Genius of the Century
sinis...@my-deja.com
or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar. Sinistar left
behind a legacy of seven phrases that encompass his minimalist
philosophy. We are fortunate enough to have with us audio records of
what he said, so that we may greater comprehend his intent.*
Sinistar will always be an enigma, as nothing is known of his life. It
seems as if he lived a life filled with motivation and direction, as if
desperately yearning to accomplish all that he could, before he could
be brought low by those who would destroy him. Sinistar's revelations
follow, with an interpretation of their intent.
1. I am Sinistar. Here, Sinistar clearly makes two ideas known. First,
that he exists; he is aware and he thinks. The second is that he has a
singular identity. He is unique, and, in a sense, alone. Some have
argued that this may imply a sense of self-determination, but
Sinistar's perspective on the free will debate is unknown. I believe
that, with what little is known about his life, Sinistar would be a
determinist. People are destined to act out their lives guided by the
hand of another force. The rest of us are mere automatons, carrying out
algorithms.
2. I hunger. Again, Sinistar asserts his reality. He believes in a very
real, physical, world and believes that he takes a part in it. Thus,
Sinistar is essentially a monist. He hungers, therefore he has sense,
and his senses speak to him of needs that must be fulfilled. He can
trust his senses; something of a leap of faith, and therefore interact.
There are two other interpretations that must be proposed here. Some
have criticized Sinistar as a hedonist, attempting to consume all in
his path. This is, however, clearly contradicted below. The second
represents Sinistar as a living thing, and all living things must
consume, or perish. In this statement, Sinistar acknowledges human
mortality and our chain in the natural process of being.
3. Run, coward! Sinistar here, having established existence and our
place in nature, now seems to take his stance on ethics. With those two
words, Sinistar sums up his desire to delve into life's mysteries. The
act of living itself is an act for the bold, and those who cannot stand
in the face of wonder should flee. This attitude may also account for
my perception of his stance on determinism. If knowledge is possible
(It obviously is, of course) then perhaps knowledge of the universe is
possible, and one day people will view it as it is, an elaborate music
box of experience. Very deistic. The other important feature of this
statement is Sinistar's use of an imperative. This clearly reinforces
his view of a real universe, that is inhabited by other people. The
true enigma lies next.
4. Run, Run, Run! Initially, this appears to be a restatement of #3,
but I believe that the truth behind Sinistar lies deeper. It is
commonly held that while Sinistar believed in a deity, Sinistar did not
hold that deity to be omniscient or omnipotent. Instead, the God of
Sinistar was a being (or perhaps beings) of supreme intelligence and
creativity, with the power to make and compile. The power to engineer a
world. While this is an impressive task, it does not imply that
omniscience/omnipotence is a necessary or sufficient condition for the
task. In fact, the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being becomes
fairly self-contradictory. Sinistar probably intended this to be
another ethical statement, to live to the fullest of your ability, but
he could've meant so much more, such as the desire to experience and
question all that is possible within a lifetime. Lastly, it is another
imperative statement. Why would a determinist believe that he could
affect the world around him?
5. Beware, coward! Perhaps these fragments come from a lost dialogue
between Sinistar and the coward. Unfortunately, if there were every any
responses from the 'coward', they are probably lost forever. This seems
to be an affirmation of Cartesian doubt. One should resolve issues for
one's self, based on their own doubt and deduction. More importantly,
however, is the idea that God is what you make it, or, as is the usual
case, what someone else makes it for you.
6. Beware, I live! The sixth statement of Sinistar is a shocking
reminder of the power that human beings hold over one another. Because
I live, I have the power to affect your life. There is nothing that
keeps me from harming you, aside from the mutual trust that humans
develop for one another, and it is not so much a mutual trust, as we
are a mutual threat to each other.
7. Aargh. Here is Sinistar's response to the question of whether or not
all problems of philosophy may be solved through mere debate.
