In AW's inditement of "jerks" he implicates himself if you extend the "takes one" axiom. Since I don't agree with his critique, he's automaticly off the hook and there remains but one original "jerk" to the story. It's fuzzy logic, but it's my logic.

I think Bush contridicted himself, proving he *did care* by doubling back and repeatedly asking "who are you with ?".


- bill 7-19-2001 11:07 pm [add a comment]

• fuzzy logic, fuzzier spelling.
  - dave 7-19-2001 11:14 pm [add a comment]




• same old dave
  
  
  - bill 7-19-2001 11:20 pm [add a comment]




• i resent your incendiary indictment of my supposed character. by automatically linking my present pronouncement to your perceptions of my passed behavior, you have done us both a disservice. therefore, it is fortunate (for you and i both) that i reject your initial line of reasoning nullifying the egregiousness of your insurmountable logic and drawing attention away from your questionable consideration regarding orthographic concerns.
  - dave 7-19-2001 11:53 pm [add a comment]




• Reminds me of one of those great all purpose explanations, so useful in politics, such as "mistakes were made" (never mind who by). Anyway, a friend of mine once explained: "how can I be held responsible for something I did in the past?".
  Oh yeah, another good one is "you may be right, but that doesn't make it true", also known as "that may be true, but it doesn't mean you're right".
  
  - alex 7-20-2001 12:01 am [add a comment]




• ummm, of course, i meant passe....i mean....i.i.i was just testing you, yeah thats it. whew... thats not why im sweating. just mind your own damnable business.
  - dave 7-20-2001 12:08 am [add a comment]




• your drifting again - can't stay on toipic ?
  
  
  - bill 7-20-2001 12:14 am [add a comment]