Good coming out of evil.
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:54:26 -0400 (00893656466, 19980427004341.AAA13786@briandea)
NOT BRIDEAN:
>I can imagine that you often determine the real sizes
>of male wongs, whatever the hell a wong is. Can't you
>tell the difference between a wang and a wong?
>BRIDEAN
>Well, yours is too small to be called a wang, so I decided to call
>it a wong, for lack of a better term. I don't know an appropriate
>English word for one as small as yours.
DICK
Your feeble imagination can't even reach crude humor,
BRIDEAN. There are many, many, many, many words you
don't know the meaning of in English, such as truth,
logic, reason, fallacy, Christianity, etc.
BRIDEAN
So, what would you call a "thing" as small as the one between your legs?
>DICK
>Resort? FALLACY OF FALSE IDENTIFICATION. Womanhood is
>never determined by age. There are girls who are 28 and
>there are women who are 14. And there was only ONE 16
>year-old who had about six years of sexual experience
>with her father and brothers by then, and who had the
>experience of committing a murder, often a maturing act.
>And at my age, they use me more than I use them.
>BRIDEAN
>I see, so you admit to being used by a 16 year old. Not very clever for
>a millionaire lawyer/doctor. Sounds more like something that would happen
>to a person who cleans restrooms for McDonalds.
DICK
No, no. You see, I wished to be used by this 16 year-old
since she used me sexually in all sorts of ways. It was very
clever of me (disregarding your feeble attempt at a fallacy).
It's the kind of thing fools who hang out in McDonalds'
restrooms can only dream of, such as your own feeble self.
Now you can only go there to mourn yours that was bitten off.
BRIDEAN
Well, the fact that you WISHED to be used by a 16 year old is
pathetic. You remind me of a sixty year old man who was jerking
off at a Sears store and had child pornography with him. Perhaps
this is the type of man you wish to become.
>BRIDEAN
>Well you can't face the fact that you have a small wong, so you claim
>that other people (Till in this case) have a small one. You are merely
>projecting your own inadequacies onto someone else. Not very
>interesting.
My, my, many falsities here. First, the lie that I have
a small wong, a nonexistent word misused. The lie that I
made any claim since I never make claims. The lie by
implication that Tilly's is not small. And now the old
switcheroo, the fallacy of equivocation, the evasion of
a lying coward, trying to change your false word of
displacement into the word you meant, projection. But
then, apparently you haven't been keeping up with all
the revelations of your religion of Science, since Freud
has now been excommunicated as a Pseudoscientist, a false
religionist. All of Freud's guesses have been thrown out
of the grab bag of Science. Not very interesting that you
spout doctrines of ancient Science, long since discarded
by all thinking and knowledgeable people. But then each
fool is unique and for those who collect specimens of
fools, such as I, you fit right there in the bag with
all the others.
BRIDEAN
Well, perhaps your particular case would revive the old Freudian
paradigm. But that would be more influence than even you could
hope for.