There are some interesting ironies in today's Tacoma News Tribune. In one article Tim Eyman complains that Pierce Transit is overinflating the financial damage I-695 will do to their service, but the Nose column points out a little bit of his own exaggerations:

Tim Eyman, who is getting his 15 minutes of fame by pushing Initiative 695, boasted last year he'd gotten a "five-figure" contribution from the Big Three automakers last year.

That's when he was pushing the "No Car Tax" initiative, the mother (or father) of I-695, which failed to get enough signatures to win a place on last year's ballot.

Asked why the contribution never showed up in his campaign finance reports, Eyman wriggled.

It was $5,000, he says.

So where'd he come up with "five-figure" contribution?

"Well, it had a '5' in it," he said.

Hmm, I guess that means I have a nine-figure salary.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 24, 1999

Answers

Which has what to do with anything, exactly?

Westin

NOS is a real gas

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 24, 1999.

Well Westin, let's see. About 2 weeks before the deadline to turn in signatures last year Eyman found himself about half short of turning in even the minimum amount of signatures required. He was finding his campaign written off in the media and suffering from almost no campaign contributions. So what to do...

He announced that the campaign had received a major donation from the Big 3 automakers in the form of a "five-figure" check. So all the sudden this gives the impression that the automakers are strong supporters of his initiative. The reason for this is fairly obvious. Nobody considered his initiative capable of gaining enough signatures so he needed to come up with something that may spark a last ditch effort. Of course his little scheme wouldn't be discovered until AFTER the deadline, much too late to do anything, so he would be safe in bending the truth in that the so called five figure check was in fact a $5,000 check.

Let's see Westin. The chairman of the 695 committee has shown that he is capable of bending the truth in half in order to advance his cause. You of all people should be shocked and appalled by this action. I mean of course YOU know that I'm not offended by such weasel like actions, but you, a man who holds such deep contempt for people like Gary Locke who supposedly lied on issues like I-200 should, in theory, hold the same contempt for Tim Eyman. YOU'RE the one who lectures about how credibility is lost when people lie through their teeth to support their campaign. If we can't trust him to make an accurate statement about the size of a donation check, then how can we trust him with on anything else he says?

So tell me, is it okay that Eyman purposedly misrepresented the size of a campaign contribution? If it is, then how? How is it okay for him to do this and not for someone like Gary Locke? Please tell me that there is a better answer than "because I agree with his position." I mean, I hold you in such HIGH regard Westin. I'd hate to have to consider you as just a big of weasel as Tim Eyman is.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 24, 1999.

I get it now. Eyman actually DOES think that "five figures" means $5,000. So when someone told him that the MVET revenue is a "ten figure" number, he assumed that it brings in $10,000 every two years. No wonder he's dumbfounded by claims that so many projects and jobs will be lost!

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 24, 1999.

Patrick,

We have to choices here to explain Eyman's, ahem, discrepancy.

1) Having previous experience in the political arena, he has learned the fine art of disingenuousness.

2) He is simply incapable of basic math. At the age of 33. AFTER having "graduated" from Wazoo.

Either one is alternately amusing or frightening, depending on your perspective. The basic math option sheds a lot of light on his assumption that, upon the passage of I-695, them pesky bureaucrats in Olympia will easily be able to "re-arrange" the state budget to protect basic services -- even though, according to the insinuations of various pro-695 flamethrowers, they "don't know what the hell they're doing"!

The disingenuousness option is another thing entirely!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 24, 1999.

Jeff wrote: "We have to choices..."

What he meant was "We have two choices..."

Que sepan Ustedes.

And oh what choices they are!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 24, 1999.

Let me get this straight...

You actually CAN'T be simple-minded enough to actually think that the announcement of the reception of a campaign contribution of any size or discription actually made any difference of any kind concerning the issue of signature gathering, can you? I mean, I could understand it if it was Jeff, but YOU?

Well, maybe.

I supported 695 from the moment I first heard about it. Who pays him money makes no more difference to me then the Chinese paying money to Bill makes any difference to you.

Should Tim have said/done this? Of course not. Does it compare with a concerted campaign of lying and misleading the people such as Locke attempted with I-200; coming into our living rooms, day in,day out and flatly lying to us?

Not even in your world, Patrick.

