On 10/27/2011 7:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> Were you on his Friend's list?



I can't find a page for him.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>
> Facebook is Evil.

Amen, brother.

Felice

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:


> I can think of three losses in the time I've been following this group.

Here's a list of ten. Hopefully Blake will be added:

http://www.recfoodcooking.com/memoriam.html

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message

> Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:03:59 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>> > All is forgiven!
>>
>> He didn't ask for nor want your forgiveness from you, asshole.
>> Never
>> for minute think that deep down inside, and even in death, that he
>> doesn't think you're a prime jackass.
>>
>> And don't forget it.
>>
>> And I know he'd approve of this message.
>
> All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Felice

On 10/27/2011 9:14 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:51:09 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> I just went back and reread all the email we had exchanged over the
>> course of almost 10 years (probably longer, but that's all I have).
>
> And the last two days worth of posts.
>
> Sheldon can now go uncontested in most of his rantings. Sorry Blake,
> but I can't un-killfile Catz and do for you what I did for Bob
> Pastorio. I hope you'll understand.

I've only known of two regular posters who have passed since I've been
reading here, and I think they both have something that everyone will
remember. Blake had his sig, your pal, and Blinky had the Usenet
Improvement Project.

Long live them both.

Aw damn. I loved Our Pal, Blake.

He had such cutting wit. He was one of my favorites here.

R.I.P.

-J

On 27/10/2011 11:23 PM, Pennyaline wrote:

>>> I know. I understand that part of it. My point is that I am on Facebook.
>>> Just being on Facebook is not enough to make one privy to that
>>> information. If it was, I'd have known before I saw it here. Thus, WHERE
>>> on Facebook must one be in order to see the information?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Were you on his Friend's list?
>
>
> No, but that wasn't my point. The OP brought the message here for group
> members "not on Facebook" because they wouldn't have heard. I pointed
> out that I am on Facebook, yet I was still unaware. The OP's post was
> worded as though just being on FB was enough, and my contention was
> that, of course, it wasn't.

I was the OP. Yes you are on FB, but since you weren't on his friends
list and you aren't a member of the RFC group, I wonder why you expect
to be notified. You may not realize that there are probably millions of
similar group mailings that are sent out every day that you don't get.

I can't help but wonder what sort of humorous comment Blake would have
made about your quandary.

On 10/27/2011 9:46 PM, Dave Smith wrote:


> I was the OP. Yes you are on FB, but since you weren't on his friends
> list and you aren't a member of the RFC group, I wonder why you expect
> to be notified. You may not realize that there are probably millions of
> similar group mailings that are sent out every day that you don't get.

I DIDN'T expect to be notified!! I was remarking about the inaccuracy in
the wording of the first post.




> I can't help but wonder what sort of humorous comment Blake would have
> made about your quandary.

He would have recognized it, and the laugh would have been on you.


Now, did Blake have a page of FB? There are a ton of pages under that
same name. Also, where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has
no members and no activity.

Pennyaline wrote:

> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members and no
> activity.

Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course, that's in
complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...cebook-privacy) But if
you friend some of the RFC Facebook participants (e.g., Christine Dabney)
you might gain access that way.

Bob

On 10/27/2011 9:58 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:23:33 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2011 7:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Were you on his Friend's list?
>>
>> No, but that wasn't my point. The OP brought the message here for group
>> members "not on Facebook" because they wouldn't have heard. I pointed
>> out that I am on Facebook, yet I was still unaware. The OP's post was
>> worded as though just being on FB was enough, and my contention was
>> that, of course, it wasn't.
>
> Anybody can read/join RFC on Facebook. But if you don't use Facebook,
> then you can't read RFC on Facebook.


Another one who doesn't get it.

please extend my condolences, Lee
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
om...
> Sad news.... for those of you not on FaceBook.... I just got news on FB
> from Stephanie, a friend of Blake's, that he has died. I don't know the
> details, just that his father contacted her and said that he is not longer
> with us.

Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:51:09 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:04:39 -0500, Lou Decruss wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:58:25 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sad news.... for those of you not on FaceBook.... I just got news on FB
> >>>from Stephanie, a friend of Blake's, that he has died. I don't know the
> >>>details, just that his father contacted her and said that he is not
> >>>longer with us.
> >>
> >> This sucks. He wasn't even 60 was he?
> >
> >I just went back and reread all the email we had exchanged over the
> >course of almost 10 years (probably longer, but that's all I have).
> >It sucks that I seriously threatened to go down there last month when
> >I was in PGH, but I wasn't able to on my schedule. Had I known I
> >would have made that my first stop. Can't take it back now.
>
> It's unfortunate life has no rewind.
>
> Lou

I'd settle for a pause button from time to time.

