Sorry friends, I've down my best to fix 'em but that dang market mechanism, do't ya know

-- (DickCheney@ICU.gasping), June 29, 2001

Answers

It's all cpr's fault

-- (Enron@the.ready), June 29, 2001.

Our cheapest gas climbed up from the 1.45 range over the last couple months and has peaked at about 1.65.

I don't know who is trying to push this load of crap on us, but our prices are NOT going down.

-- (dick@my.ass), June 29, 2001.

cbsmarketwatch.com is pushing this load of crap.

-- (Dickcheney@ICU.feigning_croaking_while_counting_Halliburton.options), June 29, 2001.

Don't know about all of this analysis; just know what is happening to the price of unleaded regular.

Last week it was 1.34 and nine. Yesterday when I filled the SUV it was 1.24 and nine. Today, when I filled the car, it was 1.23 and nine. It has been dropping by 10 cents a gallon per week for some time.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 29, 2001.

By-the-way:

The truck holds a world more of gas. I am not going to fill it until the price goes under 1.20. If the trend continues, that should be on Monday. :)

Best Wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 29, 2001.

Gasoline futures have been dropping like a rock for about three or four weeks. Look for further retail price drops at the pump.

Ah, there's good news tonight!

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), June 30, 2001.

Z,

I don't know where you live, but it definitely isn't the Pacific Northwest. Our prices haven't dropped a bit.

-- (look outside @ your. bubble), June 30, 2001.

Ours is $1.12.

-- not telling (not@telling.not), June 30, 2001.

Yeah, you better not tell anyone. I'm sure they will drive from hundreds of miles away just to come and save a couple bucks.

-- (what an idiot @ and a liar. too), June 30, 2001.

Not telling:

Don't know where you are but I know it was that low in Mississippi. Dropped another penny today. Down to 1.22.

Look outside. I spend a lot of time in PNW. Some in western Oregon but mostly in the Puget Sound region. Gas is always more expensive there than at home. It is due, at least in part, to the higher fuel taxes in Washington.

But you get something for that. You have the uncrowded, stress-free, driving on 405 and 520. I know that my state wouldn't have the money to build an elaborate, large parking lot like I-5 and my city couldn't consider building light rail from the airport to nowhere. *<))) You know this was a joke.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 30, 2001.

Z,

I don't know what you're talking about, never been to Washington, and there is no traffic where I live. Do their taxes affect the price in Oregon?

-- (look outside @ your. egocentric head), June 30, 2001.

You live in the PNW and haven't been to Washington!!! There isn't all that much of the PNW. You should take the time to travel. The north Cascades area is one of the most awesome places in the country. Try it and you will have a good time. Just my experience.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 30, 2001.

The Oregon Cascades are even more awesome. There are a lot of things you tourists never get to see unless you live here.

-- (look outside @ your. experience), June 30, 2001.

Look outside:

I agree that the Oregon cascades are great [and the Oregon coast isn't chopped liver, either]. Most of my family lives in the area. Corvallis, Portland area, Seattle area, Bellevue, Kirkland, Mt Vernon, Anacortes, Bellingham and the Columbia valley. I have walked a lot of those mountains.

Still, outside of Alaska, the north Cascades and the Tetons top my awesome chart. Just my opinion.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 30, 2001.

"Corvallis, Portland area, Seattle area, Bellevue, Kirkland, Mt Vernon, Anacortes, Bellingham and the Columbia valley."

Hahaha! No wonder! Big cities, those places SUCK!

The East side of the Cascades in the National Forests is still unspoiled by you SUV-driving cellphone-packing city slickers, thank God, even though you come out and try to fuck it up on occasional weekend trips.

Anything looks good compared to a big filthy stinking traffic-filled city. Unless you live on the edge of a National Forest like I do, you just won't understand. It is a way of life, not just a weekend sightseeing trip.

-- (if you must visit @ don't stay. too long), June 30, 2001.

Corvallis, Mt Vernon, Anacortes, and Bellingham are big cities. Don't think so. The Columbia valley area that I am talking about is east of the mountains. Population of the town is 50. Eastern Washington and Oregon are nice. I spent some time there when I lived in Montana. But they are really deserts until approximately Spokane. Different kind of place. Nice but different. There is nothing more revealing than crossing the Blue Mountains. You live in a great place. Enjoy.

Actually, in terms of ecology, the PNW can be considered to extend to western Montana. I am using it in the most narrow sense; west of the Cascades.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 30, 2001.

"Actually, in terms of ecology, the PNW can be considered to extend to western Montana."

Duuuh, you think I don't know that, when I LIVE here??

"I am using it in the most narrow sense; west of the Cascades."

Even narrower in fact, you first assumed I was only referring to Washington! To be expected really, just goes to show that temporary visitors don't get much of the real experience.

-- (tourists @ are. clueless), June 30, 2001.

Duuuh, you think I don't know that, when I LIVE here??

Since my family has lived there since the early 1800's, I just have to come to some conclusions. Based on your knowledge of the PNW, my guess is you are a bored high school student in Toad Suck, Arkansas, working from a map. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 30, 2001.

Ha ha, very funny, asshole.

Remember, YOU are the tourist who made the assumption that the Pacific Northwest only included the area where your family lives, not me.

Better just stay home dipshit, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to anyplace else.

-- (stay inside @ your. egocentric head), June 30, 2001.

oh...hey hawk lol

-- (cin@cin.cin), June 30, 2001.

Cin:

You say that you are Cin; a trace says you are Chuck. I always wondered what your connection was with Hawk.

Webbie

-- Webbie (Websearcher@fun.fun), June 30, 2001.

Cin is Chuck?

WOW! That explains why that guy is such an asshole!!

ROTFL

-- (makes@sense.now), June 30, 2001.

trace this, dumbass

-- (cin@cin.cin), June 30, 2001.

and this

-- (cin@cin.cin), June 30, 2001.

