Due to endless delays in actually creating this page, this mailbag was compiled and captioned in early September, 2003.

Mails are presented chronologically.

Date: April 1, 2003
From: cO kAnE
Subject: hello

ill get straight to the point. please excuse my poor use of grammer, punctuation, abbreviations, etc. well, i find some of ur stories, quotes on ur blog, and ur soul devouring worry, curse of the day, etc. i was juz wonderin if i cud use some of these quotes and extracts as my nickname 4 msn and stuff. thanx

Well, at least he got right to the point, as promised.  What I find interesting is that despite his apparent near AOLese illiteracy, he spelled "punctuation," "abbreviation," and "devouring" correctly.

As for his question, anyone can quote anything I post on this site, so long as they give me credit for it. I'm sort of a whore like that.

_________________

Date: April 1, 2003
From: Tom
Subject: Haircut

I'm no fashion expert but . . . sideburns cut off above the ear like you have does not look good on any guy (probably not on any girls either, but if a girl's hair is short enough for me to notice that then she probably doesn't care if i, as a guy, like it or not). if i were you i would let your sideburns grow down to mid-ear or so. you can throw that out to your female friends if you like since their opinion would certainly hold more weight on this issue. though i'm pretty confident in my statement. no offense intended, merely an idea for you to consider.

This unsolicited fashion advice came in regards to a photo of me that was posted in the blog on April 1st. I have long hated sideburns on men, and for years had mine shaved up past my normal hairline, in a sort of baby-mohawk.  That was back when I had really long hair.  Since I've had shorter hair for the last few years, I've been experimenting with it, and have let my hairline go down to normal, but have never gone with sideburns.  At least I hadn't, until August of 2003, when for no real reason I decided to grow mine out.  Not to the point of bushiness or anything, but long enough to be noticeable and give my face some framing. I've had them for over a month now, and had to trim them a couple of times when they were getting scruffy, and I guess I'll be staying this way.

I still hate long or bushy sideburns more than just about anything else a man can have on his face.  Muttonchops would be illegal in my perfect world, and I have been scarred for years by memories of the horrible facial hair of Ed Shaughnessy, the drummer for the old Johnny Carson Show band. He has them trimmed down closely in all of those pictures, but I remember seeing him on the show a few times when I was a kid when it looked like some sort of small mangy mink was clinging to his cheekbones. And then in the years after that, when the loathsome Beverley Hills 90210 soap opera was popular enough to set fashions, and all of the pretty boys on the show were sporting "past the ear lobe" sideburns, and that trend spread to every fashion victim in the real world, my hatred for the sideburn deepened.

But it seems that I've mostly gotten over that hatred, though I'll be dipped in bubbling pitch before I grow mine a centimeter longer!  Never.  Well, not unless my girlfriend wants me to, or something. *cough*

_________________

Date: April 2, 2003
From: Martin
Subject: another interesting fact about rodents

Reading your blog I saw your notes about rats and surviving a 5 story fall... did you know that you can actually throw a mouse from an airplane and it will survive the fall (unless you're too high up and the cold will kill it). Their weight-bodysurface ratio is small enough that air resistance is strong enough to keep the gravitational accelleration in check... they just won't fall fast enough to smash them into pulp when they fall by themselves...  

The same counts for insects I think.

It's true about most small animals; they are furry for padding, but also very wind-resistant, and just don't weight enough to offset their wind resistant bodies and fur coats, so they can fall pretty much forever without sustaining injury.  They reach terminal velocity relatively quickly, and whether you drop them off of your roof or off the Empire State Building. they'll hit the ground at the same speed.  It's triply true for insects, which have virtually no weight and vastly superior body armor to any mammal on earth, with their rigid exoskeletons.

