You really want me to respond to this?  Why not just own up to the fact that you
made a few slips and let it go? We all make errors. This is a discussion group,
not a history exam, for crying out loud.

Don't trip over your own words even more than you already have, iow. OTOH, if, as
I've come to suspect, when you write a post with a sig that has your name written
backwards, you mean it on an other-than-literal level, then I apologize for not
taking it in the spirit intended.

Jim Cobabe wrote:

> I've been thinking about this all day, and still cannot imagine how
> ignorance is reflected in one's appearance.  To appear "silly" would
> seem not to be a very exacting quality.  I would propose that we require
> some comparative or objective standard to judge the relative measure of
> "silly" appearance.
> I have been trying to envision Stephen Beecroft with his countenance
> marred by some hallmark indicator of ignorance.  Perhaps both of his
> eyes have migrated to one side, like a flounder.  Or perhaps both of his
> ears are constantly presented with the same aspect, like Mickey Mouse.
> I know what I look like, and would never argue that I look anything but
> silly, but I cannot say how this relates to the face of Beecroft.
> Stephen, help me out.  Please describe your appearance in detail.  What
> does true ignorance look like?  Exactly how is it "silly"?
> ---
> Mij Ebaboc

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to