BTW, this Nose thing is the first I've heard about this... his quote, that is. The question again is should that make any difference to me or any other voter as to voting for this initiative.

The answer is that it should effect support for this initiative as much as the lies and false statements of the anti's should effect your opposition.

In closing, the fact that someone came up with an alleged lie by Eyman has no effect on my support of this initiative... anymore then, for example, the claim on the angelfire "no" site that Dale Foreman opposes 695 (a month after he came out in support of it, and through at least one revision of that site) should effect your opposition.

Westin

(BTW, Patrick... you still are delusional (like most liberals, I admit) if you only believe that Locke "supposedly" lied about I-200. After all, all this verbiage about Eyman's statements is meaningless... unless they've been proven in a court of law... right? Or, as you clearly infer with this little thread, does that only apply to those who oppose you? )

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 24, 1999.

Ah, here we go. It was only a LITTLE lie, and it didn't make any difference anyway, so we really shouldn't hold it against him. Is that it?

And again, since this is the first Westin has heard of it, then it also isn't that big of a deal. Actually, Eyman went as far as issuing a press release citing the five figure check. The TNT noted this back on 6/27/98 (I checked the records BEFORE I posted the comment Westin, what a concept!) This wasn't just some passing statement. Eyman made a calculated decision to attempt to deceive people in order to boost his campign.

Yeah Westin, it's your call in deciding whether or not Eyman has lost credibility. But of course YOU'RE the one who complained that Dale Foreman was still listed as an opponent on the No site LESS than an hour after he said he supported 695. The MONSTER of all nit picking. And now you're shrugging off a lie by the spokesman of 695. You're talking out of a lot sides of your face now. But that's okay, it's not like you have any credibility anyway.

You know you never have told us why you're such an expert on politics and campaigns. Or for that matter who your anonymous contact is at the LTC. You ever get around to checking that transportation revenue distribution study that I kept clubbing you over your head with? Hmm, you sure do talk a lot, but no facts ever seem to come out. Maybe if you keep trying different sides of your mouth...

P.S. I'd be willing to debate whether or not Gary Locke lied in the I- 200 campaign if you'd ever cite an instance. You know, a quote or something that can be verified. All I've heard from you is that he lied all the time. Well if that's the case, it shouldn't be hard for y

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 25, 1999.

You know, Patrick...

You shouldn't be such a predictable individual. I knew that unless I disavowed 695 and demanded that Eyman open his veins on public TV, you'd take this bizarre little tact.

You stammered: "Ah, here we go. It was only a LITTLE lie, and it didn't make any difference anyway, so we really shouldn't hold it against him. Is that it?"

No. That isn't it. His statement on the campaign contribution makes no difference to the substance of the initiative, nor dose it change the fact that we're voting on it, or that it will win. Being in the opposition, and, therefore, desperate to find an issue, any issue, to seize on in your forlorn hope to derail this train, I can easily recognize your wild-eyed desire that Eyman's statement would have some material effect on the issue at hand.

It doesn't. Get over it.

Furthermore, that perspective is not one of a supporter over the opposition. It is the reality of the situation... NOTHING you've written gives pause to wonder about any aspect of this initiative.

And, of course, taking it a step further, since Locke lied thru his teeth on I-200, we should automatically oppose EVERYTHING he supports, and distrust EVERYTHING he says....

Right?

And, looking for just the smallest level of continuity from you Patrick, NONE of this has been proven about Eyman: that he said any of this first and foremost, but, far more importantly that anything concerning that issue will have any effect on the outcome. After all, as you (that WAS you, wasn't it?) were want to say, it hasn't been proven in a court, has it?

Do I detect something of your OWN double standard here?

Nah... that's not possible. Those of you opposing our efforts to gain the ability for the people to have a direct say in their own destiny are genetically incapable of untruth, double-standard or unethical behavior, right?

You went on: "And again, since this is the first Westin has heard of it, then it also isn't that big of a deal."

No, Patrick.. you misunderstand. It's not a big deal because its not a big deal. That I haven't heard of it... or that I was their video- taping it, makes no difference one way or the other.

The questions are these: Will this revelation cause this issue to be removed from the ballot? Will it cause the initiative to lose? Will it make ANY difference what so ever?