On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members and no
>> activity.
>
> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course, that's in
> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...cebook-privacy) But if
> you friend some of the RFC Facebook participants (e.g., Christine Dabney)
> you might gain access that way.

Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
shit, too.

On 10/27/2011 9:58 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Anybody can read/join RFC on Facebook. But if you don't use Facebook,
> then you can't read RFC on Facebook.


Obviously not, since not just anybody is told how to find it on Facebook
no matter how many times they ask.

On 10/27/2011 2:58 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Sad news.... for those of you not on FaceBook.... I just got news on FB
> from Stephanie, a friend of Blake's, that he has died. I don't know the
> details, just that his father contacted her and said that he is not
> longer with us.


This is so sad. He was one of the Good Guys.

gloria p

On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members and no
>> activity.
>
> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course, that's in
> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.



Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.

gloria p

On 10/27/2011 11:29 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In ews.com>,
> "Pete > wrote:
>
>
>> I can think of three losses in the time I've been following this group.
>
> Here's a list of ten. Hopefully Blake will be added:
>
> http://www.recfoodcooking.com/memoriam.html
>

Ah, yes, Christy. I miss her too, though I guess I left her out because
she was just too young to remember as gone.

On 10/27/2011 10:15 PM, gloria.p wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members
>>> and no
>>> activity.
>>
>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course,
>> that's in
>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>
>
>
> Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
> pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.


I ain't about to beg, honey. **** you, as they say.

Pennyaline wrote:

> Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
> shit, too.

I'd e-mail you the URL if I knew your e-mail address.

Bob

On 10/27/2011 10:27 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> Nah. I've been on this group since 2003. If I can't get access to a FB
>> page without kissing other members' asses, well that's just horse shit.
>> And if other n.g. members want to restrict access, they're just horse
>> shit, too.
>
> I'd e-mail you the URL if I knew your e-mail address.

I'd e-mail it to you, if I knew yours.

On 10/27/2011 10:28 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:04:42 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2011 9:58 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:23:33 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/27/2011 7:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Were you on his Friend's list?
>>>>
>>>> No, but that wasn't my point. The OP brought the message here for group
>>>> members "not on Facebook" because they wouldn't have heard. I pointed
>>>> out that I am on Facebook, yet I was still unaware. The OP's post was
>>>> worded as though just being on FB was enough, and my contention was
>>>> that, of course, it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Anybody can read/join RFC on Facebook. But if you don't use Facebook,
>>> then you can't read RFC on Facebook.
>>
>> Another one who doesn't get it.
>
> I get it fine. I think YOU don't get it. But that's all I have to
> say about that. This is not thread for new flame wars.


You're correct about flame wars. You're incorrect about how you get it.

On 10/27/2011 10:30 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:21:23 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2011 10:15 PM, gloria.p wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members
>>>>> and no
>>>>> activity.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course,
>>>> that's in
>>>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>>>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
>>> pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.
>>
>> I ain't about to beg, honey. **** you, as they say.
>
> Meltdown!
>

Answers would help.

Pennyaline wrote:

> Obviously not, since not just anybody is told how to find it on Facebook
> no matter how many times they ask.

Wait... just how many times *has* someone asked? I only saw you ask once,
and since my reply to that, I've seen nothing but angry lashing-out.

When I made reference to it just a couple days ago, one of the moderators
complained that I shouldn't have mentioned it at all, though its existence
has hardly been a secret. It's listed as an open group. I honestly don't
remember how I found it.

At any rate, the RFC Facebook group is *not* where the initial announcement
was made regarding blake's passing. That announcement was made to blake's
Facebook friends, and some of those friends passed it on to the Facebook
group -- just as some blake's friends passed the news to *this* group.

Bob

On 10/27/2011 10:36 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Wait... just how many times *has* someone asked? I only saw you ask once,
> and since my reply to that, I've seen nothing but angry lashing-out.

I asked once, today. The response was that it's a secret, one needs to
know the secret handshake, and riff-raff is not welcome. When one gets
the express message that the undesirables are to be kept out, period,
with no further communication offered, that means that one is one of the
undesirables. Why am I considered as such? I don't know.


> When I made reference to it just a couple days ago, one of the moderators...

One of the moderators? There are moderators here? When did that happen?



