Race, Gender and the Frontier

179 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Bowery

unread,
Mar 12, 1992, 8:24:02 PM3/12/92
to
Race, Gender and the Frontier

Copyright Jim Bowery (1992)
(This may be freely copied without modification.)

Introduction

The following is a conjecture as to the relationship
between race, gender and frontiers, which the author
believes to a be good first-order description of reality
and therefore advocates as a political opinion. There
follows a general prescription for action.

In recent history, this subject has been purposefully
distorted and dispationate inquiry relentlessly suppressed.
Since this subject is profoundly relevant, the exposure of
the source of and reasons for this purposeful distortion and
suppression will inevitably arouse strong feelings in many.
These strong feelings can impel action -- action which should
guided by the information presented in the conclusion.

Avoid the affliction of Hamlet. Look at your life and
recent history in this mirror. The mirror may be warped,
cracked and somewhat clouded, but at least it can shed a
fragile ray of light on a most vital area of concern now
darkened by deception, blind rage and massive human suffering.



A First-Order Approximation of Reality

The progress of humanity, from its earliest hunter-gatherer
hominid groups in subsaharan Africa to the technological
progress of Western Civilization, has been driven by
pressures to survive in marginal habitats placed on excess
or "beta" males by the polygamy of dominant or "alpha" males
selected by the reproductive preferences of females. It is
this process of expansion into marginal habitats driven by
the inequities of polygamy that gave rise, first, to racial
gradients with climate and then to a moral of monogamy
arising from the harsh necessities of northern climates.

Monogamy only exists where successful rearing of children to
reproductive age requires the exclusive support of a male.

In benign environments, social adaptations that characterize
polygamous cultures were prevalent including homosexual
behavior, frequent small-scale battles and stable social
cycles. In more northerly climates, social adaptations
that characterize monogamous cultures were prevalent
including a lesser incidence of homosexual behavior,
relatively infrequent wars of technically sophisticated
genocide and progressive traditions.

Northern climates also gave rise to a profound biological
selection for morality imprinting since it was only through
total acceptance and observance of tribal rules, adapted for
the unique environment, that survival in such "unnatural"
environments was possible. Indeed, immorality could
threaten the fragile adaptations of the entire tribe.
Instinct, taking too long to evolve, was supplanted by a
meta-instinct which allowed one's behavior to be imprinted
by the tribe's moral rules for survival.

Once imprinted, these tribal morals would be observed with
total fidelity -- even to the very point of death. But the
plasticity of the cultural imprinting process created
vulnerabilities not present in the deeper cultures where
instinct, biologically evolved over many hundreds of
millennia, was well adapted to the more "natural"
environments. In those of northern climates, an erroneous
or mutant moral imprint would, with rare exception, be
played out to the point of death of the individual or the
tribe if its young were so imprinted.

Thus, access to the mechanisms of moral imprinting in
northern tribes was jealously protected. Alien control of
the mechanisms of moral imprinting could be used to inflict
genocide against a northern people just as surely as the
highest technology weapons or gas ovens can today.

Deep cultures are those cultures that were the earliest to
arise within relatively benign habitats and also the first
to be left behind by technical progress. They are
culturally "deep" but technically less sophisticated. Shallow
cultures are the later cultures which arose in increasingly
marginal habitats, pioneered by the few surviving males with
adaptive technical gifts. They were were outcasts from their
originating tribes -- physically, sexually, politically and/or
socially handicapped.

Women tend to be attracted to deeper cultures and all but the
most successful males tend to be driven to the shallower cultures.
This is simply because the larger the harem size, the less likely
a female is to leave the security of the originating tribe. The
only males to stick around are the ones tough enough to fight it
out with the harem master or those who have given up on
their own reproduction, perhaps homosexuals opting for a kin-
selection strategy of caring for reproductively viable relatives.

As habitats are tamed, the necessary technologies mature,
population density increases and trade/transport grows. The
deeper cultures diffuse into the now benign habitats of the
shallower cultures and gradually come to dominance, given
the deep culture's social superiority. As this occurs, the
incidence of polygamy (de facto or institutional) and
homosexuality increases and with it, the pressures on beta males
to leave and open new habitats for population.

However, this also creates regressive pressures as the more "natural"
but less morally rigid deep cultures come into possession of the
technological artifacts of the shallow culture. Thus, a contingent
of the shallow culture population must be retained and employed by
their socio-sexual superiors for the maintenance of the artifacts
that render the habitat benign.