No, no and no.

Now, you may feel free to THINK its a big deal, the last thing I worry about are your thoughts on the subject, given that they bear so little resemblance to reality.

You, obviously, think this IS a big deal, all though there is a complete dearth of information from you to support that conclusion... which, given the total lack of impact on the vote is to be expected.

You continued: "Actually, Eyman went as far as issuing a press release citing the five figure check. The TNT noted this back on 6/27/98"

Well, I gotta tell you, Patrick... this issue was so far below my radar screen in 98 that I freely admit that I also failed to review Eyman's press release. But then, that iteration of this initiative didn't make it anyway, did it?

And more: "(I checked the records BEFORE I posted the comment Westin, what a concept!)"

Acknowledged. Highly unusual for your efforts, but obviously this has been a learning experience for you. Congratulations!

You went on: "This wasn't just some passing statement. Eyman made a calculated decision to attempt to deceive people in order to boost his campign [sic]."

Really? So... what would you have us do about that? (Remember: while you may ask Tim to beat himself with a chain, chances are slim that he'll consider that to be a bit extreme.)

I tell you what, Patrick... why don't you... well... vote against 695? That will REALLY show him!

And more: "Yeah Westin, it's your call in deciding whether or not Eyman has lost credibility. But of course YOU'RE the one who complained that Dale Foreman was still listed as an opponent on the No site LESS than an hour after he said he supported 695."

Patrick... are you REALLY this lame? Or is this your evil twin, "Skippy?"

When I made that complaint within the hour of it's airing, it was because I knew that the STILL unnamed cretin behind that site wasn't interested in the facts.

Of course, had you checked before you stepped on your crank in the sentence above, you'd have discovered that he STILL hadn't changed it; that he STILL shows Foreman opposing 695. But then, details like that make no difference to you, do they, P?

Has for it being my "call" concerning Eyman's credibility, I personally don't care WHAT he did to get us this opportunity. Why, I'd support 695 even if a democrat had sponsored it. And using "democrat" and "credibility" in the same sentence has been prohibited by law, hasn't it? Or does it all depend on what your definition of "is," is?

You go on: "The MONSTER of all nit picking."

Right, Patrick. It's nit picking that this "No" site, which was the media darling until the official site was up and running had errors like naming the head of the Republican Party as opposing an initiative that he actually supports, which as far as that goes, he STILL does; and attempting to make mileage from the early, now resolved concerns of a conservative guru (John Carlson) as also being opposed...

Now... given the liberal mind set, it's easy to understand how it's OK for your side of the issue to lie to us with a straight face.

You continue: "And now you're shrugging off a lie by the spokesman of 695."

Exactly how am I "shrugging" anything off? If you think I should OPPOSE this thing because Eyman lied about a check... why, that's right up there with "I smoked but didn't inhale."

I repeat, Patrick... what would you have me do? All this fuming and fusing... but no substance.

I said he shouldn't have done it (presuming he actually did) but I have no intention of hunting him down and shooting him.

NONE of this will have any effect on the outcome, and frankly, anyone with political experience can easily see your efforts to give this legs as just another sign of desperation.

You mumbled further: "You're talking out of a lot sides of your face now."

Uh... no. I'm not. Practical politics is what it is. That this "revelation" will not have any impact is not a matter of anything I say. The fact is that, in the final analysis, it makes absolutely no difference. If that doesn't meet your standard of conduct (presuming since you are a liberal, and given the, uh, current occupant of the White House, that you HAVE a standard of conduct) that is entirely too bad.

And you continued to step on your dick by bleating thusly: "But that's okay, it's not like you have any credibility anyway."

My good fellow... if I have no credibility... then why do you deign to respond to my little efforts?

That you waste a key of ASCII on me puts the lie to your, uh, playground efforts.

You go on: "You know you never have told us why you're such an expert on politics and campaigns."

"Why?" There weren't any openings for a thoracic surgeon and, well... it's a living.

And you go on: "Or for that matter who your anonymous contact is at the ETC."

He's actually NOT anonymous. He's more like a state senator. Heh.

You then ask: "You ever get around to checking that transportation revenue distribution study that I kept clubbing you over your head with?"

