Mike Shetfield wrote:
> Hello, my name is Mike Shetfield, and I'm a Ph. D. candidate in the
> Dept. of Anthropology.  My disseration is titled "Guntard culture in
> the Midwestern US"
>
> My question concerns the significance to Midwestern guntards of their
> guns vs. their barns.  It is a topic I've researched extensively, yet
> there seems  to be a lack of definitive evidence to conclude which of
> the two is considered more important from the point of view of a
> guntard.
> As I understand it, a guntard uses his gun to defend his barn.  This
> establishes the importance of the gun.  Yet, given this importance,
> the guntard would surely need to store his gun in a safe
> location--that location being the barn.  Therefore, a barn must be of
> higher importance since it contains the gun.
>
> Yet, a barn cannot exist if it is not defended with a gun, which must
> precede the barn as it being built so as to ward off competing
> factions that may attempt to hijack and take over the barn.  This
> would indicate that the gun itself is of greater importance, since
> without it, the barn could not be built.
>
> As you can see, I've arrived at an impasse and require some
> clarification.  Any ideas are appreciated, so long they're backed up
> with citations.

 'Citations? We ain't got no citations. We don't need no citations! I don't 
have to show you any stinkin' citations!!'

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:21:56 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
 wrote:

>Mike Shetfield wrote:
>> Hello, my name is Mike Shetfield, and I'm a Ph. D. candidate in the
>> Dept. of Anthropology.  My disseration is titled "Guntard culture in
>> the Midwestern US"

Sound like a typical professional student. Long on parrating things
back at their left wing "teachers" and short on intelligence.

>>
>> My question concerns the significance to Midwestern guntards of their
>> guns vs. their barns.  It is a topic I've researched extensively, yet
>> there seems  to be a lack of definitive evidence to conclude which of
>> the two is considered more important from the point of view of a
>> guntard.
>> As I understand it, a guntard uses his gun to defend his barn.  This
>> establishes the importance of the gun.  Yet, given this importance,
>> the guntard would surely need to store his gun in a safe
>> location--that location being the barn.  Therefore, a barn must be of
>> higher importance since it contains the gun.
>>
>> Yet, a barn cannot exist if it is not defended with a gun, which must
>> precede the barn as it being built so as to ward off competing
>> factions that may attempt to hijack and take over the barn.  This
>> would indicate that the gun itself is of greater importance, since
>> without it, the barn could not be built.
>>
>> As you can see, I've arrived at an impasse and require some
>> clarification.  Any ideas are appreciated, so long they're backed up
>> with citations.

The only impasse is the question of which orfice you are speaking out
of -- your mouth or your ass. That is easily resolved with the
knowledge that the two parts are identical and interchangeable on a
liberal.

>
> 'Citations? We ain't got no citations. We don't need no citations! I don't 
>have to show you any stinkin' citations!!'
>
>