon the
description. Phenomena can be viewed as practically anything since
viewing is an action of the perceiver.

>
> The three+ dimensions of space are an artifact of the observer's means of
> perception, but the distinction between space and anything else (Not-Space) is
> a requirement for the existance of perception itself.

If that is so, then undifferentiated awareness cannot perceive.


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:24:47 -0800

--------
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:00:51 -0800, nenslo wrote:

>To elaborate, objects of perception can be SAID to do just about
>anything since the nature of the object is not dependent upon the
>description.

Wrong.

Commonly wrong, but wrong.

People talk about things that logically can't be talked about. like an
"object which is not perceived", about and get irritable if you point
out the inherent flaw in it. "WELL" (they say) "i MEAN the object
that we KNOW is there, even if we aren't perceiving it. I mean we
KNOW that. Don't get all picky about semantics".

As if we can all take for granted this space filled with objects ...
and these objects are, well, basically just like the objects we
perceive ... I mean, OK, they are, by definition, NOTHING like the
objects we perceive, if we aren't perceiving them ... but ... well ...
YOU KNOW.

These objects have no shape, no space, no mass, no color, and no
characteristics, if they are independant of observation, and the
'errors' inherent in the act of observation. But YOU KNOW. THOSE
objects. WHAT'S WRONG WITH TALKING ABOUT THEM?

"Object" IS an act of perception. An artifact of perception.

"the nature of the object, not dependent upon the description" is
absolutely meaningless.

It's God, up in heaven, who we can't talk about, and you CAN'T
DISPROVE because we can't talk about him. It's an invisible pink
unicorn.

Go fill a cup with objects with no characteristics, nenslo. I want to
see what they taste like.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Any business that requires you to listen to a machine for more than ninety seconds
which tells you that your call is very important to them, rather than providing you with
a live human being to talk to, is by definition lying.



Correspondent:: psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com (Psychoguerrilla)
Date: 25 Nov 2004 00:51:08 -0800

--------
kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote in message news:<20041124214846.21734.00001116@mb-m14.aol.com>...

> Dichotomies are everpresent. They are an extension of perception itself.
> Un-differentiated awareness is not cognizant regardless of means of perception.
> However, because the perceiver and the perceived could be said to emerge
> simultaneously, the phenomena could also be viewed as one.
>
> The three+ dimensions of space are an artifact of the observer's means of
> perception, but the distinction between space and anything else (Not-Space) is
> a requirement for the existance of perception itself.

"It is important that signs 'p' and '~p' can say the same thing. For
it shows that nothing in reality corresponds to the sign '~'. The
occurrence of negation in a proposition is not enough to characterize
its sense (~~p=p). The propositions 'p' and '~p' have opposite sense,
but there corresponds to them one and the same reality"
(Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:58:12 GMT

--------


Psychoguerrilla wrote:

> kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote in message news:<20041124214846.21734.00001116@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>
> > Dichotomies are everpresent. They are an extension of perception itself.
> > Un-differentiated awareness is not cognizant regardless of means of perception.
> > However, because the perceiver and the perceived could be said to emerge
> > simultaneously, the phenomena could also be viewed as one.
> >
> > The three+ dimensions of space are an artifact of the observer's means of
> > perception, but the distinction between space and anything else (Not-Space) is
> > a requirement for the existance of perception itself.
>
> "It is important that signs 'p' and '~p' can say the same thing. For
> it shows that nothing in reality corresponds to the sign '~'. The
> occurrence of negation in a proposition is not enough to characterize
> its sense (~~p=p). The propositions 'p' and '~p' have opposite sense,
> but there corresponds to them one and the same reality"
> (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

Wittgenstein rocks!
In statistics, they say p:q
Which makes me laff because of "miding your p's and q's"

Probably just a notational variation.





Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:03:43 GMT

--------


Psychoguerrilla wrote:

> kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote in message news:<20041124214846.21734.00001116@mb-m14.aol.com>...
>
> > Dichotomies are everpresent. They are an extension of perception itself.
> > Un-differentiated awareness is not cognizant regardless of means of perception.
> > However, because the perceiver and the perceived could be said to emerge
> > simultaneously, the phenomena could also be viewed as one.
> >
> > The three+ dimensions of space are an artifact of the observer's means of
> > perception, but the distinction between space and anything else (Not-Space) is
> > a requirement for the existance of perception itself.
>
> "It is important that signs 'p' and '~p' can say the same thing. For
> it shows that nothing in reality corresponds to the sign '~'. The
> occurrence of negation in a proposition is not enough to characterize
> its sense (~~p=p). The propositions 'p' and '~p' have opposite sense,
> but there corresponds to them one and the same reality"
> (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

Or you could have some symbol for "that which is not Shinola"





Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:48:34 -0800

--------
On 23 Nov 2004 21:51:34 -0800, psychoguerrilladeath@hotmail.com
(Psychoguerrilla) wrote:

>Cardinal Vertigo wrote in message news:...
>
>> Looks like you've got THIS and THAT all figured out... but what about
>> THE OTHER?
>
>There is no other everything is a duality expressing the same thing.

There is no Pepsi, everything is an un-cola expressing the Cola.

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
The hamburger under your pillow is the missing brain growth.



Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch
Date: 24 Nov 2004 14:10:21 GMT

--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote in news:SUSod.31726$Qv5.7217
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

> Psychoguerrilla wrote:
>> The THIS creates the THAT. The THAT is a higher form of THIS as it
>> was created by the THIS. When the THIS disintegrates the THAT will
>> stay in tact as it is a more evolved form of the THIS. The THAT will
>> exist solely for an instant, only for the THIS to re-manifest itself
>> it in the THAT, thus becoming the THIS. When the original THIS is
>> destroyed, the THIS that was in the THAT is all that is left of the
>> THIS therefore becoming the THIS that creates another THAT. The
>> process repeated infinitely creates a three dimensional chain of loops
>> and a distinct pattern of motion. When the THIS creates the THAT it
>> follows an arc of a semi circle until it is directly above the THIS.
>> When the THIS disintegrates it follows the opposite arc as the
>> creation of the THAT but ends up at the THAT. This is the time that
>> the THIS blooms into the THAT making the THAT a THIS.
>
> Looks like you've got THIS and THAT all figured out... but what about
> THE OTHER?

It still does not address the issue of THESE and THOSE.

--
The Church of Our Lady of Prepetual Motion
Cathedral, Carwash and Dancehall- Home of the Traci Lords Memorial Brothel
Rev. DJ Epoch - proprietor and janitor
Divine Southern Redneck Yeti Clench Recruitment site: http://revdjepoch.COM

"If you want my delusions, you'll have to pry them from my cold,
dead hippocampus with a grapefruit spoon."
-- HellPope Huey


Correspondent:: "paco"
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:42 -0500

--------
When I'm doing it, I'm also doing that. Does that mean that I must be doing
this? Or does this mean that I must also be doing that? What hapeppens if
my partners is named this or that. Then am I doing this or that to this or
that? Is that it? Is it that? This is why you should stay in school. Or
that is why.