From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Sun Sep 28 17:49:37 1997
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:48:04 -0400
From: Lee Honeycutt
Subject: lh-->vv: more questions
>Now comes MY questions: _____What does VV do in _NSHR_ in regards to these
>three things (objectives, implementation, and assessment)?
Don't know yet, Victor. I checked the book out last week and am still
reading, but my initial impressions are that you are attempting to turn
this troika inside out/upside down, especially in regard to Schiappa's
oasis or mirage article, though I suspect this trend runs throughout the
book. You see his critique of the neo-Sophistic movement as using a
privileged, rationalist criteria of assessment, whereas you would rather
blow open discourse about the sophists to allow for much wider
representations, especially considering the fact that few of their works
are around to speak for them.
But there seems to me some curious contradiction going on, especially in
the footnote on page 352, where you take Schiappa to task for not
understanding what "will to truth" and "will to power" mean. On the one
hand, you seem to believe that our collective representations of the
sophists should not be tied to the extant historical record or to
"official" histories of rhetoric. Yet you then turn around and act in this
footnote as if there is some "official" interpretation of Nietzsche and
Foucault that Schiappa has somehow "missed" as "he has so many other
things."
My questions is -- If you can play loose and fast with historical accounts
of the sophists, why can't Schiappa be given some leeway in his
interpretation of the terms "will to truth" and "will to power"? Are you
allowed a different set of hermeneutic rules because of two millenia and a
bunch of lost texts?
>_____Do you think the bookless is pre-tentious as hell? self-indulgent?
>self-aggrandizing?
No, none of these. I'm enjoying what I've read so far and don't find it
nearly as impenetrable as you seem to think it is to others. Once one
calibrates to your style, it's a good read. Perhaps you're disappointed, as
you seem to enjoy thwarting traditional discourse. Yes, the book's jammed
to the rafters with pomo buzzwords, of course, but most people are pretty
up on this lexicon and shouldn't have a difficult time following what
you're getting at, even when you claim you're getting at nothing.
>_____Do you think that perhaps VV just does not know any better?
Than what? :-)
>_____And why do you think that suny p would publish a book with humming in
>it: "Like: hummmmmmmmmmmmm. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" (66),
>when there are so many people not getting tenure because the resources for
>getting things published are so ... so ... few? and here they are but
>squandered!
Actually, I think this page could have used a few more paragraphs of "M"s.
And as for the squandering of resources, there are too many damn academic
publications out there already. I think as a field we should reduce
publication requirements for tenure and place more emphasis on teaching.
>_____Is this book a hoax? If so, how could you tell?
No, it's not a hoax. It's an important work, for it does what B.A.G. Fuller
(in my previous quote) says any good skeptical critic should -- warn
constructive philosophers (as opposed to deconstructive ones, I guess)
against overcredence and over-speculation.
My next question is this: in the intro, you go about trying to answer Jim
Berlin's question, "Victor, what do you want?" I would shift the ground a
little bit and ask you this, "What do you want from us, your readers?"
What, if anything, do you want us to carry away from this book, other than
to continually take heed of your warning about the dangers of exclusion.
Perhaps your answer can frame my further reading.
My thotlessnesses.
-- Lee
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Sun Sep 28 19:56:55 1997
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:56:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, Lee Honeycutt wrote:
> oasis or mirage article, though I suspect this trend runs throughout the
> book. You see his critique of the neo-Sophistic movement as using a
> privileged, rationalist criteria of assessment, whereas you would rather
> blow open discourse about the sophists to allow for much wider
> representations, especially considering the fact that few of their works
> are around to speak for them.
NO! I am interested in the "feeling" left (far left of what is humanly
possible) when someone using species-analytics kills off an apparent
species. I am interested in the "feeling" (as Lyotard speaks of it in _The
Differend_).
> But there seems to me some curious contradiction going on, especially in
> the footnote on page 352, where you take Schiappa to task for not
> understanding what "will to truth" and "will to power" mean. On the one
> hand, you seem to believe that our collective representations of the
> sophists should not be tied to the extant historical record or to
> "official" histories of rhetoric. Yet you then turn around and act in this
> footnote as if there is some "official" interpretation of Nietzsche and
> Foucault that Schiappa has somehow "missed" as "he has so many other
> things."
Lee, if you are going to read and look for contradictions, then you miss
the pointless. I do not--if you wish to focus the discussion at that low
level--contradict myself. I state explicitly throughout the bookless that
I will engage and disengage in many different language games; that I will
mirror the game of the person that I am responding to. And Why would I do
that? Lee, your reading is too easy. If you look at the book by way of
truth tables and Ps and Qs and if you want me to follow strictly through
out the three basic principles of logic/reason, then you have not yet
begun to read the bookless.