> complained that I shouldn't have mentioned it at all, though its existence
> has hardly been a secret. It's listed as an open group. I honestly don't
> remember how I found it.

I know that it's been mentioned, and I've looked for it before. Didn't
find anything then either.



> At any rate, the RFC Facebook group is *not* where the initial announcement
> was made regarding blake's passing.

I know. I merely asked how to find his page. There are many pages under
that name.



> That announcement was made to blake's
> Facebook friends, and some of those friends passed it on to the Facebook
> group -- just as some blake's friends passed the news to *this* group.

I understand that. I have had no problem understanding that, right from
the start. I've also had no problem writing it correctly.

What a shame that this observation of Blake's passing has done nothing
but reveal some r.f.c. members' desire to be a secret society. Go join
the Freemasons for that, for chrissake!

On 10/27/2011 10:39 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

> If the moderators don't want people joining then those moderators can
> use their Moderator Super Powers to deny posting privileges for those
> damn rabble rousers.


Thank you for the link. I tried the "exact phrase" as you gave it to me
earlier, but there was an error in it. That explains why it didn't work.

<oh, what a tangled web we weave...>

On 10/27/2011 11:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:55:49 -0600, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> On 10/27/2011 10:39 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> If the moderators don't want people joining then those moderators can
>>> use their Moderator Super Powers to deny posting privileges for those
>>> damn rabble rousers.
>>
>> Thank you for the link. I tried the "exact phrase" as you gave it to me
>> earlier, but there was an error in it. That explains why it didn't work.
>
> An error in it? I just tried it from an another Facebook account that
> has never even heard of the word "cooking" and it came up as soon as I
> typed "RFC o". I think you were just frustrated and didn't try it.

I'm never so frustrated that I won't try something. Nope, it wouldn't go
to the page or bring any matches up in a search. It wasn't until the
name was given correctly capitalized in the link that anything appeared.

On 10/27/2011 11:03 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 11:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> An error in it? I just tried it from an another Facebook account that
>> has never even heard of the word "cooking" and it came up as soon as I
>> typed "RFC o". I think you were just frustrated and didn't try it.
>
> I'm never so frustrated that I won't try something. Nope, it wouldn't go
> to the page or bring any matches up in a search. It wasn't until the
> name was given correctly capitalized in the link that anything appeared.

Lots and lots and lots of "RFC..." came up, but nothing for this group.

Pennyaline wrote:

>> I'd e-mail you the URL if I knew your e-mail address.
>
> I'd e-mail it to you, if I knew yours.

OK, I made a throwaway e-mail address. Send yours to
and I'll e-mail you the URL from that.

Bob

On 10/27/2011 11:06 PM, Andy wrote:
>> <oh, what a tangled web we weave...>
>
>
> There was a scientific study, with photos, using drugs on spiders a few
> decades ago.
>
> http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm

Attaboy, Andy!

On 10/27/2011 11:13 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>> I'd e-mail you the URL if I knew your e-mail address.
>>
>> I'd e-mail it to you, if I knew yours.
>
> OK, I made a throwaway e-mail address. Send yours to
> and I'll e-mail you the URL from that.


Thanks for your effort, but someone already supplied a link.

On Oct 27, 11:36*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
> > Obviously not, since not just anybody is told how to find it on Facebook
> > no matter how many times they ask.
>
> Wait... just how many times *has* someone asked? I only saw you ask once,
> and since my reply to that, I've seen nothing but angry lashing-out.
>
> When I made reference to it just a couple days ago, one of the moderators
> complained that I shouldn't have mentioned it at all, though its existence
> has hardly been a secret. It's listed as an open group. I honestly don't
> remember how I found it.
>
> At any rate, the RFC Facebook group is *not* where the initial announcement
> was made regarding blake's passing. That announcement was made to blake's
> Facebook friends, and some of those friends passed it on to the Facebook
> group -- just as some blake's friends passed the news to *this* group.
>
> Bob

Well, now, it's not THAT exclusive. I'm a member.

I just want to cry when I see that this is how RFC pays respect to a
lost friend.

Just popped in to see if there was any news on what may have taken
blake from us. Now I'm gonna go see if there has been any follow-up
on Lynn from Fargo.

Dams

Pennyaline wrote:

>> Wait... just how many times *has* someone asked? I only saw you ask once,
>> and since my reply to that, I've seen nothing but angry lashing-out.
>
> I asked once, today. The response was that it's a secret, one needs to
> know the secret handshake, and riff-raff is not welcome. When one gets the
> express message that the undesirables are to be kept out, period, with no
> further communication offered, that means that one is one of the
> undesirables. Why am I considered as such? I don't know.