"trace this, dumbass "

Chuck, good move, but I do this for full time work. You haven't lost me yet. You can only narrow this down to one to three people. You have proven that my guess was right.

Now, I am leaving. You are on your own.

Thanks for the fun.

Webbie

-- Webbie (Websearcher@fun.fun), June 30, 2001.

hate to be the one to break it to you....

i am not chuck

full-time work you say? {smirk}

-- (cin@cin.cin), June 30, 2001.

Net Ghost, is that you? Where you been?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmetnconspiracy@NWO.com), July 01, 2001.

Webbie,

A ‘websearcher’ are you?

Some wise advice from an old sage:

Don’t quit your day job just yet, assuming that you have one.

-- So (cr@t.es), July 01, 2001.

ALL MESSAGES AFTER THIS ONE SUBJECT TO THE LOVE DECREE!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 01, 2001.

I'm sorry but I don't love Hawk

-- sorry (i@can't.say it nope), July 06, 2001.

Down to $1.15 for regular unleaded here. How 'bout you?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 07, 2001.

Is $1.59 for regular considered a "collapse"? LOL.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 07, 2001.

omg 1.15?

we are still at above 2 for reg unleaded

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 07, 2001.

$138.9 for the cheap stuff at Diamond Shamrock, $140.9 at the Texaco across the street. I can't say if this is lower. If I need gas, I drive in and ask for $15.00 worth. It's not like I'm going to drive to Missouri [or even 5 miles away] for something cheaper.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 07, 2001.

Still holding at $1.28.9 in Iowa. Been there for the last three weeks. I think the high was $1.74.9.

$1.23.9 for ethanol, the Farm Bureau lobbies hard you know.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 07, 2001.

JBT, anywhere near Turin?

-- (relatives@in.iowa), July 07, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

You live in Iowa? I figured that you had to live out East someplace or in the Peoples Republic of California.

I am guessing that you live in a big city like Des Moines, not rurally or in a small town. And I would also guess that you are not from the midwest originally.

Of course, I could be wrong, and there might be some other explanation for your completely wrong views on firearms. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 07, 2001.

No, that is a tiny little town on the western side of the state. I'm in the southeastern part.

I've always meant to get over there though. I hear they have this shroud that has an image of Jesus Christ burnt into it. They claim it was his burial shroud. I understand it's a great tourist attraction!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 07, 2001.

LOL wizeguy

um J...you really shouldn't generalize this way. Not everyone in CA drives an SUV and has a cell-phone. There are vegetarians in midwestern states, and yes sushi and tofu is served nationally. I know personally a few gun advocates here in CA. Believe it.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 07, 2001.

Is it true that all gas is the same? Is Shell different from Amoco qualitywise?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 07, 2001.

Be patient with J, he is in training to be an adult someday. Maybe once he finds his OWN mind beyond what Rush and Golly North have impanted in his noodle, he may actually function rationally.

I didn't realize there we so many virgins around these days. Ya live and learn I guess.

-- (bushandclinton@twofaced.scum), July 07, 2001.

J,

Sorry, born and bred here on the prairie. Well actually I was born and raised near the loess hill area in the southwest part of the state. I have no problem with guns for hunting or really for defending yourself, family or property.

My hometown is not too far from Skidmore, Missouri, which is where they shot the town bully on Main Street. I really didn't have any problem with that situation either. Seems like it had to be done. I do have a problem with unlimited access to guns (especially automatic weapons), irresponsible care for guns (kids getting old dad's gun and shooting another kid) and those crackheads that go hunting and don't have a clue as to how to carry a shotgun and are a threat to themselves and others. On further thought I really don't care if the idiot hunters (mostly those from out of state though we do have our share of home grown ones) kill themselves through their stupidity.

I did get educated in the Peoples Republic of Iowa City so that probably explains my views about those people who want to stockpile arms because they are paranoid about the damn jack booted thugs of the guv'ment coming to get them. As an employee of a municipal government (thus by definition a jack booted thug)I tend to have a dim view on this line of thought as it could have a negative effect on my personal enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In fact I live not too far from a town where the part time Mayor was killed and several part time City Councilmembers were wounded by some guy because his sewer kept backing up. He just came to a City Council meeting and shot them. Now I now that have sewage in your basement is a frustrating and upsetting experience and I am sure that those elected officials really didn't want this man to have sewage in his basement but I certainly don't think anyone should have lost their life over the matter.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a hick from Iowa, we don't know anything, just ask anyone from Minnesota.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 07, 2001.

(bushandclinton@twofaced.scum) and cin are correct. Between the endless hours spent worshipping Rush Limbaugh and Reverend Billy Graham, and praying with kneepads on for the opportunity to be Dumbya's full-time cocksucker, he has no time available to see the real world. He knows only what he is spoonfed by rightwing fanatics.

Don't push him too hard though, he is so insecure and paranoid that he always has his weapons nearby, and is too unstable to know how to use them in a responsible manner. If his delusions are shattered, he's likely to kill innocent people or himself.

-- (J is a boy @ in a. man's body), July 07, 2001.

please do me a favor and don't agree with anything i say

yer scary

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 07, 2001.

cin,

I realize that not everyone in California is a socialist like that once great state's two Senators are, nor did I say that everyone in California was.

Actually, generalizing is a helpful tool. It is when one fails to realize that generalizations don't always hold that one often makes errors. Take twofaced.scum as a perfect example. Besides, I am fairly certain that Jack Booted Thug understands that I was just needling him a little, as he and I so often do.


Jack Booted Thug,

I have to ask why you seem to differ in your beliefs that it is fine to defend yourself, family, or property from criminal elements, but not from the government, should the need arise. Do you believe that the government is above such behavior?

Can you be more specific by what you mean when you say "unlimited access to guns (especially automatic weapons)..."?

I have heard that Iowa City is the most liberal area of the entire state, and that those in academia there are all too glad to try and make young minds see the "enlightenment" of their liberal views.