Blink, I never say that the Sophists exist! I am interested in that
"feeling" that is the residue of left (far left) after the use of
diaeresis. It is the case that I throw at Ed Favorinus, but ... how do you
read the "throwing"? (The sintax of this sentence is purposely, tacticly
written as it is!)
> My questions is -- If you can play loose and fast with historical accounts
> of the sophists, why can't Schiappa be given some leeway in his
> interpretation of the terms "will to truth" and "will to power"? Are you
> allowed a different set of hermeneutic rules because of two millenia and a
> bunch of lost texts?
I am allowed any set of rules that I wish to play by. If someone wants to
step into the arena with me, s/he will have to be prepared to play Tegwar
with me. I may bang the drum slowly and it may sound as if I am playing
paradiddles, etc., but don't count on it.
I would be happy to play by aristotelian rules if you wish. But if we were
to do that, then probably you would have no reason, given the social class
that I come from, given my pedagree, to even communicate with me. So I
guess that we could attempt neoAristotelianism, but really I think that
there is no difference. Given Univ. of Chicago etc. But I'm willing. If we
were to do that, I think that you and others might come to think that you
have missed the bookless. And wouldn't that be interesting?
The ghetto creeps up on the Uni of Chicago. I would be thrilled to do a
Burkean co-haggling dance with someone. And let's see, I would tie one
typing hand behind me as long as I can hold in the other hand two books,
no three books: _ATH_, _RM_, and _TBL_. If this seems an unfair advantage,
then howabouts my just holding _TBL_?
> >_____Do you think the bookless is pre-tentious as hell? self-indulgent?
> >self-aggrandizing?
>
> No, none of these. I'm enjoying what I've read so far and don't find it
> nearly as impenetrable as you seem to think it is to others. Once one
> calibrates to your style, it's a good read. Perhaps you're disappointed, as
> you seem to enjoy thwarting traditional discourse. Yes, the book's jammed
> to the rafters with pomo buzzwords, of course, but most people are pretty
> up on this lexicon and shouldn't have a difficult time following what
> you're getting at, even when you claim you're getting at nothing.
This was not the pointless of the question, but I am happy to hear that
you are able to navigate through what you refer to as "pomo buzzwords," as
I am sure that you navigate well through traditional
philological-philosophical buzz words. We learn to navigate. Or we learn
to drift. It's the latter that interests me. That "buzz" word.
> >_____Do you think that perhaps VV just does not know any better?
>
> Than what? :-)
.)>=
> No, it's not a hoax. It's an important work, for it does what B.A.G. Fuller
> (in my previous quote) says any good skeptical critic should -- warn
> constructive philosophers (as opposed to deconstructive ones, I guess)
> against overcredence and over-speculation.
Shucks!
> My next question is this: in the intro, you go about trying to answer Jim
> Berlin's question, "Victor, what do you want?" I would shift the ground a
> little bit and ask you this, "What do you want from us, your readers?"
> What, if anything, do you want us to carry away from this book, other than
> to continually take heed of your warning about the dangers of exclusion.
Lee, I want what you want when you know what you want.
Thanks for the response. But I am not happy to hear that you have had the
book checked out for a long time. I am sure that others want to read it.
vv
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 06:23:34 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:21:48 -0400
From: Lee Honeycutt
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
At 7:56 PM -0400 9/28/97, sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote:
>Lee, if you are going to read and look for contradictions, then you miss
>the pointless. I do not--if you wish to focus the discussion at that low
>level--contradict myself. I state explicitly throughout the bookless that
>I will engage and disengage in many different language games; that I will
>mirror the game of the person that I am responding to. And Why would I do
>that? Lee, your reading is too easy. If you look at the book by way of
>truth tables and Ps and Qs and if you want me to follow strictly through
>out the three basic principles of logic/reason, then you have not yet
>begun to read the bookless.
I don't think my readings are quite as low and Aristotelian as you think,
Victor. I'm only pointing out that if one is going to play language games
(which we all do), then the rules should apply the same to all --
egalitarian across the board.
>Thanks for the response. But I am not happy to hear that you have had the
>book checked out for a long time. I am sure that others want to read it.
>
Our library has had the book since shortly after it was published, when I
make the recommendation to our library committee that they purchase it. I
checked it out only last week. No one had checked it out previously. If
they want it, they can recall it and I'll return it in a timely matter.
Until then, I'll continue to read on and make of it what I will, keeping in
mind your authorial intentless as I go along.
