Re: RAT ANTI-NATO-ART

[TimNGail@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/15/99 1:19:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jsylvain@station.sony.com writes:

<< 2: Makes perfect sense. I always wondered about people who complain about
 "having to read something". Unless there's a test you never "have to" read
 something and I'm walking proof that you don't "have to" read something even
 if there is a test. >>


Well, I guess since John agrees, I must be wrong then.  :)

It's not that I've minded reading all of everyone's postings.  I guess I'm 
another one to pull out sarcasm when all else fails... and as you can see, 
I'm in fact adding to the problem by posting my response here, adding yet 
another RAT ANTI-NATO-ART listing to the doorstep.

It's a very rare thing for me to delete any RAT posting, as a matter of fact. 
 I guess curiosity killed the cat, but one never knows what one will miss.... 
 :)

Would it be horrible and ugly and awful of me to simply say that I haven't 
heard (or more correctly, "read") anything too terribly new in any of these 
postings, though?  Nothing that hasn't been bombarding me (no pun intended) 
already on CNN, or MSNBC, or NPR, or the Washington Post, or the AP Online 
or..... except for the bit about the chili.... now THAT was good.

Not that there has to be anything new.  Maybe simply being able to repeat the 
same thoughts to one another, as a symbolic communication of sorts:

"Are you OK?"
"No.  you?"
"No."

(pause)

"Are you OK?"
"No.  you?"
"No."

I honestly believe that there IS some comfort in that.

tim