I disagree that you are a "jack booted thug" just because of your employ with a municipal government. Unless, of course, you are the head of a heavily armed task force that goes door to door throughout your town searching for weapons. : )

In regards to your story of the mayor who was killed, was he killed with an automatic weapon, a military type semi-automatic weapon, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun? The reason that I ask, of course, is that he was most likely killed with one of the last three types of weapons that I listed. Two of those three are most often used for hunting (of which you approve), and the other is often used for self defense (of which you also approve).

How do you propose stopping another such incident without infringing on the rights of those who legally own firearms to hunt and protect themselves? Or, in other words, how do you propose to ensure your rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", without infringing on the very same rights of someone else?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 07, 2001.

What a small world. My aunt lives in Grinnell. I go there every year to visit. It's a purdy town but it just proves there are fruits raised everywhere.

-- (What@coin.cidence), July 07, 2001.

Sheesh, you gun fanatics are really fucked up in the head, going on and on all day long, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, with your endless whining about your right to defend yourself. Who the hell is attacking you? Do you live in such a fucked up place that someone is trying to kill you every day? If the government wants to take something from you, do you honestly think you can stop them with your pitiful cache of toys? BWAAAHAHAHAAHAAA!!! Get a clue! You should go rap with the likes of Zog and the Sleazy fanatics, they will enjoy your daily reaffirmation of their paranoid delusions.

-- (must be terrible @ to be as. paranoid as J), July 07, 2001.

anonymous coward,

For you, I am sure that was an extremely well thought out post. Unfortunately, the world is much more complex than your simple thought processes can comprehend.

Now run along, as I am sure that somewhere on cable you can find professional wrestling.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 07, 2001.

"Unfortunately, the world is much more complex than your simple thought processes can comprehend."

Hahaha! Good answer.

It's true, paranoid delusions are complex. Unfortunately for you, they cannot be rationally explained by any actual reality-based circumstances. Like the mother who killed her 5 children, your neuroses can only be explained in one way, just another case of a person with a diseased mind.

-- (get@help.sicko), July 07, 2001.

anonymous coward,

It was an excellent answer, but your misplaced laugh betrayed the fact that you didn't really understand that it was.

Just because you are simple enough to believe that government is always looking out for your best interests, and that everyone that you encounter means you no harm, that doesn't mean that those of us who are wise enough to know better are paranoid.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 07, 2001.

My "misplaced" laugh was because your answer was a cop out, you didn't answer me at all. You're just another paranoid coward who lives his entire life in fear that someone is trying to kill him. Here's another laugh, definitely not misplaced, at your pathetic excuse for a life...

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAA!!

-- (God @ hates a. coward), July 07, 2001.

anonymous coward,

You have the audacity to say that I am a coward? LOL.

You cowardly post from a different handle each time, and by the sounds of it, you would rather take the risk of letting prison parolees have their way with your family than own a gun, so that noone can say that you are "paranoid".

There is definitely a coward in this conversation, but I highly doubt that you are intelligent enough to figure out who it is.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 07, 2001.

LOL is right! Talk about stupid, you don't even know what a spineless piece of shit you are!

What about the example set by Jesus, who you claim to worship, yet seem too gutless to follow? Did he pull out an AK47 when confronted with death? Hell no, he died like a man!

Many men in this day and age keep a gun at home for hunting, or possibly to be able to chase a burglar out of the house if they are lucky. Few men however, are such cowards that they live their entire life in fear, endlessly whining on an on about how someone is trying to take their toys away. You're the sorriest excuse for a man that ever lived! Women have more balls than you!!

The odds are greater that you will be hit by lightning than gunned down by another human, are you going to cry about this too? There comes a time for every man to die, so why don't you just grow a pair of balls and accept it? Be like Jesus!

-- J is pitifully (weak in mind @ spirit. and body), July 07, 2001.

anonymous coward,

Judging by your increased use of exclamation points, I believe that I have hit a nerve. It must have been the part about you being woefully inadequate in protecting your family.

A likely scenario is that you have previously failed to protect a loved one, and now you are trying to justify that failure by trying to convince yourself that you were right not to have had a gun; that to have a gun is somehow a sign of paranoia, or that to have a gun somehow equates to being evil.

Of course, stopping evil is much preferable to allowing evil to succeed. Deep down, you know this, but your lack of preparedness that allowed evil to triumph over you haunts you to this day.

It is truly too bad that you have failed miserably in the past. That failure is now continually dogging your every thought. A competent therapist might be able to help you, but then again, maybe not.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 08, 2001.

Yes coward boy J, there you go again, generalizing like Rush Limbaugh, making statements about others that are nothing but lies, all of them. Just wondering, when you go to confession, do you actually tell the priest about all of the times you have lied? It would take him the rest of his life to listen to you if you actually did!

-- (J boy @ is far. from Christian), July 08, 2001.

It would be awfully hard to kill a pit bull with a shovel. There's my number one reason for owning a gun.

-- helen (dogs@dumped.often), July 08, 2001.

anonymous coward,

It is funny, after all of the outright lies that you have written about me, to hear this whine emanate from your post: "there you go again, ... making statements about others that are nothing but lies, all of them".

So tell me, you anonymous little coward, what exactly was it that I posted that got you so riled up that you almost wore out the exclamation point on your keyboard? My post was fairly short, and its main point was that you seem to prefer that your family go unprotected instead of you owning a gun, and thus risk the label of "paranoid". Did I hit a nerve, or was your medication just wearing off at the time?


helen,

The anonymous coward will be accusing you of cowardice for that statement. In his world, nothing bad can happen, and if you prepare in any way, then you are not trusting in God, and you are a coward.

Of course, he owns insurance on his home and car, but that is a different story. LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 08, 2001.

Again, the coward J-boy has avoided answering the question. Instead, he continues to manufacture untruths about others. His deceitful pattern of behavior shows that he is not a Christian, but a follower of Satan. He only tells people he is a Christian as part of his deception.