The main technique used by the deeper cultures in this diffusion
is the capture of the shallow culture's moral imprinting mechanisms.

The language, religions, educational systems, communications media,
political processes and all other key points of information
dissemination in the culture are captured first. THIS IS A
FUNDAMENTAL STRATEGY THAT IS ALWAYS EMPLOYED SINCE THE DEEPER
CULTURE IS ALWAYS DIFFERENTIALLY IMMUNE TO MANIPULATIVE MORAL
IMPRINTS WHEN COMPARED TO THE SHALLOW CULTURE. Through this route,
any objective can be achieved, although the primary objective is
usually to weaken or destroy the restrictions on the exercise of
"natural" social and sexual behaviors -- advantages enjoyed by
the deeper cultures.

WOMEN ARE A PARTICULARLY POWERFUL ROUTE OF INSINUATION AS
THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO DEEPER CULTURES AND HEAVILY INFLUENCE
THE MORAL IMPRINTING OF EACH NEW GENERATION BOTH AS MOTHERS
AND AS ARBITERS OF REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS. Thus, the males of
the shallow culture can be imprinted by the females of their
own culture to attack the foundation of their own civilization
and play by the rules of the deeper culture males. For example,
a moral attack on heterosexual males combined with moral
adulation of homosexual males is enough, by itself, to result in
a genocidal decimation of the shallow culture by the deeper
culture since the shallow culture males will take on this
evolutionarily suicidal imprint and pursue it to its logical
end more frequently than deeper culture males.

Shallow culture males are particularly prone to the homosexual
adaptation since the function of homosexuality appears to be
to stablize the male dominance heirarchy by hormonal alteration of
the harem master(s) and the betas. Sociosexual status among
males alters their endocrine systems, sex hormone levels and
biological responses to challenges and stress. These biological
changes have developmental consequences which may create or
amplify neurological differences between males living under
different sociosexual statuses and conditions. A male who
continually receives the message that other males are more
desirable and/or more sociosexually dominant will eventually
respond by fighting, fleeing and/or by altering his hormonal
configuration permanently. Given a moral imprint against
aggression and the lack of a route of escape most shallow culture
males will find their hormone levels, and therefore their socio-
sexual responses, becoming effeminate, although many may find
it impossible to suppress their aggression, despite rigid moral
imprints against aggression. This is simply because giving up
on reproductive success is the evolutionary equivalent of death.

However, for the deep culture to come to dominance over the shallow
culture, it isn't even necessary for the majority of shallow
culture males to take on this imprint -- merely for a differential
to exist between the cultures. Nor is it necessary for shallow
culture males taking on this imprint to follow its moral code --
only that it handicap their ability to perceive and/or deal
with reality.

The shallow culture has 3 apparent defenses against such subtle
stratagems by the deeper cultures:

1) Dogma of an almost paranoid nature.
2) Nonsubtle counter-genocide against the deep culture.
3) Abandonment of the tamed habitat to the deep culture in
preference for the taming and occupation of a new habitat.

The stagnation of 1 eventually works in favor of the deep
culture. The genocide of 2, a choice frequently made by
shallow cultures, creates additional moral ammunition
against the shallow culture and may, ironically, speed its
capture. Choosing 3 is hard on the shallow culture, to the
point of being genocidal, even without the encroachment of
the deep culture. But it becomes all the more difficult as
the resources of the shallow culture are progressively
parasitized by the deep culture.

3 is the only route that results in ultimate survival of the
shallow culture and it has the added advantage of promoting
greater options for all in the long run, while it avoids the
inherent evils of stagnation and genocide. The greatest
danger to the shallow culture is that the deep culture will
come to such social, sexual and political dominance that it
prohibits the shallow culture from escaping and achieving a
new level of power in the new habitats that it opens up.
For example, this happened to the Chinese when early merchants
were prohibited from utilizing their, then, superior sailing
technologies by the Emperor's bureaucracy.

Western civilization's tradition of monogamy combined
with its technological adaptations has led it to a state
of sufficient abundance that its females can now rear children
to reproductive age without the exclusive assistance of a
male. The widespread availability of birth control techniques
created a rationale for the breakdown of these fragile monogamous
traditions, without an understanding of their contribution to
Western values. We now see an explosion of de facto polygamy
in Western civilization where sociosexual success is increasingly
centralized in fewer and fewer males while greater numbers of males
are increasingly marginalized. These marginalized males
increasingly turn to homosexuality, virulent aggression and
desparate (and highly consumptive) courtship behavior rather than
toward the productive nesting behavior required for Western
civilization's continued progress.

The abusive behavior of the few dominant males is used as
ammunition against the submissive shallow culture males by
the independent and therefore sexually selective females who
are willing to put up with great abuse from their harem masters
(in corporations and/or personal relationships). It is rare
that a dominant male actually suffers for his abusive behavior
and quite common for submissive males to be made to feel guilty
for being a male. On those rare occasions when a dominant male
is brought to account, because of the blind logic of the legal
or political system, the situation creates profound cognitive
dissonance and controversy in the population.

Starting with agriculture and progressing on to the
industrial revolution and now technological civilization,
the expansion of frontiers has transformed so much of the
Earth's habitats that the biological diversity of Earth is
threatened and there are few frontiers left.

In recent years, the white, heterosexual, Christian males of
Western Civilization, as the pinnacle of this process, are
blamed for its destructive side-effects. It is almost to
the point that to simply be a white, heterosexual Christian
male is considered "immoral." Since survival in marginal
habitats requires a profound respect for the rules governing
adaptation to those habitats, these males are particularly
prone to carry the morals they accept to their logical
limits. In this case, the logical limit is to cease being
heterosexual or Christian or both, there being not much one
can do about one's race or gender. Many of the males who
choose homosexuality find it very difficult to give up their
Christian faith and yet find it also very difficult to
square that faith with their homosexuality. Most
heterosexual males giving up Christianity find themselves
drowning in a sea of ruthless sexual competition, degraded
by embittered women with sexuality short-circuited by
birth control and abortion.

wharfie

unread,
Mar 13, 1992, 1:47:53 PM3/13/92
to
In article <RewJHB...@netlink.cts.com> j...@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Race, Gender and the Frontier
> [ 253 lines deleted ]

What a bunch of horseshit.

"productive nesting behavior required for Western civilization".
Giggle, snort.
W.rat

Robert Hartman

unread,
Mar 16, 1992, 2:30:12 PM3/16/92
to

I was amazed by that article. I too wanted to dismiss it out of
hand. I just didn't know whether to attribute it to personal
grandiosity, severe alienation, or stupid chauvanism. I finally
settled on alienation, because I've seen too many men spend too
many cycles on too many theories about why society isn't meeting
needs that they aren't even aware they have.

I share much of Jim's frustration at the way creative people are
generally put down, taken advantage of, ridiculed, and abused in
this society. Still, I find it hard to agree that the "deep-culture"
people, as he puts it, are to blame. In my experience, it has been
the white "Christian" establishment that has done everything it can
to stultify and destroy anything that's "different," doesn't fit
it's picture of how people ought to be. Two cases in point are
Tucker, the guy who made those wonderful cars before they ruined
him, and Deming, the American who taught Japan the science of
manufacturing. Both of these men believed that if they pushed
the frontier and created something of value, their culture would
recognize and reward their efforts. Both were ostracized by a
culture that was too "shallow" to recognize their worth or too
greedy to let them keep their rewards.

"Gotta keep them blacks and women and Jews and especially those
crazy intellectuals down, or we'll lose control." That's been
the motto of the white "Christian" establishment for Centuries.
If other cultures are deeper, it's because they have values that
run deeper than "who's on top."

A clever mind that has been alienated from his own emotions is the
perfect tool for maintaining the power structure. An alienated man
will do whatever he's told, and filter his perceptions based on any
doctrine that validates his rage. That's why basic training works so
well. But it wasn't the "enemy" who stripped the recruit of his
feelings, it was the DI. And why? So that that as a soldier, he'll
do whatever he's told, regardless of any feelings he might have.

That's the same reason they start telling us to be "good little
soldiers" from the time we're old enough to get our fingers
around a toy gun. --so that they can use our bodies, the products
of our labor, and more importantly, our minds, without having to
respect or reward us (unless we're capable of both inventing and
kicking their asses at the same time--the real meaning of
"competition"). That's what the "weed-out" in engineering school
is for. It's not enough to be bright and creative. If you want the
advanced technical training, you have to be willing to sacrifice your
ability to feel.

If the only basis for the white "Christian" establishment is its
willingness to use violence (psychological and physical) to retain
power, it deserves to be systematically infiltrated and quietly
replaced by a culture that has some deeper values. There's just no
reason why an intelligent man like Jim should have to risk public
ridicule to have his creativity validated, or his need for social
recognition met, in an indirect and impersonal medium such as this.

-r

Jim Bowery

unread,
Mar 16, 1992, 4:29:44 PM3/16/92
to
Are such vicious responses typical of soc.men or just of "wharfie?"

--
INTERNET: j...@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP: ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181

Jim Bowery

unread,
Mar 17, 1992, 1:55:29 PM3/17/92
to
Robert Hartman writes:

[Mandatory character assassination deleted.]


>I share much of Jim's frustration at the way creative people are
>generally put down, taken advantage of, ridiculed, and abused in
>this society. Still, I find it hard to agree that the "deep-culture"
>people, as he puts it, are to blame.

Forget about "race" for a moment. You're confused about who
"deep-culture" people are.

Deep culture people are "people people" as opposed to "thing people".

That is to say, deep culture people understand and use the laws of
human nature to get ahead. This is natural in habitats close to
their carrying capacity. Shallow culture people understand and
use the laws of nature to get ahead. This is natural in habitats
further from their carrying capacity.

Now, what kind of person crawls and claws and fights his way to the
top of a corporate bureaucracy like GM?

You don't have to go back to subsaharran Africa to find a zero-sum
environment where "the law of the jungle" prevails. Just about any
urban area will do -- particularly as you climb higher up the
corporate ladder to the alpha's suite (board room). There is no
mystery as to why so few women make it there -- they just aren't
into ritual battle at a biological level. They're quite content in
middle management where they receive their paychecks that enable them
to make having a husband optional.

There has been a shift away from WASPs in the boardroom but NOT
away from MEN in the boardroom. Why? Because even the deepest
culture WASPs can't hold a candle to people who come from a long
tradition of mercantilism when it comes to wheeling and dealing,
as opposed to creating.


>In my experience, it has been
>the white "Christian" establishment that has done everything it can
>to stultify and destroy anything that's "different," doesn't fit
>it's picture of how people ought to be.

That's due to the moral rigidity of the shallow culture which, as I
stated, is a biological artifact of the harsh conditions under
which it evolved. But the triumph of Western Civilization has been
in its ability to allow political and technological evolution to
take place by preventing evolution in sexual morality, which
protects the greatest weakness of the shallow culture.

Christianity is attacked for being "intolerant" mainly when it
is intolerant of alternative sexual lifestyles.

>If other cultures are deeper, it's because they have values that
>run deeper than "who's on top."

Have you ever bought the line!

The deeper you go, the more rigid the caste heirarchies and the
more certain you may be that at the top is contest between alpha
males for dominance.

The myth of the dominant Western male was created by colonialism
which, as I described in RGF, is the source of evil in our
civilization. In every male is the desire to be the alpha, and
when we enter into a deep culture that is so far behind us technically
that our biological and psychological disadvantages don't matter,
it is a grave temptation to impose ourselves, just as it is such
a temptation for "savvy" types to take advantage of creative types
within our own civilization.

The technical powers we enjoyed as a result of being expelled from
benign habitats enable us to are not there so we can take advantage
of the seek to turn away from frontiers and back against the deeper
cultures.

But the real question is this:

How many paragraphs did I spend in RGF on that subject and how
is it you missed them all?

I spent almost half of RGF talking about this moral problem and yet
you focus only on defending "deep cultures". If you want to engage
in pop-psychoanalysis, ask yourself honestly, why did you do that?

I understand your fear of acknowledging the painful reality
communicated in my thesis, but it does not excuse your attempt at
character assassination nor the misrepresentation of my work.

wharfie

unread,
Mar 17, 1992, 2:33:16 PM3/17/92
to
In article <1992Mar16.1...@Veritas.COM> r...@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
>> What a bunch of horseshit.
>reason why an intelligent man like Jim should have to risk public
>ridicule to have his creativity validated, or his need for social
>recognition met, in an indirect and impersonal medium such as this.

First, why does _anyone's_ creativity need to be validated, and
second, what's so creative about the same old "We need to get rid of those
degenerate homosexual foreigners so that our great culture can continue on
the shining path to world domination and family values!" garbage?

the wharf rat


wharfie

unread,
Mar 17, 1992, 2:46:26 PM3/17/92
to
In article <08ZqHB...@netlink.cts.com> j...@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Are such vicious responses typical of soc.men or just of "wharfie?"
>

They're typical of wharfie when he reads 300 lines of paranoid
chauvanistic reactionary apologia disguised as original thought, bub.

wr

Char Aznabul

unread,
Mar 17, 1992, 6:26:50 PM3/17/92
to
Jim Bowery writes

+ How many paragraphs did I spend in RGF on that subject and how
+ is it you missed them all?

Anytime you write more than about 3 pages (72 lines, more or less),
the odds of it actually being read *carefully* on uselessnet is about
zilch.

Of course the odds of anyone reading carefully on uselessnet is also
about zilch...

K'Char

wharfie

unread,
Mar 18, 1992, 8:47:44 AM3/18/92
to
In article <7qNsHB...@netlink.cts.com> j...@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>How many paragraphs did I spend in RGF on that subject and how
>is it you missed them all?

He's not the only one who seems to have missed the point of your epistles.

>I understand your fear of acknowledging the painful reality
>communicated in my thesis,

Just for us dumb-ass Bubbas down here, could y'all restate the painful reality
communicated in your thesis in, say, fifty words or less? Fifty short words.

W.rat


Robert Hartman

unread,
Mar 18, 1992, 4:34:26 PM3/18/92
to
In article <7qNsHB...@netlink.cts.com> j...@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Robert Hartman writes:
>
>[Mandatory character assassination deleted.]

Well, if you took it that way you took it wrong. When I say that
I think your analysis comes from alienation, that is more a statement
about the shallowness of our culture than it is about you. If you've
read any of my postings you'll know that I am just as dissatisfied
with the way our culture is as you are. I bitch about it all the time!

There are some interesting seeds in your ideas Jim, also some very
dangerous ones in my view. In a way, it is the clearest rationalization
of ethocentric patriarchy I've ever seen. In that it claims to show
that our culture is set up so that naive creativity doesn't pay, I'm
glad for that much.

However, I'm not at all glad for any rationale that reinforces the
notion that people who are different can be inferred to be morally
inferior. Hitler could have had a field day with that idea, and in
fact, he did. And it isn't just guilt-tripping for people to say
that rationalizations of that sort are immediately suspect. After
all, Einstein wasn't a "shallow-culture" person, and even with his
unquestionably "deep-culture" values, he did more to push back the
scientific frontier than anyone in this century. How does that sit
with your theory?

It wasn't the "deep culture" people who colonized the globe and
systematically undermined those thousands of other cultures through
force. It wasn't the pagans in africans who reduced Europeans to
an inhuman form slavery that was umatched in the history of the world.
It wasn't the rapacious misapplication of Native American technology
that has destroyed so many self-sustaining habitats and cultures
that even now the very atmosphere and oceans are at risk. It
wasn't the Muslims who made a science out of destabilizing other
governments in the competition for the supremacy of their economic
theories. It was your precious white "Christain" "shallow" culture
that did all that. Most recently, it wasn't a "deep culture" type
like Michael Dukakis who used the image of Willie Horton to manipulate
the racial fears of all those white "Christian" voters to get elected
President. So, was Einstein a "shallow-culture" person in
disguise, despite all of his writings about peace? Is George
Herbert Walker Bush a "deep-culture" person in disguise, despite
is vow to do what he has to do to get re-elected?

Unless what you're telling people is that they need to look
behind the appearance and rhetoric the leadership uses, and at
their behavior to see where their values really lie, yours is a
rationale for disaster IMHO. Too many ignorant people will read
from your work "Oh, white, `Christian', shallow is good. Our
problems are caused by all those other people who are `different.'"

That's why what you're saying is dangerous, and that's why, even
though I believe you to be well intended, I have to challenge your
views and question your motivations. Because if you can't see this,
then you really _are_ alienated.

It's interesting that in using your criteria the conclusion I reach
about where the threat lies is exactly opposite of yours. I stand by
my conclusion. You'll have to do better than "[to paraphrase] well,
they're starting to let non-whites into the board room because
non-whites are good at manipulating people where women aren't."
Any man who's been through a divorce would find that statement utterly
laughable. To that I have to go along with Wharfie: Pfffft.

So, I like your device--drawing a distinction between "people-oriented"
and "object-oriented" cultures and their members. I've got to give you
credit for that. Nice work.

However, IMNSHO, you've thoroughly misapplied it, and in a very
dangerous manner. If you'd called your work "An Apology for
Eurocentric Patricarchy," it would have been an apt title indeed.

-r

Darryl Johnson

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 12:04:00 AM3/19/92
to
In article <1992Mar18.2...@Veritas.COM>, r...@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes...

>all, Einstein wasn't a "shallow-culture" person, and even with his
>unquestionably "deep-culture" values, he did more to push back the
>scientific frontier than anyone in this century. How does that sit
>with your theory?

I'm not sure that I understand the way "deep-culture" and "shallow-
culture" are being used here. They SEEM to imply that all white
Americans are shallow, and everyone else is deep. How is a Jewish
German-American "deep-culture"? Are you saying that European Jews
were NOt part of the Western colonization of the Third World?

>It wasn't the "deep culture" people who colonized the globe and
>systematically undermined those thousands of other cultures through
>force. It wasn't the pagans in africans who reduced Europeans to
>an inhuman form slavery that was umatched in the history of the world.

Ah, apparently that's what you ARE saying! FIRST, Einstein is NOt
"shallow", but now ALL white Europeans are? And when did the
white Europeans ever engage in slave trade on any large scale, as
the phrase "unmatched in the history of the world" would imply?
Africans had slavery long before any whites arrived. AMERICAN
(NOT European) whites only put it on a larger, more profitable
scale.

>It wasn't the rapacious misapplication of Native American technology
>that has destroyed so many self-sustaining habitats and cultures

Native American technology? You mean the bow & arrow? The
tomohawk? What an odd phrase. True, Native Americans lived more
WITH the land than we do. However, I can think of many, many
"deep-cultured", non-white non-Christian countries that are
not exactly utopias of "humankind in harmony with nature".
In fact, some of them are plain old cesspools of filth.
Many of these cultures haven't destroyed their environments
any more NOT because they haven't got the intentions, but
because they don't have the ability. "An unattempted woman
cannot boast of her chastity". Likewise, it is of little
import that cultures that CANNOT destroy their habitats
HAVEN'T destroyed their habitats.

>wasn't the Muslims who made a science out of destabilizing other
>governments in the competition for the supremacy of their economic
>theories. It was your precious white "Christain" "shallow" culture

Muslims don't conquer and pillage for economic gain. They conquier
and pillage for religious reasons. I guess bloodshed for Allah is
alright, though, so long as it's "deep-cultured", non-white, and
non-Christian.

>that did all that. Most recently, it wasn't a "deep culture" type
>like Michael Dukakis who used the image of Willie Horton to manipulate
>the racial fears of all those white "Christian" voters to get elected
>President. So, was Einstein a "shallow-culture" person in

Michael Dukakis is president? Somebody should tell him, he'll
be pleased to know. And last time I heard, Buddhists, Muslims,
Jews, etc., both black AND white, were not exactly thrilled by
rapists of any color. Apparently (again), it's only wrong when
white Christians express ideas.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
> Darryl K. Johnson I "If English was good enough <
> Texas Christian I for Jesus, it's good <
> University I enough for us." -- A <
> Fort Worth, Texas I group opposed to teaching <
> USA I foreign languages in <
> North America I schools at Bartlesville, <
> Earth I Oklahoma <
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
/ DJOH...@tcucvms.bitnet DJOH...@gamma.is.tcu.edu \
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

Bronis Vidugiris

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 11:47:17 AM3/19/92
to
In article <25...@unisql.UUCP> wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
)
) He's not the only one who seems to have missed the point of your epistles.
)
)>I understand your fear of acknowledging the painful reality
)>communicated in my thesis,
)
) Just for us dumb-ass Bubbas down here, could y'all restate the painful reality
)communicated in your thesis in, say, fifty words or less? Fifty short words.
)
) W.rat

Near as I can tell, what he meant was that incremental time-phase
projections, based on third generation hyper-velocity techniques, clearly
show that the historical imperative of Western Civilization has been
and will continue to be immutable but subject to frequent change.


wharfie

unread,
Mar 19, 1992, 6:25:41 PM3/19/92
to
In article <1992Mar19....@lmpsbbs.mot.com> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Near as I can tell, what he meant was that incremental time-phase

No shit.

Heavy.
wr

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages