American-British
Relations
And Free (Self)
Love
Readers Respond
to Jane Austen Letter
April 12, 2001
AMERICAN-BRITISH
RELATIONS:
MAIL TO MISS JANE
AUSTEN, REGARDING
"A Letter of
Affectionate Support"
Michael the Magnificent
-----
Original Message -----
From:
"Michael Kilcoyne"
To:
<thediva@coup2k.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:17 PM
Subject:
Re: ID1 SERIOUS PARODY: A Post from Great Britain's National Treasure
My
good mistress Diva,
As
a subject of Her Glorious and Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth, may I be
allowed to offer my thanks and congratulations on your most cerebral opining.
You,
my good woman, have elucidated the thoughts of most of the good people of the
continent of Europe.
We
had grown, in recent days, to think that your felloe citizens did finally
rekognise that Mr Bush had just cause to call his-self the President (tho we
all knew he could not stand in the footprints of the goodly Mr Pres. Clinton,
whose ministrations hath warmed our hearts these last eight summers).
Your
thought-full considerations of matters of late have cheered those many subjects
of these isles who have long been disconsolated by the regnums of our very own
Georges who have been appointed to serve this sceptred island.
Forsooth,
it appears to one so unwitting as myself, that there is some mirror here in the
pattern of the history that connects our former colony and ourselves.
In
the year of Our Lord seventeen hundred and fourteen, the justices and
parliements of our land were unwilling to accede to the legitimate claims of
the noble Prince the Bonnie Charles and his fitful and righteous claimants to
the House of White formerly occupied by my Lord Buckingham. Thinking that the consessions that the
Stewart House would make to the will of the people, they did conspire to invite
a person who did not speak Englisch to ascend to our throne. In this way did
they preserve their very privileges which action did suit them very well.
In
the year of Our Lord seventeen hundred and twenty-seven, the Elector of
Hanover, whom nobles privilied with the name of George I, did face his maker,
and his son did inherit the chattels and influences of the white house formerly
occupied by my Lord Buckingham.
The
second George was also a foolish man, but, if I may pray your indulgence to
believe that some form of legitimate claim to the title had been established,
he was, indeed, the heir and successor of his father, and, notwithstanding his
intellectual deficit, he was a man of goodly intent, but evidenced only too
offten his inabilitie to leed his nation.
This
fool, surrounded by his wise, yet imperfect, privy advisors, reigned for too
many long winters, so many, indeed, that his son was taken to the Gods before
he was to be judged by the only judge, and his grand-son did assume the mantle
of the supreme ruler of our most noble nation, and indeed, empire.
This
man, the third George, was a man of no witt, no sensibilitie, and he was
mad. He was, indeed, reverenced by
those goodly subjects who, lacking the knowledge of his poor judgement, did
consider his long reign to be a sign of the favour of God. This was the Kinge which did lose much of
our empire and which did cause the Brittanic government to be widely despised
and overtook in the thinking of them that were active in the compleks worlde of
the day.
This
is uncommonly like your King Ronald who, much beloved of your citizens, had
aquired derision in the world of civilised men and women, and was, may we be
allowed to opine so strongly, as nutty as a cake which is made of fruit.
If
you would accord me the indulgence, my good madam Diva, of displaying this is a
linear form which may be of assistance to those people of lesser intelligent attributes
than ourselves (I refer, of course, to those misguided individuals who have
sought solace in the groupings of people who mistakenly call themselves of the
"right", whilst goodly people know they are of the "wrong"
The
Britannic Empire The
American Descendency
King
George the Unelected 1714-1727 King
George the Unelected 2001 -
King
George the Well Meaning 1727- 1760 King
George the Well Meaning 1989-1993
King
George the Mad 1760 - 1820 King
Ronald the Mad 1981-1989
If
it please your wisdom, I would add that the Monarch before King George the
unelected was a woman who was despised by many, but who was a wise and goodly
woman.
perchance
I may make one further speculation to my most patient readers:-
Queen
Anne the Good 1702-1714 Queen
Hillary the Excellent 2005-2013
I
beg the forgiveness of my long suffring readers for the lengths at which I
state my case, but I pray that God deliver his felicitations on your most
goodly cause.
Michael
From:
"The Diva (Tammy)" <thediva@respectperfection.com>
To:
"Michael Kilcoyne"
Sent:
Thursday, April 12, 2001 8:34 AM
Subject:
Re: ID1 SERIOUS PARODY: A Post from Great Britain's National Treasure
Dear
Loyal Subject of the Crown:
We
delighted in your recent post, and shall publish it posthaste on the BBBR. May we beg your leave to do so, and if so,
may we inquire as to how you would most like your byline to read? We can offer you as little or as much
privacy as you wish.
