🚀 go-pugleaf

Scott Buckner wrote:
> 
> >How's THAT for Sherlocking?
> 
> >Eagerly awaiting your heated reply. :-/
> 
> Heated response? From me? Nah.
> 
> I will ask, however, whether you were having an intense religious experience
> when you created this posting. By the looks of this sentence structure train
> wreck, I can only assume you were in the midst of speaking in tongues at the
> time. Contrary to what others may have told you, babbling incoherently before
> the entire world not an endearing quality.
> 
> I guess "Hooked On Phonics" only goes so far ...

No, it goes further.  I learned early to spot those who see no humour in 
writing.  They need to read short sentences.  They need sentences which get 
straight to the point.  They need sentences which usually end on the point.  
Phonics also helped me with sounding out all the horrible voices which roam 
in my head and go blather in the midnight hours while I lay awake watching 
the suns swirl about my doghouse in the darkness watching you enter- there 
you are, I see you going around the corner moving like a flamer in the 
midnight hours while I lay awake watching the suns swirl about my 
doghouse in the darkness, and there you were, I saw you going around the 
corner moving like a flamer in the midnight hours while I lay awake watching 
the suns swirls about my food dish, and then, the flames began, climbing 
higher and higher and hotter and hotter!

Gee, thanks for telling me babbling isn't cool.. but not using verbs in your 
sentences isn't so grand either shiny boy.  Also, if your only possible 
assumption is tongues... could that be because of a limited imagination?

-belch-  <-- is that ok?  Ah... I feel better anyway.
-- 
All typos are copyright 1996, Dearmad Productions, to be used
solely in the production of Dearmad missives.  Any violators (those
who use SIMILAR typos) will be punished to the fiullest extent of
the lew!