KIlling a Carabao

The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 19 Jan 2005
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4324

Jim Raylor19 Jan 2005, 03:36
I admit for a long time I imagined the Carabao to look like a Caribou. I dreamt last night of a shaman wearing a stag's head with antlers. The carabao, as anyone who fought in the Korean War could probably tell you. is the Water Buffalo, with whom we have a long working relationship, what use is a rice field with no carabao to help work the land? It is the national animal of the Philipines. For reasons that are still not fully clear to me, I am attempting to learn Pidgin and I was amused to find this gem : http://www.asianjoke.com/Filipino/night_before_christmas.htm I assumed, the spelling Gene used was merely to allow an association with the Marquis of Carabos, blurring the lines between animals and humans. 'Cara' is Italian for Beloved. I suggest the Carabao may have been a 'beloved abo', possibly the Wise Old One. There would be a certain irony for the anthropologist to kill the object of his studies, without realising it. Perhaps this is the crime which the prisoner 143 is accused of. (I will post my thoughts on the significance of that number later.) There is an early 'Cure' song 'Killing an Arab' based on Camus' famous murder story. If we look behind the animal mask, squinting in the harsh sunlight, we can see 'Killing a C(arab)ao' as a heinous crime. Behind the mask, we can see another pair of eyes, which look almost human. I think this is one aspect of the 'double-pupilled' eyes. The fish mentioned was pointed out to me by a creationist as evidence that evolution is wrong, I was not convinced by his arguments. The whole carcass of this beast is said to weigh 15 pounds, remarkably light, unless he is just talking about the mask. He then specifically mentions parts of the animal that he was not taking. Another option is that it was just a baby Carabao of course... Does GW eat veal? =====

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.