-- (J-boy pretty damn fucking far @ from. Christian), July 08, 2001.

anonymous coward,

What "question" have I not answered?

I have not "manufactured untruths about others". I have merely posted my opinions, and I have taken what you have posted and extrapolated potential scenarios. Feel free to clarify if I am off course.

Now you, on the other hand, seem only capable of posting outright lies about me. What were you saying about a "deceitful pattern of behavior"? LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 08, 2001.

Previous questions, still unanswered.

Who the hell is attacking you?

Do you live in such a fucked up place that someone is trying to kill you every day?

If the government wants to take something from you, do you honestly think you can stop them with your pitiful cache of toys?

Just wondering, when you go to confession, do you actually tell the priest about all of the times you have lied?

Like the coward that you are, you chose to avoid them. Instead, you changed the subject to telling lies about others that you know nothing about.

-- (J is a gutless coward @ case. closed), July 08, 2001.

Gosh, when I went to confession, I finished up pretty quick and the priest sat there in silence for a minute. Then he said, "That's all? That's IT? You haven't been to confession in years and that's ALL you have to say? :)

-- guess who (b@d.confession), July 08, 2001.

J has a LOT of things to confess to his priest, many hateful and cowardly acts toward his fellow man. Truth is he is not even a Christian. If he were he would be in church today, instead of posting spiteful lies on the Internet.

-- (J is a servant @ of. Satan), July 08, 2001.

anonymous coward,

Oh, I see. You were trying to ask actual questions, not rhetorical ones, in your original, profanity laced post. Here is a little hint for the future: if you actually want to ask someone a meaningful question that you expect them to answer, try not to use such crude language and take such an insulting tone. Normally I would not respond to questions unless someone asked nicely, but I am highly doubtful that you have enough refinement to do so.

"Who is attacking you"? It could be an abandoned pit bull, or a rattlesnake, or a mountain lion, or a rabid skunk or raccoon. Or it could be a prison parolee, unreformed but hardened, by his too short stay. Or it could be a road rager, like the man in Spokane recently. Or it could be a psychopath, or it could be someone who is just plain evil. Or it could end up being my own government.

"Do you live in such a f**ked up place that someone is trying to kill you every day"? Your ignorance clearly shows with that question. Someone doesn't have to try to kill you every day, little cretin. They just have to try to kill you on one day. Please enlighten me with which day that will be.

As far as a place being dangerous, do you mean like Spokane, or Dallas, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or New York, or Atlanta, or Springfield? I am quite sure that in all of those places, and in hundreds more across this country, someone has been killed, raped, beaten, mugged, robbed, or similarly injured in the last week.

"If the government wants to take something from you, do you honestly think you can stop them with your pitiful cache of toys". Ah, but you certainly are a coward.

The government may succeed in taking many things from me, maybe even my life, but they would not do so without a cost. The one thing that the government would never be able to take from me is my freedom.

You, on the other hand, would apparently eagerly trade your freedom for the existence of a slave, should conditions ever come to that. Your cowardice disgusts me. Your mere existence shames all Americans who have died for freedom.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

Apparently J is not a Catholic.

-- (too@funny.haha), July 09, 2001.

BWAAAAAHAHAAAAAHAAAAHAHAAAA!!!!

You're afraid of a little snake or a racoon?? LMAO!!!

As I said, you are truly a spineless coward, hiding behind a gun.

Tsk, tsk. What a pitiful excuse for a human being. Jesus hangs his head in shame when he looks down upon you.

-- (J is weak @ and. spineless), July 09, 2001.

A question for the anon coward...were you an abused child or something? Are people like you born or created and developed? What has developed this over-the-top hatred towards Christians? I mean, you are a psychiatrists dream come true.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 09, 2001.

J: I forgot which thread had the statement by JBT that people didn't purchase a gun to defend themselves against the government, wherein you replied that you'd done [or intend to do] just that, but I'm ALSO curious to learn why you feel a need to defend yourself from TPTB. As usual, I can only look through my own eyes, but the only time I fear TPTB is when I break a law [and KNOW I break a law.] May I ask about the impetus that led/leads you to fear TPTB? I'm not looking for a generic response like "Anything COULD happen." I'm looking for specific examples of why you suddenly see/saw the need to purchase what sounded like a pretty fancy weapon specifically to thwart TPTB.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

Anita,

I don't think that it was Jack Booted Thug, but I do recall the thread of which you speak. I will gladly try to answer your questions.

I don't, at this precise moment, feel a need to defend myself from "TPTB", as you label it. But I do, currently and always, feel the need to be vigilant against government, and to be ready to defend myself, should the need arise. History is full of instances where governments have trampled on the rights of their citizens, and I have no reason to believe that our government is above doing the same.

Government is a necessary evil, and as such, I am ever suspicious of it. However, I do not fear it, as you appear to think.

As far as your question as to why I have "suddenly" decided to purchase a military style semi-automatic rifle, the answer is fairly simple. First, it was not a "sudden" decision; it is something that I have contemplated for years. Second, I have only somewhat recently become aware of how well such rifles hold their value. Thus, the decision to purchase one has been redefined from that of an expense, to that of an investment. Not necessarily an investment like a stock or a bond, mind you, but certainly not an expense like an automobile or a refrigerator.

I hope that answers your questions, but feel free to ask more if I have not.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

If you're not doing anything illegal, the government's not interested in you.

Only paranoids considering killing innocent people own semi- automatic rifles.

-- (Federal @agent.man), July 09, 2001.

J: Thanks for the response, but, well, your answer WAS in the form of the generic. MY "anything could happen" is similar to your "History is full of examples...". You ALSO then went on to include this purchase as an investment. If even HALF of your mind was considering this purchase as an investment, doesn't that mean that you didn't purchase the weapon with the sole intent of defending yourself against TPTB? [I use the term The Power That Be to include the local police, the local government, and the Federal Government.]

