Stepps Warlord

[SBAIRRINGTON at TCMAIL.FRCO.COM]

Received: from redwood.frco.com by tcmail.frco.com with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange v1.04) id fbd0adc0; Fri, 19 May 95 16:17:16 -0500
Received: from rosewood.frco.com by redwood.frco.com (8.6.9/redwood.1.12)
	id QAA31612; Fri, 19 May 1995 16:18:37 -0500
Received: by rosewood.frco.com (8.6.9/fisher.1.11)
	id QAA14573; Fri, 19 May 1995 16:16:13 -0500
Received: from matrix.eden.com(199.171.21.1) by rosewood via smap (V1.3mjr)
	id sma019178; Fri May 19 16:16:11 1995
Received: (majordom at localhost) by matrix.eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.5) id QAA05478 fo
r ansteorra-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 1995 16:09:54 -0500
Received: from [129.116.184.8] (lilith.ots.utexas.edu [129.116.184.8]) by matrix.
eden.com (8.6.12.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA05455 for <ansteorra at eden.com>; Fri, 19
 May 1995 16:09:49 -0500
Message-Id: <v01510104abe2b6d8908c@[129.116.184.8]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 16:09:51 -0500
To: ansteorra at eden.com
From: litch at eden.com (R. Michael Litchfield)
Subject: Re[2]: Stepps Warlord
Sender: owner-ansteorra at eden.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ansteorra at eden.com
-------------- next part --------------
     I would suggest that you contact the Autocrat for a definitive definition 
     of "nuclear".  That's who wrote the ad.  Assuming something simply builds 
     your own bloodpressure.  You have a right to complain, but only if you have 
     accessed the source of the problem first.
     
     Ulrike


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Stepps Warlord
Author:  litch at eden.com (R. Michael Litchfield) at smtp
Date:    5/19/95 4:09 PM


>     The only time I have charged individuals of the same family is when they 
>are trying to bring in cousins, in-laws, etc. that don't live in the same 
>house.
     
That's nice, I'm glad you are not a scum sucking reactionary worm, but i am 
concerned with an event annoucement, a public statement by a group I am 
involved with, which certainly seems to indicate a mindset antithetical to 
my own.
     
> Your choice of spouse is your own.  I don't see where two or three people are 
>going to pay the max anyway.  Please, unless I'm way off base, there doesn't 
>seem to be a need for the chip on your shoulder.
     
The annocement I read certainly seemed to indicate that they were going to 
give a benefit to people who fit thier paradigm of a family and I find that 
paradigm
to be overly restrictive and supportive of a mentality I despise. If they 
didn't mean to sound like a bunch of dittohead clowns then they should have 
used different words.
     
>Ulrike
     
-michael