Lee
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 10:35:09 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:27:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Lee Honeycutt wrote:
> At 7:56 PM -0400 9/28/97, sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote:
>
> >Lee, if you are going to read and look for contradictions, then you miss
> >the pointless. I do not--if you wish to focus the discussion at that low
> >level--contradict myself. I state explicitly throughout the bookless that
> >I will engage and disengage in many different language games; that I will
> >mirror the game of the person that I am responding to. And Why would I do
> >that? Lee, your reading is too easy. If you look at the book by way of
> >truth tables and Ps and Qs and if you want me to follow strictly through
> >out the three basic principles of logic/reason, then you have not yet
> >begun to read the bookless.
>
> I don't think my readings are quite as low and Aristotelian as you think,
> Victor. I'm only pointing out that if one is going to play language games
> (which we all do), then the rules should apply the same to all --
> egalitarian across the board.
I can only hope that the field would open itself up to playing with
numerous language games, and not accept the single, dominant one as _the_
language game. This has been my pointless. You are saying what I am saying
in the bookless. When a dominant language game, however, controls, or
suggests that it can control, what counts as acceptable, then, we have
serious problems. The purpose of the bookless (or one purpose) is to point
out this very problem. This may become unclearly clear when you have moved
through the bookless but once. What you say in response, Lee, you say too
lightly without the necessary seriousness that the field imposes on new
members and attempts to regulate among standing members. The field would
discipline us. There will be one writing practice and then perhaps a few
minor ones. Which 'we' will but tolerate! This is what the field says,
whether in English, in Speech-Comm., in Rhetoric, in Classics, etc. This
should come as no news.
>
> >Thanks for the response. But I am not happy to hear that you have had the
> >book checked out for a long time. I am sure that others want to read it.
> >
>
> Our library has had the book since shortly after it was published, when I
> make the recommendation to our library committee that they purchase it. I
> checked it out only last week. No one had checked it out previously. If
> they want it, they can recall it and I'll return it in a timely matter.
> Until then, I'll continue to read on and make of it what I will, keeping in
> mind your authorial intentless as I go along.
No response necessary, for I was kidding a potential kidder.
vv
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 10:48:57 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 09:48:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
Lee, in terms of dis or dat course, what I am hoping for, which does not
necessarily get mentioned in _NSHR_ (which was written a number of years
ago), is a debarking from literacy with all of its fixed rules,
especially in our field, and a drifting towards and within 'electronic
discourse.'
Will this happen in English departments? or Speech? or Classics? In
dis/respect to THE History of Rhetoric? Perhaps. But I doubt that it will
happen as I would or someone of us would want to see it happen. There are
a few mavericks in English departments who are pushing for stable
unstable, ED, electronic disdatcourses. For the most part, however, the
dominant discoursers, if interested at all in ED, are taking the basic
conventions of literacy to those hoped-for ever-possibly strange places.
Some more will be said about all this in the sequel to the bookless.
In the meantime, some of my students are beginning to turn in their
ED assignments. You will need a fast connection (direct, if possible) to
view them: http://www.uta.edu/english/V/multimedia/projects.html
They were given a photograph ("Holland House") to work with. I try to do
the assignments along with them. We've started out by using simply
gifbuilder, though some are using authorware, director6, and some java
scripting. The latter are not up and running yet, but should be up in a
week or so.
What could be done with histories of rhetorics in those strange, ever
strange places!!!!
vv
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 11:30:38 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 11:30 EDT
From: John_SCHILB@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (js193)
Subject: Re: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
I think Bill Coles used to say "What I want is what you want for yourself
when you're proud of yourself for having wanted it."
John Schilh
Dept. of English
University of Maryland, College Park
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 12:09:44 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 12:08:21 -0400
From: Lee Honeycutt
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
At 10:27 AM -0400 9/29/97, sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote:
>I can only hope that the field would open itself up to playing with
>numerous language games, and not accept the single, dominant one as _the_
>language game.
Oh, I think the field is opening up to different language games, partly
through your influence. My point is that whichever language games we decide
to play, the rules of that particular game (in my opinion) ought to apply
to all discursive participants equally. If Schiappa critiques your
interpretation of the sophists on hermeneutical grounds, then you have
every right to critique his interpretation of Nietzsche and Foucault on
those same grounds. But if you discount his critique as erroneously
Aristotelian and rationalist, then it's certainly disingenuous on your part
to use the same line of argument, which is what I saw going on.
