RE: RAT ANTI-NATO-ART

["Sylvain, John" <jsylvain@station.sony.com>]

Can we do that play at Sacred Fools?

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	TimNGail@aol.com [SMTP:TimNGail@aol.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 15, 1999 10:35 AM
> To:	rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
> Subject:	Re: RAT ANTI-NATO-ART
> 
> 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