{{{BOWING
TO YOUR RAPIER WIT}}}
Tammy
"The
Diva"
WebMistress of BBBR
http://www.coup2k.com
http://www.gorewon2000.net
From:
"Michael Kilcoyne"
To:
"The Diva (Tammy)" <thediva@coup2k.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject:
Re: ID1 SERIOUS PARODY: A Post from Great Britain's National Treasure
My
goodly, and erstwhile felloe subject.
It pleaseth me much that you have been happy to receive my cogitations
on your recent moste sad eventes. Forsooth, you may publish them as you see fit
best to aid thee in thy cause.
I
am a councilman of the Party of Labour
Men and Women in the land of Her Britannic Majesty the Second Queene
Elizabeth. Hitherto, I have much
considered the unfitness of an hereditary personne to rule in our modern
days. I am minded, however, to
considere that however imperfecte Her Britannic Majesty may be, she at least
can call on the ministrations of the moste excellent Mr Prime Minister Blair to
undertake her affaires of stayte.
My
poor kinswoman in electoral grief, you only have Kinge George II and the
lackeys with whom he hath chosen to surrounde himself to guide you in the nexte
years.
I
pray to the juste and mercifull God that he may deliver you an Congress of
goodly Democratic men and women in the year of Our Lord two thousand and two
Michael
Kilcoyne
Kirt the Well-Pleased
From:
<Kirt M.>
To:
<thediva@coup2k.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 12, 2001 4:28 AM
Subject:
J Austen Letter
Thank
you, thank you, thank you!
As
I wipe the tears from my eyes, much relieved by the kind words of a mere
fiction, I feel more hopeful today than I have of late. How wonderfully healing your gentle
parody. How perfectly Sensible. This was perhaps the most important thing
I've read since the election.
Thank
you and bless you!
Kirt
M.
New
York
From:
"The Diva (Tammy)"
To:
<Kirt M.>
Sent:
Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject:
Re: J Austen Letter
Dear
Kirt the Well-Pleased:
Miss
Austen was very gratified to hear your kind remarks, and wishes me to say that
she extends to you her warmest and most congenial greetings, and best wishes
for your next national election.
It
is her fondest hope that it shall be both conducted in a greater spirit of
democracy, and shall produce a more desirable outcome.
I
remain your humble servant,
Tammy
"The
Diva"
WebMistress of BBBR
http://www.coup2k.com
http://www.gorewon2000.net
FREE (SELF) LOVE
AND NOW, FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT...
A MONKEY-MAILER RESPONDS:
Robert the Afflicted
-----
Original Message -----
From:
"Robert F. Tulloch"
To:
"Liberal JerkOff" <thediva@coup2k.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:10 PM
Subject:
A Post from Great Britain's National Treasure:
Hello:
Why don't you keep your liberal jerk off
opinions to yourself. We all know how screwed up britain has become with all
the liberal BS.
From:
"The Diva (Tammy)" <thediva@respectperfection.com>
To:
"Robert F. Tulloch" <mailto:tultalk@attglobal.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:57 PM
Subject:
About Your Question...
My
Dearest Mr. T:
Regarding
your message of:
>
Hello:
>
> Why don't you keep your liberal jerk off
opinions to yourself. [sic] We all know how
>
screwed up britain [sic] has become with all the liberal BS.
I
am assuming, based on your tone, that you received the column in question from
me, although you have not included the offending text in your reply, making
such a determination impossible. Please
do me the honor of informing me as to which mailing list of mine you might be
on, and I will see that you are removed posthaste.
Now,
as to your question. (I am assuming,
based on the general structure and first word of your opening sentence, that it
was, indeed, a question, despite the absence of any punctuation to settle the
matter definitively.) The answer to
your question is that I do not keep my liberal jerk off opinions to myself,
because I need not.
Allow
me to acquaint you with a historical document of which you may be unaware. It is The Constitution of the United States
of America, and forms the basis for my national government, as I am a citizen
of The United States of America.
Well,
this wonderful document (which has, of late, been under fierce attack from
others like yourself), was amended upon ratification to include what we
Americans call "The Bill of Rights."
Here is the reasoning behind these additions:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/preamble.html
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
The Conventions of a number
of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed
a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that
further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending
the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the
beneficent ends of its institution.