You ALSO dismiss my use of the term FEAR. I'm not endearing any "cowardice" connotation to the word FEAR. If I fear that I will get lice, it would seem prudent to have some product on hand that will kill those lice. If I have no fear of that happening, it would seem silly.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

"If you're not doing anything illegal, the government's not interested in you".

Tell that to the kids they torched in Waco, Vicki Weaver, the man in California that was killed when the cops executed a no knock search for drugs on the wrong house, approximately six million Jews, millions of Russians, who knows how many Chinese, and various others that I have forgotten to mention.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

holi sh*t, sumbuddy pays $138-140 a gallon for fuel?!? and they buy $15 buxworth? whatsthat, like a 1/2 cup or so?

-- (no@wonder.you.don't.gt.out), July 09, 2001.

"Tell that to the kids they torched in Waco, Vicki Weaver, the man in California that was killed when the cops executed a no knock search for drugs on the wrong house, approximately six million Jews, millions of Russians, who knows how many Chinese, and various others that I have forgotten to mention. " -- J

J, I support your right to keep any firearms you choose, as long as you keep them away from irresponsible users and aren't committing violent crime.

In your examples above, adults in the Waco compound and in the Weaver household had firearms and it didn't help. The man who was killed by mistake didn't have a chance to get to a gun, so even if he had one it didn't help.

My mother in law tells the story about how her grandmother saw Nazis arrive at the house next door with a local gun registration list. When the neighbors could not produce the gun listed under their names, the entire household was shot to death in the yard. Even the kids. In this case they did have gun registration and they didn't have the gun, and it didn't help. I think this was in Poland.

Millions of Jews, Chinese, Native Americans and Russians didn't fight back when LAWS were enacted against their rights as citizens. By the time they were dying, it was too late.

If you have to fight your government with a gun, then you've already lost the war.

The war starts with the people who are allowed to govern. When a law squeezes you a little, and you have more pressing concerns like getting the crops in and having another baby, you let it go. You let it go for the same reason when it squeezes again. You let it go when it squeezes your neighbor. You let it go when you're afraid saying something will cost you your job or your family. You let it go until it's time for you to get on the cattle car, and having a gun at that point will only guarantee a quicker death. (Not a bad thing, but not patriotic.)

I love you J, but if you really want to change things, you're gonna hafta run for president. :)

-- helen (squeeze@me.again), July 09, 2001.

Anita,

Sorry that my answer was not more specific, but I am currently unaware of any federal agent who is planning to specifically violate my rights. The trend for such an occurrence is certainly in place, but they usually don't call ahead to let you know exactly when they will be arriving. : )

Actually, a comet hitting Earth would be more like "anything could happen". "History is full of examples" denotes a certain recurring pattern, don't you think?

I don't believe that I have ever stated that I was contemplating purchasing that weapon for the "sole" intent of defending myself against the government. It is certainly the primary reason, but definitely not the "sole" reason.

I see. You meant fear as in "apprehension", not as in "fright". Yes, then I would agree with you.

Anita, your lice analogy is so very appropriate. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

J, you are an ignoramus. The government can trample all over our freedoms without ever touching your guns, in fact they are doing it every day. The only way to change the course of the government is by using your mind and your voice. But like a child with a pacifier, if it helps you relax, keep sucking on them.

-- (J is a very @ naive. child), July 09, 2001.

helen,

Ultimately, firearms did not save the lives of anyone at Waco, nor the lives of Vicki and Sam Weaver; that is true. In both instances, firearms did exact a toll on the federal agents who were sent to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens; that is also true. As I said earlier to the anonymous coward, a gun does not ensure that the government will not be able to take much, possibly even your life, from you. It does, however, ensure your freedom, and it gives you a chance to exact a cost from them for their transgression.

I disagree with your statement that, "If you have to fight your government with a gun, then you've already lost the war". When the governments of the Jews, Chinese, Native Americans, and Russians enacted laws denying their rights as citizens, how could they fight back, if not with guns? I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

You are a wise woman, helen. You are dead on with your assessment of how the government incrementally takes away our rights rather than trying to do it in one fell swoop. That is why the NRA and we "gun fanatics" are ever vigilant. The story has unfolded too many times before for us to believe the rhetoric of the anti-gun left. Your tragic story of what happened in Nazi occupied Poland is why we will never accept gun registration laws.

I am afraid that not even me becoming President can change the course that we are on now. : (

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

Now that the thread drift is complete:

J said: "...federal agents who were sent to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens."

Are you saying that the Second Amendment gave Randy Weaver the right to sell sawed-off shotguns?

If not, which "Consitutional right" were the agents "sent to violate"?

If so, then I'm afraid that the SCOTUS, which is the constitionally-designated body for interpreting the Constitution, would not agree with you.

If you reject the court's authority in this matter, does that mean that you have taken to picking and choosing which parts of the constitution you adhere to and which parts you don't?

Just trying to get things straight here.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 09, 2001.

anonymous coward,

It is true that the government continually tries to take our freedom incrementally, but at this point, we are still essentially free. Without the specter of a heavily armed citizenry to deter them, where do you think we would be now?

As far as your belief that "The only way to change the course of the government is by using your mind and your voice", Thomas Jefferson and the other brave men who founded this country disagree with you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

Little Nipper,

Actually, I don't believe that you are "Just trying to get things straight here". Nonetheless, I will steer you straight.

No, I am not "saying that the Second Amendment gave Randy Weaver the right to sell sawed-off shotguns", as your purposefully misleading question suggests. It is, however, ironic that the federal agents who entrapped Randy Weaver did so by using the sawed-off shotgun, the only weapon that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically ruled is not protected under the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Unless you know something that I do not, Sam and Vicki Weaver both had a Constitutional right to life. Those rights were most certainly violated by the federal agents.

There, now you have been set straight.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

J: I want you to know that I spent some time this afternoon getting my car inspected. My previous inspection was in April of 2000, and I was LONG overdue [and fearing that TPTB would catch me in this act of criminality.]