_________________

Date: April 6, 2003
From: Brice
Subject: pro-war, April 6 blog

I've been reading your blog for awhile now and have always enjoyed your writing, and opinions. I've disagreed with your views before, but the April 6th blog actually offended me. While you've been a steadfast opponent of Dubya and almost all government entities to date, your opinions have never came close to prompting me to brandish my pen (satisfactory keyboard) in your direction.

My background in a nutshell: Gulf war vet that actually used his GI plan to go to college instead of a 3 week drunk, but, according to you, basically an over-simplistic, insecure, violent, ignorant redneck that supports our troops while opposing the war.

I think you should sit back and read your latest blogs and try to see through a different set of eyes. It is YOU that is appearing violent, angry, and bitter - and more than a little of an intellectual-elitist(I didn't say pseudo) to those that don't agree with you. (a baseball bat with nails?) Surely you can see that one can truly support our troops while disagreeing with the orders under which they are operating.

My opposition to the war stops at the lack of patience in garnering UN support. Basically, I don't agree with our leadership about the rush to war. Once shots are fired, I honestly believe it is my patriotic duty to stand behind our troops. I certainly hope that the majority of Americans see that the war is JUST, that removing Saddam and any real or perceived WMD is a worthwhile cause, even an obligation.

And yes, the media is blatantly touting our successes and downplaying the dirt. I am sorry that you seem so shocked about it though. It's nothing new. Perhaps we shoud tone down our unbelievable efforts to avoid collateral damage to Iraq, and concentrate on the bombs that missed their targets and hit day care centers and nursing homes. And when the time comes for the implied inevitablity of torturing and executing Iraqu POW's, FOX and CNN will ignore it. Because our troops are probably encouraging the embedded reporters to take a part in our atrocities, so they'll keep mum. Hell, the US flaunts inconvenient international laws all the time. That serves as an excuse for Iraq, and proof that our soldiers will eventually get around to murder and mayhem, as they are just automatonic extensions of our president after all.

And why show the unbelievable, daring rescue of a POW? You make it sound as exciting as a mall security guard swatting the back of a 300 lb. woman choking on a Chick-Filet nugget. The POW was just a GIRL, that probably just surrendered without a shot fired, and anyway, she was just hanging out with a bunch of mechanics and truck drivers - not combat soldiers. Hell, she only suffered a few broken bones in her legs and back - it's not like she was SHOT for her country. (Yawn)


Alright, I'll shut up. This has become a flame, and that's not my intention. I truly do love reading your stuff, and have never written to any website, or newspaper, or bitched publicly about other's opinions before. I admit that I have developed a well-deserved bias for our troops and got a little worked up over your friendly-fire at them. I speak out against Bush almost as much as you, but like many others, snap to attention when he changes his hat from President to Commander-in-Chief (insert automaton line here). And I really lose it when someone, who will never face an enemy (insert pansy writer-boy line here), fires on the troops when they are simply doing an incredibly professional job under unbelievably adverse conditions.

And I just deleted the analogy about how well concessions stands would operate when the opposing team's fans had weapons -- because that would truly be sniping.

This mail is commenting on my blog from April 6th, but misinterpreting my words, or at least my intent.  I replied to it and elaborated on it April 7th, if you want to see what happened next.

More on the pre-war blogs with the next email, and a reply from Brice right after that.

 

Date: April 10, 2003
From: J
Subject: April 10 Blog

On 4/10/03 you wrote:

So it appears that the Iraq Attack is over and more surprising yet, Bush and Rumsfeld and the other overconfident Administration idiots were... absolutely correct. There was no real resistance in Baghdad, the Saddam loyalists melted away the minute real force came against them, and the Iraqi people are very glad to be liberated. Well that sort of pokes a pointy stick into the eye of my whole skepticism, now doesn't it?

Please don't forget one little thing: Dubuya justified his invasion of Iraq as a means to "disarm Saddam Hussain of his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)." Saddam's WMD were a threat to America, and we had to smoke 'em out.