I don't mean this to sound like a personal attack. Believe me, I'm not
*searching* for contradictions and trying to pick your work apart; I'm
reading *with* you at every turn of the page. This one particular footnote,
however, leapt off the page and smacked me in the face. Perhaps you were
just putting on an Aristotelian mask to argue with an Aristotelian. I don't
know, but such contradiction is a common criticism of Foucault -- that he
uses enlightment language to critique enlightenment language (e.g.
Rowland's P&R article on the "performative contradiction" at the heart of
most postmodern critiques, to which Thomas provides an excellent rebuttal).
But perhaps I should withhold further comment until I finish the book, at
which time you promise things will be made unclearly clear.
>No response necessary, for I was kidding a potential kidder.
I thought so, but with you Victor, it's often hard to tell. With the
multiple masks you wear, one is never quite sure of your intentions,
especially online. And I think you prefer it that way; it serves your
purposes well.
Back to work, and I'll take a peek at your students' work when I'm at
school on a faster connection.
-- Lee
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 12:44:53 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:44:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Lee Honeycutt wrote:
> Oh, I think the field is opening up to different language games, partly
> through your influence. My point is that whichever language games we decide
> to play, the rules of that particular game (in my opinion) ought to apply
> to all discursive participants equally. If Schiappa critiques your
> interpretation of the sophists on hermeneutical grounds, then you have
> every right to critique his interpretation of Nietzsche and Foucault on
> those same grounds. But if you discount his critique as erroneously
> Aristotelian and rationalist, then it's certainly disingenuous on your part
> to use the same line of argument, which is what I saw going on.
As I said I was mirroring back to Ed the method itself. People have
to understand, however, that if Ed had not written and published his
article, we would not be having this conversation. Ed has helped in more
ways than one in advancing our conversations. And Sue and John, and
countless others.
> Perhaps you were
> just putting on an Aristotelian mask to argue with an Aristotelian. I don't
> know, but such contradiction is a common criticism of Foucault -- that he
> uses enlightment language to critique enlightenment language (e.g.
> Rowland's P&R article on the "performative contradiction" at the heart of
> most postmodern critiques, to which Thomas provides an excellent rebuttal).
A HaberM*A*S*H*ian contrique of Foucault ("performative contradiction") is
itself a contradiction made by Habermashians. It, yes, is predicated on
the problem (pogram) of the _differend_.
> I thought so, but with you Victor, it's often hard to tell. With the
> multiple masks you wear, one is never quite sure of your intentions,
> especially online. And I think you prefer it that way; it serves your
> purposes well.
Perhaps. I remember Sister Mary Joseph telling me that in the fifth grade
.)>= Eventually, however, I was educated by the Jesuits!, the assassins on
the continent. It was an easy step to a secular education, thereafter. But
one cum a radical many always already holds on to the beginning, right? If
the metaphysical, if the onto-theological is what 'we' grew up with, we
un/just have to find ways of rethinking 'it.' .)>= Lee, thanks for the
conersation.
v
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 13:29:02 1997
From: TheVoidBoy@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:27:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: VB>>>>>>VV
"How would someone, on VV's own paraterms, assess what he has to say?"
You see, Victor/ia, I've been wondering about this mySelf. I mean, that was
what I was 'supposed' to do for the review, right? But, I'm not sure about
1) what paraterms and 2) which paraterms I could/would/might have wanted to
engage/wrestle with. How does one assess a General Economy without turning
to a restricted economic model (as a means of sheer engagement, the ability
to handle bits/bites/bytes at a time)? Without creating a differend?
It *is* pre-ten[s]ious as hell, and self-aggrandizing, and self-indulgent.
It is full of pre-tensions, post-tensions, tensive, tense...wrestling with
demons that forever threaten to destroy your effort, threaten to reconstitute
you into the paradigms you wish to forever leave behind. Even the multiple
selves/sylphs you wish fragment into threaten to be cohered into a
'Vitanza-esque' quality that nails you down, cages you in, shuts you up/out.
It is a constant struggle, not just to read you, but to write you. It is a
constant effort at indulging the multiple impulses of your various
selves/sylphs in an effort simply to not play the game at all, much less by
the rules. You had better not know better. It is the only way to survive -
to have played the game well enough to know how not to play it anymore, to
forget it, to leave it behind.
I, personally, think the whole book(less), the whole(less) oevre is a hoax.
A big joke. The hopes of a vision that you can't make happen, any more than
it can happen anyway. Except as seen by a small group of acadamnians trying
desparately to fight against the stream of forces they are caught in, a
stream which ties them up into a literary-industrial complex of production
and consumption that they want to destroy. The joke is on us, on all of us.
The pretentious Dionysian laughter of the loner who knows better. Ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha.
