I hope you had a good one.
>
>I thought that was the British spelling of tobacco.
The british spelling is
"gradual death inducement smoked by thick twats who defend their
stupidity with empty cliches"
>
>>2.) I also find it very strange, to say the least, that Nate would
>>advocate watching TV on drugs as harmless, in contrast to camping on
>>drugs.
>I'm afraid I don't see whats so strange here... I was trying to contrast
>passive activities with active ones. For instance, I had the misfortune of
>attending Lollapalooza ... a large rock concert ... a couple of years ago.
> It should have been a fairly passive activity. People were throwing an
>individual up in the air using their blankets. Pretty soon the activity
>caught on and idiots were doing it with bed sheets and sleeping bags.
Nate, you really should light up less and lighten up more.
>>The safety of camping on drugs is of course dependent on the type
>>and amount of drug, the severity of camping conditions, and the
>>togetherness of the person involved.
Togetherness, I love it. I think I am falling for you Eva. I
dont care that the whole of CoV knows this, I want to sing this e-mail
to you. (although I would like to check that you are not an 18 stone
welshman with bad breath first, before I commit totally.) Also If you
are one of those yanky idiots who goes with the tradition of genital
mutilation for your male children then we need to talk, also I am very
hapilly married, this is a barrier to anything physical, nonetheless
most of what you say excites me and my mental picture of you gives me
the horn.
then again my mental picture of drakir does too (I think its the
Fangs) our imaginations can be the most corruptable interpretors of
reality.
>
>I guess we disagree on the dangers of camping. I could care what happens
>to an individual camper, but unfortunately one person's irresponsibility is
>will affect my camping experience. Pretty soon Rangers will be denying me
>responsible access to the wilderness because the irresponsibility of
>idiots.
I sense that you are always behaving responsibly. Surely then
for you it would be all the more fantastic to behave irresponsibly. We
all need a healthy ratio. 100 percent of any extreme is irresponsible.
>
>I contend that even when jungle explorers are camping in a KOA campground
>drinking one 3.2 beer the consequences of a stupid action are more severe
>than at home. Really this is a pet peeve of mine ... watching people do
>unsafe things with coleman stoves, hatchets, fire arms, etc. just pisses
>me off because eventually I end up paying for the consequences of their
>actions...even if its just a slightly higher campground fee to support the
>ranger who comes around to make sure I'm OK.
Its all relative. Staying in your tent is safer than venturing
out. Staying at home is safer than going camping. Never being born is
safer than being born. Not smoking is safer than smoking. Firing a
shotgun in your mouth is safer than telling your girlfriend she is
slightly overweight.
and all of this is safer than mountaineering.
>
>
>I find it strange that you see nothing weird about getting into a
>suggestible state as long as you control what is being suggested. In what
>way are the memes propagated by TV dangerous? Are you saying that by
>watching TV on drugs I'm more likely to go out and emulate Jason from
>Friday the 13th or to believe I can fly ala Art Linkletter's daughter? Or
>are you saying by watching TV on drugs I'll go out and purchase bounty
>paper towels over the store brand? What is the danger of exposing myself
>to TV in a suggestible state?
For an individual the danger is small, but overall the net
effect of allowing yourself to be influenced by adverts is that one
(unelected) conglomeration will eventually rule the world, I am
surprised you dont realise this.
> BTW, since I have called you a cunt and been generally rather
antagonistic I feel the need to spell something out:
I love you man, and everybody else on this list, except of
course for Drakir, who is a cunt.
Tony Hindle.