Uh... no... I've yet to be confronted with anything of substance in that regard. As I recall, I pointed out that YOU made the assertion, therefore it was up to YOU to back it up. You, uh, declined to do so. It received the attention it deserved.

You then whizzed in your shorts by whining: "Hmm, you sure do talk a lot, but no facts ever seem to come out."

Showing that streak of S/M once again, heh, Patrick?

Overwhelming us with your wit, you moan: "Maybe if you keep trying different sides of your mouth..."

STUNNING repartee'!

Then you "PS'd": P.S. I'd be willing to debate whether or not Gary Locke lied in the I- 200 campaign if you'd ever cite an instance.

Since I have no credibility according to you, why on Earth would you be willing to debate?

That said, each and every time the no on I-200 commercial was aired, he sat there and calmly told us:

"Initiative 200 will abolish affirmative action."

He knew he was lying when he said it. But then, that's OK for you, right?

Since you asked.

"You know, a quote or something that can be verified."

OK... from the commercial:

"Initiative 200 is written to sound good, but it's misleading and full of hidden consequences. It will abolish affirmative action and hurt real people."

Now, of course, since you've just received proof that the Governor lied to us over, and over, and over again... you'll thrash him with the same vigor you go after Tim with, right?

There you go. Enjoy.

You say: "All I've heard from you is that he lied all the time."

My good man, you've NEVER read words from me that says he "lied all the time." I was (and am) quite specific about his efforts to lie, which make Eyman's look like a scratch compared to an amputation.

You close by saying: "Well if that's the case, it shouldn't be hard for y" (presumably: you to post a quote.")

Done and done.

Westin

(Who has proven for a fact that, with just a little MORE fact checking, Patrick could ovoid getting BOTH of his faces bitch- slapped.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 25, 1999.

"My good fellow... if I have no credibility... then why do you deign to respond to my little efforts? "

This coming from a person who writes a novel everytime he responds to something. If responding to a message means a person has credibility, then I must have a lot of it if it takes such a long thesis to attempt to discredit me.

See, this IS all about credibility. If you'd go back to what I originally posted, the TNT ran a story that same day quoting Eyman about how he thought Pierce County was inflating the damage 695 would do to Pierce Transit. I suppose that we can trust him on that comment since, as the Nose pointed out, he seems to know a thing or two about inflating numbers.

I have no doubt that you would still vote for 695 even if it was discovered that Eyman was the devil and this was just step two in his overall plot to rule the world. But I hate to break it to you Westin, this board wasn't created for the sole intent of convincing you whether or not 695 is a good thing. There are other people out there who aren't as convinced as you, and who don't have the overinflated ego to believe that whatever they think is true must be true.

See, you discount everything the Seattle Times prints and Gary Locke says because according to you, they've lie like crazy in campaigns. Well, if Tim Eyman is capable of those same types of lies, then why should we trust him on anything he says? And I'll say this again, because your ego may have a little trouble understanding this. By "we" I mean the other 2 million or so registered voters of this state.

There are A LOT of people out there that are still unsure about 695. And you know what? They are going to make their decision based upon what other people tell them. Will their local government have to cut services and cancel programs? Will they trade the MVET for a personal property tax? Will they have to vote on 12 different items every 3 months? Well, the only real way to know for sure is to pass the thing and find out. Not the greatest of help in decided to vote yes or no.

So who do they believe? Well the people who have the most credibility in their minds. Eyman lied in his last campaign in an attempt to get more signatures. Now I know you don't care about that, and I'm neither shocked nor devestated to hear that. But it's not like you were my targeted audience. You can print this thread out, roll it up, and stick it where the sun don't shine for all I care.

"You go on: 'You know you never have told us why you're such an expert on politics and campaigns.' 'Why?' "There weren't any openings for a thoracic surgeon and, well... it's a living."

Another unskilled dodge at answering a direct question. About every time you make one of your long winded rants you make some comment about how someone with political experience, knowledge, and education would know (insert claim here). Possibly. But I'm asking YOU if YOU consider yourself to be one of these people, and if you do, WHY you consider yourself to be such a person. It's a simple question. One that you continue to refuse to answer. Strange coming from someone who once claimed that his life is an open book.

"He's actually NOT anonymous. He's more like a state senator. Heh."

