Time to Part Company

WorldNet Daily | 9/13/2000 | Dr. Walter E. Williams

[Cyber Liberty]

I wonder if some of the things BillyBob posts are just to see if the responses contain anything he has overlooked in the brief he is preparing.

If that's the case, then we're way underpaid and underappreciated.

I thought we were a "non-profit" political discussion forum, not BB's own personal discount focus-group.

BTW, you never miss my posts. If I ask something, you always answer. I used to work in broadcasting, so I find your stuff very insightful.

[laotzu]

C'mon....you're brave, you're bold, you're a "winner"......you can talk to me.

[thegreatbeast]

But the difference is that Chomsky has the other party actually forwarding the agenda of the opposing party. Wallace (or whoever) just said there wasn't much to differentiate one party from the other, like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[laotzu]

"you're brave, you're bold, you're a "winner"...you can talk to me"

Or....not. My mistake.

[AgThorn]

Gotta lay off those 13th century dictionaries.

[gcruse]

Well, that's the problem right there. Wasn't it Santana who said,

"Those who forget history have to dig around
in used book stores looking for something to
hang their chat on."

[AgThorn]

oh, I don't know ... checking out google and any other quick search seems to support all the dictionaries today (including Websters, Merrian-Websters, Princton, Dictionary.com, Stedman's Medical, and more) all support the definition as I gave it, i.e. anal intercourse with male or female primarily, beastiality secondarily, and (posibly supporting your point) "other unconventional sexual practices" shows up as a potential turtiary definition.

Granted, some of our states, especially in the bible belt, may subscribe in their law books as to your 13th century definition and perhaps they need to be changed... But one would really have to search (old book stores?) to find the 13th century definition you are showing.... kinda of a Santana analogy in reverse, eh? ;-)