And the worst of it is, __________are you yourselphs sure you want it to
happen? __________How can you be sure? It's all rather 'theoretical', isn't
it? Dancing with the outcastes, the schizzos, the prostitutes, the dying,
the dead, the mad, the homosexuals, the pedophiles, the perverts, the
rapists, the rats, the scum. ______How do you know this is the 'right' move?
______Are you sure you make no promises of a return to the Garden? to a
healing moment, a moment of 'completion' through a perpetual act of
questioning that tries to include every moment/subject of exclusion? A
neo-romantic, a
reconstituted-so-as-to-be-totally-different-but-not-unfamiliar ideal of home,
even if it is in exile? Your work reverberates with a passion, and it is not
a pointless passion, nor is its point unitary, but a collage, but it is
nevertheless a passion, a commitment to a vision of reality that *must*
somehow come to be, and it is argued in a way that tries to reach out to
others to see its importance, its legitimacy, its justification, to perhaps
allow it to be left alone, to be allowed to come into existence as something
other, something perhaps even better/worse than what currently is.
______Otherwise, why write?
Ah, but Victor/ia, "we are the poison in the human machine." To be punk for
punk sake, not for any other reason than because punk is so punk. And the
perpetually questioning, experimenting, crossing boundaries, going too far,
simply to do it because we aren't supposed to. "We are the flowers in your
dustbin." "We are the future", and there *is* no future.
That's why I am laughing till it hurts.
-TheVoidBoy
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 13:33:15 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:32:01 -0400
From: Lee Honeycutt
Subject: Re: lh-->vv: more questions
At 12:44 PM -0400 9/29/97, sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote:
>As I said I was mirroring back to Ed the method itself. People have
>to understand, however, that if Ed had not written and published his
>article, we would not be having this conversation. Ed has helped in more
>ways than one in advancing our conversations. And Sue and John, and
>countless others.
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, the main reason I recommended your book to
our library committee is that I wanted to see your response to Ed's
article. Being a Bakhtinian Socratic, I enjoy the clash of ideas and was
eager to see your response.
>If the metaphysical, if the onto-theological is what 'we' grew up with, we
>un/just have to find ways of rethinking 'it.' .)>= Lee, thanks for the
>conersation.
Agreed, and thanks for taking the time to explain your work. May not always
agree with you, but at least I'm reading it.
-- Lee
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 15:19:26 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:18:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: Re: VB>>>>>>VV
VB, after reading your recent post, my thoughts are ... that eventhough
it's a little after 2pm, I'm going to have a drink. Of 12+ years old
sacre-mental Scotch, of course!
VV
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 16:07:38 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:53:23 -0500
From: Byron Hawk
Subject: Re: VB>>>>>>VV
VB says
>How does one assess a General Economy without turning to a restricted >economic model
You can't... that's the point(less) of the trickster
>To be punk for punk sake, not for any other reason than because punk is >so punk.
This is the greatest line I've ever heard... I makes me want to scream
YYYYEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
B.
--
Byron Hawk
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 17:01:37 1997
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:00:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: sophist@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
Subject: Re: VB>>>>>>VV
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 TheVoidBoy@AOL.COM wrote:
> And the worst of it is, __________are you yourselphs sure you want it to
> happen? __________How can you be sure? It's all rather 'theoretical', isn't
> it? Dancing with the outcastes, the schizzos, the prostitutes, the dying,
> the dead, the mad, the homosexuals, the pedophiles, the perverts, the
> rapists, the rats, the scum. ______How do you know this is the 'right' move?
VB, you give me the sign of the cross (the guilt version), the sign of the
negative, with this litany!!
Rape is the sign of the negative. I state this repeatedly in the bookless.
And the whole of the History of Rhetoric is based (founded) on Rape
Narratives. I state this repeatedly in the bookless. And I state that I
pulled a chapter that is becoming a book entitled, _Canonicity, Rape
Narratives and the History of Rhetoric_.
If the people you mention above are good enough for Nietzsche's and
Kazantzakis's Christ, VVhy not for me, or 'us'?
"How do I know this is the right move?" I don't! I never said or would say
this is the right move. Measure would be alien to me!
vv
From owner-pretext@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Mon Sep 29 18:54:34 1997
From: TheVoidBoy@AOL.COM
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:52:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: VB>>>>>>VV
Single malt, I hope.
Funny, I wondered when what I posted would drive you to drink. I have long
since driven myself to drink just thinking about what to write to you,
Victor.
Thanks for the discussion, and the willingness to engage. I'm glad somebody
out there is willing to put up with my rather pathetic ideas and bizarre
musings.
I will go join you, Victor. And I'm a bit earlier in the day!
-VoidBoy
|