Ah, so are we talking Don Benton here then? The man who was thumped by Brian Baird in last years congressional race. The man nicknamed a "toad" by another senator. The man who is the ranking minority member on the Senate Transportation Committee, yet STILL can't manage to get you guys in Southwest Washington your fair share of transportation dollars (your claim). No WONDER you'd rather not give out his name as your contact!

"Uh... no... I've yet to be confronted with anything of substance in that regard. As I recall, I pointed out that YOU made the assertion, therefore it was up to YOU to back it up. You, uh, declined to do so. It received the attention it deserved."

Yes, the "I'm getting pounded by real numbers here so I'm going to close my eyes and pretend they aren't there" defense. For those in the viewing audience, the claim was made that Puget Sound gets an unfair portion of transportation dollars. I found the financial reports that counted up all of the taxes and fees collected by county and then compared them to the distribution of those funds. Turns out Puget Sound receives less funds than it puts into the system. Westin spend several days attempting to poke holes in the numbers but failed miserably since he refused to even study the report that he was attacking. Of course Westin always refuses to believe that he could be wrong, so apparently his final argument was that the report isn't enough evidence. Which is a lot like being clocked by a radar gun, and when pulled over, demanding a second opinion.

I-200

Alright, what part of affirmative action remains as a result of I-200? Outreach programs to ensure that women and minorities apply for positions and contracts? You've claimed that these SHOULD be illegal under I-200. Is there ANY part of affirmative action that can remain intact IF I-200 were enforced as you think it should? Well? By all means, the opponents of I-200 could have easily meant that if it were enacted as supporters envisioned, it would end affirmative action. It just happens that th

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 25, 1999.

P.,

In reading just this part of your post alone, the thought occured to me that there is no answer... no proof... no idea that is capable of opening a mind as closed at the one you were unfortunate enough to develop after your injury.

You confirm your state of delusion, and inability to grasp reality by your illogical, denial of reality pap below:

"I-200

Alright, what part of affirmative action remains as a result of I- 200?"

ALL of it that isn't in the public sector, and a lot of it that was before the initiative was voted in.

Are you so ignorant that you didn't know that I-200 eliminated racial preferences ONLY in the public sector? That means that the AA programs in say, Boeing and the Seattle Times, two of the most rabid opponents of 200 (not unlike their equally bizarre opposition to 695) were and are completely uneffected by 200.

But Locke made no such distinction. He said what was in the quote... and he made no effort to tell the people that it ONLY applied in government.

Altogether typical of a democrat, don't you think?

"Outreach programs to ensure that women and minorities apply for positions and contracts? You've claimed that these SHOULD be illegal under I-200. Is there ANY part of affirmative action that can remain intact IF I-200 were enforced as you think it should?"

Yes, since you asked.

"Well?"

Any AA program in the private sector... you know... those programs completely uneffected by 200?

"By all means, the opponents of I-200 could have easily meant that if it were enacted as supporters envisioned, it would end affirmative action."

See... this playground bullshit spin is where you lose it. There was NOTHING IN THAT INITIATIVE that would end AA.

But it IS an explanation for why you anti's get so upset about 695... its just that your positions are no truer then Locke's were.

It wasn't like Locke only has a GED... he knew he was lying while he was doing it. But like you, he was so desperate to have government solve all of our problems that he would do ANYTHING to defeat that initiative. He had no problem lying... so lie he did.

Well, he sure has been quiet lately, hasn't he? I wonder why?

Patrick, you remind me of one of those brain-damaged Clinton supporters that would have opposed his impeachment if you'd seen a video tape of ol' Billy molesting a girl scout troop.

That I have manipulated you into showing that brainwashed idiocy was what I set out to do. That you responded precisely the way I knew you would, in the face of all that bogus indignation over Eyman was a foregone conclusion. That you lack the character of a Rock Ape is firmly established... and that you would attempt to do the very thing you accuse me off could be seen coming from a mile away.

Westin

(None of the rest of it matters, Patrick. When someone works as hard at their delusions as you do, there's no point in discussion... is there?)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 25, 1999.

Oh this is fun! Now Westin is pulling the "you're so stupid I don't even HAVE to address your points" argument. Once again he pretends not to notice them because he doesn't have the capacity to respond.

And you claim that I think the voters of this state are idiots. I don't know about you, but when I think of affirmative action programs, I think of government programs, NOT ones in the private sector. You are DESPERATELY reaching here Westin. Could it possibly be that the reason why the opponents DIDN'T mention that they were only talking about government AA programs was because they didn't think there would be anyone STUPID enough to believe that this would outlaw private businesses from keeping their own programs?

I DISTINCTLY remember companies like Boeing state that they were against I-200 because it would reduce the number of trained minorities exiting college and entering the workforce. NO ONE said that this was going to prohibit private companies from continuing their AA programs.

You are so, SO pathetic Westin. Like I said before, you seem incapable of admitting when you are wrong, so you continue to wind yourself deeper into your own universe where you only hear what you want to hear and reinterpret the rest to fit the way you want the world to be. Only a fool would have interpreted the "ending of affirmative action" comments as ending the ones in the private sector too. Case in point, you did.

Go ahead and brush aside the other comments. If this is playground spin, then you're the kid who's so frustrated about not being able to make up new rules for the game every minute that he's taking the ball and running home. See ya later Westi

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 26, 1999.

It's nap time for you, Patrick. Unlike most children, you're not cute when your cranky.

Westin

(Who realizes the truth hurts you Patrick... but it's still the truth.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 26, 1999.

What? No foul language this time?

Yes Westin, it does pain me to have to club you over the head with the truth every time you open your mouth.

I'm disappointed that there wasn't any trademark 3rd grade putdowns this time aroun

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 26, 1999.

No need, young Grasshopper... the determination you show to stick your crank in the fan with such regularity needs no assistance from me. As the inexorable passage of this initiative approaches... you'll no doubt become increasingly desperate... and increasingly juvenile.

Westin

(who devoutly hopes that, one day, you'll finish up that GED and, perhaps, become educated enough to be worthy of the competition.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 26, 1999.

"As the inexorable passage of this initiative approaches... you'll no doubt become increasingly desperate... and increasingly juvenile."

This coming from someone who has to swear in almost every post to draw attention to himself and uses such terms as "brain farts" "bitch slap" and "whizzed in your shorts." I'd say the same of you, but you already seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Patrick

(Who wonders if Westin is incapable of letting someone else get the last word in, and is STILL waiting for him to divulge even the smallest bit of information on his so-called open book

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 26, 1999.

Patrick,

I've found that the best way to get Westy-poo to SHUT THE HELL UP is to throw a perfectly civil and still-relevant question at him such as the following:

Hey Westin, remember when you said that I (Jeff) drive a car and am therefore a hypocrite for "whining" about air pollution? And remember finding out that I do not in fact own or drive a car? Well, Westin, where did you get that jewel of pasture-fresh Orwellian Truth you flung at me that day? Still waiting for that answer, Westin!

I'm certain, Patrick, that you have a similar question of your own to ask of our Dandy Westin. Give it a try! I'm sure Westin's ensuing prolonged absence from threads in which you post will be quite enjoyable!

Of course, you might end up missing the comic relief...

Take care, Patrick!

G'night Westin-boy!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 27, 1999.

Gee, Jeffey...

I don't remember anyone rattling your cage, but since you came out to play, let me squash you like the bug you are and get it over with.

You see, you start by being the typical anti-type... liberal, God help you if your disagree.... I don't see it your way, so you lose your right to an opinion. Typical playground BS from you Jeffey... Maybe you need a timeout?

Certainly, in pursuit of honest discourse, you state it is your earnest desire to: "get Westy-poo to SHUT THE HELL UP"

I recognize how effective my arguments and positions have been and are... and how week and easily destroyed your incoherent ramblings are.

But I don't believe that you'll find ME telling YOU to "SHUT THE HELL UP."

On the contrary... I look forward to your juvenile antics. They provide me with a brief warm-up before I next embarrass Patty.

When it comes down to it, I (or my 14 year old son) give you the response you deserve.

Westin

(Here's hoping you get that GED finished up some day, Jeffey.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 28, 1999.

Westin,

Let me add two more questions to the growing list of questions which you seem unable (or perhaps AFRAID) to answer:

1) Can your dad beat up my dad?

2) Do you make trash like me, or do you burn it?

No irony intended, Westin. Honest!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 28, 1999.