Re: it's

Eric Fholer (elfholer@MAILHOST.ECN.OU.EDU)
Sun, 20 Oct 1996 18:21:53 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Daniel Carter: "Re: it's"
Previous message: Jan Bone: "It's clear;"its" is still a problem/jan"
Maybe in reply to: Carolyn Dean: "it's"
Next in thread: Daniel Carter: "Re: it's"

What? How about if we start adressing the various arguments and points being
made on this list instead of adressing the gramadigal erers being made. I
think that people who feel uncomfortable adressing the main issues usually
are the ones that nitpick on grammar. Cmon folks, let's not kill the
communication here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide
from ourselves the
violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one
hour from his life and
depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You
have done violence to him,
consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill,
but behind any use of
power over another the ultimate assumption remains:
"I feed on your energy."

- Addenda to Orders in Council
The Emperor Paul Muad'dib

Eric Fholer<elfholer@mailhost.ecn.ou.edu>

_____
/\ \
/ \ \
__\___\ \______
/\ \
/ \______ ______\
\ / /\ \ /
\/_____/ \ \__/
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \____\
\ / /
\/____/

Next message: Daniel Carter: "Re: it's"
Previous message: Jan Bone: "It's clear;"its" is still a problem/jan"
Maybe in reply to: Carolyn Dean: "it's"
Next in thread: Daniel Carter: "Re: it's"