Obviously, to Sinistar, there are some things, some ideas that can be
expressed beyond the wall of speech. Either that, or this is an
expression of Sinistar's primal rage at a mechanical universe. Sinistar
may have been a determinist, but it does not mean he was pleased with
the concept. He may have just felt no other answer could be possible.
Perhaps that is why he attempted to inspire so many, so they could
succeed where he had failed.
- Andrew Boyd
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
sinis...@my-deja.com
Michelle Malkin
wrote:
>One of the great, unrecognized, philisophical geniuses of this century
>or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
<<PLONK!!>>
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC minister #3
EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Science makes no claim to infallibility; it leaves that
claim to be made by theologians. - John Burroughs (1837-1921)
Thomas S. Vernon, Great Infidels, M&M Press, 1989.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Electro
>or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar. Sinistar left
>behind a legacy of seven phrases that encompass his minimalist
>philosophy. We are fortunate enough to have with us audio records of
>what he said, so that we may greater comprehend his intent.*
>
>Sinistar will always be an enigma, as nothing is known of his life. It
>seems as if he lived a life filled with motivation and direction, as if
>desperately yearning to accomplish all that he could, before he could
>be brought low by those who would destroy him. Sinistar's revelations
>follow, with an interpretation of their intent.
>
>1. I am Sinistar. Here, Sinistar clearly makes two ideas known. First,
>that he exists; he is aware and he thinks. The second is that he has a
>singular identity. He is unique, and, in a sense, alone. Some have
>argued that this may imply a sense of self-determination, but
>Sinistar's perspective on the free will debate is unknown. I believe
>that, with what little is known about his life, Sinistar would be a
>determinist. People are destined to act out their lives guided by the
>hand of another force. The rest of us are mere automatons, carrying out
>algorithms.
I disagree. Sinistar, if you recall, was a construct rendered nigh invincible
by the same asteroid-embedded crystals that fueled the smart bombs that could
destroy him. This implies a symbiosis of the processes of creation, expression
and dissolution into a unified form that transcends the raw physics of
Sinistar's mortal coil. Sinistar's essence was the universe itself, the keys to
his life and death were the crystals. Sinistar existed for the sole purpose of
evolving faster than other things in existence.
>2. I hunger. Again, Sinistar asserts his reality. He believes in a very
>real, physical, world and believes that he takes a part in it. Thus,
>Sinistar is essentially a monist. He hungers, therefore he has sense,
>and his senses speak to him of needs that must be fulfilled. He can
>trust his senses; something of a leap of faith, and therefore interact.
>There are two other interpretations that must be proposed here. Some
>have criticized Sinistar as a hedonist, attempting to consume all in
>his path. This is, however, clearly contradicted below. The second
>represents Sinistar as a living thing, and all living things must
>consume, or perish. In this statement, Sinistar acknowledges human
>mortality and our chain in the natural process of being.
Also, one must not underestimate the crystal argument Sinistar was not
full-potentialed without the crystals that activated him, and yet, those same
crystals, collected to oppose him, became smart bombs that when fired, tracked
their way to him regardless of his location and damaged him most severely.
The lesson of karma and selfish-desire based suffering is quite clear here.
Sometimes it is wise to be careful what you want and wish for.
>3. Run, coward! Sinistar here, having established existence and our
>place in nature, now seems to take his stance on ethics. With those two
2>words, Sinistar sums up his desire to delve into life's mysteries. The
>act of living itself is an act for the bold, and those who cannot stand
>in the face of wonder should flee. This attitude may also account for
>my perception of his stance on determinism. If knowledge is possible
>(It obviously is, of course) then perhaps knowledge of the universe is
>possible, and one day people will view it as it is, an elaborate music
>box of experience. Very deistic. The other important feature of this
>statement is Sinistar's use of an imperative. This clearly reinforces
>his view of a real universe, that is inhabited by other people. The
>true enigma lies next.
It also asserts Sinistar's comparative position in the scheme of his universe.