Sorry if you got that impression. I just couldn't think of a way to get
*you* the information without giving *everybody* the information[1]. That's
why I mentioned e-mail.


>> When I made reference to it just a couple days ago, one of the
>> moderators...
>
> One of the moderators? There are moderators here? When did that happen?

Not here. One of the moderators of the Facebook group. At any rate, now that
Sqwertz has spilled the [ObFood]beans, I expect to see you there soon!


Bob
[1] More accurately, I couldn't think of a way which didn't involve
cryptography.

On 10/27/2011 11:20 PM, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Oct 27, 11:36 pm, "Bob >
> wrote:
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>> Obviously not, since not just anybody is told how to find it on Facebook
>>> no matter how many times they ask.
>>
>> Wait... just how many times *has* someone asked? I only saw you ask once,
>> and since my reply to that, I've seen nothing but angry lashing-out.
>>
>> When I made reference to it just a couple days ago, one of the moderators
>> complained that I shouldn't have mentioned it at all, though its existence
>> has hardly been a secret. It's listed as an open group. I honestly don't
>> remember how I found it.
>>
>> At any rate, the RFC Facebook group is *not* where the initial announcement
>> was made regarding blake's passing. That announcement was made to blake's
>> Facebook friends, and some of those friends passed it on to the Facebook
>> group -- just as some blake's friends passed the news to *this* group.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Well, now, it's not THAT exclusive. I'm a member.
>
> I just want to cry when I see that this is how RFC pays respect to a
> lost friend.
>
> Just popped in to see if there was any news on what may have taken
> blake from us. Now I'm gonna go see if there has been any follow-up
> on Lynn from Fargo.


No disrespect toward Blake was intended.


<but when someone asks a question, just answer it!!>

On 10/27/2011 11:21 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Sorry if you got that impression. I just couldn't think of a way to get
> *you* the information without giving *everybody* the information[1]. That's
> why I mentioned e-mail.

That message didn't come from you.

On 2011-10-27, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Sad news.... for those of you not on FaceBook.... I just got news on FB
> from Stephanie, a friend of Blake's, that he has died. I don't know the
> details, just that his father contacted her and said that he is not
> longer with us.

As always, I'm saddened when a person, specially a fellow rfc'er, has
passed on. Loved or villified, Blake was a fellow voyager in life who
deserved our respect, if for no other reason, than merely being in the
same boat as the rest of us.

nb

On 10/28/2011 12:15 AM, gloria.p wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 10:04 PM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>
>>> where is the RFC page? The only one I've ever found has no members
>>> and no
>>> activity.
>>
>> Apparently there are some who want to keep it obscure. (Of course,
>> that's in
>> complete disregard of the "all information should be shared" concept
>> espoused by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
>
>
>
> Keeping it "obscure" has prevented much of the obnoxious noise and
> pointless bickering from migrating from the Usenet site to FB.
>

How the hell is that like real conversations? Even the best of friends
have differences of opinions and argue sometimes. Sometimes they even
quit talking for a while. But the bond makes them talk again. Without
"pointless bickering" it is no different than a blog. Usenet is a back
and forth thing. I hope it never goes away.

Marty wrote:

>
>

Was that a moment of silence?

Bob

Mark wrote:

>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:03:59 -0500, Andy wrote:
>>
>> > All is forgiven!
>>
>> He didn't ask for nor want your forgiveness from you, asshole. Never
>> for minute think that deep down inside, and even in death, that he
>> doesn't think you're a prime jackass.
>>
>> And don't forget it.
>>
>> And I know he'd approve of this message.
>
> All in favor say aye.

Nah, it should be, "All in favor say, 'Have another drink, Andy.'"

That's what blake would have wanted.

Bob

Damsel wrote:

> I just want to cry when I see that this is how RFC pays respect to a lost
> friend.


It was a thousand times worse when kilikini died. That thread got *real*
ugly.

Personally, I prefer to get ANGRY at the death of someone I care about. Not
angry at the dead person, angry at the unfeeling uncaring unfair universe
which allows good people to die while shitty people prosper.

When Andy disclosed in 2006 that his sister-in-law had just died of lung
cancer, I passed this along:

In the introduction to _Angry Candy_, Harlan Ellison recounted the funeral
of his friend Emily:

==========================BEGIN QUOTE=======================

We sat through the early part of the service, and we perhaps heard the
remarks and sentiments from the minister, Mr. Richelieu. Then he called on
me, and everything I'd wanted to say about Emily, about her warmth and
decency and flawless friendship and personal strength, all of it fled, and I
was angry. There is no other word, I was just goddamned *angry*!