Unless you know something that I do not, Sam and Vicki Weaver both had a Constitutional right to life. Those rights were most certainly violated by the federal agents.

This argument doesn't wash with me, J. I might just as well have lost my life defending myself against TPTB who tried to "entrap" me by pulling me over for an elapsed inspection sticker. The Weavers knew they were violating the law, J, just as *I* knew I was violating the law by not getting my vehicle inspected in accordance with state law.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

J said: "Sam and Vicki Weaver both had a Constitutional right to life. Those rights were most certainly violated by the federal agents."

OK. Since you assert that the ATF agents were "sent to violate" the Weavers's "right to life", I can only conclude you think they were sent there specifically to kill the Weavers. Why do you think that?

J said: "I don't believe that you are 'Just trying to get things straight here'."

Believe what you will. You made a very suggestive statement without it being clear what you were suggesting. To me that is a situation that needs to be set straight.

J said:"There, now you have been set straight."

Not quite. I would appreciate any further light you can shed on why you think the ATF agents were sent there to kill the Weavers. Surely you aren't just jumping to such conclusions blindly. There must be something behind what you said.

Clearly, once the Weavers started shooting at agents of the law, they forfeited their "right" not to be shot back at. So, I can hardly believe that you would base your conclusion about what the agents were "sent to" do simply by reference to what they did do. That would be a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which, as you know is a glaring logical fallacy.

I have faith you are smarter than that, J.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 09, 2001.

I love you Little Nipper. I know your family is in mourning and I wouldn't upset you for the world. However, I disagree with your assessment of the Weaver incident. Apparently a jury agreed with the Weaver's side, awarding the family monetary damages for what was done to them by government agents. If you read the entire miserable story from start to finish, you may have a different opinion of what happened there. I don't know if the state of Idaho was successful in bringing felony charges against one of the agents, but I know the state tried.

Please find sources that you trust and read the whole story.

-- helen (is@that.loaded), July 09, 2001.

Anita,

Your analogy is way off base. Let me give you a much better one.

Let's say that an undercover federal agent poses as a friend to your daughter, because he knows that she is a friend of someone that they want to target. Next let's say that the federal agent knows that your daughter is strapped for cash, so he offers to pay her well if she buys a large lot of cold tablets, which contain an ingredient that can be cooked into meth.

Now your daughter knows that this is illegal, but she really needs the money, and this is a friend of hers. Besides, it's just some cold tablets, not murder. Well, she buys the cold tablets, and when she takes them to her "friend", she is busted for delivery of a controlled substance, or some such charge.

The feds aren't interested in your daughter, they want to get to her friend, so they offer her immunity on the cold tablet charge if she'll become an informant for them. Feeling quite betrayed, she politely tells them to find another snitch. Upset that their plan didn't work, the feds don't necessarily feel any great love for your daughter.

Onward the story unfolds. A court date is set, but your daughter doesn't get the notice mailed to her until after the date of the hearing! Thus, another charge is added to the one already pending against your daughter. Seeing the writing on the wall after that royal screw job, she vows to make them come and get her rather than show up for a future kangaroo court date. That is probably not the best move that she has ever made, but it certainly isn't a capital offense, either.

Fast forward about a year and a half. Your daughter has almost put the situation out of her mind, but the federal agents certainly haven't. They have been staking out your home for some time, and they plan on making your daughter an example.

The problem is that while two federal marshalls are watching you from the back of your property, your significant other, a family friend, and your dog bump into them while hunting. Without identifying themselves, one of the federal marshalls opens fire. Later the claim would be that he was only shooting at your dog, which may or not have been true.

Faced with the situation of two men in camouflage on his property opening fire, your significant other (and the family friend) return fire. In the ensuing gun battle, one of the federal marshalls, and your significant other, are killed.

A siege follows, and because of your remote home location (few neighbors to report what really happens), and the track record of government officials thus far, your daughter is reluctant to give up because she is, quite understandably, in fear for her life. To drive that point home, while the siege wears on, an FBI sniper executes your other daughter through a window of your home. Finally, after intervention by a high profile lawyer that you trust, your daughter surrenders, and the siege ends.

If that analogy sounds far- fetched to you, it shouldn't. It is basically what happened to the Weaver family. If you think that the federal government acted appropriately during that story, than you are, quite frankly, nuts.

Oh, in the end, all serious charges against your daughter were dropped, and she was paid over $3 million in compensation for the government killing off various members of her family.

Now how does the argument wash?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

helen: "Apparently a jury agreed with the Weaver's side, awarding the family monetary damages for what was done to them by government agents."

I am aware of that, helen. (BTW, I love you, too.) And I am very certain that federal ATF and FBI agents acted improperly and went well beyond what was required by legitimate law enforcement in that case.

But that is a far cry from saying that the ATF or the FBI agents were "sent to violate" their "right to life". To me, that is just a roundabout way of saying the agents were directed by a superior to murder the Weavers.

My regard for the FBI and its agents is none too high. Same goes for the ATF. My regard for juries is much higher. But I don't think it is right to make that kind of an accusation without sufficient evidence. I think it is even slimier to make the accusation by way of insinuation, as J chose to do it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 09, 2001.

Little Nipper,

Fair enough. I should have gone into more detail.

Sam and Vicki Weaver's right to life was the most important right that was violated, but it was not the only right that was violated. Their rights to liberty and "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" were also violated.

I do not know, nor claim, that the federal agents were sent to violate their right to life. I certainly claim that the federal agents were sent to deny the Weavers their right to liberty, and especially their right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Actually, even if the Weavers had started shooting at government agents (rather than returning fire in self defense, as was the case), Vicki Weaver still had the right not to be executed by an FBI sniper. The courts have ruled as much.