Now, someone like Saddam, faced with his death or exile from Bagdad, would be someone up against the wall. If I were Saddam, and I had a WMD capable of threatening America, I would have used it on the Marines now occupying his country.

No, Saddam has vanished into the Arab underworld. The Marines basically have run of the country and at some point I expect them to plant evidence of some imaginary chemical or biological substance they "found." Ol' Dubuya will be completely vindicated, and the troops will be mustered forward to Tehran, or Syria, and eventually, North Korea.

It's funny to look back at the Iraq Attack time now, with our 20/20 hindsight.  Pre-attack, even the most devout anti-war types figured that yeah, Saddam probably had WMDs of some kind.  They just didn't think he was a real threat to use them, and they knew that there was no real connection between Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers, and they didn't think Bush had reasonable justification to invade Iraq.

People like myself who didn't really support the war, but didn't entirely oppose it either figured that yeah, there were WMDs, and yeah, Saddam was a bit of a douche bag, and yeah, Bush was largely motivated by the oil, demonstrated by his ignoring far worse despots all over the world.  (Such as say... North Korea? A nation that's ruled by a madman who has not just any WMDs, but nukes. And whom Bush is still doing his best to ignore.)  And pre-war, it seemed entirely possible that Saddam being gone would be better than Saddam being there, and we probably even somewhat bought into the whole neocon wet dream of US troops being greeted as liberators and a happy peaceful democratic Iraq quickly taking form.

As we all know by now, there were no WMDs, Saddam vanished, the Iraqis weren't eager to be occupied by Americans, and the apparent almost total lack of US post-war preparation has turned Iraq into a complete clusterfuck, and stretched the US military to the breaking point.  All while doing nothing to lessen terrorism world wide, and probably doing a lot to create more terrorism, by giving extremists in the Middle East an ongoing US invasion force to hold up as an example of exactly why the US is the Great Satan.

All of which makes the total skepticism that J expresses in this email seem pretty right on.

_________________

Date: April 11, 2003
From: Brice
Subject: war coverage

After reading my email on your site, I couldn't believe what an old fuddy duddy I've become (thirty si...twenty nine). It sounded horribly mean and I just wanted to apologize for sounding well... just like my father -- probably everyone's father. And I agree that some of the things I rambled on about were from reading WAY too deeply into your words. (But today, you DID practically give out a roadmap to a happy, charming government building and pointed out how security could easily be breached) Hell, it's entirely possible I may be your conscience.

Anyway, your POV seems to be much more considerate, and I wanted to thank you for that as well as a heartfelt thank you for your writing. You really are talented, and I look forward to buying something with your name on it.

Well, nice that he can reevaluate his words and make an apology when he thinks it's necessary.

_________________

Date: April 19, 2003
From: prufrock
Subject: Priorities

I find it odd that you have devoted so many words denouncing the US allowing the museums in Iraq to be looted while not lamenting the Iraqi civilian deaths brought about because of the war. Surely you've heard the story about the Iraqi boy who lost his family and his arms because of a US missle. I think this is by far a greater tragedy than the loss of some historical trinkets.

I'm not insinuating that you actually think those artifacts are important than human lives, but I find it interesting how much more media coverage the museum looting has been getting. I think it is a defense mechanism, it is much easier to discuss the loss of inanimate objects than the almost complete destruction of a little boy's life.

I admit the failure of preventing the museum looting was a huge cockup, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But whenever I think of that little boy, I get a little more worried about the future of the human race.

This was in reply to me posting about the "cockup" of the US troops failing to secure pretty much anything in Iraq other than some oil fields. I think a lot of the attention the museum looting got was because it came so quickly after the apparently successful invasion, and the media and the rest of us were surprised at what a big screw up it was. At the time it was shocking evidence of poor planning by the US commanders, but looking back at it now (September 2003), it's almost forgotten, due to so many other, bigger screw ups since.

As for the emailer's comment, I think I agree with him.  Think about it; irreplaceable many thousands of year old relic, or some little kid, one of billions on earth. Which is more likely to be remembered in 10 years, or valued in 100, or put in a museum in 500?

It's fun to pretend human life is sacred and all of that, but if we really felt that way, we would all be sending 20% of our salaries to famine-ridden countries and spending time volunteering for charities, wouldn't we? Human life is precious when it's someone we love, or someone telegenic who dies in a tragic situation.

Also, war is about killing people, and dropping bombs.  In theory there are fewer civilian casualties in modern warfare, and in theory much of the bombardment now is able to actually hit the target, and in theory the US troops don't destroy entire blocks when they are trying to just hit one house or building in particular.  But there will always be accidents, bad aim, bad intelligence, unlucky people in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you support a war, you have to accept the innocent deaths and maimings that the war you like will inevitably result in.  You don't have to like them, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to be all that upset by innocent deaths caused by the war you wanted in the first place?  Or if not hypocritical, it's very much a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

All of that aside, the big difference is that the civilian deaths in war are accidental (in theory), while having leadership that's too stupid to tell a few dozen Marines to go park a couple of Hummers on the museum steps while they smoke and relax is just pathetic.  And it upset people (like myself) since it was so easily preventable.  We had plenty of troops in Baghdad and other cities with nothing really to do; they could effortlessly have protected some key spots.

Plus, as we learned afterwards, it wasn't just the museums and libraries that the US allowed to be ransacked, it was intelligence offices, secret police headquarters, armories, etc. Lots of places of great intelligence value that absolutely had to have been on any list of "places to secure", if there had been anyone with any damn sense preparing such a list, that is.

_________________

Date: April 22, 2003
From: Rotor®
Subject: Check this...

Yo Black!

Stumbled across your site and hit my fuc*in head. I'm developing a CG virtual band (see gorillaz) with an oldskool horror theme. Sorta like Nosferatu meets Clockwork Orange meets Limp Bizkit. I'm more an illustrator/idea man and less a writer with the skills needed to relate subtle stuff. You seem to have a gift and all for the art of writing, which is why I'm mailing you. Maybe you're
into the notion of an action/horror world with a Gangsta Rap soundtrack.

Plus, I couldn't help noticing your band name rating section. I agree that Limp Bizkit is an apt name for his flavor of entertainment. The sexual suggestion is what makes it strong - sending some subversion into Wal Mart kinda thing. So, based on that alone, I deduce that you have an interest in names and rock and roll. And classic monster fare, of couse.

It's a good start. Now would you be interested in penning some stuff based on an existing idea and characters?

Curious.

One of the more interesting mails I've ever received here.  Or at least one of the most unusual/original.  I replied to him saying that it sounded possible, but that I'd have to see more of what he was thinking about and hear some of the music.

And I never heard back from him.

If he's selling 10m records in like 2 years, you can join me in cursing outloud.

_________________

Date: April 26, 2003
From: Phrog9
Subject: BlackChampagne

This site is exceptionally disturbing... yet so true and wise.

Short and to the point.  I seldom quote the longer fanmails I get since I figure it would just look pathetic.  I mean me, quoting mails from people who love my writing and blogs and aren't afraid to say so.  But I do enjoy getting them, in a queasy sort of way.  Not that I don't like what they are saying, but that it interferes with my whole self-loathing thing.

_________________

Date: April 29, 2003
From: Jason
Subject: 

I have just read your religion vs reality collection. Thank you for showing me the light.

I'm not sure if he's being serious or sarcastic.  However, since good Christians aren't usually content with being sarcastic when their beliefs are challenged (or ridiculed) I'm leaning serious.  Except that I can't imagine my compilation page of snarky religious comments could show anyone the light about anything, other than what a smart ass I am on the subject.

This concludes the April 2003 mailbag. If you would like to be included in a future mail bag, give it a try.

<-- March 2003 -- May 2003 -->
Mailbag Index Page

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.