American-British Relations

And Free (Self) Love

Readers Respond to Jane Austen Letter

April 12, 2001





"A Letter of Affectionate Support"


Michael the Magnificent


----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Kilcoyne"

To: <>

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.






From: "The Diva (Tammy)" <>

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.





"The Diva"

 WebMistress of BBBR




From: "Michael Kilcoyne"

To: "The Diva (Tammy)" <>

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: <>

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,


"The Diva"

 WebMistress of BBBR







Robert the Afflicted



----- Original Message -----

From: "Robert F. Tulloch"

To: "Liberal JerkOff" <>

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:10 PM

Subject: A Post from Great Britain's National Treasure:





  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)" <>

To: "Robert F. Tulloch" <>

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:



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:


Amendment I

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


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:


Get Well Soon,


"The Diva"

 WebMistress of BBBR



[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...]