Resolved by the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in
Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following
Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as amendments to
the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which articles, when
ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents
and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Now,
then, this Bill of Rights, as its first order of business, forbade the government
from interfering with precisely the activity that you questioned. This portion of The Bill of Rights is called
"The First Amendment," and it reads:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html
Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
But
please, do not take my word for it. If
you click with your computer mouse on the titles underlined above, you will be
taken to an internet site published by the National
Archives and Records Administration.
This is an official United States Government Agency, which includes in
its mission statement the following declaration:
NARA is an independent Federal
agency that helps preserve our nation's history by overseeing the management of
all Federal records. Our mission is to ensure ready access to the essential
evidence that documents the rights of American citizens, the actions of Federal
officials, and the national experience. We must make it easy for citizens to
access this essential evidence regardless of the location of the documentation
or of the people using it.
As
you can see, what I am telling you is, in fact, the truth.
Let
us move on.
I
wish next to address your use of the term "jerk off."
Based
on the tone of your message, and for no other reason, I am lead to believe that
you consider this rather quaint colloquialism, describing the natural human
activity of masturbation, to be a kind of insult. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sexual self-stimulation is an emotionally
and physically healthy activity, so to be accused of it is, in a sense, a
compliment to my excellent physical and mental hygiene.
Which
brings me to a point that I wish you to consider: perhaps the reason I, a liberal 'jerk off', am a good and kind
person, rather than a malicious
monsters like so many political conservatives are, is that I lack the kind
of sexual and psychological dysfunction required to consider accusations of
masturbation an insult. Perhaps I am
emotionally and physically healthy enough to enjoy my own sexuality, and to
allow others that same pleasure.
From The Sinclair Intimacy Institute
http://www.intimacyinstitute.com
The term masturbation
conjures up many myths about its damaging and debasing nature. Its negative
images may be traced as far back as the word's Latin origin, masturbare, which
is a combination of two Latin words, manus (hand) and stuprare (defile), thus
"to defile with the hand." The built-in notion of shame and
uncleanliness implied by the defiling portion of the word has remained in the
modern translation - even though medical authorities have been in agreement for
some time that masturbation causes no physical or mental harm. Nor is there any
evidence that children who engage in self-stimulation are in any way harmed by
it.
The fact that
this important source of sexual pleasure is still regarded by some with guilt
and anxiety is partly due to ignorance of the fact that masturbation is not
harmful and partly due to centuries of religious teaching that it is sinful. In
addition, many of us have received negative messages about masturbation from
our parents or have even been punished when caught masturbating as children.
The cumulative effect of these influences is usually confusion and guilt that
is often difficult to sort out. About the only time masturbation can be harmful
is when it becomes compulsive. Compulsive masturbation, like all other
compulsive behaviors, is a sign of an emotional problem and needs to be
addressed by a mental health specialist.
So, contrary to
ancient and popular beliefs, masturbation does not lead to unbridled lust, does
not make you blind or deaf, give you the flu, drive you crazy, grow hair on
your hand, make you stutter, or kill you. Masturbation is a natural and
harmless expression of sexuality in both men and women and a perfectly good way
to experience sexual pleasure. In fact, some experts argue that masturbation
improves sexual health by increasing an individual's understanding of his or
her own body and of what is erotically pleasing, building self-confidence and
fostering self-acceptance. This knowledge can then be carried forth to make for
a more satisfying sexual relationship with one's partner, both through each
partner's comfort with mutual masturbation, and because of the ability to tell
each other what is most pleasing. It is a good idea for a couple to discuss
their attitudes about masturbation and to calm any insecurities a partner may
have if the other should sometimes favor masturbation over sexual intercourse.
In some relationships, masturbation may be mutually acceptable. Done alone or
in the presence of a partner, the act can be pleasing and add to mutual
intimacy if it is not experienced as a rejection. Like most behaviors, without
proper communication, the act of masturbation can be used as a sign of anger,
alienation or displeasure with the way the relationship is progressing.
Please
know that I understand how difficult it is for someone such as yourself to
overcome your problem, and that I wish you both a speedy and full recovery.
For
additional help with your problem, please see: http://www.nami.org.
Get
Well Soon,
Tammy
"The
Diva"
WebMistress of BBBR
http://www.coup2k.com
http://www.gorewon2000.net
[DIVA
NOTE: I considered mentioning to Mr. T
that the "we" he referred to might very well be just voices in his
own head, a sign of a serious psychotic disorder, but one problem at a time, as
they say...]