Since I didn't officially declare a moratorium on our discursive disitude, I guess I'll return fire.... Well, not actually return fire, since I don't want to call you anything besides overly disrespectful.

I was going to explain that I understood that saying 'I know many people like you, and I don't like them much' is, of course, just a prickish loaded statement, but the reason I sent it to you is that you seem to mostly speak in unjustifiable loaded statements. You abuse logic like it's something you wear in your tighty whities.

I lost track of how many times you implied that I'm stupid (not just the ones where you accuse me of being lost for ideas beyond applying filters in photoshop). Is that ever necessary, or is your purpose to malign my character? What is motivating that? Do you have a nasty case of projection?

You repeatedly say things that I fully understand AS IF they are some brave revelation. Again, fantasizing that I deserve the foul treatment you show me.

We might be able to get somewhere with this discussion (as far as helping you run out of things to say) if I could pin you down on one thing that you said in your email - like the part (actually parts) where you're all 'Sorry dude - I will speak my mind.' I never told you not to, did I? I said one thing in my last response -> tell it to everyone else. I didn't take the opportunity to call you dumb or emotionally retarded or mean spirited or anything. It has just been my experience that when someone gets to the point that they are fabricating my attitudes (e.g. that I want you silenced) to create implications that I fit some stereotype of an abusive person (and therefore deserve to be abused), it's time to not expect much out of that person.

Maybe it's not just me - maybe you have a disrespectful nature - I don't know. Anyways.... It's a common condition. From my perspective, it just means that it's more difficult to get anything interesting out of you.

I think it's kinda silly (or dumb) to argue in email. It doesn't have the bandwidth to resolve much and it makes it too easy to misinterpret someone else's intentions. It's OK as fancy poetry.

As for my gridcosm participation, maybe I'm out of line, but I like graffiti. I don't do it anywhere that causes physical property damage, but if someone else does, I think 'good for them.' Even if it's not that good, at least they expressed themselves and gave me something to consider.

It's ridiculous that gangs fight about it when someone does more than someone else does or in the 'wrong' place.... There's more to this analogy, but I don't want to get preachier.

I don't mind you so much Sunshine. You're a dickbag, but I can't talk bad about your rebellious spirit (because I don't mock cripples).

Peace, Mike Casey, Ph.D.

(PANIC is going again.... I love PANIC too. Like an Italian mother.)

(PS I liked your 597a2 panel, Sunshine (even though I could do something similar if I could remember where to find that canvas bag filter or whatever that one is). It was a very interesting visual rhyme. 588c2 is cool. 585a2 is alright, but not nearly as cool or labor intensive as my c panels on 583. Level 582 is OK, but you could have made some effort to blend. Your glitch on 581a3 didn't add much. On 578 you're just using the gridcosm as your scrap book, so it wouldn't be fair to criticize it artistically. On 577, you didn't do anyone besides me any favors as far as blending goes.... 574b3 is your brand of ugly shit (I think 599b3 is mine). If you look at 572a1, Jonathan wrote Marx was a fish - right before that I noticed that your ugly crap on 574 next to the Vanilla Pudding looked like a fish head-on with a color pattern similar to the fish that you can see in my ugly crap in 599b3. I probably never would have noticed that if it weren't for this argument - so maybe I've found another reason to respect you and your little bitch ways (they paint nice seascapes). 569b3 was very cool. So on that note, with P.E. saying that we're all just pieces in one big chess game, I'm gonna drop the mic.)