The crystals made him attuned to his full potential, but while in the hands of
Sinistar's enemies, were his greatest bane. Sinistar is motivated by a
territorial desire to be the ONLY thing in existence, a material confusion of
the principles that give him life and expression, he seeks to eliminate all
forces of dissolution that oppose his achieving of full potentiality. It is
clearly apparent that Sinistar weighed the consequences of the existential
squabbles, and determined that not only must he destroy all other things in
existence, he must justify it with proclaimations of weakness among his
enemies. Sinistar becomes the driving force, the Darwinist-Nietzschean
embodiment of the will to power, the systematic destruction of opposing forces
for the survival of the individual. Should Sinistar become convinced of the
underimportance of his physical form, Sinistar's potential for evolution into
an actual Law of Nature, a perfect synthesis of the theory of evolution itself,
becomes frighteningly apparent.
>4. Run, Run, Run! Initially, this appears to be a restatement of #3,
>but I believe that the truth behind Sinistar lies deeper. It is
>commonly held that while Sinistar believed in a deity, Sinistar did not
>hold that deity to be omniscient or omnipotent. Instead, the God of
>Sinistar was a being (or perhaps beings) of supreme intelligence and
>creativity, with the power to make and compile. The power to engineer a
>world. While this is an impressive task, it does not imply that
>omniscience/omnipotence is a necessary or sufficient condition for the
>task. In fact, the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being becomes
>fairly self-contradictory. Sinistar probably intended this to be
>another ethical statement, to live to the fullest of your ability, but
>he could've meant so much more, such as the desire to experience and
>question all that is possible within a lifetime. Lastly, it is another
>imperative statement. Why would a determinist believe that he could
>affect the world around him?
Sinistar, by his words "Run! Run! Run!" can be said to be encouraging the
cyclic nature of his creation-expression-dissolution existence. By taunting his
enemies to seek refuge and flee, he unwittingly creates survivors of his
onslaught, which, in turn, drive Sinistar's own potential evolution so that he
becomes harder and harder and harder to destroy. Sinistar's full embrace of the
Darwinian-Nietzschean epistemology are evident - Sinistar seems to be saying
"that which does not kill me makes me strong enough to kill it, more
efficiently over time."
>5. Beware, coward! Perhaps these fragments come from a lost dialogue
>between Sinistar and the coward. Unfortunately, if there were every any
>responses from the 'coward', they are probably lost forever. This seems
>to be an affirmation of Cartesian doubt. One should resolve issues for
>one's self, based on their own doubt and deduction. More importantly,
>however, is the idea that God is what you make it, or, as is the usual
>case, what someone else makes it for you.
"Beware, coward" is actually a moral ontological statement. By identifying the
eminent doom of his enemies, and attempting to nurture in them a sense that
their resistance to Sinistar's decimations and destructions was not a futile
cause (though Sinistar knows that it ultimately is) Sinistar finds himself
justified, his efforts grow of their own accordance to the balance of existence
only to be reaped in the exponentially decreasing amount of difficulty Sinistar
encounters in destroying
his enemies. As a being so composed of the evolution force itself, Sinistar is
morally offended by the existence of systems that resist the natural order.
>6. Beware, I live! The sixth statement of Sinistar is a shocking
>reminder of the power that human beings hold over one another. Because
>I live, I have the power to affect your life. There is nothing that
>keeps me from harming you, aside from the mutual trust that humans
>develop for one another, and it is not so much a mutual trust, as we
>are a mutual threat to each other.
Sinistar's enemies, after having been given ample opportunity to attempt to
self-initiate an evolutionary proces of adapting beyond the minimal viability
required to survive his rampage, have failed to adapt and thus should be
destroyed. One can imagine the unsettling darkness within the core being of
Sinistar, who must feel like a professional prize-fighter picked to fight a
host of paraplegic cockroaches. Sinistar's frustration stems from the
recognition that he adapts much more rapidly, and these enemies do not present
a sufficient threat to fuel his own evolution.