According to helen's post, you have lost a loved one. Even though we often find ourselves opposing each other on these threads, I extend sincere sympathy to you at this time. May comfort and peace envelope you and your family.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

I still don't "buy" it, J. I'm pretty sure that my daughter is being used by the police to "catch" a guy who lives in the house they share for selling drugs. She's ALWAYS strapped for cash. You may have read about how the house in which she lives was "raided" recently [leaving Maria to ASSUME that my daughter was arrested.] She wasn't, and HE wasn't either. The "raid" didn't find much of ANYTHING.

Had the kids who live there opened fire on the police, I'm sure the story would have played out differently. None of the kids were armed, and the police arrested a few kids for traffic warrants. They were released shortly thereafter.

YOU seem to feel that minor injustices warrant firearms in a rural situation, but you ALSO seem to feel that these same injustices are acceptable in an urban environment. Would you feel the same pity for a young woman in the ghetto who was strapped for cash? Would you feel the same pity for the urban black folks who suggest daily that they were just walking down the street when "THE MAN pulled me over and shot my dog."?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

BTW, I want to point out that I appreciate y'all [whoever] keeping me alert. My son is flying in tonight [stand-by], and so far I THINK he made a flight that will get here about 9:45pm. If he missed THAT one, I may be here longer. I've already done everything that needed to be done in preparation for his visit, so I'm a bit tired, but afraid I'll fall asleep.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

Anita,

No, I had no clue as to any police activity at your daughter's abode. I only used your family members in place of the Weaver family members in my analogy so that you could more readily empathize with them. Apparently you can't.

Your comment about "had the kids opened fire on the police" has no resemblance to the Weaver situation. Try, "had the police opened fire on the kids", instead.

If that had been the case at your daughter's house, and she had been shot by the police, would that still have been acceptable with you? Would you feel that the police had acted inappropriately, or would you consider that to be a just punishment for your daughter for continuing to live in the same house with someone that she knows is selling drugs? Apparently you believe that it was just punishment for Sam and Vicki Weaver.

I "seem to feel that minor injustices warrant firearms in a rural situation"!?!?! "Minor injustices"!?!?! You call armed federal marshalls opening fire on your son and a family friend in your own back yard a "minor injustice"! I think that you need to get some sleep, Anita. You are ceasing to make any sense at all.

And for the record, I do not feel that those same injustices are acceptable in an urban environment, either. Where did you come up with that idea?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

J,

do you ever leave the house?

-- (jez@wondrin.), July 09, 2001.

anonymous coward,

Why don't you have the guts to post from a consistent handle?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 09, 2001.

And fuck up being so consistently inconsistent???

That is not in the trolls credo.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 10, 2001.

BTW, ethanol is up to $1.28.9/gal. today. Looks like the Farm Bureau is losing ground.

Sorry for the interruption. Locked and loaded? Resume!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), July 10, 2001.

Dennis --

You said:

"Unless you know something that I do not, Sam and Vicki Weaver both had a Constitutional right to life."

There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed "right to life." Not even for already-born, walking-around folks. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but such a right simply does not exist.

You also said:

"Of course, he owns insurance on his home and car, but that is a different story. LOL."

In my state, I am legally obligated to have car insurance. And my mortgage lender, a rather typical local bank, requires me to carry insurance on my home; therefore, I think your argument about insurance was ill-placed. Again, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I think you missed some very salient points.

-- Already Done Happened (oh,yeah@it.did.com), July 10, 2001.

"J,

do you ever leave the house?

-- (jez@wondrin.), July 09, 2001."

Bwaahahahahaaahaa!!

Funny, I was thinking the same thing! I think J is a super-paranoid. He spends all of his time on this forum, so he can't be working. Probably collecting some kind of gubmint disability handout for post-traumatic stress disorder or some shit like that. A nutcase. When he isn't posting on the net, he's peeking out his windows, looking for someone who might be coming to take his guns away, his only real sense of security. He's the kind of guy we will read about in the papers soon, his mind will snap and he'll take his AK-47 to McDonald's and waste about 30 people, thinking that they are government agents spying on him.

ROTFLMAO!!

-- bwaaahahaha (J has @ no. balls), July 10, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

I was hoping that you and I could have a serious discussion about the Second Amendment and related topics. Alas, that was many posts and anonymous cowards ago.



Hawk,

You said:

"There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed 'right to life'".

I am not trying to start an argument, but the Fifth Amendment of the United States' Constitution clearly states that, "nor (shall any person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Car insurance is not mandatory in every state. Nor is every homeowner obligated to have homeowner's insurance. The anonymous coward may also have chosen to own life and health insurance, as well. My point was that the anonymous coward, due to his closed little mind, was being hypocritical when he derided the choice of others to own firearms, while he himself most likely has chosen to avail himself to more politically correct forms of insurance.



yet another anonymous coward,

Actually, I made my fortune rather early in life, and now I don't work; I am independently wealthy. Because of this fact, I am blessed with an extraordinary amount of free time that you french fry flingers are not.

I live out in the middle of nowhere not because I am paranoid, but because, unfortunately, all too many people are like you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 10, 2001.

I live out in the middle of nowhere not because I am paranoid, but because, unfortunately, all too many people are like you.

Living life as a rather bitter (and yes, paranoid) hermit isn't the way to go, J.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), July 10, 2001.

Oww! J, I spent several years in food service (toilet detail to management), and the disrespect shown to food handlers is irritating. My coworkers and I made a point of keeping our premises and food handling practices squeaky clean because we were professionals just like employees in other professions should be. The profit margin in food service is low due to fluctuations (usually UP) in food prices, and labor costs have to be kept as low as possible. That means managers make up the extra labor during slow times. It's a hot, heavy, labor-intensive job under conditions of time limitations and the necessity of remaining continuously pleasant even when customers are rude and abusive.

