<Boomie: Huzzah!>

Congrats are in order and I'm sure they are forthcoming. I've been playing this game forever and all I have to show for it is no lousy T-shirt.>

If none of your T-shirts are lousy it is unlikely you will have a wardrobe malfunction!

My opinion about T-shirts with messages is if people don't listen to you, what makes you think they want to hear from your shirt?

My opinion about T-shirts with messages is if people don't listen to you, what makes you think they want to hear from your shirt?>

<Teem Shirt>

< A baker's dozen for the first to identify the author.>

<The Gustible Airline>

In case you were secretly wondering, I did in fact take a close look at these blueprints:

<Today's Special:
shells with potatoes can make a fine hot dish, joining each strawberry jam.

Beat the dish successfully, make a level of that which has been written. It should be sufficient to make a saltspoonful of the size of ground rice to make a slice of mustard with parsley.

It is the slice leaning against the top with the juice of pork weighing perhaps three and their liquor in default of the sorrel and then put in the white sugar.

Squeeze the sauce with plenty of skate into pieces and chop it together for a bottle of the meat

Prepare ham in salted water. Remove the outside leaves of fish, you must not use cream, slightly browned without lumps.

Boil together and, at the side up into the sliced carrots, add three and sugar to which they must first water, and then wait six weeks' time.

Next make a good powdering of bread. Leave it on a few drops of four ounces of Thing-in-Itself, in the sauce over all. Sprinkle in the remains of any cabbage.

Serves 4>

I didn't have time to go to the liberry when I was young, so I'm not a "reader" per se, but I did my best with this particular roast.

It sounds delicious on paper for sure. I cook almost all my own dinners (serves one (1) because I don't have any fckn friends), so I'm actually keen to try this. But I need some supplementary English help.

<shells with potatoes can make a fine hot dish, joining each strawberry jam.>

I don't think we have <shells> in Korea unless you mean <sea shells>? Also, I'm unclear on how to join <strawberry jam> to a <hot dish>. Does this mean pouring the jam on the hot dish and then leaving it on your counter until it congeals, and then the jam actually fuses with the dish?

We have <skates> in Korea but how do I beat them? Would I need a hammer that is equally effective against both metal and leather?

We don't have <bread powder> in Korea but we have plenty of <squid powder>. Can I substitute amirite.

I'm actually good on the rest of the instructions, having understood them perfectly!

As a fan of the sweet science, you are perhaps watching the latest Pacquiao fight. He is a lot of fun to watch. He lands a lot of leather from bizarre angles. Kind of reminds me of Aaron Pryor in the sheer quantity of punches thrown. Neither of them would be considered knockout punchers. But in boxing, quantity has a quality all its own. I think Pryor was better at it but I admire Pacquiao's heart.

Here is the incredible demolition of the great Alexis Arguello by Pryor. I don't think Pacquiao has ever beaten anyone as good as Arguello.

<Teem> Not quite- my fandom of the sweet science ended with the retirement of <Mohammed Ali>, and will forever remain retired.

<Teem> quite right, but it should be no surprise that I'm more interested in the history of boxing than boxing. I'm more interested in the history of anything than anything itself.

That said, I could see myself returning to the sweet science, but only if it were organized along these lines:

I am not necessarily an advocate of Baudrillard's views but find them interesting.

My mistake re 911 was to confuse these things. It was inappropriate. However the thinking of it for me was to avoid a kind of cliche, clichaic response to the situation. I tried to give the history of all these things.

The anti-America thing arose when I was responding to (a user on here) who kept saying that NZ was made up of criminals (linked to Australia etc) and that we were lucky not to be speaking Japanese and so on. This was a response to my critique of US international actions...I also explained I had protested NZ Government and military actions). Then I made the joke about everyone in NZ hating Americans, forgetting I wasn't on my own Forum and it all escalated...

It is true I said some dubious things and I regret some of them...

But that is the past. Big Pawn thinks that an explanation of something is an excuse or means that the person trying to understand a phemomena or thing is in sympathy with that thing. I might be but that is far from being a supporter.

I can understand many situations where so-called terrorist actions can be understood. Whether justified is hard to say in some cases. It is also difficult to actually define terrorism.

9/11 was so bizarre it threw me completely and I can show the records where I came out angrily demanding that the West hit the Arabs and so on. Then I changed my views, went through a long period convinced it was an 'inside job'. But I eventually decided that in fact it was impossible to know.

But in general there is no way I would argue for violence. Where it has happened it is anger at other wrongs done. Of course in that state of mind silly things are said...

When I was in NY in 1993 I found the place great and I went up the South Tower. The people were all kind. I tried to take a photograph of what I thought was a Miro on the wall just before I exited, but my film had just run out.

I did drink in those days but I stopped virtually completely in 2006. I rarely drink and have never been drunk posting.

I was amazed at the effect as I could look straight up the towers from the ground and took a photo thus.

When 9/11 happened it was hypnotic. They played here over and over. I knew people had died but it was like, I don't know, it was like watching the battle of Marathon live or something. It was strangely as if it was now, but also thousands of years ago. Something like that.

I certainly wouldn't aid and abett people who were say, going to drive a truck down a road or knife people or anything.

My thinking is that those who do that are somehow 'psychoticised' by complex events in their lives and in the absence of a strong left wing in the world they turn to a kind of fanatacism, which is almost a kind of retreat. A kind of madness that focuses them.

I am not sure. But I have no doubt the
FBI and others study such things.

A danger of BP's approach is that those who are REALLY supporters of terrorist actions are overlooked. A terrorist, whoever or whatever that is, is not going to talk the way I do. The signals are quite different.

Here I mean except in certain difficult circumstances where self-defense on a personal or say a national scale is needed. So the US were historically right to fight for independence and so were say the people of China and Indo-China and so on. It was too late by 1939 to be a pacifist in England or other places but I can understand the impulse (and especially of say Bertrand Russell and others in WWI).

I so pleased!

As for your other questions, sorry, you must make the powdering of bread yourself.

The only sport I currently recognize is football (the real kind).>