It's a CONSPIRACY! (Was: Re: Martha Stewart)

MC Spearing yuramac at YAHOO.COM
Tue Mar 9 21:31:19 MST 2004

Tom’s right.  I’m out of “ammo,” and the little of it
that I wasted in the vanity of trying to hold a
discourse with the likes of him was squandered. I
believe that one literally, from a great height, could
drop the combined munitions industries and outputs of
NATO, the former Warsaw Pact, Kim Jong Il’s Korean
hordes and, yes, the Daisy BB gun factory to boot, on
his case-hardened head and produce no significant
effect -- except possibly to tighten those sensitive
knickers a bit, and for which we all would be treated
to yet another quaint-but-hysterical hissy snit.

But drop a “big” word … OH MY GOODNESS!

But hissy snits are not all bad.  They have an
amusement value, and that shouldn’t be dismissed in
such a dreary world as this, where people so
straightforwardly take themselves way too seriously.
So, let us continue.  You know, for the fun of it?

Where to start?  Ah yes, Tom complained (at length) of
suffering big-word envy.  This is a dreary but not
uncommon affliction, and it rarely is fatal.
Actually, scores of Lilliputians of Tom’s stripe
experience similar bouts of this malaise, this
arriere-pense, if you will, when unexpectedly exposed
to the occasional thaumaturgical prolegomenous
utterance.  Usually, this embarrassing covetous
condition erupts in only concert with the onset of the
sufferer’s menarche.

A very absorbent napkin could reduce some of his
discomfort for him.

Alas, lads and lassies, if only we knew WHICH BIG
words in particular cause him the vapors, then perhaps
I could make an effort to eschew them.  Why, such
eschewal would positively be kewl.

But I digress.  I should tend to the gentleman’s
urgent feelings that he’s phrased in such elegance
preserved in amber below.  I should address the
pressing and manly matters of ammo dearth,
lexicography, audience craving (audiences HEAR things,
Tom. Readers READ them.).   And, man! I ought to take
on at LEAST one cheerleader!

But I won’t.  No ammo.

Meantime, that wascally old government of ours REALLY
DID try poor old Martha Stewart in a diabolically
fiendish stratagem designed to draw attention away
from Federal Reserve Board high jinx.  No ... REALLY!
And this, of course, is NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY,
because only “I” have mentioned the word,

Hey!  “Conspiracy.”  Maybe THAT’S the BIG word that
offends him so!  Logical as all get out – at least so
as much as his prolix heretofore!

Oh yes.  OTC?  Well, it could mean Over the Counter …
or Office des Transports du Canada, or Offshore
Technology Conference, or Ozone Transport Commission,
or the Output Technology Corporation.  Then again, it
might refer to Optoelectronics Technology Center,
Office of Tobacco Control, or (a favorite) Ouachita
Technical College.  But, you know what?

I think OTC really means, “Odd Thomas –

For my adoring “audience” and for my cheerleaders,
too, this is, nonconspiratorially,


--- "Thomas J. Benthall" <tbenthal at EARTHLINK.NET>
> On 8 Mar 04, at 11:53, MC Spearing wrote:
> > Really.  It is Thomas who fails to apprehend
> points
> > (and cogently to make them), and by the winded
> > character of these replies, the spirit in which I
> > offered them.  QED.
> >
> > Moreover, he confirms and compounds this manifest
> > misunderstanding by posting invective and
> > nonsequiturs.  I see also that he selectively
> excised
> > some of his words, leaving mine out of context for
> > rejoinder.  As a tactic, that is rather a devious
> > behavior.
> >
> > As to the rest, all the REST, there is no way that
> I
> > can engage a conspiracy theorist profitably
> (proving
> > the negative) or attempt to dissuade him of prized
> > plots and schemes.  If he wishes, he may cherish
> this
> > blarney and nourish it.  By all means, though, he
> is
> > not compelled to present evidence to sustain it.
> > Rather, he may heave it up and then challenge
> others
> > to disprove it.
> For some reason I'm getting the feeling that you are
> making a speech.  Are you looking for
> support?  Trying to get an audience?  Do you need a
> few cheerleaders?
> And now you hit me with the BIG words.  Am I
> supposed to intimidated by them? Or
> maybe I'm supposed to be impressed?
> It took  me about 10 seconds to interpret those $5
> words.
> Their meaning:  You are out of ammunition.
>  I try to point out a fraud (for the lack of a
> better word).  I try to describe how it is carried
> out.  I then describe the magnitude of the con game.
>  I then explain how this con game has
> been carried out in the past.  And for my efforts, I
> am hit with the phrase "conspiracy
> theorist".........which is a much used liberal
> tactic.
> Have you even noticed that you are the one that uses
> the word conspiracy?  I haven't used
> it.  Thats another indicator that you are out of
> ammo.  You are right about one thing
> though, you cannot engage me profitably.
> Now, I'll explain to you why you can't.    I
> mentioned documented facts and names, but
> you have not addressed any of this.  I can only
> surmise that  you fail to do so because
> you don't know what to make of these facts.  In
> other words, you're in over your head.
> Which makes me you even know
> what a OTC derivative is?

France has usually been governed by prostitutes. - Mark Twain

      - Remember:
        Koby Mandell -
        Shiri Negari    -

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list