Guess what? We knew customers thought we were stupid. They made it obvious. They ordered us around using tones of voice that they wouldn't use on their dogs. They made messes on their tables that they wouldn't dream of making at their own. They allowed their children to be rude, abusive, demanding, and underfoot. They complained about the price of the food even though the prices were standard for the area, clearly posted, and fair. They kept employees running back and forth with several petty requests that were above and beyond normal service, and then announced "I don't believe in leaving tips." They believed employees should be paid a living wage sans tips without seeming to realize the raise would seriously affect the price of the meal.

Most of my dedicated coworkers left the business. I recently went back part time. The employees were mostly underage. They came to work late or not at all. They whined about having to do the jobs they were hired to do. They stood around gossiping with customers standing in line waiting to be served. They didn't seem to understand the germ theory of disease, and the back area was filthy. They didn't rotate food properly, a serious health risk for customers. Most of all, they didn't care.

They were the children of my former customers. They were the children who watched their folks treat adult food service workers like shit. They had absorbed the lesson that food service work wasn't good enough. Unfortunately, they were too young to get any other job. They wanted their paychecks but were too good to do the job.

Attitudes like yours toward food service workers drove the good ones out a long time ago, J. Because I love you, here's a tip: NEVER eat from a salad bar in any establishment. NEVER.

-- helen (would@you.like.salmonella.with.that), July 10, 2001.

"They were the children of my former customers."

Amen! Ain't it the truth? Way to go, helen! You made my day, again!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 10, 2001.

You're generalizing again, helen. I own a small restaurant and I'm proud of the work we do. Our food is safer than most kitchens in homes or restaurants in the world, and I take offense to your condemnation. But what else can we expect from someone like you?

-- (Small @ business.man), July 10, 2001.

Bemused,

You wrote, "Living life as a rather bitter (and yes, paranoid) hermit isn't the way to go, J". Then by all means, change your lifestyle.


helen,

I did not mean to paint all food service workers with the same brush. My "french fry flingers" comment was aimed at those eager to whine, yet uneager to work, types that you described in the latter part of your post.

I cannot speak for others, but in real life I am always polite and respectful to those who serve and wait on others as their employment, for it wasn't all that long ago that I was a young man doing the very same thing.

Even when I encounter the "french fry flingers" that you so accurately described, I am cordial. Should they do an extremely poor job, I will often alert management to the problem. Depending on management's response, and on future performance, I will sometimes discontinue doing business with the establishment. On rare occasions, I have even felt compelled to warn everyone that I know to steer clear of certain establishments.

As I said earlier, it wasn't all that long ago that I was where those who wait on, and serve others, are now. As such, I am quick to call excellent service to the attention of management. Based on their all too often surprise, I would guess that few do this much anymore.

As far as tipping goes, I read something once that has stayed with me to this day. It often only takes only a dollar or two more to turn an average tip into something above average. That one tip may make a waitress or waiter's entire night go better. Where else can one get that kind of impact for just a few bucks?

It wasn't my attitude that drove the good food service workers out, helen. My attitude came after the quality of work had already declined.

Oh, and thanks for the salad bar tip. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 10, 2001.

Small business man, you made a good point. If you hire the highest quality employees, if you make certain your employees practice the highest standards of personal hygiene and kitchen cleanliness, and if you can inspect the process yourself at any point -- go ahead and eat from the salad bar. The rest of you, be careful. :)

J, in the end the customers weren't the ones who drove me out. It was the 16 year old girl who was about to slay hundreds with her sloppy rotation (what rotation?) of salad bar items. She said the way she was doing it was right because that was the way she had chosen to do it. When informed that she might hurt or kill someone, she said she didn't care and no one would be able to trace it to her anyway. The same attitude was present in the kid who dipped silverware in plain, dirty, cold water and pronounced them "clean enough". Ditto the cook who took out the trash, picked up wet bathroom trash from the floor, and wiped his hands on his butt on his way back to the kitchen.

Do you want me stop before I tell you about the kid who blew his nose into the ... ?

-- helen eats in (eat@joes.if.you.dare), July 10, 2001.

"I live out in the middle of nowhere not because I am paranoid, but because, unfortunately, all too many people are like you."

LOL - That's what Ted Kacynski the Unabomber said when they asked him why he lived in a shack in Montana!

-- (bwwaaaa@haaaa.haaaaa!), July 10, 2001.

The Jerry Springer show must have ended.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 10, 2001.

J, I'm curious, do you carry a gun and keep one in your car every time you leave the house, say, to run down to the market or the bank for example?

-- helen an inquiring mind (who.wants@to.know), July 10, 2001.

helen,

I don't keep a gun in my car. I believe that could be quite unsafe.

I almost always carry a loaded handgun concealed on my person when I leave home. I say almost, because there are certain times that I don't. When I am going swimming, for instance. I haven't found a reliable water-proof holster that fits under my trunks, yet. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 10, 2001.

How sad, that you have become a prisoner of fear. Do you think you will ever get some balls and learn to enjoy life without fear? I love you J, so I hope some day you will. :)

-- helen (we all die @ when. our time comes), July 10, 2001.

YIPPEE! I have arrived! I got my own troll!

-- helen (troll@me.baby), July 10, 2001.

helen,

Welcome to the club!

In my opinion, you were long overdue. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 10, 2001.

J, I didn't ask you the gun question. You can always double check by email if you aren't sure.

-- helen (this_a_real_address@yahoo.com), July 10, 2001.

I felt so left out, like no one took me seriously enough to troll me. But now I'm just like one of the guys, right? >;)

-- helen (this_a_real_address@yahoo.com), July 10, 2001.

helen,

I'm sure that many here have always considered you a regular. Of course, having your very own impostor troll definitely seals the deal. : )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), July 10, 2001.

I wanna dress my troll in cute little outfits with matching jewelry and I will love it and feed it and squeeze it and ...

-- helen (this_a_real_address@yahoo.com), July 10, 2001.

Helen--

Your description of some restaurants confirms my worst suspicions. Yet I continue to eat out, including fast-food. I rationalize that if I do this often enough, I will build anti-bodies to all teen-borne germs.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.co), July 10, 2001.