RE: bits vs. barfs

Charles Kerr (
Wed, 20 May 1998 13:50:04 -0500

> > > <snip>
> > > In legal terms the answert to this this BLOW ME.
> > > <snip>

> > Tom, we fork bits here, not barfs. Could you
> > please move this garbage to an .advocacy newsgroup
> > or ZDNN "talkback" section where it belongs?

> I am sory. I forgot some folks on the list seem to
> need validation of thier ideas before they can intergrate,
> or is that bundle, them into thier own thought space. I forgot
> that unless you spoon feed the kiddes they might barf up
> on the meaty parts. Mea Culpa.
> Actualy, Im not goona flamer yer buttt like a slab of ribs
> over at tenese reds,
> instead ill be nice and offer you some advice on how youll
> never have to hear of me or my barfbits again.
> You could join AOL where they have a Tos plan so you can get
> folks who are "nasty and mean and barfy" kicked off.
> OR you could just filter me out. Yea, that would be better,.
> You could simply turn me off like a tap of Guinnes in an AA
> meeting.
> OR Oh i dont know, you could maybe realize that somefolks
> have thoughts and opinons on subjects that are not classifed
> away to some predefined pidgeon hole or supported by a
> reffernce list.

It's not thoughts or opinions that are pidgeonholed
to .advocacy groups or zdnn "talkback" sections; it's the
vacuous delivery (ie, "In legal terms: BLOW ME"; "you want
socialistic reforms go peddle it to...well wher ever
they still do that") etc. If you're going to write, make
it worth reading, nu?

I didn't say anything about spattering gratuitous URLs
across your posts either, but your rebuttal sent
me RoTFL anyway. Very cute sendup of Adam's posts.

(...what do you get when you mess with the I Find Karma Police?)