Richelieu had done that standard number about the deceased going on to a
better place, that Emily was at peace at last, that we could all take heart
in the sure and certain knowledge that she was watching us from on high, and
smiling at us.

And I began speaking, and I'm not sure exactly what I said, but it was
something like this:

It's not seemly to speak harshly at the funeral of someone you loved, and
who's gone away, and you miss so much it squeezes your chest when you think
about them. It's not right to make a big scene and cry about how it hurts
when you ask that lost friend a question, and she's not there to answer, as
if the wind took her answer away, and if you listen hard enough you can
still hear her voice receding, getting thinner and smaller and more
transparent. We're not supposed to do that. We're supposed to reassure one
another and say dumb things like, "Well, she couldn't have suffered much."
And I *want* to say things like that, because ceremonies like this are for
the living, and not the dead, because the dead are gone and can't hear what
we say, and I can't even take solace in that, because it isn't a new
thought. And the truth of it is, I can't take any solace *at all*, because
Emily is dead. She's just gone, and we won't hear her cleverness ever
again, and we won't see the way she gave that wry smile, as she turned
half-away so you could enjoy what she said without having to worry about her
reaction. No one allows us to be angry. It isn't fitting, it isn't seemly.
But that's how I feel. I'm just pure and deeply angry that she's gone.
That she died when her life was so good. That's cruel. It's like some kind
of old Arabian Nights revenge, where the djinn waits until you're happiest
to slice you down. And in the compassion that we try to show each other, we
won't let ourselves be angry, won't let ourselves scream at the world that
is now minus that special part.

YOU CAN BE ANGRY! "Do not go gentle into that good night, old age should
burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light."
It will be a brief enough time before our daily measure softens the edge of
memory, and Emily, and all she was, and all the places in which she resided
in our hearts will have closed over just like the Red Sea, and we won't
*feel* like being angry. We'll just be miserable, and lonely for her, and
we'll never have taken the opportunity to let the stupid nasty world that
took her know how much we miss her and how just goddamned *angry* we are!

And I sat down, and could feel that these people were angry, but not at
Emily's death. They were angry because I hadn't played the game. And I felt
awful, just awful, and I hung my head. And Susan touched my hand, and I
cried.

And Norman [Spinrad] got up, and he climbed the risers to the platform
filled with flowers, and he stood behind the lectern, and he spoke so well.
He believed as I believed, that it is better to send off the loved one with
rage, to show at least for a moment to the empty sky and the sunny day that
you *cared*, enough to look cranky and unseemly, that the loved one deserved
at least *that* much, but he was saner than I. He said, (and this is just a
part, just the best part that I remember), "Don't expect justice. Emily
being taken like this, is not fair. It is not just. She never deserved to
die so soon. There is no justice inherent in the universe -- except what we
put there. All the justice that exists, is what we make. So let us show
compassion and sense and courage, in Emily's name."

Oh, that was *so much* better. I wish I'd had the wit or the skill or the
clear head to say that. Because it was what lay at the core of my anger. It
was something that could keep you busy while mourning. It could kill the
guilt of not having been there to save her. Of not having said to her the
things you now realize she needed to hear from a friend. Of not feeling
adequate to face death. It was wise and sane and correct.

And then Richelieu got up and -- gently but firmly -- debunked what we had
said. With oleaginous sincerity, he told his flock the same fable all over
again, pushing the philosophy of that particular House of God and House of
Men.

When the ceremony was ended, we three stood alone for a time, and no one
came to speak to us, except for one woman who approached us and, smiling as
Richelieu had been smiling, advised us that Emily *was* above, and she hoped
and prayed for us that we would be able to let the sun into our hearts. She
meant well, but I wanted to slug her.


And we walked back to the car, and we got in and drove away from Redondo
Beach; and there hasn't been a day since February of 1986 that I haven't
thought about Emily, and how much I miss my friend.

===========================END QUOTE========================


That's the best description I've ever seen for my reaction to the death of a
loved one.

Bob

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:58:25 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Sad news.... for those of you not on FaceBook.... I just got news on FB
> from Stephanie, a friend of Blake's, that he has died. I don't know the
> details, just that his father contacted her and said that he is not
> longer with us.

Very sad news indeed. Never met him in person, but I always enjoyed his
posts. RIP blake.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy