wascally wobert's abnormal discourse

Daniel A. Foss (U17043@UICVM.BITNET)
Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:44:19 CST

having violated the rules of "normal discourse." Someone please deconstruct
"normal discourse," since I am unable to do so at this time. Howbeit, let me
restate my usually-marginalised position to the effect that too much "normal
discourse" is bad. Too little amy also be bad; I cannot tell, as I normally
see too much "normal discourse," and it's bad.

There're some kinds of abnormal discourse, however, which I like, and
others which I abominate. That of the Deceased was of the latter kind. He
was atheoretical, ahistorical, counterempirical, stupid, boring, and
unfunny; that rare figure, the soporific provocateur. What little he knew,
he did by blind instinct: specifically, that a sizable minority, perhaps
a majority, of you are inclined, somewhere, somehow, to evade or escape
whatever W.B. Bangs, I think, meant by "what we are all here for." (Which
is not intended as provocative on my part; it is an inference from the
past several days' posts.)

Daniel A. Foss