blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:02:00 -0600, Cuthbert Thistlethwaite wrote:
>
> > Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But what is really disgusting is that people are so quick to give him a
pass
> >> on this one.
> >
> > What is really disgusting is not that many people don't care about
> > Phelps' bong, but the stubborn persistence of booze-soaked, cross-eyed,
> > religion-addled republican "values". Red-nose lush family values.
> >
> > I have long wondered whether bone-head religions cause heavy drinking,
> > or whether heavy drinking causes bone-head religions. It might be sort
> > of a mix, back and forth, in a vicious and endless causal circle.
> >
>
> now, now. to be fair, it's not drinking that is the fundamentalists'
> secret vice. more often it's icky homosex. meth seems to be optional.
>


Hey, blake, didja see on CNN where some doG - fearing Louisiana senator
repented about a tawdry affair he had a coupla years ago with a
stripper-escort. The gal is going to run for his Senate seat, lol...if I
lived in LA I'd be first in line to vote for her.


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:18:16 -0600, Kathleen wrote:
>
>> From a strictly medical standpoint I've seen lots of people drink
>>themselves to death. In point of fact, to kill yourself with weed you'd
>>need about a three hundred pound bale, hoisted approximately 50 feet up
>>then have it dropped directly onto your head.
>>
>
>
> can you get high from that?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Nope, but I bet you can get pretty damned flat.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Dave Smith >
> m: in rec.food.cooking
>
>
>>Dave to one of the PeterL people:
>
>
>>And surely you can get it through your head that laws can be changed.
>>Booze was illegal in the US for a while. The law changed. Pot is
>>illegal now. There is no good reason for it. If it is a matter of
>>morality, like the Prohibition of liquor was, then legalizing one vice
>>sets a precedent. Opening stores on Sundays used to be illegal too.
>>That law changed.
>
>
> Exactly. A lot of it has to do with tax revenues also. When the coffers
> start to run dry a new source of tax revenue needs to be found. Voila,
> alcohol was then legal. When that was taxed to death something else
> needed to be found. It goes on and on. I suspect when government finds a
> way to regulate weed sales the sale of it will become legal and a whole
> new source of tax revenue will be generated. They'd better be quick. Tax
> revenue on tobacco sales is shrinking because fewer people are smoking.

I could get behind legalizing it. Legitimize the growers, make 'em
claim their income, cut the criminals and importers out of the loop and
tax the bejesus out of the end product.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
>> And surely you can get it through your head that laws can be changed.
>> Booze was illegal in the US for a while. The law changed. Pot is
>> illegal now. There is no good reason for it. If it is a matter of
>> morality, like the Prohibition of liquor was, then legalizing one vice
>> sets a precedent. Opening stores on Sundays used to be illegal too.
>> That law changed.
>
> Exactly. A lot of it has to do with tax revenues also. When the coffers
> start to run dry a new source of tax revenue needs to be found. Voila,
> alcohol was then legal. When that was taxed to death something else
> needed to be found. It goes on and on. I suspect when government finds a
> way to regulate weed sales the sale of it will become legal and a whole
> new source of tax revenue will be generated. They'd better be quick. Tax
> revenue on tobacco sales is shrinking because fewer people are smoking.

I really hate the idea of the government incarcerating people for a vice
on the basis of their not being a way for them to impose taxes.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Kathleen >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> I could get behind legalizing it. Legitimize the growers, make 'em
>> claim their income, cut the criminals and importers out of the loop
>> and tax the bejesus out of the end product.
>
> Yep. It would also create legitimate jobs. Legalize pot and tax the
> churches. That would start us on our way out of the mess we're in

One of the side effects of criminalizing drugs is that it pushes the
prices up. Smugglers and dealers want to make enough money to make it
worth the risk. Then gangs get involved and use violence to protect
their business interests. The high cost of hard drugs forces some
people into a life of crime. When you need hundreds of dollars a day to
support a habit you have to steal thousands of dollars worth of goods.
Legalizing pot would cost the illegal dealers a lot of money. They would
be the biggest losers.

When I broke my collar bone a few years ago I was taking Oxycontin for 2
months. A prescription for 60 pills was less than $20. The pharmacist
told me that they sell on the street for more than $20 each. I don't
really understand the attraction of the stuff. I didn't make me feel
euphoric or anything. It just took the edge of the pain, or made me not
care so much about it. I have to say that when I started cutting back
on the stuff I had trouble sleeping, which seems to be an indication of
dependence. I laid right off the stuff, except when absolutely necessary.

I realize that the stuff is dangerous, but there is a case of a drug
that an addict could get by prescription and be able to afford. If the
person has to get it on the street it is outrageously expensive.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" >
> m: in rec.food.cooking
>
>
> >
> > http://reikanido.com/iacw/guests/guest151.htm
> >
> > The last line of the above sez:
> >
> > "Maryanne's eventual goals are the same as they are now: why aspire
> > any higher
> > when you are doomed to fail miserably? "
>
> What a sig line that would make! There are some characters on Usenet
> that's for sure. Every newsgroup has some but some are destined for
> their own unique Kookdom on Usenet. Loafie is one of them. Pamela K
> Russell is another from another group I used to participate in. What a
> freak she is. She's finally disappeared. Then there was Joe1Orbit in a
> whole category by himself. Who is that freak in AGC that posts as a woman
> and then turns right around and posts as her husband, or something like
> that. I think it's Sarah something or other. Gawd... what a piece of
> work that one is.


Then there are the ones who are *really* mentally ill, like Ray "Mirror of
Christ" Karczewski and "Ed Conrad"...

There is also a "Benny/Fabrikant" guy who pops up on chi.general and some
other groups once in a while...apparently he's the dude that went on a
shooting spree up in Montreal at McGill U. a decade or so ago and killed a
bunch of people. He's in prison, and somehow he's able to post to Usenet -
or he has a "contact" on the outside who he emails and has him post on
Usenet for him...something like that.

One thing that is really fun about Usenet is that you get some gen - u -
wine "insight" into some of the *really* fvcked - up minds that exist out
there...it's "train wreck entertainment value", fer sure...!!!

That Sarah Cziepel/Mr-Mrs. Ken Ehrett entity that used to post on
alt.gossip.celebrites is apparently gone, and Loafie hasn't posted for over
six months now...a lot of the k00ks vanished after so many ISP's put the
kibbosh on Usenet, especially the "alt" groups.

The latest k00k I've noticed (actually, she's an OLD k00k) is "Lady Veteran"
aka "Bobbi Sanchez" aka "Blobbi"...goog for "Lady Veteran FAQ", it's a hoot.
She lately has shown up on alt.support.childfree...Google does not archive
her posts, but you can see them in some of the replies to her, including
mine to her on that group.

"It's a Netk00k World, we just live in it..."


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

[...]

> The latest k00k I've noticed (actually, she's an OLD k00k) is "Lady
Veteran"
> aka "Bobbi Sanchez" aka "Blobbi"...goog for "Lady Veteran FAQ", it's a
hoot.
> She lately has shown up on alt.support.childfree...Google does not archive
> her posts, but you can see them in some of the replies to her, including
> mine to her on that group.
>
> "It's a Netk00k World, we just live in it..."


Michael, here is a link to the "Lady Veteran FAQ" as I posted it on
alt.support.childfree. Read down and you'll see Blobbi/Lady Veteran's very
own "corrections" to the original FAQ! Truly nutty stuff - enjoy! :


http://www.nntpnews.net/f1332/ot-lad...n-faq-5715807/

A coupla "excerpts" from the above, LV is interjecting her own "truth" into
the FAQ:


"...9. What is Lady Veteran built like?

Like a wrestler, according to LV herself.

Message-ID: >

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have very dense body tissue. I am what Eastern Europeans call good
sturdy peasant stock.

10. Is Lady Veteran a *******?

Apart from her unfeminine looks and Usenet behavior, LV admits to
wearing men's pants ( Message-ID:
>#1/1).

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So wearing men's pants makes one a *******? That is NEW to me

14. Was Lady Veteran turned down to foster Chihuahuas? (Spelling
corrected)

Yes. Message-ID: >

Barbara Richardson the so-called moderator of DFW Cares just denied me
for a member because she said I lied about not getting a home visit
from Chihuahua Rescue. I have been waiting for a home for going on two
years now so I can foster Chihuahuas. I am still waiting.

Apparently The moderator has her own notions about what is right and
wrong and doesn't bother to check facts!

<end quote>

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx
Rescuers will not place dogs in a home where there is an unspayed
female. That is why my home is unsuitable. I was caring for a little
Shih-Tzu for a friend in a nursing home and she did not want her dog
spayed. That is why this happened.


16. Is Lady Veteran really diseased?

Yes. She suffers from lupus and boils. LV probably has some
co-morbidities associated with obesity as well.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Let's see, I haven't had a boil for a long time. Idiots apparently
have nothing better to do than follow me around..?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx


19. What does Lady Veteran think of Air Force pilots?

Lady Veteran is on the record stating that Air Force pilots are
cowards.

Quoting from Message-ID:
<FD61BA67148006B8.0AC8A33AD0FC8798.555ED8B384D32 7D >

They are most definitely cowards if they can't call a person fat to
their face and reap the benefits their comments so richly deserve.
BTW, I don't find hotshot pilots so brave. They fly up above the war
and could care less where their bombs fall. If they cared, maybe there
would be less war.

<end quote>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

HOT SHOT PILOTS get people killed. No apologies here either. Good
pilots and missions are lost because of hotshots.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


21. Lady Veteran is a net loon. Is she also insane in real life?

Yes. In Lady Veteran's own words:

From: (Bobbi Sanchez)
Subject: Jacque champion's Best Friend
Date: 1998/11/09
Message-ID:
<AA5737F4407BF438.75053B83A5011CDC.5BC343E27A269 02 et>#1/1
Newsgroups: dfw.flame


I am trying to locate a lady named Terri who used to be a friend of
Jacque champion (mainden name Krippen). Both were involved in the
psychic community and Jacque is an experienced Tarot reader. She has
told people that Terri is languishing in some mental asylum and has
probably killed herself. I need to compare notes with Terri because
Jacque is saying the same thing about me.

<end quote>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx
Trying to stop a rumor monger is not insanity. Right Jape? All they
way back to 1989?
You must LOVE ME!!!


30. Has Lady Veteran won Usenet's coveted 'Kook of the Month' award?

Yes. Lady Veteran swept several awards in April, 2008.

KOOK OF THE MONTH
CLUELESS NEWBIE OF THE MONTH
COWARD OF THE MONTH

Congratulations, Lady Veteran!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
This is the direct responsibility of the poster called JADE. She will
be heald accountablet and she has been advised several times to get a
lawyer.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx


<END OF INSANITY>


--
Best
Greg

Dave wrote:

> When I broke my collar bone a few years ago I was taking Oxycontin for 2
> months. A prescription for 60 pills was less than $20. The pharmacist
> told me that they sell on the street for more than $20 each. I don't
> really understand the attraction of the stuff. I didn't make me feel
> euphoric or anything. It just took the edge of the pain, or made me not
> care so much about it. I have to say that when I started cutting back on
> the stuff I had trouble sleeping, which seems to be an indication of
> dependence. I laid right off the stuff, except when absolutely necessary.

There have been news stories about the abuse of Oxycontin: To get the
euphoria, the abusers break open the capsules and either ingest or inhale
the contents. The capsule shell has a limited porosity, which is intended to
work as a time-release mechanism. Bypassing the capsule shell releases the
entire dose of the medicine at once, which (I suppose) results in euphoria.

Bob

Michael wrote:

>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2249/...9588a65d_o.jpg
>
> Pardon my stupidity but what is the nutmeg on there? The spice or a
> chemically altered form of the spice? Nutmeg is my least favorite spice,
> but...

It's the actual spice. In sufficient quantities, nutmeg is a hallucinogen.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:


> Billions of teetotaling fanatical Muslims provide the obvious datum that
> bone-head religions and drinking do not have to go hand-in-hand.


That's right. Moslems prove that sometimes bone-head religion goes
hand-in-hand with bigamy and wife-beating.

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> One thing that is really fun about Usenet is that you get some gen - u -
> wine "insight" into some of the *really* fvcked - up minds that exist out
> there...it's "train wreck entertainment value", fer sure...!!!

Usenet either keeps some people out of the funny farm by letting them act
out harmlessly, or puts them in one because they don't know the difference.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:10:45 -0600, Cuthbert Thistlethwaite wrote:

> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> Billions of teetotaling fanatical Muslims provide the obvious datum that
>> bone-head religions and drinking do not have to go hand-in-hand.
>
> That's right. Moslems prove that sometimes bone-head religion goes
> hand-in-hand with bigamy and wife-beating.

makes the muslims sound like good americans.

your pal,
blake