bridget:
>hola.

hi there.

>the tone was more like 'brr i'd get!' no?

mmm. mine? i was thinging of some cold acquisitional instinctive kinda
whatchamacallit. yours? dunno, sounded kinda mad and drunk. but we
could do both?

>I was beautifully drunk on whiskey and lemons.  =belligerent bridget.

ya know, i'm always already gettin trounced by whiskey drinkin mamas.
wassup wit dat?

>otherwise my thinking that
>your distinguishing argument was a cop out wouldn't have been quite as
>verbal (and perhaps more coherent).

not quite as verbal? wow. what's left? please, don't answer that.

um, distinguishing argument? o, i was just making self-justifying statement
of explanation (as if there's any other kind), to duncan, i believe, of sumpin
i've said before, a few times, but in other words, and that is, i'm bored at
work, just crappin words as dey come, not attempting to make anything grand
or edited, as i don't believe -in- talent anyhow, just that there -is-
privilege.

which reminds me of a similar thing i heard, similar to cop out that is,
upon perusin ross's new archives, where i see posts addressin me i've never
seen before, as the sum of news and mail is less than their parts. it was
a gentle prodding from duncan, which, among other myths of our day, takes me
to task for being lazy. to which i plead =guilty=, fuck yeah, if not.

which i deserve to acknowledge, having once let alec talk me into a false
binary opposition, whereupon i was led to endorse freakin -rigor-, more 'tis
than i know.

another sentence frag mint.

coz if there's one thing i believe, it's that if there is a 'truth', not
vrai, not virtu, but verite or non (such as/is choice), it's prolly pretty
stupid, imbued with leisure (rolling in the mud of shakey ground, no doubt),
and appears as a complete turd.

not that that's -easy- to come by, mind you. it implies either the courage
or the foolhardiness to stick one's hands in the toilet bowl.

anyway, i have been much bitter of late, as listening to jeff robins reminds
me, yeah, post-christmas depression, i believe, but everything is cyclical,
bo tells me (the pagan!), so a mood swing seems in the works.

(i'm randomly in search of 'sentences' which may be fluidly read by the
receptive reader yet defy diagramming, you see. i'll keep working on it.
colliloquoy occurs.)

i'd like to take this moment to endorese the viewing, preferably when very
toasted, of perhaps the stupidest movie i've ever seen, which was just last
night, entitled, the movie, that is, _the stupids_ starring stupid tom arnold.
this video was soooo stupid as to be sublime. there were some scenes that
appeared copped from charlie chaplin, however. it took about half the movie
for me to get over just how hyper-stupid it is and by then i was laughing
uncontrollably. much more stupid than even _joe's apartment_, which only
attains the level of insipidly cute.

>how scenical.

whoo-hoo!

shucks, if this is what sobriety can do, i'm going on the wagon again.

just when i think the list is too futile even for me, along come several
'reasons' to hang on. scenical. yow! heather's japacore hello kitty zine.
alan and the harmonica neoromanticists (yo, you laugh buddy, but that shit
could be huge! (and already is with the tres hip gay camp crowd)). this
place is jussa laff riot.

>no, dearie.  I just sold my thesis to barnes and noble.

that's ducky! unfortunately, i won't be able to afford a copy until it
hits the used book stores a few years from now. but i eagerly await!

anyway, please accept my condolences that my words appear fuzzy, i'm sure
that's all my fault, and for whatever -ire- that incurs upon ya. your
post was useful to me in a way with which i won't bore ya, else summin else
might to lecture me on wondering out loud bout stuff i have not the credentials
or license to consider. please keep posting (particularly when looped) as ye
seem to have some post-wit about ya, a trait that seems to be more accumulating
of late rounchere.

what kinda whiskey?

and those better be organic lemons ye're squeezin, young lady!

3.2.3