Blind Squirrel Dept: Real discussion at the Shillery

[Capn Jimbo]

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a...


Nut. And there are plenty of em at...

The Shillery, where a handful of posters finally and freely discussed some issues I think relevent: cork closures, genetically modified sugar cane, and possible PET absorption.

At least they mentioned them.

Because of the rarity of this event, it is worthy of a an equally rare (link). Although these subjects get short shrift, there is some worthy back and forth, particularly between fellow traveler Jolipapa (who lately has been raising sane and embarassing subjects) - in opposition to Rutherford H. Mountbatten (a Count Silvio castoff?) - representing the dominant "...it's all good" monkey contingent.

Jolipapa holds his own and magically, has not yet been "liberated"! BTW, monkey members would be wise to search on Joli, who has managed to contradict many of the Prophet's pet notions.

BTW, if you believe Rumdog (using either of his Shillery incarnated ID's) - that "Jolipapa", "MRJ", "un de Budel Rum" and "Bill" - are all mois in disguise. Let's face it - like the Rumdoggies, many of us use a few pseudonyms (you don't really think I'm a Captain, er Capt, er Cap'n, er Capn, do ya?), but none of his named posters are me.

Wish they were.

For example, MRJ was not alone in being openly accused of being me, an accusation he denied. Actually MRJ is the brilliant JaRiMi (of Count Silvio fame), and is absolutely one of the most talented and honest rum commentators on the net. At Silvio's, he and I engaged in a number of long but civil debates, and we both learned from one another.

Naturally, MRJ was "liberated" from the Shillery after receiving a number of highly insulting private e-mails from our Liberator Preacher. And he's still not me.

The real truth is that the sycophantic furbearers seemingly can't wrap their mini-monkey-minds around the fact that there are a great number of rum afficianados who aren't buying the "it's all good" line. Ergo - any who disagree effectively and substantially must be...

You get it. But as always, I digress - check out the link...