>7. Aargh. Here is Sinistar's response to the question of whether or not
>all problems of philosophy may be solved through mere debate.
>Obviously, to Sinistar, there are some things, some ideas that can be
>expressed beyond the wall of speech. Either that, or this is an
>expression of Sinistar's primal rage at a mechanical universe. Sinistar
>may have been a determinist, but it does not mean he was pleased with
>the concept. He may have just felt no other answer could be possible.
>Perhaps that is why he attempted to inspire so many, so they could
>succeed where he had failed.
This is the purpose of Sinistar, to be the only thing in existence.
I can't believe I commented on the metaphysics of a video game I used to play
for hours on end back in the 80s.
hehehehe
-Electro-
"The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next" - randomly
acquired meaningless fortune cookie saying
Rune Boersjoe
>>or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
>
Okay so he has an ego the size of Jupiter, but damn he's funny :-)
--
#1460
BAAWA Official Virgin Sacrifice
EAC Space Program Director
ICQ UIN: 1104409
Reply by mail to jb...@jancomulti.com
Mark K. Bilbo
> >or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
>
Ya took the words right outta my... fingers?
Unfortunately, I haven't found a good newsreader in Linux that has
decent filtering.
I'm out here with all the loonies being unable to plonk.
It's not a pretty sight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark K. Bilbo Atheist #1426 EAC, Department of Linguistic Subversion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think what attracts me about the the Electric Monk is that it's
such an eloquent example of the futility of belief for belief's sake.
I mean there's only any point in believing something if it's true."
[Richard Dawkins, interview with Douglas Adams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas board of education defeats tyranny! 2+2 will now be under
local control! Pi to be reduced to 3.0 as god intended, other pi
values to be taught as "just theory." Up next: will Scientific
Demonology be given equal time with the germ theory of disease?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SON O GOD
You aren't the same Michelle Malkin who until this week --when she
announced she was leaving the Seattle Times-- cheered for religious political
extremists and parroted the usual right-wing bile every week on the
editorial page of that paper are you?
It seems soooo unlikely, but the name, Michelle Malkin is sooooo uncommon.
Could there really be two Michelle Malkins? One who is an insightful and witty
atheist. The other who is a tiresome right-wing propagandist who supports
religioous political extremism? Or is there only one Michelle Malkin who
suffers from a multiple personality disorder? Either way this could inspire a
Hollywood movie.
In article <37b547ba...@news.mindspring.com>, malk...@mindspring.com
says...
>
>On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:12:55 GMT, sinis...@my-deja.com
>wrote:
>
>>One of the great, unrecognized, philisophical geniuses of this century
>>or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
>
Colin R. Day
> Michelle Malkin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:12:55 GMT, sinis...@my-deja.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >One of the great, unrecognized, philisophical geniuses of this century
> > >or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
> >
> > <<PLONK!!>>
>
> Ya took the words right outta my... fingers?
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't found a good newsreader in Linux that has
> decent filtering.
Post this to comp.os.linux.advocacy. Matthias Warkus (Plonkmeister
at comp.os.linux.advocacy) might state how to do this.
>
> I'm out here with all the loonies being unable to plonk.
>
Yeah, I could practice some ontological parsimony here
myself.
>
> It's not a pretty sight.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark K. Bilbo Atheist #1426 EAC, Department of Linguistic Subversion
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I think what attracts me about the the Electric Monk is that it's
> such an eloquent example of the futility of belief for belief's sake.
> I mean there's only any point in believing something if it's true."
>
> [Richard Dawkins, interview with Douglas Adams]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kansas board of education defeats tyranny! 2+2 will now be under
> local control! Pi to be reduced to 3.0 as god intended, other pi
> values to be taught as "just theory." Up next: will Scientific
> Demonology be given equal time with the germ theory of disease?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
Fish
> You aren't the same Michelle Malkin who until this week --when she
> announced she was leaving the Seattle Times-- cheered for religious political
> extremists and parroted the usual right-wing bile every week on the
> editorial page of that paper are you?
No, she is not.
> It seems soooo unlikely, but the name, Michelle Malkin is sooooo uncommon.
Why? Because the name is unfamiliar to *you*? That's quite poor reasoning.
I just make a quick check of the ICQ directory and there were too many
Malkin's to display (over 40). I then did a search for "M* Malkin" (all
Malkins who's first name begins with M) and got back 23 hits.
I them went to Infospace -- an online directory -- and did a search on just
Malkin (without specifying any first name or state) and got back 99 hits.
Another search for Michelle Malkin returned 3 hits, none of which were
Mickey.
I then turned to my Seattle, WA telephone book and noticed there are 3
Malkins listed.
I therefore conclude that the surname Malkin is common enough that it is not
unlikely that there exists quite a few people across the country with the
name Michelle Malkin.
> Could there really be two Michelle Malkins?
There are in fact more than two. Probably *many* more.
> One who is an insightful and witty
> atheist. The other who is a tiresome right-wing propagandist who supports
> religioous political extremism? Or is there only one Michelle Malkin who
> suffers from a multiple personality disorder?
It's doubtful. :)
There is, AFAIK, only one Michelle "Mickey" Malkin who frequents this news
group.
(Side note: there is, however, a Michelle Martin who also posts here and,
due the visual similarity of her name with Mickey's, is sometimes mistaken
for Mickey -- much to each of their's amusement/occasional frustration). :)
> Either way this could inspire a
> Hollywood movie.
'B' grade maybe, but *I* certainly wouldn't go to watch it. :)
> In article <37b547ba...@news.mindspring.com>, malk...@mindspring.com
> says...
> >
> >On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:12:55 GMT, sinis...@my-deja.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>One of the great, unrecognized, philisophical geniuses of this century
> >>or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
> >
> ><<PLONK!!>>
> >Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
> >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
> >alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1 ULC minister #3
> >EAC Bible Thumper Thumper BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
> >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
> >Science makes no claim to infallibility; it leaves that
> >claim to be made by theologians. - John Burroughs (1837-1921)
> >Thomas S. Vernon, Great Infidels, M&M Press, 1989.
> >^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
(Hi Mickey! :)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant
to believe what is not true. In order to overcome
that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the
true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce
the false. -- H. L. Mencken
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Michelle Malkin
(Fish) wrote:
>SON O GOD posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>> You aren't the same Michelle Malkin who until this week --when she
>> announced she was leaving the Seattle Times-- cheered for religious political
>> extremists and parroted the usual right-wing bile every week on the
>> editorial page of that paper are you?
>
>No, she is not.
Good thing you answered this, Fish, since I plonked the
idiot. He doesn't seem to realize this.
In answer to his question, though, no, I am not the
conservative Seattle, Washington columnist who has the same
name as myself. I am a very Liberal East Coast welfare case
worker. Since, the Seattle Michelle Malkin is of Asiatic
ancestry and gained her name through marriage and I am of
Jewish ancestry and gained my name through my father, I
really don't think we're the same person.
>
>> It seems soooo unlikely, but the name, Michelle Malkin is sooooo uncommon.
Not really. I know of an artist from California who has the
same name. And, I almost lost my credit card once, due to
another Michelle Malkin in Philadelphia having had hers
stolen. I pulled out my card to buy a t-shirt, and the girl
behind the counter almost cut it in half. Turns out that she
was the other Philadelphia Michelle Malkin who almost
prevented me from getting my library card renewed due to her
being very late returning a book. When I showed her my other
ID, she put away the scissors and rang up the sale. Small
world. So, that's at least four Michelle Malkins that I know
of including myself.
>
>Why? Because the name is unfamiliar to *you*? That's quite poor reasoning.
>
>I just make a quick check of the ICQ directory and there were too many
>Malkin's to display (over 40). I then did a search for "M* Malkin" (all
>Malkins who's first name begins with M) and got back 23 hits.
>
>I them went to Infospace -- an online directory -- and did a search on just
>Malkin (without specifying any first name or state) and got back 99 hits.
>Another search for Michelle Malkin returned 3 hits, none of which were
>Mickey.
>
>I then turned to my Seattle, WA telephone book and noticed there are 3
>Malkins listed.
>
>I therefore conclude that the surname Malkin is common enough that it is not
>unlikely that there exists quite a few people across the country with the
>name Michelle Malkin.
>
>> Could there really be two Michelle Malkins?
We're everywhere! Fundies beware!
Rank upon rank of Michelle Malkins marching through the
world turning churches into senior centers, training
centers, community centers, libraries and medical centers.
Beware! I plan to spread... KNOWLEDGE!!!
>
>There are in fact more than two. Probably *many* more.
>
>> One who is an insightful and witty
>> atheist. The other who is a tiresome right-wing propagandist who supports
>> religioous political extremism? Or is there only one Michelle Malkin who
>> suffers from a multiple personality disorder?
I'd guess that would make me bicoastal. Oooooh!
>
>It's doubtful. :)
>
>There is, AFAIK, only one Michelle "Mickey" Malkin who frequents this news
>group.
>
>(Side note: there is, however, a Michelle Martin who also posts here and,
>due the visual similarity of her name with Mickey's, is sometimes mistaken
>for Mickey -- much to each of their's amusement/occasional frustration). :)
>
>> Either way this could inspire a
>> Hollywood movie.
>
>'B' grade maybe, but *I* certainly wouldn't go to watch it. :)
What would it be about? My life hasn't been all that
thrilling so far. Probably the conservative columnist has
had a more interesting life than little old knee-jerk
liberal me.
>
>> In article <37b547ba...@news.mindspring.com>, malk...@mindspring.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:12:55 GMT, sinis...@my-deja.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>One of the great, unrecognized, philisophical geniuses of this century
>> >>or any other is a figure known by some as Sinistar.
Who managed to get a response from me. I'll bet that just
made his pitiful day for him. And, he's staying killfiled.
Ya really have to feel for those poor fundies like SINISTAR
and nameless who both discovered the columnist's websites
and went apeshit over it because of our names. What sad
lives they must lead.
>> >
>> ><<PLONK!!>>
>(Hi Mickey! :)
Hi, Fish. ;)
Dr Sinister
<37a16f25...@news.mindspring.com>:
[snip]
>Beware! I plan to spread... KNOWLEDGE!!!
You mean, ATHEISM!!!
[snip]
>What would it be about? My life hasn't been all that
>thrilling so far.
Try a more romantic ideology like Satanism. You might get laid more
often.
[snip]
>Ya really have to feel for those poor fundies like SINISTAR
>and nameless who both discovered the columnist's websites
>and went apeshit over it because of our names. What sad
>lives they must lead.
Heh, you might as well be describing Fish here.
--
"Whether you like it or not, the square root of minus one has about as
much to do with the real world as a unicorn does." - NMS
Tukla Ratte
wrote:
> SON O GOD posted the following to alt.atheism:
< snip >
> > Could there really be two Michelle Malkins?
>
> There are in fact more than two. Probably *many* more.
>
> > One who is an insightful and witty
> > atheist. The other who is a tiresome right-wing propagandist who supports
> > religioous political extremism? Or is there only one Michelle Malkin who
> > suffers from a multiple personality disorder?
>
> It's doubtful. :)
>
> There is, AFAIK, only one Michelle "Mickey" Malkin who frequents this news
> group.
< snip >
> > Either way this could inspire a
> > Hollywood movie.
>
> 'B' grade maybe, but *I* certainly wouldn't go to watch it. :)
Eh, it sounds like something that would show up on Lifetime to me, not
in a theater. <g>
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Director, EAC Animoid Shocktroop Division
Defender of the Honor of She Who Leads the EAC
atheist #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
BAAWA Knight, Calico Angora Rat, Clothing Aficionado
Furry Peace! http://www.fur.com/peace